Sometimes, circumstances mean you spend "time off" with fictional characters, rather than people.
So a shout out to a long list of very fictional persons.
First, the seasonally appropriate:
Whoville
Christmastown...
And that good man Charlie Brown...
Or the rest:
Anyone in Rod Serling's "Twilight Zone."
The crews of all the "Enterprise's"
As well as the Millenium Falcon
Monty Python's bunch.
Jim West and Artemis Gordon (and Miguelito Loveless)
Everyone from Collinwood.
Or Narnia
Or Middle-Earth
Or 34th Street...
Or Sherwood Forest
Or The Emerald City
Places to go when circumstances circumscribe seasonal celebraton in the real world...
Monday, December 25, 2006
Friday, September 08, 2006
40th Anniversary The First 20 years
Myself and my cousin The Journalist, well, we just love this stuff: So, without further ado we present, a tribute in two acts, on the occasion of Trek's 40th.
Star Trek: In September 1966, something happened. The first, the original, *without which there would have been no others* “Star Trek” premiered on NBC TV. A series that did not insult viewers’ intelligence, but acknowledged it and pushed the folks on the couch to puzzle, think, and understand as they watched. I’m not comfortable with the disrespect given this lovely prize by fans who only celebrate the spinoffs.
It’s important to remember Star Trek fans got a jump on something BIG.
The future.
The show itself took an incredible leap forward by representing humanity. I don’t permit the “it’s so dated” type of remarks. If you weren’t there, perhaps there is no effective way to explain to you how much of a risk Roddenberry took by just having different races and sexes and nationalities up there on the bridge.
In a time before personal computers, we knew about shipboard systems that held vast amounts of information. And its crew had personal models that they carried around with them.
In a time before cell phones, we knew about just such things. They were handheld “walkie-talkies” with astonishing range.
Diagnostic medical beds, aerosol medication delivery, wireless headsets. But *none* of this tech junk even begins to tell us what, or who, were the most important parts of the story.
The *characters.*
Star Trek is our mythos. The place where larger than life heroes showed us an idea that is currently on very dangerous ground. The idea that humanity *does* get to a point of not just *peaceful* coexistence, but an *interesting peace* peace without many borders, or much boredom…an enthusiastic merry band of warrior/diplomats that keep their society in line while being mindful of Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations, and the Prime Directive. (Yes, Kirk used it like a rubber band. But without the *concept* the whole Federation would have been one large “brush war.”) Now, for those who expect a bit of Shatner bashing…go somewhere else for that. Pull out your DVD of first season Trek and watch Kirk. Before there was any parody of anything at all. Watch “Balance of Terror,” where we get both Kirk the master, restrained, *careful,* intense, *underplayed* strategist, and a sweet bit of the endlessly compassionate McCoy. Or the second pilot, where Kirk is all about stopping a nutcase, not out in front hamming. “Court Martial,” where there are pretty evenhanded doses of Kirk the tomcat, and Kirk the unjustly accused truthful defendant.
And before someone points me to the truly underappreciated “A Piece of the Action,” [“Captain you make an excellent starship commander, but as a taxi driver you leave much to be desired.”] or “I Mudd” or “The Trouble with Tribbles.” [“Why Mr. Baris they like *you!* But there’s no accounting for taste.”] This was *comedy.* If I remember correctly everyone got to ham it up a bit in those episodes.
Kirk’s my favorite “tin plated overbearing dictator with delusions of godhood…” So there.
Spock, the cool analytical risk taker in “Gallileo 7,” the anguished son in “Naked Time,” or restrained, but no less anguished officer in “Journey to Babel.”
The writers and Nimoy managed to create such a believable “other,” that an eyebrow made sense, that the subtlest change in stance, movement, tone, cadence or nuance was full of meaning whether the story was drama or comedy. They made us love Vulcans so much we asked for more! We got Sarek, T’Pring,T’Pau T’lar Stonn (poor fool!) Spock’s sniping at McCoy became a further window into his grudging respect and admiration for the doctor and his unwavering loyalty to his commander….so human, really.
McCoy. He was, I think, the first character who saw all the way in to the entire Spock. Kirk, did also, but I think McCoy “got it” first. Understood him. And did him and his cultural sensitivities the favor of bringing it out through the acceptable back door of an argument. Spock wouldn’t be so beloved if McCoy hadn’t been a window into his nature. It’s difficult to write about the character now, because the man who gave him life has left the planet. But DeForest Kelley and the writers infused this doctor with such caring, expertise and concern…that by the time McCoy did meet with a ladylove [“For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched The Sky”] I was cheering that for once the nice guy did not finish last, whatever the merits of the episode.
For De, and James Doohan both…who didn’t make it to this anniversary… The word has been given, and I’ve no doubt they’re at warp speed.
Scotty who was the *only* one who *truly* loved that ship. Without his miracles, Kirk might have expired mid series…the beam of smile and certainty that was Sulu at the helm, who we loved best when he was out of character and sometimes even out of uniform. Uhura, a smart tough lady the guardian of the ships “communication tether” back to settled space a songbird, and a sexy Mata Hari full of bravado when trying to escape Mirror space…writing at the time gave the character little room for growth, but thankfully much written Trek tells us she is an academic, a student of language and communication…so much more than “hailing frequencies open, sir.” Chekov, the studious, earnest Russian product of a more open society that we had *no idea* was coming in 1967. Not to mention the best screamer in the bunch.
Even the some of the villains get amazingly respectful treatment. Mark Lenard’s resigned, bitter complex Romulan Commander, the merrily authoritarian Kor, of John Colicos…they ring just as ‘true’ and multifaceted as the “good guys.” I credit Colicos’ performance alone with giving the writers of the spinoffs the idea that there had to be more to this race than its aggressions.
Okay, I’ll admit to the third season….but in my recent review of the episodes I remembered that, the *second* season had its fair share of turkeys too… (The *Apple?*) But, bear with me. The turkeys *hurt* so much because we *know* the fineness of these stories, these performances, this vision of the future….
If you’re going to try to explain to a non-fan what’s great about the original Star Trek, you already know that using “Spock’s Brain,” “Spectre of the Gun,” “The Way to Eden” “Plato’s Stepchildren” or “Turnabout Intruder,” probably won’t make them ask for more, but, could, in fact, send them shrieking out into the night begging for some “Fabulous Thunderbirds” DVD’s. And, the cool episodes of Trek would not have “The Enterprise Incident” or “The Empath” in their midst if we hadn’t had a Season Three.
But the fact of the matter is that when Roddenberry left the show, even after the fans wrote in and saved it (Wrote in? Another unheard of thing.), the show’s days were numbered. And, then, when it was cancelled….*another crazy thing happened.*
The show, the idea, ended, was in danger of fading away….and the fans said: NO! This is too good, too interesting, too hopeful, too *important* of a possibility to give up. And they wrote, and wrote and wrote. (the writing has never stopped and continues to this day. I’m personally incredibly fond of the written Trek of Marshak and Culbreath, Diane Duane, A.C. Crispin, Margaret Wander Bonnano, and Peter David. Go get it. It’s consistently as good and sometimes even better than the show. I know, I know, I hear the squawks of “Treason!” for miles. Too Bad.) Blish recaptured the original stories. Fans wrote stories just to write them, and they gathered three years later to celebrate what they loved. Paramount was astounded… but somebody was smart enough to greenlight more adventures for Kirk and Co. via animation. (On DVD soon!) The actual animation is poor, but the writing of a few was incredible, and the voices of almost all the original actors were used…the animated shows are best “seen” with the eyes closed, I’ve found.
So the writing and congregating, and art and ideas went on and on. Amazingly we got our wish…and then the man who’d created this vision and helped it along for so long…stumbled. When we saw Kirk, a strangely cold, not just cool, Spock, and a bearded snarky McCoy…we were exhilarated as only one who has pined for a long anticipated reunion can get. But the first film is an oddly static story, color washed out of the writing and the uniforms, a still, overblown piece where adoring shots of the Enterprise newly lovely couldn’t make up for the missing heart in the writing about the people who fly in her. It made money, not because of what it was, but because of what we hoped for.
