To be sung at great volume and questionable pitch to the tune of 'The Twelve days of Christmas,"
On the first day of Christmas, My Captain gave to me:
A Tribble and some Saurian brandy...
On the second day of Christmas my Captain gave to me:
A two day pass to Raisa, a Tribble,
and some Saurian Brandy
On the third day of Christmas my Captain gave to me:
Three of Garak's secrets, a two day pass to Raisa and a Tribble and some Saurian Brandy
On the Fourth Day of Christmas my Captain gave to me: Four days with Q, three of Garak's secrets, a two day pass to Raisa and a Tribble and some Saurian Brandy.
On the fifth day of Christmas My Captain gave to me:
Five Zindi Weapons....Four days with Q, Three of Garak's secrets, a two day pass to Raisa, a Tribble and some Saurian Brandy...
On the sixth Day of Christmas, my Captain gave to me:
Six space cadets,
Five Zindi Weapons...Four days with Q, Three of Garak's secrets, a two day pass to Raisa, A tribble and some Saurian Brandy
On the seventh day of Christmas my Captain gave to me:
Seven Klingon's Kursing,six space cadets,
Five Zindi Weapons...
Four days with Q, Three of Garak's secrets, a two day pass to Raisa, a tribble and some Saurian Brandy.
On the Eighth day of Christmas my Captain gave to me:
Eight whales singing, Seven Klingons Kursing, Six Space Cadets,
Five Zindi Weapons, Four days with Q Three of Garak's secrets a two day pass to Raisa and a Tribble and some Saurian Brandy.
On the ninth day of Christmas my Captain gave to me:
Nine cups of ale (Romulan style, *whew!*), Eight Whales singing, Seven Klingons Kursing, Six space Cadets,
Five Zindi Weapons,
Four days with Q Three of Garak's secrets, a two day pass to Raisa, a Tribble and some Saurian Brandy
On the Tenth Day of Christmas my Captain gave to me:
Ten emotion chips,Nine cups of ale, Eight Whales singing, Seven Klingons Kursing , Six space Cadets,
Five Zindi weapons,
Four days with Q, Three of Garak's secrets, a two day pass to Raisa, and a tribble and some Saurian Brandy
On the eleventh day of Christmas my Captain gave to me:
Eleven Borg drones, Ten emotion chips, Nine cups of Ale, Eight Whales Singing, Seven Klingons Kursing, six space Cadets,
Five Zindi Weapons...
Four days with Q, Three of Garak's secrets, a two day pass to Raisa, and a Tribble and some Saurian Brandy
On the Twelfth day of Christmas, My Captain gave to me:
Twelve Reman bodyguards, Eleven Borg drones, Ten emotion chips, Nine Cups of Ale, Eight Whales singing Seven Klingons Kursing, Six Space Cadets,
Five Zindi Weapons...
Four days with Q, Three of Garak's Secrets, a two day pass to Raisa, and a Tribble and some Saurian Brandy
Merry Christmas....
Friday, December 23, 2005
Sunday, December 18, 2005
I've invited a Guest Trek Blogger
to share their thoughts about the franchise written about two years ago.
Scott Shriner is a Trek Fan Extraordinare and a For Real Journalist. When he was young, I taught him up in the [Star Trek] ways he should go, and now that he has grown up he has not departed from them. :)
The only editing I plead is a few profanity erasures (don't get me wrong I love profanity, I'm just not sure of Blogger's position on that. ), and one small, minimalist,teensy, miniature (I'm SORRY Scott, I had to do it) timing and date change on one of the items in his Deep Space Nine post.
Enjoy.
Scott Shriner is a Trek Fan Extraordinare and a For Real Journalist. When he was young, I taught him up in the [Star Trek] ways he should go, and now that he has grown up he has not departed from them. :)
The only editing I plead is a few profanity erasures (don't get me wrong I love profanity, I'm just not sure of Blogger's position on that. ), and one small, minimalist,teensy, miniature (I'm SORRY Scott, I had to do it) timing and date change on one of the items in his Deep Space Nine post.
Enjoy.
Guest Trek Blogging #1
My name is Scott Shriner, and I'm a Trekaholic.
Always have been, always will be. I'll take it wherever I can get it. I'll wear that raggedly old Deep Space Nine sweatshirt that my wife hates forever. I will eventually buy all the Trek shows on DVD despite the fact that the assholes at Paramount have ludicrously overpriced them. Are you a Trekaholic, too? Well, it's a condition that's hard to diagnose. You may love Trek in general, but hate "Voyager." Can you hate "Voyager" and still be a Trekoholic? That's a tough question. Hmm…how can I boil it down?Look, let me give it to you straight, OK? Do you own the two-disc DVD of "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan?" Good for you; let's watch it sometime & talk about how it's the best Trek movie all time----you'll get no argument from me. But c'mon, everybody loves that movie. Doesn't mean you're an addict.Do you own the two-disc DVD of "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier?" You may be a Trekoholic, like me. You have my condolences.
