Film Junk » Treknobabble

The Captains DVD Review

Reed — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:36:59 +0000

The Captains Written and Directed by: William Shatner Starring: William Shatner, Patrick Stewart, Avery Brooks, Kate Mulgrew, Scott Bakula, Chris Pine The Captains is a documentary made for fans of Star Trek. It features interviews with the actors who starred as starship captains in the Star Trek franchise. What makes this Star Trek documentary unique is that it was written and directed by William Shatner, the second actor to play a starship captain. (Shatner replaced the first actor as captain, Jeffrey Hunter, who starred in only the pilot episode of Star Trek. Hunter has gone on to the final frontier, and so was not contacted for an interview.) Also the interviews were conducted by Shatner, who appears on-screen with his interviewees. On viewing this documentary, it soon becomes apparent that its focus is not on Star Trek, but rather on Shatner himself. I confess. I am a lapsed Trekkie. I suppose my faith waivered because I was disappointed in Star Trek (2009). Perhaps I couldn't let go of the fact that William Shatner was no longer Captain Kirk. I grew up with the original series, and William Shatner will always be my favourite captain. For many males including myself, Shatner's Captain Kirk was the embodiment of masculinity: he commanded the respect of those being led by him; he fearlessly encountered the unknown; and he attracted females wherever he travelled. None of the later captains for whatever reasons were able to highlight these characteristics in the way Shatner did in my mind. Even when there was a conscious attempt to emulate these original characteristics in the last Star Trek series to date with Scott Bakula's Captain Archer, the general public did not seem to take notice. Every Star Trek fan has his own favourite captain, though, so interviewing all of them seems like the best way to appeal to as many people as possible. The documentary opens with Shatner being greeted on a runway tarmac by Steve Ridolfi who is the President of Bombardier Business Aircraft, Bombardier Aerospace Inc. (Note that in the "making of" documentary on the DVD, he is misidentified as Pierre Beaudoin who is President and Chief Executive Officer of Bombardier Inc. and also the Director of Bombardier Aerospace Inc.) Bombardier, not Priceline, provided a business Global aircraft for Shatner and the Canadian film crew to fly to the various cities in which the actors were situated at the time of filming. Coincidentally, Bombardier is based in Shatner's hometown of Montreal, Quebec, Canada. (Shatner is the guest speaker at Bombardier Aerospace's 15th Safety Standdown this year.) Ridolfi is filmed telling Shatner how Captain Kirk and Star Trek inspired him to get into aeronautical engineering. I'm sure Shatner hears this all the time, especially when he interviewed scientists for his book, "I'm Working on That," and in the documentary, "How William Shatner Changed the World." But conveniently, this incident will be referenced by Shatner at the end of the documentary when he discusses an epiphany with Patrick Stewart. There is an effort made to vary the settings in which the actors are interviewed, taking advantage of the various locales. An effort is also made to visually introduce each of the actors in a unique way depending on the location. The most inventive is probably the introduction of Kate Mulgrew in New York which is done by surprising her on the street with Shatner hidden inside a large cardboard box. Multiple HD cameras were used, and sometimes rapid editing is used. The background piano music lends an air of classiness to the interviews. People who have watched Shatner's Raw Nerve television interview series will be familiar with Shatner's interviewing style. It can be intimate at times, and occasionally, Shatner inadvertently interrupts someone's train of thought in an answer. Since this documentary edits the actors' answers together, the flow is rather smooth. Still, Shatner's interview with Avery Brooks is the most bizarre through no fault of Shatner's, I presume. To be fair, perhaps Brooks thought the questions were annoying. I think Shatner makes the interview work because he goes along with Brooks' antic of answering questions by playing jazz piano. I think this is the first time that I've ever seen Shatner actually try to sing. The improvised vocal duets that he does with Brooks are hypnotic. In Shatner's encounter with Chris Pine, Shatner mentions that he enjoyed Pine's performance in Unstoppable. I still don't know if Shatner has watched Chris Pine in Star Trek (2009). It's like Shatner is wearing a badge of honour in not having bothered to watch it. Shatner's interview with Kate Mulgrew is the most emotional with Shatner getting Mulgrew to admit that it's impossible for a woman to be successful at both motherhood in real-life and being a starship captain on television. Shatner has a friendly camaraderie with Scott Bakula, and is shown teaching him how to ride a horse. It is no surprise that Shatner seems most at ease with Patrick Stewart with whom he worked on a Star Trek movie. One thing I find annoying in all Star Trek documentaries is the use of clips from the Star Trek television series and movies. I suppose these might be helpful for people who haven't seen everything like I have, but to me, it's just filler. This documentary occasionally shows a clip here and there, and they're not overly intrusive. (There is a strange use of a clip run backwards of Voyager going into warp.) For Star Trek fans hoping to see other Star Trek actors, there are short interview segments with Jonathan Frakes, Robert Picardo, Nana Visitor, Rene Auberjonois, Connor Trinneer, and Jeri Ryan. It's funny to see Shatner greet each woman who has been in Star Trek as "the most beautiful woman in Star Trek." So that's how Captain Kirk was able to land so many human and alien babes. In the past, Shatner has gone undercover at Star Trek conventions wearing a gorilla mask. In this documentary, he is filmed casually strolling through a Star Trek convention while the camera catches the surprised reactions of Trekkies. It's fun to see Shatner quietly sneak into a group of Trekkies in costume being photographed. I suppose that at his age, Shatner commands such respect that he doesn't need an entourage protecting him, but his bodyguards are undoubtedly off-screen and nearby. Although it's fun to see this convention footage including the requisite Trekkie interviews, one has to wonder if Shatner didn't think there was enough interest in the actor interviews to support the entire documentary. Or maybe he knows what Trekkies want to see. There is also a section where he interviews a fellow Canadian actor, Christopher Plummer, who did not portray a starship captain, but rather a Klingon general. Plummer's inclusion in this documentary has more to do with his time with Shatner at the Stratford Festival where they performed in Shakespeare's plays. The actor interviews are edited so all the actors are introduced within the first half an hour. Their responses are grouped around specific lines of questioning that reflect Shatner's life and concerns. For example, each actor in turn discusses how they got into acting and this leads to Shatner telling about his early experience of how he made audience members cry as a kid acting in a play about the Holocaust. So does interviewing the actors who have portrayed starship captains provide any enlightenment as to what it takes to be a starship captain in Star Trek? Stage experience is common to all the actors, but this isn't much of a revelation. There is also a discussion of how being the star of a television series affects family life due to the long hours. I don't think Shatner knows much about the other Star Trek series, and I don't think he spent much time reading about the actors he interviewed. He is shown reading a research folder on one of the jet trips, but I imagine he was hoping to find insight during the actual interviews. You might think to portray an effective leader that having experience as a leader in real life might help. But this is not addressed. Unfortunately, I don't think Shatner was successful at uncovering new ground. There is nary a mention of one French-Canadian actress, Genevieve Bujold, who was hired as the Star Trek captain on Star Trek Voyager, but who lasted only a week before she quit due to the long hours. It is doubtful she would have consented to be interviewed, but it would have been interesting to hear her speak as I don't believe she has ever talked publicly about her time with Star Trek. At this point in his life, Shatner confesses that he has been in denial about Star Trek and Captain Kirk's popularity and influence. He has been insecure all his life. Knowing that he had an authorized biography written in 1979 seems to confirm this. He probably thought that at age 48, he wouldn't accomplish much more in life. (On the contrary, Shatner detractors might see this as an act of hubris in thinking that he would have much to say at that point in his life.) I have read much about Shatner and the other actors, and there is not much revealed that I was not already aware of through other sources. But it is fun seeing the actors on screen and seemingly enjoying Shatner's company. There are a few short video clips of early Shatner that I've never seen before. As I mentioned earlier, Shatner does have an epiphany at the end of the documentary, and whether genuine or not (it's hard to tell when Shatner is being sincere), it is kind of heartwarming to hear, especially if Shatner as Captain Kirk is a "hero" of yours. Promotional materials have listed this documentary at 120 minutes, but my DVD version is 96 minutes. There is undoubtedly much unused footage, but the only extras on the DVD are the trailer and an 11 minute "making of" documentary. I doubt that someone not familiar with Star Trek would enjoy this documentary, although there is the interesting element of discovering what preoccupies the mind of someone famous in the twilight years of his life. If you're only a casual fan of Shatner, then you might be disappointed. It probably goes without saying, but if you're a fan of William Shatner, then you'll enjoy watching this documentary. And if you ever get a chance to audition for the role of a starship captain in a Star Trek television series, then I highly recommend you watch this documentary first. -- Reed

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Treknobabble #72: Dogs in Space: Charles Schulz’s Peanuts and Star Trek

