https://buy-zithromax.online buy kamagra usa https://antibiotics.top buy stromectol online https://deutschland-doxycycline.com https://ivermectin-apotheke.com kaufen cialis https://2-pharmaceuticals.com buy antibiotics online Online Pharmacy vermectin apotheke buy stromectol europe buy zithromax online https://kaufen-cialis.com levitra usa https://stromectol-apotheke.com buy doxycycline online https://buy-ivermectin.online https://stromectol-europe.com stromectol apotheke https://buyamoxil24x7.online deutschland doxycycline https://buy-stromectol.online https://doxycycline365.online https://levitra-usa.com buy ivermectin online buy amoxil online https://buykamagrausa.net

“We are in the hands of an adolescent”

The US is at the mercy of an immature, asocial, egotistical, angry, ruthless being of terrifying power.

Charlie X

In the first-season Star Trek (TOS) episode “Charlie X,” the Enterprise takes onboard a castaway teenager, Charlie Evans (played with lovely creepiness by Robert Walker, Jr). Long story short, it turns out the disembodied-nigh-god inhabitants of the planet he’d been marooned on as an infant had given him nigh-god powers over reality to help him survive — powers that, in the hands of an unsocialized, hormone-ridden, stereotypical teenager makes him an existential menace.

And, as that is becoming clearer — that Charlie can and will, with the power of his mind, control the ship, make things and people disappear (or change them into iguanas, or steal their faces), break bones, compel people to speak or be silent — Spock says to Kirk the line in the title of this post.

The US is in a Charlie X moment.

We have an elected president who does pretty much whatever he wants. If he has the people willing to do it, it gets done. If they aren’t willing, he fires them until he gets some who are. Law?  He’s the president — law is something he uses as a weapon, not is hampered by as a restriction.

  • When you’re nigh-omnipotent, who can tell you no?

    Ego-driven monuments and building renamings? Sure.

  • Enrich himself, his companies, his family?  Naturally!
  • Lie, hyperbolize, exaggerate, without any apparent sense of shame, double down when corrected, and never, ever, admit you were incorrect? Sounds like a plan!
  • Militarize law and immigration enforcement? Sounds fun! Shit on international allies? Why not?
  • Throw decorum, tradition, civility, politeness, and norms out the window as irrelevant wussiness that keep him from doing whatever he wants to do?  Tradition and politeness are for wussies!
  • Roll back a century of social and legal advancement, and securing of civil rights, by anyone who’s not a white Christian man?  Hold my nuggets …
  • Look to fire anyone he doesn’t like, whether he has authority or not, and disassemble the civil service that was put in to keep government from operating on the spoils system?  Gilded Age, baby!
  • Engage in wide-spread wielding of the Justice Department, et al., as weapons of vengeance? Damn straight. 
  • Call for the imprisonment, banishment, or execution of his political enemies?  Naturally!
  • Pander to any conservative wish list that comes from a person or group who sufficiently kow-tows and/or donates? Outstanding! 

Declare anyone, or anywhere, he wants as “terrorists” or a “terrorist organization,” which he can then use his expansive “emergency” powers (granted to the President by successive generations of Congress) to outlaw, imprison, shoot, or bomb?

Who’s gonna stop me?

Ultimately, that’s Charlie X’s line — once he learns that he doesn’t have to follow the rules, that he doesn’t have to put up with Kirk’s advice, then orders. Who can stop him?

Who going to stop our nigh-omnipotent adolescent?

Not the Courts — not, ultimately, when he’s got a hand-picked Supreme Court majority that believes that the Executive gets to execute pretty much anything it wants, and that stare decisis is for suckers.

Not Congress — his GOP allies are either wildly enthused about how their ideological G-spots are being scratched, or else terrified of being primaried by his MAGA machine and its multi-billionaire backers. The only pushback from them has come where he’s bumped against their prerogatives, and even there it’s been hit or miss.

His Democratic opponents, meanwhile seem to feel that if they squawk nicely-worded protests and make pro forma (but always fragile) moves to provide a bit of publicity-worthy friction to his advance — well, that’s all they can be expected to do, amirite?

Did I mention Charlie doesn’t have good boundary awareness with women?