So I'm a nut for this stuff. I think Trek is great---in all its forms. I watch ALL the shows. No ifs ands or buts….I know who the Medusans are and I know who the Xindi are. If you know who either of them are, you're quite possibly a fan. But if you know who both are, it means you really are on the Enterprise for the long Trek haul.That being said…Trek is not perfect. It's had moments of perfection, but it's not perfect. It has had its ups and downs. Wow, has it ever. And I feel inspired, on this 38th anniversary of Gene Roddenberry's creation, to cast aside all the bullshit expectations I have about how good Trek should be and deliver an affectionate, but honest, "state of the Trek" report. I'm always the one defending Star Trek to those who have arguments against its merits; well, now I want to truly debate those arguments, and perhaps make some of my own. What's the current status of Star Trek, what led it to the state it's in, and what it's future will be…that's what I want to talk about.Have ya got awhile? Good. Let's get Trekkin.
Always have been, always will be. I'll take it wherever I can get it. I'll wear that raggedly old Deep Space Nine sweatshirt that my wife hates forever. I will eventually buy all the Trek shows on DVD despite the fact that the assholes at Paramount have ludicrously overpriced them. Are you a Trekaholic, too? Well, it's a condition that's hard to diagnose. You may love Trek in general, but hate "Voyager." Can you hate "Voyager" and still be a Trekoholic? That's a tough question. Hmm…how can I boil it down?Look, let me give it to you straight, OK? Do you own the two-disc DVD of "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan?" Good for you; let's watch it sometime & talk about how it's the best Trek movie all time----you'll get no argument from me. But c'mon, everybody loves that movie. Doesn't mean you're an addict.Do you own the two-disc DVD of "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier?" You may be a Trekoholic, like me. You have my condolences.
So I'm a nut for this stuff. I think Trek is great---in all its forms. I watch ALL the shows. No ifs ands or buts….I know who the Medusans are and I know who the Xindi are. If you know who either of them are, you're quite possibly a fan. But if you know who both are, it means you really are on the Enterprise for the long Trek haul.That being said…Trek is not perfect. It's had moments of perfection, but it's not perfect. It has had its ups and downs. Wow, has it ever. And I feel inspired, on this 38th anniversary of Gene Roddenberry's creation, to cast aside all the bullshit expectations I have about how good Trek should be and deliver an affectionate, but honest, "state of the Trek" report. I'm always the one defending Star Trek to those who have arguments against its merits; well, now I want to truly debate those arguments, and perhaps make some of my own. What's the current status of Star Trek, what led it to the state it's in, and what it's future will be…that's what I want to talk about.Have ya got awhile? Good. Let's get Trekkin.
Guest Trek Blogging #2
The Original Series.
I'm not going to spend much time talking about this show, because I don't feel it's necessary. All arguments against this show are bullshit. They're bogus. You can't make an argument against this show, and no Trek fan should even attempt to.Yes, the original series produced some bad episodes. Some really bad ones. Some horrendously bad ones. It also gave us some of most memorable, amazing stuff ever seen on TV---not only "for its time," the phrase which some people like to quantify their compliments to the original show with---but period. Case closed.Don't give any of that crap about bad special effects. It's not a valid argument. Not even remotely valid. Sure, they were bad special effects. Trek is not about special effects. It's about ideas and it's about people. The special effects are so inconsequential that they are not even worth mentioning. Even though I did. But I had, because some of you people will not shut up about them.Don't talk to me about bad acting. I dare you to watch any original series episode - any episode - and tell me that the Spock character, no matter how brilliantly portrayed by Nimoy, would have worked if it hadn't been for Shatner's performance to counter him. Folks, I love to make fun of Shatner, too….you've probably seen me do it. Hell, the guy makes fun of himself. But without his acting - bad or good, call it whatever you want to - there would have been no Trek. Got it? Good.And finally, do not - I repeat, DO NOT- say one more word to me about "how come the Klingons look so different in the later shows and movies?" I don't care why they looked different. The studio had more money, so they had better makeup….that's why they looked different. There's a thing called suspension of disbelief…get acquainted with it.The original Star Trek series is golden. Golden, I say. Without it, there would have been no others. You can't touch it. Don't even try.And if after all my convincing arguments, you still don't like it….well, all I can say is, you're missing out on something really groovy.
I'm not going to spend much time talking about this show, because I don't feel it's necessary. All arguments against this show are bullshit. They're bogus. You can't make an argument against this show, and no Trek fan should even attempt to.Yes, the original series produced some bad episodes. Some really bad ones. Some horrendously bad ones. It also gave us some of most memorable, amazing stuff ever seen on TV---not only "for its time," the phrase which some people like to quantify their compliments to the original show with---but period. Case closed.Don't give any of that crap about bad special effects. It's not a valid argument. Not even remotely valid. Sure, they were bad special effects. Trek is not about special effects. It's about ideas and it's about people. The special effects are so inconsequential that they are not even worth mentioning. Even though I did. But I had, because some of you people will not shut up about them.Don't talk to me about bad acting. I dare you to watch any original series episode - any episode - and tell me that the Spock character, no matter how brilliantly portrayed by Nimoy, would have worked if it hadn't been for Shatner's performance to counter him. Folks, I love to make fun of Shatner, too….you've probably seen me do it. Hell, the guy makes fun of himself. But without his acting - bad or good, call it whatever you want to - there would have been no Trek. Got it? Good.And finally, do not - I repeat, DO NOT- say one more word to me about "how come the Klingons look so different in the later shows and movies?" I don't care why they looked different. The studio had more money, so they had better makeup….that's why they looked different. There's a thing called suspension of disbelief…get acquainted with it.The original Star Trek series is golden. Golden, I say. Without it, there would have been no others. You can't touch it. Don't even try.And if after all my convincing arguments, you still don't like it….well, all I can say is, you're missing out on something really groovy.