I forget the behind the scenes machinations that allowed for a second Trek film, but I thank the studio gods (whomever they may be) that a second film was shot. “Wrath of Khan,” is a true extension of the best series episodes, a bigger story, a more powerful score, a riveting return of a powerful villan and Kirk, McCoy and more than ever Spock…doing what they did best, and doing it well. Camaraderie, investigation, strategy, humor (“a difficult concept.”), Kirk finally being held to some sort of account for at least one of his affairs, (heh) and, heroic self sacrifice….I’m a softie….. even now when I *know* the ultimate answer is reunion…
When Spock stands to attention in front of his Captain and straightens his tunic, the horrific damage from radiation clear on his face and hands…. “I…never took…the Kobiashi Maru test…’til now….what do you think… of my solution?”
I can’t help but cry.
But of course there’s that odd little ‘gift’ he left McCoy…and there we go into the third film…with Nimoy directing the “Search for Spock,” and the band of brothers and sisters shows just what they will do: [“Oh I’ll have Mister Adventure eating out of my hand, sir…” “I’m glad you’re on *our* side!” “How many fingers am I holding up?” “That green blooded son-of-a-bitch! It’s his revenge for all those arguments he lost.” And my *favorite!* “Don’t call me Tiny!”]
What they will risk, or give up to save a comrade. Because, after all…Risk was their business. That was the twentieth anniversary…and the world is much changed….
I have to journey into the personal for just a moment. For those who know me offline and have known me, they know that I never would have met my other half without the Star Trek we both loved…it’s what brought us together…he had a great wish to stand on the NCC 1701’s (“No bloody A, B, C, or D!”) bridge…to sit in a particular Captain’s chair…but was too ill by the time we made it to the Smithsonian to be comfortable with anyone taking his picture. But he saw the exhibit of the sets and the costumes of the original series in 1992, and drank it all in with a purposeful intensity committing it to loving detailed memory, so that in his last eight months he could mentally take it out and polish it and remember…because he knew he had a long journey yet to go… He didn’t make it to this anniversary…but "There are always possibilities"...
The last part of this will be the one ‘speech’ from TOS Trek that still makes me want to freakin’ *stand and salute* when I hear it, and I’m a cynic. To me it’s not overblown, hokey, or false. It rings true. I’ve bracketed in one small alteration for sense. ---Imfunnytoo.
"The illogic of waste, Mr. Spock...the waste of lives, potential, resources, time.
I submit to you that your Empire is illogical because it cannot endure.
I submit that *you* are illogical to be a willing part of it.
If change is inevitable, predictable, beneficial,doesn't logic demand that you be a part of it?" "One man cannot summon the future."
"But one man can change the present.
Be the captain of this Enterprise, Mr. Spock!
Find a logical reason for saving the Halkans [doing right?] ,and make it stick.
Push till it gives!
What will it be?
Past or future?
Tyranny or freedom?
It's up to you.”
”It is time.”
”In every revolution, there's one man with a vision...."
"Captain Kirk, I shall consider it." *
*From “Mirror Mirror” by Jerome Bixby. All Star Trek material copyright Paramount Pictures, no copyright infringement intended or implied.
Star Trek: In September 1966, something happened. The first, the original, *without which there would have been no others* “Star Trek” premiered on NBC TV. A series that did not insult viewers’ intelligence, but acknowledged it and pushed the folks on the couch to puzzle, think, and understand as they watched. I’m not comfortable with the disrespect given this lovely prize by fans who only celebrate the spinoffs.
It’s important to remember Star Trek fans got a jump on something BIG.
The future.
The show itself took an incredible leap forward by representing humanity. I don’t permit the “it’s so dated” type of remarks. If you weren’t there, perhaps there is no effective way to explain to you how much of a risk Roddenberry took by just having different races and sexes and nationalities up there on the bridge.
In a time before personal computers, we knew about shipboard systems that held vast amounts of information. And its crew had personal models that they carried around with them.
In a time before cell phones, we knew about just such things. They were handheld “walkie-talkies” with astonishing range.
Diagnostic medical beds, aerosol medication delivery, wireless headsets. But *none* of this tech junk even begins to tell us what, or who, were the most important parts of the story.
The *characters.*
Star Trek is our mythos. The place where larger than life heroes showed us an idea that is currently on very dangerous ground. The idea that humanity *does* get to a point of not just *peaceful* coexistence, but an *interesting peace* peace without many borders, or much boredom…an enthusiastic merry band of warrior/diplomats that keep their society in line while being mindful of Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations, and the Prime Directive. (Yes, Kirk used it like a rubber band. But without the *concept* the whole Federation would have been one large “brush war.”) Now, for those who expect a bit of Shatner bashing…go somewhere else for that. Pull out your DVD of first season Trek and watch Kirk. Before there was any parody of anything at all. Watch “Balance of Terror,” where we get both Kirk the master, restrained, *careful,* intense, *underplayed* strategist, and a sweet bit of the endlessly compassionate McCoy. Or the second pilot, where Kirk is all about stopping a nutcase, not out in front hamming. “Court Martial,” where there are pretty evenhanded doses of Kirk the tomcat, and Kirk the unjustly accused truthful defendant.
And before someone points me to the truly underappreciated “A Piece of the Action,” [“Captain you make an excellent starship commander, but as a taxi driver you leave much to be desired.”] or “I Mudd” or “The Trouble with Tribbles.” [“Why Mr. Baris they like *you!* But there’s no accounting for taste.”] This was *comedy.* If I remember correctly everyone got to ham it up a bit in those episodes.
Kirk’s my favorite “tin plated overbearing dictator with delusions of godhood…” So there.
Spock, the cool analytical risk taker in “Gallileo 7,” the anguished son in “Naked Time,” or restrained, but no less anguished officer in “Journey to Babel.”
The writers and Nimoy managed to create such a believable “other,” that an eyebrow made sense, that the subtlest change in stance, movement, tone, cadence or nuance was full of meaning whether the story was drama or comedy. They made us love Vulcans so much we asked for more! We got Sarek, T’Pring,T’Pau T’lar Stonn (poor fool!) Spock’s sniping at McCoy became a further window into his grudging respect and admiration for the doctor and his unwavering loyalty to his commander….so human, really.
McCoy. He was, I think, the first character who saw all the way in to the entire Spock. Kirk, did also, but I think McCoy “got it” first. Understood him. And did him and his cultural sensitivities the favor of bringing it out through the acceptable back door of an argument. Spock wouldn’t be so beloved if McCoy hadn’t been a window into his nature. It’s difficult to write about the character now, because the man who gave him life has left the planet. But DeForest Kelley and the writers infused this doctor with such caring, expertise and concern…that by the time McCoy did meet with a ladylove [“For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched The Sky”] I was cheering that for once the nice guy did not finish last, whatever the merits of the episode.
For De, and James Doohan both…who didn’t make it to this anniversary… The word has been given, and I’ve no doubt they’re at warp speed.
Scotty who was the *only* one who *truly* loved that ship. Without his miracles, Kirk might have expired mid series…the beam of smile and certainty that was Sulu at the helm, who we loved best when he was out of character and sometimes even out of uniform. Uhura, a smart tough lady the guardian of the ships “communication tether” back to settled space a songbird, and a sexy Mata Hari full of bravado when trying to escape Mirror space…writing at the time gave the character little room for growth, but thankfully much written Trek tells us she is an academic, a student of language and communication…so much more than “hailing frequencies open, sir.” Chekov, the studious, earnest Russian product of a more open society that we had *no idea* was coming in 1967. Not to mention the best screamer in the bunch.
Even the some of the villains get amazingly respectful treatment. Mark Lenard’s resigned, bitter complex Romulan Commander, the merrily authoritarian Kor, of John Colicos…they ring just as ‘true’ and multifaceted as the “good guys.” I credit Colicos’ performance alone with giving the writers of the spinoffs the idea that there had to be more to this race than its aggressions.
Okay, I’ll admit to the third season….but in my recent review of the episodes I remembered that, the *second* season had its fair share of turkeys too… (The *Apple?*) But, bear with me. The turkeys *hurt* so much because we *know* the fineness of these stories, these performances, this vision of the future….
If you’re going to try to explain to a non-fan what’s great about the original Star Trek, you already know that using “Spock’s Brain,” “Spectre of the Gun,” “The Way to Eden” “Plato’s Stepchildren” or “Turnabout Intruder,” probably won’t make them ask for more, but, could, in fact, send them shrieking out into the night begging for some “Fabulous Thunderbirds” DVD’s. And, the cool episodes of Trek would not have “The Enterprise Incident” or “The Empath” in their midst if we hadn’t had a Season Three.