Reed — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:57:07 +0000

Treknobabble is a continuing series of columns written by uber-Trekkie Reed Farrington about Star Trek and how it has influenced his life. When I was in grade school, a friend of mine and I co-created a school newsletter comic strip called â€œDogs in Space.â€ I believe the main inspiration was the popularity of the Planet of the Apes movies. I'm not even sure we were aware that dogs like Laika were used in early space flight testing by the Russians. Neither of us owned a dog. I think we simply needed another animal besides apes. Dogs were easy to draw and easily recognizable by their snouts and floppy ears. I suppose we could have called the comic strip â€œPlanet of the Dogs,â€ but I think even at our young age, we didn't want to make blatantly obvious what the source of our inspiration was. Anyway, this Treknobabble isn't about that comic strip. And it's not about the 80's film with Michael Hutchence. It wasn't even originally supposed to be about the dogs that were used in the Russian space program, but after a bit of research, I thought I should devote a paragraph or two to these special examples of â€œman's best friend.â€ Instead, I wanted to write about the connection between Star Trek and another of my favorite things, Charles Schulz's Peanuts and especially Snoopy. And I'll also be writing about Porthos, the real-life beagle that appeared in the Star Trek series, Enterprise. Before I get into my main topics, I wanted to pay tribute to the Russian space dogs. As far as we know, no other nation has used dogs in their space program. The Russians used at least thirteen dogs with five of them giving up their lives in man's pursuit of knowledge. Dogs were chosen because it was believed that they had the domestication and endurance to remain inactive for long periods of time. Stray dogs were â€œrecruitedâ€ because they had the further benefit of having endured harsh conditions. Besides, I can't imagine it would have been easy to get people to volunteer their pet dogs for the space program. When I read about the training, I thought it was somewhat inhumane. And without mincing words, the berth within the space vehicles was basically a torture chamber. When Laika was launched as the first Earth-born being to achieve orbit on Sputnik 2, the intent was that this would be a suicide mission. Her life-support system would fail after several days when the batteries ran down. Basically, Laika would suffocate although it was claimed that Laika would die painlessly. This is disturbing enough, but forty-five years after the launch, it was revealed based on sensor readings that Laika had most likely died five to seven hours into the flight from stress and overheating! I can only hope that Laika is living comfortably in doggie heaven. Snoopy is probably the most famous character in Charles Schulz's Peanuts comic strip. Like all dogs, Snoopy communicates through his facial expressions and body language. The great thing about Snoopy is that we are also privy to his thoughts through his thought balloons. We can easily imagine dogs having the same thoughts. I didn't think I would be able to find a connection between Charles Schulz's Peanuts and Star Trek until I serendipitously came across a post in the appropriately named The AAUGH Blog. (â€œAaughâ€ is what Charlie Brown would exclaim in frustration or pain.) In a Peanuts' strip published on February 7, 1972, Linus finds Snoopy sitting on his doghouse. He says, â€œI should think you'd get bored just sitting on a doghouse all day.â€ Snoopy's thought bubbles read, â€œOn the contrary. Who could get bored flying the star ship 'Enterprise'?â€ The post's author claims that with publishing lead times, Schulz would have had to have drawn this strip before the first Star Trek convention that had occurred less than three weeks earlier. So it wasn't a matter of Schulz drawing a strip in response to the publicity of the Star Trek convention, but rather that Schulz had an interest in Star Trek or at least was attuned to the growing popularity of Star Trek in reruns. During the 60s, Schulz had taken great pride in his association with NASA which had unofficially adopted Snoopy as its mascot. NASA had come to Schulz after the Apollo 1 tragedy and together, they created a Silver Snoopy lapel pin safety award. For Apollo 11, the astronauts gave the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) the call sign of Snoopy while the Command Module became known as Charlie Brown. Today, there is a five-foot Snoopy statue at the Kennedy Space Center. And the Snoopy LEM is still flying in a solar orbit (assuming that a Klingon Bird-of-Prey hasn't torpedoed it to smithereens), the only LEM given this honor. In 2007, Comic Con issued exclusive Wacky Wobblers: Peanuts Snoopy Captain Kirk, and Peanuts Woodstock Mr. Spock (WoodSpock!). When Rick Berman and Brannon Braga were formulating the Star Trek series Enterprise, they decided to add a dog as a regular Star Trek character. Several breeds were tested in casting sessions. Production personnel went with a beagle, its compact size probably being one of the deciding factors. I do wonder if Snoopy had been an influence since Snoopy is a beagle! Porthos was chosen for its name. Porthos was the name of one of the three musketeers in Alexandre Dumas' novel, The Three Musketeers. No significance has ever been attributed to why Captain Archer named his dog Porthos. Porthos was played by three beagles during the series: Prada, Breezy and Windy. Coincidentally, one of the last Russian dogs in space was named Verterok which is Russian for little wind or breeze. One has to wonder if it's realistic to keep a beagle or any dog on a star ship. I wonder if a dog realizes the difference between being on Earth and being in outer space. It must be disappointing for a dog not to be able to stick its head out of a porthole and feel the wind on its face. A beagle is a social dog, so I can't imagine Porthos being happy cooped up in Archer's quarters while Archer is away. Beagles are known to howl as well when they are lonely. In one episode, we did see Archer asking Ensign Hoshi Sato to take care of Porthos during his absence, so Archer does keep Porthos in consideration. We never see any other dogs on the Enterprise. Once a dog is neutered, does it not care about being in the company of other dogs or even about being able to catch the scents of other dogs? Adult beagles don't need much exercise but they enjoy walks. There was an episode where we saw Archer walking in the Enterprise corridors with Porthos tagging along. Archer was conversing with Trip and walking through doorways. I must admit wondering if Porthos might wander off without Archer's attention as beagles are oft to do. Thankfully, the end of the scene had the camera panning back down to show that Porthos was still around. As with his human counterparts, we never did get to see where Porthos went to relieve himself. Beagles are not easy to housebreak. And even with their short hair, beagles do shed. I wonder why we didn't see Roombas on the Enterprise. We did get to see Archer take Porthos down to a planet to allow him to run around, but I wonder if Porthos is cautious enough to realize the dangers of strange new worlds. I can only imagine what kind of contaminants that Porthos might leave behind on a planet. Beagles are good hunting dogs with a strong sense of smell. Porthos did alert Archer to invisible intruders, so having Porthos as a watchdog was beneficial. Their gentleness and overall good nature is probably a good asset in first contact situations. It's funny that T'Pol found Porthos' odor to be offensive. We can only guess what a female Vulcan would smell like to Porthos! In the new Star Trek movie, Scotty makes a reference to transporting Admiral Archer's pet beagle. People have actually asked the writers if the beagle is indeed Porthos even though Porthos would be several centuries old in dog years by the movie's time. The writers have answered that it's a different beagle but the same Archer from Enterprise. So Archer must like beagles. Besides Snoopy, I suppose I also have an affinity for Peanuts because I can relate to the loser, Charlie Brown. At the same time, I saw Captain Kirk as a role model. Could it be coincidence that both Charlie Brown and Captain Kirk wore a golden yellow tunic as their familiar uniform? (Yeah, I suppose it is. Ha ha.) I guess if I were to succinctly summarize what Peanuts and Star Trek have in common is that they both express what it means to be human although perhaps on opposite ends of the spectrum. From Schulz and Peanuts: A Biography by David Michaelis, here are some apropos excerpts from the cover flap book description: â€œâ€¦[Schulz] daringly chose themes never before attempted in mainstream cartoons â€“ loneliness, isolation, melancholy, the unending search for love.â€ â€œâ€¦usingâ€¦a cast of memorable characters, [Schulz] portrayed the struggles that come with being awkward, imperfect, human.â€ Star Trek showed the opposite end where teamwork and reliance on our humanity could direct us towards progress and achievement. However, this gross categorization would be simplifying matters too far. In Peanuts, we get to see friendship and happiness through Snoopy and Woodstock. In Star Trek, we see human foibles personified through alien villainy. Maybe it all comes down to both having a memorable cast of characters.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Treknobabble #71: A Reappraisal of Star Trek: The Motion Picture

Reed — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:11:18 +0000

Treknobabble is a continuing series of columns written by uber-Trekkie Reed Farrington about Star Trek and how it has influenced his life. When I first watched Star Trek: The Motion Picture (STTMP) in a theatre in 1979, I must admit that I thought that Gene Roddenberry could do no wrong. I was one of those Trekkies who were eager for new adventures after years of watching reruns. I think I watched the theatre screen with rapt attention even with the interminable fly-throughs of the V'Ger spacecraft. I must admit that I didn't clue in to the twist even when the crew approached the Voyager type spacecraft. I remember being disappointed by the simple resolution of the threat. And I did miss the fun factor even though I had thought most of the humor in the television series was hammy. Visually, I liked the monochromatic design with the gray and muted colors. I thought Star Trek needed a more serious, realistic look to counter the overuse of color that was used in the Original Series (TOS) in order to sell color televisions. The costumes appeared more dignified. I thought that it made more sense now that engineering personnel had special outfits. Also the security personnel now had head and chest protection. I had pre-imagined the all-in-one pants and boots as a visually appeasing look. I was probably influenced by the svelte appearance of Bruce Lee in a form fitting track suit. In our current day and age, this idea of the pants and boots being one piece seems rather impractical, but in the 23rd century, laundry doesn't seem like it would be much of a problem. As the movie showed, after you showered, you could have transporter technology â€œinstantlyâ€ clothe you. The new Enterprise looked beautiful. I liked the rectangular rather than cylindrical look of the nacelles. Wrist communicators seemed like a good idea although it may have seemed a bit retro because of Dick Tracy. Even though ten years had passed since the television series, it was rather surprising to me that no new technological ideas were introduced in the movie. Everything just seemed to look different. I suppose the airbus that brings Kirk to Starfleet Command was something we had never seen in Star Trek before, but it was similar to the shuttlecraft. I'm still trying to decide if I like the stick-shift on Sulu's navigation console. I will begrudgingly admit that STTMP was slow and boring. I did think that the fly around of the Enterprise by Kirk and Scotty seemed to take forever. We had an entity destroying everything in its path and coming towards Earth while Kirk and Scotty were casually enjoying the beauty of a starship. I was anxious for the Enterprise to get under way! I understood later that the excuse given for the fly around was to give the Trekkies a moment to appreciate what could not be shown in the television series due to budget constraints. The musical score by Jerry Goldsmith was without a doubt one aspect of the movie that was exemplary and the fly around did give one the opportunity to appreciate the musical score along with the hard work put in by the Enterprise modelers. Before his death, the director Robert Wise was able to supervise a director's cut in which originally planned visual effects were completed using today's technology. Care was taken to make sure that the added effects complemented the original effects. Also the pacing was improved through judicious editing. When I saw this revised version, I must admit that my opinions about STTMP didn't change. What has changed over the years is my regard for the movie's plot. I think I have come to the realization that it is very difficult to come up with an original plot or even an interesting variation. The lack of originality in STTMP's plot is often criticized. STTMP shares similarities with TOS episodes â€œThe Changeling,â€ â€œThe Immunity Syndrome,â€ and â€œWhere No Man Has Gone Before.â€ Comparisons have even been drawn to an animated episode, â€œOne of Our Planets is Missing.â€ At least Star Trek was copying from itself (although Star Trek stories can be traced back to earlier science fiction source material). And if one considers that a goal for the movie was to expand the audience beyond the loyal Trekkies, then the choice to expand and enhance elements of Star Trek that had worked before seems logical. Trekkies should be grateful that Roddenberry didn't decide to remake a television episode for the big screen although I actually wouldn't have minded this too much as long as the movie had retained the impact of the episode it was based on. I should note that in â€œThe Changeling,â€ Kirk saves the day by performing one of his patented mind-f*cks with the obstinate computer intelligence. I'm surprised that Kirk didn't attempt this against V'Ger. Ha ha. I do think that the use of V'Ger and its search for life's meaning is relevant for a Star Trek movie involving a re-introduction of the characters of Kirk and Spock after the original five-year mission. At the beginning of the movie, we find Spock attempting to attain Kolinahr, a â€œVulcan ritual intended to purge all remaining emotions in pursuit of the ideal of pure logic.â€ Throughout TOS, we saw Spock struggling with his human side as he had chosen the Vulcan way to live his life. After serving with humans for so long, we can imagine the frustration that Spock must have felt in denying his human self. The approach of V'Ger prevents Spock from achieving Kolinahr, because Spock's human half is stirred by the disturbing telepathic thoughts from V'Ger. At the same time, Kirk's own aimlessness at this point in his life parallels both V'Ger and Spock's search for meaning. After completing the successful five-year mission, Kirk had been promoted to admiral, thus consigning him to a desk bound position. At the beginning of the movie, we find a Kirk who is eager to once again sit in the captain's chair. We feel his frustration at not knowing his way around the new Enterprise. When Captain Will Decker confronts Kirk with a correct assessment of Kirk's actions, we are glad to see Kirk recognize that Decker is right. This reaffirms our belief in Kirk as the honorable hero. By the end of the movie, Kirk is back on firm footing as the captain of the Enterprise. When Spock realizes that V'Ger can never understand its purpose without the ability to feel, we know that Spock has also realized that Kolinahr is not what he needs. Will Decker makes the sacrifice to bond with V'Ger, allowing V'Ger to transcend its machine origins. The sacrifice is made not only out of duty but also out of love, because Decker will also be bonded with Ilia who had been assimilated by V'Ger. Kirk, Spock and V'Ger have all achieved contentment for the time being. Much fun has been made of the alien intelligence that found V'Ger, because it wasn't smart enough to wipe the smudge off the exterior of V'Ger's nameplate to reveal V'Ger's true name. I would think that the aliens would have discovered V'Ger's real name somewhere in V'Ger's data banks. If so, I imagine the alien intelligence might have a wry or whimsical sense of humor and have nicknamed the spacecraft, V'Ger, based on the nameplate that it did not bother to clean. After communicating with the alien intelligence, V'Ger might simply have come to refer to itself by its nickname. However, we are told that V'Ger was damaged when the alien intelligence came across it and the alien intelligence repaired V'Ger. Perhaps the damage had wiped all data pertaining to Voyager since V'Ger had no â€œknowledgeâ€ of itself except for the notion that it should transmit all accumulated data to its creator. But how do we know that the alien intelligence was corporeal? Would the fact that the alien intelligence was able to see the smudged nameplate necessarily mean that it must have the physicality to remove a smudge? Might it be so smug as to not bother to remove the smudge? There is some speculation in fandom that V'Ger in its damaged state had landed on the Borg home world. Thus the alien intelligence that had reprogrammed V'Ger was the Borg! This deduction seemed logical since V'Ger was no longer benignly gathering data. V'Ger had been transformed to basically assimilate everything that it came across during its search for its creator. One wonders if V'Ger was also given the unspoken motivation that the Borg have of achieving perfection. When V'Ger arrives at Earth, it sets up satellites around the planet and threatens the planet in order to meet its creator. If this movie was remade nowadays with our current CGI technology, then I'm sure we would witness scenes of destruction on Earth which seems to be de rigueur for science fiction movies. Perhaps the climax of STTMP would have benefitted from this type of visual impact. What made me reconsider STTMP was a book entitled, On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not, written by a neuroscientist, Robert A. Burton, M.D. His basic premise is that the â€œfeeling of knowingâ€ does not arise from conscious reasoning. From this, he goes on to speculate about subjects such as the ongoing debate between science and religion. People have this idea that Star Trek is all about science and how technology will provide all the solutions to our problems. Curiously, I think the message of STTMP is that science alone is not enough and not just because the movie had the audaciousness to show a transporter mishap. Humanity is special because we have a quality that transcends pure reason. Since Gene Roddenberry was a humanist who despised organized religion, he was asking us to have faith in ourselves rather than in some external deity. And in this movie, the solution lies in humanity. Burton discusses the myth of the autonomous rational mind and our understanding of objectivity. Basically he thinks people, even â€œsmartâ€ people, fall into the trap of thinking that any problem can be solved by reasoning. Philosophers have been tackling the question of the existence of God and the meaning of life ever since humanity attained consciousness. (Note that there have been interesting discussions of when exactly humans achieved a sense of self or consciousness, but I won't get into that right now.) Burton thinks that the meaning of life is one of those questions that cannot be deduced through reason. Many others have come to the same conclusion that it's impossible for the mind to know itself. I think this is the limitation that V'Ger encounters. Even when it is presented with the evidence that humanity created it and it fulfills its purpose by uploading all the data that it has accumulated while traveling through space, it still isn't satisfied. It rationally decides that it must bond with its creator, its God, in order to gain further insight into its existence. On an episode of Enterprise, â€œBreaking the Ice,â€ T'Pol solicits Tucker's advice concerning her pre-arranged marriage. When Tucker suggests that she subconsciously made a decision by postponing her arrival date, she replies with a typical Vulcan response that she doesn't allow her subconscious to make decisions for her. But as Spock discovered in STTMP after a mind-meld with V'Ger, there is a limit to logic and rational thinking. In addition to giving our lives meaning, feelings for which we have no conscious control over help us to make decisions. The scene where Spock reveals this insight to Kirk was not in the theatrical release of the movie. In order to speed up the already languorous pace of the movie, someone apparently thought that this scene was superfluous or at least that the expressed idea was not necessary to be explicitly stated. At the end of the film, Kirk believes they're witnessing the birth of a new life form. I would suspect that the resultant hybrid of man and machine would still ponder the question of the meaning of life, but its human side will allow it to cope with this unanswerable question. It would be interesting to revisit V'Ger. Like all good Star Trek stories do, STTMP leaves us to speculate on the consequences. Burton mentions a Terry Bisson science fiction short story, They're Made Out of Meat, that I think is amusing. Imagine a machine intelligence coming across Earth and discovering humanity, and trying to come to grips with meat that thinks. I think STTMP missed an opportunity to have V'Ger provide some comic relief. Ha ha. So, does STTMP deserve better consideration as a science fiction film? I don't wish to reopen the familiar art debate of a filmmaker's intentions versus what a viewer interprets. The well-documented difficulties that arose in coming up with a script for this movie provide suitable evidence for the reasons why there is a lack of dramatic thrust in the movie. Filming began without a completed script and both Shatner and Nimoy got unfairly blamed for being conceited actors when they tried contributing ideas of their own. When all is said and done, I think what an audience member gets from viewing a movie shouldn't be disregarded. STTMP is certainly a unique film. We often complain about the dearth of intellectual science fiction movies. I suppose when one tries to make an intellectual science fiction film, one is bound to produce something that is labeled boring and pretentious. I'm sure many of you are thinking that I've rationalized away or downplayed all the things that made STTMP â€œbad.â€ And I admit I probably am. Years from now, I will probably admit that my initial impression of J.J. Abrams' Star Trek was wrong. And I'll be calling it a masterpiece.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Treknobabble #70: Across the Star Trek Universe

