In response to 'Finding Nimoy', Alan Ball argues the case for the science-fiction reboot, and why we need it

My friend, and editor of Avatar Mark Cotterill suggested in his recent article 'Finding Nimoy' that science-fiction entertainment has a grim future ahead; banal, clichéd products designed by committee and part of a wider cynical process of brand synergy. In some respects he’s entirely correct as film making, TV producing and any other media platform is for profit, and executives answer to shareholders as much as they do to the audience the products are designed for. But, that is how the business has always operated: what has changed?

I think it’s naïve to suggest that a product born of influences from prior art has any less a credible existence than an ‘original’ piece. In fact, I believe the opposite - many pleasures are derived from using our own knowledge to expand on a text, making our reaction to even more enjoyable. A good show is still a good show.

A particular gripe was the reboot of Star Trek (J.J. Abrams, 2009) and similar products of the late 60’s and 70’s such as Dr. Who and Battlestar Galactica. His argument is that there’s lack of ideas in the media business in general and something is ‘lost’ in translation when the executives flitter through old reels and find something to re-invent. In some ways he has a point. Values change as our society moves on, ideas and philosophies are altered beyond recognition – this used to take hundreds of years – but in our fast paced lives of technology enhanced consumption, values that were set in stone 40 years ago are overturned completely. For this reason, Mark is correct: they’re cheap imitations lacking the values of the originals. 

But should we write them off as something lesser? Absolutely not. 

Star Trek was an incredibly risky proposition. Hollywood films always have an element of risk – controlled somewhat by in-depth audience research – but Star Trek was a real gamble. Paramount cancelled its shows - the previous TV reboot Star Trek: Enterprise had a terrible reception and the last movie Nemesis did poorly (grossing only $67m on a budget of $60m – they’d lose another $20m on world-wide marketing). According to Mark’s observations, films and TV shows with a tried and tested formulae are the way to success – yet these products are both ‘by the numbers.’ Enterprise follows a similar format to The Next Generation and Nemesis builds on the previous Star Trek movie outings, employing the same cast and narrative elements that were successful before. Yet they fail. In fact all Star Trek franchises since (the excellent) First Contact have declined in audiences and revenues. So why gamble on a dying brand? The key part of this is audiences. 

The formulae of many new shows are cut directly from their ancestors of 60’s television. A whole generation of viewers have seen that show – throughout the last 50 years. The Twilight Zone, Star Trek, Blake's 7 and Dr. Who are surprisingly similar products. As Mark put it – if something is successful, why deviate from common and familiar elements? 

It’s the audience, and more importantly their values. The 60’s and 70’s were times of great change (civil rights, feminism), of great peril (Cold war, nuclear proliferation), the dream of better things (man on the moon and the space race). When these things were achieved or ended satisfactorily, these values became stale, even patronising. 

The 80’s & 90’s were different: my generation has no great cause, no enemy and with technology as great as it is, the future is now – cynicism is the death of wonder. It’s reflected in our TV too – X-Files, Stargate SG1, The Next Generation - it's ok, we’re all safe, someone is on it. The values have changed and as a result we needn’t borrow as much from the past (there are still elements, intertextuality, as all good stories need inspiration). 

Come the 00’s. In Arthur C Clarke’s greatest fantasies he wouldn’t have seen 2001’s events coming. Once again we have entered an era of great change, of great peril – and a new hope for the future. Like Gene Roddenberry’s show was a mirror to his time, then so is the reboot – and so are many other speculative shows.

These shows and films may pay homage to their predecessors in name, but they forge ahead with our new values, our new mission. BSG shows us the folly of our machinations, the downfall of our society by corruption and careless politics – and the hope at starting again through all trials. Firefly is a pastiche of Blake's 7 and borrows every element of it’s story from something else, yet is a thrilling tale of the strength of family against societies’ hardships. Other shows such as Fringe and Dollhouse have succeeded not because of their nod to the past but because they have incredible stories that pull the right emotional strings. 

Star Trek [2009] might borrow from a good idea, but the one that has been forged in its place is as relevant as its 60’s counterpart – the hope for the future after a time of great distress; the young taking hold and changing things for the better. 

The audience wins: the recognition of a good story, regardless of its background, a win for unconventional thinking. This week is the anniversary of the birth of another storyteller and perhaps one of the most ‘copied’ authors – HG Wells – a pacifist and socialist intellect, imitated by science fiction writers the world over. Is it coincidence that the Trek of the 1960’s would include the same ideas when they once again became relevant?  

Come 2009 where the audience is much more aware of previous texts, it is much harder to hide where the ideas are from – so it was brave indeed to not hide anything at all – an honest copy of a good idea. Long may that continue.