Guest Trek Blogging #3
The Next Generation.
Other than Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, this show is the most mainstream Trek ever got…and ever will get, in my opinion. And it deserves to be mainstream, cause you know what, it was really good. It was really really good. And man, when it was good, it positively crackled. This show had fantastic characters---Picard, Data, Worf, Ensign Ro, Q. Patrick Stewart played those dramatic scenes like he was in a fucking Shakespeare and Ibsen festival…thank God no one ever apparently told him he was in a friggin spinoff of an obscure, absurb little toy guns in outer space show. That Klingon intrigue! That Borg cliffhanger! That quest to be human! That was fantastic stuff, people and we all love it. The Next Generation is the only Trek show which no one will argue with me about, because everyone loves it. And we should.That being said…The Next Generation's first season was not horrible. But at times it came really damn close. It was not only clearly the worst first season of any Trek show, but also quite possibly one of the worst first seasons of ANY show that had even close of its kind of longevity. Look at the first season. Just look at it. Sure, someone had been smart enough to cast Stewart, but the writers were scared to death of actually giving some bald, middle-aged Englishman heroic, leading man stuff to do. Most of that stuff went to Riker at first; our beloved Jean "the line must be drawn here" Luc was pretty damn boring and passive those first few years. It wasn't until around the third season that they really realized what a gold mine they had with the future X-Men star, and that the meaty cool stuff should be going to the more interesting character, not to mention the better actor. (sorry Jonathan Frakes. You know I love you. You know I love Riker. But like I said, I'm cutting out the bullshit today and let's face facts---Riker is to Picard as Mick Shrimpton is to Nigel Tufnel. Riker could spontaneously combust while playing his goddamn trombone and they could get someone to replace him in a heartbeat. Without Picard, the whole bloody show falls apart.)Like any Trek show, there were some bad episodes. And let me tell you something about Wesley Crusher. Yeah, he's the Jar Jar Binks of Star Trek…it's easy to hate him because he's such an easy target. But I'm not going to defend him. I happen to like him, but I refuse to defend him, because he was a bad concept from the very start. Casting the kind from "Stand By Me." Sure, good idea. But making him a genius? Bad idea. And what the hell was he doing at the helm of the Enterprise? Wil Wheaton did his job, give him a break. But Wesley was a mistake. I am now going to say something which some may regard as sacrilegious. Bear with me, I'm only saying it because I promised to be candid. The Next Generation got better after Roddenberry got his nose out of it.I love what Roddenberry brought us. He established the universe, the characters. But the show got better after he and his hippie dreams of conflict-free banality were out of the way of Trek's day-to-day production. Just like the Trek movies got better when he wasn't running them (Star Trek: The Motion Picture is a good film…yes, it is, watch it again, it's not as bad as you remember. But put it up against Wrath of Khan, Search for Spock, Voyage Home…there's no contest. It's standard Trek pedestrianism compared to those later movies, which really pushed the envelope and dared to tell us stuff about the characters that we didn't already know.)But I digress----I'll get to the movies later, I promise. TNG set the standard for modern Trek. Unfortunately, it arguably set it so high and so well, that -with one notable exception-future spinoffs were scared shitless to divert from it.Let's continue…
Other than Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, this show is the most mainstream Trek ever got…and ever will get, in my opinion. And it deserves to be mainstream, cause you know what, it was really good. It was really really good. And man, when it was good, it positively crackled. This show had fantastic characters---Picard, Data, Worf, Ensign Ro, Q. Patrick Stewart played those dramatic scenes like he was in a fucking Shakespeare and Ibsen festival…thank God no one ever apparently told him he was in a friggin spinoff of an obscure, absurb little toy guns in outer space show. That Klingon intrigue! That Borg cliffhanger! That quest to be human! That was fantastic stuff, people and we all love it. The Next Generation is the only Trek show which no one will argue with me about, because everyone loves it. And we should.That being said…The Next Generation's first season was not horrible. But at times it came really damn close. It was not only clearly the worst first season of any Trek show, but also quite possibly one of the worst first seasons of ANY show that had even close of its kind of longevity. Look at the first season. Just look at it. Sure, someone had been smart enough to cast Stewart, but the writers were scared to death of actually giving some bald, middle-aged Englishman heroic, leading man stuff to do. Most of that stuff went to Riker at first; our beloved Jean "the line must be drawn here" Luc was pretty damn boring and passive those first few years. It wasn't until around the third season that they really realized what a gold mine they had with the future X-Men star, and that the meaty cool stuff should be going to the more interesting character, not to mention the better actor. (sorry Jonathan Frakes. You know I love you. You know I love Riker. But like I said, I'm cutting out the bullshit today and let's face facts---Riker is to Picard as Mick Shrimpton is to Nigel Tufnel. Riker could spontaneously combust while playing his goddamn trombone and they could get someone to replace him in a heartbeat. Without Picard, the whole bloody show falls apart.)Like any Trek show, there were some bad episodes. And let me tell you something about Wesley Crusher. Yeah, he's the Jar Jar Binks of Star Trek…it's easy to hate him because he's such an easy target. But I'm not going to defend him. I happen to like him, but I refuse to defend him, because he was a bad concept from the very start. Casting the kind from "Stand By Me." Sure, good idea. But making him a genius? Bad idea. And what the hell was he doing at the helm of the Enterprise? Wil Wheaton did his job, give him a break. But Wesley was a mistake. I am now going to say something which some may regard as sacrilegious. Bear with me, I'm only saying it because I promised to be candid. The Next Generation got better after Roddenberry got his nose out of it.I love what Roddenberry brought us. He established the universe, the characters. But the show got better after he and his hippie dreams of conflict-free banality were out of the way of Trek's day-to-day production. Just like the Trek movies got better when he wasn't running them (Star Trek: The Motion Picture is a good film…yes, it is, watch it again, it's not as bad as you remember. But put it up against Wrath of Khan, Search for Spock, Voyage Home…there's no contest. It's standard Trek pedestrianism compared to those later movies, which really pushed the envelope and dared to tell us stuff about the characters that we didn't already know.)But I digress----I'll get to the movies later, I promise. TNG set the standard for modern Trek. Unfortunately, it arguably set it so high and so well, that -with one notable exception-future spinoffs were scared shitless to divert from it.Let's continue…
Guest Trek Blogging #4
Deep Space Nine.
