100 Reasons Star Trek XI Sucks

10 ideas a new Trek show should incorporate

2010-09-11T20:01:00.000-07:00

Let’s take a moment and look at what made Trek great. Well, many things. It was a great space adventure show, it had cool aliens, cool technology, interesting characters and it offered an interesting view on the future. That special future is what I want to explore here. One of the things Trek was famous for was providing a positive view of humanity while being modeled on our own society. Let’s face it, Trek often dealt with current events and used science-fiction to criticize them.

A new Trek show would need to do that, so here’s my top 10 list of how the crew of a new enterprise should mirror our own society. Simple points that would show the viewers a future they can relate to and hope for.

1. A multi-religious crew. Let’s face it, religious tolerance isn’t at its best these days. Religious terrorists in the Middle East advocate violence against non-believers, redneck preachers in the USA plan to burn the Koran, constant debates about children wearing religious icons at school or the simple teachings of religious ideas vs scientific ones. I know that Roddenberry was an atheist, but I believe a new Trek show should show crew members still practicing various religions and get along just find, embracing it as a difference that makes us humans, even if beliefs aren’t always shared.

2. Sexual openness. Let’s face it, our society is often plain scared of openly talking about sex, so instead, we get movies and tv shows exploiting it. I believe that in the Trek utopia, people would be free to talk about sexual topics and respect each others in the process. Yes, people use the holodeck for sexual fantasies. Everyone suspected it, and it was confirmed in DS9. Let’s show that yes it is natural and people shouldn’t be ashamed of their own sexuality. People should also respect themselves in the process.

3.Homosexuality. We had crewmembers of various races, a blind pilot who later became an engineer, a female captain and various aliens. I think it’s time we got a gay couple on the bridge.

4. Technology and privacy. This is a subject that I believe should be tackled. We live in a society where teenagers live out their lives on social networks and the like, where we share our private thoughts on google, thoughts that are later used for targeted advertising. Some people, myself included, worry about this and take active steps to protect online privacy. Let’s show a future where this is true. Where the captain just doesn’t have access to what crewmembers do in their quarters, where transport inhibiters are placed inside private homes, where you just can’t enter the holodeck during someone else’s private session. Trek, after all, is all about the positive uses of technology, and that means it should be shown as used responsibly.

5.meaningful entertainment. This is something where I feel Trek often failed very hard. Let’s face it; characters in Trek always were interested in antiquated stories and characters. I have no problem with the idea of characters like Sherlock Holmes still being popular in the future, but the Trek universe always felt stagnant in it’s literature to me. Voyager tackled the issue a bit with that one episode where the Doctor writes a holonovel. We need more of that. Let’s see creators taking their role seriously, aka providing meaningful entertainment while offering criticism of society and making the audience think. You know, what Trek should be doing in the first place.

6.The Captain’s power is not absolute. Starfleet isn’t a military institution. Forget what DS9 said, Roddenberry was against the militarization of Starfleet and I happen to agree with him. In fact, we should use the enterprise as a way to mirror our own professional lives and relationship with our superiors. Let’s not show the ship as a dictatorship, but as a place where crewmembers can question the captain’s order when not in a crisis situation. The TNG episode “lower decks” touched the issue of the little guys on a spaceship. Let’s get further into that and show the equivalent of a lower deck union with the power to change certain ship policies that might not be fair to common crewmembers.

7.Copyright issues. This issue was also tackles a bit in “Author, author”, the Voyager episode I mentioned earlier. Let’s face it, copyright issues are an important subject nowadays. Not only the rights authors have regarding their work, but the rights of distributors and customers too. Should works of art belong to everyone? Well, in a moneyless society, piracy isn’t a problem anymore, and that would be a good way of showing artists and authors who create not for profit but to share ideas. We could also see works of art parodied, even modified, and explore the social implications. In fact, I think the crew of a new enterprise would need at least one non-starfleet holodeck program creator, just so we can touch issues like that.

8.Free healthcare. Nothing new here, this was explored in every single episode involving the Ferengi and sick bay. Still, wouldn’t hurt to remind watchers that essential services such as healthcare are free in the future and that a doctor will treat every patient with respect and dignity.

9.Command transparency. Here’s an idea. On a regular basis, the captain and senior staff members have to declassify their official log entries for the crew to review. Crewmembers would then be allowed to criticize their superiors. A recent study showed that 75% of red shirt deaths are avoided if the Captain has to account for his actions at the end of the month.

10.Crazy, out of this world technology. Trek was always about technology. Let’s show amazing medical advancements, new AI technologies, basically any tech that would captivate the audience’s imagination. One important note here, it’s about technology that’s truly revolutionary, not technology that just looks great.

Those are my ideas. I definitely think a new Trek show would be possible, but not under producers that worry more about ratings and copyrights then telling a good story. So I’m looking at you, fanfic writers. Let the people know good Trek can still be done. If you wrote or worked on a trek story in any form, or if you just know of a good one, leave a comment.

Star Trek (2009) or how Star Trek XI is still holding up the odd numbers suck curse

2010-08-08T13:20:00.000-07:00

http://cougarcinema.blogspot.com/2010/08/lets-review-movie-star-trek-2009-or-how.html

by Norma Harvey

It’s my first attempt at a review so let’s discuss a fandom that has over forty years of history and enough broken bases in it that people will be arguing over things until its hundredth anniversary. Gentlemen, ladies, and others welcome to my review of Star Trek.

First off, despite the title of this post, I have to say that I don’t hate this movie and I don’t think it’s the worst thing to ever bear the name Star Trek. There are things that I enjoy about this film. I think the cast is excellent. They chose people who look enough like the old actors that I could accept them as the characters, at least physically, and they can act. Two thumbs way, way up for Karl Urban especially. I like the music. I like the new design of the ship and the sets, with the exception of the engine room, I just wished they’d turn down the lens flares so I could see them better. Seriously, who decided that having your audience squinting at the screen was good cinematography? I enjoyed the opening sequence and was emotionally invested in George and his wife being pulled apart; a nice contrast of the birth of Jim with his father’s death, then the title shot showed up and everything went to crap. Finally, I like the idea of time travel to create an alternate universe. Star Trek has always had a weird relationship with this from the beginning anyway. Making changes to the timeline should alter the future ala ‘City on the Edge of Forever’, but we also see that alternate universes can exist along side the prime one with ‘Mirror, Mirror’ and ‘The Tholian Web’, and I’m not even going to get into the timey wimey ball headache that is ‘Yesteryear’. So, I can buy that the writers have created this new universe and the beloved one remains untainted. However, almost from the moment this new universe is created problems arise. We have this whole new expanse to play in, to boldly go in all new directions and we don’t.

In terms of dropping the ball with this film lets start with the characters. We have a Jim Kirk who has grown up without a father making him more reckless and more of a rebel than the Jim Kirk of TOS. A realist versus an idealist if you will. Great, how will this change affect how Kirk acts now in comparison to what we saw in TOS? He becomes an asshole that’s what. We see in a deleted scene that he appears to have had a difficult childhood, and honestly the scene with his brother and Frank really should have been kept in because it gives him depth in the following scene with the car. Without it Jim Kirk evading the police and driving an antique car into a quarry for reasons unknown makes him come off as an asshole. Feeling annoyance at the main character is not the emotion you want to be invoking in the audience if you want us to care about what happens to him for the next 100 minutes of the film. Unfortunately the feeling of annoyance at Jim Kirk won’t be leaving anytime soon. Now after he acts like a slime ball to Uhura in the bar, playing on the whole pop culture ‘Kirk is a playboy’ idea which I hate by the way, we get a glimpse into why he acts the way he does. We hear from Pike that like his counter-part Kirk is smart, but he doesn’t apply himself. We can see the subtle change in Kirk as Pike talks about his father. His whole body language just screams:

‘Oh, great another person who wants to tell me how great my father is and thinks I should be just like him. I don’t want to talk about this and need another drink.’

Too bad we didn’t actually go anywhere with this. When Pike dares him to do better he contemplates it, but honestly I don’t know why what Pike is saying is any different from what Kirk seems to have heard before. When he goes to the recruit shuttle he seems to be doing all this to prove that he can do a dare, to stick it to authority. What it is his real internal motivation for doing this? Nobody knows and so we have no way to connect with the character except via way of nostalgia which as we all know, from all the Easter eggs in this movie, they’re pushing that imagery hard. Especially with the next big scene, the infamous test.

The Koybashi Maru scene again makes him come off like a cocky asshole who is sticking it to authority rather than the intellectual exercise Wrath of Khan made it feel like. He sits in the chair acting all at ease, because he knows he’s going to win and I just want to punch him in the face. Then came his whole reason for doing it: “I don’t believe in no-win scenarios.” Why? When was this established? Why does he now apparently want to be just like his father? What caused this change? Explain stuff movie I dare you!

What drives Kirk to want to be in that captain’s chair? How has he proven that he deserves to be in that chair by the time the movie is over? He’s rude, he’s obnoxious, he’s arrogant, and the only command decision he makes is to direct the Enterprise to Earth to stop Nero. Getting the Enterprise there without being seen, disabling the drill, and getting the ship away from the black hole, that Kirk kept them in because he’s a revenge loving idiot, are all done by other people. This is the cadet they want to command the Federation flagship? In my eyes he certainly hasn’t earned that right. He was simply slotted into his predestined role so we can have the whole bridge crew assembled properly by the time the end credits roll. This was a mistake in my opinion, but since it is in place now I hope it is something that will be addressed in the sequel now that we have Kirk in command a good decade earlier than he was in the prime!verse. This has got to cause resentment among the officers in the fleet that were in the Laurentain system. Creating conflict as these captains have to deal with, in their eyes, some wet behind the ears little punk. Leading to Kirk having some self doubt as to if he really does belong in that chair and then perhaps some Kirk/Spock/McCoy discussion about the issue. The golden trio component was another vital missing element in this film and one the producing team apparently doesn’t even want if the DVD cover and posters are anything to go by. (As an aside am I the only one who thinks having closes-ups of the character’s faces in shadow looks awful?)

Well Kirk has been badly handled and that brings us to our next glaring character issue: Spock. And let me get this out of the way now because it’s one of the big issues I have with Spock; no I do not like the pairing of Spock and Uhura. It comes out of no where, it has no bearing on the plot, and it blasts a big hole right through Spock’s character. Also the excuse of, ‘it’s an alternate universe stuff is different just go with it’ doesn’t wash. We were shown that Nero altered the timeline to create this universe when he attacked the Kelvin and this changed Kirk’s life profoundly. We get no indication that this event affected Spock’s personal life in any way. In fact we see that the duel nature of the character, in constant conflict internally, that was present in TOS is still in place here. He is tormented by his peers for being a half-breed. His heritage is seen as a handicap by his elders. Sarek wants him to be fully Vulcan and yet he himself married a human. The conflict is set up perfectly, and then we get to the academy and it all goes right out the transparent aluminum window. Spock is an instructor, why was he okay with having a relationship with a student? And yes the way I interpret the hangerbay scene the relationship didn’t just pop up when Uhura comforted him in the turbolift after the destruction of Vulcan. Spock specifically said that he does not wish to show favouritism and glances over as people pass by, so whatever is going on between them is more than professional at this point and others have noticed. Then at the end they stand on the transporter pad kissing goodbye in public. What the hell? Even Spock Prime in the movies, who had accepted his human side and that emotions were necessary in his life didn’t act like that. If Spock is willing to be so openly affectionate in public then there is no struggle for him. If there is no internal conflict between logic and emotion then the cornerstone of the Spock character is lost. Now once again this is something the sequel can deal with now that this stupid relationship is in place. It can delve into deeper character issues as other Treks did. With Vulcan gone does Spock pull deeper into being a Vulcan to preserve that culture? Just like Kirk he has had a glimpse of who he might one day become, does he wish to be Spock Prime? Who is open to emotion and displays it when the situation calls for it. Is it destiny? Or will he forge his own path and be his own person?

In our next character misstep we have Nero and his stupid motivations. Yes I know this has been commented on a lot, but I’m throwing in my two cents anyway. Honestly this, to me, is nothing more than an attempt to shove in a concept from Wrath of Khan in an attempt to tie this film to the best Trek movie made to date. Why does everybody who makes Trek think that they have to rehash this concept in order to have a successful movie? Newsflash everyone at Paramount, you don’t. What you need to have are good themes, a good story, and some great character growth. The most financially successful film of the first ten movies is in many respects the very opposite of Wrath of Khan. It has no central villain, it’s a comedy not an action/drama piece, it doesn’t even take place in space. What both films do have though are great themes, well told stories, and growth of the characters and that’s why they, generally, are the most beloved of the Trek movies. Simply giving Nero a revenge motive does not automatically elevate him to Khan’s level. Yes Khan wanted revenge on Kirk for marooning him on Ceti Alpha V and never checking up on them; thus allowing his followers and wife to die, but Kirk was directly responsible for this. Also Khan was an egotistical tyrant who couldn’t stand the fact that he had been beaten by an inferior who had obviously long forgotten all about him. So, it makes sense that Khan acts like he does in the film. Nero, on the other hand, has none of this. He wanted revenge on Spock for the destruction of Romulus, but Spock was not responsible in any way for the destruction of the planet. He had been trying to save it and didn’t get there in time. Not to mention this whole scenario just brings up a whole ton of plot holes. Nero said he saw the destruction of Romulus. Which implies he was near the planet when he was working, so how was his ship not destroyed in the supernova? And if he knew Spock was coming that means there was at least some knowledge of the impending disaster, why was the planet not evacuated? How did Nero manage to transform his simple mining vessel into a doomsday machine and get back before Spock got there, just how late was Spock? Finally why would Spock inject the red matter into the star if it had already gone nova? This has a partial explanation in that he wished to prevent further destruction as this thing was supposedly threatening the galaxy, and right here is the key point to giving Nero’s motivations some much needed depth. Have Nero think that the nova is threatening two planets in particular, Romulus and Vulcan. Spock is sent to help and Nero thinks he deliberately delayed in order to wipe out the heart of the Romulan Empire, while saving Vulcan, and returning a hero. We in the audience know this isn’t true of course, but Nero doesn’t. This also gives the loss of Vulcan in the new universe another layer of depth. Not only would Nero be doing this to get revenge on Spock by having him watch the destruction of his home just as he did, but he would be twisting the knife in even deeper by showing Spock that he hasn’t saved his planet after all. To quote a villain who doesn’t suck, “I’ve done far worse than kill you. I’ve hurt you, and I wish to go on hurting you.”

Aside from the character issues the next big problem for me is that the film has no theme to give all the events cohesion. We have Kirk starting out as a reckless kid, becoming a reckless young adult and then getting a captain’s seat as a reward for that. We have Spock struggling with his duality and then just having it all deflate into nothingness like a popped soufflé. We have Nero running around screaming about revenge and wanting to destroy the Federation to save Romulus. Even though destroying the Federation won’t stop the star from going nova in 129 years anyway, but what could have pulled this all together thematically? Well since it’s establishing a new universe where characters are aware that the prime!universe is out there we could have had a whole thing about fate and destiny. How much of life do we really influence? Are things predetermined, can they be changed, do we want to change them? It could have been about loss and coping with that. Where Nero chooses a revenge filled and eventually self-destructive path at the loss of his family; Kirk in contrast starts out self-destructive and grows into a man who will use his pain and loss as a driving force to help others. Where Spock starts out confused and conflicted, working through his loss he comes out of the events more whole, more at peace with himself. Instead we just have a bunch of scenes that are strung together in a flashy sequence.

With the lack of theme comes the next greatest issue: nothing is explored in any great depth. We have the destruction of Vulcan, the home world of one the founding members of the Federation, what are the consequences of this? Nothing. Yes Kirk uses it and the death of Amanda to get Spock emotionally compromised, but that’s it. To me it’s comparable to the destruction of the Enterprise and the death of David in The Search for Spock. Both these events are huge and yet they don’t have any really impact on Kirk or anyone else, until the sixth movie that is, they are just things that Sarek can list off that Kirk lost at the end of the film. Same thing here; it’s used for shock value and to get the plot rolling and the consequences are not dealt with. The same thing is true with the death of George Kirk. We start off with Kirk seeming to not want to be anything like that man and then he turns around and does want to be just like George for reasons the audience is never given. If you aren’t going to deal with the butterfly effect you so painstakingly set-up then you might as well have done a direct reboot of canon and have done with it.

The most annoying thing of all though is that the more times I watch this film the more I see that this story is just awful. Things do not flow naturally from it all. Events and people are merely pushed around to get things where they need to be for the plot and to give us pointless actions sequences. For example there is no logical reason for Spock to kick Kirk off the Enterprise and leave him marooned on some planet in the middle of nowhere, except of course that Kirk needs to meet Spock Prime. As with many things discussed in this review so far this is easy to fix; by having Kirk found as a stowaway and put in the brig earlier only for him to escape it with ease. Thus Spock knows he must get Kirk off the ship if he is to retain proper command. Or how about having some Vulcan ship that’s escaped the imploding planet in trouble, hailing the Enterprise, and having to land on Delta Vega? The Enterprise goes to help and Jim, as part of a landing party, runs off to do something heroic and runs into Spock Prime.

For an example of a pointless action sequence there is the whole drill on Vulcan sequence. Kirk and Sulu drop down to disable the drill and fight with the Romulans. It looks cool no question, but it wasn’t necessary, because right afterwards Nero lifts up the drill and they’re able to use the transporters again. Yes they say the drill was sabotaged, but nothing comes of that line and they don’t start the transport until Nero retracts the drill. When it would have been turned off by his crew and the transporters would have come back up anyway. So, the whole scene was entirely pointless. We could have had everybody sitting on the ship doing nothing and the outcome would have been the same. Also why does it take about five minutes to get to Vulcan from Earth, but at least five hours for everyone to get back? This is where the skydiving scene could have been made more relevant. Have Kirk and Sulu successfully disable the drill and Nero and his crew have to make repairs before they can go to Earth. Now the Enterprise is in a race against the clock. They don’t know how long it will take the enemy to fix it and get to Earth. Do they go to the fleet and hope they can all make it back in time, or do they risk heading straight for Earth and taking on the Narada one on one?

Why does Pike promote Kirk to first officer? Because the story needs him to be in that position to take over the Enterprise later, but what in story reason is there? Pike sees potential in him you say, but what potential? Outside of losing a bar fight he started and cheating on a test what has Kirk done to show that he is command material? I’d have been totally willingly to go along with this if we were given some indication that Kirk deserves it. If McCoy had mentioned that he knew Kirk was the top of his classes and the failing the Koybashi Maru wasn’t a sign that he was a bad cadet. Or if we had seen Kirk up for a promotion or a reward of some kind and was turned down for seemingly petty reasons and Pike objects and then gives him a field command, to give Kirk the opportunity to show his skills. Instead he is just put there because the plot needs him there. Shoving your characters around like pieces on a chess board so they can fit into neat boxes by the end credits is a sign of bad writing. Other weird or pointless crap includes the Pike integration scene. Again it’s a cool scene, and another rip off of Wrath of Khan for those of us keeping score, but it was there so Nero could get some border protection access code to disable Earth’s defences, which are never spoken of again; huh?

Why can they not contact Starfleet after leaving Vulcan? The drill was what was causing the disruptions before and it isn’t there now. Of course the answer is that if Spock could contact the fleet they would all converge on Earth to face Nero and the whole Kirk Spock struggle would be non-essential. (It literally took me re-watching the bridge scene three times to hear Spock say that the sub-space communications have been damaged and that’s why they can’t contact anyone. Hey, director! If you want to convey information to the audience don’t have a character do it when another character is trying to shout over him.) Why can’t any Vulcans shoot the drill if Spock was easily able to do it with the Jellyfish? Why does Kirk have to run away from two creatures on Delta Vega? Why does the Enterprise arriving late to Vulcan have to be because Sulu is an idiot? Why do we have to have a scene with Uhura in her underwear? Why does everyone who works with Trek now a days insist on making it an action, sex, filled vapid piece of work with nothing of substance?

In closing, I don’t hate this film so much as I am disappointed in it. The potential here is so great to explore new themes in Trek. To have the characters grow and interact in ways we’ve never seen before. Instead of being new and innovative though it has a pointless empty romantic couple, pretty actors, and lots of CGI explosions just like every other summer blockbuster we’ve had in the last ten years, because Apollo forbid that we actually have the audience think instead of switching off their brains when they park their butt in the theatre seat. Now having ranted to death about these things I will still be going to see the sequel when it comes out because that will be the true lynch pin in all of this for me. Now that they have set-up this situation, however clunky and contrived it may be, what are they going to do with it? The writers and producers have received the feedback and supposedly know what to improve on for the next one, but will they? Will they deal with character issues, will they have an over-arching theme? They have a chance do something really unique and forward thinking, you know, what Star Trek does best, will they take it? If they can prove that they can execute the true heart and soul of Trek, and not just give us Easter eggs as winks to the audience, I will be onboard. If not then I’ll be sticking with ‘my father’s Star Trek’ thanks ever so much.

Live long and prosper.

New Forum?

2010-08-03T19:14:00.000-07:00

http://rehashresistance.freeforums.org/

I just put this together. I have no idea if it works. If you join, post something, and tell me if it is working and what you might want done with it. You can add new topics and threads. Anyone want to be an Administrator?

Its a free forum, and it looks okay, but I haven't tried it out really. Let me know what you think.

--Phil

MONDAY: SHATNER AFTERMATH

2010-08-01T12:35:00.001-07:00

http://www.biography.com/aftermath/

Premieres Monday, check listings on the BIOGRAPHY CHANNEL for William Shatner's new show!

No Forum

2010-08-01T11:28:00.001-07:00

Alright, its difficult to keep up all the time on this blog, if you'd like to write posts, you can be added to author and sign in, and write your articles freely here on this blog.

Here's what you do:

Send me an email at philsternwise @ yahoo. com

Write an article of some sort, telling us your reasons, etc. Provide me with your email address, and perhaps any websites you might have.

You will be listed as an 'author.' You can then write, post pics, comment on news, etc, as much as you like. You may have to sign in/obtain a blogger account, all you do is sign in, and find it on your blogger page, and your off to blog.

Since there is no Forum, and I can't always keep up with everything, it would be great to have more authors here. (Actually there already are, but they don't always post.)

TREK: Where Did it All Go Wrong?

2010-08-01T11:20:00.000-07:00

Article by Julien Paquin-Saikali
Where did it all go wrong?

By now, we know it, the latest Star Trek movie sucked. I’ve been thinking for a while about the franchise, and where it all went wrong. While Trek reached a new low, it’s been a while since anything actually good came out of the franchise. Now, I understand that some of you might actually like Voyager, Enterprise or the TNG movies. I warn you, I didn’t, and will criticize them. Any of you who liked them, I respect that. I’m personally a DS9 fan, even if it was the beginning of the end in my opinion.

I have to admit, I've fallen back to Doctor Who lately, now that I’ve given up on ever seeing good Trek I haven’t watched a 100 times already. Sure, it's cheezy and often childish, but the writers really give us imaginative monsters and places. In fact, the show is all about exploring strange alien worlds or other time periods. It lasted for so long because it didn't try to "tie-in" everything, keeping it mostly in a "monster of the week" pattern. Bigger story arcs are usually contained within a single season.

This is precisely the error that Trek made. While I love DS9, I do feel it made the mistake of explaining everything. The Romulans where no longer those mysterious aliens we know little about, but became a nation where we send diplomats. The mystery was gone. Let’s face it; you can’t have characters like Trellane, for example, in post-DS9 Trek. Even Q was ignored, only to be reintroduced and stripped of all his mystery in Voyager. The fact is that Trek stopped being about exploring, and became a show that’s about explaining.

Speaking of Voyager, its original concept could have worked wonders and put Trek back on course, giving us weird aliens and space exploration, discovering more about the human race in the process, aka what made Trek great. Instead, that show lost itself in explaining everything, and ruined both the Borg and Q. I will admit that it had its moments, and a few episodes where pretty good from what I remember. (My memory is fuzzy, as I haven’t watched it in years. I mostly remember the specific episodes that pissed me off, not a good sign.) It also started playing with the one thing that ruined Trek: Time Travel plotlines. While one shot episodes, such as “The City on the Edge of Forever”, can work great, Voyager’s time travel plot holes were always confusing to me. The last episode of that show is about time travel, but doesn’t deal with consequences. Instead, it’s about “kicking the bad guy’s ass”. This, to me, is where Trek truly went wrong. At the same time, we had the TNG movies that were turning Trek into an action franchise. Voyager went the same route.

I have to admit, I’ve never finished watching Enterprise. I gave up somewhere at the beginning of the third season. I didn’t like the characters, hated the way they presented the Vulcans and found the time travel plotlines even more ludicrous then Voyager’s. To me, it never felt like the Trek I knew and loved.

After all that, is it really surprising that the new franchise is a dumb action movie full of explosions and sexist jokes? Sadly, no. While it could be possible to make a new Trek series that would work, it would need to be about the ideas and concepts behind Star Trek, not about reusing the characters, locations and aliens. It’s a great idea for an old enemy to come back once in a while, but it should be about paying homage to the original while moving forward. A good sequel should use the original material to build something more, keep the concept alive, but push it further. A bad sequel will forget about what made the original great and keep telling the public how great the characters are.

With this said, I’m sad to say that I’ll go back to watching Doctor Who and will probably stop paying attention at anything new that comes from Trek, at least while the Jar-Jar club is in control. If you’re looking for a good example of a revival of an old show, I suggest you take a look at Who. It’s not perfect, but it modernized the concept while staying true to the original, and it actually respects the original material.

10 Reasons Star Trek XI is a GOOD Movie...

2010-08-01T10:53:00.000-07:00

Sorry folks, I've been behind again in moderating comments. (Though there are actually other 'bloggers' on this one blog, I think they have the capability of moderating comments, but they're probably busy too...)

I've decided to go back and take another look at this movie, and I've decided that I must come up with at least 10 Good Reasons to like this movie... well... why not, if the people that love it so much can do nothing but swear at us, I think they should come up with at least 10 to my 100 (actually I've probably come up with more than 200 by now).

So here they are: 10 Reasons to LIKE the Abrams Trek Film

1. The Arab Captain. He was interesting, a neat actor, perhaps the first arab in Star Trek (?). Oh but they killed him in less than two minutes...oh well.

2. The actor that played Doctor McCoy did a decent job I think. It seems he went to the Ewan McGregor school of acting 'remake characters.' Not bad, though McCoy had blue eyes, and it seems they didn't tell the actor this wasn't really a serious Star Trek movie, just a parody.

3. Uhhh....let's see, what else is there...the shirts...well, the collar idea is clever, where its really a black sweatshirt underneath a colored jersey, but I didn't like the polyester football jersey fabric they were made of...not too bad...

4.... searching.... searching... the outside of the ENTERPRISE didn't look too bad... hmmm although it was hard to see with all the lens flares and shaky cam shots...

5. damn this is hard.... Checkov ... he was kind of funny once in one scene.

6. Okay... now I'm having trouble here... this is hard. Were there any Tribbles? There were no tribbles, but I can't totally remember. No tribbles is a good thing right?

7. Crap, I can't come up with any more reasons... this is not good.

8. ???

9. ?????

10. ??????????? !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, let me know if you can actually find any other "GOOD" reasons to like the movie, or if my 'good' reasons really fall flat, because seriously folks I cannot come up with any more.

KHAAAAAAAN!!!!!!!!!!!

2010-07-24T08:06:00.000-07:00

IGN asks William Shatner... should Khan be in the next movie?

"I think that would be... In my opinion, if it were me, I wouldn't go back to that well again," Shatner said. "I'm not saying that it can be done in a good way, but there's just so much imagination out there. There're so many new things that could be explored. Why tap into what's been done twice already?"

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/Destroyer14/news/?a=20480

Yes, Bill, I absolutely agree...why not GO FORWARD with Star Trek, rather than keep rehashing the same old crap over and over and over again...

Isn't Star Trek about exploring 'new things?' It doesn't make sense to remake that stuff... unless... and here's my crazy idea... for a different 'Star Trek' movie: (About Khan)

There will not be a single jerk actor from the last movie. It will not be directed by J.J. Abrams, and it will have nothing to do with the last movie.

