The Top Five Star Trek Series of All Time (As In All of Them)

It seems laughable to do a top five list for something that only has five options to rank. But that is where you are flat wrong baby. Star Trek has existed in some form or another (either with new episodes, movies, or syndication) since 1966. Dear old dad was not driving when this phenomenon started. And since then there have been six series. Bam.

I was a huge Trekkie as a kid and am still a fan of the genre (I wouldn't even call myself a Sci-Fi fan because Star Trek is completely in it's own genre). I have already discussed how I collected tons of things and obsessed over the world of Trek. I even attempted to write a few short stories based in the Star Trek universe (the only thing they suffered from is being very bad stories-- other than that they weren't bad). I have involved myself on almost every level of the Star Trek universe and have finally caught up with all of the series by watching Star Trek: Enterprise with my roommate Kyle. We are nearly done with the show (you can watch most of the episodes for free here), so I figured now is as good a time as any to rank each Star Trek TV series exactly where they belong. I'll even throw in a few bits of information in there before I explain why I put which series where (including how many seasons, highlights, lowlights, and 2 episodes you should definitely watch including a thinker/heartstrings episode and an action fest two-parter [no series finales]).

Honorable Mention: Star Trek: The Animated Series

I thought it would be fun to at least acknowledge that there was a Saturday morning cartoon. To those of you who don't know (the 7 people I know will read this probably already know the info here) most of the original cast was back for this animated series. All of the characters were even voiced by the original actors from the live action series. The Animated Series also won an Emmy, which is one more than The Original Series received. The show lasted for one full season and is not really considered part of the Star Trek canon. But it was an official production from the makers of Star Trek, so it counts.

And now for the official Messy Shelves rankings of the Star Trek series.

No. 5: Star Trek: Voyager

Seasons: 7 (1995-2001)

Highlights: Anything to do with the Borg/ The Doctor's character arc/Lt. Barclay coming back

Lowlights: The existence of Chakotay/ The Phage lasting as long as it did/Ensign Kim being good on the clarinet without ever seeming to practice

2 Killer Episodes: "Think Tank", "Scorpion Parts 1 and 2"

Already I think I am in trouble with some of you. You thought certain that this would predictably start with another series produced during this millennium, but you were wrong. The simple and undeniable truth is that Voyager is good Star Trek, but it is far from always being good TV. The show is easily the biggest winner in overuse of technobabble, which is without question the most annoying thing about Star Trek. It also took them 3 seasons to realize that they were in the same quadrant as The Borg (the same alien race that gets ratings no matter what series they go to even though their trying to assimilate us all). Also it should be mentioned that no one represented multiple cultures (both real and fictitious) more poorly than Chakotay. My roommate and I have a goal before the end of the year to watch the worst episodes of Star Trek ever. We could probably just make them all Chakotay episodes and it would work. He just sucks (sorry Seven of Nine). And quit with the friggin' Holodeck!

The show was of course far from bad. It carried UPN throughout it's entire tenure. Star Trek struck gold again by creating a non-human character (The Holographic Doctor) that ended up having the most humanity on the show. Captain Janeway was a strong character even though her voice made me want to claw a chalkboard with a dead person's fingernails. And I was always a fan of new alien cultures, which Voyager had in spades. The only reason Voyager falls short to the next show is because the show ended when the engaging serial action series concept (Alias, Lost) was really starting to get some legs. It also doesn't hurt that the special effects would advance in the years following Voyager. Just watch the show, it's fine.

No. 4: Star Trek: Enterprise

Seasons: 4 (2001-2005)

Highlights: All of Season 3 /Trip being the inspiration for Sawyer on Lost/ Dr. Phlox's pleasant demeanor

Lowlights: Anytime Lt. Malcolm was in a dire situation/ Captain Archer always being pissed off/The premature cancellation of the show.

