Over more than six decades, StarTrek has expanded into one of the most successful TV and cinema franchises of the modern era. It has spawned no less than eleven spin-off series, as well as thirteen movies – not to mention innumerable novelizations, comic books, graphic novels, toys and computer games. In the 1980s it became the first TV series to make a sustained commercially successful transition to the big screen. Even today, six decades after it was broadcast, it still features prominently on a number of streaming services. Its main characters have become major cultural icons. More recently, they have even been played by new actors.
The series was distinguished by the humanistic philosophy and historical optimism of its creator Gene Roddenberry, popularly known as ‘The Great Bird of the Galaxy’. In Roddenberry’s projected utopian future, there was no more war, poverty or exploitation on Earth. Humans were no longer motivated by the need to accumulate material things but instead worked to better themselves and achieve their full potential. As the series progressed, it was established that Starfleet was the representative of an interplanetary Federation dedicated to preserving peace and freedom in its section of the galaxy. The societies of the various alien races which the series introduced – Vulcans, Klingons and Romulans – have been explored in considerable depth in the spin-off series, which have attempted to duplicate, expand and sometimes to challenge many of the dramatic cues and plot elements which the original series established.
In order to understand the original series’ appeal and to understand why it has become such a landmark in TV history, it is important to consider both the conditions of its production and the dramatic assumptions which prevailed when it was first launched. From its origins in the late 1940s to the present day, television drama has always been a ‘family affair’. Because it is consumed in a domestic setting, our favourite onscreen characters – who return to our living rooms on a weekly basis, and thus become very ‘intimate’ with us – are those we can strongly identify with. The most successful shows invite viewers to come to ‘love’ their TV heroes, who become proxy ‘friends’. The medium relies on establishing such emotional relationships between viewers and characters, so that the audiences will continue to tune in on a weekly basis, or will – in the modern age – indulge in ‘binge-watching’ a particular series.
In American television of the 1950s and 60s the vast majority of households only had one TV, so families would sit down to watch together, perhaps consuming equally pre-packaged ‘TV dinners’. Almost every successful dramatic show featured some kind of ‘family’. Many, such as the sitcom Father Knows Best (1954-60) presented a highly stereotyped picture of domestic life, in which gender and authority roles went unchallenged. In contrast, the immensely popular sitcom I Love Lucy (1951-57) featured an ambitious lead female character played by former film star Lucille Ball. The most popular soap operas, such as As the World Turns (1956-2010) were concerned with the trials and tribulations of family lives.
Even Westerns, with their characteristic focus on ‘lone riders’, generally featured their protagonists as having family responsibilities. Wagon Train (1957-65) featured a group of pioneers on a journey to the West, who formed a kind of surrogate family, as did the protagonists of Gunsmoke (1955-75). Even The Lone Ranger (1949-1957) cared for his orphaned nephew and regarded his Native American sidekick Tonto as his ‘brother’. Later successful long- running examples of the genre, such as Bonanza (1959- 1973) and The High Chaparral (1967-71) were centered around actual families.
The TV landscape was dominated by three major networks – ABC, NBC and CBS, who were dedicated to broadcasting wholesome ‘family entertainment’. Each show would be constantly interrupted by ads, so there was always pressure on the networks to cater to a docile audience, receptive to special offers and corny taglines. In order to achieve this goal, elements of plot or character that might be deemed even slightly ‘controversial’ were generally avoided. The vast majority of productions fitted into specific, established and often highly predictable categories such as Westerns, cop shows, soap operas and sitcoms. Explicit sexual references were strictly off the menu. The portrayal of violence, although obviously essential to genres like the Western, was heavily sanitised. Most shows steered well clear of political controversies. Women were nearly always represented in domestic or romantic roles. There was little racial diversity, for fear of upsetting white viewers in the Southern states. Morality, unlike casting, was presented in a strictly ‘black and white’ manner.