(It could even be a TV series)

If they want to keep going back in time to the past, they love those prequels, how about a 'Star Trek Origins' series that has nothing to do with our crews... (probably better as a TV series though) ... you want prequels? Do a show which begins where Star Trek begins... all the way back... starting with the first Episode or Movie : "THE EUGENICS WARS." No Kirk, no Picard, no Enterprise. It would be a 'Star Trek Companion Series' about the origins of Star Trek. Yes, they 'did' this with 'Enterprise' which I didn't think was all that bad, but they did too much Time Travel crap. Make it a classy retro show. Forget Time Travel, just go back and visit the Eugenics Wars, Zefram Cochrane, WWIII, etc. The story is already there...

Otherwise, go far into the future, beyond the Next Generation, with the USS ENTERPRISE which has an entirely new kind of propulsion system beyond WARP drive. Where they go into the farthest reaches of space and meet aliens like...well...the 'alien' from ALIEN, or H.P. Lovecraft type unimaginable creatures which would most likely be found, both scientific and fascinating, cease the endless rehashing of old plots about the Prime Directive, about the race issues, and move the damn thing forward. Of course that would take some imagination...

Howabout an episode where the crew of the Future Enterprise goes way out beyond the galaxy, into deep space, and meets aliens which are not bipedal humanoids with all these run of the mill sociological issues? Howabout a ship of aliens whose atmosphere is water, or not oxygenated, or where they must attempt to communicate without translation devices...well some of this has been done, but not very well. Less 'light beings' taking over bodies on the ship, and kidnappings. Less political intrigue and more weirdness, so that the characters can take over the show. Show us an exotic Star Trek future where the things of TNG are archaic, phasers, warp drives and cloaking devices are old news. Take us to the real final frontier... beyond what we have seen for the last 25 years... I know a lot of Star Trek is social commentary, and that won't have to change just because the new ENTERPRISE is running into jellyfish cthulu aliens and unusual planetary phenomena that was previously unimaginable. Don't make it like Battlestar Galactica, or Voyager, or Stargate Universe, keep it bright, and keep it away from soap-opera. There is still more to tell in the Star Trek Universe, in the far past, or the far future, but damn this TIME TRAVEL and remake crap.

Nicholas Cage to Play Khan in Star Trek XII...(Star Trek 2)

2010-07-15T14:17:00.000-07:00

...Just kidding.

However, Karl Urban the only worthy actor in J.J. Abrams pile of shit movie, believes that JarJar is a 'genius.'

...well...Bruce Greenwood is a great actor, but what the hell he was doing there I do not know. I guess he'll take any job these days. Gotta pay bills.

It appears they are going ahead with Part Deux, and let's hope there's a special subliminal message or inside joking insulting this blog, and more original fans (you can bet they're coming up with ideas right now as I write this.) J.J. Abrams is exactly that kind of director... anybody zoom in on the opening scene of the movie yet? Look close at the phaser fire, and please tell me what you see. (You'll have to still the image as I have heard.)

Still, as I delete more comments every day, people out there seem to find an extraordinary amount of time trying to insult us. There are at least 10 vulgar and insulting comments per one single post on this blog, and I don't post that often. They are hitting old articles and seem more interested in this blog than the people who follow it. What I find funny is that most comments say things like "why do you waste all your time?" It appears they are the ones with no life wasting all their time. An update every two weeks or so is wasting 'all my time?' Heh... there are some people who really DO need to get a life...

Long Live WILLIAM SHATNER!

Defending Shatner

2010-07-10T13:42:00.000-07:00

The Montreal Gazette writes "Our country certainly doesn't need, as its global representative, an individual who is an uncaring, insensitive, conceited, boorish lout. "

"I'm sure that had Johnston been a heartthrob celebrity in the late '60s and early '70s, as Shatner was, he would not have shoved aside a small group of adoring fans, autograph books in hand, in front of the CFCF studios in a mad dash to his waiting limo. Not a smile or a glance, not even a thank you as he drove off, leaving us incredulous."

You know the stereotypes and public hate for William Shatner has really been pissing me off lately. Because it is all pure mythology. If Shatner wanted to avoid a crowd when visiting Montreal, isn't it his business? Why is he expected to come out like the Pope and bless everyone?

The criticisms and stereotypes of the "Shatner Acting Style" is also a big myth, it might have occurred in one episode of Star Trek where---he----talks----like---this. It simply isn't true. Also, while Shatner is known as a ladies man, and an 'asshole' by many people, it most often seems to be by people who expected something out of him, like he should have done this---or that---for them. Shatner is entitled to privacy and anything else the average person is entitled to. It is said Shatner has a big ego...but it is also evident that Shatner accepts humility all the time and makes fun of himself. For a guy who supposedly has the biggest ego in the world, he makes fun of himself a lot, and doesn't take it seriously. Honestly, I think people believe they know all about William Shatner from the roles he plays on television, but seriously, I cannot believe there are still people who honestly really do that.

CHARLIE ROSE TALKS TO WILLIAM SHATNER:
http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/jun2010/pi20100617_663458.htm

What's the connection between Shatner and the world that makes people want to use Priceline?

Every so often we change the campaign. So we changed the campaign about four years ago to this Negotiator. And I approached the Negotiator character like an actor. I thought, "The Negotiator is insane." We've made him so nuts that he'll do anything to get a customer a bargain. And that seems to have resonated.

Just Joined "JJ ABRAMS YOU RUINED STAR TREK FUCK YOU"

2010-07-05T15:46:00.000-07:00

I just joined "JJ Abrams, You Ruined Star Trek Fuck you" FACEBOOK Page...

New Kirk: A Sociopath

2010-07-01T14:52:00.000-07:00

The New Captain Kirk is not just an asshole, he's a sociopath.

Lets examine the sociopath checklist...

Glib and superficial

Psychopaths are often witty and articulate. They can be amusing and entertaining conversationalists, ready with a quick and clever comeback, and can tell unlikely but convincing stories that cast themselves in a good light. They can be very effective in presenting themselves well and are often very likable and charming.

Egocentric and grandiose

Psychopaths have a narcissistic and grossly inflated view of their self-worth and importance, a truly astounding egocentricity and sense of entitlement. They see themselves as the center of the universe, as superior beings who are justified in living according to their own rules.

Psychopaths are seldom embarrassed about their legal, financial or personal problems. Rather, they see them as temporary setbacks, the results of bad luck, unfaithful friends or an unfair and incompetent system.

Psychopaths feel that their abilities will enable them to become anything they want to be. Given the right circumstances—opportunity, luck, willing victims—their grandiosity can pay off spectacularly. For example, the psychopathic entrepreneur "thinks big."

Lack of remorse or guilt

Psychopaths show a stunning lack of concern for the devastating effects their actions have on others. Often they are completely forthright about the matter, calmly stating that they have no sense of guilt, are not sorry for the pain and destruction they have caused, and that there is no reason for them to be concerned.

Psychopaths' lack of remorse or guilt is associated with a remarkable ability to rationalize their behavior and to shrug off personal responsibility for actions that cause shock and disappointment to family, friends, associates and others who have played by the rules. Usually they have handy excuses for their behavior, and in some cases they deny that it happened at all.

Lack of empathy

The feelings of other people are of no concern to psychopaths. Psychopaths view people as little more than objects to be used for their own gratification. The weak and the vulnerable—whom they mock, rather than pity—are favorite targets.

...engaging in an unending series of casual, impersonal and trivial sexual relationships; and so forth.

Deceitful and manipulative

Lying, deceiving and manipulation are natural talents for psychopaths. Given their glibness and the facility with which they lie, it is not surprising that psychopaths successfully cheat, bilk, defraud, con and manipulate people and have not the slightest compunction about doing so. They are often forthright in describing themselves as con men, hustlers or fraud artists. Their statements often reveal their belief that the world is made up of "givers and takers," predators and prey, and that it would be very foolish not to exploit the weaknesses of others.

Some of their operations are elaborate and well thought out, whereas others are quite simple: stringing along several women at the same time, or convincing family members and friends that money is needed "to bail me out of a jam." Whatever the scheme, it is carried off in a cool, self-assured, brazen manner.

Shallow emotions

Psychopaths seem to suffer a kind of emotional poverty that limits the range and depth of their feelings. While at times they appear cold and unemotional, they are prone to dramatic, shallow and short-lived displays of feeling. Careful observers are left with the impression that they are play-acting and that little is going on below the surface.

Laboratory experiments using biomedical recorders have shown that psychopaths lack the physiological responses normally associated with fear. The significance of this finding is that, for most people, the fear produced by threats of pain or punishment is an unpleasant emotion and a powerful motivator of behavior. Not so with psychopaths; they merrily plunge on, perhaps knowing what might happen but not really caring.

Impulsive

Psychopaths are unlikely to spend much time weighing the pros and cons of a course of action or considering the possible consequences. "I did it because I felt like it," is a common response.

More than displays of temper, impulsive acts often result from an aim that plays a central role in most of the psychopath's behavior: to achieve immediate satisfaction, pleasure or relief. So, family members, employers and co-workers typically find themselves standing around asking themselves what happened—jobs are quit, relationships broken off, plans changed, houses ransacked, people hurt, often for what appears to be little more than a whim.

Psychopaths tend to live day-to-day and to change their plans frequently. They give little serious thought to the future and worry about it even less.

Poor behavior controls

In psychopaths, inhibitory controls are weak, and the slightest provocation is sufficient to overcome them. As a result, psychopaths are short-tempered or hot-headed and tend to respond to frustration, failure, discipline and criticism with sudden violence, threats and verbal abuse. They take offense easily and become angry and aggressive over trivialities, and often in a context that appears inappropriate to others. But their outbursts, extreme as they may be, are generally short-lived, and they quickly resume acting as if nothing out of the ordinary has happened.

Although psychopaths have a "hair trigger" and readily initiate aggressive displays, their ensuing behavior is not out of control. On the contrary, when psychopaths "blow their stack" it is as if they are having a temper tantrum; they know exactly what they are doing. Their aggressive displays are "cold;" they lack the intense emotional arousal experienced by others when they lose their temper.

It's not unusual for psychopaths to inflict serious physical or emotional damage on others, sometimes routinely, and yet refuse to acknowledge that they have a problem controlling their tempers. In most cases, they see their aggressive displays as natural responses to provocation.

Need for excitement

Psychopaths have an ongoing and excessive need for excitement—they long to live in the fast lane or "on the edge," where the action is. In many cases the action involves breaking the rules.

Some psychopaths use a wide variety of drugs as part of their general search for something new and exciting, and they often move from place to place and job to job searching for a fresh buzz. Many psychopaths describe "doing crime" for excitement or thrills.

The flip side of this yearning for excitement is an inability to tolerate routine or monotony. Psychopaths are easily bored. You are not likely to find them engaged in occupations or activities that are dull, repetitive or that require intense concentration over long periods.

Lack of responsibility

Obligations and commitments mean nothing to psychopaths. Their good intentions—"I'll never cheat on you again"—are promises written on the wind.

Truly horrendous credit histories, for example, reveal the lightly taken debt, the shrugged-off loan, the empty pledge to contribute to a child's support. The irresponsibility and unreliability of psychopaths extend to every part of their lives. Their performance on the job is erratic, with frequent absences, misuse of company resources, violations of company policy, and general untrustworthiness. They do not honor formal or implied commitments to people, organizations or principles.

Indifference to the welfare of children—their own as well as those of a man or woman they happen to be living with at the time—is a common theme among psychopaths. Psychopaths see children as an inconvenience. Typically, they leave children on their own for extended periods or in the care of unreliable sitters.

Psychopaths are frequently successful in talking their way out of trouble—"I've learned my lesson;" "You have my word that it won't happen again;" "It was simply a big misunderstanding;" "Trust me." They are almost as successful in convincing the criminal justice system of their good intentions and their trustworthiness. Although they frequently manage to obtain probation, a suspended sentence or early release from prison, they simply ignore the conditions imposed by the courts.

Early behavior problems

Most psychopaths begin to exhibit serious behavioral problems at an early age. These might include persistent lying, cheating, theft, fire setting, truancy, class disruption, substance abuse, vandalism, violence, bullying, running away and precocious sexuality. Because many children exhibit some of these behaviors at one time or another, especially children raised in violent neighborhoods or in disrupted or abusive families, it is important to emphasize that the psychopaths's history of such behaviors is more extensive and serious than that of most others, even when compared with those of siblings and friends raised in similar settings.

Early cruelty to animals is usually a sign of serious emotional or behavioral problems. Cruelty to other children—including siblings—is often part of the young psychopaths's inability to experience the sort of empathy that checks normal people's impulses to inflict pain, even when enraged.

Adult antisocial behavior

Psychopaths consider the rules and expectations of society inconvenient and unreasonable, impediments to their inclinations and wishes. They make their own rules, both as children and as adults.

Many of the antisocial acts of psychopaths lead to criminal convictions. Even within prison populations psychopaths stand out, largely because their antisocial and illegal activities are more varied and frequent than are those of other criminals.

Not all psychopaths end up in jail. Many of the things they do escape detection or prosecution, or are on the "shady side of the law." For them, antisocial behavior may consist of phony stock promotions, questionable business and professional practices, spouse or child abuse, and so forth. Many others do things that, although not illegal, are unethical, immoral or harmful to others: philandering, cheating on a spouse, financial or emotional neglect of family members, irresponsible use of company resources or funds, to name but a few. The problem with behaviors of this sort is that they are difficult to document and evaluate without the active cooperation of family, friends, acquaintances and business associates.

Star Trek XI Sucks Update

2010-06-29T10:22:00.000-07:00

People are still watching my 100 Reasons Videos, they're still checking out this blog, and they still hate J.J. Abrams' "STAR TREK XI."

What's the big deal you ask? There are many, many people out there who simply didn't like this movie, were literally 'offended.'

How can anyone be 'offended' by a movie? Well, there are many reasons people have listed. I've listed reasons why the movie is just plain terrible, but the fact is there are reasons which go beyond 'bad filmmaking.' People feel that Star Trek has been hijacked. Its name applied to something that barely resembles 'Star Trek.' The complaints against the critics of this movie and its director are astonishingly shallow, and never has a single 'fan' explained just 'why' the movie is good, or why they liked it as much as they did, and why it was enough to make them so angry as to come here and post vicious, derogatory comments about us.

The most common comment I get from a critic is "Thank you for letting me know there are others out there who hated this movie." Why do people feel this way? Not 'why' do they hate it, but why feel a need to 'know' they are not alone? A lot of people hated 'THE MUMMY RETURNS' and they didn't care much about whether people like them existed... Aha...this is very different isn't it? Star Trek means more to people than a couple movies and a TV series. Star Trek is many things, and one of them is that it is an artistic expression of various philosophical principles, ideas, and even emotional ones as well. Some greedy movie moguls took something that meant something to millions of people and turned it upside-down and inside-out, and made a kind of mockery of it. (And mocked those original fans).

I was sent an email with some pictures from the movie, and the person suggested that there were subliminal messages in the phaser beams in space, I looked close, and ideed there were...in the pictures they sent. The problem is that I cannot verify with clarity that these messages were in the original film, but it could be possible, I don't know. If someone has the ability to get high quality screen shots of this movie, and check it out, it would be something very important. Some of the messages on the shots they sent me said things like "William Shatner sucks," "The Original Series Sucks" etc. They were there, but I have no idea if they were photoshopped. IF these messages are really there, you have a smoking gun as to the true intentions of the producers. Send me more, or verifications, or better images if you care to take the time to look and I will post them there along with your own articles and thoughts about this. I simply do not have the time to look into this, but it is very curious, and wouldn't surprise me if there were really there.

Someone has made a FACEBOOK page for this blog, this was not me, I didn't know it existed until a couple weeks ago, I am not personally associated with it. Join if you like, but I am not posting there, it has 65 members currently.

There are many creative and intelligent people coming out of the woodwork who also are 'offended' by this movie, and some have their own blogs, and the resentment towards this movie has not ended, nor will it end any time soon. People do like Star Trek, and want to see something of its truer essence again. They aren't going to give up, with 5 series under their belts and 10 movies.

I believe it would have been better if Star Trek XI had been a TV Pilot, 'ratings' would have guided that reboot into something Star Trek fans would have liked better. They couldn't have gotten away with what they did in the movie if it were a TV show. Star Trek remains better as a TV Series than a movie series.

It would be interesting to me to have a new Star Trek TV Series that takes place after TNG, with characters in a future beyond it. But, then, this would take creativity, intelligence and art, something that modern hollywood has little or none of these days. I thank everyone again for submitting articles, artwork, and comments who have supported this site, and the videos. I shall continue to post my own thoughts here periodically, and if anyone does have more to say, I will gladly post it here for all to see.

New Star Trek Movie to Watch

2010-06-16T10:31:00.000-07:00

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2010/06/16/shatner-banff-documentary.html

Shatner to direct a documentary about his STAR TREK life.

Shatner, 79, said the Movie Central documentary would also look at other Star Trek captains.

New Star Trek anyone?

2010-06-13T15:49:00.001-07:00

Well...it was so successful a movie, there's nothing but talk of another film, and it looks like there's nothing until after 2012...

Well...thanks for killing Star Trek ABRAMS. I would rather have had another season of ENTERPRISE...or another season of some sort of new Star Trek TV Series...now we're sitting around and there's nothing. Good franchise you have there, when you do nothing with it.

I guess I'll have to watch the new Shatner series...

Hey, guess what, somebody else agrees with me!

Still No Vocabulary...still Angry

2010-06-02T08:28:00.000-07:00

I received this message on my '100 Reasons' video the other day:
"I just have to say.. F**k you. You useless pustule.
Rather than finding these pointless reasons to drag down this fantastic movie, you should see the difficulties of making this."

I decided not to delete it, but have blocked the 'useless' user. However, I will put him to use here. I just have to say...is that all they can say in virtually every case? "Fuck You?" Why so angry? He certainly didn't have to watch a video he knew he'd disagree with....now I get it, a year later, yes, I get it... I have made them angry. My reasons become so obvious they are hard to take. They make fans angry. It never occurred to me that my specific and silly points make them so angry because you can't really shy away from them.

He says I should 'see the difficulties of making this.' I've heard that a few hundred times (haven't we all)...which for one, makes no sense, no critic if he thinks a movie is bad is going to 'consider' "how hard it is to make a movie." Making a movie is a JOB, you get paid for it, it isn't climbing a mountain, and the level of difficulty is only comparable to its budget. The less the budget, the more difficult. STAR TREK XI had quite a hefty budget with plenty of professionals getting paid very well to make it. Which brings me to my next point, if these people had this much money, and all these professionals, you'd think they could afford a tripod or a steady-cam, or how about a good writer. Perhaps this is the 101st reason why it sucks, professionals made this movie...and there are at least three cheapo fan films out there (starring original cast members) which are ten times better than this piece of garbage.

Alas, and until the fanboys who worship this film come up with a mere couple of reasons WHY THIS MOVIE IS SO GOOD, there is no reason in the world to stop criticizing it. They have not...ever.

It makes me happy that ONE YEAR LATER, the videos are having the SAME EFFECT they were having when I uploaded them. (If only the fanboys who hate me would see how difficult it was to make them....heh heh heh).

Some favorite Fan Angst Sites:

2010-05-26T10:10:00.000-07:00

SGUSUCKS.COM ...Stargate has also been trashed...

AVATARSUCKS

Because 3-D CGI Special Effects do not make a 'movie,' people, characters and plot makeup a movie...

What no Answers?

WHYLOSTSUCKS.COM

Nobody likes liars.

Namaste motherfucker.

Let me know if you find any more gems...

How NeoTrek will End

2010-05-26T09:50:00.000-07:00

So it ends. J.J.Abrams' claim to fame ends with a big smack across the face to the fans of LOST. People waited for a 'conclusion' which would tie up an inordinately complicated plot they hoped would answer all their questions. What they got was, 'we're not going to answer ANY questions, so fuck you.'

Alas, J.J. Abrams and his kind (the leftover producers of that show) are hucksters, and the plot of LOST which captivated fans for six years went down the "Light Hole" at the end.

What should we expect from J.J. Abrams and these people in the future?

How about: "Oh, that Star Trek movie we made a couple years ago? Oh, well that was just a dream that Doctor McCoy was having when he overdosed on tranquilizers on Rigel 3. So all is well. The Vulcans are still alive, Kirk is still in the Academy, and Checkov hasn't even applied yet."

Or maybe: "The sequel to Star Trek XI actually takes place BEFORE the last movie, but since they TIME TRAVEL, nothing in the first movie actually happens, and when Khan shows up, its actually before he becomes a dictator in the Eugenics Wars, but through Time Travel, he meets up with himself and the Enterprise Crew AFTER they abandon him on the Botany Bay but before the Eugenics wars...but they all realize they're dead at the end."

A Rambling and Ironic Reflection on 5 Things that Neo-Trek Taught Me

2010-05-23T10:00:00.000-07:00

5 Things that Neo-Trek Taught Me

Written by Liam Morris

New Life and New Civilizations are Boring

Star Fleet is a Peacekeeping Armada.

Star Fleet has always been a Peacekeeping Armada.

Star Fleet is no longer burdened with the namby-pamby responsibility of outer space exploration. After all, the Milky Way galaxy is like a really, really sleepy small town: doubtless, by the 23^rd century we’ve seen all there is to see. The pursuit of knowledge, the search for other cultures and the understanding of humanity’s place in the cosmos can therefore all play second fiddle to space policing.

Revenge is Good

If your hated enemies are trapped in a crippled spaceship that is being bisected and consumed by a newborn black hole, whatever you do, be sure to kill them before the black hole can. After all, dignity is for pussies, and there is truly nothing more cathartic than killing someone who is effectively already dead. Who cares if it’s all a little unseemly and ugly?

Revenge can be bad, but only when it is directed against you. If the bad guy is drowning, shoot him in the face.

Logic is Bad

Logic is stupid.

The dictums of pure logic and reason have caused the entire Vulcan race to turn inevitably (and inexplicably) to xenophobia and racism. Vulcan kids are mean to kiddy Spock; Vulcan adults are condescending to adult Spock. One wonders why the Vulcans, being such big players in the Federation, would want anything to do with the Federation in the first place, seeing as how even being in the same room as a single demihuman sends them all into paroxysms of condescension: “Aww, little Spock wants to be in the Science Academy. Thank gawd he didn’t inherit his mother’s earth-dwelling micro-brain. Snort, snort. Logical, logical, logical.”

In the end, this all for the good, as having the Vulcans repeatedly demonstrate their prejudice towards non-Vulcans serves to keep us from caring too much once they are all arbitrarily driven to near-extinction. Which brings us to…

Bad Men Need No Motive

When bad people do bad things, they are often driven by fuzzy logic (logic being bad, see above) that only they understand and no one around them wants to explore.

Nero the Romulan blows up Vulcan, a planet which is not only the current homeworld of the Vulcans but the abandoned homeworld of Nero the Romulan’s distant ancestors. He does this because he’s angry and ineffectual, and only really effective at lashing out at anyone who has nothing to do with any of the things currently weighing on his mind: “My wife and child will die 150 years from now and I, an involuntary time-traveler, am powerless to prevent it. Grr.” We shouldn’t try to understand his thinking, because when we fit the pieces together we find they don’t make an actual picture in the first place.

Nero’s behaviour should be a great comfort to us all, and whenever anyone out in the real world does something we can’t understand, we oughtn’t to try.

Doing What Feels Right is Good

Reason is the ultimate enemy to Getting the Job Done. We will never be able to drape that “Mission Accomplished” banner across our bow if people keep listening to the niggling doubts in their heads. When the giant, blue, floating God-Face wants the keys to your starship, don’t ask “Why does God-Face need a starship?” Give him the god-face-damned keys, already.

"Let go of logic. Do what feels right." Unless, of course, you’re Niro and “what feels right” happens to be “blowing the hell out of Vulcan.” Then: don’t do that thing that feels right. Have a smoke. Think it over. Wait a decade or two. See how you feel.

Doing What Feels Right is strictly the prerogative of Good Guys.

No Trekkers Allowed

2010-05-19T10:20:00.000-07:00

William sends me this:

On the round2models site, there's an interview with Andy Probert that includes a remark I found illuminating.
Probert said Abrams wanted no actual Trek fans to work on his sugar coated, batter fried turd on a stick movie.
Explains a lot.

http://www.round2models.com/articles/probert-interview

There's some good articles here also:
http://retroreflex.blogspot.com/

or click picture below:

One year ago.......already

2010-05-07T21:44:00.000-07:00

Yep. The "thing" came out in theatres exactly today last year. Since that day, believe it or not, they're people who discovered Star Trek with the "thing", loving it at first, then, they came to dislike it after starting to watch shows of the Real Star trek. I've met a few of them.

How about you people. Did you know someone who became a "real" Trek fan thanks to JJ?

Lost in Space...

2010-04-18T11:49:00.000-07:00

I haven't been posting lately, mainly because I've been off having other fun, and doing other things...if J.J. Abrams deposits another turd into the pool, I will certainly have something to say about it...people are STILL watching those 100 Reasons videos, and they're still talking about this...thanks to all the support and comments...if you want to be a poster here on this blog...just email me.

Thanks...

Join William Shatner's MyOuterSpace.com

2010-03-25T14:51:00.000-07:00

Academy Awards 2010: The triumph of Reason.

2010-03-16T16:35:00.000-07:00

Ok. Maybe it's kinda late for this but the beating Avatar have taken at the last Oscar Night deserves at least a little post on this blog. It's good to know there still aren't only fad following, ass kissing sheeps in Hollywood.

Oh. & let's not forget the Oscar for best make ups. I agree. So good i've never recognized Star Trek.

2010-02-03T09:40:00.000-08:00

The Faith of "Star Trek"

I just got back from seeing the movie Star Trek. While it is an interesting new twist on Gene Roddenberry's brainchild, I did not like the movie and think it is a complete disappointment.

I had lost interest in Star Trek after finding out the new people in charge of the franchise literally stole Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczynski's idea for their Deep Space Nine series.

What originally drew me to it wasn't just the science fiction but also the positive vision of the future Star Trek encompassed. At the time it was wonderful and fascinating seeing the crew of the Enterprise who are made up of a variety of aliens, races and creeds, working together to explore new planets and contact alien life forms in other galaxies.

I also liked the space combat too since, for me, it helped break up the monotony of constant space exploration.

Star Trek itself was also Gene Roddenberry's vehicle to demonstrate the philosophy of Humanism that he subscribed to. While flawed due to its egalitarianism, as a philosophy Humanism is based on rationalism that is informed by science and free of supernaturalism.

Gene Roddenberry was an agnostic, respectfully, and used his show to demonstrate the glories of scientific knowledge, discovery and space exploration.

In addition to this, Star Trek is a world where the characters successfully use their ability to think. It offers an inspiring and entertaining demonstration of heroes of both intellect and action who do not rely on whims, emotions or superstitions to solve problems.

This is also demonstrated with the franchise's strong, pro-technology outlook in which technology is essential for scientific investigation and problem solving.

Many life forms that the crew of the Enterprise encountered admittedly were superhuman but not gods. Yet, if they were antagonists, the hostile aliens could be defeated due to their flaws and weaknesses despite their godlike abilities.

The 2009 Star Trek film, while having excellent special effects and action to keep the movie interesting, still lacks the overall depth of the original television series and movies on which it is based.

In the original television series and films the main characters of the Enterprise were put into plots that were often philosophically driven. Additionally, the intergalactic crew is poised for adventure in which the primary plot of the television episodes and Star Treks I - VI are composed of a clear and consistent hierarchy of events.

In the new movie, we see nothing more than a chaotic discombobulated miasma of conflicting personalities who try to rule by consensus in order to stop a rogue Romulan on a vengeful warpath from destroying Earth and the United Federation of Planets.

In the end, the movie seems to imply that we should abandon reason, act on faith and whatever feels right. A bad message to send in a movie whose primary driving force is science and reality.

Faith is the blind acceptance of an idea or concept usually based on feelings without any evidence or proof and can be a pre-cursor to embracing religious or superstitious beliefs of some kind.

Faith is something best left to priests, preachers and politicians and to insert it into a scientifically driven, albeit fictional, story line is a blatant contradiction.

If he were alive, I do not think Gene Roddenberry would approve of this new version of his universe.