Trump’s often compared to a senile old man, and anyone who claims to not see his cognitive decline is, at the most charitable, simply not looking / wishfully thinking. But the comparison to an adolescent seems also compelling. An adolescent who has always lived a life of entitled privilege. An adolescent who has always bought or legally evaded any significant consequences to his actions, from stiffing contractors to fomenting mob violence. An adolescent raised by an abusive father to never apologize, never compromise, always go for the throat, that losers are anyone who doesn’t win everything, and losers should be curb-stomped to make sure they learn their lesson.  An adolescent raised in “the power of positive thinking” — that you can make your own reality, your own truth, if you stick by it, deny anything that denies it, double down on it when in trouble, and never, ever, admit you were wrong.

An adolescent who is now arguably the most powerful person on earth, surrounded by minions who eagerly do whatever he wants and who stroke his ego that anything he wants is the right thing to do, while also surrounded by ego-stroking villains who see his willfulness and willingness to do whatever he wants can be steered to their own ideological ends, leaving him to think it was all his own idea.

And then, today …

And today he announced that he’d (a) kidnapped the leader of a foreign nation, and his wife, to be shipped back to America for a “fair” trial (note the word “fair” was never actually used; “show” may be a better word), and (b) meanwhile, the US would be running the country, with “boots on the ground,” so as to (c) build a new, democratic, and American-allied country, because that always works and was never criticized or run against by the guy now doing it, and (d) by the way, it’s open season for American (with priority) oil companies to move in and take over the petroleum resources there.

As a bonus, our Sect’y of State was out there winning hearts and minds telling the leadership of Cuba that they might be next.

Don’t be me wrong — Maduro is a piece of work.  He’s a petty dictator who’s relished using American hostility as a way to leverage dictatorial power in his own country, and who’s arguably at best turned a blind eye to narcotics cartels shipping goods to a (ever-willing-to-consume) US. If he’d fallen over dead with a brain aneurism, I wouldn’t be mourning his passage.

This whole thing is quite different.

The US President, after saber-rattling and threats for quite a long time, decided to simply declare drug smugglers as an invading military force, and therefore subject to military force in return. Not surprisingly, the US Navy and Air Force and whomever else he wanted to show off  were pretty effective at blowing up (what he said, with no evidence given, how dare you question his integrity?) narcotics boats.  But not so effective that they couldn’t commit a few text book war crimes — denied, then angrily quasi-justified, then just handwaved off.

That got enough applause (or acquiescence) from the usual suspects to move on to declaring a shipping embargo on Venezuela. It wasn’t all that well-enforced, I’ve seen reported, but it did make for some big publicity moments, which was even more important to show Trump how big and powerful he was.

Charlie works his angry magic

But no immediate craven surrender by Maduro was forthcoming, and our adolescent is an impatient adolescent — and one that really gets off on compensating for something by the size of his military.  This is the guy who was jealous of all those military parades in other countries, so got one for his birthday. This is the guy who wants everyone to be cowed by his hand-designed battleships. This is the guy who’s happy to throw his “America First” isolationist campaign principles out the window  in order to, yes, potentially start a foreign war (It’s not foreign, its on a continent named after our country!) with boots on the ground (such big boots! shoot to kill!) to do some hopefully-favorable nation-building (after attacking the very of nation-building for the last decade or more) (but I can do it right!).

I mean, this comes across as someone sending Trump an article buttonholing Trump at a Mar-a-Lago party and waxing lyrical about how in the Gilded Golden Age* the US used to invade Latin American countries all the time, overthrowing governments to put in friendly puppets, and installing American companies to extract everything they could.
*Though not just in the 19th or early 20th Century, of course.

Of course, that’s why so many people in Latin America still think the US is an imperialistic power, driven by money and ego to attack them as it pleases. That’s why a lot of countries, no matter how much we have, at times, helped them, mistrust at best and hate at worst the US.  And Trump seems determined to prove them right — indeed, to double down by not only doing this, but making it clear he has the personal right to do it because he can.

When in doubt, change reality to suit yourself.

And for all the people warning about how this will drag the US’ reputation and any moral high ground it carries around the world down into the mud? He doesn’t care. Moral high grounds are for wimps. The US owns the Western Hemisphere, so it can do anything it wants there — just watch!  As for the rest of the world, they’re all shit-hole or doomed or ego-stroking countries, so who cares about them.  Letting Russia and China do what they will? As long as he looks good (put up another triumphal arch!), it sounds to Trump like a fabulous plan.

The follow-up with Cuba is meant to tell the entire world — from Cuba, to Greenland, to Iran, to the UK — that, if they don’t say nice things and give nice concessions, the nigh-omnipotent adolescent in charge of the US military machine might invade their place next.

Nice country you got here — shame if the Marines were to invade it.

