Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, May 28, 1994 TAG: 9405280080
SECTION: SPECTATOR PAGE: S-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: By DANIEL CERONE LOS ANGELES TIMES
DATELINE: HOLLYWOOD LENGTH: Long
All right, the nova analogy may be a bit heavy-handed, but it's difficult not to resort to wistful thinking when referring to "Next Generation."
This is a program, after all, that portrays an idealized future in the 24th century, when the stars are our playground and phasers are always set on stun. On board the good star ship Enterprise, the captain quotes Shakespeare and the android has heart. Alcohol has been replaced by synthehol - a manufactured booze that can be shrugged off at will when duty calls. And when you get into trouble, the Enterprise can always beam you out.
Oh, if only real life were like the world according to "Star Trek."
I was still in college when "Next Generation" debuted in 1987, and I blew off the first couple of seasons like a boring homework assignment.
First, the series was not airing on a network but on independent stations. I didn't really understand the TV business then, but I knew that wasn't a good sign. Second, "Next Generation" looked really lame in comparison to the original "Star Trek" from the 1960s, which I was watching routinely in late-night reruns.
I mean, the new captain was bald. Sure, Kirk showed some flesh, but it was his bare chest, when he went mano y mano with ferocious aliens on hostile planets. The mature Picard, as played by Patrick Stewart, a noted stage actor from England, seemed more likely to invite aliens into his ready room for tea.
The android Data, played by Brent Spiner in metallic paint, seemed like a logical fill-in for science-officer Spock, but he just didn't have the ears for the job.
I didn't get it.
But by 1989, when "Next Generation" was in reruns, I was getting tired of hearing Bones say for the 10th time, "He's not going to make it, Jim!" (or something like that), so I finally gave the new show a try.
I smirked at the politically correct change in the opening voice-over, which proclaimed that this socially conscious crew was "going where no one has gone before," rather than no man. I had to look past the stiff Starfleet officers, who in the 24th century had evolved into more peaceful, less tempestuous - and seemingly duller - explorers. I had to look past the new-model, ergonomically designed Enterprise, with the plush upholstery and polished wood trim of a Japanese luxury sedan.
But when I got over those changes and let the soothing hum of the Enterprise calm my nerves, I was startled by what I observed. The small morality plays so well crafted into the original series were here too - only taking on much more provocative issues.
The definition of life was dramatically explored when Data had to stand trial and prove his consciousness, or else be disassembled and manufactured into a race of android clones who would be used to serve mankind. Wouldn't that constitute ... slavery? Our views on sexuality were challenged when Cmdr. William Riker, played by Jonathan Frakes, fell for a member of an androgynous race who had closet feminine desires, which were forbidden by the society. Rather than be allowed to love a man, she (it?) was altered to correct this flaw.
And "Star Trek's" old brain-teaser episodes - Kirk once talked an evil computer into self-destructing by challenging its program with simple logic, a trick I sometimes wish I could pull off - were transformed into time-shifting, temporal-distorting plot lines more complex than a computer chip. Each problem could only be solved if you understood the entire diagnostics of the Enterprise, had a textbook to explain all the gibberish technical language and knew all the scientific breakthroughs of the 24th century.
You couldn't, of course, because new ones were made up each week to get through dilemmas.
But what a ride. I loved it, and I began watching nightly or setting my VCR to catch up on the episodes I had missed.
By the time I interviewed "Star Trek" creator Gene Roddenberry in 1990, shortly before his death, I was - ahem - a Trekker, I guess. (Trekker, not Trekkie - as I once mistakenly called the loyal "Star Trek" fans in an article. Three years later, I'm still receiving letters to remind me of the proper term.)
Roddenberry probably explained the interest in "Next Generation" the best: "You say you like the show," he said to me. "But many people haven't thought too deeply about what it is they like about it. They're not crazy about rocket ships. It's none of those things.
"What our show does - we take humanity one step into the future. Our people do not lie, cheat or steal. They are the best of the best. When you watch the show, you say to yourself, at least once, `My God, that's the way life should be.' "
by CNB