The networks were naturally loathe to move away from such formulaic programming, as it was making them big profits from advertising revenue. Shows were churned out rapidly on an assembly-line basis, with budgets and production schedules which were dwarfed by those of contemporary Hollywood movies. The 1963 epic Cleopatra, for example, cost $44 million, while the budget for an entire 30-episode series of Gunsmoke came to less than a tenth of that figure. Each episode had to be created in around a week, which inevitably meant that production values were, by cinematic standards, very basic. Despite this, by 1961 this extremely long-running Western was averaging around 17 million viewers per week. Any show that failed to attract a mass ‘family audience’ was likely to be cancelled. It was hardly surprising, then, that the vast majority of TV was regarded by serious artists and intellectuals as ‘trash’ – created purely for ‘mindless’ entertainment for the ‘uncultured masses’.
Today’s television landscape is, of course, very different. A plethora of TV stations now operates on local, national and even international levels. Television sets themselves are much larger and the most popular shows strive to be as cinematic as possible, while often featuring established Hollywood stars. The great majority of households now have several screens and programming tends to be highly segmented, in order to appeal to specific age and interest groups. The dominance of the major networks has been heavily challenged by streaming subscription services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime which, due to the fusion of television and Internet technologies, have achieved a global reach. Many TV shows have abandoned the once-dominant formula of ‘stand-alone’ episodes, which allowed viewers to ‘latch onto’ a show at any point. Casting of racial minorities has greatly expanded, and women are frequently shown in authoritative roles or are portrayed as being quite capable of ‘kicking ass’.
In recent decades, ground-breaking TV shows, such as Twin Peaks (1990-91 and 2017), The Sopranos (1999-2007), The Wire (2002-2008, Mad Men (2007-2015), Breaking Bad (2008-2013), The Handmaid’s Tale (2017-25) and Better Call Saul (2015-22) have demonstrated that the medium can be as powerful, challenging and aesthetically satisfying as the best cinema films. Indeed, with much of modern Hollywood movie production now devoted to endless Superhero adventures, it has been argued that such ‘quality’ TV shows have stolen the intellectual high ground from the cinema.
A number of TV productions now feature ‘small screen’ versions of popular cinematic franchises such as Star Wars, Superman and the Marvel ‘universe’. Major Hollywood studios now operate in both mediums. Thus the boundaries between TV and cinema have, to some extent dissolved. Despite this, most dramatic TV shows are still based around ‘family’ dynamics. The Sopranos, for example, was quite explicitly a mixture of the gangster genre and the soap opera, mixing violent plot lines with family conflicts.
In the modern climate, very few TV shows from the 1960s, with their outmoded production values and ‘old fashioned’ morality, still cut it with modern audiences. A handful of these, such as The Twilight Zone (1959-64), The Andy Griffith Show (1960-68), Gilligan’s Island (1964-67) and The Addams Family (1964-66) are still popular, although often in modernized or rebooted versions. But the original series of Star Trek (1966-69) still attracts large audiences, especially on streaming services. Star Trek functions as a bridge between the early days of TV and its modern equivalent.
Gene Roddenberry had an uneasy relationship with network executives. He was determined that his series would deal with the kinds of themes which had been explored in literature and cinema but which TV tended to neglect, such as racial prejudice, cultural imperialism, religious dogmatism and the morality of war. In order to do so, he had to sell the show to the ‘suits’ as an exciting, action-packed series with a strong interpersonal dynamic, with a particular appeal to young adult and teenage viewers. Up to this point, most TV sci-fi had been highly melodramatic, even infantile, low-budget ‘kids fodder’. In order to persuade the networks to accept his pitch, Roddenberry famously characterised his proposed series as ‘Wagon Train to the stars’.
This seemed to strike a chord with the ‘money men’ who were aware that, by 1964, when the series was being proposed, public tastes were changing and that younger viewers were beginning to consider the established TV genres as rather ‘old hat’. They took the risk of green-lighting Roddenberry’s proposal, providing him with a generous budget for the pilot episode The Cage. Despite rejecting this initial effort, they took the unprecedented step of financing a second pilot, which established the characters and the scenario that fans would soon come to identify with so strongly. The network executives were, however, less than pleased with the viewing figures that the series attracted. In its original three-year run, Star Trek failed to attract a massive audience compared to more ‘mainstream’ shows and it was constantly being considered for cancellation.
