If you clicked on this hoping to hear the "Angus Prune Tune," well I'm sorry but ISIRTA isn't here, although the obvious reference was made in the title.
Mania blogs are, currently, down. I assume Jarrod is doing something about this, when he's not suffering from insomnia that is.
Since the entries over at Mania are far more interesting (and currently harder to find) I thought I'd just add this link to expedite the search. There's rambling opinions (such as you'd find here) sketches that parody "Twilight," declarations of why J. J. Abrams is bad for "Star Trek," and other such madness.
In the meantime, promotions continue to go out to New York, Los Angeles, and Canada.
Also, the idea of exploring the notions of how Summit Entertainment is possibly selling out the soul of "The Twilight Saga" in exchange for "man candy" is bubbling in my brain. We'll see where that goes.
Showing posts with label star trek. Show all posts
Showing posts with label star trek. Show all posts
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Maelstrom's Trek Review
We Maniacs have our views, and we're not afraid to share them.
But, lately, it seems when we express our views, they get buried under spammer bombardment which causes a technical error after mass deletion in which all recent blog entries get archived and disappear from the main list.
As of now, the great and powerful Jarrod is working on this. Hopefully Mania Tech isn't asleep at the keyboard.
Maelstrom finally witnessed what I've referred to as "Star Trek - Non Sequitur." I say that because it does not follow "Trek," reason, the mythology, sense, Roddenberry's vision, and so on.
Another name I applied to Abram's reboot nonsense was "Star Trek Serenity Wars," as it looks (and acts) too much like everything else to maintain the name "Star Trek." The lines have been blurred...and not in a good way.
But here's the link to follow. (Caution - Some Naughty Language Is In Use Here.)
But, lately, it seems when we express our views, they get buried under spammer bombardment which causes a technical error after mass deletion in which all recent blog entries get archived and disappear from the main list.
As of now, the great and powerful Jarrod is working on this. Hopefully Mania Tech isn't asleep at the keyboard.
Maelstrom finally witnessed what I've referred to as "Star Trek - Non Sequitur." I say that because it does not follow "Trek," reason, the mythology, sense, Roddenberry's vision, and so on.
Another name I applied to Abram's reboot nonsense was "Star Trek Serenity Wars," as it looks (and acts) too much like everything else to maintain the name "Star Trek." The lines have been blurred...and not in a good way.
But here's the link to follow. (Caution - Some Naughty Language Is In Use Here.)
Saturday, May 9, 2009
The Great Trek Throwdown - Aftermath
Okay so the dust needs to settle at mania.
My friend Hobbs posted a blog entry over there with spoilers of the new "Trek," and it prompted me to do a follow up.
His comes first, mine comes second.
The new and improved Star Trek??
Starlight's "Star Trek" Compromise
What do you think? I say, in "Trek's" universe, we can always undo such damage.
Abram's story has a tiny bit of wiggle room, so the next one should exploit it.
But read my "Compromise" for further details on that.
My friend Hobbs posted a blog entry over there with spoilers of the new "Trek," and it prompted me to do a follow up.
His comes first, mine comes second.
The new and improved Star Trek??
Starlight's "Star Trek" Compromise
What do you think? I say, in "Trek's" universe, we can always undo such damage.
Abram's story has a tiny bit of wiggle room, so the next one should exploit it.
But read my "Compromise" for further details on that.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
The Great "Trek" Throwdown Continues...
In case you haven't been paying attention, there's a sort of "Star Trek" civil war going on at Mania, and I'm one of the few leading the charge in the war against J. J. Abrams.
Follow the links, judge for yourself, and take it all in.
Ten Reasons To Be Worried About "Star Trek"
"Star Trek" Mania Review
DVD Shopping Bag -- The Best of Star Trek: The Next Generation
Follow the links, judge for yourself, and take it all in.
Ten Reasons To Be Worried About "Star Trek"
"Star Trek" Mania Review
DVD Shopping Bag -- The Best of Star Trek: The Next Generation
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Everything Old Is New Again (Whether You Like It Or Not)
I'm dedicating this one to Hobbs, with whom I share stories of grief and exultation in the realms of Star Trek and Star Wars.
