Thoughts on Season One

Revisiting the original, 1960's Star Trek is worthwhile in a lot of ways. It's always interesting to revisit the beginnings of a franchise, to see the seed from which everything else sprang. It's interesting to see how the characters and universe of Star Trek evolved. It's interesting to take a look back at archive television, to see how different weekly series were more than four decades ago.

But more than that, revisiting the first season of Star Trek has been worthwhile simply because it's a damn good show. More impressively, it's that good right out the gate.


Two Pilots

Of course, just about everyone who'd be interested in looking at Star Trek reviews knows by now that this was a series with two pilots - both of which are thankfully available. Even more fortunate is that both pilots are actually quite good.

Though it was rejected as the basis for the series, The Cage stands up as the stronger of the two as a standalone piece of television. It's a very intelligent piece of television, which cannily mixes a respectable stab at serious science fiction with a healthy dose of action and sexuality. All of these facets would reappear in the series proper, though the sexuality would be transformed from Vena's sensuality to a more juvenile, leering treatment. The Cage holds up remarkably well, and could probably have received a respectable, "B" movie theatrical release in its day.

For all of that, I can't be sorry that the network insisted on the retooling which took effect with Where No Man Has Gone Before.  This second pilot is far less intellectual, and far more basic. But it does have leads who are easier to empathize with and a crew that has a stronger sense of cameraderie. The Cage is a good mini-movie, but I don't particularly want to spend more time with its characters. Where No Man Has Gone Before presents us with characters who feel as well as just think, and that does make a difference.


Strong Writing

The element that stands out the most about the first season of Star Trek is the writing. It's good. 45 years later, much of the series has dated. The effects look a bit hokey, the backdrops are obvious (though less so in the remastered versions), even the acting has a theatrical quality that by modern standards seems a bit hammy at times. But the show still holds up as good television, and it does so because of the writing.

One of Gene Roddenberry's master strokes was to recruit genuine science fiction writers, people like Robert Bloch, Theodore Sturgeon, and Harlan Ellison. We get scripts that deal with high concepts ranging from time travel to genetic engineering to alternate realities to meditations on the positive and negative aspects of human nature. With strong script editing, most of these are turned into tight, focused television narratives. Structure is the key, and it's very rare to find a poorly-structured episode of first season Trek. I can only think of one truly sloppily-written episode, and even that had behind-the-scenes complications involving the replacement of a key actor late in the day.

These are literate, intelligent scripts that defy the reputation of Star Trek as something hammy and hokey. The ham and cheese is there, make no mistake of that. But it's a smart show too, one that rarely talks down to the viewer. Not that it always works. One concept that is seriously overplayed in the first season is that of the Enterprise encountering a godlike superbeing. By the time Kirk is receiving a lecture from a golden superbeing in Arena, I'm docking the episode's final score simply because I have grown incredibly weary of superbeings by this point. But the season is one of highly literate teleplays, with allusions to Shakespeare, Melville, Milton, and Faulkner, among others. For all the cheese (which, make no mistake, is itself part of the show's appeal), this is one of the most intelligent series of its era, and should be respected as such.


Actors & Characters

The strongest enduring appeal of the original Star Trek lies with its cast and characters. Unlike later Star Trek series, this is not an ensemble show. Kirk is the lead, and he is at the center of pretty much every episode. Spock is the second lead, and backs Kirk up. When William Shatner has a slightly lighter weak, Spock takes the focus. Both actors are consistently good in their roles, with Shatner both better and more controlled in his acting than reputation would suggest. It takes a few episodes for Leonard Nimoy to fully "find" the character of Spock. By The Naked Time, however, Spock is fully formed, and Nimoy is arguably the cast standout.

That's arguable only because of how good the third member of the "Big Three" is. After the two unsuccessful one-shot doctors featured in The Cage and Where No Man Has Gone Before, the series finally got it right with DeForest Kelly's Dr. McCoy. Introduced as a recurring character, it didn't take long for McCoy to become the series' third lead. Kelly is consistently excellent, with just the right mix of crustiness and compassion to be a good foil for his two co-stars and to be convincing in his role. Writers and actor establish a different dynamic between Kirk and McCoy than what exists between Kirk and Spock or Spock and McCoy. As a result, these three establish a dynamic partnership, with often multiple levels of interaction occuring within the same scene.

Not all is perfect. The loss of Grace Lee Whitney is a blow. Janice is extremely prominent through the first half of the season, and it's clear that she was intended to be the show's female lead. Then she disappears, with her character never so much as mentioned again. Exactly what happened isn't clear, given that there are at least three different stories I've read that all conflict with each other. It is clear that something happened behind the scenes, and it was something pretty nasty. Within the world of the show - which is what I'm reviewing, after all - the loss of Janice robs Kirk of a key character interaction, taking away one of his more interesting vulnerabilities. The evolving interactions with Spock and Dr. McCoy, and the increasing strength of the supporting cast, ultimately make up for it. But I can't help but wonder what the series would have been like had Janice remained in place.


Overall

What more is there really to be said? A "second season wishlist" would seem redundant. My wishlist for Season 2 would simply be that it match the accomplishment of the first season. This is one of the finest first seasons of a television series I think I've seen. It's not flawless. The abrupt loss of someone who was clearly intended to be the series' female lead leaves a slight hole in the second half of the series, and there are at least two too many cases of Kirk & crew encountering superbeings with godlike powers. But it's an outstanding first season, with only one really bad episode and only a couple of others that dip as low as "mediocre."

Really, the only seriously bad thing I can think to say about the first season of Star Trek is that it sets the bar so high, the rest of the series - let alone its spinoffs - can't really hope to match it.


Next: Season Two Overview


Review Index