Article by Mike Renzulli
http://freelibertarian.blogspot.com
Posted here with Permission.

Just a Reminder from 'the Talent'....we're 'dickheads.'

2010-01-20T10:58:00.001-08:00

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” --Mahatma Gandhi

Now we're 'Evil'

2010-01-20T10:18:00.000-08:00

Recent comments on this blog (check the post below) have gotten more outrageous than this very blog. People have come here and accused us of being anti-semitic, and 'psychotic' and likened us to political terrorists or assassins...for merely...openly criticizing a film, and its director. (Yes we blame J.J. Abrams).

This is way beyond the pale.

The real question is, why the hell is it so important to attack us? There are thousands of fun 'fanboy angst' sites in existence. From people who hate George Lucas and the Phantom Menace, to people who hate the Sarah Connor Chronicles, to even blogs who set their sites on specific fictional characters in their favorite television shows.

They come, they 'hit and run.' Their statements are intended to make us somehow feel bad about ourselves, as if we were not just 'stupid' or 'being gay' but now we're essentially being called "EVIL."

This is too much.

Something is severely wrong out there in the world, and the only people being abused more than J.J. Abrams is US.

We've been verbally abused since day one.

Its certainly not 'psychotic' to have fan sites of Star Trek is it? (Many who read this blog actually have Star Trek Fan sites).

So us die-hard fans, raise questions, criticize a film, get attacked for it, driven from 'official' fan forums for our opinions, open our own blog outlet for our questions and to escape the abuse, and here it comes in the most outrageous and offensive forms.

I say this to the person or persons posting all this shit about how 'evil' we are, that we're racists, that we're 'political assassins,' psychotics, how dare you. Just who do you think you are? We came here to share our opinions with EACHOTHER so as not to gather more abuse from people like you, and not to bother your tidy little one-minded forums, fan sites, and blogs, shame on YOU.

The shame is on YOU.

What is it you expect YOUR comments to do? Make us quit? Make us stop 'hating' a movie? They're certainly not going to 'cure' us of our supposed 'psychosis.'

We're already supposedly 'psychotic' for even liking Star Trek in the first place, going on over 30 years now. Abuse, more abuse, and even further abuse.

Are you telling us, we're not allowed to have our own OUTLET? Yeah, I believe the people who need to get a life here is not us STAR TREK FANS, its people who have the audacity and aparently the arrogance enough to 'waste their precious time' to further abuse us....to speak from their high realm of superior holyness, morality and 'sanity' to further tell us about how crazy and now, 'evil' we are.

The sickness is all YOU, not us.

Do you think I'm going to get all flustered and delete this blog because you call me a terrorist? Because you call me a fascist? Because you call me a racist? Because you call me a 'fag.?'

Seriously, think about it. Your own unapologetic anonymous 'hit and run' branding is exactly what you are attempting to accuse us of, like a KKK man in a mask, pointing fingers and spouting epithets and branding us as 'enemies.' Who is truly the sociopath here?

We're goofs, we like fun, and we take our Star Trek seriously, if you can't handle that, you know what? GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE. We didn't hit your podcast page and fuck with it, nor your myspace or facebook page and post shit accusing you, or psychoanalyzing you, or calling you any names. It is you who are the twisted fuck, not us. It is you who are spreading hatred (of actual human beings) not us. We hate a movie, and mock a public figure. We see J.J. "Uncreative Rich-Fuck Who Destroyed Star Trek" Abrams as the opportunistic and arrogant bastard he is, (the guy who says "I never liked Trek, I liked Star Wars...").

The new Star Trek isn't art, its cheap plastic unrecyclable crap for the masses. Star Trek was NEVER that, and once again, we DON'T HAVE TO PUT UP WITH IT, or directors like Abrams, and if we don't show our disdain, we'll get more GARBAGE JUST LIKE IT.

So you HATE us. What else is new. We've been hated long before Abrams ever showed up, and psychoanalyzed, and accused of being commies, homosexuals, evil, and everything in the book. If you want to 'analyze; the situation, you better look closer at yourself, and if you cared seriously enough to write anything (send a message to us), you wouldn't have written that one.

Instantly dismissive, and instantly offensive. As usual. (Business as usual).

But wasn't that your objective? To hurt? to HATE? With no consequences? You don't have to FACE us. This IS in fact sociopathic.

The world goes on. So will this blog.

How (Not) To Make A Star Trek Movie

2010-01-16T12:07:00.001-08:00

Now we Know...

2010-01-12T10:23:00.000-08:00

WTF....wtf ... what... the... f....

Avatar...Star Trek...nominated by the WRITERS GUILD... the WRITERS Guild...that means that paid, 'professional' writers think that Star Trek and Avatar is 'good writing.'

My God Jim...my God...

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-wga12-2010jan12,0,5762636.story

This is proof of one of following, but you decide:

A.) That the writers in the Writers Guild in Hollywood are complete hacks who wouldn't know Shakespeare from Dick Tracy...

B.) That the writers in Hollywood are the stupidest people on earth...

C.) That they are being paid off, by Abrams, Cameron, or studios...

D.) That it is part of a conspiracy to promote two of the worst films to have been produced in the year 2009, and the last 10 years, because usually 'bad propaganda' stinks of bad dramatic writing, and they do not want anyone to believe that these films are really bad propaganda films.

E.) The world is coming to end, and all the decent writers have fled the country, are hiding in bombshelters, and have headed for the hills.

Star Trek (2009) Review ...

2010-01-12T09:40:00.000-08:00

Harlan Ellison wants to Write Star Trek 2?

2009-12-29T08:31:00.000-08:00

http://www.scifisquad.com/2009/11/30/harlan-ellison-wants-to-collaborate-with-abrams-on-star-trek-2/

...seriously though...even if he does, I probably wouldn't go see it, as no matter what he writes, they'll 'trash it up' and you know damn well they would.

Writer Harlan Ellison set the record straight when he responded to articles reporting that he wouldn’t mind getting involved with J. J. Abrams‘ Star Trek.

Last month, Ellison told readers of his “Art Deco Dining Pavilion” that he wouldn’t mind working for Abrams. “I would jump at the chance to work with the inordinately-talented J.J. Abrams on a new Star Trek film,” he said.

Ellison contacted Sci Fi Wire recently, who had picked up on the story that TrekToday broke, to let them know that his statement was just idle musing and nothing should be read into what was said.

According to Sci Fi Wire, he also wanted to “kill our brash correspondent” who wrote the story.” Sci Fi Wire offered instead to set the story straight.

Hopefully, Ellison will never find out that it was the TrekToday reporter who was the first one to post a story based on his blog comments.

Source: Sci Fi Wire

Star Trek Avatards

2009-12-29T08:05:00.000-08:00

Okay, so maybe you don't believe me about the effect Star Trek XI might have had. Maybe it really didn't influence anybody, perhaps it was nothing more than an acknowledgment of the way people I will flippantly call 'Avatards' behave and is a symbol for them.

http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/media.libsyn.com/media/filmjunk/filmjunkbonus_avatar.mp3

In the above link, you will find a podcast in which several people discuss the movie "Avatar."

One of them, see if you can pick him out, is Reed Farrington, a 'Star Trek Fan' and 'Trek Expert' at filmjunk.com.

Reed Farrington begins to bring up certain questions about the movie 'Avatar.'

He is ridiculed for being 'intellectual' and a 'Star Trek' fan.

The other people in the podcast behave like assholes as if questioning any plot points or scientific or 'intellectual' ideas is somehow, for lack of a better term, 'not right.'

I am not necessarily endorsing Reed Farrington as a reviewer, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61ezT-ZlNBI

...but he wasn't at least ENTIRELY happy with Star Trek XI.

This podcast illustrates the fact that people such as those who at the very least write and read this blog are still the underdogs, the outcast, and perhaps still the voice of reason. And there is a reason that a "Star Trek Fan" isn't going to like such crap as "Abrams Trek" or "Avatar" because we like to ask questions, think about things and wonder.

Reed Farrington is not entirely 'articulate' in this podcast the way I would have hoped, but I know where he is coming from and the others essentially are the perfect example of what I have been talking about here for months. It is a symptom of the times.

Reed actually knows a bit about science fiction, Star Trek, and asks pretty reasonable and normal questions, and he isn't even panning "Avatar" however the way the people behave towards his ideas suggests that such types of people simply want to swallow anything thrown their way, especially because its been vomited out by James Cameron.

2009-12-27T15:23:00.000-08:00

Casualties of Crap

2009-12-26T14:47:00.000-08:00

CASUALTIES OF CRAP

You know, maybe I'm an arrogant son of a bitch who has the highest standards of filmviewing, above perhaps even the hundreds of 'movie critics' that write on the internet EVERY SINGLE DAY. Maybe, I am some kind of crazed maniac who feels that his opinions are so unbelievably important that I have created a blog, tons of videos and post long winded articles on my utterly incomprehensible ideas regarding movies, most specifically, Star Trek XI. Somebody who really has absolutely nothing better to do at all, except this.

If only that were true.

You might have imagined that I am nothing less than a bitter fan, a person betrayed by a television series called Lost, upset at the idea of a remake of Star Trek, mad that William Shatner just isn't young anymore...not quite.

The fact is that I have watched this kind of crap before. Not simply the 'content' of such a film as 'Star Trek XI' but the kind of 'crap' that it really is. And what kind of crap? The kind of crap that I see influence people, but the kind of crap that is a sort of signpost, a historical marker. There have been things like this in the past, during times in the past where odd things are going on in the world. The real world.

Star Trek was hijacked.

Star Trek was once its own thing. As a matter of fact a lot of 'things' were once their "own thing." And what do I mean by this? I mean that it had its own direction, the people who owned and worked on it had a deliberate shared vision, people who knew what it was and carried it out as a part of their lives. I'm not talking about fans, viewers, the people on the receiving end, I am talking about the people who made the shows, the movies, etc.

There were many such 'things' as this in the past. Doctor Who, for example, was what it was for years. The X-Files carried itself on consistently for 9 years. There were other shows for sure as well, but other 'things' that were once 'all of what they were' and nothing else. There was a series called "MASH" which never deviated from what it intended to be. Even 'Stargate SG-1' carried itself for 10 years. Remember 'Planet of the Apes' or perhaps before 1998, there was even "Star Wars" "Indiana Jones," such franchises you are surely familiar with...

But there are a lot of other 'things' such as these out there, or at least there were. This isn't a lament about how things change, because no matter what the essence of those things were what they were, until they began to be changed in a more bizarre way.

Take 'Batman' for example. 'Batman' started in the 40s I think, and through comics, movies, television shows, more movies, and even more movies, 'Batman' has seemingly changed year after year, and yet...has actually stayed the same. Even as bad as "Spiderman" the 70s television series was...it was just as much 'Spiderman' as the new movie series...yes, it was.

New filmmakers, new writers come and go, they do something with these things, some have yet to remake some things, others, remade already at least twice...but they neither destroy, nor alter completely what those things were. Tim Burton did a good job on Batman, but ruined Planet of the Apes...or at least ruined his own remake of it...but not many people bought into that...it went nowhere. Godzilla surely sucked, Lost in Space surely sucked, and the new Stargate surely sucks...however...once and awhile, something astounding happens...

Just as when a really good movie comes along, and nobody cares about it, a bad movie comes along, and people somehow accept it, because there's something in the movie that acknowledges that something terrible about them is not so terrible, it allows them to be the worst of themselves, and feel proud about it. It isn't even something specifically political, though sometimes it can be. These things are usually called fads, when they emerge as a meme, and they can be negative and positive. In this care, this film, Star Trek, was atrociously bad filmmaking, and yet caught on like cocaine. Avater is beginning to look very similar, and while its 'politics' seem to overshadow what is really bad about it, giving the viewer a political power-acknowledgement can act as a defense for the movie, and for many, they'll exuse what's bad about it so long as they agree with its politics. They'll also do the opposite and take down a good movie, because they disagree with its 'politics' even if there's really none there to be analysed.

For Star Trek, which had a smattering of politics imbedded, but nothing in your face, as a matter of fact, its 'politics' go against the politics of the Original Star Trek, but this is not the sole reason for its badness. What Star Trek really is, can be described as the abandonment of the soul of not only Star Trek, but the soul of American Society. Not simply because of Star Trek, but it marks a turning point, in which people will begin to accept the worst kind of movies, for several reasons: that their politics can no longer be defined rationally, and no dramatic film could ever coherently explore them without making villains of them...and...that their social behaviour no longer can be explored as realistically heroic, decent, sane, let alone 'normal.'

It was an insult to the original Trek, but it was an insult to the social reasoning of any sane individual, coming from the context of the 'teleplay' as written and evolving through the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Movies aren't movies anymore, they are something else now entirely.

Star Trek wasn't really a movie, and it had more similarities to porn than a real film, and the entire tone and operation of it was devised more to do with causing 'reactions' over and over, until it reaches and end point in order for the filmakers to call it a day and edit something down to an hour and a half. Listen folks, these people do research on trends, fashions, and what 'young people' are into, and how they behave before making a film like this. This isn't a story from the mind of some 'science fiction writer' they hired, this fucking thing is a serious product, its a damn Ipod, a Microwave, a Hairdryer, its a damn 'Walkman' or an Amusement Park Ride as they used to say.

And yeah, there have been such films before, but now they have taken a special and unique turn, now that we have seen such things as "Transformers" and "Avatar." These things aren't just one category of movie at the theater in the summertime, they are things which are traded on the Stock Market. Not only this, these are not even simply product lines of one simple little clever science fiction franchise, they are hijacked completely and turned into a new kind of propaganda that has little to do with real politics, and more to do with corporate influence.

These kinds of movies aren't just about trying to get you to buy "Star Trek Products" or whatever else franchise's products, they are designed to utterly destroy the part of you that wants you to be you.

The motivation for this is simple, it isn't right wing or left wing, its something else completely.

When you look at Avatar, for example, it boast the most technological cinematic product of its kind, it boasts that it has a 'great message' and therefore it says its a 'real movie.' Star Trek boasted to a specific 'audience' (demographic) that it would not make them 'think.' It boasted that you didn't have to worry, they're not going to bore you with 'cerebral' ideas about the cosmos and humanity. Look at 'Avatar,' its moral message is neither nothing new, nor is it any more intelligent than the Phantom Menace, and yet, people love this shit, at least a certain kind, or some of us do. The one thing that makes them DIFFERENT than anything before is that the 'heroes' or 'protagonists' are usually crass, unthinking, unsensitive, arrogant, brutal or practically psychotic people. These people end up doing something that is particularly 'great' in a story which appears to be a 'great conflict' of some sort. There are generic undefined villains and generic undefined other 'protagonists' but they are VISUALLY defined a great deal, at least they are coloful, big, small or unusual-looking. But once where thought was taken for these things to mean something, the visual aspects of these things are now mind-boggling to thoughtful people. The reason for this is that they are no longer made with the same intentions that they once were.

They aren't intending to bring the same characters to do new thing, they aren't simply 'remaking' these things, they are literally transforming them into something else. These characters lack the 'humanity' of the originals on purpose, because the audience they are influencing will not respond well to the event that transpire onscreen if they did. In Star Trek, Kirk doesn't 'become' a better person, nor reveal his inner strengths and talents, nor discover anything about himself in the new movie, he merely moves forward, and influences everyone and everything else, and Spock congratulates him for it. In Avatar, a mangled veteran who smiles a lot, brings his crass arrogance to these colorful Elf creatures from a video-game planet, and leads them into battle against generic computer NPCs from any number of random war videogames, and though he has no place to say anything to these beings, he rallies them up, "They can't take OUR land!" Kirk has no true motivation to save the ship, a crew, or the planet earth in the new Star Trek other than to thrust his ego into the situation. He really doesn't care, nor should he given the absence of any real motivations shown to us in the movie. The movie doesn't even operate on such a level anyway. From the beginning, the viewer is intended to identify completely with Kirk, or Spock, without thinking, follow him into the conflict with the Romulans and cheer as he 'kicks ass' for no other reason than to have an acknowledgement of their own arrogance, their own egos.

Avatar feeds the ego similarly, and has absolutely nothing to do with 'changing the minds' of marines, right wingers, racists, or people who pollute the earth. Sorry it just doesn't. It may appear as such, just as 'Star Trek' offers the very same types of people the fuel to believe that they may be intelligent, or that their empty lives are really something, and they need not do much at all with their lives. Yes, it would seem that Kirk changes his life by becoming Captain, and that Jake changes his life by becoming a Blue Indian, but by the end, they're phony because the audience is never presented with any evolution, or moments by which to identify with as to what really happens when people change. "Change" becomes a cliche, while explosions go off and chicks take their tops off, and sly crass humor replaces insight, or wisdom.

The people who whole-heartedly accept these kinds of movies are people who need such distasteful crap in their lives to justify who they are. As far as they are concerned 'thinking' is only useful when it means elevating their egos... The thing the filmmakers either do not see...OR BANK ON, is that nobody sees the contradictions which reveal the true spirit of these movies.

Pointing out the contradictions of the films and filmmakers to such people evokes a violent and abusive response. As if holding up a crucifix to a vampire, or toasting to the rival football team in the wrong bar...

The reaction is part of observing the contradiction. Star Trek Fans were once often known as quiet admirers of a silly TV show, who contemplated unusual scientific and existential things. They didn't 'react' they recoiled...you might have even heard a 'Trekkie' deny his very interest back in the day.

Its a different kind of people these days, and a different kind of moviemaking. To conteplate the ideas of Old Star Trek meant to question unusual things, even perhaps yourself, and also even to question the questioning...did Roddenberry really want us to think this deeply, or were we just taking it too seriously? Now, there is no questioning of anything. To be an old-fashioned Star Trek fan, or 'science ficiton fan' was to question Star Trek itself, or whatever author, or writer... to ask, really, where did you come up with this...because boy does it ever weirdly make me think...and make me WONDER.

These new films Avatar, Star Trek, Transformers...they do not make us WONDER. They kill the part of us that does, and now sadly there are millions of casualties of these films. Literally people who have 'fallen' for this shit. They insult 'wonder' and mock it openly. Like mindless schoolyard bullies, they insult and berate anything that could suggest that a writer or filmmaker was trying to do anything else but feed egotistical garbage to them so they could conintue on with their empty lives. Avatar gives you a tired, overdone, cliched, and useless and even irrelevant at this point in history, terribly written story, BUT it gives it to you in the most visually pornographically pleasing way...you don't need to get deep, or contemplate anything, these films meet 'sentiments' and 'feelings' in the viewer head on, and clobber them away with dopamine inducing on-screen effects. Characters speak lines merely to set up explosive action, followed by egomaniacal dialogue spoken by protagonists to condescend the audience. The semblance of any plot is achieved by plagiarising well-known story ideas and concepts, because the audience must be completely unquestioning throughout the film, in order to receive its final pornographic 'reward' somewhere near the end. They tell you that you cannot 'enjoy' this movie by thinking, only by giving in and accepting the banality of everything can you obtain your climax... Thinking, questioning and contemplating this thing will ruin it, waste your time and your money, and in the end it will be your own fault, alienate your peers and 'lose.'

This is the real message of these movies, and the sooner you realize it, the better off you'll be. In the end it isn't right wing or left wing, it is something else completely. It is simply this: do not think, happy buying is unthinking buying, happy people get what they want if they do what they're told, but not by authoratative means, but simply by seeing that one must submit to the hive, no matter what is happening, to see that this will achieve happiness. The truest powers in the world today do not care if we are moral, or think, or advance emotionally, or even scientifically for that matter. Their greed, and their egos have trickled down to the 'businessmen' of Hollywood, who know that this is how it works, and that it can be done to masses of people, just as it is done to them. Anyone can have a piece, if you want to stoop that low. J.J. Abrams knows how to degrade the public with his trash and profit from it, its how it works. Seduction is allowing yourself to be degraded, hoping to achieve something you know you really probably shouldn't have.

Star Trek fans once liked Star Trek, because they could always go back to it, it meant something yesterday, today, and would again tomorrow. It meant something just to look back at how you could go back to it and learn something again. Now, its completely unwatchable, its nothing but a momentary and mindless thing, empty, useless, it gives you nothing. J.J. Abrams hijacked it, stole its soul and ate it for some money. James Cameron may have done worse, there was no previous Avatar to ruin, only some ideas he hijacked in the movie to sell his product. Now they seem trite, pieces of ideas of a useless movie which in the end was meaningless. It hijacked meaning to give you pornographic ecstasy, a fouler sin if there was one.

Whatever comes next, will not be surprising, it will probably have a name you've heard of, something you're familiar with, don't be amazed when its well recieved as you stare in amazement at the obscenity it is, while people cheer all around you. Its spreading like a cancer, and its either going to eat away until Hollywood is bankrupt or society is uttery morally bankrupt, becuase the only way for Hollywood to survive on this diet, is a morally bankrupt society...

Millions Refused to Pay for Star Trek XI

2009-12-24T09:42:00.000-08:00

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/film/story/2009/12/24/pirate-films.html

The 2009 Star Trek film was illegally downloaded close to 11 million times, making it the most-pirated film of the year, according to TorrentFreak.

TorrentFreak monitors peer-to-peer downloading using BitTorrent on a weekly basis and issued a report Tuesday ranking the top 10 pirated films.

This week, the top pirated films include Michael Jackson's This is It and Avatar.

Hollywood studios claim to be losing millions of dollars to downloading every year.

Avatarded

2009-12-22T18:30:00.000-08:00

Sorry but I must comment on James Cameron's new rip-off of a movie he calls Avatar.

Don't like it one bit. I won't even get into the scores of stolen ideas, plot points, etc, nor discuss Star Trek Insurrection...

Here the basic concept:

James Cameron has developed technology which makes really bad movies LOOK good. His software can't write dialogue or come up with a decent story, let alone decent characters BUT, insert your bad movie into his 500 million dollar computer, and it waxes and polishes the special effects. Now in this first instance, his special new computer technology has aparently been fed the plots of about 10 movies, and several different science fiction novels, to come up with this thing called Avatar, a name taken from one of the novels input into the device. His handy-dandy expensive computer has come up with a kind of contradictory environmental/white guilt fantasy, with horrible dialog, a plot that is so utterly banal it ... well, it must have been written by a machine... and this machine then amped up the color schemes to raise dopamine levels in the viewers, and enhance all the special effects x100 and edited the film with its videogame platform software. The CLINCHER: IT WORKS! It makes ordinary people think they are in fact watching a GOOD movie, when they aren't at all. We are in serious trouble when Brent Ratner, Stephen Sommers or George Lucas rent out this new James Cameron device, boy are we ever. I say we launch a secret mission in the name of our tribal nature god to destroy this infernal machine he has invented for the sake of all future generations!

Dan O'Bannon 1946-2009

2009-12-18T12:11:00.001-08:00

Dan O'Bannon, the sci-fi and horror screenwriter behind some of the genres' most recognisable titles, has died in Los Angeles following a short illness. He was 63.A USC graduate in the same year as John Carpenter, O'Bannon was instrumental in Carpenter's cracking (and crackpot) first feature Dark Star, serving as co-writer, FX supervisor, production designer and editor, and playing Sgt Pinback (who turns out not to be Sgt Pinback at all). O'Bannon is the one who chases the beachball alien all over the spaceship; an idea that would sort of resurface later...O'Bannon did some FX work on Star Wars in 1977, but is best known for kickstarting a different franchise. While authorship of Alien as we know it today is down to a number of people, there's no question that O'Bannon's Star Beast screenplay set the ball rolling, and he brought many of his colleagues from Alejandro Jodorowsky's aborted Dune to the project. …

1974 Dark Star – writer, special effects, editor, production design, co-star
1977 Star Wars – special computer effects
1979 Alien – writer
1981 Dead & Buried – writer
1981 Heavy Metal – writer of two segments, Soft Landing and B-17
1983 Blue Thunder – writer
1985 Lifeforce – writer
1985 The Return of the Living Dead – writer, director, voice
1986 Invaders from Mars – writer
1990 Total Recall – writer
1992 The Resurrected – director
1995 Screamers – writer
2010 Silvaticus 3015 – co-screenplay writer

Reason of the Week: #1 LENS FLARES

2009-12-17T12:04:00.000-08:00

"I know what you’re saying with the lens flares. It was one of those things… I wanted a visual system that felt unique. I know there are certain shots where even I watch and think, “Oh that’s ridiculous, that was too many.” But I love the idea that the future was so bright it couldn’t be contained in the frame."

--J.J. Abrams

Any defender of the faith that attempts to defend the overuse of 'lens flares' in this movie is utterly insane. Why? Because never in any film has there been so many. It was distracting, and has also now become its trademark, akin to 'Nuke the Fridge' or 'Jar Jar Binks.' Lens flares are the real 'Jar Jar' of this movie, and it has become so ridiculed that one can find endless jokes about it on the internet. Does this by itself ruin the film? By itself, of course not, but adds 25% to the unwatchability of it. The idea of having 100 REASONS to explain why the movie is not worth watching, is to compile a list of complaints that ALL add up to why this movie sucks. Just one simple reason, which has become the foremost signature of the 'New and Improved' Star Trek.

Even J.J. Abrams says it was ridiculous, and there you have it. A fully legitimate reason to start you on the course of not liking this poor excuse for a movie...

Consider it irrefutable exhibit A. There is no discussion about it, there is no reason to defend it, its silly, obvious, pretentious and irritating. It is there every 10 seconds, and a BLARING reason if there was one. Trying to argue that there are 'Lens Flares in real life' is absolutely ludicrous.
Although I don't wear glasses or contact lenses, I suppose those who do might experience such things, or through your front windshield if you're driving a car...

I have been doing this blog here for months, I made several videos for 'a hundred reasons' which were shortened and hastily done, without regard to detail, if you have to cover 100 points in 4 or 5 ten minute videos, one cannot elaborate, so it attempted to employ wit, and humor to drive across certain points. I imagine I could make 100 videos to further drive the point, but really, why bother, I believe I have gone way beyond the pale of emphasizing the ridiculousness of this movie, and that is why I came up with 100 (although there are many more than 100) reasons why I don't like the movie, reasons which many people have also suggested independently and agreed with. I am not the sole nit-picker, and while many of them are repeated on purpose to emphasize the absurdity of the actual detail I am pointing to, there are probably 100s more reasons.

The object is to offer wild criticism to a practically offensive movie. There are in fact a lot of people who do not like the movie, and have had a difficult time attempting to express this, because of the thuggish backlash against anyone who claims they might not have liked the movie. As if we were denigrating Der Fuhrer, or some new rising Dictator, we are called names, and labeled and attacked viciously. I have never attacked anyone for liking the movie, I have only responded to the people who have attacked me, and the other writers here, or of various critics throughout the web. I have pointed out a trend that I saw regarding the 'fans' of this movie, who have little to say about why the movie is so 'good' and more to say to those critics, about why they hate THEM.

You can like anything, you can hate anything you want. But it is the opinion of this blogger that ignoring the points raised by myself and others is indicative of the emptyness of the fans of J.J. Abrams' Star Trek. They continue still, to defend this mockery, in all its absurdity, yet cannot offer up any intelligent summation of why the movie is worth anything. Such as what it is 'really about' or what it is significant about the movie, that added to Star Trek, or to their lives.

Star Trek XI is nothing but a blunt instrument for which to utilize to bash people that either enjoyed the Old Star Trek for a variety of intellectual, emotional and inspirational reasons. It serves the crass and thoughtless masses as an acknowledgement of their own arrogance and foolishness, and their own shallow view of life. The 'fans' of the film can never admit to or accept even as a possibility that the new movie is CONTRADICTORY to the tone, attitudes, philosophy, or what-have-you, to the Old Star Trek. They cannot because they either hated those things about the original Star Trek, and the things that appeal to them are what the New Star Trek is all about. It is a simple matter of difference of values, not ultimately about the quality of cinema that fuels this conflict. This is how I feel, others may feel different and still hate the movie, for we do agree, that it is not only bad cinema, but bad 'star trek.'

2009-12-17T11:53:00.000-08:00

Anybody going to see "Avatar?"

I fully realize this is not related to Star Trek, however, unless you've seen Star Trek Insurrection.

(Which wasn't exactly entirely original either mind you...)

The originality of Hollywood is dead, and gone. They are going to need a Genesis device to bring some life back into it...

