Thursday, June 14, 2007

Trekdom Interviews Robert Picardo!




Robert Picardo sat down with us for an hour-long interview. Enjoy!



-----------------


Trekdom: You’ve followed in the footsteps of many Trek actors by writing and performing music, as well as releasing three CDs: Basic Bob, Extreme Bob, and The Hologram’s Handbook. Some of the songs poke fun at the darker side of conventions, fandom, and the intense commercialization of Star Trek. I can’t help but wonder if there is a deeper and more serious critique of the Star Trek franchise and the convention circuit that surfaces in your music. Am I reading too much into witty parodies and entertaining satire?

Robert Picardo: Well, first of all, my performing the song parodies began as an impulse on my part to entertain the fans at conventions. I thought that if I made it fun for me, it would be fun for them. I think a lot of actors burn out on the Q and A aspect of Star Trek stage appearances. They can just become quite by rote. My initial notion was, if I worked at something that amused me and felt sort of creative and like I was having a fun time, the fans would respond to it. So, my first song parody which was, “What’s My Name?” grew out of the fact that I played a character on national television that had no name and that they’ve made an actual story-point out of him trying to decide on a name. It seemed amusing to me that a computer program could be indecisive.

So, it started as an outgrowth of talking about the role in front of fans and then as a way of making kind of a comic comment on it… and also to sing, which is something that I love to do and hadn’t had the opportunity to do onstage for some time. So that is how it developed, and yes, I certainly satirized the commercialism of the franchise in one of the songs, “I’ll Be Sold for Christmas,” which I think is pretty amusing and kind of dead-on…






You know, I think there was an impulse, a subconscious impulse to hold onto my own image. Once you’ve licensed your face away to a studio-owned television and movie franchise, there is a sense of a loss of control when they take your face and put it on book covers or make toys out of you… whatever. So, there was an impulse on my part to say, “Well, if I’m going to be part of a brand name, I might as well join the club and make myself into one, rather than fight it.” It was a way of taking some sort of control of something that was clearly out of my control… But, I think that the fact that Star Trek fans, and to some extent science fiction fans in general, like to collect artifacts related to the show or shows that they are fans of is something that distinguishes them as a fan-base, makes them unique, but also keeps us, so to speak, evergreen in their eyes. They like to have autographed pictures, they like to collect cards or action figures, whatever… It’s a double-edged sword: it identifies you as an actor, in particular with one role, but, on the other hand, it gives you a dedicated fan-base around the world that is willing to check you out online, or in person if you’re appearing at an event in their country or in their state. That is nothing to sneer at as an actor. I think that different actors have different relationships with that concept, and some of them just don’t like it. I’ve chosen to embrace it. I love to travel. To stand onstage in front of thousands of people and have them cheer and laugh at everything you say… Life could be worse! I guess what I’m saying is that I chose to try to make that a creative opportunity for me, rather than merely a financial opportunity.







Every CD that I’ve sold has benefited the Pediatric AIDS Foundation. $4.00 from every autographed CD has gone to the charity, so that has been another nice way of mixing commerce with a good deed. I’ve been raising money for them, and, more recently, for the San Gabriel Valley chapter of Habitat for Humanity, for the Planetary Society, and for the Pasadena Playhouse, which is the state theater of California, a place that I’ve worked at and am deeply attached to as an artist and a neighbor. So, it’s a nice mixture of doing something for causes that you believe in, as well as basically enhancing your own opportunities as an actor and performer by making these appearances…

It’s fun. I love to sing. I began my career thinking I was going to be in musical theater. Then, twenty-five years went by when I performed on Broadway, on television, and in movies where I basically didn’t have any opportunity to do any singing. Star Trek got me singing again, and since the end of the series I’ve performed in four or five musicals. So, that is another gift that the personal appearances have given me. They’ve restarted an aspect of my career that I’ve missed.

TD: So Trek hasn’t been a mixed blessing?

RP: Well, as I’ve said, it depends on your attitude as an actor toward commercializing your “self” or your persona, versus just playing different roles. You know, the reason we’ve become actors is that we like the challenge in creating other lives onstage and onscreen, creating other people than ourselves, living vicarious lives, and immersing ourselves in character. To suddenly stand onstage and say, “I’m Bob Picardo, the actor, and I’m here to talk about my Star Trek role and other things I’m doing, but have a look at me as an individual rather than just my work!” That is something that some actors are not comfortable with, and I certainly don’t blame them. It’s a parallel artform. Being a personality is not the same as being an actor. They have some things in common. But, some actors are deeply private and choose not to share that. I completely respect that choice. I would never fault them for it. But, I have to admit that the fans sometimes get a sense of… well, it’s not anger, although there is certainly disappointment with actors who never do make convention appearances… particularly from science fiction fans, because the actors are in shows that they like. Some of them feel that it’s part of the compact… so I know that some fans almost resent the actors that choose not to do the appearances at all.

TD: Is there a single dominant factor that keeps them away?

RP: Again, I think they have a different attitude. They’re not comfortable with commercializing their art or talking. In my opinion, it’s a little naïve to say that my role on Star Trek is just another role in a thirty-something-year career. When you take a role like that, and you know it’s going to be on all over the world virtually for the rest of your life and it’s not going to go away… you can’t quite say, “Well, it’s one of many roles that I’ve played, and I don’t want to discuss it anymore than a part I played onstage twenty years ago.” That is a little naïve. You certainly get associated with roles in Star Trek, and it’s probably my most identified role. I was on another hit television series, The Wonder Years. It was a recurring character, but The Wonder Years was the number-one hit on television, so when I would go to the supermarket the next day, everyone there would have watched the show the night before. I’ve never had that type of experience.

TD: Interesting. If I recall though, there was only one episode of The Wonder Years that focused exclusively on Coach Cutlip.

RP: I would say there were perhaps two. There was one where they made him a mall Santa, and they gave him a human soul, which I desperately fought against and turned out to be wrong. And then there was an episode that he was very central to, where the issue was choosing sides. Kevin Arnold challenged the coach by choosing all of the worst players, by not playing the other kids off each other in a competitive fashion. That was a particularly wonderful and well-written show. I’m grateful because it got me an Emmy nomination… that was one where I got hit in the head with a basketball. My children used to replay that moment in slow motion.

I never really finished talking about the CDs. I suppose I should say that the third CD is not a music CD. The Hologram’s Handbook is a book on disc that I made through a special arrangement with Simon and Schuster. Again, it benefits the Pediatric AIDS Foundation in the same manner as the other two. It is seventy-five minutes of my reading the funniest parts of The Hologram’s Handbook. The central conceit of the book is if you’re smarter than everyone else, here’s how to get along with stupid people. If you’re an advanced artificial intelligence and you’re forced to cooperate and work with lesser beings… follow this simple advice! It’s really parodying all those pop-psychology books that rack at the bookstore.

TD: Many people have compared the Doctor to the TNG character of Data. Just as the android struggled to be more human and to obtain the rights and privileges granted to sentient beings, the Doctor struggled to become more than the sum of his programming, to be treated as an equal member of the crew. Beyond these similarities, what made the EMH unique and different?

RP: Well, to begin first with their similarities. One of my great fears when I landed this role was that the fans would compare me to Data, who had been such a wildly popular character played by Brent Spiner (who I didn’t know well, but was acquainted with). The Pinocchio quality to Data, his sort of childlike desire to learn more, to be of use, to be of service… was really quite lovable. To their credit, when our writers/producers came up with the concept of the Doctor, they took the artificial intelligence character in a completely different direction by making him a cranky, curmudgeonly, and self-centered artificial intelligence. Obviously, I was “the next generation” of technology. I was software, whereas Data was hardware. There were a lot of early jokes I would make at the conventions about that distinction. You know, every time you have a problem with your computer, they’re always trying to blame it on software! Everybody was passing the buck. I remember when I first got the role, it seemed like everybody was saying their computer problems were with the software, so I referenced that as one of the reasons that the Doctor was so defensive.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket



In any case, because he was so different from Data on the surface even though you’re dealing with some of the same story-points of entitlement with both characters, the way they reacted to things, and their surface personalities were very, very different. The Doctor, as I said… curmudgeonly with a bad bedside manner… his primitive emotional subroutines seemed to function primarily so that his own feelings got hurt. Rather than having empathy for his patients, he was more concerned with how he wasn’t being accorded the respect he felt he deserved, because of this vast body of knowledge he had. Then, when you look at it briefly from his point of view, you’d say, “I have this enormous power that comes from this much information in my field, coupled with this tremendous vulnerability… Any idiot can come in and turn me off like a light switch!” That would be enough to piss anybody off. I can understand why he had his attitude problems early on and felt like he needed certain privacy entitlements and commands of his own control codes that made him more like a member of the crew than just this… mechanized service device.

