Please note the datestamp above!
This is an HTML revision of something that was designed decades ago to be viewed and printed out as a single huge 70‐characters‐a‐line ASCII text file – still accessible in its full nonproportional glory as an archive. It was already on the Internet by February 1993, and there were at least two other HTML editions before I got round to producing my own “official” version in 1997!
Humourless illiterates are warned not to attempt to read on;
sufficiently witty (or witless) rebuttals may be quoted in future editions.
July 1998: a spin‐off page titled Babylon 5: Mark Two is now up.
January 2002: …and following Paramount's backward‐looking example, here's one of the rant's early precursors – the ST:TOS Plot Generator.
Before I begin, I should make a number of things (relatively) clear:
As I have been saying since long before the appearance on UK screens of “Star Trek: The Next Generation” (henceforth ST:TNG), the whole idea is a step in the wrong direction. The three major advantages that “Star Trek: The Original Series” (henceforth ST:TOS) enjoyed over its competitors were:
ST:TNG, unfortunately, throws out advantage (A) in favour of a new jumble of awful characters; “Deep Space Nine” replaces (B) with a space base. Only (C) remains; and by now the Star Trek Universe is a liability – decades past its sell‐by date, and full of ludicrous inconsistent plot devices, each of which should have had rapid social effects. ST:TNG has to boldly stagger onwards under such a burden of implausibilities that it constitutes a monstrous insult to its viewers' intelligence.
This rant is my attempt to demonstrate the problems, and (to give some semblance of constructive criticism) to offer solutions which could in theory be adopted either in a full‐scale “Star Trek: Mark Two” remake of the original series (!) or as surreptitious revisions to ongoing Star Trek continuity – compare the unexplained upgrading of Klingons from vaguely foreign‐looking guys in ST:TOS to kipper‐browed aliens in the movies.
Like most genre labels, it's often used loosely (to mean just
“sci‐fi set in space”). But Space Opera in its classic sense
(cf. Doc Smith/
Clearly, Star Trek doesn't quite fit. The NCC1701 rarely has to face grandiose action‐adventure crises where the fate of humanity hangs in the balance (although the NCC1701D's constant galactic diplomacy comes closer). Starfleet is slightly archaistic, with its naval traditions, technophobia (see 1.5), and bagpipes, but the plots are mostly generic SF adventure; less “operatic” than such rivals as Battlestar Galactica or Blake's 7. However, the Star Trek Universe setting, which is what I'm discussing here, leans heavily on the supporting conventions of true Space Opera.
Individual episodes when mentioned on these pages are usually given season‐codes as follows:
|0.1||Babel fish are the “Hitchhiker's Guide” spoof version of Universal Translators. “Trekkies” is the commoner name for the people who prefer to be known as “Trekkers”… just as “Whovians” no doubt hate it when I call them “Whoers”.|
|0.3||Do I have to explain that E. E. “Doc” Smith and A. E. Van Vogt were “Golden Age” SF authors?|
|0.1||Okay, now I've stopped. In fact, I stopped as soon as I saw the Babylon 5 pilot (on video). Not that it was perfect, but JMS had clearly devised his background and themes first, and then started setting plots in that universe. When B5 uses Space Opera shortcuts, it may not give excuses right away, but it at least hints that it acknowledges the questions raised.|
|0.2||The preemptively plagiarised format of Star Trek: Deep Space Franchise serves to demonstrate how much more you'd have to do to make Star Trek® worth bothering with. Star Trek: Voyager discards advantage (C), too, which would almost have been a good idea if they'd thrown the bathwater away with the baby – but they've lost the Romulan warbirds while keeping transporter technology.|
|0.3||B5 is true Space Opera, and knows how the genre works; it's televised SF for New York SF‐readers, as opposed to sci‐fi‐flavoured TV for Kansas housewives (sorry, Ximena, but I don't think you count as a Kansas housewife).|