Reed — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:03:45 +0000

Treknobabble is a continuing series of columns written by uber-Trekkie Reed Farrington about Star Trek and how it has influenced his life. You know when you find something that you like, whether it be a song or book or movie or whatever, and you want to share that something with family and friends? And you really hope that they share the same feeling about that something? Or how about the feeling that you get when you find out that the creators of things you admire are fans of each other? I've grown to agree with the familiar saying that you can judge a man by the friends he has. I suppose in trying to understand myself, I've been trying to assess the commonality among all my interests by looking at the people behind my interests. Although this may sound self-serving, I agree with Plato in his statement that an unexamined life is a life not worth living. Since this is a column about Star Trek, I thought it would be interesting to find connections between Star Trek and other things I love. In this column, I'll be looking at the sporadic connections between Star Trek and The Beatles. I was born in the '60s, so it might be natural that I appreciate things from the '60s even though I was too young to enjoy the experience of living through the '60s. Growing up in a small town in Canada, I was probably sheltered. At the least, the events of the '60s were filtered by the seclusion. I realize that the '60s were filled with turmoil, but as is so often noted, great things seem to arise from adversity. I'm a big fan of The Beatles. Not just their music, but as individuals. Part of their appeal was attributed to how each Beatle had his own distinct personality. It's interesting to see how each of them handled the riches and the fame. The worlds of Star Trek and The Beatles didn't seem to mix. From what we saw in the Original Series' episodes, there was no sign that The Beatles' music had survived to the 23rd century! Yes, I realize even if anyone at the time had wanted to include Beatles' music in an episode, the licensing fees would probably have been prohibitive. Also there was a stigma attached to pop culture that Star Trek maintained by dismissing the relevance of television and spectator sports as well. However, the Beatles' haircut did survive as could be seen in Spock's mop-top and Chekov's early haircut, I mean wig. Gene Roddenberry was not oblivious to the popularity of The Beatles (or should I say The Monkees, who were based on The Beatles) with the younger generation. Here's a memo that Roddenberry sent to Star Trek's casting director, Joe D'Agosta: "Keeping our teenage audience in mind, also keeping aware of current trends, let's watch for a young, irreverent, English-accent â€œBeatleâ€ type to try on the show, possibly with an eye to him reoccurring. Like the smallish fellow [Davy Jones] who looks to be a hit on The Monkees. Personally I find this type spirited and refreshing and I think our episodes could use that kind of â€œlift.â€ Let's discuss." Walter Koenig was eventually hired as Chekov because of his resemblance to Davy Jones, the lead singer of The Monkees. Chekov became a Russian after Roddenberry had heard that Pravda had published an article noticing the absence of a Russian on the bridge of the USS Enterprise. There was an Original Series episode, "The Way to Eden", that did address the hippies and counter-culture of the time. Kirk wasn't too sympathetic with the hippies, but Spock and the hippies grokked each other. Spock even played a musical instrument! Granted it was a Vulcan harp, but stillâ€¦ I suppose I should mention William Shatner's rendition of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" that he recorded in 1968. In 2003, it was voted as the worst cover of a Beatles' song in a poll conducted by the digital TV channel Music Choice in Britain. In the mid '70s, I found out about a project that had me totally psyched. Apparently, Gene Roddenberry and Paul McCartney were going to be working on a science fiction musical! I've read a source that says Roddenberry had initiated contact with Paul at Abbey Road Studios, but I also remember reading that it was Paul who initiated the idea. Supposedly, they did get together in November of 1976 to work out the story about an invasion from space that would involve Paul's group, Wings, and Paul as an outer space rock singer. However, when Paramount decided to go ahead with reviving Star Trek, Roddenberry abandoned his plans with McCartney. Roddenberry had suffered a breakdown from overwork during production of the Original Series, so I can imagine that Roddenberry thought he could only handle Star Trek and nothing else at the same time. A remnant of the project can be seen on the cover of the Wings' album, "Back to the Egg", that was released in 1979. The cover shows the group looking through a hatchway at the planet Earth from space. By the way, I find it strange that Roddenberry's authorized biography (and even an unauthorized biography I have) fails to mention this project. Furthermore, I dug out my copies of the Wings Fun Club fanzine, Club Sandwich, from the time of â€œBack to the Eggâ€ and I couldn't find any reference to the Roddenberry project. I assume the project is not apocryphal. A curious film entitled, The Beatles Meet Star Trek, was shown in the mid-to-late '70s at least in the New York tri-state area. There is speculation that this film was an edited compilation of clips from the Star Trek and Beatles animated shows that got shown in theatres that had cult films, revivals, and midnight showings. If anyone has actually seen this film, please tell us about it in the blog post comments. There is a popular Star Trek: The Next Generation (TNG) episode called, "The Inner Light", in which Picard lives the lifetime of an alien in less than half an hour as a result of contact with an alien probe. Now unless you happened to purchase the Lady Madonna 45 rpm single or The Beatles â€“ Past Masters â€“ Volume 2 CD, you might not be familiar with the George Harrison penned tune, "The Inner Light". I had assumed that the writer of the Star Trek episode had been referencing the same Indian mystic text that George Harrison had, but apparently, the Star Trek episode was named after Harrison's tune. In the TNG episode, "Redemption, Part II", during the Klingon civil war, Data commands the U.S.S. Sutherland. The motto on that starship's dedication plaque reads, "There will be an answer, let it be." For Star Trek: Voyager fans, there is a YouTube video of Tim Russ aka Tuvok helping to sing "Let It Be" at a Star Trek convention in Germany from 1998. At Gene Roddenberry's funeral, Nichelle Nichols aka Uhura sang "Yesterday". She introduced the song with, "This song was co-written by a dear friend of Gene's: Paul McCartney." In The Hippie Dictionary compiled by John Bassett McCleary, Gene Roddenberry and John Lennon are listed among the thirty-six most influential people of the hippie era. If you listen to Lennon's song, "Imagine", you can hear how this could be an anthem for Star Trek's future on Earth: Imagine no possessions I wonder if you can No need for greed or hunger A brotherhood of man Imagine all the people Sharing all the world Much has been said about the bromance between Kirk and Spock in the latest Star Trek movie. To my surprise, co-writer Robert Orci states that inspiration came from the bromance between John and Paul! Let me allow Orci to explain in the following paragraphs:

"We looked at John Lennon and Paul McCartney's friendship as part of our model for Kirk and Spock. They were opposites and they bonded very young because they both lost their mothers when they were teens. They might not have actually gotten along at the time had it not been for that kind of a bond. They were the only ones who kind of understood each other's pain about having lost their mother, so they were definitely an influence on Kirk and Spock. You know, Star Trek and the Beatles were products of the '60s, so sometimes you have to tie it all together. "The more you read about them, the more you realize how they each had elements of the other. The Yin and Yang each have elements of the other color within their spot. I think it depends on the day. On the one hand you can say that Lennon was the intellectual like Spock, but on the other hand he was also kind of the leader of the band, so you can say he was Kirk in that way. And certainly Paul had more of the Spock haircut and the eyebrows. I guess we'll be able to answer that one later, when we see how Kirk and Spock develop. "You know what? Spock is Lennon, because Paul is the optimist who can kind of see through the pain and still keep his chin up. That's Kirk. Spock is a little more fatalistic with his logic, as John Lennon was."

In the Star Trek movie, recall that Kirk loses his father and Spock loses his mother as a direct result of Nero's actions. I think I agree with Orci's assessment that Spock is more like Lennon. Lennon wrote the song, "You've Got to Hide Your Love Away", which is a sentiment that Spock would agree with. In a story last year that's not directly related to Star Trek, The Beatles' song "Across the Universe" was the first song beamed directly at light speed into deep space. Appropriately enough, the song was beamed through NASA's Deep Space Network that was founded shortly before The Beatles invaded America. The Deep Space Network is â€œan international network of antennas that supports missions to explore the universe.â€ With his typical flippancy, McCartney notified NASA with the message, â€œAmazing! Well done, NASA! Send my love to the aliens. All the best, Paul.â€ And with her typical optimistic dreams, Yoko commented, â€œI see that this is the beginning of the new age in which we will communicate with billions of planets across the universe.â€ I imagine Uhura should have picked up the broadcast at least once during the Enterprise's adventures.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Treknobabble #69: Make a Difference