Having said all that, I think that the main difference was that the Doctor began with feelings, and Data had to aspire to them and didn’t finally accomplish that until his emotion chip in the Generations movie. Because I started with that, I got to take the character in a different direction, and that was to have the capacity to develop feelings toward others. My feelings were all aimed in at myself. I was the complete self-centered individual when first activated, and I slowly learned the art of having feelings for others through my initial mentor in the show, Kes. Her character was my emotional sounding board. Even though she was the youngest and most childlike member of the crew, she kind of mentored me in my developing humanity and the character’s growth.

TD: Did you feel like it was detrimental to your character when Jennifer Lien was replaced with Seven of Nine?

RP: Yes, I was extremely concerned. First of all, we’d been such a wonderful unit that to shake up the nine original cast members was a source of concern for all of us. If they can replace one of you, then they can replace any one of you. We thought we were all here for the same ride… Jennifer, being the youngest member, a very sweet and talented girl, was not terribly communicative personally with the writing staff, and that may have hurt her, in the sense that… the writers develop ideas from chatting with the actors. They get a sense of who the actors are as individuals, what strengths they have, what qualities they may want to tap in them… and write storylines that are aimed at using them as elements. I think that Jennifer was so kind of mysterious, quite quiet. Also, let’s face it: There was a conceptual flaw in her character. She played a race that only lives seven years (it was almost a joke on the seven-year life of a television show). So, by season four, Kes should really have looked in her late forties or early fifties. That was also another issue that they couldn’t figure out how to deal with, so they just decided to jump ship on it.

I was concerned to lose my sounding board, so I went into [to see] Brannon Braga and said, “Kes is the only character that the Doctor really reveals his softer underbelly to. He is kind of an arrogant windbag and very defensive with most of the other members of the crew. If I lose her, I go back to doing the huffy, amusing windbag stories, not the ones that reveal his developing inner self.” Brannon replied, “Think of a way that you can relate to our new character.” He specifically gave me that challenge, and I went and thought about it and went back to him, saying, “Why don’t we turn the mentoring relationship the Doctor had with Kes around, so that the Doc now felt that he was the perfect person to mentor Seven of Nine in regaining her humanity?” She is now half-human and half-cyborg, and the Doctor felt that he was a better choice to develop her humanity than an actual human. That would give play to both his arrogance and his charming naiveté in a lot of areas. The Doctor turned out to have the latter quality in common with Data, even though his was more disguised. We’re both fairly naïve about certain things and extremely willing to try to expand ourselves.

That turned out to be a great dynamic between the two of us (the Doctor and Seven). The teacher-student relationship that culminated in the episode where I basically fall in love with my student in the Pygmalion episode, “Someone to Watch over Me.”

TD: Some fans were disappointed that the relationship didn’t more fully develop…

RP: I think it’s probably the fantasy of a lot of our younger male viewers to see the beautiful girl captured by the middle-aged bald guy, versus the hunkier rival.

TD: But it also would have been a gloriously dysfunctional relationship.

RP: Well, yes, of course it would have, but we certainly see a lot of those on television… Why not one more? No, I think the fact that the Doctor came to envy all these capacities that Seven had that she was not taking advantage of. The wonderful episode where Jeri got to impersonate me, because my program was supposedly hidden inside her... I thought she did a superb job.

TD: Kate Mulgrew has been very vocal about how impressed she was with Jeri Ryan’s talent, as well as the writing that went into the character of Seven of Nine. But, she was also very vocal about her disappointment and frustration with the decision to replace Kes, because, on some level, she thought it was a “Tits and Ass gimmick” in putting a cat suit on a supposedly progressive show with a strong female character.

RP: I agree with that. I had the same initial reaction that Kate did. We went on the air as a feminist statement, with a female captain judged on her own merits, which has nothing to do with her sex. She gets the job because she is the best for the job. Then suddenly, to have a new character that, let’s face it, especially in that silver outfit, looked like a Vegas showgirl without the headdress. So, I certainly understand Kate’s initial concerns, but all of us became impressed with Jeri’s performance. She really built a very interesting character. In the narrow emotional range posed by the character’s conception, she did some really interesting and varied work. I love both actresses and get along splendidly with both of them. I see Kate more, but I see Jeri as well since the show ended, and I’m very fond of her.

The drama largely passed me by. You know what I mean? I’ve discovered more since it ended about whatever tension existed between them than I actually noticed, because I always found them both very professional. I mean, Kate is always to the dot on time, immaculately prepared, etc. There were certain things built into Jeri’s costume, making it awkward to wear. It was a whole process for her to be able to go to the restroom, as far as her getting in and out of it. So, there were certain disadvantages that she had to cope with that I know took up some production time. Beyond that, I’m never one to kiss and tell, especially since I didn’t even get kissed.

TD: There was a rumor, and I’m not sure if it’s true or if Kate Mulgrew spoke publicly about it… but it’s a story that fans have told on Internet message boards like the TrekBBS and Trekdom. Apparently, she stormed into one of the producer’s offices (it may have been Berman’s or it may have been Braga’s), dropped a padded bra on the desk, and announced in a captain-like fashion, “No! I’m not wearing this!”

RP: It sounds like something Kate would say. I certainly can’t corroborate the story. Kate is just wonderfully outspoken. She is a natural leader. Thank God she came along… We’ve all heard the stories. The show started off with another actress, but she was conflicted about taking the role, and the producers, I think, were conflicted about having chosen her for the role. When Kate came along, she just stepped in, took the reins, and took over. Thank God for her! We all owe the fact that we spent seven years on the air to that kind of… aplomb!

TD: Hopefully, we’ll be able to ask her about it.

RP: I’m sure if you check every Star Trek convention, every dealer’s table, you’ll probably find the exact padded bra for sale. Only $15,000!

TD: Speaking of conventions, you’ve been to several in Germany. Can you tell us about those experiences? Do you, or your fellow travelers, have any theories as to why Trek has become so popular in Germany? Considering that your character was integral to several episodes that related to the Holocaust, the ethics of using Nazi (Cardassian) science, and the role of historical guilt, were there any awkward moments with German fans?

RP: I used to say that when you go to a Star Trek convention in Germany, you suddenly understand the history of both World Wars, because more people are dressed up at them than at any other one. I think there is a genuine passion for being in uniform that is part of the national psyche.

There was an episode, a medical ethics show [“Nothing Human”] where my dear friend David Clennon starred as a Cardassian hologram. It was very clearly based on Nazi medical experiments. The idea that… if you had attained some sort of medical knowledge through torture or through murder, was the knowledge itself tainted through the manner in which you gained it? Should you not use that knowledge to save future individuals if the knowledge was gained by destroying others? It’s what a lot of fundamentalists believe about stem cell research, I’m sure. It’s a very loaded and interesting medical question, and I thought that particular episode was quite wonderful in the way it examined the issues. The way the other doctor, accusing me of hypocrisy, points out the fact that most of Western medicine has been developed by torturing animals, by experimenting on animals… It’s a very interesting discussion, and that is really when Star Trek is at its best when it can deal with questions like that.

But, to return to your original question of why I think Star Trek is so popular in Germany, I think that German Star Trek fans, like all Star Trek fans are focused on the future, a future where technology serves man rather than destroys him… a future of hope. But, there is also something about the dress-up nature of the personal appearances that particularly appeals to them more than, say, American or British fans… I estimated that a full 20% were in uniform at one early German convention that I went to. That might be an exaggeration, but that is a lot of people. When you get seven or eight thousand people together, and close to two thousand of them are in uniform, you notice.

TD: With your earlier comments, it almost sounded like you were saying that there is a militarism in German culture…

RP: It’s not like I saw more guns, phasers, or Bat’leths. I just thought there was something about… wearing uniforms that seems to appeal. But, I’m unwilling to draw that conclusion.

TD: That is understandable. Were there any awkward moments with German fans?

RP: No, I love going to German cons. German fans are the most vocal. As an actor, if you go onstage in Germany, they will clap forever in appreciation. If you perform and they like it, you’ll get an ovation that seems to clock four or five minutes more than anywhere else. And yes, part of it is that they have a more demonstrative nature. When you go into a building or a bus in Germany, it never says, “No Smoking, please,” it says “Smoking Forbidden!” Everything is a command. Das ist Verboten! So, there is a command-style nature to the way that the language is spoken. I used to joke that if you go to a convention, and you have a German fan standing in line behind a British fan… the British fan will come up and say (in a whispered and shy voice), “Pardon me, please… May I take a photo?” You say, “Excuse me?” “Can I take a photo?” You say, “Could you speak up?” “A photo.” “Oh yes, of course you can take a picture.” And then the German comes up (loudly), “FOTO??? FOTO, YES???” I used to do this impression of the whiplash of leaning way in and then suddenly blasting way back… first trying to hear and then trying to protect my ears. German fans are unrivaled in their enthusiasm.

TD: It remains somewhat of a mystery… “Critical Care” is perhaps my favorite episode of Voyager, because the underlying message is very clear. The Doctor believes that health care is a fundamental and universal human right, not a privilege for the affluent. Now, early in life, you wanted to become a doctor, not an actor. Did this episode strike a personal chord within you?