2 Killer Episodes: "Similitude", "In a Mirror, Darkly Parts 1 and 2"

The original impetus to write this blog was to make the insane stance that Enterprise was the best or second best Star Trek. But unfortunately this is simply not true. One of the reasons it's not true is because not enough people watched the show. The series moved to Friday night for it's 4th season which is pretty much the network saying, "I don't like your show, so I am going to banish it to the Rura Penthe of time slots." But while I have been quoted as saying "Enterprise would be awesome if it had good characters and good stories," I think there are a lot of good aspects to the show.

For one thing, Enterprise was more high drama than the other series simply because humanity had not evolved quite far enough. The best shows on television are the ones that acknowledge how much human beings can really suck. I'm not saying they are hopeless; the programs that have the highest drama produce heroes that succeed in their tasks despite their flaws (pretty much the plot of most epic movies such as Harry Potter, Star Wars, and Blazing Saddles). The other Star Trek series suffered from their characters being a little too perfect an altruistic sometimes. But Enterprise didn't have that problem. Captain Archer was pretty much a jack ass. Even T'Pol was kind of a sub-par Vulcan in terms of her emotional discipline. It seemed like every time the Enterprise would encounter a new culture they would get into serious big time trouble, and the endings were not always happy ones. This made for compelling and edge-of-your-seat style drama, especially during the Xindi arc of Season 3 (the first time a Star Trek series flirted with being serial by tying every single episode of the season into one story arc). In Season 4, things started to get more Trekkie, which hurts my "it's cool because it isn't like Star Trek" vibe, but the episodes were really cool. And then UPN cut it (you know, cause they knew what they're doing; hey how is that network doing these days anyway.).

The show isn't all roses, however. Ironically the viewership shrank when it got good. Season 1 and 2 meandered just a little bit (the first two seasons of a Star Trek series always seem a little off except for in The Original Series). Lt. Malcolm had to be the most oversensitive, whiny tactical officer in the history of time. In addition, Captain Archer is easily the worst of the 5 captains. He is head strong and constantly ticked off to the point that you just kind of get used to it. But the series really is exciting (and technologically very solid with much of the show in HD), and for the true Trekkie it riles up a lot of interesting historical canon issues that can keep you occupied for days. Highly flawed people=great TV.

No. 3: Star Trek: The Original Series

Seasons: 3 (1966-1969)

Highlights: Twilight Zone-style mysteries/ great interplay between the main cast/ grand introduction to a 45 year franchise

Lowlights: Too many mysterious aliens that look like your hot aunt/some blatantly awful Season 3 episodes/ very underdeveloped supporting cast (Sulu, Scotty, Uhura, Chekov)

2 Killer Episodes: "The City On the Edge of Forever", "The Menagerie"

Now it's time for the excommunication (it's OK I can make that joke-- RCIA baby). When talking to truly dedicated Star Trek fans (the kind that would say I am not one of them), they would say that The Original Series is, at the very least, the second best incarnation if not the first simply because it is the first show. I completely disagree. This is the same broken logic that people would use to claim George Washington was our greatest president. He wasn't. He was probably good, but he wasn't better than Lincoln, FDR, Teddy, Jefferson, or Benny Franklin (that last one is a joke in reference to The Office-- don't judge). TOS has to be judged on the same level.

The good news is, of course, that it is really flippin' good. TOS's best episodes are some of the best episodes in the history of Star Trek and worth viewing even if you aren't a Star Trek fan. There are dozens of episodes you could check out and be pleased with, just based on the fact that these episodes are iconic in terms of dealing with social issues of the time in a futuristic sci-fi show. "The City On the Edge of Forever" is one of the most intense, fascinating, and creepy episodes of TV I have ever seen in my life. When I was a kid I owned it on VHS and would watch it time and again. It is really a piece of art beyond the world of Star Trek.

Despite a lot of great things about TOS (some of the more comedic episodes are hilarious, and some of the more serious episodes can leave you thinking for days), the show had a lot of flaws. Because it didn't have a lot of support due to the network's nervousness about how popular it would be and how gung-ho and passionate Gene Roddenberry was on controversial topics, the show had some rough moments. It was essentially canceled before Season 3, but the fans protested and the network renewed it without too much of a fuss. This was pretty much a mistake because Season 3 is just not very good ("Spock's Brain"!!!!!-- an episode so bad that it caused me to set a record for how many !s I used in a single article). The show also focuses so much on the three main protagonists (McCoy, Spock, Kirk) that you aren't really sure why the other cast members are there.