But the fact of the matter is that when Roddenberry left the show, even after the fans wrote in and saved it (Wrote in? Another unheard of thing.), the show’s days were numbered. And, then, when it was cancelled….*another crazy thing happened.*
The show, the idea, ended, was in danger of fading away….and the fans said: NO! This is too good, too interesting, too hopeful, too *important* of a possibility to give up. And they wrote, and wrote and wrote. (the writing has never stopped and continues to this day. I’m personally incredibly fond of the written Trek of Marshak and Culbreath, Diane Duane, A.C. Crispin, Margaret Wander Bonnano, and Peter David. Go get it. It’s consistently as good and sometimes even better than the show. I know, I know, I hear the squawks of “Treason!” for miles. Too Bad.) Blish recaptured the original stories. Fans wrote stories just to write them, and they gathered three years later to celebrate what they loved. Paramount was astounded… but somebody was smart enough to greenlight more adventures for Kirk and Co. via animation. (On DVD soon!) The actual animation is poor, but the writing of a few was incredible, and the voices of almost all the original actors were used…the animated shows are best “seen” with the eyes closed, I’ve found.
So the writing and congregating, and art and ideas went on and on. Amazingly we got our wish…and then the man who’d created this vision and helped it along for so long…stumbled. When we saw Kirk, a strangely cold, not just cool, Spock, and a bearded snarky McCoy…we were exhilarated as only one who has pined for a long anticipated reunion can get. But the first film is an oddly static story, color washed out of the writing and the uniforms, a still, overblown piece where adoring shots of the Enterprise newly lovely couldn’t make up for the missing heart in the writing about the people who fly in her. It made money, not because of what it was, but because of what we hoped for.
I forget the behind the scenes machinations that allowed for a second Trek film, but I thank the studio gods (whomever they may be) that a second film was shot. “Wrath of Khan,” is a true extension of the best series episodes, a bigger story, a more powerful score, a riveting return of a powerful villan and Kirk, McCoy and more than ever Spock…doing what they did best, and doing it well. Camaraderie, investigation, strategy, humor (“a difficult concept.”), Kirk finally being held to some sort of account for at least one of his affairs, (heh) and, heroic self sacrifice….I’m a softie….. even now when I *know* the ultimate answer is reunion…
When Spock stands to attention in front of his Captain and straightens his tunic, the horrific damage from radiation clear on his face and hands…. “I…never took…the Kobiashi Maru test…’til now….what do you think… of my solution?”
I can’t help but cry.
But of course there’s that odd little ‘gift’ he left McCoy…and there we go into the third film…with Nimoy directing the “Search for Spock,” and the band of brothers and sisters shows just what they will do: [“Oh I’ll have Mister Adventure eating out of my hand, sir…” “I’m glad you’re on *our* side!” “How many fingers am I holding up?” “That green blooded son-of-a-bitch! It’s his revenge for all those arguments he lost.” And my *favorite!* “Don’t call me Tiny!”]
What they will risk, or give up to save a comrade. Because, after all…Risk was their business. That was the twentieth anniversary…and the world is much changed….
I have to journey into the personal for just a moment. For those who know me offline and have known me, they know that I never would have met my other half without the Star Trek we both loved…it’s what brought us together…he had a great wish to stand on the NCC 1701’s (“No bloody A, B, C, or D!”) bridge…to sit in a particular Captain’s chair…but was too ill by the time we made it to the Smithsonian to be comfortable with anyone taking his picture. But he saw the exhibit of the sets and the costumes of the original series in 1992, and drank it all in with a purposeful intensity committing it to loving detailed memory, so that in his last eight months he could mentally take it out and polish it and remember…because he knew he had a long journey yet to go… He didn’t make it to this anniversary…but "There are always possibilities"...
The last part of this will be the one ‘speech’ from TOS Trek that still makes me want to freakin’ *stand and salute* when I hear it, and I’m a cynic. To me it’s not overblown, hokey, or false. It rings true. I’ve bracketed in one small alteration for sense. ---Imfunnytoo.
"The illogic of waste, Mr. Spock...the waste of lives, potential, resources, time.
I submit to you that your Empire is illogical because it cannot endure.
I submit that *you* are illogical to be a willing part of it.
If change is inevitable, predictable, beneficial,doesn't logic demand that you be a part of it?" "One man cannot summon the future."
"But one man can change the present.
Be the captain of this Enterprise, Mr. Spock!
Find a logical reason for saving the Halkans [doing right?] ,and make it stick.
Push till it gives!
What will it be?
Past or future?
Tyranny or freedom?
It's up to you.”
”It is time.”
”In every revolution, there's one man with a vision...."
"Captain Kirk, I shall consider it." *
*From “Mirror Mirror” by Jerome Bixby. All Star Trek material copyright Paramount Pictures, no copyright infringement intended or implied.
40th Anniversary The Last 20 years
Yes, the failure/resurgence of the original Trek series was an amazing success story, one that has never been equaled.
Yes, the first United States space shuttle was named after the ship on the show.
Yes, the 70s and early 80s were a memorable time for fans of the series.
But nothing - Nothing - prepared the world for The Voyage Home.
It's not the best Trek movie. You will find very few hardcore fans who think it's even the second best. But as far as the rest of the world was concerned, Star Trek IV was the true Trek crossover.
Everyone saw this movie. Everyone. Didn't matter if you were a Trek fan or not. Everything Paramount always says when there's a new Trek movie coming out, that PR bullsh!t about how "This movie will appeal to you even if you don't know the difference between a Borg and a tribble?!" Well, this is the only one of the 10 Trek movies that lived up to that.
And Star Trek IV remains, 20 years later, an absolute joy to watch. It's a great story, it celebrates what's great about each of the main seven original Trek characters, and the laughs are uncountable. In the vein of classic shows like "The Trouble with Tribbles" and "A Piece of the Action," the humor is never forced, it seems natural and grows out of the story and characters. It returned Spock to us - though the previous film had been the physical search for the character, "Voyage Home" was the character's search to rediscover himself, and it was both hysterical and moving. And the movie contains perhaps the best Chekov story ever - and maybe his best of many screams.
The syndication renaissance in the 70s had turned Kirk, Spock & co. into pop culture icons. The early movies turned them into commodities. But Voyage Home was what turned them into STARS.
So it was no surprise that shortly after that movie hit, Paramount announced big plans for Trek. Really big. Not just another movie - that was inevitable. Another TV show. The biggest gamble in Trek history That's what The Next Generation was. A new Trek show, with no characters from the first series? With Klingons as good guys? With a bald British guy playing a French captain? Roddenberry was taking a big chance here---messing with the very core of what he'd created, and he was risking alienating his legions of fans. Would anyone accept this new show? There was no way to know. Of course, we all know the answer to that question now, and it seems obvious in hindsight. TNG was the best thing on TV, and when looked at now, a dozen years after it went off the air, it's lost none of its power. Why the stupendous success of TNG? Why did it surpass Paramount's wildest expectations? First of all, it was constructed in the same spirit that the first series had been: it was powerful allegorical drama disguised as sci-fi. But even with the purest of intentions, the best that could remotely have been hoped for was to come close to equaling the original show in popularity, right? The best they could do was not lose the current fans, right? Not so, it turned out; TNG did the impossible: it became its own animal. It carved out its own niche. It had its own fans. It brought new devotees to Trek. Think about it: Would it ever have occurred to you in a million years, when you were watching that TNG pilot in 1987, that in the not-too-distant future, there would be serious debates about whether Patrick Stewart, who at that time seemed crusty and unheroic, was actually a BETTER captain than Jim Kirk?! Which leads us to 1989----what I call the turning point in Trek history. The year that the new generation truly took the Trek mantle from our original characters. That year, the original series stumbled for the first time in many many years, by depositing the disappointing "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" (an overblown and conceptually flawed film that sobered us all up to the fact that Trek was indeed fallible) in theaters. That was the same year that TNG's third season began. And despite the success of the first two seasons, 1989-90 was the true breakthrough year in terms of defining the show; it was TNG's "Goldfinger," and it cemented the style, quality and insane popularity of Jean-Luc Picard and his crew which remains to this day. So TNG was no longer in Kirk & Company's shadow. It was now, in fact, the flagship of the franchise. That year saw such modern Trek classics as "Yesterday's Enterprise," "The Offspring," and of course, "The Best of Both Worlds" cliffhanger. Its cast became beloved. Its writers took what were novelty ideas deposited into the show in season 1 and took them to their highest potential: You give us an unemotional android? We'll turn him into one of the most intriguing characters in history, who makes us laugh and cry at the same time. You give us a Klingon on the bridge who starts off with lots of makeup and barely any personality? We'll give you a full-blown Shakespearean storyline exploring Worf's family and his entire heritage. By the time the fourth season began, Picard may have been De-Borgified, but the entire Trek fan base had been assimilated. TNG was a juggernaut that could not be stopped.There was sadness on the horizon, though---Gene Roddenberry's health was failing. He died in the midst of what was perhaps Trek's biggest year to that date---its 25th anniversary. TNG was stronger than ever, with Leonard Nimoy making a seminal appearance as Spock. The final original series film- "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country" - would amend for the debacle of the previous movie and end the Kirk-era stories on a high note. And plans were gestating for a second spin-off series (more on that in a moment). Roddenberry's passing signaled the official beginning of the Rick Berman years of Trek. One of Gene's top guys since the start of TNG, he would lead the franchise for 14 more years, up until the end of "Star Trek: Enterprise" in 2005. And he would not let Trek rest on its laurels. Within three years of Roddenberry's death, he had spearheaded two new Trek shows, and relaunched the movie franchise with the TNG crew as its stars. And while his accomplishments and his contributions to Star Trek have been debated over the years, there's no denying that he was the guiding force behind everything that was good about the franchise since Roddenberry's death. Unfortunately for his legacy, he's equally to blame for the shitty stuff.