It soon became clear, however, that the show was attracting an unusually loyal, enthusiastic and dedicated fan base. There were a number of reasons for this. It was certainly a product of the 1960s ‘space age’, in which the US and the Soviet Union vied for dominance, and became a kind of pot-pourri of SF concepts, many drawn from the established literature in the field. Yet while popular classic novels such as Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, Arthur C. Clarke’s Childhood’s End and John Wyndham’s The Day of The Triffids, presented a range of dystopian visions of the future, Star Trek posited that, by the 23rd century, humanity had transcended its tribal rivalries and had thrown off the prejudices and superstitions that had held it back for so long.
On Earth, we were told, technology had created a post-scarcity economy in which war, poverty and social discrimination had vanished. In the post Cuban Missile Crisis era, in which the whole of human civilisation had teetered on the brink of destruction, such a positive message had great appeal, especially to young adults and teenagers. Today, any divergence from Roddenberry’s original conception of the series is likely to invite considerable wrath from an extremely well-versed fan base who (as their massive Internet presence now demonstrates) have become ‘guardians’ of the show’s precious ‘canon’.
Star Trek offered hope to a disillusioned generation, whose disaffection became even stronger as American involvement in the Vietnam war became more and more committed. Perhaps the greatest appeal of the series, however, lay in its deployment of a ‘family’ of strong, appealing and ‘loveable’ characters. Although its supporting cast of Scotty, Uhura, Sulu and Chekov were often ‘underwritten’, each had a specific audience appeal. The intelligent and resourceful action hero Captain Kirk, the ‘voice of emotion’ Dr. McCoy and the ultra-logical Vulcan Mr. Spock often interacted like bickering family members but were, at the same time, intensely loyal to each other. And the fans soon came to ‘love’ them, almost as if they were members of their own families – so much so that the cancellation of the series after its second season was prevented when an unprecedented letter-writing campaign, which took the networks by surprise, caused a change of mind by the ‘suits’. Just as the characters onscreen formed familial bonds, the fan community regarded itself as a close-knit ‘family’.
The importance of Spock as a character in the continuing popularity of Star Trek cannot be underestimated. While William Shatner’s name always appeared first in the opening credits for his role as the series’ leading man, Captain Kirk, it soon became clear that it was the existence of Spock that really made the show stand out. This was illustrated by the fact that Leonard Nimoy was getting more fan mail than Shatner and that he had – perhaps rather surprisingly, given his supposedly unemotional demeanour – a strong appeal to female viewers. A character like this had never been seen on TV before. Nimoy’s brilliantly nuanced portrayal established Spock as one of the most iconic figures in twentieth century entertainment. Every succeeding series of Star Trek tried to include a ‘Spock-like’ character, who either had ‘no emotions’ (as in the android Data in The Next Generation) or who had to ‘learn to be human’ (such as Odo in Deep Space Nine or Seven of Nine in Voyager) – characters who allowed the series’ writers to explore the nature of humanity itself.
It was only when the series passed into syndication in the 1970s that its real widespread popularity took off. Up till now, TV shows had been regarded as largely disposable. Yet in the eyes of the Star Trek fans, the series had a great richness which rewarded almost unlimited re-watching. Throughout the decade, although the original sets had long been destroyed and the actors, producers and directors had moved on to new projects, its popularity continued to grow. Large scale conventions to celebrate the show were organised, at which cast members made guest appearances, fans turned up in home-made Starfleet uniforms or ‘disguised’ as Vulcans or Klingons.
Meanwhile, the actors became frequent guests on chat shows and sales of Star Trek-related paraphernalia such as action figures and spaceship models rose. Novels featuring the characters in the series achieved considerable sales. By the later years of the decade, the series’ iconic status had been established. This was illustrated by the rather extraordinary decision by President Gerald Ford in 1977 to name the first NASA space shuttle Enterprise, in honour of the series’ beloved starship. The film series, and later the new TV shows, followed. The Next Generation ran for seven years from 1988, as did Deep Space Nine (from 1992) and Voyager (from 1995). The prequel series Enterprise (2001-2005) was cancelled due to disappointing viewing figures after four seasons, after which the franchise remained in hiatus for the next five years.
