Exclusive Interview: Wil Wheaton Talks Trek Past, Present and Future

ps: does anyone know what het does for al living besides writing books and going to conventions? Is he still in the movie business?

It seems like sometimes Wil Wheaton is the only Trek related person to give honest opinions about the new movie. Everyone else says its going to be awesome, without giving any reason why, but just that it is. But I think Wheaton says what is on the mind of a lot of us Trekkies, that we feel that the movie looks like a sifi action movie wrapped in a Starfleet uniform. And yes, its being marketed to non-trekkies because they know we’ll go see it no matter what. But I, like him, remain cautiously optimistic.

I remember that episode, The Bonding, where they had this wonderful scene (pictured above) in which Troi was trying to make Jeremy see how others delt with loss in their lives and moved on by accepting it and letting go. It was a little startling to see how wounded they all were (especially Wesley, who finally got his chance to give Picard his grief over the loss of his father and subsequent forgiveness; that scene between Stewart and Wheaton was priceless) but were made stronger because they were all part of the Enterprise family. And the final scene where Worf made the young lad a place in his family. Yes, TNG finally came around as great story telling of the human condition.

@7 – He’s already done those ;) http://www.tvsquad.com/2006/12/05/star-trek-the-next-generation-justice/ and http://www.tvsquad.com/2006/09/08/star-trek-the-next-generation-the-naked-now/

Full list was posted above at http://www.tvsquad.com/bloggers/wil-wheaton/

I don’t know how likely it is, but having read a couple of his reviews, I’d love to see him do the entire Next Generation series. Granted, he wouldn’t always have the behind-the-scenes memories for the later seasons, but I still think it’d be good fun.

“They thought it was cool and exciting, so good job! They are not making the trailer for me — they are making it for this other audience and Star Trek fans should be really excited about that. They really need to get my kids and their friends, and a next generation, if you will pardon the pun, into the theater, so that Star Trek can keep going. If they are going to keep going, Star Trek has to be made relevant to the millennials.”

I really like most of Wheaton’s approach to the upcoming film. He absolutely right about that. That is a very grounded approach, and one that I share in regard to my own children and their peers.

Here is where he and I don’t quite see ‘eye-to-eye’:

“I wasn’t crazy about the trailer, speaking strictly as a Star Trek fan. It felt like a sci-fi action movie, with Star Trek costumes.”

He uses the descriptive term, “sci-fi action movie” in a pejorative manner. I don’t see it that way. The ‘Star Trek’ that I grew up with could easily be described as “sci-fi action”, so I’m not sure why he presents that term in a negative light .

TOS was sexy, romantic, adventurous, and truly unafraid of a good old fashioned bare-knuckled fistfight…Since that is the ‘Star Trek’ I love anyway, I hope that the upcoming film has those elements, along with fulfillment of the promise that the distinctly ‘Star Trek’ vision of an optimistic future will be left intact.

But I do respect his approach in general. It’s quite down to Earth.

11. Sean, i remember the let-down coming off the the fanboy high of Farpoint, which in itself was crap, and then seeing “Code of Honor.”

I have never watched it since its original airing, so WW’s review served as a refresher.

TOS aside, I think the “episode 2” of every Trek series was a clunker. TNG rubbed it in, however, with “Naked Now,” “Justice” and “Angel One,” etc. It was a shame Tracy Torme didn’t stick around as “The Big Goodbye” was terrific.

And thank goodness they defied the Writers’ Guide and brought in the Klingons in “Heart of Glory.” Worse luck with the Romulans, playing second fiddle to some stupid unfrozen humans, and wearing horrid shoulderpads and bumpy foreheads. Ahh, history!

#14—Funny….My TiVo dvr picked up “The Naked Now” under ‘Suggestions’ this week!!!

:)

Like Wil Wheaton Ive have been working hard to avoid all spoilers as well.

Ive only seen the trailer and the first pic of the Enterprise !!!

I hope theres more Spoiler free fans out there !!

:o)

17 – I’m definately there on thanking the guy who said “Go Stewart”.

