I guess it was bound to happen. I mean right when I'm thinking I'm liking a show, it makes a turn for the worse. Here was the hero, Uhtred, being ordered by the king to be the prince's right hand man when the prince becomes king, and it's too much for Uhtred. So he throws everything in the garbage by putting a knife to the the king's throat and escaping back to the Danes.
Now, instead of being a Lord in the emerging England, he's a condemned enemy fighting for the Danes who are slowly but surely being pushed out of England. I mean, who would do that? Who would switch from the winners, (which you had a big hand in making them the winners) and switch to the losers, whose time is limited.
Perhaps I speak in hindsight. Twelve hundred years of hindsight, but it just didn't make any sense.
And it happens all the time to me. I'll start watching a show, and it's a great show, and I rave about it, and then three years into the series, or so, I'm not liking it anymore.
The list is a long one. In the modern era, it's The Blacklist, The Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, and a slew of others that I can't even remember anymore. In the old days it was Lost in Space, The Man from Uncle, I Spy, and The Wild, Wild West.
I don't know what is wrong with TV writers. I guess it's just a simple thing. At first, they have a great concept and they have a lot of great ideas for stories to go with it. But then, after three years or so, the great ideas dry up. It happened with Star Trek too. I mean the original series, which was the only Star Trek that was worth watching.
For Star Trek, tos, they had the great concept, and they had great stories that lasted into its third season. But in that third season, you can tell they were on the down slide. And then when they brought the series back, called Star Trek, the Next Generation, the stories and characters were so bad, even the great concept couldn't make up for it.
And the same was true for every single Star Trek incarnation that followed. I mean every single new Star Trek series that followed sucked, and every single Star Trek movie that followed equally sucked. The concept of Star Trek was so great that they kept trying to rejuvenate it, but for some strange reason, no one could come up with a decent story to match the concept. Not since the original series, that is, and that is surely a shame.
We have probably the worst incarnation of Star Trek happening right now, which I couldn't even watch through the first full episode without turning it off in complete disgust. It was like the producers believed the great concept by itself was enough, (the same thing they always believed) and some actress from The Walking Dead had enough "star power" to make it a success, regardless of the lack of writing talent they put into the show.
It's a recipe for failure, and you would think they would learn their lesson by now. I figure if the current writers of whatever show run out of juice, then hire new writers who haven't been tapped out yet. They are out there. Give them a chance. Or is Hollywood stuck in the "same ol' same ol' system? You know -- the "good ol' boys" (or the "good ol' girls") system at work here. Probably is.
That's the worst shame of all. It means the same problem will just continue. As long as their bottom line is acceptable, nothing will change. And as long as you have the fan base blindly following a show for only its concept, being thrilled only by the sights and images, not caring if there's a quality story, the bottom line for Hollywood will continue to be acceptable. It is a shame.
Showing posts with label Star Trek. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Star Trek. Show all posts
Monday, March 4, 2019
Monday, October 2, 2017
New Star Trek Show - The Feminists Are Taking Over - Yikes!
I've talked a bit about tough chicks. They exist. But do they beat people up? Do women want to see women beat people up? Do women want to go around beating people up? Do they believe in that? Do women want to see other women going around killing people?
I argued they don't. I still believe I'm right. But the trend in Hollywood is not strong women, but tough chicks. You know. See above. Whatever. That's not what I want to repeat here. The topic today is the new Star Trek show, Star Trek Discovery, which I watched and will probably not watch again.
I'm not a Feminist, and that's why I won't watch it. Star Trek Discovery is a show that caters to the Feminist audience. I know that in this time of equal rights, there should be equal rights. But I will never agree that women should be fighting wars. Why would women want to fight in wars anyway? Do women want to fight in wars? Heck, men don't even want to fight in wars. That's why men like Muhammad Ali dodged the draft. He'd rather be in jail and fed than to be in Vietnam and dead, isn't that what he said? And I'm not saying I blame him, by the way.
So do women want to fight in wars? Do they really? Do they want to get their heads blown off? Do they want to come home from a battlefield with their legs blown off? With their faces blown off? Crippled for life? Why don't women get it? War and fighting is not some glorious thing like Wonder Woman would have you believe. It's not like Star Trek. Which brings me to my point.
Starships are warships. I don't believe a woman should command a warship of men. It just isn't right. I know women are good leaders in a school. I am a teacher and most of my principals have been women. And (for the most part) they have been great. But a school is not a battlefield. And women, imo, do not belong on a battlefield. Do they want to be on a battlefield?
I can't imagine why a woman would want to be on a battlefield. Anyone who would want to be on a battlefield would be by definition unqualified to be on that battlefield. Because that person would be mentally unstable. That ends the argument right there. Who would want to be led by an unstable person. No one. And too many times leaders have been unstable, because men who had wanted to be on a battlefield to lead have indeed been unstable. So there you go.
Okay, so again, back to Star Trek Discovery. We already had the woman starship captain in Star Trek Voyager with Captain Janeway. Quota fulfilled. Nope. Now we not only have another woman captain, but on top of that, we have the first officer also a woman. So the top two stars of the show, the captain and the first officer are women. Okay. No men. None. No testosterone, so to speak. But the first officer is providing the testosterone. She has a man's name, Michael, and she's all gung-ho in firing the first shot at the Klingons, as advised by Spock's dad. (Presumably, before Spock is born.)
