In the summer Susie and I decided—perhaps over a beer or two [I do not recall]—, as we were (are!) both Trekkies of sorts, to work our way through seven seasons of ‘The Next Generation.’
We went boldly.
First we had to work our way through several other series and movies. As it was, we’d watched four seasons of ‘Mad Men’ and are looking forward to the fifth. Ah, 2012 … We contemplated ’30 Rock’ (Susie was already a fan) but held off. I convinced her to watch ‘Firefly’ (and ‘Serenity’); in exchange her mother agreed to watch the 2009 ‘Star Trek’ reboot. And before that we had watched all the ‘Star Trek’ movies, from ‘The Motion Picture’ all the way to the reboot. Then as we were preparing to move early-mid July we started a few episodes of ‘House,’ all of which I’d seen, in order to pass the time; once we got to Tuscaloosa it became a ‘project’, and we’re up to mid-season 7. 8 begins this week on TV. And then there was ‘Doctor Who’ (new series), which was a bit of a dare-chore-punishment (or: a promise to watch two episodes, but that’s it! she said), but, after one Eccleston episode and one Smith, it became a project that we just finished Saturday with ‘The Wedding of River Song.’ And let’s not even mention ‘Torchwood’ …
Whew …!
So with ‘Doctor Who’ done for now, ‘Torchwood’ advanced to ‘Miracle Day’, and the other projects likewise completed on pause until new seasons begin, it was time to start ‘The Next Generation’ … and both of us realized what a chore the first two seasons might be. Well, I say might. Well, more like will probably be. Well, I think I mean will certainly be. The A.V. Club began such a project a while back. And Daniel did something similar (is he on season 7 yet? I think so). Full reviews are therefore unnecessary. What we’re doing is not novel, but it’s an exercise in both nostalgia, shared memory, and sharing that’s kind of intriguing.
Bring on the Space Irish!
But not yet: first, ‘Encounter at Farpoint.’ I’d forgotten how long it takes to meet Riker. I’d forgotten Troi’s terrible mini-skirt/dress with boots that seemed more like a reject from the 60s series than an homage to it. How young Data looks (and Troi). I expected Riker’s lack of facial hair, but Picard still has some hair, and, as expected, all the costumes seem too … insubstantial.
It’s great entertainment to watch Patrick Stewart Shakespearing it up (yes, that’s a verb). The Battle Bridge is a throw-back to the old series, and I’d forgotten that. Expecially during Q’s kangaroo court we noticed 1) how shoddy the production values were in a way (looking particularly dated) but also 2) how much this episode (if not the series as a whole) was trying to be film on television. Just look at those cameral angles!
And Q … ah, Q. First: during the trial John de Lancie in his ‘judge’ outfit, face all wrapped up, looks like the slightly-older, mostly-male version of Eva Greene (by way of, oh, ‘Casino Royale,’ let’s say). Doubt me? Look it up. Secondly: no one seems to be having more fun on set than de Lancie, though Stewart’s ernestness comes in a close second. Frakes hits his marks, and there are scenes where it seems apparant that that’s exactly what he’s doing … mechanically nailing this, that, and these …
Earlier another friend and I were discussing an article/essay I’d not read (and still haven’t) comparing/contrasting the Roddenberry and Abrams aesthetics. Good Kantian that I am I suggested that Roddenberry is better described as providing an ‘ethics’; she suggested, perhaps, ‘ideology’ (as it’s more encompassing). I first admitted that Abrams—considering the ‘style’ of his reboot—had an ‘aesthetics’, but I then modified my position to claiming, instead, that against Roddenberry’s ‘ethics’ that Abrams (across his television creations, where Roddenberry and Abrams are shorthand for the creators gravitating toward and orbiting around them) provides more a ‘metaphysics,’ both an ontology and an epistemology. That is, his shows provide both a 1) way the world is/works and 2) a manner of knowing and experiencing said mystery-infused phenomena. In Abrams’ ‘Star Trek’ as elsewhere, ‘what to do’ is based on knowledge and how best to achieve specific goals; Roddenberry’s creations act within the limits of an ethos that has both promises (a kind of optimistic humanism) and consequences. ‘Style’ for both is less a matter of considered aesthetics—think of those lens flares, those hollow-looking ‘rocks’—, I think, and more an adoption of the standards and technology of their respective eras.
That is, nothing to see here … move along.
And to make a long story short (too late!), ‘Encounter at Farpoint’ provides a big dose of that Roddenberry ethos.