Is that the might-makes-right, organized crime approach to foreign relations that we really want to represent as the norm for us, or for our enemies (who will be ever-growing in number?


Stray thoughts that my writing above might provoke (or that come to mind, since it’s been quite some time since I spoke broadly about Trump).

He was elected President

He sure was. None of that makes the above justified, or legally or morally defensible. People wanting a dictator doesn’t make having a dictator any more legal.

Yeah, but he’s better than Biden or Harris!

Even if so, see above.

He’s making America great again!

Only in a Hobbesian “nasty, brutish, and short” war of all-against-all sort of way. Which is not likely to end well for anyone, including America.

That said, I don’t think Trump cares about the long-term reality. He wants a strong/great America  because he wants to be the Dear Leader of a strong/great America. It’s about him, not us. Sure, he’d love it if people put in statues and monuments and triumphal arches to him for centuries to come — but he’s much more into them doing it now, while he’s around to bask in the adulation.

If it all goes to shit the moment he’s dead? I don’t think he gives a damn.

What about the US invasion of Panama?

Yes, one could argue that 1989 attack to arrest Noriega and end his dictatorship had the same justification (or, on the other hand, lack of it) as Trump’s actions in Venezuela. One could handwave about how Panama had formally declared war on the US, that American citizens (in the Canal Zone) were in danger, or that the Panamanian Defense Force had killed an American Marine, but that’s not much.

But even so … so? I’m not sure a 37-year-ago precedent — and not a particularly admirable one at that — means much.

It’s all just Trump Derangement Syndrome!

I’m old enough to remember when Democrats dismissed wild, weird conspiracy theories about Clinton(s), Obama, and Biden as “Derangement Syndromes,” which seemed quite credible, given the utter craziness about what was being said (e.g., Pizzagate, Operation: Jade Helm, etc.).

Trump, of course, is always happy to project what he and his are doing onto others — thus now everything is dismissed as “Trump Derangement Syndrome” (no matter what sort of criticism or concern it is).

Indeed, the TDS label is just what Trump likes, because he can just say it, rather than countering arguments being made against his actions and plans. It’s a lovely ad hominem — one of his favorite things.

If it’s worthwhile, I don’t think this invasion was a Wag-the-Dog to distract from the Epstein Files. Or from the economy. I might be convinced that he’s looking for a topic for that big triumphal arch he’s having built in Washington for the 250th of American Independence (irony is not Trump’s strong suit).

do think that the minor reason for all this is that Maduro didn’t bow down to him when he demanded it (adolescents want respect, earned or not), and the major reason is that he wants to be a War Leader and ride in a parade, and maybe make sure that it’s his name on that triumphal arch (adolescents love ego strokes).

Oh, he’s just joking about Subject X

This is commonly said by Trump’s enablers when he says something particularly grotesque, hurtful, threatening, or a bit cray-cray.

Never mind that some jokes just aren’t funny or appropriate, given his position. If I had my family over to your house and, on your way out, said, “Hope your granny doesn’t slip and break her hip and die a painful, lingering death,” would it become “okay” if the rest of my family (not me, of course) insisted it was just a joke, ha, ha, ha, he’s so high-spirited and outspoken …

For that matter, is there a single thing that Trump has joked about doing that, when he came to it, he didn’t actually do? Sometimes its to stroke his own ego, sometimes because its what he wanted, and/or sometimes because he knew it would outrage his impotent opposition. But way too many of those jokes have turned into a twisted, Joker-like reality.

Don’t worry, it’ll all be over soon

At best, Trump is President for another three years. He’s hinted enough times that he wants a third term, of course.  Is he that to:

  • encourage folks to figure out a legal way to bypass the Constitution?
  • see how much popular support the idea draws (either as a way to make it happen or because of the ego stroking it provides)?
  • get off on making his opponents angry?
  • normalize the topic so that when he does it (emergency powers!) people won’t be shocked?

But even if he doesn’t make a grab at that brass ring (and if he does, do you think the other two branches, under his control, will really stop him, given their acquiescence and support to date?), he’s still around for three years (since we know, because he’s told us, he’s in Perfect Health, Much Better Than Has Every Been Seen Before).

Charlie was a bad loser

How much more damage will he do in three years?

How much more pollution and climate damage and opening up of wilderness to mineral extraction? How many more civil rights will he take from how many more people? How much will he Make America White Again?  How much damage will he do to our national reputation, or our national norms, or our national identity, or even the idea of us being a nation any more?

And that all assumes that we don’t get President Vance taking office in 2029.