After the box-office success of a new ‘rebooted’ movie series between 2009 and 2016, Star Trek returned to television under new franchise head Alex Kurtzman. A plethora of new series followed. Both Discovery (2017-24) and Strange New Worlds (2022-27) were direct prequels to the original series. Picard (2020-23) was a tribute to the characters of the Next Generation. Lower Decks 2020-24) and Prodigy (2021-24) were animated series aimed at adults and children respectively. Starfleet Academy (2025-27) was set in the 29th century, which Discovery had time-warped into in its third season. In the manner of twenty-first century TV productions, these series had shorter episode runs than their predecessors and relied heavily on modern computer- animated special effects. They provoked much controversy among fans, many of whom questioned whether they were ‘real Star Trek’.
When a TV series launches, there is always uncertainty as to how it will develop. Shows which are deemed unsuccessful in terms of ratings may be taken off the screen well before they have had time to really establish themselves. When Star Trek began, many of the familiar aspects of its universe had yet to be defined. In this book I have attempted to trace the way in which each of the episodes and movies featuring the original cast and characters added to its evolving mythos, through the addition of iconic elements such as the transporter, the Vulcan mind-meld and the various alien cultures that are encountered. I have also looked at how these elements have affected the development, in terms of plot and character, of the other series. I am thus presenting a retrospective view of the ‘founding texts’ of the franchise.
Although Star Trek adopted a basically progressive agenda, in which the values of tolerance and cultural diversity have been strongly emphasised. At the same time, the series has a militaristic structure, with its ranks being directly based on those in the US Navy. And although society on Earth is referred to as a peaceful utopia, we are rarely given a glimpse of how this actually functions. Although there is supposedly little conflict on Earth, wars with other, even more militaristic, races are said to have occurred. On occasions, it may be argued that the Federation appears to resemble an interventionist or even a colonialist force. I have examined the contradictions that are thus present in its original formation in the context of the era in which it was made.
The book also addresses the question of authorship in Star Trek. It assesses the contribution of show runners, writers, producers and actors to the creation of the ‘Star Trek universe’. Any multi-episode TV series is always the result of collaboration between different individuals. There is always a tendency to assign all the credit to its main show-runner, who is sometimes seen as the equivalent of an auteur-director in cinema. In the case of Star Trek, series creator Gene Roddenberry was certainly a dominant presence. Other key figures, however, can be said to have had a crucial influence on the development of the show and I have endeavored to identify their key contributions.
One must not, however, be too po-faced about all of this. It is important to remember that, although it deals with many SF concepts, it can rarely be described as ‘hard sc-fi’. Despite its inclusion of political, psychological and philosophical themes, Star Trek was a form of ‘pulp fiction’ which, while it included some believable scientific concepts, also incorporated some of the action-adventure elements and fantastical scenarios which dominated earlier popular pulp SF such as the Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers series. It also took many diversions into fantasy, comedy and genre parody. Its plots are frequently highly melodramatic and, at times, it delivers its ‘messages’ in a heavy-handed way.
It might be argued, however, that by mixing such elements with serious contemporary concerns, Star Trek elevated ‘pulp fiction’ itself into a valid and meaningful art form. But in order to identify the ground-breaking qualities which made it such a phenomenon, it is necessary to maintain a certain ironic distance. Star Trek has often been described, perhaps somewhat pejoratively but actually quite accurately, as a ‘space opera’. Its dramatic interactions are often highly stylised, especially by today’s standards. But these ‘over-the-top’ elements, such as the often histrionic or ‘operatic’ performances by William Shatner as Captain Kirk, are a vital part of the series’ charm. In writing this book, I have tried to bear this in mind throughout. While respecting its often serious intentions, at times I have therefore adopted a somewhat tongue-in-cheek approach to the material. This is a show which, despite its often serious intent, is also meant to be great fun.
Leave a Reply