Reed — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:33:37 +0000

Treknobabble is a continuing series of columns written by uber-Trekkie Reed Farrington leading up to and following the release of J.J. Abrams Star Trek movie. â€œDon't let them promote you. Don't let them transfer you. Don't let anything take you off the bridge of that ship. Because while you're there, you can make a difference.â€ - Kirk to Picard before Picard convinces Kirk to help him, resulting in Kirk's "death". Hopefully, when you try to make a difference, you won't end up dying like Kirk. But that's the risk I suppose that's worth taking. I guess it's the same message that's in the latest movie when Pike dares Kirk to do better than Kirk's father. And in a famous Kirk soliloquy from an Original Series' episode, â€œReturn to Tomorrow,â€ Kirk passionately says, â€œRisk is our business.â€ I've been in semi-retirement for six months now. And I can't seem to relax. My mind keeps thinking that I should do something with my life. The best years have passed me by; however, if my health remains well, I still have half my life with which to accomplish something. Being in a state of inertia, I think I'll most likely not do anything with my life. Even knowing that on my death bed that I'll regret not having done anything, I still can't motivate myself to do anything. I guess the problem is I don't know what to do with my life. I suppose I could take classes for self-improvement, but that wouldn't really make me happy and it wouldn't make a difference to other people. I suppose I could volunteer my time to help others, but helping individuals doesn't seem like a worthwhile pursuit in the grand scheme of things. What I mean is that there will always be people who need help. I understand that helping others is important even for the person who does the helping. It helps a person maintain his humility. I'm going to contradict myself now. It's important to help individuals. But for me, that's not enough. Looking back, I had the grades and opportunities to go into any line of work. I never think of â€œintelligentâ€ people entering into occupations like police officer or firefighter. I know I'm getting into trouble by being so frank. I know serving people in these capacities is important and I do appreciate the selfless nature that is required. Anyway, I've always valued my life too highly to put it at risk like these people do. Never was much of a talker, so being a lawyer was out of the question. Many parents dream of their sons and daughters entering the medical profession. Besides being squeamish around real blood (especially my own), I think being a doctor or dentist falls into that category of helping individuals which is not my thing. I like to engage in tasks that have some clear goal. Helping people live as long as possible doesn't do it for me. Since I had an affinity for mathematics, I found myself having a choice between a career in computer science or aerospace engineering. I thought I might find more opportunities with a computer science degree, so I took this pragmatic choice. While at university, I had the opportunity to work with the Canadian astronauts for some co-op work terms. There was a part of me that harbored the thought that I could become a Canadian astronaut, but being with these first set of Canadian astronauts made me think that I didn't have the â€œright stuff.â€ Besides the academic qualifications and high-risk nature of the position, the public relations aspect of being an astronaut seemed daunting. When Star Trek: Generations later came out, I was reminded of the uncomfortableness of dealing with the press during the scene when Kirk, Scotty, and Chekov are on the bridge of the Enterprise-B. When I graduated, I didn't want to use my computer science degree to work on databases for the lucrative bank or brewery industries. I managed to find a position writing software for biomedical purposes. This was interesting for a while, but ended up being a dead end job. So I switched into video game programming. This too was a dead end. Perhaps I've reached the limits of my capabilities, but I didn't want to spend the rest of my life working on stuff that I didn't care about. It's time to put away the plush toys and grow up. Part of my ego thinks I should be spending time working on a â€œcure for cancer,â€ but where does one begin? To me, the way the world runs doesn't offer much in pursuing that goal. Everyone including myself seems only to be looking out for himself. But I know there are people who are able to overcome obstacles, create opportunities for themselves, and succeed despite the odds. If Star Trek were a reality, I suppose I might think about enlisting in Starfleet. Exploring the universe seems like a worthwhile pursuit. I lack the confidence as well as a multitude of other attributes to ever be a Starfleet captain though. I'd probably end up being a red shirt. Unless you were a part of the bridge crew or had shapely legs, I can't imagine life on a starship to be too exciting. (In the Original Series, Kirk would often choose a comely female scientist to accompany the landing party. I love feminism!) Instead of making a difference, I find myself watching a lot of movies and television. William Shatner used to answer the question of the importance of Star Trek with â€œStar Trek is just a television showâ€ or with some other equally dismissive response. This was a good way to deflate the self-importance that many non-Trekkies thought people associated with the show felt. But to be fair, Star Trek does offer inspiration. And not just for future doctors, engineers, and NASA employees. When tragedy strikes, people look to entertainment to feel better. And Star Trek's vision of the future can give optimism to people during bad times. I've mentioned before how some episodes like The Next Generation's â€œTapestryâ€ have made me take a look at my life. I suppose it's up to me to do something with the message. I suppose people find the raising of children to be the most important aspect of life. If we can't make a difference, then at least perhaps our children might. And I do realize that every life is important in ways that aren't always apparent. The popularity of the movie, â€œIt's a Wonderful Life,â€ each year at Christmas time is a testament to that message. We can't all be Captain Kirk, but the U.S.S. Enterprise doesn't fly on his charisma alone. I've been reading a book called Happiness: A Guide to Developing Life's Most Important Skill by Matthieu Ricard. Ricard is a Buddhist monk who earlier had a promising career as a cellular geneticist. Ricard seems to be in favor of suppressing negative emotions like desire, hatred and envy. I wonder why the Vulcans didn't try this instead of suppressing all emotion. Is it even possible to suppress only the negative emotions while reveling only in the positive emotions like compassion and love? One might argue that you can't have one without the other, but I think that having an understanding of something doesn't mean one has to agree with it or express it. In order to put an end to the incessant wars on Vulcan, the Vulcan people made the drastic decision to put their faith in a philosophical leader, Surak, who taught the suppression of all emotion. Those who disagreed with Surak left Vulcan to found their own planets. The Romulans are offshoots of Vulcans. Surak seems to have been a good influence. War was no longer a problem. (Vulcans even practiced vegetarianism before the practice became popular with humans.) According to my understanding of Buddhism, happiness is leading an altruistic life. But I don't understand what a Buddhist priest accomplishes besides leading a peaceful life and spreading peace. If everyone was a Buddhist, nothing would get done. I mean the world wouldn't progress. Maybe that's what true happiness is. But that's not the type of world that Star Trek believes in. Captain Kirk would always be destroying computers that controlled worlds with everyone living in bliss. His argument for interfering was that living should be more than merely existing. Life should be about making a difference. Not just in helping others, but in pursuing the broad questions. Like the meaning of life not only within ourselves but in the universe we live. Note: Can anyone spot the non-Star Trek plush toy in the above photo? (Sorry, I don't have a nifty prize for the person who gives the first correct answer.)

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Treknobabble #68: Don’t Hate Me Because I Hated Star Trek

Reed — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:12:40 +0000

Treknobabble is a continuing series of columns written by uber-Trekkie Reed Farrington leading up to and following the release of J.J. Abrams Star Trek movie. Don't worry. I'm not about to defend my hatred of the latest Star Trek movie for the umpteenth time. And I'm exaggerating because I didn't hate the movie. I was disappointed by it. No, this Treknobabble is an editorial generally concerning how people react to movie reviews. So I'll be talking about things like people's tendency to judge other people based on the movies they like, and how movie reviews are perceived. Of course, this discussion can apply to other artistic endeavors like music and books, but since this is a film site, I'll try to focus on films whenever I can. Now from the title of this Treknobabble, you might think that I'm being defensive about my recent position on the latest Star Trek movie. But I understand that people weren't criticizing my opinion so much as criticizing my inability to express why I had the negative opinion to begin with (even though I acknowledged I was finding it difficult to explain why I hated the movie). I knew that if I started listing reasons without backing them up, then I would still be open to criticism. And I knew that my reasons were personal preferences that would be open to ridicule. And I didn't want to make people think that they shouldn't go see Star Trek simply because I had problems with it. If I start running out of things to say, maybe I'll come back to talk about the Star Trek movie. Ever since becoming involved with Film Junk, I've noticed that the comments on posts and reviews often express incredulity at how people can like certain movies. And people often impugn the film criticism credentials or even general intelligence of other people based on their opinions. (I suppose the criticism is somewhat valid if the reviewer can't explain his opinions.) Because of the impersonal nature of the Internet, people can hide behind anonymity and let loose their baser instincts without fear of physical harm. The inhibitions that are often masked in civilized society are allowed free reign. As a reviewer, I need to be careful to not let slip my general impression that people are â€œidiots.â€ I know some people are offended by the implication when some Trekkies say that the latest Star Trek movie is so popular because the writers dumb downed the script. So I can understand how some reviews can naturally generate negative feedback. People should understand though that intellectuals think the entire Star Trek franchise is rather puerile to begin with. Star Trek novels aren't exactly seen as literature. To be honest, my first inclination upon hearing that a person likes documentaries is to think that the person is intellectual. This is somewhat strange because I like to think of myself as an intellectual even though I generally don't care to watch a documentary. I think I share the average filmgoer's opinion that real-life offers enough reality, so let me watch something like beautiful people in outer space instead. Because most people consider their tastes to be wonderful, they will most likely question the reasoning abilities of people who do not share the same tastes. And I suppose like outward displays of prejudice, belittling others makes people feel better about themselves. It's a natural tendency for people to judge other people because they are different. When this tendency manifests in ugly behavior and physical harm to other people, we have words like â€œprejudiceâ€ that reflect negatively on the people who have taken the tendency to an extreme. Sometimes it's not enough to recognize that we are prone to this tendency. In Star Trek, there is a concept known as Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations (IDIC) that has come from the logically minded Vulcans. I suppose there must be an equivalent sociological concept that I am not aware of, but basically the concept emphasizes that everyone is different and that strength comes from integrating these differences rather than obliterating them. It's an idea inherent in multiculturalism. It's the idea expressed in the statement that â€œthe sum is greater than the individual parts.â€ I suppose it shouldn't be surprising that even Trekkies have a hard time adhering to the precept. Trekkies seem to be divided regarding the new movie. I get the feeling that the majority either loved or liked it. Across the divide, there seems little compassion for the others' point-of-view. Trekkies who liked the movie seem to think the naysayers should be ignored and even banned from forums. And Trekkies who didn't like the movie continue to rant against the movie with sometimes â€œminorâ€ quibbles that even those like myself roll their eyes at. Now I know I can sit here on my high-stool, or maybe that should be pedestal, and present myself with equanimity. And that in itself can annoy people. It's interesting that a logical approach to human interaction without concern for others' emotions can have its problems. This was amply demonstrated in the Original Series episode â€œThe Galileo 7â€ in which Spock is in command of a shuttle crew. When a crew member is killed, Spock does not consider the feelings of the other crew members who wish to bury their dead comrade out of respect for a human's life. Spock thinks logically that it would be dangerous to attempt to bury the crew member while hostile aliens may still be in the area. Perhaps Spock is right, but he should have intuited or solicited the feelings of his crew who had been affected by the death and needed time to mourn. The episode is effectively concluded when Spock makes a decision based on emotion that ends up saving the crew. Because people are passionate about movies, it's all too easy for emotions to come into play. I've taken to reading a book called People Skills â€“ How to Assert Yourself, Listen to Others, and Resolve Conflicts by Robert Bolton, Ph.D. Even without advice from an "expert", I would tend to resolve an untenable situation with words to the effect, "Let's agree to disagree." But this is often seen to be an excuse to avoid deciding who is right and even an admittance of defeat. Perhaps I should be reading a book about how to argue effectively. But I think I also need to read a psychology book about dealing with aggressive people who think only their opinion matters. Without getting into detail that is beyond the scope of this Treknobabble, let me list the twelve barriers to communication from Bolton's book. These are ways that people respond and that can lead to endless argument. If you read the Film Junk comments, then you will surely nod your head at some if not all of these kinds of responses. I was tempted to take examples from the Film Junk comments, but I didn't want to single out people or provoke further argument. 1. Criticizing 2. Name-calling 3. Diagnosing 4. Praising Evaluatively 5. Ordering 6. Threatening 7. Moralizing 8. Excessive/Inappropriate Questioning 9. Advising 10. Diverting 11. Logical Argument 12. Reassuring The barriers can be divided into three categories: judging (1 thru 4), sending solutions (5 thru 9), and avoiding the other's concerns (10 thru 12). Now some of these may sound like appropriate kinds of responses like reassuring. If you're really curious about why reassuring can be a bad thing, I suggest you find a copy of Bolton's book. (Interestingly, Bolton is astute to state that a thirteenth barrier would be to point out to someone that they are using these barriers. People generally don't like to be told what to do or to feel like they're being taught a lesson. One of the main criticisms of the Original Series is its tendency to moralize.) When discussing a movie, it's all too easy to start a real-world debate about a topic that a movie presents either in a scene (date-rape for example) or as a thematic whole (religion for example). These discussions are none too-satisfying, because unless they are moderated like a debate, we get the same points repeated from both sides (often in unclear statements by nature of people's poor communication skills) ad nauseam because of no time limits. And both sides often have valid points, but the problem is that each side thinks its valid points add up to a clear decision when in actuality, the decision is based on individual personalities. It's all too easy to call someone a hypocrite or a devil's advocate. But people are complicated. They should be allowed to be inconsistent and biased. They should be allowed to change their minds. Unfortunately, when you're a film reviewer, people like to be able to value your consistent opinion so that they can use your judgment in deciding whether it's worth their time and money to see a film. Some reviewers with an extensive background in analyzing films and with a thorough knowledge of film history are generally ignored when they review films out of the mainstream. When they do review popular films, audiences tend to ignore their obvious high-brow opinions. I have yet to read a favorable review of a Wayans film (from any Wayans generation), but Wayans' films obviously make money, or else we wouldn't be constantly seeing advertisements for them. I guess film reviewers feel obligated to review these movies since people are expecting the movies to be reviewed even though the reviews will be generally ignored. I've asked Sean and Jay why we don't review movies like 17 Again and Hannah Montana, and they freely admit that they won't enjoy these movies, so why bother reviewing them? Whenever Siskel & Ebert used to review Star Trek movies, they always seemed patronizing in that they didn't consider the Star Trek movies to be of any worth except as â€œcomfort foodâ€ for Trekkies. I think they would even relax their standards. Ebert commented that it was nice to see the Star Trek crew / family every few years in a movie. He would generally give a thumbs up. Until I saw the new Star Trek, it was surprising to me that Ebert, who is not a Trekkie, gave a generally negative review of it. I think I had admired Ebert's opinion ever since he gave a thumbs up to Swamp Thing with Adrienne Barbeau (John Carpenter's wife at the time, I believe). When I eventually saw Swamp Thing, I wasn't too impressed, but it impressed me that someone who appreciated Citizen Kane could also appreciate a low-budget schlock movie. I don't think that one has to appreciate the films that are generally regarded as classics in order to be able to assess films for the general public. Modern audiences are often criticized for their short attention spans. Filmmakers like Michael Bay are generally derided by film reviewers even though Bay's films are generally loved by the mass audience. Many reviewers often concede that when they review a â€œbadâ€ film, they're sure there is still an audience for it. I would love to find a reviewer who only loves â€œbadâ€ films. I bet he/she would be really popular. Let me get back to one aspect of the latest Star Trek movie. This will hopefully illustrate the difficulty in expressing an opinion that most people don't seem to agree with although many critics do concede the point and enjoyed Star Trek nevertheless. I think the script for Star Trek is ordinary. I did not find the alternate timeline / reality to be a clever way to reboot Star Trek. I realize that alternate timelines have been speculated upon in quantum theory, but the way Spock Prime deals with the situation is inconsistent with established Star Trek lore. Wait, as I'm thinking, I'm beginning to rationalize that maybe Spock Prime was somewhat helpless and did the best he could to make sure that events in his original timeline would eventually stay the same. I suppose I could get sidetracked in a discussion of time-travel that would cause its own debate. Needless to say, I don't think they should have gone the way of time-travel. On the whole consistency issue, people have said that Star Trek is fantasy with its warp-drive and dilithium crystals, but Star Trek tries to be consistent with its technology and tries to give its technology a scientific underpinning. This â€œrealismâ€ is often cited when crediting Star Trek's popularity to the notion that people imagine Star Trek to be representative of humanity's future. Now, I suppose if you want to make Star Trek exciting for a new generation, then you can start ignoring Star Trek's history, but don't tell me not to get upset when my belief system is disturbed! (And for those who think that Star Trek is only a movie, it's more than that. It's also a television series! :)) I think the story moved too fast in establishing the crew on the Enterprise. I understand that the idea was to highlight some key points to establish the characters of Kirk and Spock while keeping the pace of the movie quick. If I were to accept that a reboot was necessary, perhaps I would have preferred starting the crew into a new and clever story. Maybe this would necessitate having flashbacks which I generally don't like. I don't know. But am I obligated to tell you an alternate way that the reboot should have been handled in order to justify my opinion that the script was ordinary? All the references to the original Star Trek got annoying for me. I would have been happier if the script had added to the Star Trek mythology instead of cloyingly pandering to nostalgia. A few callbacks to the original would have been fine. I realize that it was a tough balance for the filmmakers to satisfy fans as well as people unfamiliar with the franchise. For me, they didn't add anything new and something fresh and new was what I was expecting. In writing my Star Trek review, I felt like it was a Kobayashi Maru. That is, a no-win scenario. I attempted to take a few paragraphs in this column to expand on an opinion and explain the difficulties in supporting it, but I don't think I adequately succeeded. In summary, I don't expect people to not judge other people based on their taste in movies. But I would hope people would use some self-control like the Vulcans do in controlling their emotions. Otherwise, their comments will only fall on deaf, pointed ears.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Treknobabble #67: Ramblings of a Delusional Trekkie