Sitting back and trusting that things will snap back to “normal” in three years, if we just hold on … doesn’t seem like a smart idea. A lot of damage, pain, and death stands in the balance.

We’re in the hands of an adolescent. What are we going to do about it?

Charlie gets taken away (hopefully not returning four years later).

The Enterprise is only saved because the disembodied-nigh-gods realize their mistake and come to take Charlie away where he cannot hurt anyone, even if it means that he’ll be isolated from humanity for the rest of his life. In his case, it’s a tragic ending to the story.

In our case … I don’t think can’t count on that sort of divine intervention.


It’s annoying to think that I wrote a post with the same title — and about the same person — almost nine years ago.

The deep philosophical dilemma in “Avengers: The Infinity War”

The argument that pops multiple times can be summed up in … a Star Trek reference: do “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one” … or vice-versa? Or, as Cap puts it: “We don’t trade lives.”

The article suggests that, by highlighting that moral conflict, the new Avengers movie both realistically ups the stakes and sets the ultimate resolution as an answer to the question that will be very difficult to satisfy anyone with.




The irresolvable moral dilemma at the heart of Avengers: Infinity War
Say a prayer for those who will write the sequel.

View on Google+

Oh, I’m just wild about Harry

Holy crap — fifty years since Harry Mudd and the “I, Mudd” epsiode of ST:TOS? I am so old …

(And, yes, I’ve suddenly had the epiphany that Thor: Ragnarok is the “I, Mudd” of the MCU, for better or worse.)

“Stella, Dear …”

Originally shared by +Semicentenary Project:

View on Google+

On serialized TV and the danger of extremes

Babylon 5 was not the first TV show to play with serialized stories — the idea that the events of one episode might effect later episodes, and that a TV series was actually a long novel not just a series of incidents — but it set a precedent for SF/Fantasy TV that has grown more and more significant over the decades.

In some ways, I can do nothing but applaud that trend. Dammit, Kirk should have been personally devastated by “City on the Edge of Forever,” and it should have impacted his character in future episodes. Hell, McCoy should have been traumatized by the experience, and Spock should have referenced it in future encounters with Earth’s past, time travel, or Kirk romances.

Beyond that, one can easily point to TV series that have strong serialized stories, but have to be padded out over a season to include stand-alones that don’t advance the overall seasonal plot and tend not to be that memorable. Not every episode can be a “City on the Edge of Forever,” after all, and if you have a serialized story in mind, the “filler” episodes can tend to become like food fillers — cheap, non-nutritious, and not bearing close examination.

That said, serialization has its drawbacks. While it can draw an existing audience forward, it can also alienate people who didn’t jump onboard with Episode 1. I have had a number of series that people have assured me are tremendously cool and worth watching — but which struck me as so serialized that I felt I needed to watch from the beginning to make them understandable … something that’s often non-trivial to do.

Some of this militates toward the UK / BBC approach, in which there are often heavily serialized stories that only have as many episodes as are necessary to tell the core story. If that means a series or season is just six or eight or ten eps … well, there you go, and no worries about filler.

The problem, of course, is that sometimes the “filler” can be great TV. Not everything has to advance the underlying story. (I would argue the same can be true for novels as well, but the weekly episodic nature of TV makes it even more true.) A stand-alone episode can illuminate a character in a way that doesn’t affect the overarching story, but still remains a noteworthy tale.

Thus, if someone decided that the underlying tale of the original Star Trek was the one they revisited on a regular basis — the “Cold War” between the Federation and the Klingon Empire — we might never have gotten “City on the Edge of Forever,” unless it was intentionally targeted toward that story (I can imagine ways to do that, of course, but I can point to great eps in TOS — “I, Mudd,” “The Immunity Syndrome,” “The Apple” — that had nothing to do with that theme, and would therefore presumably have been dropped.

The bottom line seems to be the media res. A series of episodes in which nothing every changes and each episode serves as a story that has no effect on subsequent tales is a shallow and unconvincing show. On the other hand, a series where everything is deeply interlocked and every episode is structured solely around advancing that overall tale can leave out side stories that illuminate and entertain — that are not just filler, but add to the richness of the tapestry of the tale.

Which brings us back to Babylon 5, as that series contained a blend — “arc” tales that focused on the main storyline and themes, the “wham!” episodes, but also one-offs and sides stories that could serve as diversions, illuminations, and stories to add to the overall richness of the saga being told.

It’s a balancing act, that middle path. But it’s one worth pursuing, to avoid the extremes of tunnel-vision focus on the core story versus the things that happen that should (but don’t) have an impact beyond that single episode in which they occur.