RP: I have an admiration for people in the medical profession that goes back to childhood. My pediatrician was a very benign and likeable character to me. He was an older Italian gentleman, always had a big smile… very gentle, very friendly. I always remembered that. So, I think my early ambition to be a doctor was specifically based on my impression of him. I thought about being a pediatrician. That is what I thought I wanted to do. Through junior high school and into high school… and I applied to Yale with the intention of being pre-med, and I was pre-med for about a year and a half. Meanwhile, the acting, which I’d done in high school and college for fun and as a way to meet girls since I wasn’t much of an athlete... it just basically became more and more important. As more people see you and validate your talent, you start thinking, “Maybe I should consider this as a life choice.” As I’ve said in other interviews, I did a show at Yale that Leonard Bernstein saw. It was of his “Mass,” which he had written for the opening of the Kennedy Center. We did a production at Yale that was so successful that he asked for some changes, but took our production to Europe to premiere the work in Vienna. To have that kind of experience at nineteen… [a] sort of quasi-professional experience: I had a featured role that Bernstein was very positive about. He called me “The Great Picardo.” I think he was having a little fun with “The Great Caruso.” He encouraged me to consider performing, saying that I had a terrific natural energy onstage. It wasn’t a phony, manufactured Broadway energy, and that I should consider it. I looked him in the eye and said, “Tell my mother!” I didn’t want to break the news alone, and he did. To his credit, it was opening night, and he came up to my mother and basically said what he’d said to me. He was such an icon to the world and my mother in particular that it carried some weight, that he said this to her. That got me off the hook, out of pre-med, and into a theater major. I accelerated and graduated Yale my third year. I was in a rush to get to New York to see if I was going to start working. Sometimes I envy other actors who had a longer and deeper training than I did. I was on the fast track to make up my mind by twenty-five what I was going to do with my life, because I had made that pledge to my mother who had raised four children. My father died when I was only nine, and I was the youngest of four. She made this tremendous effort to send us all to private school and private college, I felt that the least I could do was to make up my mind as quickly as possible and not cause her any fear or concern as to whether or not I was going to be able to take care of myself.

TD: In the end, ironically, you played a doctor.

RP: Yes, in the end, ironically, I played a doctor. I think the fact that I admired them… I studied enough science to understand scientific reasoning and method. The Doctor’s long technobabble speeches… at least I could see the arc of “here is the hypothesis, here is how I tested it, here is what I concluded, and here is what I’m proposing.” There were absolutely preposterous things that I had to say… but I think that it was somewhat helpful to me that I had studied enough science to grasp the nature of the discourse, so to speak. I also caught them a couple of times on inaccuracies. I have a copy of Grey’s Anatomy, and I mean the real one. I would pull it off the shelf if I thought that there was something anatomical that they got wrong. I had a line once saying, “The first cells to be attacked by the nanoprobes are the patient’s blood.” Well, blood is a tissue, not a cell, so I had to say, “The first tissue to be attacked was the patient’s blood,” and they went, “Well, that sounds weird!” I would win little battles like that.

TD: So you had an easier time with the technobabble.

RP: A little bit. Listen, I wrote a 32-page paper in biology as a sophomore. It was “Endogenous Circadian Rhythms in the Perieto-Visceral Ganglia of Aplesia Californica,” or the common California sea slug. I think if you can drag that out to 32 pages, you can say any kind of technobabble you want.

TD: Brannon Braga has spoken about how he is forced to answer two contradictory questions: Why is Star Trek so popular, and why was Star Trek cancelled? He has admitted that he has a difficult time answering those questions. Do you have an answer that you feel is adequate?

RP: I didn’t watch enough of Enterprise. I probably only watched 3 or 4 episodes. It’s nothing against them or those actors. After living and breathing Star Trek and science fiction for seven years, you need a little break. I probably watched more of it than any of my cast-mates.

TD: What was your initial impression?

RP: My initial impression was that the whole notion of doing a prequel… that there was a built-in problem. First of all, the technology in the original series looked so silly and goofy, and now they were going to do a more serious and believable version of an earlier technology. When I mentioned that to Brannon, he said, “Well, look at Batman on television in the sixties and look at the Batman movies. There is no reason why you can’t redo something or do something earlier just because the process of visual effects, prop building, and budgets are vast enough now to make it look like believable technology.” But Star Trek is looked at as a “canon” by the Star Trek fans. You can’t be a loose cannon with the canon. I think that was the primary problem that the fans seemed to have.






TD: They also bitterly complained the Berman and Braga had not been fans of the original show, yet were now spearheading a prequel to it. In some ways, that is like a producer saying, “I’ve never really watched or enjoyed Star Wars: Episode 4, but I’d like to write Episode 3.”

RP: That may be it. I think that no one can succeed forever. That takes nothing away from Rick Berman or Brannon or Michael Piller, God rest him, or Jeri Taylor, or all the other writer-producers. It takes nothing away from them that eventually a show gets cancelled before a seven-year run. I mean, how much success can one group of people have? Rick has said in many, many interviews, “We’re all afraid of too many trips to the well.” I guess this was too many trips to the well. I’ve never been one for Schadenfreude, but because they were so geared up to do the new show, we as a cast were very much made to feel like, “Don’t let the door hit you on ass.” The whole focus the last half of our last year was, “We need this stage. We have to knock down your briefing room so we can build the set for the show that is going to reinvent Star Trek.” The irony that we were made to feel like “old hat,” it’s not something that escapes me, but it’s also not something I feel good about. I like too many of the people that worked on that show. I always liked Scott Bakula. We were doing “Viewers for Quality Television” banquets back when I was on China Beach and he was on Quantum Leap. He is one of the nicest and most likeable people in the business… very loyal to the crew, standing up for other people. And, I’ve really befriended John Billingsley, Connor Trineer, and Anthony Montgomery through hanging around with them, wherever we happen to be appearing. I feel bad that they didn’t get their full run.

A lot of it has to do, I think… I always felt that Star Trek peaked on television while Star Wars, as a franchise, was on hiatus. Star Wars came back in a big way, and there is only so much entertainment dollar and time that an individual can devote in life. I think it just part of that cycle of attention span. We’ll be back soon… the franchise will be reinvented by J.J. Abrams. He is a very smart guy and a good filmmaker.

TD: Abrams has admitted that the character of Kirk will appear in the film.

RP: The character, but not the actor… I thought the characters of Kirk and Spock were going to be in it.

TD: I don’t think that Spock has been confirmed although it’s likely.

RP: The buzz was that this was the Kirk/Spock academy thing that we’ve been hearing about for years. It sounded to me like Batman Begins, but Star Trek Begins.

He is going to write a good script, and it is going to be exciting. He did that with Mission: Impossible III. Some of us think that there might be a parallel drawn between Tom Cruise’s emotional range and Mr. Spock’s.

TD: So you would endorse a “reboot” of sorts?

RP: Oh absolutely. As I said, I hope it succeeds, because I’ve now been part of the family long enough to know that what is good for… I sound like I’m in the mafia now… What is good for the family is good for all of the individual members.

TD: It could be argued though that starting over discredits what came before.

RP: No, I don’t feel that way, but I’m not as reverential about Star Trek as other people because I didn’t really follow it as a younger guy. You know what I mean? You might get a different answer from Tim Russ who grew up being a Star Trek fan. I really didn’t get turned on to it really until I got cast in this role and starting watching Next Generation. The Original Series… I never got past the look of it. I had two roommates when I first moved to New York that I had known at Yale, both philosophy majors. They would sit and watch Star Trek in the afternoon, and I would walk through our living room and ridicule them, saying, “Those costumes are ridiculous! Look how funny that looks!” They would sit there, watch it, and talk about the philosophical implications of the story.

TD: Which is a rite of passage among philosophy majors!

RP: I guess they must be laughing themselves out of their chairs since I became a Star Trek actor.

TD: Rick Berman has announced that he is writing his memoirs, “warts and all.” Would you have any advice for his chapter on the Voyager years?

RP: I don’t know… I’d be interested to read it. I remember two things early on. I remember Rick putting his arm around me (we hadn’t gone on the air yet) and saying, “You’re going to be the most popular character on the show,” which blew my mind because I thought that I had the worst part on the show when I got it. But, apparently, in the third episode (which we had already shot and they were editing), they had seen the possibilities of where the character was going to go that I didn’t quite see yet.

TD: You had originally tried for Neelix…

RP: Yes, exactly. Like any actor, I wanted the bigger part. The amount of makeup had yet to be specified. They would tell my agent, “Oh, more than fifteen minutes.” Well, yes three and a half hours is more than fifteen minutes! Thank you very much. So, I really dodged a bullet there. Let’s face it: I would have gone insane and killed someone sitting in the makeup chair that long. I’ve done it, and I don’t think I could do it anymore. I have nothing but admiration for Ethan Phillips, his patience, and also, you know, his great personality in the face of all that. He is arguably the closest “Trek friend” that I’ve made. He and I see each other and talk all the time.