Star Trek Kids

2009-12-12T10:56:00.000-08:00

I have no idea who, statistically speaking, are the fans of this new Abrams Trek movie, but generally speaking, they are essentially the real future of mankind.

If there are fans of this NEW Star Trek, who are in fact early fans of the original series, these must be people who don't much care about continuity or logical character development or even some sort of logical 'science' in the 'science fiction.'

People are entitled to like whatever they want, but, being a limited Star Trek fan myself, not knowing 'everything there is to know' about it, I still can't help but be utterly baffled by their existence.

I'm sure there are coined terms already in existence, but I'm not that interested in searching them out for now, I'll just make some up for the purpose of this article.

The SuperTrekker: likes every series and all the movies.

The Trekkian: likes the Original Series, The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, and Enterprise

The Treklodyte: likes the Original Series and the films starring Shatner.

The Trekonian: Original Series and a few of the Shatner movies, an OS fanatic.

The Trekker: Original Series, The Next Generation, a little of this, a little of that.

The Treknologist: only interested in spaceships, tech, weapons, space travel, uniforms.

The Treknocrat: Likes the politics, the future Roddenberry world, the cautionary tales, the morality tales, actually likes Enterprise, and Scott Bakula

The Trekkultist: gets weird into speaking Klingon, or acting like a Vulcan.

The Trekster: digs the 60s, pointy sideburns, the oddness, likes the OS, doesn't know a whole lot about Star Trek, but watches it once and a while. Seen a few episodes of the other series. Seen a few of the movies.

Now...

No matter which one of these people you are, it still seems astonishing that any ONE of you could like the new Star Trek movie... The Supertrekker should be dismayed at the complete destruction of continuity, and the alteration of character...perhaps they picked up on all the little nods to various episodes and characters...but have got to be wondering why Scott Bakula's dog is still alive during Scotty's life...sorry fanboys, Dogs do NOT have longer lifespans even in Star Trek.

The Trekkian should also be upset, that the continuity is all messed up now, and wondering if they intend to remake the entire series, affecting every future episode which they know to be the past. Also, they have got to be wondering about the 'tone' and why it is nothing like Star Trek at all.

The Treklodyte is furiously pissed off, certainly about the actors portraying the 'new and improved and rewritten' Original cast, and about all the alterations of the Original Roddenberry future world. (That is if they even bothered to see a non-shatner film.)

The Trekonian is following the same path as the Treklodyte, but they wanted to see Kirk, Spock, etc, and they're probably wondering why the hell Spock is boinking Uhura, and how this has become 'the new timeline' just because some odd looking Romulans killed Kirk's Dad...why would this change Spock's life so he'd get it on with Uhura?

The Trekker must realize that this new Star Trek is nothing like those TV shows, and is missing a great deal of thought-provoking moments which lead to an 'ah-ha' somewhere toward the end of the movie. Instead, they get a loud and flashy action show with profanity and chicks in underwear...they are at least scratching their heads...

The Treknologist has got to be pissed off about the ENTERPRISE, where it was built, how it is designed, and why the engine room looks like an old boiler room with all kinds of 'see-through' pipes...not to mention the Bridge just seems like it belongs in Minority Report or something...

The Treknocrat should be ready to protest this film instantly, as it makes Starfleet Academy look like 90210, Kirk is a complete asshole reminiscent of "Dubya" or some jackass frat boy, who probably thinks Charles Dickens is an actor from "Murder She Wrote." There is nothing thought provoking about this film, and it makes Kirk a completely thoughtless asshole, both emotionally, and politically. Spock is nothing but a mere 'academic prick,' a snotty stuckup jerk who likes to boink humans, and there is way too much 'sadistic humor' to ever lead to any kind of 'humanist' value in the story.

The Trekkultist is preparing to kidnap and kill Leonard Nimoy, for even appearing in a film in which they blow up Vulcan, and make Romulans look like characters from a George Lucas film...the only thing missing was they didn't have double-bladed lightsabers, or medieval robes. None of the aliens spoke in their original languages, and all we see of Spock's childhood are impossibly 'thug-like' Vulcan children insulting him.

The Trekkster is wondering, why this film was even ever given the go-ahead, as it is essentially has the same lame-ass character plot as Starship Troopers. A bunch of pretty people join the "Federation," one joins because of some lame mentor character, and possibly to impress a girl, the girl is in love with a superior junior grade officer on the bridge, and the mentor-figure eventually ends up getting mangled, the main character has sex with the whore instead of the 'smart chick' who loves the 'prick' junior grade officer. They all run around behaving like immature assholes, blow some shit up, and save the day. Its a joke. Wampas, cute alien sidekicks, cocky space warriors, temporal nexus, bald bad aliens, hokey science, plotholes, punkass kids, sci-fi barfights, spacebattles with swords, seen it, done it, been there, what else is new? Waiting for Avatar...naw...looks like more of the same old crap...give us some Space 1999!

None of these people would seem to even begin to like this movie, unless there's just something in it that overshadows all the little details that they hold dear to their hearts...how could they like this movie? Do they really want to identify with punk-ass Kirkie? Do they really want to buy the DVD because they want to see Kirkie garb Uhura's tits over and over again? Did they hate the planet Vulcan that much? What could they possibly get out of this film? It was action-packed? It moved 'fast'? (So as to avoid a real plot.) I don't get it. The average non-Trek fan might like it, it has the usual mindlessness of any forgettable action flick of the last 10 years...Fast and Furious, the Transporter, Charlie's Angels...crass humor, underwear, wait...holy shit...

cutey people? Is that what this is all about? Shiny cutey pretty people? Are we this shallow these days now? They don't care how many scenes were stolen from Star Wars (a plagiarized work of mindlessness, but don't get me started on Lucas)? They don't care how illogical the science is, or how idiotic the story is? They don't care how utterly empty and pointless the villain is, and they just like the flashing lights, and silly giggly nonsense with Kirkie landing on Hoth, and running away from monsters...hehehehe...that's so funny. Wookit the cute little alien guy, oh Uhura's so hot, Kirkie's funny, Scotty's hilarious, its cool when Kirkie and Spocky kill that alien bald guy at the end...and that Chinese guy had a cool sword fight.

J.J. ABRAMS MADE STAR TREK FOR IDIOTS. He made it for the masses. He de-Star Trekked it, he eliminated everything 'intellectual' and 'thought provoking' and 'charming' and turned it into a flashy sexy music video... Everyone in the world should be thinking WTF while watching it, but since it has the added bonus of its own self-defining philosophy, that if you hate it, you're just a gay-assed nerd, or as Leonard Nimoy put it on SNL, "a dickhead." Because hell, Kirkie and Spocky would kick your ass if you don't like their movie, because it 'kicked ass.' Kick ass. They've turned Star Trek into a Steven Seagal movie. WTF?

So now, this is what it is about. Instead of intellectual Captains attempting to 'communicate' diplomatically with aliens onscreen, we'll get more 'make my day' shit in the future. It makes me ashamed to be American, as this is purely American-born style movie-making...I'm just suprised Uhura didn't shake her head, rattle her neck, and shake her ass, pointing at Spock, and say: "Oh noyoodon't honey." Why Kirk didn't say "Ima popa capin yo ass" was a missed opportunity. How about Scotty not paying attention to the dials and lights on his workstation while he 'reads' a Hustler with a naked Klingon on the cover...come on it would be good for a laugh... why not have Sulu go on some kind of Ninja mission with frail breastless chicks in miniskirts who are Federation 'Red-Shirt' ninjas with swords who do all kinds of karate and kick large men in the balls all the time? Come on, and Doctor McCoy should always be drinking out of his flask, 'cause its funny.

It is an utter disgrace as a movie. The complete and utter 'dumbing down' and too 'contemporary' for Star Trek... it is the equilvalent of making sure Luke Skywalker has an Ipod in the next installment of Star Wars, and that Han Solo has cartons of porno on the Millennium Falcon...as a joke.

This was the Robot-Chicken version of Star Trek, nothing less. If you're that kind of Beavis or Butthead...you'll love it, at least until you grow up and pull up your pants.

Kirk should really have some kick ass tattoes in the sequel, Uhura should definitely have some piercings all over with some nasty tattoes on her ass, and Spock should have a scene where he's in a sweatsuit gyrating to gangster rap, and Checkov should be caught playing videogames at his station, Sulu should be like all serious an into Ninja shit, and McCoy should like be doing his own drugs in sick bay and getting high and shit, and Kirk should always have a Bud in his hand. Yeah baby, thatzuhtImtalkinbout.

And that my friends is the NEW STAR TREK. How many times do I have to say it?

The New Star Trek does do one thing for the world: It defines who you are. If your immediate reaction was "It kicked ass." You probably have nothing more to say, because your vocabulary is severely limited, and so will be your lifespan.

If you hated this movie, it is because it goes against your very humanity...whether you were a 'Star Trek Fan' before you saw it or not. If you're a liberal, you're bound to hate it by your very principles, if you're a conservative, you should be bound to hate it by your very principles. If you're a complete and utter thoughtless moron, who was actually texting your friendz while watching the FILM, you probably loved it, and hopefully, you'll be the first to sign up for transporter experimentation when they invent it. Perhaps this film is actually a great idea in the end, perhaps it is a propaganda film to inspire these morons to TO GET THE HELL OFF OUR PLANET.

That guy who don't like the 100 reasons.

2009-12-10T15:57:00.000-08:00

If Phil allows it i would like to respond to some of his fanboyness.......

Point 1 "....But they are lens flares in life".....
Looool. If you really see lens flares in real life there's something wrong with your eyes. Go visit a doctor or something.

Seriously. There's lens flares and there's LENS FLARES. Turning each scene into a christmas tree is not exactly a good exemple of realism.

Point 2 - Maybe it's a reboot but Nero still comes from the Prime Universe and romulans never looked like skinheads there.

Point 4 - A human with little grey's eyes isn't exactly off the norms to me. Besides all aliens made up for this movie are quite generic & lame. The deformed face between Uhura & Kirk at the bar, The one on the Kelvin's bridge & let's not forget the little raisin-face who following Scotty everywhere for no reason. Yes. They're a lot of fake looking aliens in the Prime Universe as well but they're actually contribute to the content of this universe, they deliver flesh over the bones. They're not just in the picture to give it a science-fiction touch.

Point 6 - 10 years old kids usually can't stand any cultural product older than 10 years so a 200 years old song even less.

Point 12 - Time travel gimmick is way overused and that was one of Trek's problems before Abrams rapes the franchise. Using a black hole like a time portal without suffering the consequance of its extreme gravity, now that's a new low in bad science. That black hole thing makes the Star Trek IV's slingshot time warp look like full of sense.

Point 13 - Aaaah the Shaky Cam. Another overused visual gimmick and not only in ST2009. That was even the main reason why the previous Abrams flick, Cloverfield, was barely watchable. Besides. They used shaky cams in the original series too, but only when the Enterprise was hit by an ennemy, not for each freaking non-action scenes.

Point 23 - As far as i remember Chekov/Koenig wasn't stereotypical & annoying like Chekov/Yelchin. Seriously they should let this character speak russian. Better to hear someone speaking clearly his own native language than trying to babbling in a broken english.

Point 24 - You said 2 words? let me saying 5: Star Trek, not Looney Tunes.

Point 26 - You know. Even in Halo they use drop pods to enter into a planet's athmosphere instead of just jumping from orbit.

Point 36 - StarFleet always built its ships in orbit. Especially for models not designed to fly into an athmosphere.

Point 39 -
Kirk becomes an asshole
Spock becomes 100% human
McCoy becomes a sidekick
Scotty becomes a Jar Jar Binks wannabe
Uhura becomes a bimbo
Sulu becomes a samurai
Tchekov becomes a walking russian stereotype.

Need to say more?

Kirk was cooler with Shatner. Spock was deeper with Nimoy, etc...... Period.

Point 40 - We like baddies. Not one-dimensional over-cliched baddies. And i agree. Eric Bana done the best he could with the character they gave him.

In fact i like this Nero's line.....
"James T. Kirk was a great man. That was another life."
That sums perfectly the whole movie....

Point 41 - Yes. This movie copying Star Wars. Don't believe me? Go back to "A new hope" and note all the similarities.

Point 44 - See point 4

Point 50 - The Enterprise's supposed to be powered with antimatter not with coal & steam. Don't you think that would makes sense to set an antimatter chamber instead of a boiler room? This is suposed to be a XXIIIth century Starship, not some XIXth century steamboat. (Rolling eyes)

Point 59 - JJ. Abrams is indeed the most overrated movie guy in Hollywood since.....since......well since Quantin Tarantino and even the guy responsible for Kill Bill have way more talent than this four eyed ferengi. If ST2009 have been made by Michael Bay i'ld bet my pants the reviews wouldn't suck this movie's cock so hard.

Point 69 - Yes that scene is pathetic. But i suppose romulan miners can't say "Sorry to wasting your time Captain. We're definitively not in the good place to find what i'm looking for. So go back to your ship. We'll do our search somewhere else."

Point 78 - First: Star Trek is about morality. If you think this is annoying there's plenty of mindless action stuff out there to fill your brainless pleasures (Personally i've a weak spot for Hong Kong action style.). No need to put down a deep universe like ST on the Saturday morning cartoons level. What's next? Making a "The Fast & Furious" movie for people who don't like cars? Doing Heavy Metal for dudes who can't stand loud music? Come on....

Second: I wonder who are the trekkies now. People like me who lost their love for ST because of this movie or those people defending it like it was their girlfriend or their mom?

By the Way: The car is a Corvette, not a Mustang.

That was my two cents.

Someone Doesn't Like My 100 Reasons...

2009-12-10T09:53:00.000-08:00

Aww....

He even responded to 80 of them...

He didn't check the links on the vids, or he'd find the last video, posted on this blog right here...

His answer to all of them:
'this makes no sense.'

http://www.sciencefictionstuff.com/2009/11/reasons-why-100-reasons-star-trek-xi.html

...and he calls me 'dude.'

72. Why are they wading around in puddles on a Spaceship?
because there is a great deal of moisture build up in the mining machinery. That's why.

hmm...

I don't recall this being explained in the film, then again, I didn't watch it ten times, I would have puked.

and to reveal the intelligence of this blogger:
65. Kirk grabs Uhura's boobs
Dude, this was by accident. It was not harassment. two words. 'comic relief'. Your constant intention to paint Kirk as a pervert points to something deep within your own psyche I think.

Not my intention, J.J.Abrams intention...it was placed there in the film by Abrams very intentionally, to give little fanboy gushers the giggles, at the expense of the character...gee its funny to violate women isn't it? Hee hee...nothing like copping a feel, even if it is 'an accident' look at Kirkie's face afterwords...like a 13 year old who just discovered the word 'vagina.' Beavis and Butthead style humor...in Star Trek? It wasn't Dom Deluise who grabbed her tits, it was our 'hero' Kirk. This is disturbed. J.J. Abrams is confused about "Captain Kirk" and "Denny Crane."
This is the origin story of "Denny Crane" not James T. Kirk, who never did shit like that in the show or the films. I never did shit like this either when I was young either... and what is the point of the scene, an 'accidental violation of a woman?' A joke of course, because this is Benny Hill, right? Maybe in Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Porkies, Scotty can look up chicks dresses, Checkov can spy on the women's shower onboard the enterprise, and Uhura's clothes can keep falling off because of Klingon electromagnetic rays. Got to keep the kiddies giggling about sex, after all this is STAR TREK, which inspired such important films as Zapped, Porkies and American Pie.

Some humble creations.

2009-12-05T16:30:00.000-08:00

Hi there. Here some pics i've made to vent my anger about a movie we love to hate.

Of course feel free to use them wherever they could leave a mark. Yeah. i know. I'm a beginner in this.

Happy Hollydays & remember: Resistance is not futile.

[Edited by Phil: Repost broken 'post' which wouldn't allow me to even edit it, added here]

This was a little something I whipped up the day after I saw Star Trek XI.

It pretty much sums up how I felt. It's dumbed down the same way TV
shows were dumbed down in the movie "Idiocracy."

Star Trek XI is the "Ow! My Balls!" of Star Trek.

--Jay
TheCaptainKirkPage.com

2009-12-05T11:35:00.000-08:00

Star Trek TOS diehard signing in. The new Star Trek movie: Epic. Fucking. Fail. An abomination to all things holy in the Star Trek Universe. Alternate Timeline/Storyline, my ass. Overblown and trite, and nothing whatsoever to do with the real Star Trek storyline. Not to mention the entirely out of place advanced looking technology. "Oh, but the simplicity of Star Trek's original design wouldn't appeal to modern moviegoers unfamiliar to The Original Series." Hello? Maybe that was your first damn clue to leave well enough alone. The antithesis of Gene Rodenberry. J.J. Abrams should be ashamed of himself. As should Nimoy for being involved. I wanted to puke during the treacle-coated Kirk birth scene. And then The Beastie Boys playing during his wild adolescence? No matter my affection for them, The Beastie Boys do not belong in a Star Trek movie. "Sabotage", fucking indeed. And too damn cute with the green-skinned skank showing up. I'm surprised they didn't throw in a Tribble or three, too, for good measure. The slapstick allergic-reaction scene was embarrassing. And what's with the insignia-patterned uniforms? They look alternately like polka dots and waffle-textured long johns. And swirling streams of sperm in the transporter room? Huh? And what was with the tattooed Romulans? Good grief. And a doe-eyed, submissive Uhura getting it on with Spock? What. The. Fuck? NO. Simon Pegg as Scotty? Two words: Stunt Casting. Love him....but he was playing Simon, not Scotty! Sure, the "giving it all she's got Cap'n" reference was cute, but entirely expected. As was the guy in the red (shirt) suit getting it. Spock telling Kirk to get out of the chair was one genuinely humorous moment. Oh, and how could I forget Chekov....he looked NOTHING like him. What the hell was going on there? And Spock reciting the mission statement to conclude the film? Uh, NO. And then the final insult? Sitting in front of the screen, spent and perturbed, after enduring 2 hours of rubbish, only to be then treated to the emotion-inducing strains of the original theme music ingrained in my psyche from near infancy. How dare you, Mr. Abrams? How. Dare. You.

--Vanessa

Star Trek In Name Only...

2009-10-16T10:12:00.000-07:00

On STINO
by Branden O'Grady

Star Trek (2009) is best summed up in a line of dialogue from the film, whereupon the elder Spock (Leonard Nimoy’s “Spock Prime”) admonishes his younger self (Zachary Quinto): “Let go of logic. Do what feels right.”

At the time of this writing, the onslaught of remakes, re-imaginings and “reboots” of classic films and television series continues unabated. Decedents of late include The Day the Earth Stood Still, Planet of the Apes, War of the Worlds, The Stepfather, V and Red Dawn. While the upcoming V re-imagining looks promising (no doubt due to the addition of Firefly’s Morena Baccarin and Alan Tudyk to the cast), remakes as the rule rather than the exception are symptomatic of the industry’s attempt to drain profit from every pocket and exploit every conceivable market demographic. Very few of these efforts are worthy of the mantles hijacked from popular culture that they attempt to drape about themselves. No amount of money or mainframes can make a Hollywood shitfeast taste any better, even if it sparkles rainbows. To belie the reader’s concern that the author harbors a general distaste for any form of remake in science fiction movies or television, a brief exploration in successful efforts thereof is necessary. In so doing, the author maintains that there exist at least two remakes, re-imaginings or reboots in science fiction film and television are superior to, yet simultaneously honor, the original story.
Turn back to 1982’s The Thing a-la John Carpenter. A remake of the 1951 classic The Thing From Another World (featuring the beloved James Arness in the title role), Carpenter’s early signature style of characterization through paranoia (Assault on Precinct 13, Halloween) coupled with a veteran cast and as-yet unparalleled make-up effects by Rob Bottin comprised a thoroughly successful admixture in realizing a far more accurate portrayal of Joseph W. Campbell’s timeless novella Who Goes There? A quarter of a century on after breakthrough films like Tron and The Last Starfighter, plainly CGI still can’t hold a candle to The Thing.
It would be difficult to find a more human scene than the departure of the unfortunate character Norris’ “head-spider” from the infirmary and Windows’ exasperated, “You gotta be fuckin’ kidding me?” It is ludicrous and horrible and overwhelming. And it never fails, after a dozen (or two dozen) viewings of The Thing. There are numerous other meaty scenes like this throughout the film; if anything, it is about consistency, and twenty-five years after its release, The Thing will consistently scare the hell out of you. The elements of geographic and physical isolation at the McMurdo Sound weather research station sets are equally tenable in both the original The Thing From Another World and Carpenter’s later effort, although the helicopter-based exterior shots in The Thing convey this isolation on a grander, even darker scale when paced with John Carpenter’s excellent score. And both films tellingly feature big explosions only at the climax of the story and the hopeful destruction of the monster, rather than constituting its entire momentum (more on this later).
The post-Star Wars sci-fi frenzy spawned many clones and imitators in the late seventies and early eighties. Having moved from the exclusive realm of relatively harmless eccentrics, science fiction as a cultural phenomenon became, if for a time, as mainstream as disco. On occasion, they even merged (shudder). While enthusiasm for the genre generated a viable response at the box office for deserving films (ergo Alien, Blade Runner), standards inevitably fell as more product was being pumped out on a worldwide scale merely to accumulate profit (Starcrash, Battle Beyond the Stars), a condition that also afflicted westerns in the forties and fifties and which permeates the movie-going experience at present. While admittedly, the author is guilty of having most of these clones, imitators, and hundreds of other space operas and b-westerns in his personal collection, it should be noted that some of these films are not without merit. Hopefully, the same can one day be said for late twentieth and early twenty-first century remakes, re-imaginings and reboots. Star Trek (2009) will not be among these.
Into the maelstrom of the late seventies sci-fi craze came television mainstay Glenn Larson’s Battlestar Galactica (1978). Citing a score of imagined similarities and adversely reacting to a possible threat to Star Wars as godhead of the science fiction market (save for the final frontier of television), Twentieth Century Fox ensnared Universal’s Battlestar Galactica into a vicious and rather costly cycle of copyright infringement litigation that was not resolved until after the demise of Galactica 1980, the bizarre, Wolfman Jack-infused and horrendously awful bookend to Battlestar Galactica, both of which perished after just barely one season. Twentieth Century Fox’s claims were finally thrown out of court altogether, but not without affecting the overall production of Battlestar Galactica in terms of dwindling finances relative to the duration of the lawsuit.
A product of the sci-fi disco zeitgeist, Larson’s original featured a likeable if otherwise two-dimensional cast, superb interior sets, and gratuitous space battles galore, stock footage of which was used repeatedly, ad nauseaum, until the last episode of the bastardized Galactica 1980. Some of this footage even found its way into a handful of fly-by-night science fiction films, most of which were produced outside of the United States. [A similar fate is manifest in the myriad films making ample use of stock footage from Roger Corman’s Battle Beyond the Stars well into the 1990s.] Lorne Greene’s familiar, warm voiceover concluded every original episode with, “Fleeing the Cylon tyranny, the last Battlestar, Galactica, leads a ragtag fugitive fleet on a lonely quest: a shining planet, known as Earth.” Stirring stuff, harkening back to Wagon Train and even Gene Roddenberry’s earliest musings on what would eventually become (with the timely input of lodestone production designer Matt Jeffries) Star Trek.
While the package looked promising, the delivery was not. Battlestar Galactica in 1978 suffered from abysmal writing and plot holes one could comfortably fly a Cylon Basestar through. It was a typical, if flashy, product of seventies television- continuity was a barely existent concept as implemented, story arcs were (outside of a miniseries) altogether unknown, and the convention of hero-saves-the-day-just-before-the-last-commercial-break ruled without peer. That being said, the author still reserves a special place in his heart for the original inception of Battlestar Galactica. This conceit would initially produce a profound revulsion at its re-imagining some twenty-five years later.
Having rejected the superb Star Trek writer Ronald D. Moore’s repeated promises to honor the 1978 series, the author proudly closed ranks with Richard Hatch, et al in vociferous condemnation of Battlestar Galactica’s 2003 “reboot”. Dubbed “GINO”, or “Galactica In Name Only” by Richard Hatch, a rift that to some extent still remains polarized the entire generation of Galactica fandom. GINO was anathema to the author, who promptly dug out the old tapes again to watch the original run, albeit this time in silent protest. This revulsion had nothing at all to do with the character of Starbuck being portrayed by a female, as some fans (and alas, Dirk Benedict) pointlessly ranted on about; still smarting years after the disastrous Lost In Space (1998) and The Avengers (1998) remakes, some things simply had to be regarded as sacrosanct.
One night while channel-hopping between The Sci-Fi Network (read: “Syfy” and the continued dumbing-down of the human species) and Encore Westerns, the author began idly watching a program about some people who were trapped on a spaceliner fleeing some sort of holocaust. To the consternation of the other passengers, one fellow maintained a panicky dialogue with his imaginary lover. This seemed like something out of The Twilight Zone, really engaging stuff. Then someone said the word: “Cylon.”
Not only was the author watching the dreaded GINO, but by the commercial break a moment later he was absolutely hooked. After the conclusion of that first episode of the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica, “33”, he immediately went out and bought the miniseries dvd. This remade, re-imagined, rebooted Battlestar Galactica was the best damned show he had seen since Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Even Richard Hatch crossed the picket lines and became a regular on the cast, finally allowed to really act. The Machiavellian character of Tom Zarek is miles above the old cutout Apollo. Edward James Olmos as Adama; it may be a good thing that poor old Lorne Greene did not live to see himself be so outdone. Katee Sackhoff. Mary McDonnel. James Callis. Michael Hogan. Aaron Douglas. [Just watch the frakkin’ show already.]
In the hands of Ronald D. Moore and David Eicke, a pall of claustrophobic darkness akin to Alien swept over the rag-tag fugitive fleet. A brilliant premise was finally coupled with gifted writing and superior production style. Like Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and later Star Trek: Enterprise, the binding strength of the show was being character-driven at its core as these poor bastards, Cylon and human alike, struggled with The Big Questions (more on this later) in a consistently fundamental manner for four mind-blowing seasons. Every character is a twitching bundle of vulnerabilities and passions, altogether so human and frail and real.
In the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica, even the space battles suck. A lot of people (including many of your favorite cast regulars) die, in violence and cold and silence. All the childhood romance is gone, sucked into the Big Empty to drift dead forever. It is truly horrible to contemplate, and this is what separates good science fiction from the mere space opera of the original 1978 incarnation. The revolutionary style of “space battle perspective” pioneered in Battlestar Galactica would later be shamelessly aped without grace throughout Star Trek (2009).
For the sake of brevity, it should simply be stated that Battlestar Galactica (and perhaps Firefly, though FOX strangled it while still in the cradle) will remain, for many years to come, the standard by which science fiction television is measured for storytelling greatness. In this remarkable program, the lesson learned is that pretty much all of the time, the “bad guys” win, and they are far more like us than we have the strength to admit. (In a notable irony, at the time of this writing Ronald D. Moore is at work on another reboot of The Thing.)

“Let go of logic. Do what feels right.”