I distinctly remember my deep disappointment in 1988 when TNG first came on the air, and I saw how godawful the first episode was… and then how I hoped, with each successive episode, that the show would improve… but it didn’t. Instead, the entire first season was an atrocious embarrassment… and the second season was hardly any better. It puzzled me at first why this should be so, when the first season of TOS was so amazingly great, and the second season was, if anything, even better. Was the writing and production staff on TNG just terrible, whereas TOS had been great? Had Roddenberry lost all his skills over the years? Fixing blame was hard to do, but it was easy to recognize what was wrong–TOS had been–despite the stigma attached to sci fi at the time–a much more adult show, written by and produced by grown-up people who had had hard experiences in life (Roddenberry, Gene Coon, etc.) and were thus less likely to truck in nonsense. When *romance* showed up on TOS, it was more juvenile and one dimensional…with the occasional rare exception (City on the Edge of Forever, for instance)… but when it reached for other human themes, and action, it always fared far better. Writing and production and editing molded together to produce episodes that, on the scale of TV drama, were always closer to the high end. Hardly ever AT the high point–but close. Whereas TNG started out *always* juvenile and sophomoric and silly, and struggled and scratched its way up over 7 seasons to get away from that and closer to more adult drama. It hit it, a few times, where it managed to do a good job–but it was never consistently there. Instead we’d still have to suffer–right up to the end–appearances from the awful and ridiculous “Q” character–a character and a device right out of the worst periods of “Lost in Space” (which was not John DeLancie’s fault–he’s a good and very likeable actor–but the idea of the character and the overall concept was terrible and silly) and asides to other silly and poorly realized characters and situations. TNG never managed to fully get away from this. It was a much more juvenile show than TOS, but why? Just different times? But why should that be so? If anything, you’d expect the more jaded, less innocent, more cynical modern types to produce a show that was MORE adult than TOS, not less. Well, one answer, perhaps, is that sci-fi, while having long since thrown off its truly childish edge, has also gotten worse in regards to how it manages to depict real human situations, emotions, and characters. But again, this isn’t always the case. Was it the shift to Roddenberry’s overly touchy-feely vision of the future, from the more simple and general optimism of the 60’s TOS to the 80s, when the vision became sickeningly cultish and weird? But Roddenberry wasn’t doing all the writing, by any means. I place some blame on David Gerrold, who, if I’m not mistaken, wrote the bible for TNG in the early days–and Gerrold, I personally believe, has always been nothing but a one-trick pony who wrote one very good but lightweight episode of TOS, then did a less-than-stellar story editor job in the third season, and then went on to do a workmanlike job on Land of the Lost shortly after. (I forget what role, exactly, he played in the animated ST series). But that’s it. I tried reading some of his other works and found them dull or downright unbearable. And if he’s responsible for setting some of the tone and for creating or at least fleshing out some or all of the characters of TNG—then clearly there’s the origin of some of the problems right there. Gerrold, I understand, was the one responsible for inserting the insufferable character of the “Ship’s Counselor,” a ridiculous and pansy-ass concept if there ever was one (this is not a slur on Gerrold’s sexual orientation–I couldn’t care less about that–merely a comment on the nature of the “Ship’s Counselor’s” role, which was the worst “touchy-feely” cutesy aspect of the entire TNG) as was the idea of inserting children on the Enterprise, of the character of Wesley Crusher himself (which only served to further emphasize the childish or adolescent nature of the show and also served to make Picard look less realistic, as he walked around the whole first and second seasons treating Wesley like shit, when this was supposed to be the now-fatherless son of Picard’s freakin’ BEST friend) of Data, who was by *their own admittance* simply a mechanized Peter Pan (more child-crap) of the character of Natasha Yar, some idiot’s idea of what a “tough” woman should be like—of Geordi (stupid names were also stock… Read more »

A note for Trekmovie’s Kayla Iocovino: If you are at the convention tonight, track me down at my SF Tube Talk panel at 8 pm.

Great interview. I’ve always been pleasantly surprised by Mr. Wheaton’s openness, honesty and candor about the franchise and his own fandom.