The other thing that I remember from Rick… I remember a conversation, again right before we went on the air, and I said to him, “Do you intend to list me in the credits as Dr. Zimmerman?” He said, “Yes.” In the “bible” for the show, which they give all the writers for writing future episodes, I was called Dr. Zimmerman. So he said, “Of course.” And I went on that, since we’d made a plot-point in the episode that we were shooting at the time (“Eye of the Needle”). It ended with the doctor saying, “I should like to have a name,” and a big dramatic push-in shot on my dewy eyes… I said, “If you’re going to list me in the opening credits as Dr. Zimmerman from the pilot on, aren’t we kind of killing the suspense?” He said, “You’re right.” So, they redid my title, and the reason I know this is they gave me a frame from the original title that said “Robert Picardo as Dr. Zimmerman.” They changed it to The Doctor, and that ended up affording us the opportunity to play out that storyline off and on for seven years.

I talked to Rick a lot. But, I talked to Brannon the most. I don’t know if I was the most vocal actor. But, I certainly had lots and lots of ideas. Writers have a love/hate relationship with that. They are under the gun to come up with twenty-five stories, so they love an idea. But, on the other hand, they don’t want an actor bugging them all the time. So, I tried to keep things always positive: “How about this, or how about that?” rather than, “This sucks! I don’t want to say this!” That never helps.

TD: Were there many bold ideas that they didn’t run with?

RP: Oh yeah, there were many times I suggested things that they chose not to do. I had a whole idea for an episode to do in the last year, which I still love. But, they knew they were doing a time-travel thing for the finale, so they couldn’t do time-travel because it was in the second half of the season. So, it just never got made.

I’m the first actor to get a story credit on Star Trek (other than in The Animated Series). I was the first actor in one of the live-action things to get a story credit for “Lifeline.” The idea of the Doctor appearing in First Contact, I pitched to them… not so much how, but just the logic of… if the EMH program is a technology that Voyager had… why wouldn’t any new Starfleet vessel have it? Why would Voyager have more advanced technology than the Enterprise? So, by presenting their own logic to them, they decided it was a logical idea. If they liked the idea, they used it, but if they didn’t, they didn’t.

TD: But, overall, you would say that they were very receptive.

RP: Oh yeah! They were great. Brannon does an affectionate impression of me jumping out of a bush to pitch an idea while he’s smoking a cigarette outside the writers’ building, which always makes me laugh. He also dubbed me “Doctor Fancypants,” my favorite nickname for a character, because the Doctor was a tad nelly.

TD: Well, thank you so much for your time. It was a pleasure…

RP: Yes! Thank you. Dr. Fancypants signing out!






------------


Comments


------------





*Please visit RobertPicardo.com and RobertPicardo.net for more information, the latest news, and details on how to purchase his CDs.

*This interview may not be reproduced without Trekdom's consent.

Clip of the Day: History of the Dominion War, part 2

A YouTuber has attempted to piece together the entire Dominion War with one hour of footage. Here is part 2 of the one-hour clip. Enjoy!




------------
Comments
------------

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Star Trek: 20th Century America in Space


A short excerpt from David Gerrold's 1973 The World of Star Trek:


------------

The crew of the Enterprise is in no way meant to be representative of future humanity - not at all. They are representative of the American Sphere of Influence today. Their attitudes, their manner of speaking, their ways of reacting, even their ways of making love, are all contemporary.

We have met the Enterprise - and they are us. The crew of the Enterprise is twentieth century America in space.

And - although it takes a bit of justification - that's the way it has to be. Remember, this is drama we are talking about, as well as American television. It has to make money.

That means it has to have appeal and that its characters must be attractive and interesting - an audience has to be able to relate to them. Even if the show is alien to the audience's experience, the characters have to recognizable.

Neither Gunsmoke nor Bonanza are really about 1880. They are about 1972 men in an 1880 world. The Untouchables, when it was still on, was about 1966 men in a 1929 world. And Star Trek also is about 1966-69 men in a 2??? world.

This is the essential appeal of drama. As mentioned earlier, we watch a story because we are really testing ourselves. We are curious as to how we would react to an equivalent situation. In science fiction, we are also testing our culture. Thus, both the characters and the culture have to be recognizable parts of ourselves. They have to reflect contemporary values - not totally, but enough so that the viewer can follow.

Star Trek is not pure science fiction. It is not predictive science fiction, and it is not accurate science fiction. It was never meant to be.

Anyone who tries to shoehorn the series into that kind of arbitrary definition will be making the same mistake that every hardcore aficionado who grumbles in his beer about SF and the dramatic arts (grumble grumble) has been making since the very first episode of Star Trek began.

What Star Trek is, is a set of fables - morality plays, entertainments, and diversions about contemporary man, but set against a science fiction background. The background is subordinate to the fable.

I'm going to quote my earlier definition of SF: Science fiction is the contemporary fairy tale, it's the twentieth century morality play. At its worst, it's merely romantic escapism; but at its best, it is the postulation of an alternative reality with which to comment on this one.

That definition could almost be applied to Star Trek, but the difference between Star Trek and science fiction is that true science fiction requires that the background be logical, consistent, and the overall shaper of the story. The world in which the character moves determines the kind of actions he can make, and hence the plot of the tale. In true science fiction, the background is never subordinate to the plot.

As we have already seen, the Enterprise and her crew were able to function almost independent of their backgrounds. The only thing about them that remained consistent was their contemporary attitudes.

Star Trek's backgrounds were always subordinate to the story - and because of that, it never quite achieved the convincing reality of true science fiction. Its use of a science fiction background gave it the appearance of science fiction; but in reality, Star Trek was a science fiction-based format for the telling of entertainments for and about the attitudes of contemporaray America. And that's called science fantasy...

The reflection of American man - no, make that just Man - freed from the context of the American culture (or any specific culture) and placed in a series of alternate realities, would be a powerful dramatic vehicle for educating, enlightening - and especially for entertaining the American public. If the dramatists scripting the series were allowed to do so with no holds barred.

Just as Archie Bunker is forced to confront his own attitudes week after week, so would such a Star Trek allow its heroes to examine their attitudes in a multitude of situations - and the viewer with them. Captain Kirk would become a symbol not for American ingenuity - but more important, for the American dilemma: how best can we use our strength? Each week, he would be making crucial decisions about problems that we would see relating to our own lives and environments.

This writer submits that Star Trek was, and still is, the finest format ever designed for American series television. There are few shows that can match it for potential. But, potential must be realized. An unfulfilled potential is a very special kind of failure.

- David Gerrold, The World of Star Trek (1973), 47-50.


-------------
-------------

Clip of the Day: After they were famous, part 2

Part 2 of the British Documentary "After they were famous," an hour-long look at the rebirth of Star Trek in the 1970s. Enjoy!



You can watch the other parts in Trekdom's Trekumentaries.

-------------
Comments
-------------

Monday, June 11, 2007

Tim Russ on Tuvok and Star Trek: Of Gods and Men



Amidst a hectic schedule, actor and director Tim Russ took a few moments to answer our questions surrounding the character of Tuvok and the upcoming release of Star Trek: Of Gods and Men, which he directed.

--------------



Trekdom: When Leonard Nimoy was cast for the role of Spock, the writers didn’t give him much to work with, so he personally created many aspects of Mr. Spock and Vulcan culture. Would it be fair to say that your experience as Tuvok was quite different and somewhat restrictive for an actor? Was it frustrating playing a character whose culture, mannerisms, and even personality had been written long before the audition?

Tim Russ: It’s true the culture and mannerisms of Vulcans had already been explored to some extent, but we were able to bring to light some other aspects of Vulcan lore, and let’s not forget that Tuvok was married with children. That, and the fact that he is full Vulcan separates him from his predecessor. Playing the character for that many years without showing emotion was not that exciting as an actor, but it was fun to work opposite the human characters.

TD: Did you feel like the addition of Seven of Nine was detrimental to the character of Tuvok, considering that Seven had similarities to the Vulcan, such as a lack of emotion and disdain for the illogical and irrational elements of humanity?

Russ: You could use it or let it get in the way, and I think for the most part they used it. She was the only one onboard other than the other Vulcans who I would have something in common with.

TD: Berman-era Trek has been criticized for being too conservative, afraid to take risks, and stuck in a tired formula that repeated itself like a broken record. As an actor and director, would you agree or disagree with those criticisms? Could Voyager have taken more risks?

Russ: I guess that’s fair to say. Rick made it a point to carry on the tradition, look and feel of what Gene Roddenberry started on the new Trek shows. The producer has creative control over television so that’s what you are going to get. Most shows that start out with a certain look, usually stay with it throughout.

TD: You’ve recently stated that Star Trek: Of Gods and Men is not a “fan film,” and that plans to sell DVDs and downloads are in the works. Can you please clarify that statement, and do you foresee any copyright battles with CBS/Paramount?