Serialized Television Has Become a Disease
At New York Comic Con, during the Star Trek: Discovery panel, Alex Kurtzman said something that I’ve been thinking about a lot. He said that you couldn’t do “City on the Edge of Forever” now, because Kirk would have to spend a whole season mourning Edith Keeler.

View on Google+

Honest Trailers does “Star Trek: The Next Generation”

To be fair, TNG ran for 178 episodes over 7 seasons, so there was plenty of time for bad episodes, repeated tropes, and odd character business that looks a lot more odd when repeated back to back.

But, for all the solid, good entertainment that came from TNG, this is a fun take-down of all of the above. (As well as some honest criticism, e.g., Worf being the punching bag of the galaxy.)

View on Google+

“Star Trek: Discovery” — I would watch this. On broadcast TV.

We got around to watching the Discovery first episode, the one that CBS so graciously posted on their own broadcast network rather than their pay streaming channel.

I was the most enthused in the household, and that was only at a “I would watch more if it were handed to me to watch.” Nothing to make me want to fork over a monthly fee for. And, to be honest, while I was fine with waiting for it to inevitably show up in some other medium, neither of my housemates seemed particularly enthusiastic.

I didn’t mind the much-more-prostheticked Klingons, but I thought their far-too-homogeneous outfits were sketchy. Their ponderous subtitled speeches were also not engaging.

I liked the individual characters we saw, though the main protagonist’s move against her captain didn’t strike us as a bold step to do what was needful as much as a doofus move that would rob her of all credibility. Which, honestly, characterized most of her actions.

The FX were all nicely done. The plot was not nearly as well baked.

I do still want this show to succeed, because Star Trek. I am sure that, like most such things, it will improve over the course of the first 3-4 episodes, as well as over the first seasons. Unfortunately, by being told by CBS that the only way to see this is fork over a monthly fee, my willingness to put up with that learning curve drops sharply.

There’s a lot here of interest, esp. if you can get beyond the “Why does this seem so improbable as a 10-year prequel to TOS” — but not enough to make me pay extra to go watch it.

View on Google+

The TOS crew and “Star Trek: Discovery”

One of the intriguing (and dangerous) aspects of setting Star Trek: Discovery only ten years before The Original Series is that all of those TOS characters were actually alive then, and some of them were serving in Star Fleet.

I find it highly unlikely that this will not mean we encounter some TOS crewfolk some time during the run of ST:D. The temptation (a la Enterprise) will be unbearable.

This article goes through the canonical info (assuming ST:D adheres to canon) as to where all these folk were during the ST:D timeframe.




Where Were The TOS Crew During The Events of ‘Star Trek: Discovery’?
The new show will take place 10 years before the events of The Original Series. We take a look at what Kirk and crew were up to in 2256, and whether the Discovery crew might run into our classic heros out on the frontier.

View on Google+

Guess What We’re Doing?

Well, I’m excited.

View on Google+

Movie Review: "Star Trek Beyond" (2016)

A lot better and more entertaining than the original trailer would have had you believe. Occasionally over the top, but also grounded by some major character themes worth considering.

Full review: http://letterboxd.com/three_star_dave/film/star-trek-beyond/

Score: 3.5 out of 5 stars (with a heart)

And that wraps up #FatherDaughterMovieWeek with +Kay Hill. Always a good time!

 

View on Google+

Three personal Star Trek fandom stories

As the 50th Anniversary winds up …

1. The Fan, Enraged

I was actually alive and sentient (though young) during the original run of TOS. The shift to a later hour in the third season meant I couldn't stay up that late, though.

Apparently one night that restriction caused me to "snap." The previous owners of the house we owned had put a lockable door in the hallway from the front of the house to the back bedrooms. Upon being sent to bed rather than being able to watch my beloved Star Trek

… I crept back out and closed that door and locked it.

So when my parents decided it was time to head to sleep, they found they couldn't get to use, or to their bedroom.

They knocked, but my brother and I were both fast asleep. They went outside and rapped on the window, and, eventually, woke up my brother, who would have been 4 or 5 at the time.

He finally figured out what they wanted, got something to stand on, and unlocked the door in question.

I don't know what the aftermath of the episode was, but it remains a repeated family anecdote.

2. The Fan, Tongue-Tied

I was a speech nerd in high school, racking up trophies at National Forensics League[1] events, taking long trips to speech tourneys around SoCal, and even up to northern California.