The Berman era The great "Deep Space Nine" (1993-99) is the misunderstood stepchild of Roddenberry's original vision - and the boldest, most audacious, rich series the franchise ever gave us. It was a look at Star Trek's universe from a different, more complex angle; instead of the flagship of the mighty Federation on a ship of Starfleet's finest, the DS9 gang was a diverse mix of archetypes, most of whom saw Starfleet from an outside perspective. Over the course of seven years, DS9 shook up the Trek universe, and through its willingness to break the rules that had been established for it, showed us how it was even more cool than we thought it was. The show managed to weave together a knock-down drag-out two-year war, an oppressed spiritual race, political intrigue, and a singing, self-aware hologram in a Vegas gin joint. Pretty amazing. And it's too bad the show never received the true crossover acceptance that TNG did, but the true fans know how damn good it is.Meanwhile, the first TNG film, "Generations," usually is ranked as one of the lesser movie series entries by the fans, and despite its box office success, it was not seen as viable evidence that Picard and his gang were movie stars. The presence of original series elements in that flick - most notably a high-energy scene-stealing supporting performance from the future Denny Crane - fueled the perception that the TNG crew might not be true successors to the celluloid Trek throne.But all that changed with the 1996 release of "First Contact," which, in Trek's 30th anniversary year, managed to become the second most financially lucrative Trek film ever, despite what some saw as an oversaturation of the franchise at the time, with two series on the tube every week. Undeniably the best TNG movie, "First Contact" put to rest any debate over who was truly the king of modern-day Trek: it was Jean-Luc Picard. He had been a superstar on the TV show, without a doubt, but after a more subtle, quiet performance in "Generations," the second TNG movie let Stewart truly let loose, and show us a Picard we'd never seen before, both heroic and angry. (Ten years after the release of that movie, his legendary status in the sci-fi genre has only strengthened with his subsequent role in the blockbuster X-Men series.) No longer was there any question that TNG could hold its own on the big screen.
On the small screen, however, things were a bit shakier. While "First Contact" was burning up the box office, the UPN network's pride and joy, "Star Trek: Voyager" seemed to be experiencing a measurable ratings drop with every episode. "Voyager" was born around the same time the Internet was exponentially spreading its wings, and while Trek and the Net are often thought of as symbiotic, "Voyager" took hits like no other Trek series ever had as a result of online fans complaints. And a lot of the buzz was bad. To be fair, many of the complaints were justified. The show had a great setup and very little follow through. While DS9 benefited from its unique take on the Trek universe, Voyager was hindered by its conceptual similarity to TNG. For a show which was set 70,000 years from the Federation, the stories and aliens we met seemed pretty familiar. Precisely the wrong approach was taken---the more the show stumbled the more Berman tried to make it like TNG. What he should have done was push the envelope and give the show its own voice. Never happened. Despite creative bursts here and there - and a brief resurgence in attention to the show with the addition of Borg-in-a-catsuit Jeri Ryan in Season 4, the show was creatively stunted for most of its run. Voyager lasted for seven years, but it had worn out its welcome long before then.
I won't say much about "Star Trek: Enterprise" because unfortunately its story pretty much mirrors Voyager's. Bold beginning, interesting concept---it was even the first Trek series to cast a semi-well-known "star" as its captain- Scott Bakula, who had headlined the popular "Quantum Leap." But for the most part, it didn't deliver. It was seen as the same old stuff, and Trek fans were getting bored. The strongest evidence that Paramount had lost confidence in the show was when the moniker "Star Trek" was added in the third season (for the first two years the title was simply the more ballsy "Enterprise," which seemed to indicate a later-abandoned break with the formula). The seven-year Trek series life established by TNG was over; Enterprise had to fight for even a fourth---and final---year. (Ironically, the last season of Enterprise was its best. It started to truly tie in Captain Archer's stories with the "future" series' chronicles. If the fourth season had been the first, the show might actually have lasted longer.)The Berman era was clearly in a rut. The two most recent Trek feature films, "Insurrection" and "Nemesis," each dropped off measurably at the box office from the previous installment.
For the first time in 18 years, there is no Trek show on the tube.But that's probably a good thing. Trek is too perennial and too much a part of popular culture to be gone forever, but it needs a rest. On this, the 40th year of what Roddenberry wrought, we need time to step back and enjoy what we we've been given. We need to watch our DVDs of the original, TNG, DS9, and the good Trek movies, and revel in how good they are, and just be happy that we will always have them. The future So it's with decidedly mixed feelings and hesitant anticipation that I greet the recent announcement of an 11th Trek movie planned for 2008---this one spearheaded by "Lost" and "Alias" guru J.J. Abrams with nary a Berman or Brannon Braga in sight. New blood? Yes, it's a good idea. And if Abrams can guide the tired "Mission Impossible" film series, featuring a star whose popularity is on the outs, to $140 million, maybe he can reboot Star Trek, which (sorry MI fans) is clearly a much better series, both on TV and celluloid. But has Trek had enough time off? My instinct says not even close. How much time does it need? Think about the title of the second show. Maybe Trek needs to wait for the next generation---pun absolutely intended---until its next rebirth, when the world can see it with fresh eyes and welcome it with open arms, with all the baggage of Trek-spinoff-overload long since shed.
That being said, I'm a Trekaholic, and I'll be there opening night for whatever the hell the next installment ends up being. I just hope it proves itself worthy of its 40-year legacy. ---The Journalist.
Yes, the first United States space shuttle was named after the ship on the show.
Yes, the 70s and early 80s were a memorable time for fans of the series.
But nothing - Nothing - prepared the world for The Voyage Home.
It's not the best Trek movie. You will find very few hardcore fans who think it's even the second best. But as far as the rest of the world was concerned, Star Trek IV was the true Trek crossover.
Everyone saw this movie. Everyone. Didn't matter if you were a Trek fan or not. Everything Paramount always says when there's a new Trek movie coming out, that PR bullsh!t about how "This movie will appeal to you even if you don't know the difference between a Borg and a tribble?!" Well, this is the only one of the 10 Trek movies that lived up to that.
And Star Trek IV remains, 20 years later, an absolute joy to watch. It's a great story, it celebrates what's great about each of the main seven original Trek characters, and the laughs are uncountable. In the vein of classic shows like "The Trouble with Tribbles" and "A Piece of the Action," the humor is never forced, it seems natural and grows out of the story and characters. It returned Spock to us - though the previous film had been the physical search for the character, "Voyage Home" was the character's search to rediscover himself, and it was both hysterical and moving. And the movie contains perhaps the best Chekov story ever - and maybe his best of many screams.
The syndication renaissance in the 70s had turned Kirk, Spock & co. into pop culture icons. The early movies turned them into commodities. But Voyage Home was what turned them into STARS.