Russ: The feature cannot be sold for profit unless we have some kind of agreement with CBS. As of right now, none of that has been finalized. If no agreement can be reached, then it will be viewed at no charge. And yes to reiterate, it is not a fan film. The look and quality of the piece will speak for itself.





TD: Interesting... Can you give us any spoilers regarding the plot of the film?

Russ: I cannot give away the storyline, but I can say that it deals with issues that are current in our society and in the world- freedom vs. security, terrorism, etc. And the characters span the Trek timeline from the original series to Voyager.


TD: Thank you for your time! We look forward to Star Trek: Of Gods and Men

--------------

Comments

--------------

Wednesday, June 6, 2007

Monday, June 4, 2007

Chase Masterson Speaks Candidly about DS9, Leeta, and "Catsuit Controversies."



While Chase Masterson prepares for the release of the upcoming film "Yesterday Was A Lie" in which she plays a leading role, she was kind enough to answer our questions surrounding the character of Leeta and Deep Space Nine.

*photo from "Yesterday Was A Lie."
-------------



TD: Chase, you’ve interviewed so many Trek actors and insiders on theFandom.com, from George Takei to Brannon Braga. Which interview was your favorite and why?

Chase: That's a fabulous question--there were so many fun & intriguing ones, in different ways.

The interview with Ira Behr was definitely a favorite--he's so down-to-earth, so emotionally wise, genuine. That's why DS9 was such an important show, such a compelling one, because he and his team wrote out of their hearts, they created out of who they are.

I loved interviewing Ron Moore for that same reason, and because he has such a great story of how he got in to this business, and he's so very talented and still so humble.

Interviewing George was fun, as he's a pal, and it's always great to chat with someone who has seen so much of this amazing phenomenon. Marina was a real kick (when is she not?), and the Enterprise guys were a really interesting bunch, as we talked mid-stream through the campaign to keep the show on. That was an important time, and even though the campaign wasn't a success, it was heartening to see the commitment the fans still have to Star Trek.

There were other shows, too, with actors who are sci-fi favorites, like Bruce Campbell and Dean Haglund. Zany! But very real. I think that, often, the most talented people are a combo of that & more.

TD: Do you plan to continue interviewing for theFandom.com, or has your focus shifted to other endeavors? What does the future hold?

Chase: I'm not doing those interviews currently, and I don't have any plans to do that in the future. The company who I did those for has really changed focus, and my plate is really full lately, too. More on this later...

TD: Could we get your perspective on some of “catsuit controversies” during the past decade? When the producers of Star Trek: Voyager replaced Kes with Seven of Nine, many fans as well as Trek actors bitterly complained about “TandA ratings gimmicks” and the objectification of a woman’s body with TOS-style “tin-foil bikinis.” These criticisms continued into the Enterprise years when some fans argued that the producers catered to the lowest denominator with steamy “decon-chamber rub-downs” and “T’pol in Heat.” Having played one of the sexiest women of the Trek franchise, what is your take on these controversies and complaints? Did you feel like the character of Leeta was an “eye candy” addition to cast?

Chase: Thanks for the compliment! I’m blushing.

Where do I begin on this? It seems that some characters, including Seven of Nine and T'Pol, were written for those reasons. I agree with the fans' sentiments that it seems that this kind of writing is done in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator; that happens on a lot of shows, but I don't believe it needs to, and it definitely shouldn't have to happen on Trek. There's so much more to focus on, and the fans of this show recognize that. I wish this industry generally respected viewers more, but a lot of people in this business don’t even respect themselves.

I didn't watch every episode of Voyager & Enterprise, and maybe there were some really redeeming qualities in those characters and their arcs, so I don't want to say I have a really solid take on this subject where those characters are concerned.

I want to make this clear: this is not a statement on either of the actresses who played the roles; I think it's a natural temptation for viewers to hold an actor accountable for the choices the character makes, but it's not the actors' fault, you know?

As for Leeta, it's hard to see myself as being seen in that way--I just don't think I'm eye candy. But even if Leeta were written for that reason, I’m thankful that the writers very quickly put a depth into the character that I hope made up for it. The journey that Leeta went on, in standing up for what is right in the Ferengi union, and in loving the guy who was only pretty on the inside, and especially in her having the strength required to remain committed throughout the inherent difficulties in their relationship, was an example to me of the kind of choices that are healthiest to make — maybe not the easiest, but the most joyful & growth-inducing, in the long run. I hope it was an example to other people, too.

Again, I don't know the journeys that the characters of Seven of Nine and T'Pol made, so I can't really judge that.

TD: Speaking of Leeta/Rom, was the inter-species relationship between the two characters as well-developed as it could have been? Bajoran and Ferengi culture were so different. Although Rom certainly wasn’t a typical Ferengi, it seems that there could have been much more conflict between them in terms of religion, morals, cultural assumptions, gender roles, etc. Did you feel like the writers and producers missed any opportunities to make the relationship more complex?

Chase: There were so many wonderfully complex characters and situations in DS9, it would have been impossible for the writers to have explored all the possibilities for all of the characters. Thank you for wanting more! We did, too. But we realize that the writers created a beautiful amount of thoroughness in our characters and situations, especially considering the amount of screen time that was shared with so many other characters, and we were so blessed to be in a quality show like this at all. There are so many talented actors who never get to work, much less on something that is both so meaningful and so well loved.

I think some of the possibilities that Leeta and Rom had are explored in the novels. I have some ideas. Should I write one?


TD: Absolutely! Trekdom would love to publish excerpts... So many, many fans rate Deep Space Nine as the best Trek series in terms of writing, complex themes, provocative “morality plays,” and character development. Yet, the series lost more and more viewers each season. Do you have any theories that explain this paradox? Did the show demand too much from casual viewers? Were there other factors?

Chase: I didn’t realize that the show lost viewers with each season. It’s possible that the serial nature of the show intimidated some people who didn’t think they’d be able to catch up after missing some episodes. But the serial nature of the show—following the characters in their ongoing life stories—was such a huge part of what made the show great, and unique at the time; DS9 was truly a forerunner of what television at its finest was morphing into.

One interesting thing is this: there are so many people who were not fans of the show while it was first airing who have become fans through watching it on Spike or watching the DVDs. Ira Behr actually predicted that—it was back in the 5th season that he said that he thought that once it was on in classic syndication style, running episodes back to back, that more people would really grasp the quality of the show. And they have.

TD: Thank you for your time Chase.

Chase: Thank you, Trekdom! My pleasure…all the best to you!

----------------------
Please visit http://www.YesterdayWasALie.com for more info on Chase Masterson's next starring role. Visit http://www.chaseclub.com/thefandom.html to listen to her archived interviews of Trek stars and insiders.
----------------------
Comments and Discussion
-------------

Trekdom's Trekumentaries - History of Star Trek Online Videos


From time to time, we use the fanzine/blog to announce new features of the main website: http://www.startrekdom.com


If you haven't already, check out Trekumentaries, which provides hours of documentaries and interviews from Trek stars and insiders.
Highlights:


"After they were famous" - an hour-long documentary about Star Trek's revival in the 1970s

"Leonard Nimoy's Star Trek Memories" - an hour-long documentary hosted by Leonard Nimoy

"Tom Snyder's Tomorrow" - Snyder's hour-long interview with James Doohan, Walter Koenig, DeForrest Kelley, and Harlan Ellison

"The Weakest Link" -Star Trek special of the game show, The Weakest Link


Much much more: Interviews, behind the scenes, and rare clips from the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s.




Or, go to the main website and click videos.


-Staff of Trekdom

Saturday, June 2, 2007

In Defense of Rick Berman


In Defense of Rick Berman
By Jared B.
----------

When Rick Berman assumed control of Star Trek: The Next Generation about halfway through its first season, he inherited a disaster of a show. The atmosphere behind-the-scenes was chaotic, hurtful, and infuriating for many insiders. Gene Roddenberry, having been heavily intoxicated and overly “medicated,” alienated many of the people who had made the original Star Trek superb. D.C. Fontana recalled:

"As 1987 progressed… No one but Gene could be recognized as a contributor to ideas for the show. No one else could write a final draft. Writer-producers on the show felt the same anger and outrage I did at being excluded from the production process – at being told not to visit the sets or speak to the actors – at watching perfectly good scripts be rewritten by Gene into something far less – at having their files prowled through and sometimes removed. Definitely gone were the days when a staff birthday was an occasion and the crew was rewarded with a party for hard work. In the space of nine months, no fewer than eight writing-staff members left the series. There was no high sense of morale or community; rather the production offices were like an armed camp. Armed against Gene Roddenberry because of his alienating actions." (Fontana quoted in Engel, xii-xiii)

In addition to D.C. Fontana, other great Trek insiders such as David Gerrold left the show, feeling betrayed and belittled by the self-proclaimed humanist.