All that being said, if you watch seasons 1 and 2 you will actually become smarter. I'm not even kidding. That's how good some parts of this show can be (when I read over this section I am somehow reminded of Bob Dylan in terms of inconsistent awesomeness)

No. 2: Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

Seasons: 7 (1993-1999)

Highlights: The overall darker tone (this show had some stones)/ Captain Ben Sisko is BA/ The best attempt to find a good villain that wasn't Borg (The Dominion)/ Quark and Odo interactions

Lowlights: Jadzia Dax leaving early for a dumb Ted Danson show/ Most of Season 2 (all Season 2s suck for every Trek except TOS)/ the overuse of the line, "the fate of the entire Alpha Quadrant"

4 Killer Episodes: "The Visitor", "The Search Parts 1 and 2", "The Way of the Warrior Parts 1 and 2", "Far Beyond the Stars

This is a mistake. I don't think that DS9 is the second best show in Star Trek. I think it's the best. But frankly there are two things keeping me from putting it at No. 1. And they are these:

1. Every character in DS9 is somewhere between good and incredible. But if you were to list the five greatest characters in Star Trek history, I don't think any of the DS9 folks should be on there except for one-- and he is borrowed from another show (my list would be Picard, Data, Spock, Kirk, and Worf with shout outs to McCoy, Sisko, Janeway, Odo, and The Holographic Doctor). Now most of the DS9 characters would get into the top 30 rather easily. But the fact is that Odo loses points for being a (great) re-tred of the Spock/Data humanity concept, and Sisko is also kind of a new spin on the "diplomatic but doesn't take crap" concept of Picard.

2. DS9's lack of solo time has to be taken into account. Of course that is the producers' fault and not the characters', but the fact that the show always had a partner on the air to make it seem more unique, darker, and better developed gives it an unfair advantage. Many people claim that DS9 suffered because it was never on the air by itself (always sharing time with TNG and Voyager), but I think it was an advantage. Kind of like Scottie Pippen. He was praised for doing all the things that Jordan didn't, and that is what made him great. But put Pippen on a team by himself and he is just a really awesome basketball player without the legend of being the held back, brooding, smarter sidekick (consult the 1994 Bulls or 2000 Blazers). Scottie Pippen matters as much as he does because of Michael Jordan. DS9 matters as much as it does because of The Next Generation.

With all of that being said, this show is just killer. It does all the things (serial TV, large story arcs, war, interpersonal conflict) that Enterprise does but with great writing and great acting. I felt an emotional connection to most of the characters on the show-- including a very large list of guest stars that were sometimes better than the main people (I'm looking at you Garak). In addition to being darker and more brooding it also explores a lot of emotional drama and even lets some of the characters have committed relationships (Worf can't keep his hands off anybody). There were episodes that had me on the edge of my seat and episodes that made me really tear up. That's good TV. Bonus points for being the only Star Trek show bold enough to (spoiler alert!) kill their main protagonist. When the show ended, it ended for good. None of the other series can say that. DS9 is my favorite, which means No. 1 must be awful good.

No. 1: Star Trek: The Next Generation

Seasons: 7 (1987-1994)

Highlights: Picard and Data (and the incredible acting done to portray them)/ the new spin on Klingons/ introducing the Borg/ Q/ poker/ basis of the best Star Trek movie (you heard me right) Star Trek: First Contact

Lowlights: Deanna Troi's feelings/ Dr. Pulaski/ the obsession with the Holodeck/ "Masks"

4 Killer Episodes: "The Inner Light", "The Best of Both Worlds Parts 1 and 2", "Tapestry", "Chain of Command Parts 1 and 2"