So it was no surprise that shortly after that movie hit, Paramount announced big plans for Trek. Really big. Not just another movie - that was inevitable. Another TV show. The biggest gamble in Trek history That's what The Next Generation was. A new Trek show, with no characters from the first series? With Klingons as good guys? With a bald British guy playing a French captain? Roddenberry was taking a big chance here---messing with the very core of what he'd created, and he was risking alienating his legions of fans. Would anyone accept this new show? There was no way to know. Of course, we all know the answer to that question now, and it seems obvious in hindsight. TNG was the best thing on TV, and when looked at now, a dozen years after it went off the air, it's lost none of its power. Why the stupendous success of TNG? Why did it surpass Paramount's wildest expectations? First of all, it was constructed in the same spirit that the first series had been: it was powerful allegorical drama disguised as sci-fi. But even with the purest of intentions, the best that could remotely have been hoped for was to come close to equaling the original show in popularity, right? The best they could do was not lose the current fans, right? Not so, it turned out; TNG did the impossible: it became its own animal. It carved out its own niche. It had its own fans. It brought new devotees to Trek. Think about it: Would it ever have occurred to you in a million years, when you were watching that TNG pilot in 1987, that in the not-too-distant future, there would be serious debates about whether Patrick Stewart, who at that time seemed crusty and unheroic, was actually a BETTER captain than Jim Kirk?! Which leads us to 1989----what I call the turning point in Trek history. The year that the new generation truly took the Trek mantle from our original characters. That year, the original series stumbled for the first time in many many years, by depositing the disappointing "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" (an overblown and conceptually flawed film that sobered us all up to the fact that Trek was indeed fallible) in theaters. That was the same year that TNG's third season began. And despite the success of the first two seasons, 1989-90 was the true breakthrough year in terms of defining the show; it was TNG's "Goldfinger," and it cemented the style, quality and insane popularity of Jean-Luc Picard and his crew which remains to this day. So TNG was no longer in Kirk & Company's shadow. It was now, in fact, the flagship of the franchise. That year saw such modern Trek classics as "Yesterday's Enterprise," "The Offspring," and of course, "The Best of Both Worlds" cliffhanger. Its cast became beloved. Its writers took what were novelty ideas deposited into the show in season 1 and took them to their highest potential: You give us an unemotional android? We'll turn him into one of the most intriguing characters in history, who makes us laugh and cry at the same time. You give us a Klingon on the bridge who starts off with lots of makeup and barely any personality? We'll give you a full-blown Shakespearean storyline exploring Worf's family and his entire heritage. By the time the fourth season began, Picard may have been De-Borgified, but the entire Trek fan base had been assimilated. TNG was a juggernaut that could not be stopped.There was sadness on the horizon, though---Gene Roddenberry's health was failing. He died in the midst of what was perhaps Trek's biggest year to that date---its 25th anniversary. TNG was stronger than ever, with Leonard Nimoy making a seminal appearance as Spock. The final original series film- "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country" - would amend for the debacle of the previous movie and end the Kirk-era stories on a high note. And plans were gestating for a second spin-off series (more on that in a moment). Roddenberry's passing signaled the official beginning of the Rick Berman years of Trek. One of Gene's top guys since the start of TNG, he would lead the franchise for 14 more years, up until the end of "Star Trek: Enterprise" in 2005. And he would not let Trek rest on its laurels. Within three years of Roddenberry's death, he had spearheaded two new Trek shows, and relaunched the movie franchise with the TNG crew as its stars. And while his accomplishments and his contributions to Star Trek have been debated over the years, there's no denying that he was the guiding force behind everything that was good about the franchise since Roddenberry's death. Unfortunately for his legacy, he's equally to blame for the shitty stuff.
The Berman era The great "Deep Space Nine" (1993-99) is the misunderstood stepchild of Roddenberry's original vision - and the boldest, most audacious, rich series the franchise ever gave us. It was a look at Star Trek's universe from a different, more complex angle; instead of the flagship of the mighty Federation on a ship of Starfleet's finest, the DS9 gang was a diverse mix of archetypes, most of whom saw Starfleet from an outside perspective. Over the course of seven years, DS9 shook up the Trek universe, and through its willingness to break the rules that had been established for it, showed us how it was even more cool than we thought it was. The show managed to weave together a knock-down drag-out two-year war, an oppressed spiritual race, political intrigue, and a singing, self-aware hologram in a Vegas gin joint. Pretty amazing. And it's too bad the show never received the true crossover acceptance that TNG did, but the true fans know how damn good it is.Meanwhile, the first TNG film, "Generations," usually is ranked as one of the lesser movie series entries by the fans, and despite its box office success, it was not seen as viable evidence that Picard and his gang were movie stars. The presence of original series elements in that flick - most notably a high-energy scene-stealing supporting performance from the future Denny Crane - fueled the perception that the TNG crew might not be true successors to the celluloid Trek throne.But all that changed with the 1996 release of "First Contact," which, in Trek's 30th anniversary year, managed to become the second most financially lucrative Trek film ever, despite what some saw as an oversaturation of the franchise at the time, with two series on the tube every week. Undeniably the best TNG movie, "First Contact" put to rest any debate over who was truly the king of modern-day Trek: it was Jean-Luc Picard. He had been a superstar on the TV show, without a doubt, but after a more subtle, quiet performance in "Generations," the second TNG movie let Stewart truly let loose, and show us a Picard we'd never seen before, both heroic and angry. (Ten years after the release of that movie, his legendary status in the sci-fi genre has only strengthened with his subsequent role in the blockbuster X-Men series.) No longer was there any question that TNG could hold its own on the big screen.
On the small screen, however, things were a bit shakier. While "First Contact" was burning up the box office, the UPN network's pride and joy, "Star Trek: Voyager" seemed to be experiencing a measurable ratings drop with every episode. "Voyager" was born around the same time the Internet was exponentially spreading its wings, and while Trek and the Net are often thought of as symbiotic, "Voyager" took hits like no other Trek series ever had as a result of online fans complaints. And a lot of the buzz was bad. To be fair, many of the complaints were justified. The show had a great setup and very little follow through. While DS9 benefited from its unique take on the Trek universe, Voyager was hindered by its conceptual similarity to TNG. For a show which was set 70,000 years from the Federation, the stories and aliens we met seemed pretty familiar. Precisely the wrong approach was taken---the more the show stumbled the more Berman tried to make it like TNG. What he should have done was push the envelope and give the show its own voice. Never happened. Despite creative bursts here and there - and a brief resurgence in attention to the show with the addition of Borg-in-a-catsuit Jeri Ryan in Season 4, the show was creatively stunted for most of its run. Voyager lasted for seven years, but it had worn out its welcome long before then.
I won't say much about "Star Trek: Enterprise" because unfortunately its story pretty much mirrors Voyager's. Bold beginning, interesting concept---it was even the first Trek series to cast a semi-well-known "star" as its captain- Scott Bakula, who had headlined the popular "Quantum Leap." But for the most part, it didn't deliver. It was seen as the same old stuff, and Trek fans were getting bored. The strongest evidence that Paramount had lost confidence in the show was when the moniker "Star Trek" was added in the third season (for the first two years the title was simply the more ballsy "Enterprise," which seemed to indicate a later-abandoned break with the formula). The seven-year Trek series life established by TNG was over; Enterprise had to fight for even a fourth---and final---year. (Ironically, the last season of Enterprise was its best. It started to truly tie in Captain Archer's stories with the "future" series' chronicles. If the fourth season had been the first, the show might actually have lasted longer.)The Berman era was clearly in a rut. The two most recent Trek feature films, "Insurrection" and "Nemesis," each dropped off measurably at the box office from the previous installment.
For the first time in 18 years, there is no Trek show on the tube.But that's probably a good thing. Trek is too perennial and too much a part of popular culture to be gone forever, but it needs a rest. On this, the 40th year of what Roddenberry wrought, we need time to step back and enjoy what we we've been given. We need to watch our DVDs of the original, TNG, DS9, and the good Trek movies, and revel in how good they are, and just be happy that we will always have them. The future So it's with decidedly mixed feelings and hesitant anticipation that I greet the recent announcement of an 11th Trek movie planned for 2008---this one spearheaded by "Lost" and "Alias" guru J.J. Abrams with nary a Berman or Brannon Braga in sight. New blood? Yes, it's a good idea. And if Abrams can guide the tired "Mission Impossible" film series, featuring a star whose popularity is on the outs, to $140 million, maybe he can reboot Star Trek, which (sorry MI fans) is clearly a much better series, both on TV and celluloid. But has Trek had enough time off? My instinct says not even close. How much time does it need? Think about the title of the second show. Maybe Trek needs to wait for the next generation---pun absolutely intended---until its next rebirth, when the world can see it with fresh eyes and welcome it with open arms, with all the baggage of Trek-spinoff-overload long since shed.