Reed — Wed, 27 May 2009 16:11:24 +0000

Treknobabble is a continuing series of columns written by uber-Trekkie Reed Farrington leading up to and following the release of J.J. Abrams Star Trek movie. Attention: Due to the sensitive nature of suicide, I feel I should clarify that the accompanying photograph is intended to be humorous. Besides, the phaser was set on stun, although at that range, if it had accidentally fired, I would have been out for a day. I've been reading opinions about the Star Trek movie since it opened over two weeks ago. And I've been hoping for inspiration for the topic of this Treknobabble. I was going to let Treknobabble rest for a while and continue to write Killer Import reviews, but I haven't seen any recent foreign movies worth writing about. So I'm trying something different with this Treknobabble in that I'm not going to edit what I write. It's getting late so I don't really want to start researching anything or compiling any notes. I thought I would ramble conversationally, giving myself a time limit of 60 minutes. Despite suggestions from Film Junk readers, I still haven't found any informative or insightful reviews of Star Trek, yet. Everyone keeps on saying the same thing without fully explaining themselves. In my opinion, with a movie like Star Trek, there isn't much to discuss beyond the intricate details that Trekkies love to obsess about. And before I get accused of whining, or start repeating myself, I'm not going to address ill-conceived statements that reviewers and Film Junk readers constantly make. Wait, now I'm thinking if I don't mention some of these statements specifically, people are going to think I'm writing without really saying anything. But I don't know how to convince people. There are arguments on both sides of everything. Perhaps I am being narrow-minded. Okay, I'm rambling, but I did put the word â€œramblingâ€ in the title so I'm allowed to ramble. Let me take issue with the statement that Star Trek was stagnating and that Enterprise was an awful television series that proved it. Executive producers Rick Berman and Brannon Braga were unfairly maligned for the failure of Enterprise, but they valiantly tried to make Enterprise into a different kind of Star Trek. First of all, they removed the words â€œStar Trekâ€ from the title of the series! Who would have thought that the proper thing to do would have been to name the series â€œStar Trekâ€ and leave the sub-title out? They even had the humility to admit their mistake and added the words â€œStar Trekâ€ back into the title to no avail. How about using a pop song, â€œFaith of the Heart,â€ as the main theme? And sung by an operatic singer, too. Okay, I haven't heard anyone who has liked this move. Or maybe it was the song itself that was the problem. Perhaps a Beastie Boys song might have worked better. In Enterprise, we got to see Star Trek at the beginning stages of space travel. We get to see initial difficulties with the Vulcans. There were some intriguing opportunities that Enterprise wasted or didn't execute nicely. Perhaps they should have skipped all the interesting opportunities and instead should have jumped ahead quickly to the 23rd century. Dedicated Trekkies complained about some canon inconsistencies like Klingons flying the wrong class of ships. Enterprise did hint at interference from aliens from the future, but this storyline was never fleshed out and it was eventually abandoned. Perhaps the writers would have returned to this had the series lasted longer. I guess they should have just explained in the Enterprise pilot that the series was showing an alternate reality. (Many people think that the use of an alternate timeline in the Star Trek movie was ingenious for rebooting the franchise. Only a science fiction newbie would think so. Sorry, Jay.) When the number of viewers was lacking, Enterprise tried something different in the third season. Besides making T'Pol's hair and make-up more attractive, Enterprise had a season long story arc, chasing aliens who had destroyed a part of the Earth. There was an obvious parallel to the terrorism of 9/11. Perhaps this allegory was too demanding for viewers who wanted to see explosions in space. Okay, so the excitement of space exploration never got properly translated on screen, but there were signs in the fourth season with a new Executive Producer, Manny Coto, that things would get better. I especially loved seeing Archer and T'Pol running on the surface of Vulcan. I can't remember what they were running from, but they didn't steal The Phantom Menace gag of a larger monster overtaking a smaller monster during a chase. I think part of the problem with Enterprise is that there was a stable of television writers that Enterprise depended on for ideas. Long gone were the days when ideas would be solicited from science fiction writers or even from anyone who thought they had a good idea. With the rebooted Star Trek movie franchise, I'm afraid we're in the same rut again, but the names have changed to Lindelof, Orci, and Kurtzman. I have nothing against these guys, but Star Trek continually needs fresh talent. Now that my time limit is up, I see that I wrote mainly about â€œStar Trek: Enterpriseâ€ while putting a few impolite digs into the new movie. I suppose some of you want me to lose my Vulcan composure while others don't want to hear another Trekkie rant. In an alternate timeline or reality, this Treknobabble would have been called, â€œStar Trek: Enterprise â€“ Not Anyone in Your Family's Star Trek.â€

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Treknobabble #66: The Needs of the Many: A Star Trek Review

Reed — Sun, 17 May 2009 20:13:05 +0000

Treknobabble is a continuing series of columns written by uber-Trekkie Reed Farrington in anticipation of the upcoming J.J. Abrams Star Trek movie. â€œNobody can go back and start a new beginning, but anyone can start today and make a new ending.â€ - Maria Robinson. It has been over a week since the future began. Disappointment. In a word, that's what I felt by the time the ending credits started to play for the new Star Trek film. Despite the probable irrelevance of my opinions and the superfluous nature of another Star Trek review, I feel obligated to review the film given that this column, Treknobabble, was started in anticipation of the film. I have been ruminating and trying to put some perspective on my disappointment before committing my opinions into words. Was it the heavy anticipation that created unrealistic expectations, especially after the ecstatic reactions from preview audiences? I did enjoy Star Trek to some extent, but if it wasn't a film set in the Star Trek milieu, I would have enjoyed it less. So I am sort of wondering why other people are raving about the film and wondering why the majority of reviewers have been effusive with their praise as well. I had read that some news outlets were looking to film some reactions from Trekkies who dislike the film, because a sensationalistic headline could easily be applied to this newsworthy type of story. I feel as though some Trekkies are even expected to have a strong negative reaction opposite to popular opinion. The Onion hilariously made a false news story with this expectation. It feels like my opinion is reactionary and without any validity. Knowing that I have this Promethean task ahead of me, I must credibly argue why the majority of people have this mass delusion of thinking that Star Trek is wonderful. And then I realized the futility of rationalizing my opinion. I cannot deny that people enjoyed Star Trek. I wish I could be flippant and cite Talosian interference. I suppose if the majority of the opinions were negative towards the film, I might defend the film and highlight some of its merits instead, but I would hope that I would concede that the film was â€œbad.â€ (After all, I am one of the few Trekkies who defend the fifth Star Trek film that won the Razzie Award for the worst film of the year.) I didn't want to repeat all the things that have been covered in other reviews. I wanted to find a new angle at which I could approach this review. One of my thoughts was to dispassionately dissect the film scene by scene. But I thought that might get too didactic of which Star Trek has always been accused. One interesting approach was to delve into what makes a movie fun and to provide an academic psychological perspective. But I couldn't easily find any reference material on which to base my opinions. And then I came up with the perfect approach! I'll reveal my approach at the end of this review in case it's not apparent by the end. Before I talk about Star Trek, I should comment on the concepts of what makes a film entertaining as opposed to what makes a film â€œimportant.â€ I believe that what makes a film entertaining is subjective. You can be entertained by Star Trek whereas I may not be, and neither of us would be wrong. I believe what makes a film â€œimportantâ€ is objective; however, a problem arises if we can't reach a consensus as to what makes a film â€œimportant.â€ With a review being a one-sided conversation, if you don't agree with what I think is entertaining or â€œimportant,â€ then I can understand why you would not agree with me in thinking that Star Trek is â€œbad.â€ With that said, I'm not here to convince you that Star Trek is â€œbad.â€ Star Trek's story is simple. It's a revenge story. Variations of it have been done in past Star Trek stories. The Wrath of Khan, arguably the most popular Star Trek film, was a revenge story. Some people have said that over Star Trek's 40 year history, Star Trek has told every story imaginable. I would disagree, but I would be hard-pressed to come up with an original story myself. I suppose there are a limited number of basic stories, but it's the nuances in the way a story is told that make the retelling of stories so enjoyable. The introduction is typical for a Star Trek film and I suspect it will be the most boring part for general audiences. We are then shown a few moments in Kirk's life interspersed with a few moments in Spock's life before they encounter each other at Starfleet Academy. And then the remainder of the film is composed of action set-pieces held together by a straight-forward narrative as Kirk, Spock and crew deal with Nero, a Romulan villain. Coincidences are a part of everyday life and I normally excuse them in films in order to allow myself to be entertained except when a film is plot-driven. For example, if the movie is a comedy, then I'll overlook a coincidence for the price of a laugh; however, in a thriller, if a mystery in a plot is solved through coincidence, then I'll tend to be disappointed. In Star Trek, the writers have explained away the coincidences by stating that the universe was conspiring to arrange things in the way they occurred in other timelines. Some people think that the introduction of an alternative timeline was clever in order to accommodate Star Trek fans who feared that their revered Star Trek canon would be negated. I don't accept that it was necessary to reboot Star Trek in order to add an element of unpredictability. In literary and film criticism, the significance of new works relies on their ability to reference the classics either metaphorically or through continuation of past themes. I don't mind that this Star Trek does not follow canon, but I would have preferred if it had, because there potentially would have been greater meaning in the story. I suppose in trying to reach a greater audience, the new Star Trek film loses the opportunity for a more enriching experience for Trekkies. One thing I did not like is that the changes in Star Trek canon did not seem to me to be an improvement. Perhaps the changes offered an opportunity for different stories in later movies, but sticking to canon would not have ruined the film for general audiences. I know it's easy to counter my argument so let's just leave this as my subjective opinion. There was very little in the film that seemed fresh or new to me. I had previously seen all the promotional clips and previews from the film, but there was nothing fresh or new in these clips and previews either. I was not awed by the visual effects. In fact, I wonder where they spent the 150 million dollars. Most critics acknowledge that the story is lacking. I may be exaggerating here, but Star Trek felt to me like a well-made fan film. I didn't feel any suspense or tension. I was prepared for a thrill-ride, but the conclusion was definitely a let-down. All the nods to the fans were fine, but I wanted something new! As far as empty calories go, I didn't enjoy the aftertaste. I am happy that so many non-fans have embraced the new Star Trek film even though I have no illusions that any of them will take the time to investigate any of the previous available Star Trek material and appreciate the richness to be found. I do realize that Star Trek was meant to attract people outside of its core audience. And in that respect, it has succeeded admirably. Were future Star Trek movies not to incorporate the virtuousness of the Star Trek ethos, I think I will be disappointed even further, but if Star Trek is able to continue as a result, then who am I to stand in the way of the universe? I know I haven't talked much about the film itself. I haven't talked about the enjoyable aspects that would have undercut my thesis that Star Trek is â€œbad.â€ And I haven't explained in detail why the Star Trek film is â€œbad.â€ I could say that the film was so â€œbadâ€ that it left me without anything to say about it. Maybe the film is â€œgood.â€ And maybe I don't care enough to convince you that Star Trek is â€œbad.â€ Or maybe my evidence is groundless. So, for the sake of my sanity, my approach to this review was to avoid reviewing the movie. (I think I need therapy.) Many of my quibbles can be excused if one lays out a defense with the main arguments being that this film is a reboot and it's a summer block-buster. That is, the only requirement for the story was to re-introduce the characters in an entertaining and exciting way. In the final analysis, perhaps my emotion is overruling reason. And no amount of argument will sway what the human heart has decided. â€œIn any case, were I to invoke logic, logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.â€ â€œOr the one.â€ - Spock and Kirk The Wrath of Khan