TNG is not just the best Star Trek. It is one of the best shows in the history of television. You won't see it on any of the most current best of lists because it isn't serial at all, and it's hard to put a sequel to something else on one of those lists (it also doesn't have any grutuites scenes in it-- you need that to have critical acclaim since critics stab people in the back and commit adultary all the time). But the ratings were monstrous as was the critical acclaim of the time and the unique way it was broadcast (full on first time syndication). The show also featured some incredible actors (Patrick Stewart, Brent Spiner) just acting the pants off stuff. The show had everything any of the other series had along with Gene Roddenberry's original vision still in tact. The emotional depth it reached was completely unparallel for a sci-fi show of it's time. The show presented humanity in a way that we could all look to the future with hope. The guest stars were amazing (Whoopi Goldberg as a 24th Century bartender? More please!). TNG is just plain good.

Sure it had it's drawbacks. It got predictable. Riker didn't really take off as a character the way he could have. The characters were a little too peaceful and understanding at times. And Deanna Troi's accent kind of freaked me out. But most of TNG's deficincies became endearing eventually. Kind of like a long healthy marriage. It isn't healthy because everything about it is perfect; it's healthy because you grow to enjoy the flaws of the other. That is how TNG is. None of the flaws made people stop watching, and that is why the show will be on TV for as long as TV still exists (so about 7 more years) and then it will casually move on to whatever is next. TNG made me love Star Trek, and it still makes me feel at home. I get geeked out just thinking about it. In fact, I might watch a couple of episodes tonight to recover from the dark world of Breaking Bad. Now there's a TV show.

Spotify: The Ethics of Excess and Change

I hope no one from the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) is reading this because there is going to be a lot of honesty about how I get my music. You know what, they suck anyway. This is all their fault anyway for being turds. Forget them. Let's start by ratting out dear old dad.

When I was a kid my dad used to take us to the library all the time (they still have those right?). And while we would be sitting there reading books and looking for good movies, my dad would be going through all the CD racks looking for stuff he had heard about on the radio or from his past. My family was never poor by any stretch, but we didn't always have a lot of cash, so the library was the best place to go for our media fix. Anyway, Pops would come home with no less than fifteen to twenty checked out CDs and record them onto cassette tapes (lots of Steve Winwood, Bonnie Raitt, and other relatedish artists-- man I just can't get into Steve Winwood). These cassette tapes are probably laying around our old house in Greenwood these days gathering dust, or they are now on CD-Rs which will also soon be gathering dust. The point is simple: my dad owns a lot of stuff he didn't pay for. However, my dad has a record collection, cassette tape collection, CD collection, and even an 8-Track collection (though I think that info might be classified). Most of these items simply sit there and inspire one to categorize. Obviously you can't own things forever, so there is a limit on my dad's stuff.

Now don't get me wrong. Pops is not a hoarder by in any way, shape, or form (doesn't an image like that link scare the flippin' poop out of you? What about this image?). This isn't meant to deface my dad's collection (there are some especially cool records in it) because as many of you know I am not innocent of this collecting fetish. Ever since I was a kid I was obsessed with collecting stuff. Here is a short list of the collecting fetishes I have had over the years. Brace yourselves-- it's pretty awful:

- action figures (He-Man, TMNT, Thundercats, Transformers)

- baseball cards (along with basketball, hockey, football, Olympic, and comic book cards)

- comic books (mostly just Marvel and DC Comics-- though I was pretty open at one point)

- all things Star Trek (including everything above, video cassettes, newspaper clippings, magazines, card games, clothing, models, and one of the most intimidating Star Trek book collections ever by anyone except the publisher)

- Native American necklaces (this didn't last long)

- baseball caps (all teams, all sports, at least a few years of wearing one everyday)

- Most things Batman (this is ongoing still-- including DVDs, action figures, comics, and underwear)

- Button-down shirts and ties

- Rolling Stone magazines

- t-shirts

- Race medals (ongoing-- I am reasonably proud of this one)

- this list

- music (VERY ongoing)

Some of the things above are weird, and I don't think I remembered everything. If you think I used to collect something and want to leave a comment on facebook or here about it go right ahead. The whole point is I like collecting stuff and always have. There is something pretty satisfying about putting all your stuff in a nice neat row and staring at it. I got a lot of satisfaction out of that when I was a kid. I also love music about as much as anything on the planet that isn't breathing. So naturally, putting the two together makes sense.