That being said, I'm a Trekaholic, and I'll be there opening night for whatever the hell the next installment ends up being. I just hope it proves itself worthy of its 40-year legacy. ---The Journalist.
Friday, September 01, 2006
Good,bad, or who cares
Star Trek (as in TOS) is returning to syndication...with a difference.
Per TV guide Insider, (go there for a shot of the "new " look for the NCC 1701) The special effects available now have replaced original shots of planets and ships, and updated static alien landscapes with moving clouds and/or water and repaired some glitches.
Per the Insider article, there's also an episode where we never saw a phaser beam come out of a phaser Scotty fired, and that has been corrected. Also someone has said they will be syndicated out of their original performance order.
So are we:
1. Pleased, can't wait to see the new look.
2. Cynical: This was just a Lucas-esque ploy to make us re-buy the DVD's.
3. Sacrilege! This is an artifact of television history/brilliance that should *never* have been "updated" to please the mob hunger for current-style special effects. Are the Klignon's going to suddenly grow ridges on their heads? Romulans too? [Don't you dare spoil my Mark-Lenard-as-Romulan for me like that. Or the female commander either! They're *fine,* just the way they are. ]
4. Think the special effects update is quite cool, and in a way will show the episodes further idealized...as they "could have been," but in no way do you mess with the episode order like that! (That would mean a winner like "City" could be immediately followed up with "Spock's Brain!" Do we really need our Trek scrambled like a bad omelette?)
5. Couldn't care less.
Color me #4. The link above also has a great picture.
Per TV guide Insider, (go there for a shot of the "new " look for the NCC 1701) The special effects available now have replaced original shots of planets and ships, and updated static alien landscapes with moving clouds and/or water and repaired some glitches.
Per the Insider article, there's also an episode where we never saw a phaser beam come out of a phaser Scotty fired, and that has been corrected. Also someone has said they will be syndicated out of their original performance order.
So are we:
1. Pleased, can't wait to see the new look.
2. Cynical: This was just a Lucas-esque ploy to make us re-buy the DVD's.
3. Sacrilege! This is an artifact of television history/brilliance that should *never* have been "updated" to please the mob hunger for current-style special effects. Are the Klignon's going to suddenly grow ridges on their heads? Romulans too? [Don't you dare spoil my Mark-Lenard-as-Romulan for me like that. Or the female commander either! They're *fine,* just the way they are. ]
4. Think the special effects update is quite cool, and in a way will show the episodes further idealized...as they "could have been," but in no way do you mess with the episode order like that! (That would mean a winner like "City" could be immediately followed up with "Spock's Brain!" Do we really need our Trek scrambled like a bad omelette?)
5. Couldn't care less.
Color me #4. The link above also has a great picture.
Sunday, August 27, 2006
Shows how out of touch I am
Until tonights Emmy Broadcast I didn't know Michael Piller had passed away...
Sunday, August 20, 2006
"Something in the Water"
And this isn't even one quarter about Star Trek.
I submit that “Star Trek” was the largest part of a “culture of the strange” that had taken over America’s television sets, or was about to. The Different was In, and television producers thought they had “The Next Big Thing, if it was even a little off center.
If I were still a student doing a Phd of Popular Culture I would put the mid Sixties as a time when it would be profoundly clear that not only was the television audience chemically altered...the producers had obviously indulged in *something* mood altering before making buying decisions.
First, there was the harbinger that this Wasn't Going To Be Your Father's Television Decade:...The Twilight Zone that debuted in 1959 driven by that chain smoking production line storyteller Rod Serling. He was a most bipolar sort of scribe.. either Really Awful or Amazing and guesting...Billy Mumy...Burgess Mereidith...William Shatner...
Then, The Outer Limits...John DF Black...and Harlan Ellison's "Demon with A Glass Hand."
"Do not adjust your set. We control the Horizontal. We control the Vertical. "
All that was missing was the BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA at the end. And the stepchildren of these shows...all already well documented by Stephen King in his book."Danse Macabre."
Then there was that little show on CBS Heh. Written by Shimon Wincellburg or S-Bar David.
The show that caused CBS to turn down Trek because: We already have a space show...
I won't name it, but the JiffyPop Space suits, the precursor to Wesley the Wonderkund,the way-cool Robot and Smith the champion Malingering Spy....Blech...and...I hate to admit it...but.
(a really nifty muscial score by that guy...John Williams)
and no I am not even going to speak it’s *name here on this blog* That would be sacreligious.
Then there was that other show...a 1965 import that I *hate* and only saw for the first time last month....dull enough to make my teeth fall out.
Running hurriedly away from that,
Ahem… speaking of nifty musical scores...
The web niche for "Dark Shadows" can be found here: It's my third pop culture obsession, and it is celebrathing its 40th this year as well: Paradoxically I love "Trek" for when it hit its highest notes. I love DS because it is so unashamedly cobbled together, cheap, weird and low-budget. Except. The score by Bob Corbert *kicks **s.* It scared the **** out of me when I was a kid, and I still love it today.
But it doesn't fake out the viewer. It never tries to sell itself as something it isn't. Unlike a couple of big screen horror failures I could name. ("The Bride," *cough* *cough* Kenneth Brannagh's "Frankenstein" *choke* *cough*)
Dan Curtis stole horror classics and shoved them into a "five cliff hanger a week" soap weeper format with no apologies. It had strong women -- I defy anyone not to believe in Grayson Hall's Julia as the Compleat Cold Scientist, or that Lara Parker's Angelique (The actress has aged um, almost supernaturally well...age had barely touched her in an award show filmed in 1996) is the Mother of All Witches that will Truly Make You Regret Being Born if you **** with her. (while laughing hysterically as gravestones fall down, flies fly into the mouths of vampires [Hey, *that's* not in the script!] and bats fly on very visible wires.) Curtis seriously stumbled only with a story arc I'll call "The Thing In The Box..." No actual monster and it brainwashed everyone at Collinwood. HP Lovecraft meets the Stepford Wives...big misfire there.
It had unapoligetically promiscuous characters (and yet found itself in a quandry when one of its' main female players violated the "virginity clause" in her contract.)
It flips it's way merrily between eras and universes. ("The Parallel Time" story arc)
Another standout for it's musical score is the 1967 series of "Spider-Man" cartoons. (No valid linkage, but they are available at Amazon.)
Spidey’s an obvious cynic…in the first episodes he swerves dangerously close to delinquent and is never a winner, no matter how ably he dispatches a villain…all set to a nutty, jazzy, score that could only be about a hero in the Naked City. How can a colorful cartoon be a homage to comics and film noir at the same time??? This Spiderman did it well…and the kids got the usual jolt out of any costumed figure corralling the bad guys while the adolescents and some adults got a charge out of the sharper than a nail dialogue and the up to the minute music.
Spidey was also better than the TV ‘Batman’ of the time, because while the villains on that show were quite Clued in: Best example: Julie Newmar’s Emma Peel on catnip…or the completely crazed Frank Gorshin, the "heroes" were fence posts in costume.
We were supposed to buy that the leaden Bat and his perpetually shocked sidekick could *handle* these people?
I think NOT.
When one looks at TOS, I think it's important to know that it was simply the biggest best known, and best written of the wierd crop of stuff that hit the airwaves from 1959-1967
And for those of you upset that I haven't delved into Bond-mania and it's offspring (the coolest of which are the original "Johnny Quest" cartoons) its because *that* came from the politics of the day, not directly from the Weird side of the tracks.
And not *one* of the show's listed above would get past today's censors.
that makes me sad.
I submit that “Star Trek” was the largest part of a “culture of the strange” that had taken over America’s television sets, or was about to. The Different was In, and television producers thought they had “The Next Big Thing, if it was even a little off center.
If I were still a student doing a Phd of Popular Culture I would put the mid Sixties as a time when it would be profoundly clear that not only was the television audience chemically altered...the producers had obviously indulged in *something* mood altering before making buying decisions.