So yeah. There are no men in the show, except in very minor and subservient roles. The men are the lowly officers and crewmen, relegated to taking orders from the women, and that's the premise of the show. It's a Feminist's dream, so to speak.
So if you're a Feminist and you like the Star Trek universe, this is the show for you. I like women, of course, been married to the same woman for almost thirty years, and I am all for equal rights and equal opportunity. But I will stand by my belief that women do not belong on a battlefield and women should be glad that society doesn't require them to be on a battlefield. And I will repeat this point because I think it is important. If a woman wants to be on a battlefield, then she is probably mentally unstable. And the same thing is probably true for a man.
I argued they don't. I still believe I'm right. But the trend in Hollywood is not strong women, but tough chicks. You know. See above. Whatever. That's not what I want to repeat here. The topic today is the new Star Trek show, Star Trek Discovery, which I watched and will probably not watch again.
I'm not a Feminist, and that's why I won't watch it. Star Trek Discovery is a show that caters to the Feminist audience. I know that in this time of equal rights, there should be equal rights. But I will never agree that women should be fighting wars. Why would women want to fight in wars anyway? Do women want to fight in wars? Heck, men don't even want to fight in wars. That's why men like Muhammad Ali dodged the draft. He'd rather be in jail and fed than to be in Vietnam and dead, isn't that what he said? And I'm not saying I blame him, by the way.
So do women want to fight in wars? Do they really? Do they want to get their heads blown off? Do they want to come home from a battlefield with their legs blown off? With their faces blown off? Crippled for life? Why don't women get it? War and fighting is not some glorious thing like Wonder Woman would have you believe. It's not like Star Trek. Which brings me to my point.
Starships are warships. I don't believe a woman should command a warship of men. It just isn't right. I know women are good leaders in a school. I am a teacher and most of my principals have been women. And (for the most part) they have been great. But a school is not a battlefield. And women, imo, do not belong on a battlefield. Do they want to be on a battlefield?
I can't imagine why a woman would want to be on a battlefield. Anyone who would want to be on a battlefield would be by definition unqualified to be on that battlefield. Because that person would be mentally unstable. That ends the argument right there. Who would want to be led by an unstable person. No one. And too many times leaders have been unstable, because men who had wanted to be on a battlefield to lead have indeed been unstable. So there you go.
Okay, so again, back to Star Trek Discovery. We already had the woman starship captain in Star Trek Voyager with Captain Janeway. Quota fulfilled. Nope. Now we not only have another woman captain, but on top of that, we have the first officer also a woman. So the top two stars of the show, the captain and the first officer are women. Okay. No men. None. No testosterone, so to speak. But the first officer is providing the testosterone. She has a man's name, Michael, and she's all gung-ho in firing the first shot at the Klingons, as advised by Spock's dad. (Presumably, before Spock is born.)
So yeah. There are no men in the show, except in very minor and subservient roles. The men are the lowly officers and crewmen, relegated to taking orders from the women, and that's the premise of the show. It's a Feminist's dream, so to speak.
So if you're a Feminist and you like the Star Trek universe, this is the show for you. I like women, of course, been married to the same woman for almost thirty years, and I am all for equal rights and equal opportunity. But I will stand by my belief that women do not belong on a battlefield and women should be glad that society doesn't require them to be on a battlefield. And I will repeat this point because I think it is important. If a woman wants to be on a battlefield, then she is probably mentally unstable. And the same thing is probably true for a man.
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
Downton Abbey - Great Show
After having watched so many shows well after they had come and gone, I got a chance to do the same for Downton Abbey when one of the PBS stations broadcasted season one and season two. I am almost finished with season two, and I must say I am impressed.
Talk about a great show. It's a great show. What makes a great show? I had inferred in yesterday's post that the most important thing is great writing. Downton Abbey has that. But you need great characters: Check. You need great directing. Check. You need great acting. Check. And you need great villains and conflict that drives a storyline. Check.
Today's movie producers seem to believe that an action-packed story line is necessary. Action as in fighting, killing, car chases, explosions, and mad villains bent on destroying the world. And as I mentioned yesterday, the latest Star Trek movie sure did fall into that category. I mean most of the running time in that horrible Star Trek Beyond movie consisted of pyrotechnics of some sort or another. Explosions, explosions, and more explosions..
It also had the maniacal villain played by Idris Elba, an actor I like, but his character was so clichéd it was ridiculous. You know, he's the former Federation captain who was caught in some inescapable and horrible place, and the Federation couldn't save him, but sure enough he blames them, and then finds some alien contraption to keep himself alive, which then warps his mind, and now he wants to destroy the Federation and everything he once held dear.
Come on. That was so stupid, even my fourteen year old son couldn't stand it. He's just a kid and he told me how stupid that movie was. And he was right. He was so right.
If someone were to tell me that a show can be great, so riveting even, enough to keep you on the edge of your seat, and keep you hooked for the duration of several seasons--and all with no explosions, no killing, no fighting, and no wanton destruction, I would have been hard-pressed to believe it. But Downton Abbey is just that. It's a great show with no fighting, no killing, no explosions, and no wanton destruction. It's simply a great show.