Promise me something. If you are one of those people who loves Next Generation but (quote) "never got into that Deep Space Nine show" (unquote), promise me that you will get into it. If you have read this far into my rantings and you haven't gotten bored yet and you are (if I may be so presumptuous) having as much fun listening to me talk Trek as I am actually talking it, you need to get into DS9. You just need to. Deep Space Nine was Trek's "great experiment," to coin Kirk's description of the U.S.S. Excelsior. To some of the show's detractors, this experiment failed; like the Excelsior in Star Trek III, DS9 looked flashy at first, but it sputtered and fell apart when it tried to chase the mighty Enterprise. But to a lot of us who actually watched the show from start to finish (and I guarantee you none of its detractors did so) this experiment was a savior; like the Excelsior in Star Trek VI, it kicked ass, defied Starfleet regulations and nearly flew itself apart while soaring to the aid of an old and tired ship, and keeping the Enterprise - and the franchise -alive. What did you think of that metaphor? I thought it worked swimmingly well. OK, the show had a misfire here and there. Nog flying the Defiant made about as much sense as, I don't know ,Wesley flying the Enterprise. OK bad example. But seriously it had some dumb moments. But man were they few & far between. Put simply, DS9 is Trek living up to its full potential. It took the fantastically rich universe Roddenberry & the gang had created, and through its willingness to fuck with the rules that had been established for it, showed us how it was even more cool than we thought it was.Give me a show set on an alien space station, where the characters can't just take off if they aren't getting along with the latest guy whose wife Kirk or Riker banged. Give me a character who hates Picard because he (as Locutus) killed his wife at Wolf 359, someone who doesn't forgive him for that, like we were all so willing to do.Give me an ex-terrorist as a first officer, who thinks the Federation is a bunch of jag-offs.Give me a changeling searching for his identity…and better yet, when he finds that identity, let him be ***** repulsed by it.Give me a Ferengi who is neither an ineffective villain OR comic relief… someone who's a real guy.Give me a kid character who, unlike Wesley, doesn't give a **** about Starfleet. Make him a writer. Now there's someone I can relate to.You can have your boring Cigarette Smoking, Man…give me Garak, a mysterious recurring character who's actually interesting.Give me a green, wet-behind-the-ears young doctor who I think I'm going to hate, and make him into one of the most complex characters on Trek.Give me a husband and wife with a family on a Trek show, and show me how their lives work in the context of what happens on a Trek show.Give me Martok. Give me Rom. Give me Dukat. Give me Winn. Give me Weyoun. Give me Morn.Give me Dax…whatever form she's in.Give me a show that features a knock-down drag-out two-year war, an oppressed spiritual race, political coups out the wazoo, and a *****singing, self-aware hologram in a 1940s [actually Scott it was an early '60's] Vegas gin joint, and weave it all into an amazing tapestry that ends with the lead character being revealed as a **** messiah.Give me DS9, baby. Give me more.