Trek has always been there for me. It's a great passion, a source for philosophical discussion and, often enough, a source of frustration committed by those who were in charge of Trek at the time.
Now we have J. J. Abrams' new Trek incarnation about to appear in our cinemas. I've sweated over this as I have "Star Trek - Enterprise," the only Trek show I actively stated should be cancelled.
But there was once the chance to do a Trek prequel way back in the days before George Lucas himself had likely even considered such a notion with his own franchise.
After the bad, yet profitable, Trek 5 had run its course, the accounting nuts and big shots over at Paramount realized that, yes, Trek can survive even the worst outings and be profitable, but it's also getting expensive to produce.
Then Harve Bennett, the man who had guided Trek through these more recent film outings, starting tinkering with an idea he'd had midway through Trek 4. It, as well, would've been a prequel (or in the contemporary dreaded terms, a "reboot.")
The general ideas are laid out for all to read in Shatner's book "Movie Memories," but as I sit here revisiting this particular chapter I'm forced to look at my views of Abram's vision as well.
Harve's idea was one of a Starfleet Academy adventure, with young James Tiberius Kirk restlessly waiting for his acceptance at the Academy by buzzing around the skies of Iowa in an old fashioned plane while simultaneously sowing his wild oats with any woman who'd have him which, knowing young Kirk, might've been anyone of the female persuasion.
Meanwhile Spock would've left Vulcan against his father's wishes to join the Academy, and a young McCoy who'd also have joined up after years of caring for his ailing father. They also would've been under the tutelage of a gifted engineering professor, who was decidedly Scottish.
Take a guess at who that was.
And here it is the pieces would fall into place: Kirk and Spock would be rivals, but Kirk would ultimately come to Spock's defense when the rest of the human population essentially becomes prejudicial against Spock's being there.
Amidst all this there is a villain out in space manipulating the people with his own means of racist and prejudicial weaponry whom these young cadets would have to deal with.
Toss in a genuine love story with a female pilot and you've got a Trek reboot.
And, in a sense, some of these elements don't sound too dissimilar to Abram's version.
I'm still not doing back flips over this new incarnation, and I doubt I would've over this version that never made it to the screen.
But, given all these reboots, remakes, and re-imaginings, I'm reminded of a line from "Amadeus."
Mozart is pushing for permission to go forward with his latest opera, "The Marriage of Figaro" I believe it was (I don't have a copy of the film at my disposal at this moment), and those of the Emperor's court are all trying to prevent Mozart from going forward with it.
Even the man who is his greatest supporter in the court, the man who considers Mozart to be brilliant, is trying to reign the composer in, saying he shouldn't waste his talent on such nonsense and return to the old style legends which have existed forever.
Mozart objects, and argues why must the people keep promoting all these old legends repeatedly forever, and his answer is that because the legends themselves go on forever, "or at least what they represent."
Mozart complains, looking to do something new, as he's sick of hearing about Hercules and poses the question "wouldn't you rather hear about your hairdresser instead of Hercules?"
Hollywood needs someone, anyone, who'll stand up to all these people and say "let all the old things die, come up with something new and maybe then we'll revisit the past!"
James Bond was rebooted, and I won't touch it. Star Trek is suffering a reboot, and I worry about it. Fantastic Four is being rebooted after one movie, while The Inedible...I mean "Incredible" (and I use that term loosely) Hulk was rebooted after one outing.
The Pink Panther was re-imagined, and though it was somewhat enjoyable (it's hard to not like Steve Martin), it was probably best left alone.
Hollywood is built on old legends, and they do their best to keep retracing the steps of all those old gods and goddesses. They'll mine and cannibalize anything that's known, or well known.
But they're afraid of the new, and they shouldn't be.
But when something new comes along, and it has any amount of success, it instantly becomes a legend of old.
Look at Summit and how they've handled the "Twilight" series: it was given a fair budget, was filmed on American soil, make tons of money, and immediately the kids at Summit became evil, trashed the director of their hit, moved the production to Canada, and green lit two more movies instantly and demanded the next one come out within less than a year.
There's talk of a second Trek reboot movie, plus a second X-Men reboot movie as well.