Again, why? Because it's written so magnificently. And the characters are magnificent. No they are not great fighters. No they don't go around beating people up, and/or killing people left and right. They are just great characters who you care for, and you want to see what happens to them, hoping for the best. Yeah, there are villains, but these villains are not bent on world desctruction. Sure they're devious, and cause trouble, and you hate them, but you need them at the same time, otherwise there's no conflict, and no reason to watch the show.
But even theses "villains" are allowed to have a good side. They do have feelings, and they do regret the bad things they did. They are turning out to be human. And they should be, because, well, they are human. With a conscience. How refreshing. How many times have I watched shows or movies, and the writing makes the audience hate a character, so much so that you want to see that character get killed somewhere along the way, and when they do, you find yourself cheering the death of what was supposed to be a human being? Almost every time.
But not in Downton Abbey. When bad things happen to the "bad" people, you see the good in them and you don't want bad things to happen to them any more than you'd want to see something bad happen you your own brother or sister. Or friend. That, people, is excellent writing.
Yes, there's a lot to learn from watching a show like Downton Abbey. And I am.
Talk about a great show. It's a great show. What makes a great show? I had inferred in yesterday's post that the most important thing is great writing. Downton Abbey has that. But you need great characters: Check. You need great directing. Check. You need great acting. Check. And you need great villains and conflict that drives a storyline. Check.
Today's movie producers seem to believe that an action-packed story line is necessary. Action as in fighting, killing, car chases, explosions, and mad villains bent on destroying the world. And as I mentioned yesterday, the latest Star Trek movie sure did fall into that category. I mean most of the running time in that horrible Star Trek Beyond movie consisted of pyrotechnics of some sort or another. Explosions, explosions, and more explosions..
It also had the maniacal villain played by Idris Elba, an actor I like, but his character was so clichéd it was ridiculous. You know, he's the former Federation captain who was caught in some inescapable and horrible place, and the Federation couldn't save him, but sure enough he blames them, and then finds some alien contraption to keep himself alive, which then warps his mind, and now he wants to destroy the Federation and everything he once held dear.
Come on. That was so stupid, even my fourteen year old son couldn't stand it. He's just a kid and he told me how stupid that movie was. And he was right. He was so right.
If someone were to tell me that a show can be great, so riveting even, enough to keep you on the edge of your seat, and keep you hooked for the duration of several seasons--and all with no explosions, no killing, no fighting, and no wanton destruction, I would have been hard-pressed to believe it. But Downton Abbey is just that. It's a great show with no fighting, no killing, no explosions, and no wanton destruction. It's simply a great show.
Again, why? Because it's written so magnificently. And the characters are magnificent. No they are not great fighters. No they don't go around beating people up, and/or killing people left and right. They are just great characters who you care for, and you want to see what happens to them, hoping for the best. Yeah, there are villains, but these villains are not bent on world desctruction. Sure they're devious, and cause trouble, and you hate them, but you need them at the same time, otherwise there's no conflict, and no reason to watch the show.
But even theses "villains" are allowed to have a good side. They do have feelings, and they do regret the bad things they did. They are turning out to be human. And they should be, because, well, they are human. With a conscience. How refreshing. How many times have I watched shows or movies, and the writing makes the audience hate a character, so much so that you want to see that character get killed somewhere along the way, and when they do, you find yourself cheering the death of what was supposed to be a human being? Almost every time.
But not in Downton Abbey. When bad things happen to the "bad" people, you see the good in them and you don't want bad things to happen to them any more than you'd want to see something bad happen you your own brother or sister. Or friend. That, people, is excellent writing.
Yes, there's a lot to learn from watching a show like Downton Abbey. And I am.
Monday, July 25, 2016
New Star Trek movie - a bad comedy
Just saw Star Trek Beyond with my 14 year old son, and like the title of this post says, it was a bad comedy. What a shame that that's what the Star Trek franchise has become. A series of comedies. I don't usually like comedies. I've liked a few. Galaxy Quest comes to mind. That movie was brilliant. And if I were to compare Star Trek Beyond with Galaxy Quest, then Star Trek Beyond really sucked. And the reason? Star Trek Beyond wasn't really supposed to be a comedy.
Sure there were comedic moments in it. Just like the original had. And some of those moments were kind of funny. Just like the original. But Star Trek Beyond went beyond the moments. The whole movie was nothing but a parody of the great original series. A very bad one. A very, very bad one. It downright sucked. And it really did suck. And you know what? It sucked so bad that if I were to try to list all the reasons why it sucked, it would take too long. And it's not worth my time.
Instead I'll write the much shorter list of things were good about it. (Very short list.) One thing is Chris Pine seems to be growing into the role of Captain Kirk. And NOT because of the script. The script was one of the major factors why the movie SUCKED. No. He's LOOKING more like Captain Kirk. And that is purely going on looks. He's not there yet when it comes to ACTING like Captain Kirk, but that might have something to do with the horrible script and equally horrible directing. I am ready to believe that if someone, somewhere could actually WRITE a great Star Trek script, then Pine might indeed be right for the role. So that is definitely a good thing.
Okay, what else? Well, Zachary Quinto was always well cast as Mr. Spock. He plays the part well, too, so there was never a problem there.