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Treknobabble #65: Kingons?

Reed — Wed, 06 May 2009 14:35:46 +0000

Treknobabble is a continuing series of columns written by uber-Trekkie Reed Farrington in anticipation of the upcoming J.J. Abrams Star Trek movie. That's not a typo in the title of this Treknobabble. For Burger King's current Star Trek promotion, "Kingons" is the clever name given to the Burger King characters dressed in Klingon garb. There's a rumor that a scene with Klingons was cut from J.J. Abrams' Star Trek. I wasn't aware that there would be Klingons in the latest film. Perhaps there aren't, but I suppose Klingons have a high recognition factor among the general populace. And I suppose the opportunity to meld the names of Burger King and Klingons was too obvious to pass on. The Kingons have head ridges and are dressed in the Klingon garb from the Next Generation era, but based on television advertising in which they will be featured, they appear to have the aggressive tendencies of the Klingons from the Original Series era. In the ad, Kingons materialize into a living room where a couple is having Burger King meals with BK Star Trek glasses. The Kingons immobilize the guy's dog (appropriately named Tiberius) with a weapon that I have never seen in Star Trek. Visually, the guy isn't nerdy, but he seems nerdy in what he says. From the woman's facial reaction, I'm guessing she isn't a Trekkie. She is holding the Spock glass whereas the obvious choice would have had her holding the Uhura glass. The guy, of course, is holding a Kirk glass. Anyway, the Kingons beam away with the BK Star Trek glasses and the woman whom the guy willingly gives up! Once again, Trekkies are portrayed as losers. Ha ha. So far, I haven't seen a Kingon speak. In the Klingon language, the only word that comes to mind that I know of is qapla!Â (Success!) Oh, I guess I know the worm delicacy, gagh. And the word for Popsicle, jumbah.Â Oh, maybe that's not Klingon.Â I used to know how to say, â€œBeam me up.â€ I figured that might be useful to know. I was a member of the Klingon Language Institute for a couple of years, but I never really learned anything. I thought being a member might enable me to understand how languages are structured by reading its newsletter articles.Â I purchased the Klingon version of Hamlet, but I haven't gotten around to reading it. I do own a Bat'leth that I paid way too much for.Â It was a home-made job by a metal worker, I think. One of the Kingons is holding a Bat'leth in the television ad. The Kingons made an appearance at the Hollywood premiere of Star Trek. I wonder how awkward and uncomfortable it is to wear one of those Burger King head pieces not to mention the heavy Klingon clothing in the sunny California weather. I also wonder how limited the vision is. I'm guessing there will be Kingon cardboard masks available at some point. There's a website (www.whenkingonsattack.com) that offers some funny tutorials and tips on how to defend against the Kingons. Based on initial reactions from the Internet, I'm guessing we'll be seeing more of the Kingons in the future. Klingons have been featured as villains in earlier Star Trek films. They are seen in all the Original Series movies except the second one with Khan. Romulans were used in Star Trek Nemesis, the last Star Trek film before Abrams' Star Trek. And Romulans are again featured in Abrams' Star Trek. I haven't read why or how Romulans were again chosen as the villains, but I suspect the older Spock's involvement with the reunification movement necessitated the choice of Romulans once Leonard Nimoy got involved. Klingons have evolved through Star Trek history. When the Klingon culture was fleshed out more in the Next Generation, they displayed the honor trait that was originally assigned to the Romulans in the Original Series.Â It is sort of strange how Star Trek's alien races have stereotypical behaviors, but it enables the series to more obviously highlight the foibles of human behavior. I thought it was enlightening to have Worf, a Klingon, serving on board the U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701-D. Our enemies eventually became our friends. But the Romulans remain as our enemies. Klingons have a history in the world of Star Trek advertising. In a television ad for Paramount Canada's Wonderland years ago, a Klingon is shown riding a rollercoaster. The face of a Klingon has been used on posters for Star Trek exhibits. They've been featured in Star Trek video games. They were the subject of the first attraction, Klingon Encounter, at Star Trek: The Experience in Las Vegas. They have also been featured in previous fast food advertising. Fast food outlets have a 30-year history with movie marketing and merchandising. Arguably, the first campaign was for the first Star Trek movie in 1979. McDonald's spent tens of millions of dollars on advertising for the film including television commercials that featured Klingons eating Big Macs. Why Klingons? Because neither Shatner nor Nimoy would agree to appear in a McDonald's commercial. Burger King supposedly filmed some commercials on the actual sets for the latest movie, but I don't know if any of the new actors were willing to be involved. In order to encourage customers to visit and purchase meals, premiums were introduced and became popular with collectors. For the latest promotion, I was fortunate to receive a set of the four Burger King Star Trek glasses and sixteen Burger King Kids Meal Star Trek toys. The glasses are creatively imprinted with images of characters and ships. A transparent Starfleet emblem beside the character allows you to see the ship image on the opposite side. Each glass is slightly larger than a standard can of soda pop. I spent an afternoon â€œplayingâ€ with the toys that are based on characters, ships, and equipment. Each toy has a sound chip that plays an appropriate saying or sound with the press of a button. The ships come with decals that you can apply. The characters resemble bobble-heads and the likenesses are reasonable. I was impressed with both the glasses and the toys. I like the Spock glass because it has images of both the younger and older Spocks. I like the communicator and tricorder toys the best. Not because they're the best designed, but because I like role-playing equipment! Disappointingly, but understandably, there is no phaser toy. There is a Warbird ship toy. Some people only familiar with the previous Star Trek movies might think this is a Klingon ship, but as a cost-saving measure, the Original Series had Romulans using this type of ship as well. Each toy has a four-digit code that can be used on a website (www.clubbk.com) for some online fun. I wonder if this nifty idea has been done before. I thought I would try out the Club BK site and see what the four-digit codes are used for. In order to redeem the codes, I had to register. The registration is only set up for Americans. If the toys will be made available in Canada, then I'm wondering if the website will be revised or if there will be a separate website for Canadians. Anyway, I faked a zip code and state. After registering, I selected a character and was given some options to change the appearance of the character. If you're familiar with setting up a character on the Nintendo Wii, then you'll have no problem with this. You will then be dropped into a virtual universe where you can do things like shop and play mini-games. I tried redeeming a toy code, but I got a message saying I needed parental validation first. This was strange because I registered my actual birth date and the registration process even acknowledged that I was an adult. I thought maybe I needed to respond to an e-mail first, so I checked my mail at the e-mail address I registered with. No e-mail. I re-logged into Club BK, and thought I would try redeeming a code again to see if I could find out more information about what I needed to do. But this time, I was allowed to redeem a code without any problem. I redeemed the code on the U.S.S. Enterprise toy and I got a virtual T-shirt with the Enterprise on it. Through the â€œMy Stuffâ€ icon, I was able to put the shirt on my virtual character. Nice! I redeemed the code off the hover bike and was rewarded with a virtual captain's chair. You have a cabin in the virtual universe. So I went to mine and dragged my captain's chair into it. I could see how this could get addictive. In Club BK's virtual universe, I played the game Kling Ball. It's basically a billiards-type game where you use the Enterprise as a pool cue to fire the ball to destroy Klingon ships. Oh, wait, maybe they're Kingon ships. I couldn't get pass Level 1. I'm not much of a video game player. I managed to earn 100 crowns. I went to a shop in the virtual universe and wanted to buy some virtual eyeglasses, but they cost 750 crowns. There was another shop where you could buy items for your cabin, so I wanted to buy a computer monitor. I soon found out that you can't get much with 100 crowns. I'm probably spending too much time writing about Club BK's virtual universe, but it was kind of fun. You can also travel to other worlds that have activities. I didn't exhaust all the possible things to do. It took me a while to figure out how to leave the virtual universe while keeping everything the way I left it. Simply closing the window will cause you to lose your changes, but rewards do remain in your â€œMy Stuff.â€ I spent time looking for an exit portal to send my character through when I should have simply used the logout menu entry at the bottom of the screen. One last thing about Club BK's virtual universe. You can see other characters who I assume are other registered characters. I don't know if you can interact with other characters. It would be cool if you could invite other characters to your cabin. Oh, I forgot this was a kid's site. Anyway, if you do register and join the virtual universe and you see a character called Pacifistopheles, that's me! Each glass costs $1.99 US. That will probably be $2.49 CDN. That's a bargain! One new glass is supposed to be released each week, but I hear some Burger King restaurants are selling all four glasses right now. You're supposed to purchase a BK Value Meal in order to purchase a glass as well. A selection of the toys will be available each week with your choice of one with the purchase of a BK Kids Meal. I noticed at a local Burger King that a sign was posted indicating that the Kids Meal was only available for kids in a certain age range. I'm guessing that this sign is meant to deter adults from purchasing the lower cost BK Kids Meal. But does this mean that an adult has to bring a kid along with him in order to purchase a BK Kids Meal to get a toy? I'm sure this question is weighing heavily on the minds of the many adult collectors out there. I tried to get an official answer, but I don't think my question was taken too seriously. By either cajoling the cashier or asking to see the manager, I would think it shouldn't be too hard to purchase the glasses and toys. I haven't eaten at a Burger King in a while, but it's not because I dislike the food. I crave fast food of any type, but for health reasons, I tend to stay away from it. I remember when Hostess had its Star Trek promotion in which Star Trek mini-cards were inserted inside potato chip bags. I ate potato chips for lunch and supper for over a month! I managed to survive that. I will have to do some Burger King runs in order to get extras of the glasses and toys as well as samples of the Trek-themed bags and food containers. Although I have yet to see or hear any mention of the Canadian Burger King restaurants having a Star Trek promotion, I was told that Canada will have television, radio, and restaurant advertising and will indeed have the Burger King Star Trek glasses and Kids Meal toys. I don't think the Kellogg's Star Trek promotion is coming to Canada. Canada is a relatively small, unimportant market, I would guess. I remember when Dairy Queen had its Star Trek Deep Space Nine promotion, and it never came to Canada. So I drove across the border into Buffalo only to find out that the franchise outlets there opted not to join the campaign. Hopefully, the majority of the Burger Kings in Canada will participate in the Star Trek promotion, especially after they see the huge box office that the movie will surely generate. Thanks to Lauren Ross of Edelman, the promotional firm handling Burger King's Star Trek campaign, for providing information and images. As well, she was kind enough to send me two Burger King Star Trek promotional kits, one of which we will be giving away to a Film Junk listener / reader. The kit contains the four Star Trek glasses and the sixteen Burger King Kids Meal Star Trek toys! Details of the giveaway will be forthcoming.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Treknobabble #64: My Mind to Your Mind