Promise me something. If you are one of those people who loves Next Generation but (quote) "never got into that Deep Space Nine show" (unquote), promise me that you will get into it. If you have read this far into my rantings and you haven't gotten bored yet and you are (if I may be so presumptuous) having as much fun listening to me talk Trek as I am actually talking it, you need to get into DS9. You just need to. Deep Space Nine was Trek's "great experiment," to coin Kirk's description of the U.S.S. Excelsior. To some of the show's detractors, this experiment failed; like the Excelsior in Star Trek III, DS9 looked flashy at first, but it sputtered and fell apart when it tried to chase the mighty Enterprise. But to a lot of us who actually watched the show from start to finish (and I guarantee you none of its detractors did so) this experiment was a savior; like the Excelsior in Star Trek VI, it kicked ass, defied Starfleet regulations and nearly flew itself apart while soaring to the aid of an old and tired ship, and keeping the Enterprise - and the franchise -alive. What did you think of that metaphor? I thought it worked swimmingly well. OK, the show had a misfire here and there. Nog flying the Defiant made about as much sense as, I don't know ,Wesley flying the Enterprise. OK bad example. But seriously it had some dumb moments. But man were they few & far between. Put simply, DS9 is Trek living up to its full potential. It took the fantastically rich universe Roddenberry & the gang had created, and through its willingness to fuck with the rules that had been established for it, showed us how it was even more cool than we thought it was.Give me a show set on an alien space station, where the characters can't just take off if they aren't getting along with the latest guy whose wife Kirk or Riker banged. Give me a character who hates Picard because he (as Locutus) killed his wife at Wolf 359, someone who doesn't forgive him for that, like we were all so willing to do.Give me an ex-terrorist as a first officer, who thinks the Federation is a bunch of jag-offs.Give me a changeling searching for his identity…and better yet, when he finds that identity, let him be ***** repulsed by it.Give me a Ferengi who is neither an ineffective villain OR comic relief… someone who's a real guy.Give me a kid character who, unlike Wesley, doesn't give a **** about Starfleet. Make him a writer. Now there's someone I can relate to.You can have your boring Cigarette Smoking, Man…give me Garak, a mysterious recurring character who's actually interesting.Give me a green, wet-behind-the-ears young doctor who I think I'm going to hate, and make him into one of the most complex characters on Trek.Give me a husband and wife with a family on a Trek show, and show me how their lives work in the context of what happens on a Trek show.Give me Martok. Give me Rom. Give me Dukat. Give me Winn. Give me Weyoun. Give me Morn.Give me Dax…whatever form she's in.Give me a show that features a knock-down drag-out two-year war, an oppressed spiritual race, political coups out the wazoo, and a *****singing, self-aware hologram in a 1940s [actually Scott it was an early '60's] Vegas gin joint, and weave it all into an amazing tapestry that ends with the lead character being revealed as a **** messiah.Give me DS9, baby. Give me more.
Guest Trek Blogging #5
Voyager.
What happened here? I'll tell you what happened. Berman & company lost their balls. So, DS9's ratings were lower than Next Generation's. Oh, woe is me. C'mon, if there's anything they should have learned it's that STAR TREK IS NOT ABOUT RATINGS. They wanted a show to replace Next Generation when it went off the air. That was the wrong mindset from the very start. Nothing will ever replace TNG. You can stick the Borg into as many Voyager or Enterprise episodes as you want, but the Borg are linked to Picard, both figuratively and literally. What the folks at Paramount have never understood is that the Borg are not great villains. Khan is a great villain. Q is a great villain. Dukat is a great villain. Hell, Harry Mudd is a pretty good villain. But the Borg are not great villains, because you have to have a personality to be a great villain. The Borg resonate with us because of what they did to Picard, and we care about Picard. To this day, Paramount is pushing the Borg on us. Voyager had more Borg episodes than Next Gen. Enterprise had them on a show, 200 years before humans were supposed to have met them. And now the Las Vegas ride is featuring them. Paramount execs think that First Contact was a big hit because it was about the Borg. Bullshit. First Contact was not about the Borg. Sure, they were an important part of the story, but it wasn't about them. It was about Picard. It was about Data, it was about the difference between heroes and flesh & blood people. We learned more about our characters through the Borg, but the movie was not about the Borg.Anyway, um…Like I said, I'll get to the movies later. What was I talking about? Oh yeah, Voyager. Sorry I lost my train of thought, but can you blame me? On the grand scale of things Trek, Voyager is pretty damn easy -and sometimes preferable - to forget.Say what you may about Voyager, there were some really good things about the show. Kathryn Janeway was a great character, and Kate Mulgrew played her to the hilt. The holographic doctor was a brilliant creation. B'elanna Torres---a conflicted human/Klingon half-breed right up there in the Kira Nerys/Ro Laren tortured Trek chick vein. And Seven of Nine saved the show. More about her in a minute.Voyager had some really good characters, and some really good episodes, some really cool entries in the mystique that is Trek lore. But let's face facts: When looked at as a whole package, Voyager is ultimately a disappointment - a show that failed to live up to the promise of its challenging concept, and that failed to live up to the lofty standard set by its predecessors- namely, the previous Trek shows.It had a spectacular pilot episode. Spectacular, I tell you. What a fantastic idea. It drew upon established Trek lore, giving us a Maquis crew and a Starfleet crew, and forcing them to work together, braving dangers that, since we were thousands of light years from home, we had never seen before. Ooh, it sounded so exciting. Almost makes you weep.With a frustratingly few amount of exceptions, Voyager was essentially a half-baked retread of TNG. And that's a shame. TNG did plenty of TNG. Voyager should have done more Voyager. Voyager should have done what DS9 did, taken its concept and pushed it as far as it would go. Chakotay