#27

“Funny thing that “Justice” would be pointed out as a weakness, as I remember reading fairly recently of a similar event (real time) that resulted in a harsh sentence (if not death). I wish I could recall the details (dammit!).”

That’s a good point, Doug. I suppose there are a lot of ‘frivolous’ laws out there. I just found the concept of disobeying a ‘Don’t Walk on the Grass’ sign being punishable by death really goofy. Then again, maybe it was that the planet was full of blonde joggers that irked me more! ;)

I love TNG though, and I’ll disagree with Randall – I think Seasons 3-6 were outstanding, and featured stories and issues that TOS simply couldn’t have realistically dealt with. Each show was a reflection of the times they were produced in, and I think that’s what kept Trek going for a long time. To me, that was the misstep with VOY & ENT – I never felt they tied us back to today in a very interesting way. From TOS to TNG to DS9, I felt a very clear lineage and progression, whereas VOY & ENT both felt like TNG Lite (to me).

sean #28:

I grant that you’ve hit on a good point about VOY and ENT feeling like “TNG Lite”—that’s a good way to put it. And VERY “Lite” at that.

As for some of the seasons of TNG being “outstanding,” that’s a matter of opinion, of course–but I never said I hated TNG–I merely maintain that it was inferior overall to TOS for the reasons I gave. And I realize that’s MY opinion–but certainly no one can seriously or reasonably argue with a straight face that TNG wasn’t often very silly, stilted, and adolescent.

But this idea of each series being a “reflection of its time” is a cop-out. This should have nothing to do with good, grown-up storytelling and certainly should have nothing to do with talent and good ideas. And I most certainly cannot agree with your statement that TNG did ANY stories that TOS “couldn’t have realistically dealt with.” Frankly, I challenge you to present these–because when I wrack my memories of TNG, I can’t think of one.

Again—I don’t hate TNG. I think it was a GOOD show, after it’s first couple seasons (but for the first two, it was abysmal). But TOS was a *great* show—which is clearly evident from the fact that it was TOS which is still the cultural icon today–and had it never existed, and TNG had been the “first” Star Trek series—then Star Trek would not be the iconic phenomenon it is today–and has been for over 40 years. And there are numerous reasons to believe this—it isn’t simply a matter of preferring the old over the new.

So sorry to hear the bad news, Doug, but glad to hear the good news that you’re OK and still able to get in touch with us!

22/Randall:

I have to disagree with your slamming of TNG. The early years definitely sucked wind, but the early use of Q as a device grounded TNG firmly in the liberal camp during a conservative US presidency.

I think GR and DCF really wanted to throw that view into the face of the viewing public. “Here we are at a million per episode, and this is what we gotta say.” And John DeLancie channels Oliver North in the first 10 minutes. His bookending of the series in “All Good Things” was appropriate and well played.

It’s a given that TNG went through a few tough years. A writers’ strike and rumored internal turmoil did not help, either. But they did it anyway, and rejuvenated our show, so I’ll take the good with the bad.

AJ #34:

“the early use of Q as a device grounded TNG firmly in the liberal camp during a conservative US presidency.”

Huh? Come on AJ, quit smoking that stuff, it’s making your brain fuzzy.

A) Q was a ridiculous, silly character and concept, and not because he was really “meant” to be. As I said, it was a character and idea right out of Lost in Space. Take a look at the difference between TNG and TOS on this point. TNG: Q–a smarmy, cloying, cutesy character who is supposed to be a superior being. Do we really believe that for a moment? I certainly never did. It turned me off from the get-go. But TOS? The Organians, for just one example—serious, otherworldly, eerie, even creepy superbeings who, in the end, couldn’t stand to be near primitives like ourselves. THAT makes sense, and moreover is the ADULT way a story is told and a character is created. Q, on the other hand, was not only childISH, but was written as though a childish MIND had created him. In TOS, “Squire Trelane” (a character many have linked with the “Q”) even though he DID turn out to be a “child” of sorts, still acted twice as “grown up” than Q ever did–in the ways that it mattered. AND TOS dispensed with the character in ONE episode, because in those days that’s all such a character was worth.