Reed — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:28:24 +0000

Treknobabble is a continuing series of columns written by uber-Trekkie Reed Farrington in anticipation of the upcoming J.J. Abrams Star Trek movie. As the new Star Trek movie is a week away from being unveiled to the general public, I thought I would drop my Vulcan-like demeanor and talk about my feelings. I've mentioned before how as a school kid, a teacher labeled me as the â€œepitome of self-discipline.â€ I think this is part of my personality. To say that I am really excited would not be accurate even though I don't have much of anything happening in my life. Maybe not shielding myself from spoilers has ruined the excitement, but I see two benefits: I avoid the stress of avoiding spoilers, and I relieve the physical turmoil of anticipation. I've watched six clips, each about a minute long. Don't worry. I won't spoil anything. (I'll keep those images from being flashed during this mind-meld.) I wanted to say that the clips support my initial thoughts from the trailers that the frame compositions and the cinematography aren't beautiful. I'm not necessarily saying that this is a bad thing, but it does affect my opinion of a film. No review I've read has mentioned these things so far. Perhaps I'm nitpicking. I'll reserve my final judgment until after I see the film. To date, I have still not read any really negative reviews of the Star Trek movie. This astounds me. Some publications and web sites have done something that I have not seen for previous Star Trek movies. To review the film, they are sending staff members who have not seen any Star Trek. The instigation for this is probably the ad campaign which is attempting to disassociate the new movie from the previous films. This is meant to attract people who have seen Star Trek and think it is silly, and also those people who have preconceived notions of Star Trek's silliness and who have never bothered to watch Star Trek. From all accounts, the new movie delivers on the ad campaign's declaration. One of these people who had never seen Star Trek and liked the new movie went on to say that she would not look into any previous Star Trek productions. She didn't elaborate on her statement, but I gather that she had enough interests already that occupied her time and that the new Star Trek didn't offer anything more worthwhile. I'm guessing she won't bother go seeing the sequel, and she probably wouldn't have seen the new Star Trek movie if it hadn't been a work assignment. I guess this confirms my feeling that the new Star Trek movie might not expand the Star Trek audience by much. Forgive my harshness, but if you're a geek, then you've already discovered Star Trek by now. And since the new movie is so different from previously filmed Star Trek, won't those people thrilled by the movie be disappointed when they sample past Trek installments which will probably seem dull in comparison? There are two interesting Star Trek articles in the May 4th edition of Newsweek, with a cover showing a hand holding an Original Series U.S.S. Enterprise model backlit by the sun in the sky. One article proclaims that Star Trek is cool and â€œWe're All Trekkies Now.â€ It's a nice sentiment, but with the state of the world currently as it is, having the geeks inherit the Earth doesn't seem much like a good, or cool, thing. The other article written by someone with a doctorate and who wrote for The Next Generation surmises that the popularity and longevity of Star Trek is due to its â€œculture of imagination.â€ It's a forum in which ideas can be explored. And isn't this really what attracts geeks? (I added the last question, so don't go firing off angry comments on his article! If you're curious, I've added fawning comments to their articles under the user name Pacifistopheles.) One thing that Leonard Mlodinow, Ph.D. wrote in his Newsweek article that I had never read before was that The Next Generation employed 155 writers during its seven year run. I'm guessing many of those writers never got a screen credit. And most of those writers probably went through the revolving door before Michael Piller came in and settled down the writing staff in the third year. A few people seem to think that Star Trek will be the third highest grossing film this year after Harry Potter and Transformers. I don't understand how both of those latter franchises can have a bigger built-in audience than Star Trek. Is it really because fans have become saturated with Star Trek, or that Star Trek has grown tired? Star Trek has its own word in the dictionary for its fans: Trekkies! Are there Harry Potties or Transformies? Or maybe they would prefer to be called Harry Potters and Transformers? Ha ha. [Ed note: I believe they are called muggles, Reed.] People have often commented that the large movie-going senior population is neglected by Hollywood. I've always thought that Star Trek should target the senior audience with Star Trek movies starring the Original Series' surviving cast members. Boston Legal had a reputation for showcasing older actors such as William Shatner and it was relatively successful. I know that critics were quick to comment on the geriatric crew of the later Original Series movies. But the plots should have focused less on action and adventure, and more on the thinking man's problems. Or do the majority of seniors not like science fiction? I realize that the bloated salaries of the actors would make it difficult to make low-budget Star Trek films, but the reason why their salaries bloated was because the Star Trek films were making money. I don't know why I'm so devoted to Star Trek. I even defend the â€œbadâ€ films. (Well, I won't defend Nemesis, the last Star Trek film, although I do wonder why people stayed away from it.) I think my personality type has caused my attachment to Star Trek. I have a strong sense of loyalty. Come to think of it, as a child, I had a fear of abandonment by my older brother. I was an annoying little brother. So maybe I compensate by not wanting anyone or anything to feel like they've been abandoned by me. I've stayed at jobs far longer than I should have. Or maybe Star Trek simply fills a void that so far nothing else has been able to fill. Hopefully, two hours and six minutes of that void will be filled with bliss next week.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Treknobabble #63: Wolverine vs Star Trek

Reed — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:27:07 +0000

Treknobabble is a continuing series of columns written by uber-Trekkie Reed Farrington in anticipation of the upcoming J.J. Abrams Star Trek movie. From the title of this Treknobabble, you might guess that I have seen the leaked copy of the new Wolverine movie and have caught a preview showing of the new Star Trek movie, and am about to compare the two and tell you which is the better movie. No such luck. Instead, I'll be predicting which movie will do better at the box office with reference to the recent Advertising Age article predicting that Wolverine will be victorious. Besides, most of you would probably not want to have these movies spoiled. Some people have been writing about how some recent statistics indicate how these movies will do at the box office. Now statistics are always ripe for being misconstrued. And I don't know if there are some "official" statistic houses that movie executives pay special attention to. So I don't know how reliable the data used by the Advertising Age writers is. The data did come from various named sources although some of the data was gathered indirectly. At least it provides us with a jumping off point for discussion. Somehow it was determined that Wolverine would make about $100 million in its opening weekend and Star Trek would make about $50 million. The last X-Men movie, The Last Stand, made $103 million in its opening weekend. The last Star Trek movie, Nemesis, made $18.5 million. Even the highest opening weekend for a Star Trek movie only managed $31 million and that was First Contact in 1996. First Contact was advertised as an action movie, so that bodes well for Abrams' Star Trek. The Advertising Age article thinks that Wolverine's marketing campaign directed at the mainstream audience as opposed to Star Trek's high-profile marketing towards the fanboys is the reason why statistics forecast Wolverine being victorious at the box office. It's interesting that one example they use to illustrate the broad-based promotion is an April 13th television episode of CBS's How I Met Your Mother in which the characters sparred with toy Wolverine claws. Since CBS owns Star Trek, I wonder how CBS allowed one of its highly-rated television series to promote a competitor's movie. CBS did have its highly rated drama CSI pay a transparent homage to the Original Series with its April 23rd episode. It helped that the story and screenplay were provided by people who had worked on later incarnations of Star Trek and who were also part of the CSI staff. On television, Star Trek movie commercials seem targeted for science fiction or geek genre type shows like Heroes and Lost. From my viewing habits, I have verified this although I don't watch much non-geek genre television. Wait, I do watch Gossip Girl, One Tree Hill, and 90210 and I don't recall a Star Trek commercial being shown during these television series. A recent Variety article says that the newer Star Trek movie commercials are being shown during American Idol and Spike TV's Total Nonstop Action Wrestling. Advertising Age goes on and undercuts its argument by mentioning some major promotional pushes for Star Trek to the non-fanboy population. MTV Networks is doing a promotional blitz for Star Trek. MTV Games involvement with the popular video game Rock Band allowed for a Star Trek "Battle of the Bands: Rock the Galaxy" contest. Not mentioned are Star Trek Photobooths that are being set up at special events and dance clubs, and Star Trek Dance Parties that are being held in various locations including Los Angeles and New York. Also undercutting its argument is the fact that Paramount spent sparingly on the Sci-Fi Channel. Wolverine did go for the basketball crowd with promotion during the NBA playoffs, but both Wolverine and Star Trek had trailers shown to the football audience during the Super Bowl. The Advertising Age writers claimed to have obtained data in which 80% of surveyed moviegoers claimed to be aware of the Wolverine movie whereas 63% had awareness of the upcoming Star Trek movie. To bolster the evidence that Wolverine will be bigger at the box office, nearly half of those aware of Wolverine expressed "definite interest" in seeing the movie versus a third for Star Trek. To market Wolverine, Fox's promotional business partners include 7-Eleven, Schick, Papa John's pizza and the California Milk Processor Board. For Star Trek, Paramount has Burger King, Lenovo, Kellogg, Nokia, Verizon and Esurance. (As an aside, take note that as a result of the current bad economy, neither of the movies have the backing of an auto manufacturer.) Offhand, I can't determine which movie has the better set of partners. Based on the awareness statistics, maybe these partners aren't all that important unless 7-Eleven is more popular than I thought it was. Chris Pine may have been chosen as a rising star of 2009 by Entertainment Weekly and various other publications and web-sites, not to mention being the recipient of the ShoWest Male Star of Tomorrow award for 2009, but Hugh Jackman currently has the higher profile with women, I think. Even with women under 24, 38% expressed a "definite interest" in seeing Hugh Jackman, while 18% expressed this for seeing "Star Trek." Now I'm guessing that the wording of the question is important in this case. If they had shown the young women a photo of Jackman and of Pine, and asked the question of how much interest they would have in seeing a movie with each actor, then I would hope that Pine would score at least, or even better, than what Jackman would. In support of the data that Advertising Age referenced, an article in Variety reported the findings from a recent poll of people under 25 years of age conducted by MovieTickets.com: 67% intend to see X-Men Origins: Wolverine during its opening weekend whereas 44% intend to see Star Trek. The Variety article writer claims that the under 25 crowd is largely unfamiliar with Star Trek! Maybe she's right. The ad slogan for Star Trek, â€œThis is not your father's Star Trek," is clever, but it's somewhat condescending to the timelessness of the stories told in the Original Series. (It's also sexist!) I realize that young people care more about visual effects than story, so the slogan is probably apt in describing the upgrade in the visual effects. The Variety article writer, Tatiana Siegel, comments on the recent television commercials that seem aimed at the younger generation. I'm going to quote her verbatim because I found her comments astute and hilarious: â€œThe most recent spots (â€¦) seem to channel a Mountain Dew ad with an extreme vibe showcasing skydiving, car racing and gorge jumping. There is even a hint of "bromance" between Kirk and Spock.â€ A month or two ago, I came across a blog post at a Star Trek site in which a grade-school kid interviewed his classmates about Star Trek. When he asked them to think of a word that immediately came to mind when they thought of Star Trek, the following words came up: cool, space, and gay. Hmmâ€¦ One was positive, one was neutral and one was somewhat negative, I would think. I guess that pretty much summarizes the opinions of the general populace. Ha ha. I know it's unscientific to poll acquaintances to get a general idea of how people feel, but bear with me. My 11-year-old nephew is a Star Wars fan. He is aware of my Star Trek fetish. I have never tried to steer him into becoming a Trekkie. I asked him if he had seen any of the previews for the new Star Trek movie. He said, â€œYes.â€ I asked him if he and his friends were going to see the movie next month. (I don't think he realized when the movie was coming out, but I think at his age, kids don't plan ahead and simply live in the now. Well, at least that's the way my nephew is.) He was hesitant and then he coyly said, â€œMaybe.â€ I think he was trying to spare my feelings. Incredulous, I then asked him why he didn't think the preview was exciting as a Star Wars movie. And then he hid behind his mother. I don't know how the availability of a leaked copy would be factored into determining box office results. Everything I've read for this Wolverine case would lead me to believe that the ready availability of this work-print will not affect the box office by a large amount. Would this opinion be any different if a leaked copy of the final film was available? Do people generally believe that bootlegging does not make a big difference to the box office? I searched around for reviews of the leaked copy, but it was difficult filtering out the stories on the copy being leaked. Fox News columnist Roger Friedman wrote that the movie "exceeds expectations at every turn." And then he was fired, or at least amicably parted ways with Fox. Some have noted good and bad things about the leaked copy itself. The middle boring parts of the movie were supposedly the reason for the millions spent on reshoots and more visual effects. The official company line is that the leaked copy was a work-print with some missing visual effects, but it was a nice way of saying that the movie wasn't great as originally written and executed. I realize that probably all blockbusters go through some sort of audience testing and retooling. Even Star Trek is not immune to this. The handling of Kirk's death in Generations is famous in Trekkie lore. And Abrams did some extra shooting for his Star Trek after the original shooting schedule was over. International premieres for the Star Trek movie have generated positive buzz as did the surprise screening in front of an audience expecting to see â€œThe Wrath of Khan.â€ Some people were disappointed that Wrath was not shown. Ha ha. Surprisingly, quite a few people in the audience hadn't seen Wrath, judging by a show of hands during a pre-show question for the audience. It should be noted that some people have commented that Wrath is better than the new Star Trek. I'm surprised a theatre-cam version of the Star Trek movie isn't available on the Internet by now. If we take a look at the box office grosses for the X-Men movies compared to the Star Trek movies, then we might extrapolate and be led to believe that Wolverine will come out on top. But we too often linearly extrapolate and that is highly erroneous for use in predicting box office performance since there are too many interrelated factors that affect how moviegoers decide which movies to see. As they often say when investing, past performance is not a reliable predictor of future performance. It is interesting that the X-Men movies have made more money world-wide than Star Trek has. I would not have believed it myself had I not seen the numbers. After all, Star Trek has ten movies compared to X-Men's three. It's not a wide margin, but still: $1.16 billion for X-Men versus $1.08 billion for Star Trek. For the US only, Star Trek fares better with $757 million versus X-Men's $607 million. Unfortunately, this only goes to show how much less world-wide appeal Star Trek has. It's no wonder that the Star Trek movie is currently being given so many international premieres with J.J. Abrams and the stars in attendance. This lends credence to my argument in a previous Treknobabble that Star Trek isn't as popular world-wide as I was led to believe. Or maybe X-Men has a world-wide popularity that I'm not aware of? With the last Star Trek movie having performed the worst domestically and globally of all the Star Trek movies, it's probably a good idea that the new Star Trek movie is distancing itself from what came before. With the critical drubbing that the last X-Men movie got, I thought that it did poorly at the box office, but it turns out that it has been the most successful! Whereas Star Trek has nowhere to go but up, the X-Men franchise could potentially plummet. Remember that investment adage I mentioned earlier? Funnily enough, the X-Men including Wolverine have encountered Star Trek crews on two occasions. â€œWhat?!?â€ you might be thinking. No, you didn't miss a Deep Space Nine or Enterprise episode in which the X-Men made a guest appearance to promote an upcoming X-Men movie. Nor am I making a sly reference to the fact that actor Patrick Stewart played the parts of Captain Picard and Professor X. There was a Star Trek X-Men one-issue comic published in 1996 (Trek was celebrating its 30th anniversary; Marvel, its 35th) in which the crew of the Original Series meets the X-Men. (It's amusing that Kirk flirts with Phoenix before Phoenix quickly interjects a statement about her husband, Cyclops.) And later, the crew of Star Trek: The Next Generation also met some X-Men in another comic as well as a novel called Planet X published in 1998 and written by the prolific and popular Star Trek scribe, Michael Jan Friedman. At the time, the crossover of these two franchises most likely was made possible by Marvel Comics making a deal with Paramount Pictures to publish several titles of Star Trek comics. This was near the height of Star Trek's popularity with the recent self-imposed end of the Next Generation television series. One connection between the X-Men and Star Trek is Chris Claremont. He had a sixteen year stint writing for The Uncanny X-Men comic. He wrote many of the classic X-Men storylines (the second X-Men movie was supposedly based on a comic story of his), and co-created many of the X-Men characters (but not Wolverine). He wrote an excellent Star Trek graphic novel in 1992 called Debt of Honor that ties into the Star Trek movies. I wasn't able to find out whose initial idea it was for the crossover though. In the comic where Spock initially encountered Wolverine, Spock rather easily dispatched Wolverine with a nerve pinch after Wolverine knocked a phaser out of Spock's hand. Star Trek wins! However, a few comic panels afterwards, Wolverine quickly recovers due to his healing factor and gets the upper hand, or should I say claws, on Spock. Maybe this is foreshadowing that Star Trek will have the bigger opening weekend, but Wolverine will out gross Star Trek by year's end. I'll admit that I can't be objective in determining which movie will get the better opening weekend. It has to be Star Trek. As for my best educated guess for its box office take during its opening weekend in the US, and in the spirit of Vulcan precision, I predict Star Trek will make $110.293591 million dollars. If that's not optimism, then I don't know what is.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Treknobabble #62: Space: The Great Leap Forward