On a side note, I am very frustrated by the fact that when people say they love music it sounds dorky. I don't know why that is and it ticks me off. If you love music, own it. Even if it is just some kind of obsession with TV theme songs, or the collected works of Palestrina, or the United Methodist Hymnal, or anything by Angelique Kidjo, or the third greatest pop rock band with a trombone of all time. I think if people let their dork flag fly higher the world would be a better place. Ok, small rant done.

I remember when I got my first CDs of my very own for Christmas (The Mighty Mighty Bosstones, The Rolling Stones, and...Sara McLaughlin) and the feeling I got from being able to call those discs my own and place them on a shelf. My CD collection went through the normal fluctuating ratio of bad music to good music that most over-emotional teenagers' collections experience. I also had the misfortune of growing up in a time where lines were being drawn between Dave Matthews Band fans and non-Dave fans. Same with Pearl Jam and a dozen other pop artists. But with all that said I stuck by my CD collection, and it grew and continues to grow formidably over the years.

Of course, when I got into college the mysterious and illegal worlds of Napster and the CD-R were hard at work. Don't worry friends, this column isn't about legality. Frankly the legal woes of copyright ownership simultaneously baffle me and piss me off. While Napster and Limewire were doing all that file sharing for free on the interwebs, my dad was freely recording hundreds of hours of music onto cassette tapes; my good friend Ben Syversen was burning the entire genre of free jazz onto just a few mp3 CDs for me; and major labels were keeping more than 90% of the profits of an artist's record. The argument that new technologies and illegal music consumption will stop great music from being made is far too old. Here is a short list of the new technologies that got negative press because artists would not be able to make enough money off the mediums to keep making new music:

1. Sheet music

2. Player pianos

3. Wax cylinders

4. Long playing records

5. The cassette tape

6. The Compact Disc

7. Recordable Compact Disc

8. Mp3s

9. iTunes

10. youtube

11. Streaming online music

It's incredible what people think will put an end to what they do (I left out AM Radio and the Mini-disc). The majority of these technologies caused a creative boost when they came out-- making art and entertainment easier to get a hold of and easier to create. I have read various reports and articles stating that the newest technology-- Spotify-- will be a legitimate end to the music industry. People are scared that, because it is technically legal but still completely screws the artist, musicians will not be able to make enough money in the industry. I am not going to totally deny that possibility. But that is also kind of a selfish attitude. EVERY industry is in financial trouble. Some of the richest men in the entire world are out of work right now. It's just too indulgent to think that your vocation or career are in any more danger than anyone else's.

So though the legality of Spotify seems to be quite shady (just to be clear the musicians are only getting about .0001 cents per song play), it doesn't really bug me on that level. If I wanted to preach against Spotify in terms of it not making the artist any money I would be a hypocrite. I legally download free tracks off various websites (Noisetrade, One Track Mind, and Paste Magazine)that don't give the artist any direct cash. I have a program called iRip that can put people's iPod playlists into my computer. I have borrowed songs and burnt CDs for countless hours of illegally owned music. But I possess that stuff. In a strange way it is yet another collection (even though I didn't earn it and don't deserve it).

No, what makes Spotify such a scary proposition for me is that I really don't need to own or collect music anymore. I don't need to invest in music anymore (in all fairness this also means I don't have to rip or burn music anymore and can go back to legally buying things and just Spotifying the stuff I don't have the money for-- in other words, legally NOT investing in good music).

