What is Star Trek?

Over the years I've heard many people proclaim many iterations of Star Trek to not be Star Trek. It has even gone so far as to proclaim certain individual episodes of particular series as specifically not Star Trek. As an example, some have said "The City on the Edge of Forever" in TOS is a great episode of science fiction but it is not Star Trek. My particular bias is that they are all Star Trek in some way or another, so I'm not equipped to argue what is or is not Star Trek about any particular episode or movie. I watch them for the entertainment value and character exploration. I do have my biases as to which episodes, series, or movies I like or dislike but that is in terms of writing, character development, or acting.

One of the chief complaints I've heard to define Star Trek is that true Star Trek is always optimistic. I would argue this is a false notion. There are plenty of episodes in TOS that are not optimistic. There are episodes which, if you sit back and think about it, present a pretty awful reality. Optimism wasn't always the key feature of TNG either, most definitely not DS9, and not of VOY either. Some of those episodes were bleak, if not for our heroes but for the folks they encountered.

Another argument I've heard to define Star Trek is that it's about exploration. That, too, is a false notion. Not every episode of TOS was about exploration. Some were personal stories about one or more of the characters. Some were about war. Some were merely space westerns. With the TNG era shows, some episodes were just holodeck adventures. Exploration did not define Star Trek.

I've also heard some say Star Trek is supposed to be lighthearted and fun. No. Have those people actually sat through an entire season? Most episodes of TOS were neither lighthearted nor fun. There was some comedy in there but those episodes were few. The same can be said of the TNG era shows. Each season gave us a few fun episodes but most were not played for laughs. Ditto ENT and DSC. Star Trek cannot be defined as lighthearted and fun.

Some have said Star Trek is family fare. No way. TOS pushed as many limits as they possibly could in regards to story and wardrobe. The Standards and Practices department rode their asses about some of the stuff they tried to get away with on the show. They tried hard to not be family fare, but the network kept the reins pulled tight. The TNG-era shows pushed as many boundaries as they could as syndicated shows. Star Trek was not meant to be family fare, they were forced to color within the lines by the S&P bean-pushers.

What it comes down to is that certain iterations of Star Trek are, or are not Star Trek depending on the goalpost that you wish to move in order to define Star Trek. For some people, only the original series is Star Trek. Nothing else qualifies. For some people, TNG is Star Trek but not DS9. For some people, VOY is absolutely not Star Trek. For many people, TOS and the TNG-era shows are fine but ENT isn't Star Trek. For some people, most of the other series are Star Trek but not DSC. It all gets so confusing.

I'm not one to be a gatekeeper. I'm not going to say who is, or is not, a fan of Star Trek. I will say if you don't like certain iterations of the franchise, you should be able to clearly articulate what you don't like and consider that some of the things you voice in that regard could be hiding in plain sight in the iterations of Star Trek that you do like.