Treknobabble is a continuing series of columns written by uber-Trekkie Reed Farrington in anticipation of the upcoming J.J. Abrams Star Trek movie.

I know you’re all immediately thinking that I’m being defensive with the title of this article. And you’re probably right. I guess the easiest way to defuse an argument is to agree with your opposition. But I do have a tendency to put things in perspective, which can be a real downer and probably explains why I can count my friends on one hand. (It probably doesn’t help that I’m a Denebian slime devil as well as a tin-plated dictator with delusions of godhood.)

Given the negative reviews of some recent blockbusters, I wanted to make sure that people didn’t develop high expectations, only to be naturally disappointed on viewing J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek. I suppose some of my previous articles (including last week’s article) have already been less than enthusiastic. Hopefully, my naturally pessimistic disposition will continue to be balanced occasionally with some good olde Star Trek optimism.

Where to begin? How about the fact that Star Trek is viewed as family entertainment and as such needs to cater to this broad audience for maximum profit. Granted, there have been episodes that have stretched the boundaries and caused outrage in some circles. But will we ever see an R-rated Star Trek movie? “Does this matter?”, you may ask, but consider the type of Star Trek we could have without worrying about our children. An exploration of mature themes would be possible.

During the liberal 60’s, I don’t know if the tantalizing costumes worn by the females ever generated any controversy. By the time of TNG, Counselor Troi’s cleavage was enough for feminists to cry foul. Credit must be given to the DS9 showrunners for the Dabo girl outfits with the exposed underside of breasts. After a couple of seasons of Voyager, the producers tried to inject some sex appeal with Seven of Nine and her form-fitting outfit. And then we had the literally spray painted costumes of the “butterfly” women in Enterprise, not to mention the infamous decontamination scenes that gave an excuse for the actors to strip down and give each other rub downs. I suppose the next step is nudity, but I think something else would have to make nudity acceptable before Star Trek would adopt it.

A big shock for Trekkies occurred in the movie Generations when the Enterprise-D was heading for a crash landing and Data utters the word “sh*t”. I guess Data could be excused because his emotion chip was scrambling his personality. You know, I can sort of believe in a future with everyone living in harmony, but I can’t believe that swearing will disappear. Will frustration disappear as well? Maybe we won’t be swearing at each other, but won’t we swear when something happens that is out of our control? Battlestar Galactica invented its own word, “frak,” to get around this problem. In The Next Generation, I think I heard Picard use the French word for “sh*t.” I wonder if the version shown in France has Picard using the English word for “merde.”

Because Star Trek was conceived with actual science in mind (telepathy and teleportation, notwithstanding), episodes could become reliant on technobabble or technology to resolve situations. Treknobabble was more of a problem with the middle series, but it’s a temptation that can be fallen back on. Having transporter technology made it too easy to get the characters out of a bad situation, so events had to be contrived to prevent the use of the transporter. The movies began to rely on using starships that had not had a shakedown cruise and not ready for action. This allowed The Motion Picture to have some excitement with the wormhole sequence caused by an imbalance in the engine’s matter/anti-matter ratio. The Final Frontier had an “exciting” shuttle crash landing in the shuttle bay as a result of not having the transporters ready for operation. The Next Generation fell into the trap of having the holodeck malfunction to create interesting stories. The technology was intended to help tell human adventures, but as in real-life, there are consequences from using advanced technology.

Star Trek concerns itself with morality tales. Heavy-handed, polemically based tales are Star Trek’s forte. As a condemnation of racism, we had two species of alien, half-black, half-white, but on opposite sides of their faces, fighting as the last surviving members of their world. Not at all subtle. Yangs (Yankees) and Komms (Communists) fighting each other with the words of the American Constitution having lost their meaning. Kirk was known for giving long-winded speeches. Despite the “save the whales” message, The Voyage Home managed to make the most money of all the movies. Many critics have derided Star Trek for its simplistic take on complicated issues, and tendency to preachiness.

A common complaint from writers of the later series was that it was hard to create dramatic conflict if everyone treated each other with respect and compassion. Star Trek’s creator, Gene Roddenberry, passed this edict. In The Next Generation, you never heard the characters dissing each other. Conflict had to come from the outside. DS9 created the conflict by having a melting pot of races. Voyager created conflict by melding a crew loyal to Starfleet with the rebel Maquis. (For some unknown reason, this conflict was abandoned after an episode or two. Must be something that’s pumped through starship ventilation systems that keeps everyone happy.) Enterprise brought the time period closer to us before humans learned to live in peace and harmony. But even beyond this simple philosophical ideal, writers have been unable to generate any freshness and excitement in new Star Trek episodes. With Roddenberry no longer around, anyone who makes something with Star Trek’s name feels obligated to uphold Roddenberry’s original ideals. This can only lead to blandness and stagnation.

This next point is from the standpoint of why Star Trek will suck from now on and thus not get better. Another common complaint from writers is that Star Trek has already done every possible story, and that anything new will be reminiscent of something already done. Hell, even when Roddenberry was around back in 1979, the best anyone could come up with for The Motion Picture seemed to be a rehash of the Original Series episode, “The Changeling.”

There is something I read long ago that I’ve always believed was true: “Star Trek aspires to mediocrity.” I attribute this quote to Harlan Ellison who has somewhat of a grudge against Roddenberry for messing with the teleplay that Ellison had written for the OS. The teleplay, “City on the Edge of Forever,” is my favourite episode of Star Trek. I have read Ellison’s original version (it’s available as a book). I suppose I’m contradicting the thesis of this article, but I actually prefer Roddenberry’s version. Maybe I prefer mediocrity.

It should be noted that some or even all of the points I have made may be reasons why Star Trek does NOT suck for you. I applaud you for your independent point of view, and I wish you continued optimism in the face of people like me.

Note: This article was inspired by an article at io9.com entitled, The 7 Types Of Bad Bosses According To Star Trek (And How To Survive Them), written by Charlie Jane Anders. I highly recommend the article since I wish I had written it myself. People normally use the Star Trek captains as role models for leadership. There’s even a book called Make It So – Leadership Lessons from Star Trek: The Next Generation written by Wess Roberts, Ph.D., and Bill Ross. But Mr. Anders doesn’t even have to exaggerate to make his much valid points. Only goes to show that something can be good or bad, depending on your point of view.