The original Star Trek series, for all its perceived kitsch, was always about The Big Questions (even in “Spock’s Brain” and “The Paradise Syndrome”): What makes us all human? What is our place in the cosmos? From Plato to Kant to Wells to Clarke, The Big Questions have driven the human experience ever forward and (tentatively) into space. In the words of Russian rocket pioneer Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, "Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot live in the cradle forever." For nearly half a century, Star Trek has been the cultural vehicle through which millions of people around the world have vicariously explored our collective similitude and ultimate destiny of reaching outward to the stars. Although many of the essential components are in place, The Big Questions are what makes the Star Trek phenomenon difficult to classify (or even dismiss) as mere space opera, unlike the long-running Perry Rhodan print series, Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, and yes, the Star Wars saga.
It is perhaps because of its longstanding place in our cultural parlance that made Star Trek vulnerable to what amounts as a hostile takeover by bad people with worse ideas. In the closing days of the Las Vegas Hilton’s Star Trek: The Experience, a promo reel for Star Trek (2009) was run on the largest screen above the exhibit’s DS9 Promenade mockup. Notwithstanding the rather silly dramatic license of a Constitution-class starship being constructed planetside from where it could never lift off, there was a tangible excitement in the air. A story going back to the original five-year mission was just what the fans needed after the untimely demise of Star Trek: Enterprise in 2005. Unlike some Trek purists, the author was looking forward to a new, effective cast and a good story. The truly excellent online fan-made series licensed by Paramount, Star Trek: Phase II, was a hopeful glimmer of what a large studio could accomplish with the vast Trek community of fans, writers and production crew. Sadly, Paramount absconded with its holdings and left every one of them behind in the production of the new film. No Rick Berman, Ronald D. Moore, nor Ira Steven Behr. Not one member of the thousands-strong franchise production community, which kept it all going on planet Earth for nearly half a century and a decade after Gene Roddenberry’s death, was to be part of “Star Trek XI”.
A new administration of suits at Paramount ushered in hotshot know-nothings and self-declared Trek haters J.J. Abrams, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman to re-make, re-model and “reboot” Star Trek. Between them, these men are the ones that brought us such unforgettable film gems as The Legend of Zorro, Mission: Impossible III, Transformers, and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. With such combined stellar filmmaking credentials, storytelling expertise and exclusive power to determine the future of a global cultural phenomenon like Star Trek, surely nothing could go wrong with a makeover (“Let go of logic. Do what feels right.”). While a more comprehensive list of its failings are beyond the scope of this essay, it can be said with assurance that Star Trek (2009) is henceforth known as STINO (“Star Trek In Name Only”) for the remainder thereof. Let it be understood that the author does not preach a Luddite approach to Star Trek, whereupon any thing new is inherently wrong or automatically awful. Enterprise is the best example of a recent, even revolutionary change in Star Trek that just happened to be one of its finest incarnations. “In a Mirror, Darkly” is arguably the best episode of Star Trek ever, right up there with “Specter of the Gun”, “In The Pale Moonlight”, “The Inner Light” and “Scorpion”.
Never once in its 127 minutes does STINO attempt to address the concerns that have been at the center of Star Trek (even the animated series!) since the production of “The Cage” back in 1965. Cobbled together from a Frankenstein’s abattoir of plot devices and production techniques brazenly lifted from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Battlestar Galactica and Firefly, Messieurs Abrams, Orci and Kurzman plead their case with tiresome, thoroughly nauseating winks to the actual franchise throughout. This is highly reminiscent of the disaster that was Die Another Day to James Bond; however, there is no Daniel Craig to save us from STINO, unless he is somehow cast as Kirk in the inevitable sequels.
In lieu of our beloved characters from the original five-year mission, we are treated to Disneyfied caricatures, child supermodels staggering around under the weight of their own petty, inflated egos. In the Star Trek: Phase II series, Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Sulu, Chekov and Uhura are all played by fans, folks referred to as “amateurs” by any other name. These “amateurs” are not merely channeling Shatner, Nimoy, Dee Kelly et al – there is a tangible love for the character that shines through every one of their performances (for which, it is worthy of note, they volunteer their time). In STINO, there is simply no love for the characters which have become mainstays of popular culture over a lifetime. In a famed Star Trek skit in the earliest years of Saturday Night Live, the over-the-top performances of John Belushi, Chevy Chase, and Dan Ankroyd as Kirk, Spock and McCoy respectively were far more convincing. Particularly disappointing were the performances of Simon Pegg and John Cho, two actors with whom the author had placed the most faith prior to seeing the film. Perhaps if more screen time had been allotted to Karl Urban’s McCoy, STINO would have been a touch more tolerable at times. Not even the appearance of Leonard Nimoy as “Spock Prime” lends a waft of legitimacy to the film, as some fans have maintained. By that same reasoning, should T.J. Hooker be similarly lauded merely because William Shatner was in the title role?
After 127 minutes, the viewer is no closer to finding what makes us all human, and still has no clue as to what our place is in the cosmos. The answer for both is apparently Big Explosions, which leads us to the actual main character of STINO. Big Explosions has more screen time than any other character. There are shiny, many-tiered ones. There are sparkly booming ones and huge, blinding supernova ones - in fact there are quite many of the latter. The aesthetic arrangement of Big Explosions retains center-stage throughout the film, and as such has the most character development. The author wishes he could elaborate a more on the growth of Kirk and Spock – it was sad that Kirk was made an orphan. It was a bummer when Spock’s mom died. That homeless band of RightSaidFred Romulans was some bad people that hated everybody. But Big Explosions captured our hearts in STINO, and subsequently all of our oohs and aahs, from the opening scenes to the credit sequence. Surely, Big Explosions will feature in the sequels.
A particularly irksome feature of STINO that deserves mention was the blatant product placement. Notwithstanding the fact that capitalism doesn’t exist in Star Trek (except maybe within the Ferengi Alliance, or wherever enterprising Ferengi roam), the overt commercialism throughout seriously undercut an already laughable attempt at Star Trek credibility (imagine if you will William Shatner hawking “Hai Karate” dressed as Kirk). This was particularly manifest in the design of the bridge, which seemed to have been built on the sales floor of a Bath & Bodyworks outlet, brazenly lit in a manner that could easily send a feline into seizures. The iconic turbolift itself was completely indistinguishable from everything else – how did our caricatures ever find the door?
Outside of the bridge (or the equally atrocious transporter room), the entire ship’s interior was reminiscent of a sewage treatment facility circa classic Doctor Who. It would indeed take a TARDIS to accommodate these selfsame cavernous interiors on a ship that (traditionally) accommodates some four hundred crewmembers. The attempt at the “lived-in” look (via such innovators as Dark Star, Silent Running, Alien, and Star Wars) is thus carelessly amateur in execution. Star Trek spaceship sets, even the Klingon and Romulan ones, are primarily about functionality, just like real naval and commercial vessels. Matt Jeffries and his worthy successors maintained this throughout every Star Trek production in order to maintain a strong sense of realism for the viewer, a formula that worked for nearly half a century. There actually was a sewage treatment and recycling vessel on Battlestar Galactica featured in a number of episodes, and throughout it looked like a functional ship. Props to Matt Jeffries.
Another painful aspect of STINO is the total abandonment of ship’s protocol, namely the chain-of-command. On any vessel of any configuration, this is the most critical element of operations, even on the Space Shuttle. Star Trek rigorously employed this fact of life throughout in order to maintain that vital sense of realism. It does not take a regular contributor to Jane’s Defense Weekly to grasp an elementary understanding of this. However, the Abrams-Orzi-Kurzman cabal did away with such a nuisance in STINO. You too can be captain, just by sitting in the chair. And why have anyone tell you differently? After all, George W. Bush did it for eight years. The same self-absorbed, know-nothing spirit abounds throughout the film, a complete affront to an institution of good science fiction and a lifetime of profound creative endeavor by a community of thousands which was abandoned in the process of its manufacture (emphasis on the last word).
The greatest shock of this “rebooted” Star Trek franchise comes in the form of an exchange between the new-and-improved Kirk and Spock on the sales floor of Bath & Bodyworks: the notion of clemency to the marauding homoerotic Romulans trapped on their dying ship/collection of random metal objects-de-art is abandoned on the spot. Kirk and Spock can barely contain their giggles at the prospect of totally annihilating a fallen enemy. The message is the same as on talk radio and television news: revenge is good for you, even scrumptious. In fact, revenge fucking rocks, dude! This scene is without compare the most antonymic one in STINO as opposed to actual Star Trek.
It would be appropriate to cite this total contradiction in theme with that of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, considering all of the plot devices blatantly ripped from them and morphed onto STINO by the Borg-like corporate cabal that made the latter. In both films, revenge is obviously a central theme and (like the oft-quoted Moby Dick throughout) results in the undoing of the lives of all the characters involved. It is epic tragedy, not a football game or a fraternity beer pong mixer. Revenge is destructive to everyone, and ultimately self-destructive. This has been a consistent theme in Star Trek since the original series, which in STINO most assuredly it is not. In Star Trek II and Star Trek III, revenge is altogether karmic in its envelopment: in Khan’s obsession to destroy Kirk, he destroys all of his own people. The Genesis Device, the erstwhile instrument of Khan’s vengeance, upends the entire Mutura Sector. The shaky peace with the Klingon Empire nearly unravels, no thanks to the ambitious Lord Kruge. The captains and crews of both the Reliant and Grissom meet grisly fates. Scotty’s nephew is killed, Kirk’s own son is murdered, and of course there is the death of Spock. These are but two sweeping examples of Star Trek’s traditional abhorrence for any notion of revenge. There are many dozens, if not hundreds, more in the television shows as well. Where STINO departs, with a smug grin, from one of Star Trek’s most crucial themes is revealing of its ugliest aspect.
To further illustrate, the following exchange from Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country reveals how Kirk’s own prejudices nearly become his own undoing:

Kirk: “They’re animals!"
Spock: "Jim, there is a historic opportunity here."
Kirk: “Don’t believe them! Don’t trust them!”
Spock: "They are dying.”
Kirk: “Let them die.”
Spock: “There is an old Vulcan proverb: ‘Only Nixon could go to China’.”

A stint on the frozen penal colony of Rura Penthe notwithstanding, Kirk realizes it is himself who is an obstacle to peace with the Klingon Empire. He must change and overcome his grief at the death of his son, and his resultant hatred of the Klingon people, to make the galaxy a peaceful place for everyone. We are afforded no such introspective developments with the “rebooted” Kirk, nor any other character in STINO whatsoever. In the rebooted “alternate universe” or whatever where we now find ourselves, the Klingons would have most certainly been better off dead. Perhaps this is already a sequel pitch?
Under the (mis)guidance of the Abrams-Orzi-Kurzman cabal, STINO’s storyline officially now dispenses with all that follows in Star Trek, a slap in the face to the creative effort of thousands of writers and production crew. Gone are all the adventures of the original five-year mission, and as such the literal unraveling of The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager, Enterprise, to say nothing of the feature films. It is not a tiresome matter of what is “canon” and what is not, but of good storytelling and endeavoring to bring us all closer to finding those troublesome answers to The Big Questions. The work of many lifetimes amounts to so much carrion for the corporate jackals in question to rip pieces from in their quest to fool the public into giving them its money.
It is difficult to fathom how a franchise could be considered “ailing” with millions around the world continuing to throw their money at Paramount, et al for decades on end, with mass conventions with an average attendance of tens of thousands in any major city around the world in every week of the calendar year. Truly, the Las Vegas Hilton rues the day it stunningly refused to renew the lease of Star Trek: The Experience after ten hugely successful years of standing-room only crowds of fans in their annual hundreds of thousands. [At the time of this writing, its imminent return to Las Vegas’ Neonopolis Mall in 2010 is indeed a harsh lesson learned for the cash-strapped Hilton hotel chain.] Rather than attempting to “revitalize” the Star Trek franchise, STINO merely repackages it in a sickly, shiny manner and waters it down beyond all recognition. STINO is the Zima to Roddenberry’s Guinness. We are witness to a shell game played with millions of dollars- just as Carrot Top is not comedy and Fox is not news, so too is STINO most definitely not Star Trek.
Regardless of the upcoming five-picture contract between “Jar Jar” Abrams and Paramount, there is still plenty of Star Trek out there for the otherwise deprived fan. Star Trek: Phase II is worthy in every way of being called “Season Four” of the original series. In addition, the recent independent release Star Trek: Of Gods and Men features an encompassing array of cast members and guest stars from the movies and every television series. Both Star Trek: Of Gods and Men and Star Trek: Phase II feature stories written and produced by long-serving Trek crew, some of whom wrote for and worked on the original series itself. These accomplishments did not even require the GDP of your garden-variety Balkan state to produce and market, either. Making good Trek is a herculean labor involving many people, but most of all it takes love – love of Trek’s uncompromising vision and the compelling questions it asks of us, and love of a good story. Unlike much of the television and movie chaff, Star Trek has always required a certain level of intellectual and emotional engagement, and a thing that was called willing suspension of disbelief, which nowadays we (un)consciously apply to television news. And on the rare occasion that the writing or production is subpar, a little forbearance may be necessary. For the record, a double-header of “Spock’s Brain” and “The Lights of Zetar” beats the hell out of just staring at pretty lights and a hackneyed collection of big explosions (this time minus good old Carl Sagan) for two hours plus.
The power of the Internet means that there are actually good fan flicks out there. Who could possibly argue that the entire Star Wars prequel series was better or more convincing than the excellent installment known as TROOPS? The mere ten minutes of this fan film is vastly superior to the grueling, mind-numbing seven hours of prequels, and far more worthy of the Star Wars mantle. “Let go of logic. Do what feels right,” was surely the rationale behind the disastrous Star Wars prequels. In a like fashion, the number of Star Trek fan films and even whole independent series are increasing as moviemaking technology and distribution acquire ever more off-the-shelf characteristics. Millions of fans will inevitably continue to make Trek that is superior to STINO for years to come. Star Trek will definitely live on, albeit in a guerrilla fashion, a virtual people’s war against its usurpers. Thirty years ago, there was no Star Trek on television. But with equal parts networking and ground-pounding on the part of the fans, the feature films and Star Trek: The Next Generation kept Trek flying. Never, never doubt the dedication of Trekkers. There are millions of them around the world, many of them quite disgusted with STINO. On to people’s war!
Based on the criteria presented, STINO is in every possible manner unworthy of the Star Trek mantle. Not only did the film avoid The Big Questions altogether, but in lieu of a story, the viewer is required to withstand a 127 minute lights show without benefit of a mandatory dose of strong hallucinogens with which to enjoy the ride. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier and Star Trek: Insurrection, though admittedly ham-fisted in their storytelling capability (and certainly not the best of Trek by far), remain superior films to STINO not because they are “canon”, “real universe”, or some such contrived argument for validity or recognition. The Final Frontier and Insurrection (directed by William Shatner and Jonathan Frakes, respectively) are better Star Trek movies because their stories are far more coherent and engaging than STINO, if a bit garbled in their execution. These are characters and to a degree, situations that we care about. Even Shatner’s ego benefits his character, rather than being the character itself as in Chris Pine’s Kirk. Ergo,“Why does God need a spaceship?” And F. Murray Abraham is far more menacing in Amadeus than Eric Bana’s boytoy STINO Romulan.
In these dark days of the early twenty-first century, the author is happy to continue watching the feature films and series on dvd. There is also the upcoming premier of the latest installment of Star Trek: Phase II entitled “Blood and Fire, Part 2”, written by longtime Star Trek contributor David Gerrold (“The Trouble With Tribbles”), made and performed by everyday fans purely out of love. STINO was obviously hacked out in a closed room of suits devising ever more insidious ways to hawk their shiny wares and expand their stock portfolios. All the while, as the remakes, re-imaginings and reboots proceed with more green lights and capital investment than the deck of an aircraft carrier, the suits continue to gouge away the expectations of the movie-going public until we are all reduced to the hopelessly self-absorbed consumer chattel of Idiocracy.

- The preceding essay is my personal broadside fired in defense of all that is Star Trek. While it was my intention to veer wide from an anti-Star Trek (2009) polemic, I cannot help but write defending an integral part of my life. Like millions of other people, my second home has always been the bridge or engineering deck of a Federation starship. While I do not pretend to aspire to the role of film critic, in the realm of Star Trek and the genre of science fiction I have a lifetime of knowledge to draw upon. Some of my earliest memories are watching the original and animated series in syndication on the local UHF networks. My first Happy Meal was from Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Hell, those were the first Happy Meals ever. In retrospect, the feature films and series which followed mark different phases of my life. I have been very fortunate to have had the opportunity to meet and spend time talking with many members of the cast and crew. You would not believe my mad Trek street cred if I even told you half of it. Having been such a huge part of my life, Star Trek has become something inseparable, very personal and treasured. There are pictures of my wife and me on two different bridge sets. While she insisted that we not have a Star Trek wedding (I believe it sounded something like, “No fucking way.”), you can bet your gold-pressed latinum that when Star Trek: The Experience re-opens in Las Vegas we’re renewing our vows in costume. Did I mention that I am a proud owner of a “monster maroon”? [For the record, my wife is a fan by proxy; she maintains that she knew what she was getting into when we first started dating and I could no longer conceal my fandom as we got to know each other better. Her take on STINO: “This isn’t Star Trek.” Life is good - even Trekkers can get the girl!]
While I personally reject the drawing of a proverbial line in the sand, I do maintain that Star Trek (2009) is Star-Trek-In-Name-Only. It was so awful I had to watch it twice just to wrap my head around how much it completely sucked, both as a Star Trek movie and as a science fiction movie. The abomination that was Lost in Space (1998) is better by virtue of the fact that it at least has Gary Oldman in it. The burden of proof now rests with Mr. Abrams, et al if they can redeem storytelling with the (inevitable) future sequels and create a Star Trek movie worthy of the name. Perhaps we will see the development of a dynamic not unlike The Motion Picture versus The Wrath of Khan? In the meantime, rather than subject myself or my loved ones to STINO, I will pop in the dvd for Star Trek V: The Final Frontier or Star Trek: Insurrection. Stone sober, even. And rest my beverage on the STINO disk, which is all that it’s good for now.
Finally, to the attention of Messieurs Abrams, Orci and Kurzman: there no such things as Klingon warbirds!

Star Trek Universe...

2009-10-06T09:09:00.001-07:00

A lot of film and television series' go through changes. One of the ultimate problems or situations is that of 'continuity.'

Changes that occur may involve redesign of costumes and vehicles, spaceships and weapons, as well as any number of what might seem insignificant things...

Time passes, 'real world' technology advances, and trends come and go.

There are film and television series' still with us from the 1960s...shows that have attempted to continue straight on, and re-develope themselves over and over. From Star Trek to Doctor Who, to Mission Impossible to Planet of the Apes.

From the 60s, to the 70s, to the 80s, to the 90s, to NOW, all sorts of re-fitting has gone on with all kinds of shows, from remakes, to reboots, to prequels and endless sequels...and with that there are possibilities to "ALTER" what once went before. Some alterations are nothing but the introduction of bellbottoms and butterfly collars, to their removal... redesigns of things for reasons such as improving technology, to simply allowing a new filmmaker to do what he wants with the series. Ultimately the question is, how much does all this effect the story, and the characters? Does it effect them?

Is the "New and Improved" Star Trek even the same universe within its series? Is it even concievable that it may or not be, but it has altered the central view of what the series originally implied?

They aren't wearing bellbottoms, or butterfly collars, and it seems 60s velour shirts have been replaced with nylon polyester jerseys, and yet the mini-skirt is still there... the technology has undergone dramatic changes, at least in surface appearance...everything is made of white polished and transparent plastic...the phasers fire like rapid fire automatic weapons (which seems pointless, shooting holes in metal with an energy beam that fires once every second, to 50 times a second...what's the difference...oh the other is more dramatic.)

Our 'real world' technology and clothing styles seem to be the overwhelming influence to 'change' a show...the story presented, while changing characters and story, is nothing new. They call it 'an update.'

Battlestar Galactica changed virtually everything about the show in its 'remake' effort. From uniforms to robots, to ships, to characters, basically carrying on the skeleton plot about space travellers looking for their home planet...but for some reason people liked that.

How much has this year's remake of Star Trek has changed Star Trek? Is it even the same world that Zefram Cochrane came from?

The answer is no, and even before they fucked around with continuity via time travel and timelines. Never before were their 'brand names' in the future, at least on Earth, in the Federation...sure there were brand names when the crew time travelled to the past, but there were no brand names, not even in ENTERPRISE. Some other form of culture is present in the Star Trek remake. A culture that only seems similar to the temporary and fickle present day...2007--2009... Where young people at least on television behave a certain way... From Ipods to cellphones and currently trendy alcoholic beverages... these are the bellbottoms and butterfly collars...however... this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to 'altering' the culture in star trek. Now it is suggested that it match up with current culture, as far as we have 'progressed.' In the original, women have officer's positions, black women, on the bridge, an unheard of cultural situation previously, meant to illustrate the 'progressive' cultural situation in the future...Russians work together with Americans...asians...etc. The very idea was to look ahead to what cultural situations would be not only progressive, but different...not to 'match up' with 'today's standards.'

If the original Star Trek was supposed to 'match up' with 'present day' cultural standards of the 1960s, Uhura would have been the ship's cook or maid, Sulu would have been the ship's tailor or outfitter, or drudging it in the engine-room covered in soot and grease... Chekov would have been a spy on board, and there would have been a Christian minister aboard the Enterprise...

The very idea at its core, whether one agrees with its politics or not, was to look ahead to the future, a 'future culture' which goes beyond our own.

In the new Star Trek young people are not more responsible, not more studious, not more intelligent...they still cackle and make asses of themselves in bars, (because of course even all of us do that even today)...and every scene inside a bar must include a fight... young men still behave like crass perverted jerks to women, and women (as current trends go) are funny and hip when they are crass and tell perverted jokes ("have sex with farm animals")... yes because in the 'future' people are ultimate more crass, and less intelligent... and Vulcans are nothing but above average humans with above average intelligence, which is why they appears so ODD to humans... The so-called 'future' of the new Star Trek is based soley on TECHNOLOGY. There is barely any idea of what kind of government they have, and who is in power, although it is assumed that it must be the same as in previous Star Trek incarnations.

It would appear that the only thing interesting going on in this future world, and what makes it different from our current world, is that human beings somehow have made space travel a conventional thing, although militaristic, most specifically. Basically Cosmic Aircraft carriers take off from Earth and look for inhabited worlds, to either do battle with them, or make deals for resources... Still somewhat the same as old Trek...and in this capacity...what is so new, other than they've altered the cultural standards of the times and refashioned characters and totally distorted timelines in order to write whatever story they wanted to?

We get no further insight into the world of star trek, its universe, and since the characters have been dramatically altered, they are essentially brand new characters we haven't seen before, and the only reasons they give us to care about them is that they happen to have the same names as characters we ARE familiar with...

As much as this film tried to be like star wars in its structure and pacing, the original Star Wars movie had some insight into what kind of world those people lived in... some sort of Martial Law, a rebellion, some religious views, some info on the past, what it was like, and characters who were all responding to such conditions in their lives before the events and during the events in the movie...

In Star Trek, all we see is that there were some aliens who got pissed off about their planet dying, and they're pissed, they killed some people, they want to kill more people... Starfleet didn't bother to investigate after they blew up one of their space ships... too busy doing whatever it is they are doing whatever that is, because they never really tell us, and based on how different their society is in this new movie, why should I assume it is the same as Old Trek? After all they do tell us that Starfleet are the military 'peacekeepers' of the Galaxy... ahh...that's quite different than before... but that doesn't give us much else to go on, other than these characters are nothing but futuristic naval cadets...something identical to Starship Troopers...

Starship Troopers went to task trying to elaborate on the kind of world these characters lived in, no matter how bad the movie ended up...

The new Star Trek does not tell us what kind of world this 'future' it takes place in is like because in reality it is telling us, IT IS THE SAME CRAPPY WORLD YOU LIVE IN NOW, ONLY WITH BETTER TECHNOLOGY.

And my response to this is...who cares? Why would I be interested in that?

Now, I realize that their 'bragging' about how 'realistic' this movie is, in that the above statement is supposed to be telling me how smart they are in basically making a 'futuristic now' but it tells me they have no common sense. The world today is nothing like it was even 10 years ago.

12 years ago, not everyone had cell phones, one could go to the airport without being harrassed by gestapo thugs, one wasn't criminalized for not having health insurance, and there wasn't this 'societal' concern regarding 'pandemics' where the government considers everyone part of some 'collective' by which they feel they can mandate such things as mandatory vaccinations and other bizarre issues. Life is certainly changing, better or worse, it won't be the same in five years, and culture will also respond to these changes. 2004-2009 might have been a time of twittering twits who think nothing of texting their friends and drinking as much as possible, Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and watching "Lost" and "American Idol," but I assure you that is all about to change.

Star Trek XI is nothing but a fantasy snapshot of 2008. Some kind of delusional mirror image culturally of the lowest common denominator, which is 'dressed up like Star Trek' and that's about it.

Episodes of the original Series will still speak to us, the same way Rod Serling did in Twilight Zone...beyond the cultural trash, on the other side of things, somewhere in the zone which the best authors and storytellers can stand and view things...they're not just holding up a mirror of what we look like now, they're telling us what we can be, warning us about what we could become, and what might befall us. Star Trek XI tells us absolutely nothing, except, perhaps, 'this is how shallow our target audience is, the people we want to make money off of, and this is how we portray them so we can make them feel good about the Future we are going to sell them.'

Star Trek XI is not just a bad movie with a bad plot, with bad characters, annoying effects, and dumb jokes....ITS SICK.

J.J. Abrams admits Star Trek XI Sucks

2009-09-29T09:08:00.000-07:00

J.J. Abrams Says 'Star Trek' Will Boldly Go Allegorical

by Elisabeth Rappe Sep 17th 2009 // 10:02AM

http://www.cinematical.com/2009/09/17/j-j-abrams-says-star-trek-will-boldly-go-allegorical/

Phil's comments in RED.

"In many ways a sequel will have a very different mission. It needs to do what [Gene] Roddenberry did so well, which is allegory," says Abrams.

Yeah? Why the hell didn't you do that in the first place?

"It needs to tell a story that has connection to what is familiar and what is relevant. It also needs to tell it in a spectacular way that hides the machinery and in a primarily entertaining and hopefully moving story. There needs to be relevance, yes, and that doesn't mean it should be pretentious."

So what you're saying is your First Star Trek remake sucked? That is was irrelevant and mindless and pretentious?

Orci echoed Abrams, noting that it had been one of the biggest criticisms of the new Trek. "One of the things we heard was, 'Make sure the next one deals with modern-day issues.' We're trying to keep it as up-to-date and as reflective of what's going on today as possible. So that's one thing, to make it reflect the things that we are all dealing with today." When asked if "modern day issues" meant war, terrorism, and torture, Orci agreed that was "an approach" they were taking.

The quotes have caused quite a discussion in the movie news-o-sphere to a mixed response. Many feel that the films should reflect the original 1960s series and hint at social issues. Others feel that such blatant allegory can make a film feel very dated in a few short years, and want Trek to just stick to telling good adventure stories. After all, taking a political stance stands to alienate many moviegoers, though controversy is always welcome from a publicity point of view.

Which is why Star Trek IV: Saved the Whales did so well? This is idiotic...people loved that movie and still do.

Star Trek is definitely heading into problematic waters. Sci-fi has always been at its best when it reflected the modern world, but it is such a fine line to tread because you don't want your sci-fi epic to be full of thinly disguised Communists when the geopolitical climate changes. While I think issues of pre-emptive strikes, war, and torture might be general enough to be forever relevant, I worry that trying to tackle them will just be clumsy. It already feels dated in some ways, and it's difficult to imagine Starfleet saying anything new on the subject. If Star Trek is going to tackle something I hope they go gentle, and tackle prejudice through Spock and Uhura's relationship. There's some racial and gender issues there just waiting to be mined for a background story.

So screw the real world, let's focus on how Checkov is gay, and whether Uhura can have sex with Spock...typical...

Asinine Poetry: Star Trek

2009-09-26T10:52:00.001-07:00

Dear Mr. Sternwise,
Don't know if you caught this. We featured it on AsininePoetry.com about a month or two back. Would have told you sooner but I just found your great site today.
All best,
Richie Narvaez

http://www.asininepoetry.com/hopin/1258

DON'T BET YOUR QUATLOOS: 11 HAIKUS ABOUT THE NEW STAR TREK MOVIE
by Gordon Stanley

CLASSIC Trek: '60s ideals
New Trek:
Budweiser and Nokia ads

The future shines
Brightly lit plastic white
The future is Sephora

Red Matter
must've been used while writing the script
Note all the big holes

Say Spock stops the supernova
Romulus lives
-- but without its sun?

Spock maroons Kirk (on Hoth)
right where Old Spock and Scotty
happen to be.

READ MORE HERE:http://www.asininepoetry.com/hopin/1258

2009-09-19T11:22:00.001-07:00

Star Trek: Its all about Doctor McCoy

2009-09-17T15:10:00.000-07:00

Okay...I only wish it was, whatever.

I wonder how many new visitors we will get here on this blog when this crappy thing comes out on DVD?

It can't be that everyone in the world saw it at the theater...perhaps those silent old fans, once they waste $3 instead of $8 will be less pissed because they only spent $3, and saw it on the screen it was meant for: television, or perhaps it will be even worse, because they can sit back and absorb the stupidity, rewind, and freeze frame every worthless second of it...

