Skip to main content

Basic Questions of Survival


Yesterday I talked up the idea of 'need-based' conflicts in stories, including Maslow's Hierarchy of Need. The few examples I gave of each level up on the pyramid strike me as inadequate so I'm going to explore each in more detail.

Star Trek: The Next Generation's first season has a reputation for being conflict free, and therefore boring. As I've rewatched the series, slowly making my way through the episodes, I don't think I agree with that entirely. Even early TNG has plenty of conflict but most of it is higher up on the pyramid and is, frankly, not well executed. I see no need to do an episode by episode review, plenty fine surveys exist online, try Jammer's for sober, nicely executed write-ups. Instead, I'm going to bend a fairly mediocre run of shows to a hopefully higher purpose, namely how can a show set in a nearly Utopian future feature compelling, strong conflicts?

I'll start by unearthing the rarest form of conflict in TNG: physiological conflicts revolving on basic questions of survival: not enough food, water, air, etc. This is different from the need of safety, or the removal of threat, which appears in this series all the time. The whole point of Roddenberry's form of Space Opera is this is a world free of material wants and diseases. Technology doesn't always work perfectly in this universe but for the most part it's malfunctions are the exceptions, not the rule. Early on in the first season, the Enterprise's chief doctor, Beverly Crusher casually informs Picard that even headaches have been banished by the 24th century. Picard's ship is equipped with holodecks and replicators able to recreate nearly any desired object. This is a post-scarcity economy.

And yet, stories where the conflict centers around basic survival do appear. Restricted to moments where the characters are not just under threat, but actually dying or dehabilitated in some fashion three episodes contain central conflicts revolving around whether or not the character can survive.

For example, in "The Last Outpost," the Enterprise confronts a Ferengi ship that had stolen some piece of Federation technology. The Ferengi prove fairly ridiculous from the first lash of their neon foam whips, draining the episode of most of its tension. However, both the Ferengi and the Enterprise have been seized by an energy draining force field controlled by an ancient intelligence on a planet  below the ships. As the power dies aboard the Enterprise, the crew is forced to huddle together and survive as best they can while waiting for the away team to resolve the situation. This conflict would be better if the crew still had some agency in the conflict. Held as virtual hostages by the fate of the away team, they make do with flimsy looking blankets and lots of shivering. Not very compelling television.



A slightly better example appears in "The Battle," the first of many episodes revolving around some hasty action Picard made earlier in his career. The father of a Ferengi Picard had killed in a desperate maneuver comes looking for revenge. Not content with simply shooting Picard while he was on shore leave, the vengeful father inflicts mental torture through an illegal piece of technology that always looked to me like a demonic lava lamp. The combination of headaches and insomnia eventually drive Picard a little nuts and he ends up attempting to destroy the Enterprise while captaining his former command, the Stargazer. Patrick Steward is an phenomenal actor, and he's able to rise above the unintentional comedy to give genuine life to a person agonized by the past. What makes this a better example of physiological conflict is that pain from the alien technology mirrors the unresolved tension of a nearly-forgotten firefight. And, far from being helpless within its grip, Picard is ultimately able to shake off the torment and clear his head for just long enough to destroy the device. It's a very simple kill or be killed situation but it works for this episode.



My last example is taken from one of the only other actiony episodes in the first season, "Arsenal of Freedom." For the most part this episode revolves around a safety conflict, an automated weapon appears again and again, adapting with each generation as it strives to wipe out an away team. Because the weapon doesn't actually kill anyone, the tension comes from the suggestion of harm, not actual danger. However, after Picard and Crusher beam down to the planet and fall into a pit, the tension shifts. Crusher is badly injured in the fall and begins to slip into shock. Here at last is a truly visceral physiological conflict, made all the better because both characters involved in the scene, Picard and Crusher, have an active role in resolving it. Crusher talks Picard through finding medicinal roots, and Picard, rooting around in the cave, makes an important discovery. The moment reveals aspects of both characters in a believable way and still feels fresh and compelling a quarter century later.



Conflicts around basic survival appear throughout the series, but for a variety of reasons they are very rare in the first season. The lack of physiological conflicts actually goes a long way to setting the tone of the show. Star Trek TNG, from the beginning, was meant to scale loftier heights than questions of simple survival. The relative absence suggests a show eager to tackle more rarified questions. I just don't think the first season writer's had it quite worked out how to finesse Roddenberry's aspirations with the needs of compelling drama. Most of these episodes are god-awful, but they had just enough promise to keep the series chugging forward.



Comments

Darren Landrum said…
That third episode you highlight also featured one other thing I really liked: an ending that didn't depend on any silly technobabble hand-waving to solve the problem. The ending actually followed on quite logically from the entirety of the story.

Popular posts from this blog

With the title World War Z

Early on in the mostly disappointing zombie epidemic thriller World War Z, UN Investigator Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) hides out in a Newark apartment, trying to convince a family living there to flee with him from the hordes of sprinting, chomping maniacs infesting the city. The phrase he uses, drawing from years of experience in the world's troubled war-zones is "movement is life." Ultimately he's unsuccessful, the family barricades their door behind him and they join the ever-swelling ranks of the undead. As far as a guiding philosophy goes for a pop-action thriller like World War Z, 'movement is life,' isn't bad. And for the first half of the movie or so, it follows its own advice. Similar to other recent zombie movies (Dawn of the Dead, Shaun of the Dead) the warning signs of what the rest of the movie will bring are subtle and buried until all hell is ready to break through. The television mentions 'martial law,' Philadelphia traffic snarl
I’m going to take a slightly abbreviated approach to this year’s best-of lists and mostly focus on movies. It’s not that I didn’t read or listen to music but for whatever reason I feel uninspired to talk about either topic. C’est la vie! So in no particular order are five movies I greatly enjoyed watching this year. Firstly, Avengers: Endgame. Well, I guess there is some order to this list because literally the first thing I thought of in terms of movies I’ve seen is this movie. It is inevitable! This is the one MCU flick it’s hard for me to remember as simply a super-hero film. Although I found its predecessor a bit more more compulsively watchable, I really enjoyed this film. First of all it’s tone, which veered from despair, heist hijinx, parental reconciliation, to epic mega-brawl was never boring. Even the gorgeous mess which is that final fight has its own interior logic and sports some of the best looking cinematography this side of Black Panther. With Endgame MCU found a

Stephen King's 2017

Despite the release of a single novel and a few short stories, 2017 has to rank up there as one of the more Stephen King ascendant years. No less than four movies based on his works appeared, including one of the most successful horror films of all time, the first part of IT. 'The Mist' (Stephen King) by Dementall.deviantart.com Of course, with King, for every high, there are plenty of lows and 2017 also provided a number of examples of how to do his works wrong. But let's start with the good stuff. The movie adaptation of IT, directed by Andres Muschietti and starring a number of talented young actors (including Finn Wolfhard of "Stranger Things" fame) really captured, for me, a lot of what I liked about the original novel. Being scary certainly helped, but with King, the horror slice is never really the whole cake. What makes King King, at least for me, is the combination of earthy, believable characters with lurid, "Tales from the Crypt&quo