First, there was the harbinger that this Wasn't Going To Be Your Father's Television Decade:...The Twilight Zone that debuted in 1959 driven by that chain smoking production line storyteller Rod Serling. He was a most bipolar sort of scribe.. either Really Awful or Amazing and guesting...Billy Mumy...Burgess Mereidith...William Shatner...
Then, The Outer Limits...John DF Black...and Harlan Ellison's "Demon with A Glass Hand."
"Do not adjust your set. We control the Horizontal. We control the Vertical. "
All that was missing was the BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA at the end. And the stepchildren of these shows...all already well documented by Stephen King in his book."Danse Macabre."
Then there was that little show on CBS Heh. Written by Shimon Wincellburg or S-Bar David.
The show that caused CBS to turn down Trek because: We already have a space show...
I won't name it, but the JiffyPop Space suits, the precursor to Wesley the Wonderkund,the way-cool Robot and Smith the champion Malingering Spy....Blech...and...I hate to admit it...but.
(a really nifty muscial score by that guy...John Williams)
and no I am not even going to speak it’s *name here on this blog* That would be sacreligious.
Then there was that other show...a 1965 import that I *hate* and only saw for the first time last month....dull enough to make my teeth fall out.
Running hurriedly away from that,
Ahem… speaking of nifty musical scores...
The web niche for "Dark Shadows" can be found here: It's my third pop culture obsession, and it is celebrathing its 40th this year as well: Paradoxically I love "Trek" for when it hit its highest notes. I love DS because it is so unashamedly cobbled together, cheap, weird and low-budget. Except. The score by Bob Corbert *kicks **s.* It scared the **** out of me when I was a kid, and I still love it today.
But it doesn't fake out the viewer. It never tries to sell itself as something it isn't. Unlike a couple of big screen horror failures I could name. ("The Bride," *cough* *cough* Kenneth Brannagh's "Frankenstein" *choke* *cough*)
Dan Curtis stole horror classics and shoved them into a "five cliff hanger a week" soap weeper format with no apologies. It had strong women -- I defy anyone not to believe in Grayson Hall's Julia as the Compleat Cold Scientist, or that Lara Parker's Angelique (The actress has aged um, almost supernaturally well...age had barely touched her in an award show filmed in 1996) is the Mother of All Witches that will Truly Make You Regret Being Born if you **** with her. (while laughing hysterically as gravestones fall down, flies fly into the mouths of vampires [Hey, *that's* not in the script!] and bats fly on very visible wires.) Curtis seriously stumbled only with a story arc I'll call "The Thing In The Box..." No actual monster and it brainwashed everyone at Collinwood. HP Lovecraft meets the Stepford Wives...big misfire there.
It had unapoligetically promiscuous characters (and yet found itself in a quandry when one of its' main female players violated the "virginity clause" in her contract.)
It flips it's way merrily between eras and universes. ("The Parallel Time" story arc)
Another standout for it's musical score is the 1967 series of "Spider-Man" cartoons. (No valid linkage, but they are available at Amazon.)
Spidey’s an obvious cynic…in the first episodes he swerves dangerously close to delinquent and is never a winner, no matter how ably he dispatches a villain…all set to a nutty, jazzy, score that could only be about a hero in the Naked City. How can a colorful cartoon be a homage to comics and film noir at the same time??? This Spiderman did it well…and the kids got the usual jolt out of any costumed figure corralling the bad guys while the adolescents and some adults got a charge out of the sharper than a nail dialogue and the up to the minute music.
Spidey was also better than the TV ‘Batman’ of the time, because while the villains on that show were quite Clued in: Best example: Julie Newmar’s Emma Peel on catnip…or the completely crazed Frank Gorshin, the "heroes" were fence posts in costume.
We were supposed to buy that the leaden Bat and his perpetually shocked sidekick could *handle* these people?
I think NOT.
When one looks at TOS, I think it's important to know that it was simply the biggest best known, and best written of the wierd crop of stuff that hit the airwaves from 1959-1967
And for those of you upset that I haven't delved into Bond-mania and it's offspring (the coolest of which are the original "Johnny Quest" cartoons) its because *that* came from the politics of the day, not directly from the Weird side of the tracks.
And not *one* of the show's listed above would get past today's censors.
that makes me sad.
Prelude
Before we touch on the 40 years,
Before we do honor to what we’ve loved…I have to go back a bit further.
To 1964.
Forty *two* years ago. When I was two going on three and couldn't have told a phaser from a popsicle and four years away from peering up at "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield," from beneath my mother's ironing board. [Yes, the hamhanded anti-bigotry piece of wet towel was my very first exposure to Star Trek. And Frank Gorshin Wasn't even FUNNY, ***it!]
Roddenberry taking a meeting and promising those with the cash “of *course* you’ll get something familiar. Recognizable even. A space “Western.” High Noon with ray guns.
And then he went home and wrote, and…as happens often…when you are finished writing, it doesn’t come out as anything like what you started off to write.
Looking back and watching “The Cage,” well, of *course* it was Trek!
That amazing matte shot of Pike’s memory of Rigel 7, one of the best TOS ever created.
“A man’ll tell his bartender things he’ll never tell his doctor.”
“Rig to transmit ships power.”
“Is this a deception? Do you actually intend to destroy yourselves?”
“If we go buzzing about down there…”
And equally…what the hell is this? Certainly not the “Star Trek” we know.
“I’m *tired* of being responsible for 203 lives; who goes on the away team and who doesn’t; and who lives and who dies….to the point of considering resigning.” What a whiner!
If Kirk didn’t resign after losing Edith Keeler, then well *Mister Pike*
Suck it up and deal.
“…”I’m just not used to having a woman on the bridge.” (green and sensual in my fantasies hell yes! But NEVER on the bridge!)
[followed by an annoyed, pained look of Number One, his female First Officer, played by a gorgeous Majel Barret!]
An unfettered sweet Spock smile, pure Joy in the Unknown as he takes in some new flora.
But I’m just playin.’
I don’t really dismiss “The Cage.” As a matter of fact, it used one particular shot, that I believe had it been kept in, would have made the rest of TOS a bit more reverent and beautiful….Roddenberry did in 1964 what Robert Wise would overdo and fumble *badly* in Star Trek: The Motion(less) Picture.
There’s a “beauty pass” up over the ship’s bow in the opening credits, after the hinky music has subsided to a few constant belltones…you are given a sweep over the saucer section’s expanse, a sense of how big, and awesome the Enterprise is….and then the camera swings to the small bubble of the bridge atop the ship, and slowly hones in on the minuscule beings that move her…and we slip past the shields and through the hull….to a view of a starker bridge…but just as active…the hub of activity that we know well, just minus most of her happy coloring (in more than one way, since the crew is pretty Caucasian except for Spock)….and the story begins.
I love Pike. All the bravado…and all the pain, right out front, dragged there kicking and screaming by the Talosian’s powers of illusion. He’s terrified when he awakens that this will end up Just Like Rigel, and more of those he’s responsible for will lose their lives.
His soul is begging for that “rest at home,” while his mind realizes he’s got to work his way out of this box soon.
A snark about the “Orion Slave Girl” sequence: Vina has the tumbling dark curls, but she’s a deep forest/hunter green, the rich color of her skin being one more ‘attribute’ meant to titillate the senses, no doubt…She’s hot!
But then we get to “Enterprise” forty years later, and the Orion chicks have the lithe movement and the tumbling dark hair…but they’re painted with pea soup…that dark chartreuse that says nothing but “YUCK!” to me.
“There’s a way out of any cage and I’ll find it.” It’s Pike’s resolve speaking, but the line is pure James Tiberius Kirk.
TOS is branded as too sexist all the time, but I find the forced “catfight” between Vina, Colt and Number One stayed remarkably civilized, even with the Talosians vocalizing the hidden thoughts of Colt and Number One. For discussion of this pilot, and the TOS that comes after, people aren’t allowing it to spring up out of the ground as the product of its era.
Any First Contact team would know that the way to best understand a new planet’s culture is to record and report with as little bias as possible, and yet fans of the series (particularly those that never took to the original show, it seems) will not allow the pieces of this puzzle, conceived and built in different decades by differing creative teams, the influences it cannot avoid.)
And, the end of the Cage is now profoundly uncomfortable, if you really watch it.