AbramzTrek and Beyond...

2009-09-14T10:55:00.000-07:00

One problem as I see it, is that Abrams may have nothing to do with the next Trek Film, however, we are stuck with the 90210 cast. Maybe they will get older, but so what? I am one of 'those people' who hated the cast. Especially Chris Pine. I could handle the new Spock, but I honestly didn't think he did a good job even playing a 'Vulcan.' He may have looked like Spock, but that's about it. Scotty was a joke. The only actor worth having back is McCoy. I'd rather see an entire Trek film about Doctor McCoy only...than any more shit with this crew.

Even if J.J.Abrams doesn't write, direct or even produce Star Trek XII, I still think they are stuck with this shitty timeline/storyline that I really don't want to re-visit ever again. Personally, I never liked the idea of a younger original crew in the first place, but initially, I figured, I'd see what they come up with. As soon as Pine was cast, it was over with. I did not even hate J.J. Abrams at the time, I had not really watched much "Lost" and never saw MI3.

It seems more people are willing to accept whoever to play the parts, because maybe all they really want to see is ships shooting eachother, and somebody shooting somebody with a phaser.

I don't think I could stand any other Star Trek movies with this cast, no matter who directs or writes it. I will not be wasting any time (or money) attempting to even 'check out' what they will do next. Case and Point: AVP. Aliens vs. Predator. I didn't really look forward to an 'Aliens vs. Predator' movie, but I went to see it because Lance Henriksen was in it, and I did like those series, though I had not seen Alien Resurrection yet. I hated AVP. Henriksen was wasted, and the plot was ridiculous. ...oh...just wait...I had yet to see AVP:Requiem and Alien:Resurrection. I decided to watch AVP: Requiem, after buying the box set series...why not. So I started with the "prequels," a very nerdy thing to do of course, 'do the series in its timeline chronological order...'

AVP: Requiem was absolutely terrible. Worse than the first one...it made me think the first one was actually pretty good when I watched it the second time around, as I assume it takes place after AVP:R. Then I watched the Alien trilogy in order, and got to "Alien Resurrection." Oh my God...this may be the worst movie I have ever seen! It made AVP look like a masterpiece of cinema, and AVP:R a worthy B-Movie effort. Things can get real bad.

No matter what "ALIEN" or "PREDATOR" film they come out with next, I will not be seeing it.

To rehash Star Trek, as a prequel/remake, and follow it up down the road of the original series will not work, and I can't imagine it getting any better than the crap that was Star Trek XI. This is just not going to work at all! Let me guess how it will go: a young Picard comes flying out of the Nexus with Whoopi Goldberg and finds himself on Earth, just before the Enterprise's first Kirk Command trial. He gets on board, becomes a Red Shirt security guy and dilly-dallies around with some female crewmembers. Only he knows that the Enterprise will run into [add generic bad sci-fi plot device here] and he must convince Kirk that he can help them....

Or some such nonsense...as I have heard they were thinking of incorporating TNG characters in future episodes of this crap. Whatever they do with this shit, I won't be buying into it, no matter what marketing scheme they will come up with, and BELIEVE me, they are sure to try. Expect some very weird ideas, in order to gain back some of the original fans they shit on in order to jump-start this bullshit in the first place. They will. Mark my words. They'll try to get Shatner, they'll have "Checkov's Grandfather" or Sulu's dad or something played by the original actors, they may try to involve Worf's granddaddy or daddy, they may look for characters from TNG who are supposed to be over 150 years old, they may revive somebody from ENTERPRISE who may have been frozen or is an alien who lives a long time, a Vulcan Ambassador perhaps...they may try to remake Wrath of Khan, by having the ship run into Khan earlier in the timeline, or another bunch of escaped Eugenics Clones...Believe me they will come up with some sort of crap like this in order to get people in the theater...and I'm telling you to skip it. I am boycotting any of this New and Improved Star Trek Crap, as I have also let go of Star Wars Prequel nonsense as well.

What will you be doing? Giving Abrams and Paramount more of your hard earned money to be insulted all over again?

And worse, how many of you are ACTUALLY going to buy the DVD?

Challenge to the NEW Star Trek Fans

2009-09-12T13:44:00.000-07:00

Written by Janeway Pi Alpha 47

I challenge any of the new fans of new “Star Trek” to go and watch ten of the mostly highly acclaimed and widely praised episodes of the “old” Star Trek. Pick a handful and then re-evaluate JJ Abram’s take on Star Trek. Does it still deserve the high praise it has been given? Does it hold up to the title of Star Trek? Does it work as a movie on its own merits? Is this really a reboot that is as new and fresh as it claims?

1. Trials and Tribble-ations (DS9)
2. Darmok (TNG)
3. In the Pale Moonlight (DS9)
4. Duet (DS9)
5. Best of Both Worlds Part I and II (TNG)
6. City on the Edge of Forever (TOS)
7. Tapestry (TNG)
8. Frame of Mind (TNG)
9. Mirror, Mirror (TOS)
10. Unification Part I and II (TNG)

Give it a try; these ten episodes (some of them are two part episodes) even include a few episodes that are highly controversial among Star Trek fans. Perhaps notably, the episode of Deep Space 9 from Season 6 titled, “In the Pale Moonlight”, challenged Gene Roddenberry’s ideas about a utopian future. If there is one episode that has fractured the Trek community, it is this piece. Of course it is highly thought provoking and stands on its own quite well. I wonder what would have happened if they slipped some product placement in there…

It will be interesting to see total newcomer’s reactions.

[There is also this list submitted for publication on this blog:
http://startrekxisucks.blogspot.com/2009/07/star-trek-viewing-list.html ]

2009-09-11T09:09:00.000-07:00

From Cadet to Captain
Written by Janeway Pi Alpha 47

The writers really needed to write a quick and clean way to get James T. Kirk into the captain’s chair. Why? The answer probably has to do with the fact that that target audience has the attention span of your average meth addict and does not really want to see a character evolve; instead they favor being presented with a “wham, bam, thank you ma’am’ product”. Most importantly: the movie studio needs to get this necro money cow on the fast track to more lucrative sequels. Unfortunately, this means the writing teams ends up force feeding us some of the most retarded bullshit I’ve seen in a science fiction movie that has a navy-like military organization in space. I’m of course referring to the already much bitched about cadet to captain journey that lasts takes up less than two hours of screen time.

Of all of the problems with the movie, this one is one of the hardest for me to swallow: Cadet to Captain. Cadet to Captain? What is this? Did someone submit a piece of fan fiction to the studio that got somehow got swapped with an actual movie script and no one noticed? This is what really destroyed my suspension of disbelief: military structure and function or the complete and total lack there of. It is reality check time. Starfleet has always been modeled off of the United States Navy. For the sake of convenience I am going to completely ignore the fact the Gene Roddenberry was against the militarization of Star Trek despite writing certain military aspects into the series. Regardless of what Mr. Roddenberry thought, the topic was heavily written into the show over six television series so I’m going to treat it as something that makes Star Trek what is is (or perhaps “was” is more accurate).

Anywho, the reboot-happy creative powers that be obviously decided to keep these concepts associated with the previous incarnations of Star Trek yet they only bothered to apply them where it suited the plot (or lack there of). The military, any military, follows sets of rules and regulations and the chain of command. Arguably, Kirk is known for stepping outside of these rules and usually for the better. Of course these tendencies have previously caused Kirk problems while earning him praise. But the rules were still there and very much dealt with as if they really applied to the characters on the screen. Hell, even Kirk was scolded for not following orders or out right breaking the rules (you know, the little things like stealing a starship, assaulting officers and so forth). Hell, they even demoted him from the rank of rear admiral to captain when they had enough of his bullshit and could not look the other way without losing face to the Klingons.

So here we have our rebooted Cadet Kirk: cheater and womanizer. That is about all the film shows us of Kirk’s days at Starfleet Academy. Oh, be sure to add arrogant, cocky, and insubordinate to that résumé. Yeah, that’s right-out-of-the-box captain material alright. So shit hits the fan and they use cadets to fill up starships that must be sent to Vulcan to get blown up by some unknown but obviously dire threat. God forbid you send a scout ship to do some reconnaissance first. Reconnaissance? What the hell kind of idea is that? That’s not action packed! So Kirk, against orders and by the grace Dr. McCoy, ends up on the U.S.S. Enterprise under the command of Captain Christopher Pike. So for some reason (like surrendering to a supposedly insane Romulan miner from the future that has already destroyed a good chunk of the fleet) Captain Pike decides to leave Commander Spock in command of the Enterprise while he goes and get tortured. Oh, and by the way, Pike makes Cadet Kirk the second in command. What the hell?

After some bullshit, Spock tosses Cadet Kirk’s mutinous ass into an escape pod and sends him to Iceland where the CGI monsters live. For the record, as a legal resident of Iceland, I’ve never seen CGI monsters here. Cadet Kirk manages to find a young officer by the name of Scotty who magics them back to the Enterprise. Kirk proceeds to oust (via some contrived melodrama) Commander Spock from command and finally gets access to the captain’s chair. What is this? 90210 in space?

After Nero’s contrived antics are dealt with, Starfleet promotes Captain Pike to (Rear?) Admiral and Cadet Kirk to Ensign Lieutenant Junior Grade Lieutenant Lt. Commander Commander Captain and puts him solely in charge of the most advanced ship in the entire fleet. Oh, and it is also the flagship for the United Federation of Planets (which Pike tells us is important therefore it is). What the hell? Why? Oh, because this is the fastest way to set this up for sequels! The financial needs of the studio outweigh the needs of the mindless movie masses … or those of use that were of the misguided opinion that Star Trek was about telling stories and exploring character.

Being the captain of a vessel is not a job for just anyone. They don’t just toss you the keys to a Battlestar starship and hope that you’ll do just fine (and not drive it into a canyon or activate the self-destruct for kicks). A commander of a vessel usually has to be of firm mind, display good judgment, have proven their leadership capabilities and not just reach for the self-destruct whenever the script requires things to be dire (obviously Captain Janeway missed that day at the academy). Even if you are the hottest damn thing in history you still usually have to go through the motions and advance from one rank to the next. Unless you start a coup, you do not go from supposedly gifted cadet to the commander of the god damn flagship even if you save a metric crap load of people. Okay, so maybe in a time of great need you might be in the right place at the right time and you’ll move up the chain of command more quickly. Since Starfleet, in a moment of blindingly obvious stupidity, lost a crap load of starships and the experienced officers that go with them it could stand to reason that Starfleet was desperate. But why the hell would you reach for an arrogant, mutinous, narcissistic ass that had to resort to cheating his way out of a computer simulation to command your flagship? Oh, because the sequel needs Kirk to be established as a legendary captain.

Okay, so maybe a promising but flawed cadet steps up saves the day in the most extreme of circumstances and displays great promise. So maybe you scold him about disobeying orders and being reckless while finding an experienced office to baby sit him as you fast track his career. That would seem a bit more reasonable and in line with the military traditions upon which Starfleet is based.

Discipline must be an interesting thing in the future. Kirk sneaks aboard a starship. This is almost completely ignored. He challenges a superior officer and gets his ass tossed in an escape pod. Okay wow. Granted, mutiny has been handled differently but the logical thing to do in a civilized society would have been to throw him in the brig. Of course if it were up to me I would have tossed the asshole out the nearest airlock.

What was Pike thinking when he made Kirk the XO (executive officer) over experienced officers already serving on board? What about promoting Kirk to Captain? I would have thought that Starfleet Command would have had some serious objections to this but instead they promote Pike to Admiral. While Starfleet Command might not have noticed, I’m sure the hardworking young men, woman and furry things that are already officers and have been working hard at their jobs would certainly take notice that an inexperience douche bag from Iowa gets instantly promoted to Captain while it takes them years and years to advance to lieutenant. Yeah. What a great way to alienate people and undermine the legitimacy of rank. Oh wait, this isn’t my father’s Star Trek. Never mind.

Did anyone else notice that scene where Uhura jumps on Spock in the turbolift? How about the fact she walked away from her duty station. First of all… Spock an Uhura. Spock is both an educator at the Academy (or someone at least involved in some capacity) and an officer that holds the rank of commander! What about the general no-no in the military called fraternization? Can anyone say CONFLICT OF INTEREST? Gee, I wonder where this is heading when the writers inevitably throw Pon Farr at Spock?

So my point is this: this garbage makes absolutely no sense except when viewed from the perspective of what the writers needed to do in order to make sure everything was set up for the extremely lucrative sequel. It is extremely demanding of the creative staff to expect us to swallow complete and total bullshit like a cadet being promoted to captain of the most advanced starship in the fleet. But hey, if people will roll over and give you money for a once story centric franchise turned big summer action block buster franchise devoid of anything but the most hackney of writing, I’d bet you would turn out total bullshit too.

Common Comments from the Critics of the Critics

2009-09-09T10:07:00.000-07:00

Common Comments from the Critics of the Critics
Written by Janeway Pi Alpha 47

I’ve had a beef with this new Trek movie since I saw it in the theatre back in May. I am usually very accepting of new takes on old things and rarely speak out against things I do not like. But this film really stuck a nerve and I’ve been uncharacteristically vocal about my concerns and outright disgust with this film. This has, of course, garnered a lot of criticism from folks. While I normally brush off baseless comments the shear ludicrous and uniform nature of the retorts to my comments about J.J. Abram’s Star Trek has astounded me. In fact, anyone that criticized the film seems to be met with the same nearly pool of carbon copy comments defending this abomination. Oddly enough, I’ve heard some of the same folks ripping those that dare have a dissenting view that is contrary to their own talking about free speech! What a joke! Some of the things I’ve seen thrown the way of people with well rationed arguments are nothing short of funny so I’ve selected twenty of the most common comments I’ve come across to ridicule and poke holes in. I think it is interesting how very few people use anything but the kind of thing we all heard on the playground in school. Anyway, enjoy.

1. This isn’t your father’s Star Trek. I don’t know who came up with the idea that drawing a line in the sand is a good thing but I find this childish, insulting and unnecessary (a lot like this movie). This one-liner is not an argument you can use to refute how piss awful this movie was. If this is the kind of polarizing draw the 'MySpace Generations' needs to get on a bandwagon then the lot of you can piss off. What happened to independent thought, inclusive culture and tolerance? You know the ideals that Gene Roddenberry infused into the original television series. Perhaps those aspects of culture were never there to begin with and my (and others) perception of them was merely wishful thinking. Anyway, since this marketing ploy worked so well I think that they should start using this sort of approach to market consumer goods. THIS IS NOT YOUR FATHER´S HORSESHIT!

2. But the 'Old Spock' is in this movie therefore you should accept it! Um, no. The old actors had cameos in the 1990s version of Lost in Space and that was piss awful. A glorified cameo does not make a movie good and when you cut through the crap that is all Mr. Nimoy’s appearance was. By this reasoning, Star Trek: Generations should have been the exceptional since it had three original cast members make appearances.

3. You don’t know what a good movie is! Arguably not. But again, this really does not refute any of the points I make about the shit this movie calls a plot. Besides, people should be able to make logical arguments deconstructing a movie (with a hefty price tag) without getting lambasted with mindless fan boi bullshit. In the western world, we generally have this thing called free speech which you readily invoke when you call critics of this P.O.S. “retarded, rancid douche bags”. Unfortunately, without any logic or merit behind your retort, you do nothing to disprove me; that’s like letting my argument stand unchallenged while your own perfectly valid points of view go left unsaid. Besides, my notions of what makes a movie good are totally subjective. Why don’t you talk about that with your free speech protected words?

4. The old Star Trek was old and campy but this is new and pure awesome!!1 Easy with those exclamation marks. Yes, the old Trek did not take itself too seriously. The sets were obviously cheaply constructed 1960s television sets. Of course, the emphasis was totally different; the plots and characters were the focus of television shows of late. The fact that this movie’s sets looked like someone hijacked an iStore does not really say much about the content of the film but rather attests to its high production value. I suppose eye candy is a draw for a lot of people though but your comment, again, does not really hold much weight let alone explain why a hollow plot should go unchallenged at the movie makes endless millions in theaters alone.

5. You are just retarded!!1one! Just classic.

6. U r stuck in teh past!!!11eleven! How many times do I have to tell you about those damn exclamation marks? How did you survive high school with spelling like that? Anywho, please forgive some of us for refusing to whole heartedly abandon rationality and standards for the new consumerism-driven revival of a classic television franchise. I’m sure we are stuck in the past. You know, the past where vacuum cleaners lasted a lifetime and you didn’t have to replace your toaster or coffee pot after 41 uses.

7. This movie has philosophicalness... like revenge! ROFL! Yeah, and don’t forget cheating. Both of those things get dealt with in a meaningful way. Man, had they talked about those points anymore this movie might have been boring!

8. Maybe J.J. Abrams wanted us to think about... What?! If you try to think about anything during this two hour long 100% eye candy piece of shit film you are likely to get up and walk out of the fucking theatre. J.J. does not want a person making comparisons to anything that has come before because they might ask for a refund; that is why they claimed that this is a REBOOT. Of course, I have not personally heard or read J.J. say to the tune of him not wanting people to think so I’ll back off of that. Besides, what is there to compare or think about anyway? They wanted a clean slate and thus the Star Trek television series or movies are no longer relevant because this isn’t your father’s Star Trek, remember?

9. But if you read the comic books... I’m sorry but I should not have to run out and buy comic books to understand aspects of this movie’s so-called plot which are directly relevant and required to understand the movie that I fucking paid over $10 to see in a theatre! This is one of the reasons why the TNG films were terrible! They expected you to have an intimate knowledge of the characters and the plots that had come before! Your average casual movie observer has seen either very little or nothing of the television series! Besides, was this pre-release comic book error free or even canon? Or did it read more like a piece of crap fan fiction cobbled together by a nearly illiterate 12 year old?

10. This is a reboot/a fresh take on Star Trek! No, it really isn’t. The same old recycled plot elements (and even dialogue) are here. Hell, they even went to painstaking lengths to drag the old continuity along for the ride. That’s right! Just pop that shit in the trunk incase we need to dig it up for the convenience of a future plot. And since when does injecting anything with teenage melodrama make it new or fresh? And how the fuck would you know this is a fresh take on Trek anyway? Have you seen a lot of Star Trek? If you have, then you would have noticed the recycled bits in a new, shiny package and the moronic fanboi scraps they tossed in to appease the hardcore fans. If you have not seen a lot of Trek, this means you are simply parroting other people’s opinions. That’s new and fresh!

11. My XYZ relative hates Star Trek but absolutely loved this movie so therefore it is good! I’m sorry, but this is not any kind of real argument. Do they even teach people how to construct logical arguments in school? I suppose if 3.97 billion people think that there were dinosaurs 6,000 years ago it must be true. How could so many people possible be wrong?!

12. I’m sure that the deleted scenes will explain XYZ plot hole!!!1! Yeah, let’s run out and buy the Bluray release and pray that this movie makes more sense after shelling out more money. In very few cases have the post-theatrical release versions of films made more sense and in fact been better movies than the original release in theatres. Deleted scenes or director’s commentaries are not going to make this movie the Abyss, extended cuts of Lord of the Rings, Watchmen, or Aliens. Sorry, but I’ll be keeping my 20-something bucks in my pocket. The plot holes will still be there even if you add a few glib bits of padding here and there.

13. You don’t like this movie because you just want to be different from everyone else! That is right! Anyone that comes to their own conclusion independently of the masses must be doing it so they can stand out and be different for the sake of being different. #@%*ing conformists! Quick, pass me a box of razor blades before I go supernova and threaten the entire galaxy!!1

14. Star Trek used to be dorky! But now this is pure cool! Yeah, I suppose enough lens flare to cause a non-epileptic people to have violent seizures in the movie theatre is pretty cool. I’m reminded of the jackasses in high school that discovered the lens flare effect in Adobe Photoshop and tried selling their terrible artwork for $40 a pop.

15. But the pro critics liked it! Yeah, I think everyone noticed that. This movie now ranks up there with Lawrence of Arabia. It is interesting that a lot of critics actually acknowledged this film’s glaring flaws, plot holes and other shenanigans but chose to give it high scores anyway. I wonder what would have been the long term professional consequences if these reviewers didn’t give it high marks. Wait! That sort of thing would never happen in ´Merica!

16. You don’t get this movie because shaky camera and lens flare are in right now! Yeah and tripods, steady cams, polarizing filters and expensive multicoated lenses that prevent artifacts like lens flares are so, so out. I better give all of my gear back. Gee, I hope it is still worth something! So, 2 years from now when lens flare is 'out' again, won’t this film look horribly dated? Besides when Ron D. Moore adopted the “naturalistic, looks like someone was out there shooting this footage in space” approach to Battlestar Galatica, he did so with consistency and clarity. When Joss Whedon used non-modern lenses that produced flares and vignettes, he did so for artistic reasons and it did not detract from Firefly. Can the same really be said of Star Trek?

17. Shut your mouth! Nobody asked you for your opinion! Yeah, the same assholes cry like five year olds when you call them on their ignorance by throwing the notions in the 1st Amendment at them. I mean, they can spew whatever baseless, hate-laden bullshit they want, why not me or anyone else with something to say? What are you going to do to me anyway? Spam me? Vote bot my YouTube channel? Beat me up like in elementary school? Ah, I cherish the finer points of living in a civilized society.

18. This movie was made with the old fans in mind! I’m sorry but obscure references to Admiral Archer´s dog are not something a lot of fans look forward to hearing. “Easter eggs” do not make up for the fact that the plot was total bullshit (although I´m sure the Voyager fans out there are pissing themselves with glee over the extremely lame technobabble and plot holes). If anything, stupid little winks to any other Star Trek series detract from this film! Just because I noticed the warning sign on the glass in the transporter room does not mean that I’m just going to roll over and accept this film!

19. This movie appeals to a wider audience! The same thing can be said of Spice World. Anyone that sits through that crappy movie more than once is just asking to have their brain cells burst. Please, just open up my wallet and take what you think is fair because wide audience appeal must make this flick a winner that deserves my money… and everyone’s money for that matter.

20. Old fans are just a bunch of old hippies. No, some of us are actually a lot younger than you might think. Good job jumping to conclusions with no information at all. You sir, are a great benefit to society. With arguments like this, I’ll surely give up trying to deny that this film is a modern masterpiece. Wonderful job convincing me of the errors of my ways.

Fizbin's Top 44 Reasons Star Trek Sucks

2009-09-07T10:48:00.001-07:00

From Fizbin:

TOP 44 NITPICKS WITH JJ ABRAMS VERSION OF 'STAR TREK'

1) If the Romulans knew a super nova was coming, why didn't they evacuate the planet? They had PLENTY of time. It takes months for super nova's to blow.

2) Let's say that Spock's plan worked. He gets the red matter and fires it at the Romulan sun that's about to Nova. It works! The sun is sucked into a black hole. Mission accomplished. So now the Romulan solar system has no sun, therefore no warmth, which would cause Romulas to turn into an ice planet. Romulans are turned into icicles and everybody dies because this space-faring race is still too stupid to evacuate when disaster is coming.

3) Why would the oppressive Romulan government trust a Vulcan to save their planet?

4) Nero said the Federation sat by and did nothing about the Super nova. Um, Mr. Nero? Hate to break this to you but Romulas has never been much of an olive branch of peace with the Federation, have they?

5) These Centurion Slugs aren't terribly original. They enter through the mouth like the "Conspiracy" creatures of TNG and make a person tell the truth like Khan's Ceti eels.

6) Nero's actions have changed all history and created an alternate timeline. However, they seem to forget that this movie starts with a rather large nitpick. Everyone knows that Captain Kirk was born in Iowa. When the film begins, everything is unaltered from Nero's actions. Yet Kirk's mother is about to give birth on the starship Kelvin. Why isn't she in Iowa?

7) Nero's ship is significantly huge compared to the Kelvin. So why didn't Nero just destroy it? He could have destroyed it as easily as he did the attacking Starships around Vulcan. But he just sits there and lets the Kelvin ram into his ship. Not to mention let all the escape pods fly to their freedom.

8) How come the Kelvin has over 800 passengers when the Enterprise (a larger starship) has 430? Also, how come the interior of the Kelvin looks like a 20th century metal refinery?

9) Product placement. Young Kirk's Nokia phone in his car. Uhura ordering a Budweiser. If this were any other film, I wouldn't bitch, but they don't have competing companies in Star Trek! The Federation provides everything anyone ever wants. There are no brand names!

10) When Spock was a young boy, he gets taunted and in a fight with 3 other Vulcan boys. Why would they start this fight in the middle of a learning center with witnesses around? Why not go outside to a recess area? Do they *want* to get in trouble? This is not logical.

11) It doesn't give me much hope if people are still listening to the Beastie Boys in the 23rd century. How about a more timeless group like The Beatles, Rolling Stones, or Led Zeppelin? At least a group that has already been enjoyed by multi-generations. The Beastie Boys hardly qualify.

12) Could they have picked a better actor to play Nero? This guy looks and acts more like some pro-wrestler-turned-actor than an actual actor. Were the producers actually impressed with his work in The Hulk? The general public sure wasn't.

13) How come none of the phasers, either pistol or ship weapons, have any distinctive beam to them? They seem more like energy pulses than actual laser beam type. Does JJ Abrams not know what a phaser is?

14) Not only the phasers, but the new warp speed effect seems to have the same effect. Instead of the cool striping and rainbow swooshes we expect, these ships just disappear from sight with a little popping sound. Gee. That's so impressive. Saves money on effects, I suppose. But it really lacks imagination.

15) So. . .the inside of the Enterprise looks like a. . .water treatment facility??? Wow. That's certainly an innovative science fiction concept. Since they never mentioned dilethium crystals, I'm guessing the engines run on. . .gasoline?

16) Iowa is a completely flat landscape state. No mountains and certainly no massive canyons that young Kirk crashed his car into!!! Do the writers of this film know anything about geography??? There are no canyons in Iowa!!! Also, how many dirt roads do you know that end with a canyon? And not at least one construction barricade or sign saying "Danger: REALLY Dead End"???

17) Speaking of which, exactly what purpose did that car chase seen have with ANYTHING in the movie? And how does young Kirk know how to drive a stick shift when he had never driven a car until "A Piece of the Action"? And could he even reach the pedals at that age? Also, what was that police officer who stopped him? Was that a human being or an android? And since his cycle hovers, why didn't he hover over the side of the cliff and help Kirk back to safety instead of just watching him climb back up all by himself?

18) Please explain to me why the Enterprise is being built in a cornfield! And how did it get into space??? In "A Peice of the Action", Kirk said "The ship can't land". Because it has to landing struts. So what prevents this thing from tipping over when this ship is released from it's docking clamps? You'll notice this was never shown in the film.

19) Uhura's academy roomate is a green Orion slave girl. How did a slave girl end up in Starfleet Academy? Granted, she may have escaped Orion or have been sold to a sympathetic buyer. But would a slave from Orion even have an education or even a desire to explore space? She also seems really friendly, outspoken, and outgoing. Are these usually the qualities of a slave?

20) Why does Chekov have such a thick (and obviously fake) Russian accent? And where is his traditional Davey Jones hairstyle? And why is he such a techno mastermind? He was never this extravagant on TOS. He was just a good navigator. Also, why was he only 17 years old? Acording to TOS, Chekov was 12 years younger than Kirk. And why didn't he have any "this was inwented in Russia" jokes?

21) Spock & Uhura. Hmm. Let's see here. Spock had his emotions in check before arriving on the Enterprise. In fact, they were in check until Kirk got him angry. So, uhm, where did this emotion of love, lust, or whatever come from when he becomes lovers with Uhura? I mean, Spock & Uhura??? WTF?! Who's the idiot who thought that up??? Uhura is a young sexy woman. Does she know Vulcans only mate every 7 years? Good luck with that one, Nyota.

22) This new Enterprise bridge is beyond boring. Even the interior hallways. They are all white. Could they have been more cliche to science ficiton? The bridge looks like an iPod store. It's uncomfortable, antiseptic, unfamiliar, and generic. And what's the deal with those transparent partitions? If you need to address an officer from a distance, they have to move around these stupid partitions in order to see and hear them properly.

23) Chekov wasn't on the first season of TOS, but Janice Rand and Nurse Chapel were.Where were they in this movie? In fact, where was Gary Mitchell, Ben Finny, Finigan, Ruth, Janis Wallace, or Carol Marcus?