We actually did a field trip one year, to go hear Ronald Reagan speak at an event in downtown Los Angeles. This was in Reagan's "wilderness years" between being governor and being president.

So we traveled to downtown, to some major hotel, and listened to the speech. It was just what one would expect from Reagan: jovial, friendly, ideological, and driven by his constant prop of 3×5 cards onto which he'd noted the speech structure and various anecdotes.

In attendance at this public speech, at a nearby table, was George Takei. Takei was involved in California and Los Angeles Democratic politics in the 1970s, and he was attending this particular event, too.

After the speech, I screwed up my courage and went over to him, determined to speak to him and to tell him …

… um …

… it was not until I was standing at his table that I realized that I had no idea what I really wanted to tell him in this kind of a public setting. So I mumbled something about how much I'd enjoyed his work and then wandered away, feeling like an idiot.

I'm sure I was neither the first nor last person that Takei ever encountered who was so tongue-tied, probably not even that day. But it was an event that warned me off in later years from making a point to go up and say hi to celebrities I admired. I mean, heck, I'd love to sit down and chat with any number of them, but in terms of summing up something coherent and non-fanboyish in a public setting?

Yeah, words fail me.

3. The Fan, Alone

So, working in the Denver area, in downtown, it was hard to avoid this being the season starter day for the NFL — not with the NFL Kickoff Celebration taking over Civic Center Park and the front of the City/County Building, nor with everyone and their brother and sister and distant cousin wearing Orange and/or Blue.

So I thought I'd be cute. I had a staff meeting with my peers this morning, and I said, looking around at all of them wearing something Bronco-related, "I just want to say, as we start this meeting, that this is a very special day, something I'm sure we all want to celebrate … the 50th Anniversary of the first episode of Star Trek."

I was a pilgrim in an unholy land. Around the table, including my boss, there were raised eyebrows of bemusement or general scoffing and eyerolling.

I did get referred to another peer in the department that I should mention this to, and, when I did so later, he was appreciative.

I tried this trick with another group in another meeting. This time it was, "Huh, imagine that," sort of like if I'd mentioned it was the anniversary of Richard Nixon's resignation or something. One guy in the meeting did opine that he had also been alive during the TOS initial run and remembered a few eps from it. I regaled them with Story Number 1 above, and they were appropriately amused.

At last, at the end of the say, I had my own departmental meeting, and sprung this on my two direct reports. They, at least, had the interest (or politeness (or appropriately truckling nature)) to oooh and aaah. So that, at least, felt better.

Happy Anniversary, Star Trek. I appreciate the good times, not to mention the anecdotes for me to carry forward.

[1] The official High School Speech Competition organization, not something that the CSI folk belong to. Alas, in the past few years they changed their name to the National Speech & Debate Association, which is more descriptive, but a lot less interesting.

 

View on Google+

On Star Treks

A 50th Anniversary Analysis:

I deeply love, with a nostalgia of childhood and a ritualistic familiarity with every episode and massive chunks of dialog[1], Star Trek, the Original Series. Sure, it has its multitudinous flaws, many of them a result of the general state of late 1960s TV (and network shenanigans), but the willingness to (sometimes) grapple with social issues, the sense of adventure, and the personal stories told amidst the less inspiring tales, all make it, like Thomas Jefferson, a flawed but admirable Founding Father.

Fast Forward way too many years, and Star Trek: The Next Generation came to pass. I watched it because, hey, Star Trek! I found the first few seasons cloyingly preachy, but after it loosened up there were some moments of brilliance (many of them centered around Data and how he was mistreated as an AI life form) alongside the moments of goofiness (too many of them also centered around Data) (the same can be said of Worf as well). I watched it, on and off, through its run; it's a show that Margie and I watched while we were dating. It never grabbed me as much as TOS, but it beat most TV.

A while after TNG debuted, we got a new series: Deep Space 9. And I have to say it's my favorite of the post-TOS Treks, for the variety of reasons spelled out by the article attached below. That is, it was gritty, it was shadowy, it was political compromises and religious discomfort and people with clouded moral attitudes and angry people and broken people and a world that as far less perfect than TOS or TNG, but still possessing that element of hope and ultimate optimism. I fell away from the series for a variety of reasons after the first couple of seasons, but it's the one Star Trek that I'd like to go back and binge watch. Some day …

I had high hopes for Voyager, as the idea of a divided crew stranded in the wilderness, having to band together out of a sheer need for survival, felt like a great way to progress the dramatic and human stakes of the Star Trek world. Alas, Voyager never really lived up to that expectation, instead feeling more like an adventure with no strings attached. Not surprisingly, my favorite episode was "Year from Hell," where actually saw the starship and its crew taking damage that wasn't magically healed by the next episode, and the stakes of survival were high and ongoing; when it all got retconned away after the second part, I was basically done.

