which of them collection and which film are the quality
In response to the very low hearing rate at the end of Voyager , Paramount decided to give the franchise a little more breath by making a foray into the past. Telling the story of the first spaceship Enterprise (the first ship of mankind to travel at a factor 5 distortion rate) was a way, they thought, to rid the show of all the jargon and technical gadgets and refocus the story on the main plot: the pure adventure of space travel.
It’s a good idea. Unfortunately, throughout its short existence, Enterprise has been swinging between two concepts. It’s a prequel exploring the origins of the Star Trek universe loved by fans. The series tracks the eventful but beneficial evolution of the Humans-Vulcans alliance, as well as the formation of the Federation of United Planets.
We also discover that the Humans have gone astray by associating with the Klingons and can take advantage of the very funny efforts made to explain inside the series itself, the make-up changes of the characters. We come to understand that the origins of the First Directive are related to the culture of a species composed of three genera that has tragically disappeared. We see the buggy, the version 1.0 of the universal translator, a Starfleet crew not yet broken with the teleporter technology, the “food synthesizer” (later replaced by the replicator) and other surprises.
Going back in time was supposed to rid the show of all its cult series paraphernalia. But, in fact, putting the narrative back in the past has only exacerbated these trends. If Starfleet crews had participated in a Temporal Cold War at the time of the maiden voyage of the first Enterprise ship, why was it that nobody ever mentioned it during the many explorations in the first series?
How to be passionate about a plot (which has lasted a whole season) focused on a Xindi super-weapon threatening earthlings when we have already seen in many episodes that the Earth is doing perfectly well in the future? The poor results led to the cancellation of the series before its scheduled end. I guess that’s not what the producers had in mind when they talked about finding the roots of the saga.
Yet, despite all the shortcomings of the series, the fourth season, at least, is a must see for fans of the first (and best) seasons. It is these episodes that finally reveal to us the real origins of the Federation and the reasons why it was based on the Earth, despite the relatively late arrival of the latter on the scene of the trip by distortion. It is a multi-level narrative, which includes political crises on Vulcain (“Kir’Shara”), mediation by the Enterprisebetween two races at war (“Rumors of war”), a co-operation between species against the Romulans (“fragile Pact”, “pacifists”) and, finally, the confrontation with xenophobic politicians on Earth (“The child”, “Terra Prime”). This further emphasizes that the greatest authority in the Alpha Quadrant rests, from the beginning, on peace and diplomacy missions rather than conquests.
Then came out Star Trek , the reboot of JJ Abrams. With the New Generation films showing declining success, Paramount made the dramatic decision to allow a new creative team to simply wipe out the chronology of the story. For a fan like me, the result was as exciting as it was appalling. Abrams offered us a pleasant spectacle of spatio-temporal adventures which, after years of failures, had clearly enough to seduce the public.
But the price to pay was high. So far, time travel, like all other technologies of the future, could be terrifying in theory, but in practice everything was still going well. And now an entire universe (all the adventures of Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway, etc.) was brushed aside for the needs of a director who, according to his own words, was not even not a real best star trek movie fan. In addition, as entertaining as the film was, he had no real connection with the characteristic themes of the saga.
Moreover, even if, having achieved a certain commercial success, the films had saved the franchise, the real place of Star Trek has always been television. The cinema requires what Abrams has offered: action, suspense and spectacle. But this is less suited to the main theme of the series: to describe, in great detail, life in a better future.
Utopia imposes moments of calm and tranquility, with episodes, randomly, about an android who is fond of a cat or the projects of a bartender to increase his income. You can not do a sci-fi film that works by talking only about people sitting in a conference room to discuss peaceful solutions to solving a problem – but a film that is advertised as being mainly a succession of battles thrilling space can not match what best star trek movie really is. A bunch of good guys who use advanced technologies to help people? It must be believed that this can only work on the small screen.
So I hope that the success of the Abrams film will allow the triumphant return to television that best star trek movie deserves. I also hope that this time, they will do it right. Pass it on the cable, where niche series can make great scores, and give us elaborate storylines that last for short seasons.
The most-watched Mad Men episode of the series, the first of Season 5, attracted 3.5 million viewers, a result that even the failed Enterprise series surpassed with most of its episodes. It is outrageous that in the golden age of niche television shows, we can not see any more best star trek movie series, which has almost invented this kind of television.
I will continue to dream that Abrams interstellar action movies will, at least, revive the real Star Trek. The one where the laser cannons rarely regulate anything, where the timeline is always found and where a space shuttle and its crew wander aimlessly across space to explore new strange worlds, discover new lives, new civilizations, where … to say the least, some men (and women) have already ventured, but where we would like them to return again and again.