24) Why are the Romulans all bald with facial tatoos? This is never explained. Are these what all Romulans look like accoring to JJ Abrams? Gee. Facial tatoos on a Star Trek character. Boy. That's sure original. ::cough::Chakotay::cough:: Also, the design of the tatoos are what we call "Tribal" design in earth of 2009. So why are humanoid aliens from the 24th century using a fad symbol from 2009 earth?

25) Red Matter. How is something that can cause black holes also capable of time travel? How does that work exactly?

26) We see Romulas destroyed. But, uhm. What happened to Remus? Remus is like right next to Romulas in proximity. So why didn't we see it destroyed also?

27) In Star Trek: The Motion Picture, we were given a huge intro scene of the new Enterprise. In Star Trek: First Contact, we were given a nice beauty shot of the Enterprise-E as it passed through a colorful nebula. In this film, we got some rushed random shot of the new Enterprise, who's first shot is too big for the theater screen. Plus, with all of the quick pans and random zooms, we never really get a good shot of this. . .really poorly designed peice of ship. And why are it's engines so. . .oddly shaped?

28) At one point, Spock gets tired of Kirk's disobediance and ejects him off the Enterprise. Uhm. Spock is a Starfleet officer and Kirk is a Starfleet cadet. Is it really wise to just eject a Starfleet cadet onto an unsafe and frozen planet? Why not just throw him in the BRIG???!!!

29) On TOS, Delta Vega was an empty desert planet full of rocks, dust, and a delethium cracking station. In this film, Delta Vega is an ICE PLANET!!! WTF???!!! When did this happen??? And where is the dilethium station???!!!

30) On Delta Vega, Kirk is chased by an ice monster that looks like a walking vagina which chases him into a cave where Elder Spock is there to scare off this monster with a. . .torch? A mere torch is all it takes to scare this monster off, eh? Hmm. Brilliant writing there, Abrams.

31) And speaking of Delta Vega. On TOS, Delta Vega wasn't anywhere near the Vuclan system. Aparently it is in this film. Even Nero's tampering with events couldn't have moved an entire planet's place in the galaxy.

32) Nero strands Spock on Delta Vega so he could watch planet Vulcan get destroyed and feel the pain and anguish Nero felt when Romulas was destroyed. But Delta Vega is an ice planet! Which means it snows a lot. Which means it's probably cloudy most of the time. Which means Spock might not be able to see Vulcan get destroyed in space! Even if there were no clouds, Nero would have to wait until nightfall before Spock could see anything happening in space. Also, doesn't Nero know that Vulcans are unemotional? A Vulcan might not react like an emotional Romulan would.

33) This new transporter effect is just plain stupid. I mean, why an energy swirl? WTF? Converting matter to energy was perfectly demonstrated by the transporter effect on TOS. A "Slinky" effect hardly qualifies.

34) Why didn't they transport Amanda? She was in the transporter beam and started the transportation process. Which means she was not subject to gravity anymore. So why did she fall? Oh. That's right. Really really stupid writers.

35) When planet Vulcan is being destroyed, why does Spock try and save the Vulcan elders? Wouldn't it make more sense to save the children and younger Vulcans? After all, this is genocide! Why not save those who are capible of having children?

36) Elder Spock recognises young Kirk emediatly. But how come he doesn't ask why Kirk's eyes are blue? They were brown on TOS. It was Dr. McCoy's eyes that were blue on TOS. In this film, McCoy's eyes are brown. Could Neros actions actualy change eye color? Especially since McCoy was born long before Nero's time alterations?

37) Elder Spock doesn't seem like Spock. He seems more like Leonard Nimoy. His attitude and verbage are more quirky than subtle. I guess Nimoy hadn't played the part in a while. It's almost like Nimoy did this movie for a quick paycheck with his "paint-by-numbers" acting.

38) On the TOS version of Starfleet Academy, Kirk was a "stack of books with legs" teacher. Then, Kirk was assigned to the USS Farragut. How does this new Kirk go from a student who was grounded, to Starship commander only a few scenes later? He may be smart and resourcful, BUT HE'S NOT EXPERIENCED!!! One space adventure and a mere 3 years at the Academy hardly qualifies! Also, he's an obnoxious asshole! He's got some learning and growing up to do first!

39) Why is Scotty such a squirly guy? He just does NOT seem like James Doohan's Scotty we all know. And he just doesn't sound like Scotty. He sounds more like a British guy trying to imitate a Scottish accent. Oh wait. That's exactly what Simon Pegg is doing. And what is with that annoying little creature with him? Couldn't they have left him on the ice planet? Get rid of the Ewok! It serves ZERO purpose!

40) Scotty mentions an experiment he tried with Admiral Archer's dog. Uhm. Wouldn't Archer be dead since this movie takes place 150 years after the events in Star Trek: Enterprise"? Do the writers of this film not know the time line?

41) When the Enterprise crew first sees Nero, how come they don't act surprised at seeing a Romulan for the first time? They certainly were all surprised in "Balance of Terror". And when Nero greets them, he says a polite "Hello". Is this guy bipolar or something?

42) When Nero is interrigating Captain Pike on his ship, why is Nero walking in 3 feet of water?

43) Elder Spock is insistant that Kirk not tell younger Spock of Elder's Spock's exisrtance. Then, at film's end, Elder Spock meets younger Spock anyway!!!

44) Nero abandons Spock on the ice planet so Spock can witness Nero destroying Vulcan, which would cause Spock to live with that painful sight the rest of his life. Well. Spock has already lived a long life. And he doesn't want to see that. Who why doesn't Spock just step outside his cave one frozen night and just stand there til he freezes? Then he wouldn't have to live with that memory or with the lack of hope of being rescued? I guess Nero and the writers never thought of that.

Leonard Nimoy is "Moved" How Quaint...

2009-09-01T12:48:00.000-07:00

http://www.examiner.com/x-21198-Rochester-SciFi-Movie-Examiner~y2009m9d1-Leonard-Nimoy-very-moved-by-new-Star-Trek-movie

"Nimoy says he saw the film most recently on the plane that took him to Toronto and was especially moved at a pivotal moment in Trek history: when the younger James T. Kirk asks Mr. Spock to be his science officer. The answer “it would be an honor” left him feeling honored to be part of the franchise that fans once thought he wanted no part of."

Yeah, and for me, I have no more respect for LEONARD NIMOY. From this day forward I shall call him Leonard "Dickhead" Nimoy, for his rather arrogant and unfunny insults on Saturday Night Live in which he referred to old star trek fans as "dickheads."

Nimoy must have either gone senile or has real life "Mad Cow" and is crazier than Denny Crane.

He has become a total shill for the new 'reinvention' of Star Trek by Jar Jar Abrams, plagiarist extraordinaire.

I still hear 'Star Trek 2009' being touted as 'best film of the year.' It blows my mind, how in the hell so many people can shovel that shit into their mouths so easily.

2009: The Year of Movie Disappointments Beyond Imagination.

Wolverine: A sure hit, Hugh Jackman, back as Wolverine again? Sounds incredible, how the hell could they fuck this one up? They did.

Star Trek: A miserable half assed remake, which attempts to completely alter a series continuity by 'hanging lanterns' via timetravel gimmicks and timeline changes. Bullshit. Bad casting made it even worse. The masses shot up millions of dollars of New Star Trek into their veins like the sickening pandering opium it was. Puke.

Transformers2/GIJOE: Hasbro billion dollar toy commercials bilk the masses, fuck Stephen Summers and Michael Bay.

Terminator Salvation: Corporate troubles probably led McG (who the public hates) to hack 40 minutes out of what looked like a good movie to make the distributors happy, make a 'PG13' rating instead of an R to sell more tickets, and essentially make a decent movie look really terrible, just so it had more action-pacing. Bad choice. I'd have been happy with a 3 Hour Terminator Epic starring Christian Bale and Sam Worthington...sounds cool to me...oh, that's right I'm the 'faggot who hates NEW TREK'...sorry, my opinions don't count.

AVATAR: Hyped to the heavens. Looks like trash. CGI: Good, STORY:Bad,tired,derivative,if not a blatant ripoff of several movies including Dances With Wolves, Ferngully, Starship Troopers, Delgo, Quigley Down Under, Man Called Horse as well as HALO and WORLD OF WARCRAFT...crap.

So many other films just pissed me off this year, I'm going to make this short...
To me, it looks like the best movies, so far, and although I haven't seen any of them are looking to be: Inglorious Basterds(and I hate Quentin Tarentino), Moon (from David Bowie's son), and The Men Who Stare At Goats...

Did JJ Abrams steal Lost?

2009-08-29T00:47:00.000-07:00

This just in......Anthony Spinner, producer of the the TV shows "Beretta" & "The Man From U.N.C.L.E" sues ABC for "Copying" one of his old scripts to make "Lost"

More details here,
here..........
and here.....

And another reason (if it's true) why Abrams deserves to get his balls cut off.

20 good reasons to like Star Trek 2009

2009-08-15T13:43:00.000-07:00

Here's the only 20 reasons why someone could like a thing such as this mess of a movie.

- Being paid (in any way) by Paramount and/or Bad Robot.
- Being worry about the image you're giving to people around you.
- For you. Scifi universes should evolve only around a few characters.
- Sticking to the fads & to the taste of a majority no matter what.
- Loving anything new & shinny.
- Having no sense of criticism.
- Being a blockbuster nut.
- Being a kid or a teen.
- Not knowing the Star Trek universe.
- Already being a fan of Abrams other eye candies (Alias, Lost, Fringe, Cloverfield...)
- Being contemplative (or a victim) of Hollywoodian manipulations.
- Not liking Star Trek
- Being allergic to realism, maturity, credibility or just plain common sense in Sci Fi.
- Admiring Americ.....uuum...i mean humankind and this should be an example to follow for the rest of the universe.
- considering that any past series should be given the comic book treatment: Anybody should have the right to re-write classics any way he sees fit. Like for Batman.
- You're a Star trek junkie and you want your trek fix.........any Trek fix.
- As a Trek fan you believe the franchise must be kept alive by any mean..... even if that means eating a shit pie.
- Being a die-hard optimistic pal & hoping the sequel to ST2009 will not be as bad.
- As a Trekker, you're sick & tired of being bitched, picked on, laughed at, etc........& this movie is a chance to be recognized by the mainstream at last. To get out of the closet, out of the ghetto.....Like fans of Star Wars or Comics before you.
- Taking nothing seriously....not even Star Trek.

As you can see. That covers a lot of people and this is the reason why this movie is so positively received despite all its flaws.....

For the rest.....Those who don't fit into this top 20. Well they'll keep beeing bitched., picked on, laughed at, etc.........but for how long?

Shatner: Kingdom of the Spiders

2009-08-02T11:43:00.000-07:00

This is a film noted for being 'bad.' Yet, somehow it remains more intelligent, more "relevant" and a much better movie overall --- than J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek XI" ...but then again... is that really saying much...?

Star Trek Moral Relevance

2009-07-14T12:19:00.000-07:00

First I'd like to direct you to this article:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/196005

(thanks to Andrew for the link)

I have ranted at length about the 'moral relevance' of Star Trek and I have recieved comments such as:

"Star Trek was a good show until you fags tried to turn it into a relgion and made it all about this holy shit."

There are still even some people who argue that Star Trek was militaristic propaganda full of racial stereotypes and 'written by an ex-cop with an agenda.'

Gene Roddenberry wanted to quit Star Trek when the Wrath of Khan came into production because he was 'anti-war' and against militarism. He was against the Vietnam War and several Star Trek episodes elucidated that.

The "New" Prequel film disturbs me because of its lack of intelligence, as well as what it either says intentionally or unintentionally: the villains are working class 'miners' who are upset at the destruction of their world. It this supposed to be some statement about the economy? Only crazed psychopathic 'Romulans' would get miffed about the destruction of their world and go bat-shit crazy...because after all, they're just 'miners.'

There is no argument here about the alteration of the entire Star Trek Universe, and that it does more than alter future plot-events in multiple series, it intends to alter the 'dynamic' of social commentary of which Star Trek's character-mechanisms offer. To change Kirk, Spock into characters they never were originally, isn't just faulty or bad writing, it may be intentional, and it may be the purpose.

What was Star Trek JUST BEFORE this new Abrams Universe?

The 'other' Prequel Series, STAR TREK ENTERPRISE, whether you liked it or not, in my opinion was a return to the original path of Star Trek. Yes, I did just say that. Having watched the series recently, I know what I'm talking about. Yes, it has its pros and cons, the cons, being that one character gets kidnapped, captured or abducted every week, and the Enterprise continuously gets its ass kicked in space battles, and it had a couple slow episodes here and there...the social commentary was Warp 7, straight and steady...

One three part drama in the series was infinitely better than 10 J.J. Abrams Star Trek movies...it had a real plot, it had real social commentary, and to this day, I haven't seen any other show or movie come close to the allegory in this three part series...

It had my attention and blew my mind when I watched it last week. (I never watched the show while it was on the air.) I never imagined how Star Trek could return to its roots the way it did with this three part Vulcan Conspiracy arc...

Lots of people hated it, but for me, it returned Star Trek to its flight path, and then got cancelled, to allow J.J. Abrams to rape the hell out of it, and really, once and for all, REALLY turn it into propaganda.

The moral relevancy in the Enterprise Conspiracy Arc, was that it was 2004, and the country was shaky, Bush was president, and taking us deeper into a War we didn't want, and that was based on false information.

This should have been a feature film.

The set up: The year, 2152. 80 years after 'first contact' with the Vulcans, the earth has sent out its first deep space mission with the Enterprise. The Vulcan High Command has never been forthright with the Earth and its 'starfleet.' While the Vulcans remain Earth's closest allies, they consistantly show they are deceptive and may have a hidden agenda. While on his space missions, Captain Archer visited a Vulcan monastery to find its Vulcan monks held hostage while Andorians search for a 'secret surveillance base.' Vulcans deny it. Archer finds the base and makes friends with the Vulcan enemies, the Andorians. Later in the mission, Archer battles deep space aliens who have powerful weapons of mass destruction and defeats them with the Andorians, the Vulcans suspect the Andorians saved some of those weapons for themselves...

Now the story:

The earth embassy on Vulcan is bombed. Enterprise is called in to investigate. The Vulcans blame the Andorians immediately. Captain Archer refuses to believe the Andorians would have done it. The Vulcans allow the humans to investigate the embassy, where they find bomb parts with Vulcan DNA. The Vulcan High Command now says it is a Vulcan 'religious sect' who is to blame, the DNA confirms that it is from a member of this Suranite sect. The Vulcans take the opportunity to round up the Suranites. Archer's Vulcan science officer recieves information from her mother who is a Suranite where to find them. Archer and his Vulcan Science Officer land on Vulcan and go to their desert hideout where they live in caves, and follow 'Surak' the ancient Vulcan messiah.

Meanwhile, on board the Enterprise, the ships doctor discovers the DNA was taken from a child, years ago when Vulcans took their DNA for their DNA database. It is the same Vulcan, but it was obviously planted. The Vulcan High Command orders Starfleet to recall the Enterprise back to earth...they are preparing to bomb the Suranite desert 'compoiund.'

Acting officer aboard the Enterprise refuses to leave, Archer is searching for the 'culprit' Suranite 'terrorist.' The Vulcan Ambassodor to Earth is skeptical of the Vulcan High Command's agenda. He helps the Enterprise. He mind-melds with a survivor in a coma who was a security officer at the front gate of the embassy. He discovers that the head of Vulcan investigation into the bombing was seen carrying a package into the Embassy minutes before it exploded. They confront the High Command. The High Command accuses the Vulcan Ambassador of being a Suranite, and a 'deviant' for using the ancient mind-meld. They inform him of their plans to attack Andoria because they suspect they have WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, of which they have no proof. They censure him, and order the Enterprise to leave or they will attack them. The Enterprise once again refuses. The Vulcan Ambassador beams aboard the Enterprise to warn them of their plans to lauch a 'pre-emptive' strike against Andoria. Meanwhile the bombing of the Suranites begins, while Captain Archer is still among them.

The Vulcans attack the Enterprise and prepare their fleet for invasion of Andoria. The Enterprise heads for Andoria. Archer discovers that these Suranites are against their government, because while the government seems to 'honor' Surak in words, their actions are 'illogical.' The High Command refuses to believe in Surak's more metaphysical teachings, as well as logic at this point... The Enterprise disobeys orders from the Vulcans and Starfleet and warns the Andorians about the invasion. They assemble what little Andorian ships are available to head off the Vulcan fleet. Archer finds some Vulcan artifacts which might prove the Vulcan High Command are not true followers of Surak. The Enterprise returns with the Andorians to avert a war that will kill hundreds of millions of people, to fight against their ALLIES, the Vulcans. Archer takes the proof to the Vulcan council, and the conspirators attempt to blame, kill all their enemies, but the 'good vulcans' save the day in the end...

And from this we get a follow up, of some Romulan miners, pissed off, and Kirk is a sociopath, Spock is a smarmy stuck up jerk... and a subtext about how 'logic' is futile...

I'm sorry, but where are all the original writers of Star Trek to cry foul? Nowhere. Silence. There should have been an outcry from Harlan Ellison to the writers of that last Vulcan story... but nothing... because J.J. Abrams, like Lucas and Spielberg, are to be worshipped, and the mindlessness of Hollywood adored, and Michael Bay given alms. Down with intelligence! With Logic! With thoughtfulness! With Plot! Damn all you 'faggots' who think movies should make us all question ourselves and our world! You people are the enemy! We're going to set all phasers to KILL and laugh while you and your 'moral relevance' disintegrates! All Hail The Terran EMPIRE!

My New Science Fiction Blog

2009-07-09T12:17:00.000-07:00

In case you're interested, I've begun a new blog, where I will rant and rave, and dig up fossilized science fiction and analyze it.

http://confabuloidalresonances.blogspot.com/

My first rant is Star Trek vs. Star Wars...

2009-07-08T12:20:00.001-07:00

I didn't make this, but I thought it was funny:

Star Trek Viewing List

2009-07-07T15:49:00.000-07:00

This was sent to me, I assume to post here...I hope he has given me permission...he didn't say. Anyway, its an in-depth look at Star Trek stories to check out...

In one of the early Star Trek comics published by Gold Key in the late sixties, Kirk and Spock have to stop a mad scientist skilled in voodoo who is wrecking havoc on Earth by constructing paper mache models of buildings and then smashing them. Spock saves the day by concocting a voodoo potion of his own, handed-down in a recipe book by the Old High Vulcan Masters.

J.J.’s movie was a lot like that.

Many of the writers and artists for Star Trek comics back in the late 60’s and early 70’s had never seen the show, didn’t know anything about the characters, and got their information from very brief descriptions and still shots of the actors. Kirk was the captain. Spock had pointed ears. The ship was called Enterprise. Form a senseless plot around it and have Kirk fire his phaser a few times. That’s it. Good to see we’re back at Square One.

J.J. Abrams has claimed (loudly) that he was never a fan of The Original Series. Rick Berman had said much the same thing. And does it ever show. We’re now going on fifteen years since the last good Trek movie (First Contact). Like Khan, we’ve been marooned for a long time. So: my gift to future writers—or would-be novice fans of the greatest sci-fi playground ever created: the following recommended Star Trek viewing and reading list. Give these a watch or a read, and you’ll begin to see what all the fuss is about.

Recommended Viewing List

The Original Series—If your first (and only) exposure to Star Trek was an episode like “Spock’s Brain” or “Plato’s Stepchildren” you missed out.

“Where No Man Has Gone Before”

As the pilot for the series, it introduced us to the Star Trek universe. Besides the cast that we are familiar with, we also meet Gary Mitchell. Kirk’s friend since Day One at the Academy, Mitchell is Enterprise’s XO until he is killed at Delta Vega. Spock subsequently becomes 1^st Officer.

“The Menagerie”

A fantastic Spock back-story, featuring Captain Christopher Pike. Pike commanded Enterprise for a full decade before Kirk did.

“Balance of Terror”

Meet the Romulans. Real Romulans.

“Arena”

The one with the green-lizard Gorn. Great special effects are nice, but they aren’t what carried this show for over 40 years. Real Star Trek had at its heart a thought-provoking story. Galaxy Quest was spoofing Star Trek for a reason.

“Space Seed”

The one with Khan.

“Devil in the Dark”

Before he started referring to long-time fans as “dickheads,” Leonard Nimoy once said this was “Star Trek at its best.”

“The City on the Edge of Forever”

Joan Collins as Edith Keeler on 1930’s Earth. Her death keeps Germany from capturing the world. Very poignant acting.

“Amok Time”

Spock’s pon farr. Great backstory for Vulcan culture.

“Mirror, Mirror”

The Mirror Universe. Hail the Empire!

“The Doomsday Machine”

Very gripping episode, with nonstop action and suspense. Picture Matt Decker as a broken Jim Kirk.

“Journey to Babel”

Meet Sarek and Amanda, Spock’s parents.

“The Trouble with Tribbles”

Humor in Star Trek…it has always been a difficult concept. Writer David Gerrold shows how it’s done.

“Assignment: Earth”

Meet Gary Seven and Roberta Lincoln, some of Trek’s most enigmatic characters. This episode was originally planned as a spin-off for another series.

“The Enterprise Incident”

Romulan Commanders and cloaking devices.

“The Tholian Web”

Spock in command while Kirk and the USS Defiant disappear. A great sequel was filmed for the last season of Enterprise in 2005.

“Yesteryear” (from the Animated Series)

More great backstory on Spock and the planet Vulcan.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

The absolute best of the movies: superb acting, a rousing story, an incredible musical score, great cinematography.

From the 4^th season of Enterprise: ”In a Mirror, Darkly”

Manny Coto directed the 4^th season of Enterprise and, unlike Rick Berman, was actually a fan of The Original Series. Coto provided story arcs about prequels that fans actually wanted to see. This 2-part episode was especially good in that it showed that the original 60’s sets and designs—given the proper CGI treatment—still function remarkably well today. This was a sequel to the Original Series episode “The Tholian Web,” detailing the final fate of the USS Defiant.

The Best Movie Review I have Ever Read

2009-07-06T11:24:00.000-07:00

I know this isn't Star Trek...but it follows our theme here...

It is a review for Transformers 2, and you will enjoy the essence of it, especially if you hate J.J. Abrams and Star Trek XI:

Michael Bay Finally Made an Art Film

http://io9.com/5301898/michael-bay-finally-made-an-art-movie

An open letter to JJ Abrams

2009-07-06T02:12:00.000-07:00

First of all, Mister Abrams, I'd like to ask you a straight forward question, "What the hell were you thinking?"
Why would you want to destroy a franchise that contained fourty plus years of very rich history and well established continuity? When the news broke that you were going to helm "Star Trek XI," and that you were going back to the humble beginnings of the original series crew, I must admit that I was enthusiastic about this project. You kept assuring fans that you were keeping it "canon!" The closer the release date came, and the more I saw and read on the Internet, the more dread I felt. The first time I saw a photo of your out of proportion version of the Enterprise, I knew you were lying through your grinning white teeth!
This was NOT my Enterprise.
JJ Abrams, you made a big , expensive poop sandwich that you expected everyone to take a huge bite out of and accept it as "Star Trek!" Sure, a lot of people bit into it and made you and Paramount Pictures a lot of money. But now that the "new" is wearing off, more and more people are starting realize that the bad taste in their mouths is from that poop sandwich you served up on May 8, 2009.
Have you read this blog yet JJ? Have you read any of the comments on "Star Trek XI" related videos on YouTube? People who were lulled into a 'lens flare' induced hypnosis are now beginning to realize that "Star Trek XI" was really nothing more than an over hyped, contrived, plot hole riddled piece of crap set in an alternate universe created by Shinzon, er Nero!
You can use lens flares and overly lit white sets to make it look all shiny and new, but like my mom always said, "You can polish a turd all you want, but no matter how shiny you make it, it's still going to stink!"
You, Mister Abrams, along with Mister Kurtzman and Mister Orci should stick to television ( I must admit, I was impressed with "Fringe.") and leave films to the professionals who know what the hell they're doing!

Next time, I rip Leonard Nimoy a new one.

Confused Matthew about Star trek2009

2009-07-03T12:44:00.000-07:00

Hello there......

It's my first contribution not only on this blog but on a blog. So i'll test my "skills" by sending the conversation of Confused Matthew, a guy revewing films on youtube, & his pal about our favorite movie(Lol)

Matthew about Trek2009 part 1
Matthew about Trek 2009 part 2
Matthew about Trek2009 part 3

Have a nice week end...

Welcome New Contributors

2009-07-03T12:24:00.000-07:00

Welcome new contributors. You are now welcome to type whatever you want. Zany new pics, comical rants, more links to fellow JarJar Abrams bashers, videos, essays on Star Trek philosophy, Star Trek history lessons, crazy maniacal revelations about Star Trek XI, long tracts about offenses against Star Trek, Sci-fi, and modern film, whatever logically applies... Fear not whether people will enjoy these posts, there is most often somebody who does. You're all capable of reasonable thoughts on this subject, and related subjects, so I hope you will enjoy posting here. Type away. Don't forget to credit your post, as there are now more than one person flagellating here. You have the con!

But it made so much money...It MUST be a Good Movie...

2009-07-01T09:44:00.000-07:00

Oh, you must have heard by now...Star Trek (2009) made $246,779,912...

It must therefore be one of the best movies ever made, and have barely a flaw...

Let's examine this...let's look at some of these box office winners and really how good they are...

Some of the dumbest movies I have ever seen:

Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull : $317,101,119 (Total crap movie...)
Independance Day : $306,169,268 (Oh boy...nothing but the finest)
I am Legend : $256,393,010 (a total waste)
War of the Worlds : $234,280,354 (after this, I'm done with Spielberg)
National Treasue Book of Secrets : $219,964,115 (Damn that Da Vinci code...)
Mrs. Doubtfire : $219,195,243 (Mork and Mindy was better)
Mission Impossible II : $215,409,889 (at least it was better than MI:3)
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory : $206,459,076 (oh my god...)
Wedding Crashers : $209,255,921 (trash)
Armageddon : $201,578,182 (I see a trend here)
The Day After Tomorrow: $186,740,799 (definitely a trend)
Planet of the Apes : $180,011,740 (some are more equal than others...)
Tootsie : $177,200,000 (it just doesn't get any better than this...)

As a matter of fact, the most successful movies are cartoons, computer animated Pixar crap, then, really bad reboot/remakes...movies which are really bad 'end of the world' type fantasies, dumb sequels, and then there's 'feel good' films about prostitutes, cross-dressers, and men switching roles with women.

How does Star Trek fit into this? (Those are in the top 150 money makers of all time) Well, we have Armageddon script writer Abrams, who did a dumb sequel,(MI:3) who produced a crappy disaster/end of the world film called Cloverfield, and Star Trek is a bad remake/reboot about an alien who destroys planets, and it's practically animated with CGI.

If you compare Oscar Winning movies to Box Office records, you will not find a lot of matches there. There are certainly many good films that have been sucessful, but generally, on average, shallow mindless entertainment and cartoons make the most money. "Popular" does not always mean good. Hitler was "popular," that doesn't equate to 'good.'

The incessant assertion that it 'made a lot of money,' millions of people can't be wrong, is ridiculous. The problem with that statement is that people pay BEFORE they go see a movie, Box Office records do not account for "How Many People Wanted Their Money Back AFTER They Saw The Movie."

You don't Always get what you pay for. And now you can add Transformers 2:ROTFL to the list, its making a lot of money... must be better than Star Trek right? I refuse to watch that garbage, because I already know what kind of crap it is...the difference, I never really gave a crap about Transformers, so whether they remade it all is anybody's guess, and I don't care. Somebody said "Jar Jar Bots" in a review, and that's all I need to know...

Set All Phasers to "SHATNER"

2009-06-30T13:04:00.001-07:00

IT'S TIME!

Star Trek Parody Script

2009-06-30T12:58:00.001-07:00

There is a genius out there (at http://www.the-editing-room.com/star-trek.html ) who has written a parody of the new Star Trek movie... a must read:

FADE IN:

INT. USS KELVIN – THE FUTURE

CAPTAIN FARAN TAHIR watches as a BROKEN WICKER BASKET MADE OF METAL emerges from a BLACK HOLE.

