On the horizon looms Star Trek: Lower Decks, an animated sitcom set in the Star Trek universe. Though this will not be the first Star Trek animated series (that distinction goes to the aptly named Star Trek: The Animated Series), Lower Decks will be Star Trek‘s first sitcom. Moreover, the series will, as far as I can tell, be considered canonical to the Star Trek franchise. As such, it occupies an odd position among Star Trek series, being the first comedy series set in a historically dramatic franchise. The ultimately cancelled Star Wars Detours, a Star Wars animated sitcom, would have held a similar position in the Star Wars franchise, having been intended to relate somehow to Star Wars canon as defined prior to Disney’s acquisition of Lucasfilm.
The idea of adding a comedy to a franchise that previously was exclusively dramatic can be perplexing. My father, a lifelong Star Trek fan, was rather nonplussed upon learning of Lower Decks. I, being more of a Star Wars fan, had an ambivalent reaction to early news of Star Wars Detours, although, also being a fan of Robot Chicken, I became more excited upon realizing that many of the creative minds behind Robot Chicken were involved in the production of Star Wars Detours. But why did my father and I react this way? After all, both Star Trek and Star Wars have been satirized countless times, and neither my father nor I reacted negatively to these: my father greatly enjoyed Galaxy Quest, for instance; and the Lucasfilm-approved Robot Chicken Star Wars specials, though thoroughly noncanonical, remain some of my favorite entries in the Star Wars franchise. So why should the idea of setting sitcoms in our favorite fictional universes have so disturbed my father and I, at least initially?
I believe the difference lies in Lower Decks and Star Wars Detours‘ being in continuity with prior, non-comedic works. The Robot Chicken Star Wars specials satirize Star Wars, therefore requiring some familiarity with the latter to fully enjoy the former. Yet the former does not present itself as occurring in the same continuity as, say, A New Hope. As such, Robot Chicken is free to alter scenes from Star Wars as its creators see fit, as in this sketch. Yet Star Wars Detours would have had a different relationship to Star Wars continuity, as Lower Decks will to Star Trek continuity, as opposed to other Star Trek parodies. Because Lower Decks has not been released, I have not seen it and therefore cannot comment on its quality. Yet I believe my father’s skepticism of the program stems from his discomfort at being asked to consider sitcom plots as occurring in the same continuity as The Original Series and The Next Generation, which, though certainly humorous at times, were not sitcoms.
But is this discomfort justified? Will the introduction of comical or even farcical elements into Star Trek continuity deflate Star Trek of some of its dignity? Would Star Wars Detours have done the same for Star Wars? I suggest that the answer to these questions is no. I see no reason why these series, if viewed in an appropriate light, would lessen either franchise. What is this appropriate light? To explain, I will turn to an unlikely source of inspiration for this article on Star Trek and Star Wars: C. S. Lewis.
In his excellent book An Experiment in Criticism, about which I intend to write more in subsequent articles, C. S. Lewis writes the following regarding tragedy, comedy, and farce, as well as their relationship to real life:
All three forms of art [tragedy, comedy, and farce] make the abstractions proper to them. Tragedies omit the clumsy and apparently meaningless bludgeoning of much real misfortune and the prosaic littlenesses which usually rob real sorrows of their dignity. Comedies ignore the possibility that the marriage of lovers does not always lead to permanent, nor ever to perfect, happiness. Farce excludes pity for its butts in situations where, if they were real, they would deserve it. None of the three kinds is making a statement about life in general. They are all constructions: things made out of the stuff of real life; additions to life rather than comments on it. (81)
I propose that similar reasoning can be applied to stories of different genres co-existing within the same fictional universe. A given fictional universe—such as those depicted in Star Trek, Star Wars, etc.—contains a variety of elements. A comedy will select from these elements and then arrange them into a comical configuration. A tragedy will do the same for tragic purposes. However, I will go further than this, by quoting Lewis from another of his works, namely an essay on Hamlet. In this essay, he briefly touches upon what one might call generic abstractions. He begins by speaking of verse drama, then comments on opera:
We sometimes speak as if the characters in whose mouths Shakespeare puts great poetry were poets: in the sense that Shakespeare was depicting men of poetical genius. But surely this is like thinking that Wagner’s Wotan is the dramatic portrait of a baritone? In opera song is the medium by which the representation is made and not part of the thing represented. The actors sing; the dramatic personages are feigned to be speaking. The only character who sings dramatically in Figaro is Cherubino. Similarly in poetical drama poetry is the medium, not part of the delineated characters. While the actors speak poetry written for them by the poet, the dramatic personages are supposed to be merely talking. If ever there is occasion to represent poetry (as in the play scene from Hamlet), it is put into a different metre and strongly stylized so as to prevent confusion. (91)
When contemplating the relationship of comical renditions of a mythology to the grander mythology itself, perhaps we should consider the distinctly comical aspects of such renditions to be, to use Lewis’s parlance, “the medium by which the representation is made and not part of the thing represented.” So if Lower Decks contains elements that, though comical, are too outlandish to co-exist comfortably with established Star Trek elements, then perhaps one would be justified in believing that these outlandish elements do not exist in Star Trek continuity precisely as depicted; rather, the outlandishness exists as an artifact of the medium of comedy. In other words, Lower Decks does not introduce outlandish elements into Star Trek; rather, it represents Star Trek in an outlandish fashion.
If you will pardon my coining a term, I will dub the capacity of a story or mythology to accommodate depictions within multiple genres multigeneric versatility. The impending existence of Lower Decks indicates that its creators believe that Star Trek mythology possesses this multigeneric versatility. I believe that superhero mythologies often possess this. The DC Super Heroes franchise certainly does. For example, Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy and The LEGO Batman Movie both feature Batman as their protagonist, yet the two take radically different, though both enjoyable, approaches to the same subject matter, although it is worth noting that the two do not take place in the same continuity.
In closing, I would like to clarify what point I am making and what point I am not making. I am not suggesting that all dramatic stories can be converted into comical ones or vice versa—at least not successfully. It may well be that certain types of stories are compelling in one light yet uninteresting in another. And someone’s enjoyment of a story does not guarantee that this person would enjoy a story with similar or even identical themes, characters, and situations presented through the lens of a different genre. Regarding Lower Decks, it remains to be seen how the series will fare. Will long-time Star Trek fans, unaccustomed to seeing Star Trek elements in the style and tone of a sitcom, enjoy the series? Will viewers who are not long-time fans of Star Trek enjoy Lower Decks, having perhaps fewer preconceived notions about the franchise and how its elements ought to be depicted? It seems likely to me that many who have historically enjoyed Star Trek will dislike—or at least be apathetic toward—Lower Decks simply because they do not care for sitcoms. Still, it may be that Star Trek mythology possesses enough multigeneric versatility to accommodate both compelling dramas and amusing comedies. We shall see.
Works Cited
Lewis, C. S. An Experiment in Criticism. 1961. Cambridge, 2016.