should have been in conflict with the captain, like, a lot? It's terrible how quickly he relinquished his position to her….there could have been lots of stories there. They were friends too quickly. Come to think of it, everyone was friends too quickly. My favorite example of this is the potentially ambitious and interesting second season story arc in which Tom Paris was butting heads with many of the characters, and seemed on the verge of leaving the ship. Now here was someone interesting. Turns out though, that he was faking it all, in order to expose a double agent. And after they caught this bad guy, who we didn't really know or care that much about, Tom went right back to being the good Starfleet officer. The writers may have patted themselves on the back for fooling the audience into thinking Tom was back to being a screw-up, but did it ever occur to them that the character was more interesting as a screw-up? They effectively castrated this guy in terms of his complexity by telling us all this conflict we thought he'd been going through had been bogus. Voyager also had the annoying habit of giving us episodes which involved time travel or alternate timelines, which while on the surface were sometimes decent stories, would end with the crew setting the regular timeline back on course and thereby forgetting everything that had happened to them in the story. See, guys, a neat subplot about Tuvok and Seven of Nine bonding during a hellish year on the ship has no resonance with us if at the end of the episode the characters erase that year from existence, go on their merry way and don't remember that it happened.And why didn't they get home earlier? OK, the final shot of the show, with the ship being escorted back to earth is effective, but when you think of all the lackluster, run-of-the-mill stories that were told in the last few seasons of Voyager, it just makes you want to puke. If they'd gotten home, say, at the end of the fifth season, or the sixth, or even halfway through the seventh season, we could have seen them trying to readjust to life on earth. Now that would have been uncharted territory as far as Trek stories go. Again, it's another example of Voyager's missed opportunities.One thing though. The addition of Jeri Ryan in the fourth season was a masterstroke. The show was going down, baby, you know it and I know it. And when Seven of Nine stepped out of her alcove and started making life on the ship interesting, suddenly people were watching again. Admit it. She was Spock. She was Data, she was Odo. She was the outsider who commented on the human condition through her inability to understand it. She was a compelling character and she brought some juice back into the show, for awhile at least. And lay off the crap about her outfits, OK? Hey, is it against the law to be a sexy babe? We saw as much Nichelle Nichols thigh and Marina Sirtis cleavage as we saw Jeri Ryan T & A. And she looked hot as hell in that catsuit, so shut up about it, and remember why you saw Batman Returns. Hint: It wasn't to leer at Danny Devito.
What happened here? I'll tell you what happened. Berman & company lost their balls. So, DS9's ratings were lower than Next Generation's. Oh, woe is me. C'mon, if there's anything they should have learned it's that STAR TREK IS NOT ABOUT RATINGS. They wanted a show to replace Next Generation when it went off the air. That was the wrong mindset from the very start. Nothing will ever replace TNG. You can stick the Borg into as many Voyager or Enterprise episodes as you want, but the Borg are linked to Picard, both figuratively and literally. What the folks at Paramount have never understood is that the Borg are not great villains. Khan is a great villain. Q is a great villain. Dukat is a great villain. Hell, Harry Mudd is a pretty good villain. But the Borg are not great villains, because you have to have a personality to be a great villain. The Borg resonate with us because of what they did to Picard, and we care about Picard. To this day, Paramount is pushing the Borg on us. Voyager had more Borg episodes than Next Gen. Enterprise had them on a show, 200 years before humans were supposed to have met them. And now the Las Vegas ride is featuring them. Paramount execs think that First Contact was a big hit because it was about the Borg. Bullshit. First Contact was not about the Borg. Sure, they were an important part of the story, but it wasn't about them. It was about Picard. It was about Data, it was about the difference between heroes and flesh & blood people. We learned more about our characters through the Borg, but the movie was not about the Borg.Anyway, um…Like I said, I'll get to the movies later. What was I talking about? Oh yeah, Voyager. Sorry I lost my train of thought, but can you blame me? On the grand scale of things Trek, Voyager is pretty damn easy -and sometimes preferable - to forget.Say what you may about Voyager, there were some really good things about the show. Kathryn Janeway was a great character, and Kate Mulgrew played her to the hilt. The holographic doctor was a brilliant creation. B'elanna Torres---a conflicted human/Klingon half-breed right up there in the Kira Nerys/Ro Laren tortured Trek chick vein. And Seven of Nine saved the show. More about her in a minute.Voyager had some really good characters, and some really good episodes, some really cool entries in the mystique that is Trek lore. But let's face facts: When looked at as a whole package, Voyager is ultimately a disappointment - a show that failed to live up to the promise of its challenging concept, and that failed to live up to the lofty standard set by its predecessors- namely, the previous Trek shows.It had a spectacular pilot episode. Spectacular, I tell you. What a fantastic idea. It drew upon established Trek lore, giving us a Maquis crew and a Starfleet crew, and forcing them to work together, braving dangers that, since we were thousands of light years from home, we had never seen before. Ooh, it sounded so exciting. Almost makes you weep.With a frustratingly few amount of exceptions, Voyager was essentially a half-baked retread of TNG. And that's a shame. TNG did plenty of TNG. Voyager should have done more Voyager. Voyager should have done what DS9 did, taken its concept and pushed it as far as it would go. Chakotay should have been in conflict with the captain, like, a lot? It's terrible how quickly he relinquished his position to her….there could have been lots of stories there. They were friends too quickly. Come to think of it, everyone was friends too quickly. My favorite example of this is the potentially