But what else was good about it? I guess Karl Urban is turning out to be acceptable as Dr. McCoy. He seems pretty comfortable in the role now. The first couple movies I just couldn't get Karl Urban's tough guy image out of my head. I mean Karl Urban had played the parts of big, physically strong tough guys before his role as Dr. McCoy. Like that dude he played in Chronicles of Riddick. Since Chronicles of Riddick is one of my all time favorite movies, I had Urban's character stuck in my head. McCoy was not a tough physical guy. And Karl Urban played a very physically tough guy in Chronicles of Riddick. Then seeing him as Dr. McCoy just didn't seem right. But now, he's older, not so tough anymore, which makes him more suitable as the not so physical Dr. McCoy.
As for casting, that's about it. No one else is cast well in that movie. But what else was good about it? Well, we don't have to even mention special effects anymore. In this day and age, special effects are going to be great. The computer age saw to that.
I must say at this point that my list of good things about Star Trek Beyond is done. I told you it was going to be a very short list. Look. Star Trek was a drama. Sure there were some light moments, and sure one of the best Star Trek episodes was a light one in Trouble With Tribbles. But that's one show out of over seventy! It's supposed to be a drama. Now, it's reduced to a comedy. And a not very good one at that. It's a shame. Can't SOMEONE out there write a great Star Trek script? Anyone? I know not all the original series' scripts were great. But a darn lot of them were! It's what made the show a TV legend. It's what the later TV shows and this run of movies owe their existence to. Sadly, no one is stepping up to the plate. Sadly.
Sure there were comedic moments in it. Just like the original had. And some of those moments were kind of funny. Just like the original. But Star Trek Beyond went beyond the moments. The whole movie was nothing but a parody of the great original series. A very bad one. A very, very bad one. It downright sucked. And it really did suck. And you know what? It sucked so bad that if I were to try to list all the reasons why it sucked, it would take too long. And it's not worth my time.
Instead I'll write the much shorter list of things were good about it. (Very short list.) One thing is Chris Pine seems to be growing into the role of Captain Kirk. And NOT because of the script. The script was one of the major factors why the movie SUCKED. No. He's LOOKING more like Captain Kirk. And that is purely going on looks. He's not there yet when it comes to ACTING like Captain Kirk, but that might have something to do with the horrible script and equally horrible directing. I am ready to believe that if someone, somewhere could actually WRITE a great Star Trek script, then Pine might indeed be right for the role. So that is definitely a good thing.
Okay, what else? Well, Zachary Quinto was always well cast as Mr. Spock. He plays the part well, too, so there was never a problem there.
But what else was good about it? I guess Karl Urban is turning out to be acceptable as Dr. McCoy. He seems pretty comfortable in the role now. The first couple movies I just couldn't get Karl Urban's tough guy image out of my head. I mean Karl Urban had played the parts of big, physically strong tough guys before his role as Dr. McCoy. Like that dude he played in Chronicles of Riddick. Since Chronicles of Riddick is one of my all time favorite movies, I had Urban's character stuck in my head. McCoy was not a tough physical guy. And Karl Urban played a very physically tough guy in Chronicles of Riddick. Then seeing him as Dr. McCoy just didn't seem right. But now, he's older, not so tough anymore, which makes him more suitable as the not so physical Dr. McCoy.
As for casting, that's about it. No one else is cast well in that movie. But what else was good about it? Well, we don't have to even mention special effects anymore. In this day and age, special effects are going to be great. The computer age saw to that.
I must say at this point that my list of good things about Star Trek Beyond is done. I told you it was going to be a very short list. Look. Star Trek was a drama. Sure there were some light moments, and sure one of the best Star Trek episodes was a light one in Trouble With Tribbles. But that's one show out of over seventy! It's supposed to be a drama. Now, it's reduced to a comedy. And a not very good one at that. It's a shame. Can't SOMEONE out there write a great Star Trek script? Anyone? I know not all the original series' scripts were great. But a darn lot of them were! It's what made the show a TV legend. It's what the later TV shows and this run of movies owe their existence to. Sadly, no one is stepping up to the plate. Sadly.
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
New Star Trek Coming to TV in 2017
Chief among the characters of the Star Trek universe would be the starship captain. The very words are intensely impressive. Starship captain. Wow. And the prototypical starship captain is, of course, Captain James T. Kirk, played to perfection by a thirty-four year old William Shatner. I mention Shatner's age, because when he got older, (once they finally decided to make Star Trek again,) William Shatner didn't seem to "have it" anymore. But that was probably because of the horrible scripts they wrote for those horrible Star Trek movies. So I'll give Shatner a pass on that. (Although one of those horrible scripts was written by him.)
But Shatner's younger version of Captain Kirk was tops of all starship captains that have followed. None have been able to match William Shatner's portrayal of Captain Kirk in the original series. In the Next Generation, Patrick Stewart's Captain Picard was laughable. He was always insecure, always second guessing himself, never conveyed confidence or an authoritative personality. It was like they were deliberately DEBALLING the role of a starship captain. That was Capt. Picard in a nutshell.
In Deep Space Nine, Avery Brooks' Captain Sisko was competent, at least. If it were a quiz, he'd have passed. Brooks made a good authoritative figure, and as a black actor, playing a black captain, I'd say he was cast well. I have no problem with creating a black character. Where I do have a problem is changing the race of an established white character with the belief they are appeasing the black audience. They've done that with several characters from the comics world. It would have been too creepy bringing Captain Kirk back to the big or small screen played by a black actor. Just create a black character. And they did. So that's one thing the Star Trek universe got right.