Reed — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:41:08 +0000

Treknobabble is a continuing series of columns written by uber-Trekkie Reed Farrington in anticipation of the upcoming J.J. Abrams Star Trek movie. This Treknobabble continues to talk about a few recent Star Trek news topics that probably don't deserve to have a whole Treknobabble devoted to them. So I'll be covering the resemblance of the new movie's plot to Star Wars a la The Hero's Journey, racial casting, the China National Space Administration (CNSA) logo, what's happening with NASA, and the advance previews of the new movie. Some weeks ago, there was a YouTube video where someone took a recent trailer for the new Star Trek movie and replaced the Star Trek video with video clips from the Star Wars movies while keeping the audio from the trailer. (ie., a mashup, in current day parlance.) And the trailer still made sense! This probably shouldn't be a big surprise because J.J. Abrams is a big fan of Star Wars. Essentially, this means that J.J. Abrams' Star Trek is basically a tale of the beginning of a hero's journey aka monomyth as popularized by Joseph Campbell. For those of you who didn't pay any attention to Joseph Campbell's explanation of how Star Wars fits the hero's journey pattern, let me give you a brief rundown of how it works and how the YouTube video shows how the pattern applies to the new Star Trek movie. The hero is called to adventure. Luke Skywalker is called upon by Obi-Wan Kenobi. James Kirk is called upon by Christopher Pike. The hero refuses the call and something bad happens to change his mind. Luke's uncle and aunt are killed. I don't know what incident will cause James Kirk to enlist in Starfleet. The hero encounters a protector who is often elderly and who gives the hero advice and a special weapon. Obi-Wan Kenobi gives Luke a light-saber, or Yoda teaches Luke how to use The Force. The old Spock will have a conversation with the new Spock who will somehow enable Kirk to get command of the Enterprise. The hero crosses a first threshold, leaving his familiar world. Luke enters into the alien cantina. Kirk becomes a cadet in Starfleet. The hero encounters a road of trials. Luke sets off for Dagobah, encounters Wampa on ice planet, loses a hand at Bespin, etc. From the trailers, it appears that Kirk will have some alien world hardships including an ice planet. Beyond the trailer, there will probably be some atonement with the father. When Luke defeats Darth Vader, his father (as if I had to tell you), he dispels The Dark Side of his nature. I imagine Kirk will come to terms with the heroic death of his father by the end of the movie. I've always wondered why there aren't any Asian people in that galaxy far, far away. Not really, but I needed a clever way to transition to my next topic that has actually not been in the news lately, but I'm wondering if it will be at some point again. When the casting of John Cho was first announced, there was some speculation about why a Korean was being hired to play the part of a Japanese person. I remember when Memoirs of a Geisha was released; there were some organizations that protested the hiring of two Chinese actresses in the leading roles. From the producers' standpoint, I can see why those actresses were hired. It seems they hired the most prominent Asian actresses "that looked like they were Japanese to non-Asians". (Although it might be politically incorrect for me to say, I sometimes have difficulty identifying between Chinese and Japanese people, and I'm Chinese-Canadian. I mean I was born in Canada with Chinese parents, so I'm Chinese-Canadian as opposed to Canadian-Chinese, right? And if I went to China and had a kid, then my kid would be Canadian-Chinese?) When John Cho was asked about his ethnicity, he responded that he had actually talked to George Takei about this. George gave his blessing saying that Gene Roddenberry intended Sulu to be a Pan-Asian. That is, he was supposed to represent all of Asian culture! John Cho also made the distinction that George / Sulu is a Japanese-American without a Japanese accent. He said he would have felt uncomfortable if he had to imitate a Japanese accent. Frankly, all this sounds like a rationalization for his accepting the part. I'm wondering if the same organizations that protested Memoirs of a Geisha will also protest Star Trek. Or will they ignore Star Trek because it's not important? Or is the fact that Sulu in the Original Series was Japanese not important to Star Trek? Frankly, I don't care about John Cho being cast, but you have to admit that the notion of Asians being interchangeable is disconcerting. Speaking of Asians, the Chinese Aerospace Program has a logo that is reminiscent of logos that are familiar to Trekkies. I should acknowledge that I came across this interesting piece of trivia from two web-sites, Jacob's Weblog Vicissitudinal [sic] Thoughts on the World and The Bad Guy. I don't know who the first to notice was. There have been suggestions of Star Trek's popularity in the People's Republic of China and their space program, but I have found no evidence to corroborate this. The China Post regularly has articles that mention Star Trek. Does anyone reading this know anyone in the Chinese space program? I wonder if CNSA has a public-relations web-site I can contact. I investigated a bit further to see where Star Trek came up with its logos. The delta arrowhead patch with the star center for command was designed by William Ware Theiss, the costume designer for the Original Series. It was the emblem for the U.S.S. Enterprise. In later Star Trek series, the delta arrowhead became a design element for the entire Starfleet. I think the unofficial reason was that the successes of the U.S.S. Enterprise five-year missions made Starfleet adopt the symbol. I think an arrow pointing up signifies toward the heavens and is a common design element of space logos, but I don't know when it first appeared for actual space programs. Out of curiosity, I wondered what the Russian space logo was, and wouldn't you know, the Russian Space Agency in 1992 adopted a logo with an arrowhead! The laurel leaves are a common logo embellishment signifying peace and accomplishment, and I highly suspect that the United Federation of Planets (UFP) logo use of laurel leaves was co-opted from the United Nations logo. The original UFP logo was designed by Franz Joseph who wrote a technical manual for the original Star Trek. Instead of laurel leaves which he thought were Earth-centric, he used profiles of humanoid faces although this is somewhat Earth-centric as well. The face profiles were replaced with laurel leaves by later Star Trek design departments. I would think that if there were Trekkies at the CNSA, they would have to keep a rather low profile. I don't think the Chinese government would appreciate its agency getting its inspiration from an American television program. From talking about the CNSA, I want to segue to talking about America's own NASA which has been relatively silent in the news. I must admit that I have lost track with what has been happening in the real world concerning space exploration. I didn't even realize that the space shuttle program would actually be phased out by next year. I had heard grumblings that the program wasn't very cost-efficient which was ironically a major goal. The International Space Station has crews working there and is scheduled to be completed next year. We're supposed to be back on the moon by 2020 and establish a permanent presence there. So not much has been going on. I jest. On a side note, I saw some drawings of the new, proposed Altair lunar lander. The Lunar Module from 1969 looks more â€œfuturistic.â€ The NASA web-site provides a convenient, free news subscription service that will enable you to get e-mails with the major headlines from any particular area within NASA's purview. Note that if a headline may apply to more than one area, then you may get duplicate e-mails. Apparently, NASA can put a man on the moon, but they can't write subscription software to prevent duplicate e-mails from being sent out. Before I sign off for this edition of Treknobabble, I wanted to address all the uniformly positive reaction to the advanced previews for the new Star Trek movie. I would have expected to read at least one dissenting opinion. People have offered a few negative comments only because they feel obliged to present a non-biased view. Assuming the movie is as good as people have said, there's usually one â€œjerkâ€ who goes out of his way to say the opposite, right? But I haven't run into that person's review, yet. Am I jealous that an uber-Trekkie like me, as Sean has proclaimed, hasn't been given a chance to catch an early screening? No. I'm still thinking that I should avoid seeing the movie when it comes out. (I'm a Batman fanatic and I still haven't seen The Dark Knight.) I want to be a martyr, but I can't think of a belief, cause, or principle to stand behind. My opinion doesn't matter, because I'm thinking I'll enjoy the film regardless of its merits. Maybe I should stay awake for the 24 hours before its midnight screening, and see whether the movie can keep me awake. Do I need to mention again that I slept through most of the midnight showing of Star Trek: Nemesis? Or was it even a midnight showing? When May 8th rolls around, maybe I'll pretend I saw the movie and write a review from my imagination. To put things in perspective, I think I'll try to find a negative review of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. I think the Trekkie Manifesto prevents us from saying anything bad about Star Trek.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!