Word on the streets of Hollywood was “Don’t go near that show!” New writers felt strangled by Roddenberry's "box" of rules that made little sense. Somehow, they had to tell interesting stories about humans aboard a spaceship without depicting conflict between Starfleet officers. They were also asked to write fascinating and dynamic characters who were supposedly "too evolved" to have flaws or interesting personality quirks. Roddenberry’s utopian diatribes about 24th century humanity could be entirely contradictory, such as the notion that humans are too evolved for intolerance, yet under no circumstances would they tolerate “primitive and superstitious beliefs” like religion. Writers were left in an awkward position, bound by rules that were either inherently contradictory or outwardly at odds with the rules of good writing. The show suffered.

After reigning as a insecure visionary, and after alienating many people who had made the original Trek a phenomenon, Gene Roddenberry stopped contributing, although he retained his executive producer title. The person who did the job was Rick Berman.

Berman was not very familiar with the original Star Trek. But, he didn’t need to be, at least not according to Roddenberry himself. Just as Harve Bennett had discovered when making The Wrath of Khan, Roddenberry’s pronouncements about his vision of Trek didn’t match what viewers saw on the original series. If Berman meant to stay true to Roddenberry’s current vision and “box,” watching Kirk and crew would have been simply confusing.

Instead, Berman was determined to make the rules works, bending them slightly if necessary, but always concluding episodes with an optimistic depiction of the future. He was also committed to making the characters more complex, going so far as to hire Michael Piller, who was known for his excellent character writing yet lacking in experience as a science-fiction writer. Unlike Roddenberry, Berman, time and time again, gave new writers a shot to contribute to Trek in lasting ways, instead of jealously protecting Star Trek as his personal vision of the future. Ron D. Moore, Ira Behr, Brannon Braga, and many other young writers owed much to Berman’s willingness to give credit where credit was due. Although he held the reins and made executive decisions regarding the direction of the franchise, he was always open to collaboration, and, in many instances, he took risks. Gone were the days when an associate producer stood on the executive producer’s desk impatiently waiting for him to finish rewriting another author’s script (in between binges and late-night affairs). Instead, Berman’s Trek was a well-oiled machine that initially encouraged collaboration, brainstorming, and differences of opinion, so long as those differences didn’t become personal.

During the next few years, Berman, with the help of these talented writers and others, turned Star Trek: The Next Generation into a hugely popular cultural phenomenon. By all indications, TNG was coming into port, surpassing the original Star Trek in the public imagination and paving the way for new films and new series. Trek reached its peak in terms of profitability and popularity. When the franchise celebrated its 25th anniversary, the future of Star Trek seemed endless. Anyone predicting the demise of Trek would have been shunned and mocked.

Without Berman, Trek may have ended with the retirement of the original Enterprise crew. Instead, we were given a new generation to continue the legacy on the big screen. And, we were given Deep Space Nine, which, by most accounts, was the best Trek series of the entire franchise. Not only was Berman willing to take a huge risk by changing the format, but he also openly defied Gene Roddenberry’s formula and rules in the process. Deep Space Nine depicted religion and faith in more respectful ways. Internal and external conflict drove stories in complex and provocative directions. Characters were far from perfect and boring exemplars of human progress, and the 24th century, in the midst of war, cultural conflict, and dangers of militarism was far from the vague and unworkable utopia of Roddenberry’s Trek. Instead, under the direction of Rick Berman, the Trekverse became more realistic and believable. Certainly, Behr, Moore, Piller, and others deserve much credit for Deep Space Nine, but so too does Rick Berman for allowing the writers to move in this direction while giving them the freedom to write superb television without caring about the ratings.

Yet, Berman, as executive producer, had to care about the ratings. Despite its triumphs and break-throughs, DS9 bled viewers year after year. Perhaps the show demanded too much. After all, it would have been impossible to casually tune into the Dominion War and immediately understand the complex relationships between the Founders, Vorta, Cardassians, Klingons, and wormhole aliens. Can we really blame Rick Berman for turning back from this great experiment and creating a new show, Voyager, that more clearly corresponded to the format of TNG? At the heights of its popularity, Trek followed this format. It was a tried and true success. Should we also blame him for abandoning the Alpha Quadrant, which had become much too complex for stand-alone episodes that could be viewed out-of-order? It would have pleased the hardcore fans to watch two series simultaneously engulfed in a complex war that required viewers to watch every episode with soap-operaesque obsession. What about the mainstream, casual viewer? What about new viewers, who might stumble onto Trek having never seen Deep Space Nine? If Star Trek was to continue in TNG’s formidable footsteps, the next series had to be familiar to TNG viewers, and DS9 was not.

As the ratings for Voyager fell during its first three seasons, many fans blamed Berman. Some of his decisions deserved criticism, especially the quick resolution of the Starfleet/Marquis conflict and the use of uninteresting villains like the Kazon. Other criticisms were sometimes petty. Despite its flaws, Voyager had many gems in those first few seasons. Unquestionably, the show suffered from the departures of Moore, Piller, and others. But other factors, especially the growing influence of UPN, contributed to the demise. TNG broke new grounds as a syndicated show not subject to the interventions of network micro-managers. But, with Voyager, Paramount finally launched the great experiment of a studio network headed by a new Trek show (see Star Trek: Phase II). As a network, not only was it constantly redefining its target demographic, but also the quality of most programs was dismal. There are many television markets to this day that do not carry UPN.

Other factors were in play. Rick Berman was justifiably concerned that “too many trips to the well” had occurred. He was also justifiably concerned that, due to the political correctness of the early 90s, Trek had now become much too conservative. Why not make it sexy again? Certainly TOS “tinfoil bikinis” were out-of-the-question, but why not throw in some sex appeal and visual titillation? Many fans criticized the decision to add Seven of Nine as a “ratings gimmick” that “catered to the lowest denominator.” If fans believe this, then they should remind themselves the original Star Trek must have catered to the lowest denominator. Also, the writing for Seven was superb for the most part, adding in a well-needed source of conflict and drama.

Despite these and other attempts to liven up Voyager, ratings continued to slip after an initial season 4 boost. Rick Berman had to try something bold and different. What could have been riskier than a prequel that took place before the time of Kirk and Spock? Although, in this author’s opinion, the execution of Enterprise was deeply, deeply flawed, the premise held much potential. Berman can be faulted for the execution, but, perhaps his biggest mistake was circling the wagons around Brannon Braga and himself, while attempting spearhead a prequel to a show that he never really watched or enjoyed. If the process had been more openly collaborative with people like Fontana, Black, Justman, and younger TOS aficionados like Coto from the beginning, then it’s possible that Enterprise could have been superb.

But, even if the first three seasons had been as good as the last, then it may have still bled viewers just as Deep Space Nine bled viewers. Other factors were beyond the control of Rick Berman.

He was our scapegoat, and, while witnessing the demise of Trek the last several years, we have used Mr. Berman as a convenient target, just as workers blame CEOs for everyday grievances. Many times, the criticisms have been justified. Yet, at other times, we were attacking the CEO for market fluctuations and unpredictable consumer habits.

Regardless of who or what is to blame for the franchise’s demise, we still owe Rick Berman praise for bringing Trek to the height of its popularity. We should thank him for taking risks, some of which worked and some of which flopped. We should commend him for shaking up the formulas and blindfolding his bust of Gene Roddenberry. And, yes, we should also criticize when deserved.

Is it time for new blood? Most definitely. Just as Trek needed a Harve Bennett and then a Rick Berman, it now needs a J.J. Abrams to take the franchise in new and bold directions. It is time to pass the torch, and Berman has so far done that graciously. But he is also writing his memoirs. Most likely, he will defend himself from the onslaught of fan criticism of the past decade. He deserves to do so, and fans should read his book with an open mind.

24th century Trek was Berman’s legacy, and it deserves respect for what it was in good times, rather than condemning it wholesale for what it was in bad times.
------------------

Thursday, May 31, 2007

40th Anniversary Tribute Video

A nice long tribute to 40 years of Star Trek. Enjoy.

Comments

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Trekkies of the World Unite: A Call to Arms against Scholars


[Disclaimer: Trekdom welcomes the contributions of scholars and academics. The views expressed in this article do not reflect those of Trekdom, and we invite scholarly rebuttals.]


A Call to Arms

by Anonymous

------------------


For decades, Star Trek has been a favorite target of a certain group of scholars* who wander the postmodern stairwells of academic ivory towers. In book after book and dissertation after dissertation, we the fans are given the unvarnished truth about Trek. While we muddle about on message boards and fanzines religiously reciting Roddenberry clichés like “infinite diversity in infinite combinations,” these Ph.Ds, though often disagreeing with each other, join forces in condemning Star Trek.