ambitious and interesting second season story arc in which Tom Paris was butting heads with many of the characters, and seemed on the verge of leaving the ship. Now here was someone interesting. Turns out though, that he was faking it all, in order to expose a double agent. And after they caught this bad guy, who we didn't really know or care that much about, Tom went right back to being the good Starfleet officer. The writers may have patted themselves on the back for fooling the audience into thinking Tom was back to being a screw-up, but did it ever occur to them that the character was more interesting as a screw-up? They effectively castrated this guy in terms of his complexity by telling us all this conflict we thought he'd been going through had been bogus. Voyager also had the annoying habit of giving us episodes which involved time travel or alternate timelines, which while on the surface were sometimes decent stories, would end with the crew setting the regular timeline back on course and thereby forgetting everything that had happened to them in the story. See, guys, a neat subplot about Tuvok and Seven of Nine bonding during a hellish year on the ship has no resonance with us if at the end of the episode the characters erase that year from existence, go on their merry way and don't remember that it happened.And why didn't they get home earlier? OK, the final shot of the show, with the ship being escorted back to earth is effective, but when you think of all the lackluster, run-of-the-mill stories that were told in the last few seasons of Voyager, it just makes you want to puke. If they'd gotten home, say, at the end of the fifth season, or the sixth, or even halfway through the seventh season, we could have seen them trying to readjust to life on earth. Now that would have been uncharted territory as far as Trek stories go. Again, it's another example of Voyager's missed opportunities.One thing though. The addition of Jeri Ryan in the fourth season was a masterstroke. The show was going down, baby, you know it and I know it. And when Seven of Nine stepped out of her alcove and started making life on the ship interesting, suddenly people were watching again. Admit it. She was Spock. She was Data, she was Odo. She was the outsider who commented on the human condition through her inability to understand it. She was a compelling character and she brought some juice back into the show, for awhile at least. And lay off the crap about her outfits, OK? Hey, is it against the law to be a sexy babe? We saw as much Nichelle Nichols thigh and Marina Sirtis cleavage as we saw Jeri Ryan T & A. And she looked hot as hell in that catsuit, so shut up about it, and remember why you saw Batman Returns. Hint: It wasn't to leer at Danny Devito.
Guest Trek blogging #6
Enterprise.
I think the most telling sign that Paramount has lost confidence in this show is that it is, as of early in the third season, now officially called "Star Trek: Enterprise."The absence of the "Star Trek" moniker filled me with hope. This show ain't gonna be anything you've seen before…that's what that said to me. But as soon as the ratings started to dip, It could've worked. Maybe it still can. It seemed like it was for awhile. Its first season had a lot of buzz. A prequel, set before Kirk's time? Great idea. Scott Bakula as the captain? Sure, why not? At least you know Quantum Leap fans will watch, right? Conflict with the Vulcans? Bring it on. Where are the Romulan wars? And let's talk about T'Pol. Let's just put it right out there for everyone to see, as Jolene Blalock does almost every week on the show. They wanted another Seven of Nine, OK? I'm sure the Paramount honchos said it to Berman in exactly those words. So they gave us another hot chick in a tight outfit, with a severe personality, to feed all the Trek male fans' brains with that insatiable "I want be the guy to shake her out of that cool exterior - and out of those hot, hip-hugging clothes - and bring out the libidinous sex animal lurking underneath" feeling. Hey guys, I'm a guy, too. I felt it. Don't be ashamed. But ask yourself this, should we really accept that kind of empty eye candy at the expense of good characterization? I thought I liked T'Pol at first. But let's be honest, she's pretty one-note. Whenever they want to vamp up the sexual tension on the show, she takes off her top and massages Trip with oil. Now, while this may be a more or less completely successful attempt to play into the Trek male geek fantasy of a Vulcan love slave, does it really advance the story? Has the Trip/T'Pol romance ever seemed like anything other than a contrived attempt to inject some love scenes into the show?
I think the most telling sign that Paramount has lost confidence in this show is that it is, as of early in the third season, now officially called "Star Trek: Enterprise."The absence of the "Star Trek" moniker filled me with hope. This show ain't gonna be anything you've seen before…that's what that said to me. But as soon as the ratings started to dip, It could've worked. Maybe it still can. It seemed like it was for awhile. Its first season had a lot of buzz. A prequel, set before Kirk's time? Great idea. Scott Bakula as the captain? Sure, why not? At least you know Quantum Leap fans will watch, right? Conflict with the Vulcans? Bring it on. Where are the Romulan wars? And let's talk about T'Pol. Let's just put it right out there for everyone to see, as Jolene Blalock does almost every week on the show. They wanted another Seven of Nine, OK? I'm sure the Paramount honchos said it to Berman in exactly those words. So they gave us another hot chick in a tight outfit, with a severe personality, to feed all the Trek male fans' brains with that insatiable "I want be the guy to shake her out of that cool exterior - and out of those hot, hip-hugging clothes - and bring out the libidinous sex animal lurking underneath" feeling. Hey guys, I'm a guy, too. I felt it. Don't be ashamed. But ask yourself this, should we really accept that kind of empty eye candy at the expense of good characterization? I thought I liked T'Pol at first. But let's be honest, she's pretty one-note. Whenever they want to vamp up the sexual tension on the show, she takes off her top and massages Trip with oil. Now, while this may be a more or less completely successful attempt to play into the Trek male geek fantasy of a Vulcan love slave, does it really advance the story? Has the Trip/T'Pol romance ever seemed like anything other than a contrived attempt to inject some love scenes into the show?
Guest Trek Blogging#7
The Trek Movies.