B) Do you really think we needed to be reminded of Star Trek’s general political orientation? That’s just silly. Moreover, if you wanted to take a stance in that sense—well, to begin with, TOS was never political in that way–politics date and weigh down drama, AJ. But if you wanted to take such a stance, one would think you’d do it seriously and thoughtfully, not sophomorically and embarrassingly, the way it was done with Q. The concept is cringe-making, and even as satire it failed utterly. As I said, pure Lost in Space stuff.

“I think GR and DCF really wanted to throw that view into the face of the viewing public. “Here we are at a million per episode, and this is what we gotta say.” ”

Then they should have–and could have–said it with FAR more aplomb and class and style than inventing some moronic concept like “Q.” Whenever you have a character who can best be described as an “imp,” you know you’re in deep trouble, dramatically. You’ve in fact left the region of drama and entered the region of silly and pompous.

“And John DeLancie channels Oliver North in the first 10 minutes. His bookending of the series in “All Good Things” was appropriate and well played.”

Well, I disagree. You already know what I think of the character—but tell me how the final episode even made sense. To me it made none, and only served to remind us that TNG was NEVER a truly serious show–it was always more than a shade juvenile in presentation and outlook.

It was a fun episode, but logically didn’t cut it and dramatically was to me, a let down.

And I LIKE John DeLancie as an actor.

#30 “but certainly no one can seriously or reasonably argue with a straight face that TNG wasn’t often very silly, stilted, and adolescent.” True Randall, but as the saying goes if you’re pointing a finger at TNG, you have 3 more pointing back at TOS. I’ve often said that TOS has what I’d essentially call 20-25 ‘great’ episodes, 20 or so ‘okay’ episodes, and roughly 30 real clunkers. You’re going to tell me ‘Not Morg. EYEmorg’ isn’t silly, stilted and adolescent? Silly and adolescent, at the very least. I loved TOS before there was a TNG, but I’m not afraid to look at it with a critical eye. “But this idea of each series being a “reflection of its time” is a cop-out. This should have nothing to do with good, grown-up storytelling and certainly should have nothing to do with talent and good ideas. And I most certainly cannot agree with your statement that TNG did ANY stories that TOS “couldn’t have realistically dealt with.” Frankly, I challenge you to present these–because when I wrack my memories of TNG, I can’t think of one.” I don’t see how that’s a copout. How can you possibly argue that TOS wasn’t a reflection of the 60s? Or that TNG was of the 80s? I didn’t imply that’s an excuse for bad storytelling. I just think that the fact that both shows were period pieces – of a sort – can help put certain idiosyncrasies into perspective. In terms of the kinds of stories TNG could do that I don’t believe TOS could ever have done (or likely would not have tackled), ‘The Inner Light’ comes instantly to mind. Sure, it might have a cousin twice removed in ‘The Paradise Syndrome’, but the former had an emotional resonance I’ve never seen repeated in any TOS episode (and also didn’t feature any ‘I AM KIROK’ proclamations), save possibly ‘The City on the Edge of Forever’. Still, it was one of the moments where I realized the show had surpassed its predecessor in some ways (that and seeing Star Trek V while TNG was entering its 3rd Season – ouch), in terms of the power of the storytelling. It worked on an emotional level that TOS had a tendency to stay far away from. The effects of that episode followed Picard for some time and continued to be referenced, whereas any trauma Kirk suffered was usually temporary and never referenced again. Famous – or should I say infamous – example: Spock giving Kirk the infamous ‘forget’ meld. A touching moment for the characters, but also a convenient plot point that would allow the writers to never have to acknowledge the events of the episode again. Not to mention the daft idea that Kirk somehow fell more in love with an android he’d barely just met and that it was having such an effect on him that his duties were suffering. We’re to believe this 5 minute love affair was more devastating than Edith Keeler? Carol Marcus? I digress… On a different front, I’d argue a show like ‘Lower Decks’ would never have worked on TOS, either. One of The Original Series’ strengths was the Kirk-Spock-McCoy troika, but it was also a weakness/limitation in that we rarely saw what life was like if you weren’t Kirk, Spock or McCoy. Oh, we got tastes of life for Scotty and Uhura and Sulu and Chekhov here and there, but those characters were rarely allowed to shine, and especially not brighter than the Big Three. TNG was a true ensemble, and apparently lacked the ‘line counting’ that notoriously took place on TOS behind the scenes. It’s a different formula, but one I could always appreciate. “Again—I don’t hate TNG. I think it was a GOOD show, after it’s first couple seasons (but for the first two, it was abysmal). But TOS was a *great* show—which is clearly evident from the fact that it was TOS which is still the cultural icon today–and had it never existed, and TNG had been the “first” Star Trek series—then Star Trek would not be the iconic phenomenon it is today–and has been for over 40 years. And there are numerous reasons to believe this—it isn’t simply a matter of preferring the old over the new.” Since we have no way of going back in time or trying out Bob’s Many Worlds theory, I don’t think anyone can say what it would have been like had TNG come first. But I think that’s missing the point anyway – TNG wouldn’t have been made in the 60s because it wasn’t in tune with the storytelling or nature of TV programming at the time. The same as you couldn’t have had DS9 before you had TNG. We can argue ‘what ifs’ ’till we’re blue in… Read more »

