New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

The term mythology as used to describe the world of a sci-fi and fantasy television show really started to come into popular usage in the '90s when The X-Files was a huge phenomenon and, despite the fact that most fans feel that Chris Carter dropped the ball towards the end and failed to deliver a satisfactory resolution, the mythology show became quite the rage moving into the new millennium. Yet, if The X-Files is the father of the mythology surge, another show is the proud grandpa. Okay, maybe not just a show, but an entire multimedia franchise. A franchise that many fans felt had also betrayed them with recent outings - that is, until a new movie brought the whole thing rushing back, more popular than ever (a move which, ironically, only served to further taint the X-Files legacy last summer). I'm talking about a little franchise called Star Trek.

Now, in the spirit of full disclosure, as a proud fan of most of these mythology-based worlds, one which never really grabbed my imagination is that of Star Trek. Okay, I take that back, I do like the world of Star Trek. I like the concept of an inter-planetary United Nations. And my bleeding heart liberal soul loves the Prime Directive, the concept of exploration of new cultures without butting in and imposing our own world-views upon them. Gene Roddenberry was certainly a man after my own political heart, espousing his own left leaning ideals through his Enterprise crew's adventures.

Of course, like most people, I'm a bit more familiar with Star Trek: The Next Generation, which is so consumed with the ideology of the Prime Directive it eliminates much of the potential for conflict. See, here's the problem, we libs are a peace-loving sort, and that may be all well and good in the real world, but is deadly for drama. When telling stories, conflict is key, and Picard and his buddies are so intent on not interfering, it can get kind of dull. Hell, the very description of the show is to boldly go where no man/one has gone before. That's it. To look around. Sounds cool at first, but when you consider what that means, as audience members, we are watching people watch. We are voyeurs of the voyeurs.

Now I know I've been a big proponent of strong characters overcoming weaknesses in the story or formula, and Star Trek is no different. If you can't create tension from without, create it from within. I do think the characters are incredibly well drawn in Trek, if of varying levels of quality acting-wise. We all know the big names, and they are rife with potential for conflict. Dashing, impulsive Kirk, crotchety old McCoy, jovial Scotty, steadfast, cerebral Picard, loyal Ryker, and so on. The characters are so well-drawn, we can derive pleasure from watching them behave exactly as we expect and predict them to. Some characters are even defined by their internal conflict, as in the case of Spock grappling with his emotions or Data's dreams of becoming a real boy. Including Worf, a Klingon, the villains of Kirk's Enterprise, as part of The Next Generation crew is a particular inspiration. Problem is, Trek is so mired in the reset button nonsense of traditional television storytelling that the dynamics rarely change, and the characters rarely evolve, so the conflicts become stagnant.

Continued:       1       2