So with the race card checked off, it was time for the woman card to be checked off, too. Enter Kate Mulgrew and her role of Captain Janeway in Voyager. I've never been a fan of women in combat, nor of women in combat roles. I consider a starship captain a combat role, since starships are futuristic versions of battleships. Yeah, I know the Star Trek universe tried to get away from that with the Next Generation show at first. They tried to make the starships "exploratory" ships, rather than military ships. Thus, the reason for the mealy-mouthed Captain Picard. But it didn't work. The story lines in Next Generation were so horribly boring, they found themselves forced back into the military mindset to keep their ratings up. And it worked with the introduction of the Borg as an enemy of the Federation. If not for the Borg and the militaristic story lines that pertained to them, the Next Generation would have been a complete failure.
As an authoritative figure, Kate Mulgrew's Captain Janeway was convincing enough, but again, not as a starship captain fighting enemy starships in a space war. She'd have been fine as a school principal, or even a captain commanding a non-military vessel. Because in my opinion, a woman is not a commander of men. At least not in a battle or any war time scenario.
Jonathan Archer played by Scott Bakula in Enterprise ranks under Avery. It's another passing grade, but he's light years behind Shatner's Capt Kirk. I didn't see all of the Enterprise TV shows, but even though Bakala's Archer seemed pretty authoritative, he also seemed like the kind of captain who would get his ship blown up. And, hey, that happens, right? Not all captains come back with their ships intact. Archer gives the impression he'd be one of them.
As for bringing Captain Kirk back like they did in the new movies, with a retelling of Captain Kirk in the Star Trek reboot? Ugh. Christopher Pine was a terrible failure. But as was the case with Statner's Star Trek movies, it may not be his fault. The stories sucked. The writing was just horrible and I don't understand it. Why can't anyone out there write a decent Star Trek story anymore? Where's D.C. Fontana? She's a woman, yet she could write a better Star Trek story than anyone since. Go figure.
Sunday, May 15, 2016
Banshee Wrapping Up Too Soon
I watched the next to last episode of Banshee last night, and I'm not changing my mind about how it's not as good as it used to be. Now, Lucas Hood has spilled his guts to the new sheriff, Lotus, and he was saying that he wasn't going to do that. Then he does it. I mean he spills everything. I don't agree with that. It ruined the mystique of the show. Now Lotus is disgusted with Hood, with himself, and with just about everything about the situations that made the show great.
And for me, that means the show is no longer great. It has bottomed out, like so many shows do. Even Star Trek, tos, bottomed out in its third season, but that was really the network's fault for tying to cancel it at every turn. They reduced the budget forcing story lines to be mundane. But even in its third season, ST, tos, had some classic episodes. The Enterprise Incident and Elaan of Troyius were as good as any episodes from seasons one and two.
But whatever. I can't think of any show that didn't have its low moments. Particularly shows from the 60s. They all seemed to bottom out. Shows from the 70s, 80s, and 90s didn't even interest me at all. The 80s version of Star Trek, which they called the Next Generation was so low energy and uninteresting, I couldn't even watch it at first.
A friend told me once that the characters in the Next Generation were so weak, they had to use TWO characters to equal ONE character from the original series, and I realized he was right. It took a combination of Picard and Riker to equal Captain Kirk. It took Data and Worf to equal Mr. Spock. It took Crusher and Deanna Troi to equal Dr. McCoy. I'll admit TNG picked up a little with the Borg story arc, but even then it didn't reach the level to which I had grown accustomed from the classic original and other great sci fi shows from the fifties and 60s.
Other Star Trek shows had decent moments, like Deep Space Nine and Voyager, but for the most part, imo, they just cashed in on the Star Trek name and the Star Trek universe. Like Star Wars is doing now with the rehashing of the original Star Wars movie. And boy, are they ever cashing in. You would think that with all the great minds that exist today, they'd be able to come up with something original. They probably could, but I think they are too afraid to gamble. Money, of course is the driving factor. Investors do not want to chance losing their precious money. So they make something that is proven. Something that already made money. Thus...
But back to Banshee. Why did they stray so far from what made it a good show? They changed the entire dynamic of the show. Lucas Hood is no longer the sheriff. Sheriff Lotus is now disgusted with himself and everyone else. Proctor and Carrie are in an all out war against each other. And I suppose the final episode of the series will see that war concluded. The anticlimactic conclusion to the serial killer was a disappointment. And Killing Rebecca Bowman off in that manner was the lowest of all the lows. A serial killer... Come on. Stupid, horrible writing. It really sucked. Too bad...
And for me, that means the show is no longer great. It has bottomed out, like so many shows do. Even Star Trek, tos, bottomed out in its third season, but that was really the network's fault for tying to cancel it at every turn. They reduced the budget forcing story lines to be mundane. But even in its third season, ST, tos, had some classic episodes. The Enterprise Incident and Elaan of Troyius were as good as any episodes from seasons one and two.