And those haven't even hit screens yet.
But one thing worries me, will they try to reboot Harry Potter in twenty years? Or The X-Files? Or even, dare I say it, Police Academy?
Everything old is new again...but I wish everything new actually was new. And this is why I have so many problems with revisiting Trek in these instances: Gene Roddenberry was looking forward, not backwards.
Since "Enterprise," Trek has looked backwards, and therein lies the problem for me.
For Hollywood, looking back hasn't been completely successful either, so it should look forward as well. Maybe then, and only then, we can shake out the cobwebs and revitalize both the industry and ourselves as well.
Trek has always been there for me. It's a great passion, a source for philosophical discussion and, often enough, a source of frustration committed by those who were in charge of Trek at the time.
Now we have J. J. Abrams' new Trek incarnation about to appear in our cinemas. I've sweated over this as I have "Star Trek - Enterprise," the only Trek show I actively stated should be cancelled.
But there was once the chance to do a Trek prequel way back in the days before George Lucas himself had likely even considered such a notion with his own franchise.
After the bad, yet profitable, Trek 5 had run its course, the accounting nuts and big shots over at Paramount realized that, yes, Trek can survive even the worst outings and be profitable, but it's also getting expensive to produce.
Then Harve Bennett, the man who had guided Trek through these more recent film outings, starting tinkering with an idea he'd had midway through Trek 4. It, as well, would've been a prequel (or in the contemporary dreaded terms, a "reboot.")
The general ideas are laid out for all to read in Shatner's book "Movie Memories," but as I sit here revisiting this particular chapter I'm forced to look at my views of Abram's vision as well.
Harve's idea was one of a Starfleet Academy adventure, with young James Tiberius Kirk restlessly waiting for his acceptance at the Academy by buzzing around the skies of Iowa in an old fashioned plane while simultaneously sowing his wild oats with any woman who'd have him which, knowing young Kirk, might've been anyone of the female persuasion.
Meanwhile Spock would've left Vulcan against his father's wishes to join the Academy, and a young McCoy who'd also have joined up after years of caring for his ailing father. They also would've been under the tutelage of a gifted engineering professor, who was decidedly Scottish.
Take a guess at who that was.
And here it is the pieces would fall into place: Kirk and Spock would be rivals, but Kirk would ultimately come to Spock's defense when the rest of the human population essentially becomes prejudicial against Spock's being there.
Amidst all this there is a villain out in space manipulating the people with his own means of racist and prejudicial weaponry whom these young cadets would have to deal with.
Toss in a genuine love story with a female pilot and you've got a Trek reboot.
And, in a sense, some of these elements don't sound too dissimilar to Abram's version.
I'm still not doing back flips over this new incarnation, and I doubt I would've over this version that never made it to the screen.
But, given all these reboots, remakes, and re-imaginings, I'm reminded of a line from "Amadeus."
Mozart is pushing for permission to go forward with his latest opera, "The Marriage of Figaro" I believe it was (I don't have a copy of the film at my disposal at this moment), and those of the Emperor's court are all trying to prevent Mozart from going forward with it.
Even the man who is his greatest supporter in the court, the man who considers Mozart to be brilliant, is trying to reign the composer in, saying he shouldn't waste his talent on such nonsense and return to the old style legends which have existed forever.
Mozart objects, and argues why must the people keep promoting all these old legends repeatedly forever, and his answer is that because the legends themselves go on forever, "or at least what they represent."
Mozart complains, looking to do something new, as he's sick of hearing about Hercules and poses the question "wouldn't you rather hear about your hairdresser instead of Hercules?"
Hollywood needs someone, anyone, who'll stand up to all these people and say "let all the old things die, come up with something new and maybe then we'll revisit the past!"
James Bond was rebooted, and I won't touch it. Star Trek is suffering a reboot, and I worry about it. Fantastic Four is being rebooted after one movie, while The Inedible...I mean "Incredible" (and I use that term loosely) Hulk was rebooted after one outing.
The Pink Panther was re-imagined, and though it was somewhat enjoyable (it's hard to not like Steve Martin), it was probably best left alone.