CHRIS HEMSWORTH

Captain, are you seeing this?

FARAN TAHIR

No, all I can see are fucking lens flares! Did someone just discover Photoshop in 1998 or something?

2009-06-29T11:27:00.000-07:00

Here's another one of my creations for your enjoyment:

Problems with the New Star Trek Movie Reboot

2009-06-27T13:51:00.000-07:00

http://blog.adamnash.com/2009/05/17/problems-with-the-new-star-trek-movie-reboot/
by Adam Nash

There is a canyon in Iowa?
Was the Nokia placement really necessary? Did it even make sense? There are still private companies in the future? They still operate?
Wow! The Enterprise is really big now. Huge. How big is the crew? That Romulan ship must be immense. Kirk can just run around and find his way? It must be miles long!
Captain Pike decides to make a not-quite-graduate with 3 years in the academy First Officer. Really? Maybe they know more about nature vs. nurture in the future.
Sulu carries a sword around with him?
Movie jumps the shark when Kirk crash lands on the ice planet/moon.
- First, he plays Empire Strikes Back with the native wildlife (unnecessary).
- Second, he just happens to crash within a few miles of Spock?
- Exactly how close is this moon/planet to Vulcan, so that it appears huge in the sky of this world?
- Spock is placed within walking distance of a Federation outpost, and is waiting for… ?
- Scotty just happens to be stationed at this outpost?
- Spock doesn’t go with Kirk because he doesn’t want to hurt the bonding experience for Kirk & Spock? Seriously? He’s really taking this new timeline thing in stride.
“Red” matter? That’s what they went with? “Red” matter? Was this sponsored by Bono or something?
Flagship of the fleet goes to new graduate. I know there isn’t supposed to be a lot of politics in the future, but I have to think someone got passed over here and is kind of pissed about it.

MORE...

Maintain Course: New "Save Trek Site"

2009-06-27T12:31:00.000-07:00

There is undoubtedly a 'community' of fans who reject the New Star Trek film, and the enthusiasm is bigger than me and my blog. There is a detachment of enthusiastic fans who are building a new website to serve this community.

If you wish to help build, contribute to such a project, contact Section31Captain@aol.com who is trying to put it together. I would imagine they would have a forum, among other things which I cannot do on this blog.

2009-06-27T11:30:00.001-07:00

CGI Effects, Lens Flares, False Light

2009-06-26T08:52:00.000-07:00

Sean S. Photography said...: I would really like to know when "we" started to believe that SciFi was about the special effects and nothing else. I look at CG and half the time I don't buy it; it is like staring at a neon sign in a 12th century monastery. On the other hand, I look at beautiful lighting on 5' models and I can appreciate the technical details and skill applied while effectively suspending disbelief (and this is stuff from decades ago!). This "CG eye candy" has its place when it is used in moderation but using it to pacify the audience's desire for constant, pure and heavily adulterated "awesome" does nothing but detract from cinema as a piece of artwork.
First I would say again, we can blame George Lucas for both advancing special effects, and also at the same time making movies require more and more special effects to be entertaining.: The guy here at the left is Albert Whitlock

He was a master of matte painting famous among Star Trek fans for the matte painting used to establish the huge exterior of the Delta Vega lithium cracking station in Star Trek (1966). The painting was later modified and reused as the Tantalus penal colony from the Star Trek episode "Dagger of the Mind".

He was the last of the few professional 'matte painters' left when he worked on John Carpenter's The Thing.

The one thing that mattered to the special effects wizards of the past to make things 'realistic' was light. The way light reflects off real surfaces. Imagine the amount of artistic work put into a matte painting which is essentially a giant mural which will only be seen for a few seconds...Whitlock non-CGI matte painting effects shot

What makes CGI fake, besides the fact that it is made in a computer? Both the computer and the user have no consideration for the time it takes to make something look real, nor the aesthetic of 'real light.' No matter what you do in a computer, you can't get real light in there. There are no real 'reflections' on a screen.

The movie projector, where even incandescent light projects through celluloid, has a particular effect on the human senses. What you watch when you go to a theater is not a video, but nothing but light.

I don't remember who said it, or if they did, but "an artist is someone who plays with light."

Having an eye for shadow and light is the ability to create the illusions which can trick the eye. Computer generated images are both too easy, and ultimately used to save TIME. The cost of CGI is very expensive, and while you can have all your models on a harddrive and not a warehouse, CGI will never look 'real.' In 2001: A Space Odyssey, the effects still hold up, even Wrath of Khan...because real light is reflecting off real three dimensional surfaces and the eye instinctively knows by looking, especially while filming such scenes, that things look 'real' or 'unreal.' It is not necessarily measurable. It is the same instinct which Albert Whitlock and the now extinct matte artists of the past were proficient in. It is also what makes a good artist, the instinct for light. (Argue the metaphorical aspect of that later.)

Cinema is photography. It is 'capturing' the configuration of light at any given moment. CGI isn't 'capturing' anything real at all, it is manufacturing. Even capturing a small model, is capturing reality. Virtual reality, like the smell of plastic will always be fake, instinctively to viewers. You can suspend disbelief all you want, just as you can often tell a rubber mask, or model, but ultimately you can tell these fakes, again, because of the way light is reflecting...and the texture. Albert Whitlock was a master of textures. Dare I say it...'kids these days' have no idea because many of the CGI 'assembly workers' have never touched a real paintbrush in their lives. There are good ones to be sure, and even models are built before they set out to computerize everything...art still has its place, but the end result of LORD OF THE RINGS CGI looks the best, for example, because they used 3-Dimensional models and paintings as much as possible, enhanced with CGI. (But you can still smell the plastic.)

In Star Trek XI, CGI is not only used for just about everything, but it is used to 'fake' optical incidental effects such as lens flares...yes most of those lens flares and glare effects were added afterwords. You can tell because most of them have no discernible or logical light source in the frame...and while one can always 'cheat' with light sources...why add light flares and glare when there is no logical source for them...no light within the context of the scene for them to even 'be there as if the cameraman didn't notice them.'

Why would you make your movie look like it was made by someone who seems like they have no idea how a camera works? Most photographers use special filters to stop glare, lens flares, and unwanted light byproducts. Yes, they can be used for certain reasons, lens flares can be seen in many movies, but not at a constant rate of 1 every 4 seconds. Are they trying to cover up bad special effects, or add that "light" to their CGI plastic. Its like putting perfume on a pig.

They are attempting to 'solve' the light-instinct problem by making the movie look a way NO movie looks, trying to suggest to the viewer, "see we used a REAL camera....look...its an unintended lens artifact!" Yeah...nice try, its actually irritating, and so glaringly obvious that its pathetic. Albert Whitlock would be laughing at this ridiculous and feeble fix. Stanley Kubrick would be disgusted.

Need I remind you that the devil masquerades as an 'angel of light.'

The false light of the computer cannot be 'fixed.' It is what it is, no matter how many lens flares, no matter how much color correction there is. It isn't as if we have lost the ability to make movies the way we used to...or have we? Albert Whitlock and his generation are gone. Kubrick is gone. George Pal...gone. We now have J.J. Abrams and his ilk, and all he's really thinking is, "who gives a shit what it looks like, as long as its flashy."

J.J. Abrams and his cinemtographers don't play with light, they exploit it like cheap used car salesman...

Trek Magazine Propaganda

2009-06-26T08:45:00.000-07:00

Section31Captain sent this to me:

I just wanted to bring this to your attention; The latest issue of Star Trek Magazine has asked that everyone write in with their opinions and criticisms of Star Trek. There were a few reviews by regular contributors and not one was negative. We can see the Paramount propaganda machine at work here. So I am calling on each of you to write in and express your feelings. You can do so by three ways, e mail, an actual letter and post on the Star Trek Magazine page on Facebook. Here are the addresses;

Star Trek Magazine, Titan Magazines
8205 Santa Monica Blvd. # 1-296
West Hollywood, Ca 90046

startrekmail@titanmail.com

tinyurl,com/stmfacebook

More to come as I see it. Keep the faith my friends!

Kris

Sorry I Can't Help Myself: They Said "Jar Jar Bots"

2009-06-25T15:45:00.000-07:00

hahahahahahhahahahahahha!!!!!

Comic relief or racial stereotype? 'Transformer' robots called 'degrading'

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Thursday, June 25th 2009, 10:19 AM

Paramount Pictures

Robots Skids and Mudflap, above, might be getting laughs at the expense of African-American culture.

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Harmless comic characters or racist robots?

The buzz over the summer blockbuster "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" only grew Wednesday as some said two jive-talking Chevy characters were racial caricatures.

Skids and Mudflap, twin robots disguised as compact hatchbacks, constantly brawl and bicker in rap-inspired street slang. They're forced to acknowledge that they can't read. One has a gold tooth.

As good guys, they fight alongside the Autobots and are intended to provide comic relief. But their traits raise the specter of stereotypes most notably seen when Jar Jar Binks, the clumsy, broken-English speaking alien from "Star Wars: Episode I—The Phantom Menace," was criticized as a caricature.

One fan called the Transformers twins "Jar Jar Bots" in a blog post online.

Todd Herrold, who watched the movie in New York City, called the characters "outrageous."

"It's one thing when robot cars are racial stereotypes," he said, "but the movie also had a bucktoothed black guy who is briefly in one scene who's also a stereotype."

"They're like the fools," said 18-year-old Nicholas Govede, also of New York City. "The comic relief in a degrading way."

Not all fans were offended. Twin brothers Jason and William Garcia, 18, who saw the movie in Miami, said they related to the characters—not their illiteracy, but their bickering.

"They were hilarious," Jason said. "Every movie has their standout character, and I think they were the ones for this movie."

That was the aim, director Michael Bay said in an interview.

"It's done in fun," he said. "I don't know if it's stereotypes—they are robots, by the way. These are the voice actors. This is kind of the direction they were taking the characters and we went with it."

Bay said the twins' parts "were kind of written but not really written, so the voice actors is when we started to really kind of come up with their characters."

Actor Reno Wilson, who is black, voices Mudflap. Tom Kenny, the white actor behind SpongeBob SquarePants, voices Skids.

Wilson said Wednesday that he never imagined viewers might consider the twins to be racial caricatures. When he took the role, he was told that the alien robots learned about human culture through the Web and that the twins were "wannabe gangster types."

"It's an alien who uploaded information from the Internet and put together the conglomeration and formed this cadence, way of speaking and body language that was accumulated over X amount of years of information and that's what came out," the 40-year-old actor said. "If he had uploaded country music, he would have come out like that."

"Bad" Science Fiction Movies

2009-06-25T10:58:00.000-07:00

Star Trek XI was really bad, but not the kind of 'bad' that is even worth watching. I happen to like 'bad' science fiction movies, as well as the good ones. Star Trek fits into neither category. I have seen Plan 9 From Outer Space at least 15 times, and you should see some of the bad sci-fi movies I actually own. I can enjoy a not-so-good-movie anytime just as much as anybody else, but I can almost guarantee you that the new Star Trek XI fans wouldn't watch Plan 9 From Outer Space...not because it is supposed to be a bad movie, not because it doesn't have titties, but because it is in black and white, and is probably 'boring.'

Star Trek XI may end up on Mystery Science Theater some day, but it almost doesn't deserve to be... that is being too kind to it. That is giving it some sort of recognition, that one should even try to watch it, even to laugh at. It isn't one of those films that are so bad--they're good.

Star Trek XI resides in a pile of films not worthy of the title 'cult' films, nor even 'B-Movies.' It is cousin to Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes, the remake of Lost in Space, and the Godzilla remake. It is down there in the hole with Armageddon, Megaforce, (have you seen Megaforce? oh...it is really quite "Trek XI") and Street Fighter starring Jean Claude Van Damme. Many of these crap movies don't make any money at all, but also, many of them do. How much money a movie makes does not indicate any sort of quality whatsoever. It just means that x amount of people spent that much money to go see it, nobody knows why people will decide to rush out to the theater to see movies, it surely has nothing to do with whether or not they are any good.

I swear if I was able to meet Ed Wood tomorrow, I would seriously ask for his autograph and try to strike up a decent conversation with him. If I met J.J. Abrams tomorrow, I might spit on him, or I might glare at him, or I might point my finger and pretend to be Donald Sutherland in Invasion of the Body Snatchers... Or I might say..."Hey J.J. does that stand for "Jar Jar"?

Honestly though, there are a lot of bad movies that have been made, but so many of them are so worth watching for so many reasons. Many of them really are 'intelligent' films with really bad special effects. Many of them are frozen by bad acting, and many are poorly directed by idiots while good actors try their best. What becomes a 'good' bad-movie is a film that has something to say, and regardless of its terrible budget, it still gets its message across...or there are films which are fun to watch because you can laugh at the sillyness, for example, the Land of the Lost TV Series will stand up to its remake for a thousand years, though its basically people in rubber suits chasing hippies around foam rubber caves...(then again, isn't that what Doctor Who was?) As a matter of fact the Land of the Lost Tv Series surpasses (in both entertainment value, and even, dare I say it, provoking thought) Transformers 2, G.I.Joe:The Rise of Cobra, Star Trek XI, and many many more movies which are essentially Street Fighter with a 300 million dollar budget.

Oh, there may be some bad taste involved in watching films like Critters instead of Gremlins, or the Old Godzilla instead of New Godzilla, like watching Kingdom of the Spiders instead of Arachnaphobia...but the truth is, one of these reasons some of these oldies-but-goodies still are so fun to watch, is that they're made by people who probably struggled to finish them. Hollywood 250 Million Dollar Blockbusters are churned out like the pulp serials of the 1930s and 40s. How it has happened that low-budget films are better than the highest budgeted films I have no idea. Perhaps because they try harder. I will continue to watch old B Movies, and even enjoy the likes of Bruce Campbell, and Ed Wood because they are infinitely more intelligent than anything by J.J.Abrams or Michael Bay...or George Lucas. So what if the package is shiny and big, once you open up their products, you're stuck with mounds of filler on your living room floor, and the toy inside is the cheapest piece of crap you've ever seen. On the other hand there are movies out there with the worst packaging in the world, don't be fooled by the movie, "C.H.U.D." if you haven't seen it, I guarantee, on my father's grave that if you liked Ghostbusters...seriously, you will love C.H.U.D. But because you think you know what it is, you saw the cover of the video, you've heard bad things about it, you've condemned it as some sort of chainsaw massacre film...you have no idea...but you see Ghostbusters had a nice package, that without it, you probably NEVER would have gone to see it, and who knows, these days it is probably boring to the plastic-head text-messaging junkies of todays generation. (No lens flares, there's a couple 'long takes' in there, and there's a scene in there that could be too preachy...yeah its a real intellectual downer, that 'Ghostbusters...' Fuckin tried to make me think about shit... If this is as low as it has gotten...we as a species are in trouble...hey speaking of "Species..."

Star Trek XI: Where are the Black Men?

2009-06-24T14:27:00.001-07:00

Why Star Trek Sucked

2009-06-24T14:13:00.000-07:00

Mikeshea.net

Why Star Trek Sucked

Mike Shea, 11 May 2009

I'm going to try to keep this short so I stop wasting people's time. The new Star Trek sucked and it's sickening to see how much everyone else liked it.

J.J. Abrams has built a career out of pulling the wool over people's eyes. For his 5 years on Lost he has mastered the magicians art of misdirection, spinning the camera so fast and speeding through dialog so quick that you don't quite have the time to realize it's complete horse shit.

He does this again in Star Trek. From the first frame to the last we get nothing but explosions, fleets getting destroyed, people flying through the air, constant near-misses with death, people hanging over planets on giant spiked phallic Romulan space drills, Kirk on an ice planet running from a giant vagina monster, planets exploding, and villains with only a rushed two minute monologue about why they're not just crazy.

This illusion works well enough for most people to think Abrams cares. We get all the right characters and all the right tag-lines. Then we dig in and realize that for the past twenty years half of the Star Trek movies have been based on time travel. Granted in Star Trek IV they spun around the sun to go back in time, which was plenty stupid, but I'm having a real hard time with the idea that a Romulan mining ship can survive going through a black hole multiple times and end up only 100 or so years back.

The movie is full of these little "what are the odds" moments that, I suppose, most people hand wave away and exclaim "But it was so bright and loud! Who gives a fuck about odds!? BOOM BABY YEAH!". For example, young Spock shoots Kirk to some random planet and he happens to land within running distance of Old Spock. I guess the odds of that are either zero or 100% depending on how you look at it. In another oddity, even though the Romulans pre-maturely killed Kirk's dad in one timeline, he still manages to be a Star Fleet captain with the exact same crew. Though an absolutely huge part of his life changed, most of it really didn't. That's one strange twisted butterfly effect.

What bothers me is a complete removal of the whimsy and wonder of space. The new Star Trek is a whole lot more like the new Battlestar Galactica than it is like Star Trek, The Next Generation. I don't need constant threats to the human race to enjoy a movie. I want to enjoy space travel. I want to look forward to a future that isn't the bullshit fast pace of constant threat so extreme that no one can even spend a moment to think.

Star Trek is the perfect movie for the instant gratification shiny-object loving cellphone pod people we now call a society. And that works well for this movie because in six months, we won't even remember that it happened.

This work is released under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license. Please send comments or questions to mike@mikeshea.net.

Abrams, Theories, Bullshit

2009-06-24T11:45:00.000-07:00

Director says Beastie Boys song isn't a jab at William Shatner.

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1611878/story.jhtml

"The "Abrams Sabotaged Shatner" Theory: Some Trekkies have postulated that the new movie's inclusion of the Beastie Boys classic "Sabotage" is a subtle dig at the original Captain Kirk, who has been known to mispronounce the word as "sabotaage." "

"Yes, I have heard that theory," laughed Abrams. "It was so funny when I heard it. I wish I could say it was done on purpose, but it was not. I just dig the song.""

What an asshole. So you would have done it if you had only thought of it? So you do hate William Shatner?

"The "Throw the Old 'Trek' Off a Cliff" Theory: In the same scene as the "Sabotage" song, a young James T. Kirk drives a '60s-era Corvette over a cliff, leaping out at the last minute. Some fans believe that the car is from 1966 — the year "Trek" came on the air — and that it represents a statement about the new film throwing away the trappings of the classic show.

"I'm not sure if it was a '66," Abrams said of the Corvette. "But that was also the year that I was born, so I wouldn't want to do that to the year, for personal reasons. No, the idea was to show the renegade, young Kirk and have a wildly anachronistic scene where you had an earthbound, almost back-looking scene combined with a forward-looking futuristic scene technologically. It had nothing to do with that kind of metaphor."

Sounds like you have no idea what the scene was about at all even though you filmed it.

The "Kelvin Crew Knows Who Romulans Are" Theory: In the classic "Trek" series, humans didn't know what Romulans looked like prior to Captain Kirk's time; in the new film, a Romulan craft kills the humans aboard the U.S.S. Kelvin. According to one fan theory, the attack on the Kelvin leads to a slip-up by Abrams, because the human crew recognize their attackers as Romulans.

"It's not mentioned in the scene on the Kelvin, but they are aware of it," Abrams confirmed, agreeing with the sharp-sighted fans. "Because later in the movie, Kirk mentions that they were Romulan. And we very purposely begin the film with a moment that, for fans of 'Star Trek,' is a left turn from the timeline they are familiar with." For anyone who thinks they "caught" Abrams, however, the director is quick to point out the opposite. "For fans of 'Trek,' yes, the Romulans appearing breaks with what is known to be 'Trek' canon. But that is on purpose."

On purpose? What because you hate Star Trek and the U.S.S. Calvin Klein needed to represent the death of old Star Trek and the birth of your new bastard? Essentially J.J. Abrams didn't watch a single episode of Star Trek, and got all his ideas from Star Wars. He wouldn't know the difference between a Vulcan and a Klingon unless it was in the script.

Writers SAY they're interested in Fan Reactions

2009-06-24T11:01:00.000-07:00

http://www.trektoday.com/content/2009/06/kurtzman-and-orci-on-trek-sequel-online-fans.html

"As reported by Collider.com, now that they know that Star Trek XI is a success, co-writers Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci feel the pressure of trying to duplicate the success of Star Trek XI. "We're trying to do exactly what we did on the first one," said Orci, "and really find it from a place of passion and love and fun." According to Orci, preparation for Star Trek XII includes gauging fan reaction. "Another thing we are doing is reading what all the fans are saying online," he said. "We are kind of checking out their reactions."

Well, fan reactions except for this site...I am quite sure they'll never come here...

Serious thoughts From another Blogger

2009-06-22T11:27:00.000-07:00

Demoy (author of DATA RESURRECTION FILES FanSite) has this message:

Well, to join you here with glee in your idea that 'ST XI' sucks, after having ploughed my way through your mega site finally (and I thought I wrote 'epic' stuff!) below the link to my own more serious blog about it, since it's simply too long to put up on someone else's. Not to highjack your own site basically.

And no, for all those who would want to insult me too now, no comments are allowed on my own blog, simply because of idiots who insult the superior follow-up series, not 'crappy sequel series', like the first 'Anonymous' post put it so charmingly. And don't bother to come back here either to do so on this blog, (unless it's pro my own blog!) since I could ask the site owner to simply remove it and will not react to it. Which, I'm sure he'll oblige me with.

Btw, I love your 'anti-ST XI' blog, Phil, it's very, 'devoted', and witty. And you're right, first the old Trekkies got bashed for loving ST, now they get bashed for hating this new ST 'thing'. Seriously twisted. Once more Paramount have brilliantly succeeded to incite stupid war between generations of 'fans'. Thanks!

[His long thoughtful article about Star Trek XI can be found here:]

http://demoy.livejournal.com/

Live long and prosper!

---------------------------------------------------------

If anyone else has a blog, a site which is related, or would like to post their own articles on this dearly beloved Star Trek XI sucks blog, email Phil @ philsternwise @ yahoo. com

Send me your creative rants and rages, conspiracy theories, and parodies, and I will be happy to post them here, along with whatever links you have.

I am happy that there are so many people who appreciate my insanity, and I would be happy to give anyone free reign to post unedited opinions from whatever perspective you come from on this issue of "Star Trek XI Sucks."

If you've written a lengthy essay, or want a beautifully written post you did on a forum posted here, I will oblige.

You can send artwork, links to your own sites, anything you wish, I'd be happy to add it here because after all, how long can I expend hot air on this issue? How much longer can I bitch? Probably for awhile, but your opinions count too. Also feel free to use any images created by me from this site on your own blogs/forum posts.

Zero Reasons Why Star Trek XI is Awesome/Kicked Ass/Rocked

2009-06-22T11:05:00.000-07:00

The usual response from the super-fans of Star Trek XI to my rants, paid movie critics, or just ordinary people who post on their own normal blogs about why they didn't like it, BESIDES telling them to 'shut the fuck up' and calling them assholes, 'faggots' and 'old-timers' is just as tedious:

-It's an alternate timeline (add insult following this)
-There were women and jokes in the original series (stfu)
-There was action in the original movies ('you faggot')
-Stop whining about 'messages' and 'meaning' and 'intellectual B.S.'
-You're a faggit-trekkie, this isn't Old Star Trek
-it was 'awesome'/'rocked'/kicked ass(usually misspelled)

...and that's about it. There was of course the 'Joseph Campbell - Hero with 1000 Faces Argument'
but all I can say is, this isn't STAR WARS...

From the very beginning, and still to this day...there has been bitter vicious anger against anyone who didn't like this movie...I still ask why? I didn't like TRANSFORMERS...and when I posted about that when it came out...nobody really was upset...

There is no response from the fans...about why this movie is 'so good' even the critics who gave it 4-5 stars or 'thumbs up' wrote paragraphs about its flaws...yet still strangely 'loved the hell' out of this movie... it essentially comes down to one thing: people want their opium.

They want their giggles and kicks...and may anyone who 'questions' anything be damned to hell...

May I recommend to the Star Trek XI fans that they might get more kicks from HUSTLER'S 'This ain't Star Trek XXX' porno video...it has even more sex and titiliciousness... because Real Star Trek Really Really isn't for you...and might I add that you've been conned... because if you want to see dudes and dudettes really get it on, tell lots of sex jokes, and be retarded on board a spaceship... you're watching the wrong movie...

(Though I haven't watched it myself...I am willing to bet you all the money in my bank account that the above is absolutely true, and that you would undoubtedly enjoy it more...AND there is nobody out there on the internet bashing it...so you don't have to worry that there is someone out there that exists that doesn't agree with you...)

A Special Note to My Critics

2009-06-21T14:52:00.000-07:00

I was just reading some criticisms of my "100 Reasons" Star Trek XI Stinks...

My favorite and perhaps the funniest criticism, is that I repeat myself....

It isn't crazy enough that I have 100 reasons, ludicrous enough that I wrote that long a post, completely absurd enough that I have a blog called "Star Trek XI SUCKS"...

And I repeat myself?

And I repeat myself?

Ah yes...the 'lens flares' joke...

Could I be saying something in particular about the absurd amount of lens flares in this movie?

Could I be saying something about the ABSURDITY of this movie as a whole?

Yes, my dear 'serious thinkers' who have posted comments criticizing me here, (and since you didn't outright insult me...your posts stay...) you are right this is absolutely INSANE...

And I just absolutely love the insanity of it...

Why in the world should I even try to take the movie seriously (though I believe you are supposed to at some point...) AT ALL? And in this world of CRAZY BLOGGING, you can do anything you want, say anything you want...and its funny...they should be accusing me of plagiarism more than anything else, as (coincidental) strange as it is I have found many a BLOG saying the very same things as me... From 'Mr.Cranky' to dozens of others...

I hated the movie...yes...this is true...but more than the movie...I hate what it represents...and for all the ridiculous reasons I have offered, and many of them are outrageously ridiculous...(did you happen to catch those goofy videos I made?) The people who find them FUNNY are those who realize what I am pointing to...I have not labored to present a scientific thesis why Star Trek XI should be pulled from the shelves...nor have I presented a Trekkian fundamental argument of why this movie is anti-Trek (though it is)...

Look up some words in the dictionary to understand:

Mocking
Belittling
Making 'fun of'

The film insulted my intelligence, and though many of my jokes are possibly more childish than the ones in Star Trek...

I DIDN'T MAKE A "STAR TREK" MOVIE...

These are not lines from a Star Trek film I am producing...they're lines from a cranky windbag blogger, and that's what you get when you make a movie as shitty as this...forget the 'Star Trek' part of it...this thing is an artifact of stupidity for all eternity... The "Great Pyramid" of bad remakes/prequel reboots, the dénouement (pronounced /deɪˈnuːmɑ̃/) of a long line of terribly bad remakes... the ULTIMATE!

Why is there a website for 'Lunch Boxes' ? Why is there a blog for rummaging through Thrift Stores? Why would someone create a website describing 78 reasons to Hate Star Wars Episode I?

Well...because we can...and because we want to...and because we're crazy...so welcome to the real world.

I have met absurdity with absurdity...for absurdity's sake...yes...of that I am guilty...

(Also: Coming Soon: STAR TREK XI SUCKS: THE SOUNDTRACK)

Science Fiction

2009-06-21T13:45:00.000-07:00

"The first feature films ever made were actually science fiction--I am thinking of films like George Melies' A Trip to the Moon (1902) and An Impossible Voyage (1904), both based on stories by Melies' fellow countryman Jules Verne... Good science fiction films have been done to be sure, but the great number of SF films are nothing but monster operas of the worst possible kind, slapped together for the benefit of malignant kids."

--Sam J. Lundwall, 1969, Science Fiction: What its All About

Star Trek XI: For the benefit of malignant kids? I would say so. I just had an argument with a kid at work about the bad science in the movie, and he went to tell me about 'Joseph Campbell and the Hero with a Thousand Faces' and how it is 'science fiction' therefore they can do whatever they want...

Um... Science Fiction? Or Fantasy? Is there a difference? I believe there is...

But then again, I'm not 17, and I don't particularly glorify 'mythology' as something humanity should be worshipping...at least not if we're going to get anywhere in our future...

2009-06-20T12:39:00.000-07:00

Youtube wouldn't allow me to post the final chapter there, so I had to go to LIVEVIDEO!

100 Reasons Star Trek XI Sucked (81-100)