Star Trek, they claim, promotes imperialism, racism, sexism, neo-conservatism, militarism, fascism, nationalism, or some combination of these negative “isms.” As a product of American culture, it reflects what is essentially wrong about Americans and U.S. foreign policy. Apparently, our “hopeful vision of the future” is really an imperialistic vision of U.S. supremacy and global domination. Captain Kirk’s intervention in alien cultures exemplifies the imposition of Western values on Third World peoples. Every alien race, consequently, must “assimilate” to Federation culture, that is, the white, American, “bourgeois capitalist” norm. While the U.S. sends warships to “spread democracy,” the Enterprise enforces Federation values at gunpoint. Seeking out new life and new civilizations is yet another form of cultural domination and imperial conquest. Exploration is exploitation. Whether in glorifying a “frontier spirit” that historically led to the slaughter of indigenous populations, or in espousing racial views of biological difference, Star Trek is guilty as charged. When fans say otherwise, they are simply wrong, these intellectuals claim.

Yet, these scholars never tell us why we are wrong. Are we just passive, unthinking viewers, absorbing the underlying “subtexts” of television unquestioningly? Are we just too uneducated to see what is really in front of us as it subconsciously reinforces our prejudices and cultural assumptions? Scholars, please tell us lowly fans, in small words that we can comprehend. Please tell us why we have such mistaken perceptions of a television show that we obsess about, that we memorize, and that we debate year after year. What is your secret, in that you can selectively use 12 out of 700+ episodes to discover the truth about Star Trek?

It must be that we’ve been brainwashed by Roddenberry or Paramount propaganda, right? We like to feel self-righteous and holier-than-thou, so we’ve adopted clichés about Trek’s multiculturalism and its optimistic vision of human progress. Deluding ourselves about the “progressiveness” of Star Trek, we pass the popcorn in a self-congratulatory and “enlightened” way.

Perhaps. Or, could it also be possible that we are not the ones brainwashed. Instead, it is you, who come armed with your Derrida, Foucault, or Benjamin, unquestioningly perceiving Star Trek through pre-approved glasses that graduate advisers gave you. While desperately wanting to critique U.S. foreign policy, or say something meaningful about the “postcolonial” and “postmodern” age of ambivalence, you race toward Star Trek with blind devotion to an “authorized” interpretation. With a uniformed march worthy of fanboys, you position yourself on the pomo pedestal, ready to strike down the masses with a lightning bolt of academic elitism. Combining your secret love of a popular television show with you open embrace of the trendiest intellectual “school” of the moment, you take a wise course aimed at publishing your dissertation and scoring a comfy position in a cultural studies department. It doesn’t seem to matter that your interpretations and arguments are illogical, ahistorical, and unsupported by the evidence.

You see what you want to see where you want to see it. You pick and choose episodes that fit well with your predetermined thesis, while ignoring obvious examples that disrupt your arguments. Along the way, you make glaring omissions. For example, while claiming that Star Trek became critical of the Vietnam War by the third season, you don’t mention “The Way to Eden,” a preachy season 3 critique of the peace movement (see H. Bruce Franklin). While arguing that Star Trek “races towards a white future,” you ignore Deep Space Nine and its black commander, as well as most of the episodes that dealt explicitly with racial issues (see Daniel Bernardi). While asserting the militarism of Star Trek, you ignore episodes like “Homefront.” There have even been times when you have argued that the Trekverse stinks of fascist ideology while ignoring every episode of Trek that critiqued Nazism, totalitarianism, and collectivism (see Kelley L. Ross).

The fans may selectively choose “progressive” episodes like “Let that Be Your Last Battlefield” to reinforce clichés about Trek’s multiculturalism and respect for diversity. Yet, you are equally guilty of the selective use of evidence to support a predetermined interpretation. It’s time to admit that. You misquote Star Trek by using two or three episodes while ignoring the full text. If you’re going to write a book or article about Star Trek, then you need to know the material, not simply which passages fit well with your thesis. Is that really too much to ask?

It’s also time to admit that the millions of people who watch Star Trek, the hundreds of thousands who make pilgrimages to conventions, and the dozens of insiders who wrote books about this television show (which you ignore) may in fact KNOW what they’re talking about! We are not passive consumers or pawns of corporate interests. We are not blind devotees of Trek gospel speaking in tongues. We are not victims of a “culture industry” that manipulates us from above. Indeed, the underlying assumptions you have about us, the way culture and consumption works, and the role of Star Trek as a cultural artifact reek like a bad plot from a terrible science-fiction film. It’s unbelievable, cynical, and simplistic.

From this day forward, we will fight your interpretations, and we will fight for Trek. You may not rest undisturbed in the pages of obscure academic journals. We will fight from below, in classrooms, seminars and public lectures. We will question your unfounded assumptions. We will identify the omissions and scream, “bloody murder.” We will fight you as Kirk fought Apollo, demanding our freedom from the tyranny of dishonest slandering. It will no longer be enough to gain the respect of fellow colleagues for being well versed in cultural theories. You need to watch Star Trek! Otherwise, you risk angering the most militant of fandoms by speaking as an "authority" who obviously hasn't read the full book.

---------------------------
Author's note: This essay was directed at a specific circle of postmodernist critics of Trek. This essay is not meant as an attack on every scholar of Star Trek.
----------------------

Monday, May 28, 2007

The Fascist Ideology of Star Trek: Militarism, Collectivism, & Atheism



--------------------------


"One and only one person can give steering and engine orders at any one time....The commanding officer may take over the deck or the conn...In taking the conn from the officer of the deck, the captain should do so in such a manner that all personnel of the bridge watch will be notified of the fact."
--Watch Officer's Guide, A Handbook for all Deck Watch Officers, Revised by K.C. Jacobsen, Commander, U.S. Navy, 11th Edition [Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland, 1981, pp. 68-69]


I have always liked Star Trek. I watched the original show in the 60's, waited eagerly for the first movie in the 70's, and then later in the 80's got hooked all over again on Star Trek: The Next Generation. It has been good television, good science fiction, and occasionally even good film. Some things, nevertheless, have driven me crazy: (1) Picard and Riker both giving commands, in tandem, on the bridge is absurd. One person has the conn or has the deck on a ship, and it is dangerous to have any confusion about that (see quote above). As Executive Officer, Riker wouldn't even be on the bridge in ordinary circumstances. (2) There doesn't seem to be anything like a regular watch on the bridge. In one show a big point is made that only a full commander can have bridge command, but nothing is more common on the show than to have scenes where all the senior officers of the ship are in some conference or other, leaving who knows who directing the ship on the bridge -- unless there are full commanders who aren't part of the regular cast. The writers don't seem to know what naval lieutenants are for -- to be the officers of the deck. And (3) Star Trek has never known what admirals are for. The first Star Trek movie has a farcical conflict over whether Admiral Kirk or the newly assigned captain will assume command of the Enterprise. One wonders what Horatio Nelson and Captain Hardy were both doing on the HMS Victory. Later, Star Trek: The Next Generation refers to the Enterprise as the "flag ship" of Star Fleet, without apparently realizing that a flag ship is a ship with a "flag," i.e. a flag officer, an admiral. A Star Trek admiral seems to be some kind of shore officer.


These absurdities, however, can be easily forgiven. Less easily forgiven or forgotten are the more troubling messages about the nature of the future, the nature of society, and even the nature of reality. Star Trek typically reflects certain political, social, and metaphysical views, and on close examination they are not worthy of the kind of tribute that is often paid to Star Trek as representing an edifying vision of things.


In a 1996 newspaper column, James P. Pinkerton, discussing the new Star Trek movie (the eighth), Star Trek: First Contact (1996), quotes Captain Picard saying how things have changed in his day, "The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force; we work to better humanity." Perhaps Picard never stopped to reflect that greater wealth means greater material well being, which is to the betterment of humanity much more than any empty rhetoric. But this is typical of Star Trek. A first season Star Trek: The Next Generation episode called "The Neutral Zone," has Picard getting up on his high horse with a three hundred year old businessman who is revived from suspended animation: The businessman, naturally, wants to get in touch with his agents to find out what has happened to his investments. Picard loftily informs him that such things don't exist anymore. Indeed, poverty and want have been abolished, but how this was accomplished is never explained. All we know is, that however it is that people make a living, it isn't through capitalism as we know it. Stocks, corporations, banking, bonds, letters of credit -- all these things seem to have disappeared. We never see Picard, or anyone else, reviewing his investment portfolio. And those who still have a lowly interest in buying and selling, like the Ferengi, are not only essentially thieves, but ultimately only accept payment in precious commodities. In the bold new future of cosmic civilization, galactic trade is carried on in little better than a Phoenician style of barter, despite the possibilities of pan-galactic banking and super-light speed money transfers made possible by "sub-space" communications.