Pike, Colt, Number One with the agreement of Vina, decide they will not live as amusing pets/ terraforming drones for the much more powerful Talosians and rig one of the away team’s phasers to explode. They’ll use the IED rather than submit.
“Your race has a unique hatred of captivity, even when it’s pleasant and benevolent… This makes you too violent and dangerous a species for our needs.”
…but that’s what Trek, real Trek is supposed to do….make you *think!*
And of course the suits said to Roddenberry….This isn’t our space opera! Come on now….Action/adventure!
And “Where No Man…” was the answer to that.
In early September we’ll talk about TOS….But since the Cage is unique….we give it it’s due separately.
Before we do honor to what we’ve loved…I have to go back a bit further.
To 1964.
Forty *two* years ago. When I was two going on three and couldn't have told a phaser from a popsicle and four years away from peering up at "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield," from beneath my mother's ironing board. [Yes, the hamhanded anti-bigotry piece of wet towel was my very first exposure to Star Trek. And Frank Gorshin Wasn't even FUNNY, ***it!]
Roddenberry taking a meeting and promising those with the cash “of *course* you’ll get something familiar. Recognizable even. A space “Western.” High Noon with ray guns.
And then he went home and wrote, and…as happens often…when you are finished writing, it doesn’t come out as anything like what you started off to write.
Looking back and watching “The Cage,” well, of *course* it was Trek!
That amazing matte shot of Pike’s memory of Rigel 7, one of the best TOS ever created.
“A man’ll tell his bartender things he’ll never tell his doctor.”
“Rig to transmit ships power.”
“Is this a deception? Do you actually intend to destroy yourselves?”
“If we go buzzing about down there…”
And equally…what the hell is this? Certainly not the “Star Trek” we know.
“I’m *tired* of being responsible for 203 lives; who goes on the away team and who doesn’t; and who lives and who dies….to the point of considering resigning.” What a whiner!
If Kirk didn’t resign after losing Edith Keeler, then well *Mister Pike*
Suck it up and deal.
“…”I’m just not used to having a woman on the bridge.” (green and sensual in my fantasies hell yes! But NEVER on the bridge!)
[followed by an annoyed, pained look of Number One, his female First Officer, played by a gorgeous Majel Barret!]
An unfettered sweet Spock smile, pure Joy in the Unknown as he takes in some new flora.
But I’m just playin.’
I don’t really dismiss “The Cage.” As a matter of fact, it used one particular shot, that I believe had it been kept in, would have made the rest of TOS a bit more reverent and beautiful….Roddenberry did in 1964 what Robert Wise would overdo and fumble *badly* in Star Trek: The Motion(less) Picture.
There’s a “beauty pass” up over the ship’s bow in the opening credits, after the hinky music has subsided to a few constant belltones…you are given a sweep over the saucer section’s expanse, a sense of how big, and awesome the Enterprise is….and then the camera swings to the small bubble of the bridge atop the ship, and slowly hones in on the minuscule beings that move her…and we slip past the shields and through the hull….to a view of a starker bridge…but just as active…the hub of activity that we know well, just minus most of her happy coloring (in more than one way, since the crew is pretty Caucasian except for Spock)….and the story begins.
I love Pike. All the bravado…and all the pain, right out front, dragged there kicking and screaming by the Talosian’s powers of illusion. He’s terrified when he awakens that this will end up Just Like Rigel, and more of those he’s responsible for will lose their lives.
His soul is begging for that “rest at home,” while his mind realizes he’s got to work his way out of this box soon.
A snark about the “Orion Slave Girl” sequence: Vina has the tumbling dark curls, but she’s a deep forest/hunter green, the rich color of her skin being one more ‘attribute’ meant to titillate the senses, no doubt…She’s hot!
But then we get to “Enterprise” forty years later, and the Orion chicks have the lithe movement and the tumbling dark hair…but they’re painted with pea soup…that dark chartreuse that says nothing but “YUCK!” to me.
“There’s a way out of any cage and I’ll find it.” It’s Pike’s resolve speaking, but the line is pure James Tiberius Kirk.
TOS is branded as too sexist all the time, but I find the forced “catfight” between Vina, Colt and Number One stayed remarkably civilized, even with the Talosians vocalizing the hidden thoughts of Colt and Number One. For discussion of this pilot, and the TOS that comes after, people aren’t allowing it to spring up out of the ground as the product of its era.
Any First Contact team would know that the way to best understand a new planet’s culture is to record and report with as little bias as possible, and yet fans of the series (particularly those that never took to the original show, it seems) will not allow the pieces of this puzzle, conceived and built in different decades by differing creative teams, the influences it cannot avoid.)
And, the end of the Cage is now profoundly uncomfortable, if you really watch it.
Pike, Colt, Number One with the agreement of Vina, decide they will not live as amusing pets/ terraforming drones for the much more powerful Talosians and rig one of the away team’s phasers to explode. They’ll use the IED rather than submit.
“Your race has a unique hatred of captivity, even when it’s pleasant and benevolent… This makes you too violent and dangerous a species for our needs.”
…but that’s what Trek, real Trek is supposed to do….make you *think!*
And of course the suits said to Roddenberry….This isn’t our space opera! Come on now….Action/adventure!
And “Where No Man…” was the answer to that.
In early September we’ll talk about TOS….But since the Cage is unique….we give it it’s due separately.
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Friday, July 14, 2006
Trek's 40th
Time to open the windows, beat the rugs and dust off the furniture. Yes, this place has been silent since January.
Other blogs and places on the Internet certainly have plans to celebrate Trek's 40th anniversary. (With Paramount remaining notably mute thus far).
There will be two tributes posted here on September 8th 2006, the 40th anniversary of the first U.S. airing of Star Trek, one for the first twenty years, and one for the most recent twenty. (the beginning of TNG and the "Voyage Home" film being the arbitrary cutoff point decided by this blogs owner. )
If there are any other bloggers/websites planning something special online, drop me a line and I'll link to it nearer to the date of the actual anniversary.
Other blogs and places on the Internet certainly have plans to celebrate Trek's 40th anniversary. (With Paramount remaining notably mute thus far).
There will be two tributes posted here on September 8th 2006, the 40th anniversary of the first U.S. airing of Star Trek, one for the first twenty years, and one for the most recent twenty. (the beginning of TNG and the "Voyage Home" film being the arbitrary cutoff point decided by this blogs owner. )
If there are any other bloggers/websites planning something special online, drop me a line and I'll link to it nearer to the date of the actual anniversary.
Monday, January 02, 2006
A "Crack'd" Idea
A rumor from last month, found here, talks about the next film being set in the Mirror-Universe of Star Trek, with Picard, Archer, and (that two time Emmy winner #$%^&* WTF!) Kirk.
No Sisko? The writers cannot be bothered to yank him out of the wormhole to deal with a universe and it's inhabitants that he has dealt with *more often* than *any* of the other captains. Picard went once in the books, and was truly able to handle himself, (although I'd rather see Mirror Troi than Mirror Picard [delighted shudder]) Kirk was there for perhaps twelve hours and was lucky to escape before Marlena phasered him or Spock or Sulu gave him some time in the Booth. And the only way Shatner's casting would be remotely palatable for me is if he played Kirk's evil counterpart. Then, just as his Emmy turn as Denny Crane has been, he can be as nutty as he likes.
And, much as I love "In a Mirror Darkly" Archer *has never been there!" We only saw the counterparts!!!
I love Scott Bakula. I do. But they'd better swap Archer for Sisko, or that movie is going to bring what's left of the franchise seven years of bad luck.
No Sisko? The writers cannot be bothered to yank him out of the wormhole to deal with a universe and it's inhabitants that he has dealt with *more often* than *any* of the other captains. Picard went once in the books, and was truly able to handle himself, (although I'd rather see Mirror Troi than Mirror Picard [delighted shudder]) Kirk was there for perhaps twelve hours and was lucky to escape before Marlena phasered him or Spock or Sulu gave him some time in the Booth. And the only way Shatner's casting would be remotely palatable for me is if he played Kirk's evil counterpart. Then, just as his Emmy turn as Denny Crane has been, he can be as nutty as he likes.
And, much as I love "In a Mirror Darkly" Archer *has never been there!" We only saw the counterparts!!!
I love Scott Bakula. I do. But they'd better swap Archer for Sisko, or that movie is going to bring what's left of the franchise seven years of bad luck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)