But whatever. I can't think of any show that didn't have its low moments. Particularly shows from the 60s. They all seemed to bottom out. Shows from the 70s, 80s, and 90s didn't even interest me at all. The 80s version of Star Trek, which they called the Next Generation was so low energy and uninteresting, I couldn't even watch it at first.
A friend told me once that the characters in the Next Generation were so weak, they had to use TWO characters to equal ONE character from the original series, and I realized he was right. It took a combination of Picard and Riker to equal Captain Kirk. It took Data and Worf to equal Mr. Spock. It took Crusher and Deanna Troi to equal Dr. McCoy. I'll admit TNG picked up a little with the Borg story arc, but even then it didn't reach the level to which I had grown accustomed from the classic original and other great sci fi shows from the fifties and 60s.
Other Star Trek shows had decent moments, like Deep Space Nine and Voyager, but for the most part, imo, they just cashed in on the Star Trek name and the Star Trek universe. Like Star Wars is doing now with the rehashing of the original Star Wars movie. And boy, are they ever cashing in. You would think that with all the great minds that exist today, they'd be able to come up with something original. They probably could, but I think they are too afraid to gamble. Money, of course is the driving factor. Investors do not want to chance losing their precious money. So they make something that is proven. Something that already made money. Thus...
But back to Banshee. Why did they stray so far from what made it a good show? They changed the entire dynamic of the show. Lucas Hood is no longer the sheriff. Sheriff Lotus is now disgusted with himself and everyone else. Proctor and Carrie are in an all out war against each other. And I suppose the final episode of the series will see that war concluded. The anticlimactic conclusion to the serial killer was a disappointment. And Killing Rebecca Bowman off in that manner was the lowest of all the lows. A serial killer... Come on. Stupid, horrible writing. It really sucked. Too bad...
Monday, April 18, 2016
Banshee Falls from Grace
Watching this fourth and final season of Banshee has been a total disappointment. Total. I had said before that Banshee, after its first three seasons, had replaced Star Trek, tos, as my all time favorite TV show. The fourth season began on the wrong note, as I had said, but I was willing to see how it panned out. I've just watched the third episode, and it's not looking good.
First of all, the premiere episode of season four began with one of my favorite characters, Rebecca Bowman, already dead, slain by an apparent serial killer who had already killed two other girls, using the same disgusting MO. And we had to deal with the main character, Sheriff Lucas Hood no longer being the sheriff. He had slinked away, living like a mountain man, resembling Grisly Adams, with a full scruffy beard, long unkempt hair, and the works.
The story has it that he's feeling sorry for himself, blaming himself for his friend's kidnapping. Oh, he's so sorry that he gave up trying to find him. But it gets worse. Now, in episode three, Lucas is arrested for the murder of Rebecca Bowman. It's all bull crap writing. Shockingly bull crap writing. I mean, they changed everything I liked about the show.
To put this in perspective, it's as if Star Trek, tos, had a fourth season, (which it didn't,) but if it did, Captain James T. Kirk was no longer the captain of the Enterprise, wasn't even in Star Fleet anymore, was not a hero anymore, because he was living on some obscure planet all by himself, looking like Grisly Adams, and Lt. Uhura was murdered by a serial killer, and her dead body was dumped on some obscure planet naked and gutted like a fish. Meanwhile, Mr. Spock has been kidnapped by the Klingons, is being tortured, and no one but Nurse Chapel is trying to find out how to get him back. Scotty is the new captain of the Enterprise, and to top it all off, James Kirk is arrested for the murder of Lt. Uhura, as if no one could realize that, hey, um, serial murders are not something James Kirk would do. Yeah, see what I mean? It's total and complete Bull Crap.
No. No. No. Banshee has fallen from grace, and worse than that, it's fallen into the shit can. I've been dealing with my favorite shows doing things wrong with the writing, but usually, like Arrow, they somehow recover. I don't know how Banshee can recover from all this crap. I think it's impossible. Even if it does pull out of the shit can, it will still have that lingering shit smell on it. Which is too bad. I had liked it so much. But alas, Star Trek, tos, has now resumed its place, for me anyway, as my all time favorite TV show. Kudos to Star Trek, tos. Number one, now and forever.
First of all, the premiere episode of season four began with one of my favorite characters, Rebecca Bowman, already dead, slain by an apparent serial killer who had already killed two other girls, using the same disgusting MO. And we had to deal with the main character, Sheriff Lucas Hood no longer being the sheriff. He had slinked away, living like a mountain man, resembling Grisly Adams, with a full scruffy beard, long unkempt hair, and the works.
The story has it that he's feeling sorry for himself, blaming himself for his friend's kidnapping. Oh, he's so sorry that he gave up trying to find him. But it gets worse. Now, in episode three, Lucas is arrested for the murder of Rebecca Bowman. It's all bull crap writing. Shockingly bull crap writing. I mean, they changed everything I liked about the show.
To put this in perspective, it's as if Star Trek, tos, had a fourth season, (which it didn't,) but if it did, Captain James T. Kirk was no longer the captain of the Enterprise, wasn't even in Star Fleet anymore, was not a hero anymore, because he was living on some obscure planet all by himself, looking like Grisly Adams, and Lt. Uhura was murdered by a serial killer, and her dead body was dumped on some obscure planet naked and gutted like a fish. Meanwhile, Mr. Spock has been kidnapped by the Klingons, is being tortured, and no one but Nurse Chapel is trying to find out how to get him back. Scotty is the new captain of the Enterprise, and to top it all off, James Kirk is arrested for the murder of Lt. Uhura, as if no one could realize that, hey, um, serial murders are not something James Kirk would do. Yeah, see what I mean? It's total and complete Bull Crap.