#38—” I’ve often said that TOS has what I’d essentially call 20-25 ‘great’ episodes, 20 or so ‘okay’ episodes, and roughly 30 real clunkers. You’re going to tell me ‘Not Morg. EYEmorg’ isn’t silly, stilted and adolescent? Silly and adolescent, at the very least. I loved TOS before there was a TNG, but I’m not afraid to look at it with a critical eye.”

Absolutely. You and I have always been on the same page with this (among other things!).

I’ll grant TOS (in only 3 seasons) 20 great episodes…and the rest range from decent to horrendous.

The difference for me is, I can’t name 20 episodes of TNG (in 7 seasons) that I can even sit through…but, as you say, a whole lot of people must disagree, since it generated enough interest to remain on the air for 7 seasons.

And I have always said that my investment in the characters of TOS allowed (and still allows) me to look past its weaker links. And of course, many of the worst episodes of TOS are so bad— they’re absolutely fantastic!!!

Gonna crack my knuckles
and jump for joy,
Gotta clean bill of health
from Dr. McCoy!

Brain? What is brain?

And I nearly fell out of my chair recently when I saw a clip from “Plato’s Stepchildren”.

In some ways, TOS isn’t as good without some of those “bad” moments…

Sean:

One other thing—I cannot agree that TNG was iconic. TOS, yes, certainly. But TNG, no. Nor was Deep Space, nor was VOY, nor was ENT. “Iconic” is more than popular. Something isn’t iconic just because it hits high ratings numbers.

TOS was iconic because it created new, interesting, sometimes surreal situations and characters. It stepped off the foundations of earlier sci fi and blended them with action/adventure into a new mix. And it took with it character archetypes, like the iconic hero (Kirk as both Hornblower and Hamlet, loner Sheriff in a Western and heroic WWII ship captain… Spock as the eternal man of two minds, at war with himself…. McCoy as the everyman, the ordinary guy, etc.) This stuff resonated deeply with generations and STILL DOES. That’s why Abrams has gone back to it.

Whereas TNG NEVER reached that level because it wasn’t based on that kind of stuff–to its detriment. Instead, if should have been. But it wasn’t. And in time it will be much more forgotten than remembered, whereas TOS will probably live on as much as it ever has.

#42

I think this is a matter of perspective and can be argued. Many, many people identified with the characters and iconography of TNG. You didn’t, fair enough. My good buddy Closettrekker didn’t either. Some would argue, however, that TNG took TOS and built upon it, morphed it, molded it into something else that was nonetheless just as important. Picard or Data may not be icons to you, but they are to many. People remember those characters. They’re referenced, ruminated on and held in high esteem. They’ve appeared on the covers of countless magazines. There was a point in the 90s where Entertainment Weekly practically turned into TNG Weekly. Time had Picard & Kirk on the cover for ‘Generations’ – to the best of my knowledge the only time a Trek actor has appeared there.

