For all that potential, Voyager is often maligned as the worst Star Trek series of all. Consistent plot holes (no stranger to the Star Trek universe), atrocious writing (Threshold beats out Shades of Gray anytime), sexy but shallow characters (Kes, Seven of Nine), non-threatening adversaries (leave it to Voyager to defang the Borg), and an over-reliance on spatial anomalies (including time travel as a series finale deus ex machina) hamstrung the show.

Voyager had its strong points as well, and I enjoyed its episodes more often than I didn't. But a proper roast doesn't focus on a subject's admirable qualities, so to bid a happy sweet sixteenth birthday to the fourth live-action Star Trek series, I offer this breakdown of Voyager's secret formula (note: the following video contains a subtitle with the f-word — you have been warned):

Happy anniversary, Voyager. May you live long and prosper!

(Hat tip to uncultured via ROFLrazzi)

In contrast, I've always found Star Trek to be limited in its scope. Why must science fiction be its own genre? Surely there's room for Star Trek to explore other styles, such as comedy or murder-mystery. How about Friends: Ten-Forward or CSI: Cardassia?

Some enterprising (heh) editors are of the same opinion and, as proof of concept, have remodeled Star Trek after their favorite hits from the past. What would Kirk and company look like if they composed The A-Team?

Need less action and a bit more intrigue? Then try Dallas:

Or, if you prefer something more light-hearted, how about Gilligan's Island?

If, after seeing all these alternatives, you're still a purist who believes Star Trek belongs firmly in the future, then let us at least return to 1969, the era in which it was launched:

(You can also view a side-by-side comparison of the Star Trek and 1969 openings.)

So, what do you think… is there room enough in the world of Star Trek for all these genres to get along?

(Hat tips to IT Blogwatch and Dayton Ward)

I had grown up on the writings of Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, Isaac Asimov, and Arthur C. Clarke, but I had watched the original 1960s Star Trek only in reruns. During freshman year, I had fought for the dorm lounge television with people who preferred The Late Show With David Letterman over some old show with people wearing colorful pajamas, odd makeup, or both. But we were a small but dedicated band, and we made it to the stars. Among the friends I met then was my future wife.

Over the course of many late nights and foosball games, I learned about the United Federation of Planets, its Starfleet, and the Prime Directive that forbade its explorers from interfering in the internal affairs or development of alien worlds. The so-called "Wagon Train to the stars" combined Westerns with ray guns, and mythology with scientific speculation.

By the time TNG began, I was indeed a Trekkie — or "Trekker," as some prefer — having learned the cant among the franchise's fans: phasers, warp speed, and the Vulcan nerve pinch and salute. Of the eventual six movies with the space opera's original cast, the best two — Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and IV: The Voyage Home — had already been released. Thanks to magazines such as Starlog and various "technical manuals," I learned about transporters and Jeffries tubes (the access tunnels throughout starships, named after an original series art director). Around Thanksgiving of 1987, I would attend my first science fiction convention, one run by Creation Entertainment in New York.

It's also worth remembering the context into which this Enterprise was launched — that, despite the success of multimedia franchises such as Planet of the Apes and Star Wars, there was little genre entertainment on television at that time. As we look forward to 2007's premieres of Heroes, Lost, or Battlestar Galactica: Razor, among others, note that 20 years ago, there was only Stephen Spielberg's anthology Amazing Stories, horror drama Friday the 13th: the Series, and another Earth-based movie spin-off, Starman. Weak visual effects, even weaker writing, and a lack of interest among mainstream viewers and networks had doomed all but the U.K.'s Doctor Who to short lifespans or syndication.

Fortunately, syndication gave TNG the time it needed to develop, unlike many shows until The X-Files. Many fans of the original crew and earlier Trek films had difficulty accepting a new cast and style. The captain was now a bald Frenchman rather than a Kennedyesque Canadian-American; the jumpsuits and military uniforms were now spandex (later with 1980s shoulderpads); and the acting and scripts/dialogue were a bit stiff. I found the first episode, "Encounter at Farpoint", to be slow, preachy, and not particularly promising.

But it soon grew on me, and at a time in my life when I wasn't watching much TV, I was pleasantly surprised to see TNG and, by extension, science fiction working its way back into mainstream consciousness. The strength of the show was not its pyrotechnics (which were better than in the 1960s) but in the heroic ensemble cast.

Patrick Stewart as the noble Capt. Jean-Luc Picard solved problems more often with diplomacy than with fisticuffs. Other memorable characters included Brent Spiner's Asimovian android Data, who yearned to be more human, and Michael Dorn's warrior Worf, who wanted to be more Klingon. LeVar Burton, as eventual chief engineer Geordi La Forge, was actually the best known actor at the time.

Despite the occasional bad writing, I came to appreciate creator Gene Roddenberry's optimistic vision of the future, in which the best and brightest from hundreds of inhabited planets came together for the shared goals of exploration and defending galactic peace. Over time, even supporting characters became like family, and many episodes revisited humanistic themes and even specific plots from the original series, strengthening archetypes that nearly every genre show has followed since then: time travel, alternate universes, court martials, and so on.