Last week I downloaded Spotify onto my computer with the hope of studying it and figuring out what it was made of. I had no doubt what the first test would be. Radiohead is one of my favorite bands and I have slowly been collecting their albums over the past decade. I own all the super important ones-- The Bends, OK Computer, Kid A, In Rainbows-- and a few others. However, I have resisted on a couple other albums and one of those is Amnesiac. I've wanted to own it for quite sometime, but I have been reticent to purchase it. When I got on Spotify I found Amnesiac and began to listen. The album is good but certainly not on the same level as it's predecessor Kid A. Now that I have listened to the album at my own leisure in my own home on my own computer, I see no need to buy the it. This is unfortunate on a couple levels. For one thing it's not great for Radiohead. They aren't dependent on selling one more copy of an album from a decade ago, but making money off the music they created is kind of their livelihood. And the other issue is that my collecting bug just got swatted. I don't need to buy another Radiohead CD, record, or mp3 for the rest of of my life.

I own hundreds of CDs (possibly in the thousands but it seemed lame to actually count them for this post) in almost every possible genre you can think of (including two collections of classical music that I inherited from family and friends). I have dozens of records in a quirky collection that I am trying to beef up. And I have thousands of mp3s; many of which are on my computer yet I haven't actually sat down and listened to. But now with Spotify do I really need any of it? I played a game with my fiancee' the other night where she picked a random song and I found it on the program. And I found everything. I am sure there is some music that you can't find on Spotify, but that music is probably so obscure that you don't know it anyway.

There has been a fundamental change with the way we consume music. Instead of a having to wait to hear songs on the radio, we can listen to anything we want right now. We aren't talking about sampling a song or waiting a certain time to hear it. If I want to go listen to the entire catalog of The Hold Steady I can take my time and do it anytime and anywhere. There do seem to be some unwritten rules (I guess they are actually written) developing now on what a collector or casual music fan should buy versus what they shouldn't. I doubt any person who doesn't feel some kind of ethical attachment to the career musician will care about these rules, but whatever. The first rule seems to be that new material should be bought. In other words if you want to listen to Kanye West's Late Registration feel free to get your Spotify on. But you should definitely purchase Watch the Throne because Jay and Ye need the money. Something tells me that this rule doesn't flesh out very well.

The other rule makes a little more sense. For the artists who basically hope they can sell a CD or record while on tour since they don't have a record company, you need to buy their record. (At first I wrote that this rule would be hard to break since your favorite local band wouldn't even be on Spotify, but I just found Bloomington favorite Rodeo Ruby Love on there, which scares me because they really do need the money.) This is one rule I won't be violating considering my involvement with a fledgling indie record label that needs to sell actual records just to sustain itself, and going to shows (you've heard of live music right?) where I can get a band's music is the most fun thing about collecting tunes.

These rules are great, but they still don't stop Spotify from deflating the great journey of going to the store (or even iTunes) to find the perfect music to go into your car whether new or old (not to mention deflating artists' banks accounts). Now you can put that music together yourself from the entire collected works of the planet Earth and just plug your iPod into your car for that extended cross-country trek. Other than the creative cover art, what's the point in owning music anymore. The less stuff we have the better right? Is there really any great value to having something to stare at all the time?

For me there was. I'm not saying that collecting and listening to that collection of music filled my soul, but it got as close as any non-sentiant being. And now that's gone. As I reflect on what I am trying to say here I realize that it is simple. Spotify represents a change I am not ready for. It takes the excess that I was searching for and puts it in one nice neat package for the whole world to access. I don't want to have to end my life of collecting. You know what happened to all those Star Trek books I had when I was a kid? They're gone. I gave them away because I didn't need them and I wasn't reading them. But I am still listening to music. What do I do with all these jewel cases if I can listen to what's inside them right here where I am typing? And what do I with all these mp3s taking up valuable hard drive space on my computer when this program on that same computer can give me full instant access to any music I want?

I am not ready to admit consumer capitalism defeat. I'm still going to keep downloading tracks and buying CDs and records. The artists need the money and the industry needs the support. I like having shelves with stuff on them. I'm not giving up on the old ways even if the change is already here. Now if you will excuse me I need to listen to Watch the Throne. Just don't ask me how I'm going to do it.