Heck, look at the production team on this new movie – they’re mostly confessed TNG fans. As I said before, there’s an entire generation that grew up with TNG, not TOS, and that generation frequently thinks of TNG when they think Star Trek. In terms of the mainstream, TNG won nearly 20 Emmy Awards and was nomintated for over 60 during its run. The episode I mentioned previously, ‘The Inner Light’, was the first television program since the original Star Trek to win a Hugo. ‘All Good Things’ would go on to tie TOS by winning one as well. In the Christies auction of Star Trek memorabilia it was the Enterprise-D (no bloody A, B or C) that sold for the greatest amount. The freakin’ flute from ‘The Inner Light’ sold for nearly 50 grand! Look at Family Guy. It’s an incredibly mainstream show, and its Trek parodies are almost entirely TOS & TNG (I’d say they actually parody TNG even more, and the upcoming Star Trek-centric 1 hour episode will reassemble all 7 leads from TNG). If there was no recognition for the TNG characters, those jokes wouldn’t work with the audience.

I don’t use those facts to try to argue for a ‘better than’ status for TNG. I fully recognize TOS as the first, the biggest, the best, as far as recognition goes. The point I am trying to make is that given all the aforementioned facts, you have to recognize that there is a huge following for TNG inside as well as outside of Star Trek fandom and that it has become iconic in its own right. Regardless of whether you personally enjoy it or find it inferior.

I would also argue that Abrams decision to make his film based on TOS is more about that previously mentioned oversaturation than it was about TOS being ‘better’ than TNG. When a franchise suffers from bloat, it is not uncommon to go back to the beginning and essentially go for a fresh start to reacquaint your audience with the foundational elements. That’s why I have no problem with them ditching certain elements of the character histories in favor of streamlining but retaining the ‘core’ elements of the characters. Star Trek needed a ‘do over’.

I always kind of balk at the characterizations of the Enterprise-D as “U.S.S. Hilton,” etc. The Galaxy Class was designed to be away from a starbase/habitable planet for years on end. Is it so hard to believe Starfleet might try to add some comfort to the ship?

#43 –
Seriously, you are going to yell at Wil Wheaton for saying that surgery kept him from writing his fiction? I mean, really? Maybe it was some other issues, some kind of personal problem, maybe even a more serious medical event, that he might not wanted to have shared with you. I guess I just don’t get it when people question things like this of celebrities/writers/actors. I don’t know, why didn’t you accomplish everything you set out to do last year? Would you like to share every single reason/excuse with the WHOLE WORLD? I’d say he is doing pretty good attending so many conventions, writing on his blog, twittering, and publishing books, not to mention apparently putting a kid through college.

I guess I just don’t understand the complete negativity that comes across in many of these post lines, whether it be about one of the series, the new movie, or individuals involved in Star Trek. Not to say the criticism is a bad thing, because we should very much discuss pro’s and con’s. But sometimes I feel people get a little too wrapped up in discussing the bad, or what they “hate” (though I don’t understand why anyone posting on a Star Trek website, especially this one, would have such harsh feelings towards anything Trek), or bashing on writers/producers/actors. Look at Wil’s reviews. I mean, wow, they are f’ing hilarious, and seriously bash on TNG, but at the same time, he is able to step back, take a fair look, and examine the good in them. I know that ratings alone don’t give a show merit (otherwise reality television would be a god-send), but it does say that there must have been something there to keep people interested, which is worth examining.

Unless, of course, you subscribe to the arrogant notions of “people are stupid/sheep/worthless”, and the reason why the new movie is being “dumbed-down” for the masses, which I still don’t understand. Maybe left over high school angst at being made fun for being a nerd? I don’t know.

48. Truthamador –

Sorry friend, I was talking directly to Wil. I have defended him so many times here I think I can call him on BS until he straightens it out. I like Wil. I read his stuff. And if you do, too, you’d know he’s one who also reacts to things from his own personal experience. That’s what I’m doing.

That having been said, C’mon, Wil? WTH?! Really? Sinus surgery? Was it really that bad? Were there complications?! Spit it out, man!