Insurrection killed the Trek movie franchise. Bold statement? Not really. Think about it. Now don't get me wrong. Insurrection, while my least favorite of the Next Generation films, is not a bad movie. On the contrary, it's pretty solid stuff. A firm three out of four stars. But it was rushed out too soon after First Contact, to capitalize on that film's enormous success. But hey, you say, First Contact came out two years after Generations, and Insurection came out two years after First Contact, so how can you make that argument? Here's why: First Contact had to come out soon after Generations if the Trek movies were going to survive. Generations was a decent-size hit, but it was slammed by critics and a lot of fans. The emotion chip was gimmicky, the nexus was nonsensical technobabble; Shatner upstaged Stewart. There was serious doubt as to whether the Next Gen crew could hold a film on their own, with no help from the original series. First Contact quickly proved that they could…Star Trek clearly still had a future on the silver screen.What should they have done then? They should have let the movie series rest awhile. Let some anticipation build for the next installment. But those Paramount execs, they can always be counted on to do whatever they think will make them the quickest buck. What did they do? Salivating with the success of the "Borg movie," as I'm sure they inaccurately called it, they threw loads of dough at Stewart and Spiner and they filmed the first story Michael Piller could come up with. And what happened? Insurrection, while entertaining and modestly successful at the box office, failed to generate the excitement a Trek movie should. It was a fine story, but it was pretty forgettable. And c'mon, "Insurrection?" It was a horrible title. Really, in all seriousness, "Insurrection?" What the hell does that mean? It sounds like one of those lackluster one-word technobabble titles from some TNG or Voyager episodes, where you get the idea that they didn't feel like coming up with something good. "The Devil in the Dark," "The Changing Face of Evil," The City on the Edge of Forever," "Far Beyond the Stars," those are Trek titles. Insurrection underperformed, and that was possibly a good thing, cause it made Berman & Co. realize they needed to take more time to think up something better for the next one. And you know what? They did. The ho-hum response to Nemesis confounded me. At the time, I tried to explain it away with bad timing. Well, there was a Lord of the Rings, a Harry Potter and a Bond film out at the same time. Well, you know what? Those excuses didn't work with Star Trek V, and they don't work with Nemesis either. It goes deeper than that. Some people didn't like Nemesis, but I although I think they're wrong, I don't think they're the problem. I think the people who didn't SEE Nemesis are the problem. When a film like Star Trek V underperforms at the box office, it's easy to explain. It was a bad movie. When A a really cool film like Nemesis (and it was really cool) underperforms, it means, interest in the Trek films is waning. Interest in Trek in general is waning. Oh, I hated writing those last words I just wrote. But it's the only explanation. The future of Trek. Enterprise will not last seven years.
Insurrection killed the Trek movie franchise. Bold statement? Not really. Think about it. Now don't get me wrong. Insurrection, while my least favorite of the Next Generation films, is not a bad movie. On the contrary, it's pretty solid stuff. A firm three out of four stars. But it was rushed out too soon after First Contact, to capitalize on that film's enormous success. But hey, you say, First Contact came out two years after Generations, and Insurection came out two years after First Contact, so how can you make that argument? Here's why: First Contact had to come out soon after Generations if the Trek movies were going to survive. Generations was a decent-size hit, but it was slammed by critics and a lot of fans. The emotion chip was gimmicky, the nexus was nonsensical technobabble; Shatner upstaged Stewart. There was serious doubt as to whether the Next Gen crew could hold a film on their own, with no help from the original series. First Contact quickly proved that they could…Star Trek clearly still had a future on the silver screen.What should they have done then? They should have let the movie series rest awhile. Let some anticipation build for the next installment. But those Paramount execs, they can always be counted on to do whatever they think will make them the quickest buck. What did they do? Salivating with the success of the "Borg movie," as I'm sure they inaccurately called it, they threw loads of dough at Stewart and Spiner and they filmed the first story Michael Piller could come up with. And what happened? Insurrection, while entertaining and modestly successful at the box office, failed to generate the excitement a Trek movie should. It was a fine story, but it was pretty forgettable. And c'mon, "Insurrection?" It was a horrible title. Really, in all seriousness, "Insurrection?" What the hell does that mean? It sounds like one of those lackluster one-word technobabble titles from some TNG or Voyager episodes, where you get the idea that they didn't feel like coming up with something good. "The Devil in the Dark," "The Changing Face of Evil," The City on the Edge of Forever," "Far Beyond the Stars," those are Trek titles. Insurrection underperformed, and that was possibly a good thing, cause it made Berman & Co. realize they needed to take more time to think up something better for the next one. And you know what? They did. The ho-hum response to Nemesis confounded me. At the time, I tried to explain it away with bad timing. Well, there was a Lord of the Rings, a Harry Potter and a Bond film out at the same time. Well, you know what? Those excuses didn't work with Star Trek V, and they don't work with Nemesis either. It goes deeper than that. Some people didn't like Nemesis, but I although I think they're wrong, I don't think they're the problem. I think the people who didn't SEE Nemesis are the problem. When a film like Star Trek V underperforms at the box office, it's easy to explain. It was a bad movie. When A a really cool film like Nemesis (and it was really cool) underperforms, it means, interest in the Trek films is waning. Interest in Trek in general is waning. Oh, I hated writing those last words I just wrote. But it's the only explanation. The future of Trek. Enterprise will not last seven years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)