No. No. No. Banshee has fallen from grace, and worse than that, it's fallen into the shit can. I've been dealing with my favorite shows doing things wrong with the writing, but usually, like Arrow, they somehow recover. I don't know how Banshee can recover from all this crap. I think it's impossible. Even if it does pull out of the shit can, it will still have that lingering shit smell on it. Which is too bad. I had liked it so much. But alas, Star Trek, tos, has now resumed its place, for me anyway, as my all time favorite TV show. Kudos to Star Trek, tos. Number one, now and forever.
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
John Dunn was a Controversial Figure
In the latter half of the Nineteenth Century, not very many people in the English colony of Natal liked John Dunn. He was a white man but he lived with the black tribes in Zululand. It was his own choice. When he was seventeen, he worked for a group of white men, making a delivery through dangerous Zulu territory. He did the job, but when it came time to get paid, they didn't pay him.
So he moved away from white society with a girl who was half-black and lived in Zululand until one day by chance Captain Joshua Walmsley, the Natal border agent, found him.
By then, Dunn was more Zulu than white. He barely remembered how to speak English. But Captain Walmsley retaught him English, how to read and write, and provided a home for John, his wife, Catherine, and the three children they had in the years they lived in the wild. Walmsley even hired John as his assistant. But Captain Walmsley and his wife, Maria, were about the only white people to like John. They were the only white people who didn't care that he was married to a colored girl.
The word "colored" to people in South Africa back then meant a person who was half white and half black. Catherine's father was an Englishman, but her mother was a native from the Cape Colony. And she had to deal with racism all of her life. But not from John. John Dunn, in my opinion, was a perfect example of a man who didn't care about skin color. To John Dunn, people were people no matter what the color of their skin. To John Dunn a man was a man, no matter what race he was or what language he spoke or what kind of home he lived in.
I believe I'm the same way. Race never mattered to me. I can honestly say that all my life, skin color did not matter to me. Nor the country of a person's origin. Nor the language that a person spoke. I have always believed that people are people no matter what color is their skin. I am proud to say that, because I know that it's true. Anyone who's ever known me knows that it's true.
And John Dunn was like that. But he had to deal with racism. He had to deal with prejudice. He had to deal with the English belief that they were superior. And they took their racism to the Zulus by making war against them. The Zulus didn't do anything to the English. But the English declared war on them anyway. It's all in my book, John Dunn, Heart of a Zulu.
And John Dunn, Heart of a Zulu is quite a story, beginning with his participation in the Zulu Civil War of 1856 to the end of the Anglo Zulu War of 1878-79. That means he fought in, not one, but two Zulu wars. And he survived them.
As Mr. Spock raising an eyebrow in Star Trek would say: Fascinating!
Or as that German soldier smoking a cigarette in Laugh In would say: Verrrry Interesting!
So he moved away from white society with a girl who was half-black and lived in Zululand until one day by chance Captain Joshua Walmsley, the Natal border agent, found him.
By then, Dunn was more Zulu than white. He barely remembered how to speak English. But Captain Walmsley retaught him English, how to read and write, and provided a home for John, his wife, Catherine, and the three children they had in the years they lived in the wild. Walmsley even hired John as his assistant. But Captain Walmsley and his wife, Maria, were about the only white people to like John. They were the only white people who didn't care that he was married to a colored girl.
The word "colored" to people in South Africa back then meant a person who was half white and half black. Catherine's father was an Englishman, but her mother was a native from the Cape Colony. And she had to deal with racism all of her life. But not from John. John Dunn, in my opinion, was a perfect example of a man who didn't care about skin color. To John Dunn, people were people no matter what the color of their skin. To John Dunn a man was a man, no matter what race he was or what language he spoke or what kind of home he lived in.
I believe I'm the same way. Race never mattered to me. I can honestly say that all my life, skin color did not matter to me. Nor the country of a person's origin. Nor the language that a person spoke. I have always believed that people are people no matter what color is their skin. I am proud to say that, because I know that it's true. Anyone who's ever known me knows that it's true.
And John Dunn was like that. But he had to deal with racism. He had to deal with prejudice. He had to deal with the English belief that they were superior. And they took their racism to the Zulus by making war against them. The Zulus didn't do anything to the English. But the English declared war on them anyway. It's all in my book, John Dunn, Heart of a Zulu.
And John Dunn, Heart of a Zulu is quite a story, beginning with his participation in the Zulu Civil War of 1856 to the end of the Anglo Zulu War of 1878-79. That means he fought in, not one, but two Zulu wars. And he survived them.
As Mr. Spock raising an eyebrow in Star Trek would say: Fascinating!
Or as that German soldier smoking a cigarette in Laugh In would say: Verrrry Interesting!
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
TV's Golden Age Has Returned!
When I was a kid, it seemed like TV was going through a golden age. It was the sixties, and TV shows seemed to be the best shows TV would ever have. And well after those shows had been canceled, I continued to believe that.