Too much of Star Trek has always reflected trendy leftist political sentiments. It was appropriate that John Lennon's "Imagine" should have been sung at the 30th Anniversary television special: Capitalism and religion get little more respect from Star Trek than they do from Lennon. Profit simply cannot be mentioned without a sneer. The champions of profit, the Ferengi, not only perceive no difference between honest business, piracy, and swindle, but their very name, the Hindi word for "European" (from Persian Farangi), seems to be a covert rebuke to European civilization. At the same time, one can find little in the way of acknowledgement of the role of religion in life that, whether in India or in Europe, would be essential. Although exotic extraterrestrials, like the Klingons and Bajorans, have quaint religious beliefs and practices, absolutely nothing seems to be left of the historic religions of Earth: There are no Jews, no Christians, no Moslems, no Buddhists, no Hindus, no Jains, no Confucians, and no Sikhs, or anything else, on any starship or settlement in the Federation. (Star Trek is, not to put too fine a point on it, what the Nazis called "Judenfrei," free of Jews [see endnote], a condition that Marx also anticipated with the death of Capitalism -- though Leonard Nimoy did introduce, subversively, the hand sign of the Hebrew letter "shin" to signify the Trek benediction, "Live long and prosper.") With no practitioners, there are no chaplains for the crew -- no ministers, no priests, no rabbis, no mullas, no brahmins, no monks, no nuns. The closest thing to religious advice is the tedious psycho-babble of counselor Troi. The absence of traditional human religions stands in stark contrast to the more recent, shortlived science ficiton series, Firefly.


Why there is this conspicuous absence of religion is made plain in a third season Star Trek: The Next Generation episode called "Who Watches the Watchers?" It concerns a planet of people who are still at only a pre-industrial level of development but who are related to the Vulcans and, presumably because of this, are so intellectually advanced that they long ago ceased to believe in anything so absurd as a God (so some races are just smarter than others?(!?) -- sounds like some kind of racism). Because a Federation observing post and its advanced technology is inadvertently revealed, one of the natives mistakenly takes Captain Picard to himself be the God of ancient belief. He spreads the word among his people. The rest of the episode is then taken up with how this folly can be undone without otherwise distorting the natural development of the natives. In the end, they realize that Picard is not God, and they continue on their previous path of atheistic wisdom.


Such a story is so blatantly hostile to theistic religion, that it is astonishing that it provoked neither comment nor protest. Perhaps the messages contained in science fiction television are simply not noticed. Movies have a somewhat higher profile and, indeed, the futile quest for God in the fifth Star Trek movie, The Final Frontier, provoked the comment from Michael Medved, a political conservative and devout Jew, that it was the same old "secular humanism." Even the aforementioned religious beliefs and practices of the Klingons and Bajorans seem to consist of little more than ritual and mythology, and one is left with the impression that respect for such things is motivated more by cultural relativism than by a sense that they might contain religious truths of interest to others. The Star Trek universe is one without religious truths -- where the occasional disembodied spirit can be explained away with talk about "energy" or "subspace."


If daily life is not concerned with familiar economic activities and the whole of life is not informed with religious purposes, then what is life all about in Star Trek? Well, the story is about a military establishment, Star Fleet, and one ship in particular in the fleet, the Enterprise. One might not expect this to provide much of a picture of ordinary civilian life; and it doesn't. One never sees much on Earth apart from the Star Fleet Academy and Picard's family farm in France -- unless of course we include Earth's past, where the Enterprise spends much more time than on the contemporaneous Earth. Since economic life as we know it is presumed not to exist in the future, it would certainly pose a challenge to try and represent how life is conducted and how, for instance, artifacts like the Enterprise get ordered, financed, and constructed. And if it is to be represented that things like "finance" don't exist, one wonders if any of the Trek writers or producers know little details about Earth history like when Lenin wanted to get along without money and accounting and discovered that Russia's economy was collapsing on him. Marx's prescription for an economy without the cash nexus was quickly abandoned and never revived. Nevertheless, Marx's dream and Lenin's disastrous experiment is presented as the noble and glorious future in Star Trek: First Contact, where Jean Luc Picard actually says, "Money doesn't exist in the Twenty-Fourth Century."


So what one is left with in Star Trek is military life. Trying to soften this by including families and recreation on the Enterprise in fact makes the impression worse, since to the extent that such a life is ordinary and permanent for its members, it is all the easier to imagine that all life in the Federation is of this sort. Not just a military, but a militarism. In the show, this actually didn't work out very well. In the beginning, Star Trek: The Next Generation wanted to remind us of the daily life, children in school, etc. on board; and more than once the "battle hull" of the ship was separated from the "saucer" so that the civilian component of the crew would be safe from hostile action. This cumbersome expedient, however, was soon enough forgotten; and we later forget, as the Enterprise finds itself in desperate exchanges with hostile forces, that small children are undergoing the same battle damage that we see inflicted on the bridge -- unless of course it is brought to our attention because there is a story with a special focus on a child, as with Lieutenant Worf's son. In Star Trek: First Contact, crew members are being captured and turned into Borg. Does that include the children? We never see any. Do Picard's orders to shoot any Borg include Borg who were human children? This disturbing situation is completely ignored by the movie. Star Trek, therefore, cannot maintain its fiction that military life on a major warship will be friendly to families and children.


In the 20th Century there has been a conspicuous political ideology that combines militarism, the subordination of private economic activity to collective social purposes, and often the disparagement of traditional religious beliefs and scruples: Fascism, and not the conservative Fascism of Mussolini and Franco, who made their peace with the Church and drew some limits about some things (Franco even helped Jews escape from occupied France), but the unlimited "revolutionary," Nihilistic Fascism of Hitler, which recoiled from no crime and recognized no demands of conscience or God above the gods of the Führer and the Volk. Certainly the participants in all the forms of Star Trek, writers, staff, producers, actors, fans, etc., would be horrified, insulted, and outraged to be associated with a murderous and discredited ideology like Fascism; but I have already noted in these pages how naive philosophers and critics have thoughtlessly adopted the philosophical foundations of Fascism from people like Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger to what they think are "progressive" causes in the present day.


This danger has come with the corruption of the idea of "progress" away from individualism, the rule of law, private property, and voluntary exchanges -- in short the characteristics of capitalism and the free market -- into collectivist, politicized, and ultimately totalitarian directions. Star Trek well illustrates the confusion, ignorance, and self-deception that are inherent in this process. Dreams of Utopia have turned to horror in this century so often, but the same dreams continue to be promoted just because they continue to sound good to the uninformed. As Thomas Sowell recent wrote about the determination of many to find Alger Hiss innocent of espionage, regardless of the evidence:


"Hiss is dead but the lies surrounding his case linger on. So do the attitudes that seek a cheap sense of superiority by denigrating this country and picturing some foreign hell hole as a Utopia."


Star Trek has a Utopia to picture, or at least a world free of many of the ills perceived in the present, but it doesn't have to deal with anything so inconvenient as the experience of history. Star Trek is free to disparage business and profit without the need to explain what would replace them. Star Trek is free to disparage religious belief and ignore traditional religions without the need to address the existential mysteries and tragedies of real life in ways that have actually meant something to the vast majority of human beings. And it is particularly interesting that Star Trek is free to do all this with the convenience of assimilating everything to the forms of military life, where collective purpose and authority are taken for granted. Captain Picard does indeed end up rather like God, come to think of it.

-----------------------

Postscript:
Note that this discussion is based on aired episodes and movies, mainly those of the original series and of Star Trek: the Next Generation. Other materials that have been published or posted for Star Trek enthusiasts may address some issues, like whether there are always children on the Enterprise, but it is the message presented on the screen, whether on television or in the theater, seen by most casually interested viewers, that I am addressing.


Several correspondents have pointed out how the Enterprise of Star Trek: the Next Generation was destroyed in one of the movies and that the next ship was not built to contain families and children. Two points about that: (1) the movie was made after the entire series was over, so the idea of removing the families and children comes a little late to be taken too seriously; and (2) the idea that the next Enterprise to be constructed doesn't contain families or children isn't actually stated in subsequent movies but has been added in the external lore that has accumulated around the series. This can hardly be taken too seriously either. It is certainly a half-hearted response to criticisms like those voiced here. Other correspondents simply don't like capitalism and write, not to defend Star Trek against charges of being anti-capitalist, but to defend it for admittedly being anti-capitalist.

Copyright (c) 1996, 1998, 1999, 2005, 2006


*The Fascist Ideology of Star Trek, Note
To be fair, science fiction historically has really never portrayed familiar religious practices as surviving into the future. Isaac Asimov treated the situation of the Jews only indirectly by transforming all of the inhabitants of Earth into Jew-like pariahs in Caves of Steel and The Naked Sun. Star Trek, however, has special problems. A big point is made in the original series, with Scotty and Chekov, that ethnic identities, even ethnic accents, survive into the future. One "oy vay" from a character wouldn't have cost them much. Perhaps this would have been regarded as too ethnic -- reminiscent of the kinds of stereotypes and hostilities that are supposed to be absent in the future. The hostility to religion implicit in traditional science fiction, furthermore, Star Trek ends up making explicit, at least in Star Trek the Next Generation, as detailed in the text. Thus, Star Trek has a little more explaining to do for the people who are missing than most other science fiction.


[This article was originally published here. Thanks to the author for permission to reproduce for Trekdom.]