But there can be no drama without conflict, and TNG reintroduced the classic adversaries of belligerent Klingons and scheming Romulans. While the mercantile Ferengi turned out to be better for comic relief, the nearly omnipotent "Q" (John de Lancie, following a long line of godlike beings in the otherwise agnostic or atheist Star Trek), martial Cardassians, and cybernetic, collective Borg transcended a mere TV show where the weapons were really made of plastic and the sets of plywood. Just as Capt. James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock are now part of popular culture, so too are the nightmarish Borg, which columnists for Computerworld still refer to.

By its third year, TNG became a worthy successor to Roddenberry's legacy, even as the "great bird of the galaxy" was in failing health. The introduction of the Borg, the Klingon civil war, and incremental character development (including the return of Gates McFadden as Dr. Beverly Crusher) started a balancing act between purely episodic plots and longer story arcs that continues to this day. Yes, TNG is in hindsight rather static, but it laid the groundwork for the more arc-driven shows like Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Babylon 5, and the aforementioned Lost and Heroes.

Many of my favorite episodes — "Yesterday's Enterprise", "Sins of the Father", "Sarek" and "The Best of Both Worlds" — are from Season 3. (Yes, we Trekkies like to refer to specific episodes by title.) Unlike some of its descendants, the crew of the starship Enterprise (registry NCC-1701-D) was composed of the best and brightest who were able to rise to the greatest challenges and still be sympathetic people.

As the Cold War ended in the real world, Star Trek continued exemplifying SF as social allegory. On the other hand, Roddenberry's direction of the franchise relaxed, the story arcs and character development got stronger, if not always successfully. Star Trek, and indeed much genre fiction, has shown few happy families, competent admirals, or foes who don't eventually get watered down.

The eventual trend toward a "darker" tone was offset in TNG by lighter character studies, allowing even underdeveloped characters such as Marina Sirtis' Counselor Troi and Wil Wheaton's ensign Wesley Crusher to evolve past a touchy-feely pseudoshrink and an annoying child genius, respectively. Author David Brin has lauded the Federation's meritocracy, which has made the novels and various books and games based on Star Trek (one of the largest shared universes in SF, if you count all the contributors) especially accessible.

The show was further strengthened by guest stars: from Whoopi Goldberg as recurring bartender Guinan, to physicist Stephen Hawking as himself in a holodeck scene, to members of the original cast (most notably Mark Lenard and Leonard Nimoy as ur-Vulcans Sarek and Spock, respectively). In fact, like its later peers, Quantum Leap, Highlander, and Lois & Clark, many actors passed through TNG on their way to later success.

By the time TNG wound down in 1994, it had earned its place among the best SF shows of all time. Its seven-year lifespan has guaranteed many years of reruns in syndication, and it launched spin-offs Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (DS9) and Star Trek: Voyager. The Enterprise-D continued its voyage on the silver screen, though I feel that the movies featuring the Next Gen cast focused too much on conflict rather than on crew's strengths of diplomacy and friendship, but they each had something to offer the fans.

The seventh Star Trek film, Generations, finally had Captains Kirk and Picard meet, even if the plot was a bit muddled. First Contact was the best, using the Borg and the Enterprise-E. Insurrection and Nemesis tried to bring back some intrigue and family, but weren't strong enough to retain interest from the general audience.

DS9 continued Roddenberry's ideals as it continued to explore post-Cold War uncertainty and conflict with an even stronger ensemble. The Odyssey-inspired Voyager and retconning Enterprise were weaker, to the point that Trek is now taking a break before Paramount and J.J. Abrams attempt to reboot it with the eleventh movie in 2008.

Fortunately, TNG's influence can still be seen. The story arcs of non-Trek space operas Babylon 5, Farscape, Stargate SG-1 and Atlantis, Serenity/Firefly, and the revisionist Battlestar Galactica all share ideas and sometimes writers and actors from Trek. While this subgenre of SF is not as popular at the moment as cyberpunk, comic book superheroes, or alien conspiracies, I continue to be inspired by the intrepid cast and crew of The Next Generation.

To my fellow Trekkers, may you Live Long and Prosper –

— Gene

GeneD is a lifelong science fiction fan and a copy editor at Computerworld magazine near Boston. As "Ensign Barney Blintz" and "Capt. Tzu Tien Lung," he participated in various Star Trek RPGs. Read his blog at http://360.yahoo.com/edemaitre.

Also in the TNG at 20 series:

• T-Minus One Week and Counting
• To Everything, There Is a Season
• Where, Oh Where, Has My Little Spock Gone?
• The Human Condition
• But Don't Take My Word For It
• A Good Day to Die

There are many ways to separate the wheat from the chaff. Various fan collectives offer thematically-related content, so if you like time travel or Q, you're bound to be satisfied — unless you dwell on what these packages miss, such as "Future's End". For my money, The Jean-Luc Picard Collection is the best value, as I prefer episodes that offer not an anomaly of the week, but significant, focused character development. "Tapestry", "Darmok", and "The Inner Light" are worth their weight in latinum, and with the former two both coming from season five, perhaps that is the series' best season. Other fifth-season episodes "I, Borg", "The Perfect Mate" (another Picard episode, and one which first unites Patrick Stewart with Famke Janssen, prior to their X-Men team-up), Spock's return in the two-part "Unification", and the first half of "Time's Arrow" supports this theory.