I was similarly intrigued by Enterprise, as a chance to see a lower-tech Earth ship make the first tentative steps out into the universe. Unfortunately, lower-tech tended to mean lower-action in the early years of the series, which too soon started giving us First Encounters that made no sense with the canon. I dropped it after the first season, though I've watched a few stray episodes which were enjoyable, but not compelling.

I'm curious to see what Star Trek: Discover turns out to be like. Honestly, I don't plan on watching it in first run; not as something I need to pay for to get CBS's streaming service. I'm sure it will eventually make its way to some medium where I can enjoy it. I look forward to doing so.

——

[1] I used to make audio cassette recordings of TOS episode reruns and listen to them constantly. Hey, I grew up in a pre-VCR universe.




What Deep Space Nine does that no other Star Trek series can
This show isn’t just a good story; it’s a beacon of hope for people living in dark times.

View on Google+

Google Trek

Google didn't put together a new Google Doodle for the Star Trek 50th Anniversary, but they did point to the one they did a few years back.

Originally shared by +Google:

In honor of #StarTrek50, revisit our #GoogleDoodle celebrating the anniversary of its first broadcast → https://goo.gl/w1WlVr

 

View on Google+

A Golden Anniversary for the show that changed SF

It's hard to believe, but it was 50 years ago today that the first episode of Star Trek aired on NBC television. Presaging airing order weirdness for future SF shows, the first episode was "The Man-Trap," not the (second) pilot that had sold the series.

The article below tries to speculate on what science fiction — on TV, in the movies, and fandom itself — would have been like had Star Trek never made it on the air.

It's possible to overstate the case: thoughtful SF and TV drama as a whole existed before Star Trek. Though to modern eyes The Original Series seems in turn weirdly action-oriented and preachy in turn, it was considered quite cerebral for its era (too cerebral for the network suits). Just as TV as a whole has matured over the decades and dramas have gotten more sophisticated, on the whole, one can assume SF, like other genres, would have had later opportunities.

That said, the direction of future SF on TV would have been quite different. While ST:TOS didn't prove that SF could be a success on TV (quite the opposite), it did influence everything that came after (as a model or counter-model), and the core of fandom that was built around it, and stayed loyal to it, shaped the future how science fiction in the media, especially once kids raised on TOS started coming to power in the media itself. And that fandom created the model which exists today, in turn influencing how media companies engage with fans.

I don't think Gene Roddenberry had any idea in the beginning what he was creating, or its seminal influence, but create it he did, alongside a huge raft of talented men and women as writers, producers, directors, technicians, and, of course, actors. Here's to all of them.




What if Star Trek Had Never Existed?

View on Google+

Die, Redshirt, Die!

Timothey Adams at Emerald City Comic-Con, a redshirt on the (by request) deadliest away mission — asking other cosplayers to do away with him, for the camera. Great idea.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10209194547681599&set=a.10209194487720100.1073741831.1257830661&type=3&theater

[h/t Randy]

 

View on Google+

Acting is actually a pretty good workout

At least when the ship is "rocking".

(Picture from with the camera shake in a scene compensated for.)

Originally shared by +Jānis Jaunošāns:




media.giphy.com/media/l2JI9xpp6lbqi7984/giphy.gif

View on Google+

To boldly go on display, where it was once on display before!

The Smithsonian has owned the original USS Enterprise model for some time, and for a while it was on display. But now it's getting a thorough cleaning, a stripping of multiple paint jobs since 1967, and will then be back in the Air & Space Museum as part of a Boeing (?) exhibit.




Original USS Enterprise model set to boldly go… on display
Original model of starship ready for public viewing

View on Google+

Forgiving Star Wars its scientific sins

Of course. Star Trek is extrapolation. Star Wars is myth. Star Trek is the Cold War and the Space Program. Star Wars is Arthur and Campbell. Star Trek draws wrath when it breaks scientific plausibility. Star Wars draws wrath when it violates what feels right.

You don't expect Zeus to obey the laws of physics. You don't worry if Mount Doom is vulcanologically correct. And you don't worry if the Force exceeds the speed of light or if laser swords can actually exist.

Originally shared by +Doyce Testerman:

I had pretty much exactly the same conversation with +Kaylee Testerman​ today.