Hollywood is built on old legends, and they do their best to keep retracing the steps of all those old gods and goddesses. They'll mine and cannibalize anything that's known, or well known.
But they're afraid of the new, and they shouldn't be.
But when something new comes along, and it has any amount of success, it instantly becomes a legend of old.
Look at Summit and how they've handled the "Twilight" series: it was given a fair budget, was filmed on American soil, make tons of money, and immediately the kids at Summit became evil, trashed the director of their hit, moved the production to Canada, and green lit two more movies instantly and demanded the next one come out within less than a year.
There's talk of a second Trek reboot movie, plus a second X-Men reboot movie as well.
And those haven't even hit screens yet.
But one thing worries me, will they try to reboot Harry Potter in twenty years? Or The X-Files? Or even, dare I say it, Police Academy?
Everything old is new again...but I wish everything new actually was new. And this is why I have so many problems with revisiting Trek in these instances: Gene Roddenberry was looking forward, not backwards.
Since "Enterprise," Trek has looked backwards, and therein lies the problem for me.
For Hollywood, looking back hasn't been completely successful either, so it should look forward as well. Maybe then, and only then, we can shake out the cobwebs and revitalize both the industry and ourselves as well.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
The Hitchhiker's Guide To Hollywood
I hope Douglas Adams isn't spinning in his grave as I borrow the common phrase his great novel helped coin, but I feel I must say that there is one unlikely text among all those that I've read which serves as possibly the greatest lessons and provides the best inside information about the goings on behind the scenes at Hollywood.
I have it as a First Edition, when it was published back in 1994.
Over at Mania, The Movie Lord and I have made mention how we absolutely swear by this text.
And this oddly informative test is none other than William Shatner's "Movie Memories."
Yes, that Shatner.
Kirk himself.
Why was Trek I such a disaster, even if it was so profitable? What famous comedian was to be cast in Star Trek 4? Just what the hell was Bill thinking when he came up with the plot for Trek 5?
These are a few questions that are answered, but they're just the edge of the tip of the iceberg.
There's lots of studio glad handing, back stabbing, political maneuvering, people being fired, people quitting, people being rehired and others being unceremoniously kicked aside to make room at the top so the talent could get on with it.
And that's just "Trek 1."
But it is exceptionally informative, and should be read by anyone who wants to go out to the Dream Factory so they'll know beforehand that dreams are pre-formed and manufactured.
It really is a cautionary tale, unfortunately.
I have it as a First Edition, when it was published back in 1994.
Over at Mania, The Movie Lord and I have made mention how we absolutely swear by this text.
And this oddly informative test is none other than William Shatner's "Movie Memories."
Yes, that Shatner.
Kirk himself.
Why was Trek I such a disaster, even if it was so profitable? What famous comedian was to be cast in Star Trek 4? Just what the hell was Bill thinking when he came up with the plot for Trek 5?
These are a few questions that are answered, but they're just the edge of the tip of the iceberg.
There's lots of studio glad handing, back stabbing, political maneuvering, people being fired, people quitting, people being rehired and others being unceremoniously kicked aside to make room at the top so the talent could get on with it.
And that's just "Trek 1."
But it is exceptionally informative, and should be read by anyone who wants to go out to the Dream Factory so they'll know beforehand that dreams are pre-formed and manufactured.
It really is a cautionary tale, unfortunately.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
The Great Trek Throwdown
Fights (albeit thoughtful fights) always seem to break out when the topic of J.J. Abrams' revisionist version of "Star Trek" comes to the Mania front page.
Just follow the links to mania, you'll see me, Hanso, Hobbs, and a few others getting into the act.
Part One
Part Two
--Update!--
The debate continues, although instead of being a phaser fight to the death, it marches on intelligently.
Check out the comment Hobbs' left on my mania profile page, and doubly click his avatar for the reply I posted on his profile page.
Just follow the links to mania, you'll see me, Hanso, Hobbs, and a few others getting into the act.
Part One
Part Two
--Update!--
The debate continues, although instead of being a phaser fight to the death, it marches on intelligently.
Check out the comment Hobbs' left on my mania profile page, and doubly click his avatar for the reply I posted on his profile page.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)