But only with the new, complete DVD collection can you get all the above along with gems like "The Best of Both Worlds", "Yesterday's Enterprise", and "Relics" — so if you have money to burn, take the good with the bad and splurge on all seven seasons (plus exclusive features and documentaries). But if you don't, then what season (or fan collective) do you recommend, and for what episodes?

Also in the TNG at 20 series:

• T-Minus One Week and Counting
• Where, Oh Where, Has My Little Spock Gone?
• The Human Condition
• The Voyage Continues
• But Don't Take My Word For It
• A Good Day to Die

The first (courtesy TrekToday.com) is Garrett Wang on the James Madison show (iTunes). It's not the best interview: it starts off a bit slowly, the reception occasionally drops, and at one point, Mr. Wang puts the host on hold while he takes another call. But there are some fun stories as he reminisces about playing Harry Kim on Star Trek: Voyager and the interplay he had with other Star Trek and UPN actors. Tune in to the James Madison podcast tomorrow for a similar interview with Robert Picardo, who played that show's holographic Doctor.

The other interview (courtesy TheForce.net) is a brief one with Anthony Daniels, aka C-3PO, wherein he talks about science, Star Wars, and scouting. His message on the importance of science in the present and future of society is spot-on and would be right at home in Scientific American or Point of Inquiry.

My immersion in Trek lore had, unfortunately, not protected me from some spoilers. I knew some of the plots, such as that the divergence between The Original Series and The Next Generation Klingons would be explained; that there'd be a Mirror Universe episode; and of the guest stars and casualties of the finale. I can't imagine how blown away I'd've been had these stories come as complete surprises.

And speaking of blown away, it was masterful to incorporate actual footage from the Star Trek: First Contact film into the opening of the two-part "In a Mirror, Darkly". I was intrigued to see how this episode would connect to the primary universe, and it took some time for me to suspect there may not be a direct correlation; I was impressed when they carried it out. Greater familiarity with TOS would've helped, as I recognized the eponymous Tholian web, but not the Defiant (which proved to not be Deep Space Nine's little ship, though it was still a lot of fun to see the NX-01 crew on a recreated, TOS-era ship!). Though this episode had little impact on Enterprise Prime or the founding of the United Federation of Planets, I am eager to see its implications in the current trend of Mirror Universe novels.

Another neat pair of episodes were the series antepenultimate and penultimate two-parters "Demons" and "Terra Prime", which featured Harry Groener (the villainous mayor from Buffy; also a guest star on an early episode of TNG) as the good guy, and Peter Weller (the heroic Robocop) as the bad guy. It was in this episode that Ensign Sato finally showed some balls, demonstrating some believable character development after four years.

And that's probably what I loved best about the fourth season: the development of characters. This season took a different tact to storytelling, employing multiple arcs that took several episodes to tell. While TNG might've fit 22 major plots into 22 episodes, Enterprise fit only 12 — many of them more substantial than we've come to expect from the already-voluminous Star Trek universe. I felt a bit more like I was watching Deep Space Nine and its far-reaching Dominion War than Voyager's "alien/space anomaly of the week". Enterprise saw major changes not only for individuals, like Soval and Shran, but also for relationships, both personal and political: T'Pol and Trip; Phlox and Enterprise; Starfleet and Section 31; Andorians and Tellarites alike.

It all culminated in a finale that was… odd. I can see the value of the frame they gave it, but it also detracted from the series' main characters by focusing on others (and adding little to them). The situation that Archer and Trip found themselves in was completely unnecessary, predicated by foolishness and unpreparedness. So my qualm is not with Trip's handling of the situation, but with landing himself in that jam in the first place. The finale did not provide the positive closure I appreciated in TNG, Voyager, or DS9 (and not once in the fourth season was the Temporal Cold War ever resolved or even mentioned).

The finale's last ten seconds, though, were extremely moving. It created a context in which the impact of each of the three eras of Trek on each other is irrefutable, summing up this series' implications for me. Star Trek has been on the air continuously for 18 years, and I'm just finishing it now, stretching that span to 20 years — over two-thirds of my life. It's helped me define my interests, my values, my aspirations. Now it's gone, and though its return to the silver screen is predicted for Christmas 2008, Star Trek is, first and foremost, a vehicle of the television medium, and whether it ever returns there remains to be seen.

Of greater concern to me is whether humanity will ever achieve a utopia on the scale of the 24th — or even 22nd — century. Is Archer and his flawed era someone we can relate and aspire to? Can we put aside our differences and unite to realize a shared and optimistic vision of our future? Or is Star Trek fated to be nothing more than science fiction? Doesn't Gene Roddenberry's dream deserve to be our own? Don't we deserve that for ourselves?