How I Am Able to Forgive the Absolutely Appalling Science in the Most Recent (and Indeed Every) Star Wars Film | Whatever
As explained by me to my wife as we drove home last night from The Force Awakens: Me: See, the reason the bad science in Star Wars films doesn’t really bother me is because the movies tell you right up front that they’re based on legends, right? “A Long Time Ago In A Galaxy Far Far Away.

View on Google+

Movie Review: "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" (1986)

It's a damned silly movie, but that's part of it's charm.

http://letterboxd.com/three_star_dave/film/star-trek-iv-the-voyage-home/

Think of it as a Roger Moore-era Bond, only more lovable. 3 stars out of 5, but a favorite.

 

View on Google+

Everyone's got "must-have" ideas for the next Star Trek

Given that so little info was given from the CBS announcement (aside from the zany "streaming video only" aspect of its distribution, it's not surprising that everyone's jumping on what the show should be about and, more importantly, what the characters should be like.

A lot of that has been (on a number of sites) about inclusiveness, which the attached article focuses on, specifically looking for the next show to have:

– A female captain
– Openly gay character(s)
– Multi-racial characters
– Committed relationships
– Openly trans character(s) (played by trans actors)
– A non-human captain

Part of this, it seems to me (from my own ethnic / racial / gender / orientation privileged perspective) searching for a couple of different things:

A. An interesting cast of characters that will lend itself to interesting stories.

B. A desire for representation, either in the abstract (the future should look like X), the professional (more Y people should be employed in Hollywood), or the personal (I want a Z character that I can better identify with).

Those are all laudable goals — and, honestly, there's a lot of overlap there (especially with a good writing team). The problem, creatively, is making sure that (A) comes first. If there's a perception that (B) is given priority, that there is box-checking for maximum diversity for the sake of maximum diversity, that bodes poorly, especially if it further has the sense of Kumbaya / "the future is pleasant and progressive and diverse and everyone lives in harmony" about it that so hampered S.1 of TNG.

On the other hand, if there's a perception that the producers are playing it safe and going for a mostly-white / male / straight / cis cast for fear of alienating audience members and/or sponsors, that's sacrificing (A) as well.

Some other issues to consider are:

– Core vs recurring characters and crew
– Under-representing vs over-representing
– Inclusion vs tokenism

One question that comes up is how to fit in diversity without making the show about diversity that, in the Star Trek future, is presumably not even seen as a diversity issue, the same way that nobody comments on the eye color of that new ensign that just beamed on board. Is it enough, for example, to have a chief engineer who is gay (and, presumably, has same-gender romantic involvements), or does that character's gayness need to be the centerpiece of some stories (imprisoned on the planet of Throwback Puritans or whatever)?

I'd add into the mix as well consideration about some other minorities and how they fit into the world of the 2Nth Century. Body form / weight / attractiveness. Age. Religion. Disability. There's some representation there which could make for some interesting plot hooks (or even just be part of the background for the characters, the way Picard's Frenchness was, with a couple of notable exceptions, part of his background, not foreground).

I think the last item the writer suggests — the idea of increase alien representation — is potentially the most exciting as hooks for plots and interesting characters within them. Some of the best Star Trek characters (especially in terms of how they then reflect upon humanity) have been (primarily) non-human (Spock, Data, Dax, Odo, arguably Seven of Nine, the EMH). Humans (or humanoids) with a non-mainstream-Earth cultural backgrounds (the Bajorans, the Maquis) also carried a lot of interesting ideas (both realized and not) that have potential. Greater representation there, including some aliens that are not just nose/forehead/ear-appliance aliens, makes a lot of sense for a Star Trek series. The question then becomes how to make sure that your core crew that has one human and five non-humans don't (a) turn into a bunch of "really are just humans who have different makeup demands" but (b) remain relateable to an audience that is, in fact, mostly human.

But, then, writing about the human condition is what good drama, and good Star Trek is all about, whatever alien or Earthly demographic we're talking about.




6 Things We Need the New Star Trek TV Series to Do With Its Characters

View on Google+

Star Trek boldly goes where you have to pay separately for it

Dear CBS — I'm tickled that you are starting up a new Star Trek TV series, and I'm sure it will be interesting.

I'm also sure I won't be watching it if you are confining it (after the premiere episode) to your separate $5.99/month streaming service.

Did the Ferengi suggest this as a good marketing strategy? Just wondering.




CBS Needs Star Trek to Show It Gets the Streaming Future | WIRED

View on Google+