You had shows like Gunsmoke, The Wild, Wild West, Batman, Lost in Space, Bonanza, The High Chaparral, The Man From Uncle, I Spy, Get Smart, Have Gun Will Travel, Secret Agent, and of course, the original Star Trek!
I was never one for sitcoms. But there were good ones, nonetheless. The Odd Couple, Bewitched, That Girl, The Monkees, and a slew of others. I didn't watch them, though. Well, I did watch The Monkees once in a while. But my favorite band as a kid was Paul Revere and the Raiders. And even they had a TV show. It was called Where the Action Is, and I thought it was great. But what kid wouldn't think a show was great if it featured their favorite band?
But time goes by, and times change. TV shows get canceled no matter how good they are. Bonanza lasted a long time, Gunsmoke even longer. For it's short run, Star Trek became one of the greatest shows after it got canceled. It sparked several spin offs, beginning with Star Trek, the Next Generation in the 80s. But Next Generation was only a shadow of the original, despite it's longer run. Even the Star Trek movies with the original cast were shockingly bad.
And it's the period of the seventies and eighties when TV took a nose dive, imo. There were probably some good shows, but I didn't watch them. I took a twenty year break from TV during those years. The only exception to that was when TV introduced the Mini Series concept. But I only watched two of them. Roots and Shaka Zulu. Both of those productions were well worth watching. In fact, Shaka Zulu directly ties in with my fourth book, John Dunn, Heart of a Zulu. Because John Dunn became a Zulu Chief during the reign of Shaka's nephew, Cetshwayo.
But when it came to watching with any regularity, it wasn't until the nineties when I came back to TV. Some of the Star Trek spinoffs after Next Generation actually were pretty good. Deep Space Nine and Voyager had some interesting story arcs, and kept me interested. A couple other Sci Fi shows turned out to be good, too. Babylon 5 being the stand out. Never got in to Battlestar Galactica, though. Not the original in the 80s, nor the reboot. It just didn't appeal to me.
But still, the nineties came around, and I loved the tongue in cheek show called The Adventures of Brisco County. It was canceled after a year, but what a year. The X-Files was pretty good, and some animated shows turned out pretty good, starting with Batman, and then The X-Men, and even Spider-man. And of course, the Japanese animated shows, called Anime, hit the scene and really took off. They lifted the bar, even, and put out droves of series, and even feature films. All of them top notch.
Which brings us to the new millennium. And the latest thing is the now abundant Cable and Premium channels. AMC's Walking Dead has taken TV audiences by storm. And for good reason. It's a great show. AMC has followed up with another show I have come to like. TURN, as they call it. It takes place during the American Revolutionary War. It's a well written show.
And that's not to mention HBO, STARZ, and Showtime. I've talked repeatedly about the Spartacus series, and the actor Dustin Clare, who I think would be perfectly cast as the main character, Trent Smith in my debut novel, Killer of Killers.
And I would be remiss if I didn't mention the mega hit Game of Thrones. Game of Thrones matches the production values of any of the most expensive films ever made. No wonder it's a great show. But there's more. You have DaVinci's Demons, the countless vampire shows, (which I don't watch,) and the new comedy called Silicon Valley, which I started watching because I happen to live in the silicon valley. I thought it might be worthwhile watching a show that takes place in the area where I grew up and still live. It turned out to be hilarious!
And, to me, that's the future of TV. The Cable and Premium channels. With a no holds barred attitude, as clearly demonstrated in shows like Spartacus, and even Game of Thrones, you have productions that can reflect what the artists behind them envision. With no inhibitions regarding violence, sex, or nudity. Anything and everything goes. Sure some shows have taken advantage of that. Namely Spartacus. But that's all right. As long as you're not prudish, it's not a problem. I often criticized Spartacus here on the blog for being over the top in regards to sex, nudity, and violence, but I still loved the show.
It's something to look forward to, really. It seems these channels are in competition with each other, and that's a good thing. It seems they are trying to top each other, and it's working. I can't wait for the future episodes of the shows I'm watching, and I'll be going to On Demand to catch up on the one's I've missed. TV's golden age has returned. And I welcome it.
You had shows like Gunsmoke, The Wild, Wild West, Batman, Lost in Space, Bonanza, The High Chaparral, The Man From Uncle, I Spy, Get Smart, Have Gun Will Travel, Secret Agent, and of course, the original Star Trek!
I was never one for sitcoms. But there were good ones, nonetheless. The Odd Couple, Bewitched, That Girl, The Monkees, and a slew of others. I didn't watch them, though. Well, I did watch The Monkees once in a while. But my favorite band as a kid was Paul Revere and the Raiders. And even they had a TV show. It was called Where the Action Is, and I thought it was great. But what kid wouldn't think a show was great if it featured their favorite band?
But time goes by, and times change. TV shows get canceled no matter how good they are. Bonanza lasted a long time, Gunsmoke even longer. For it's short run, Star Trek became one of the greatest shows after it got canceled. It sparked several spin offs, beginning with Star Trek, the Next Generation in the 80s. But Next Generation was only a shadow of the original, despite it's longer run. Even the Star Trek movies with the original cast were shockingly bad.
And it's the period of the seventies and eighties when TV took a nose dive, imo. There were probably some good shows, but I didn't watch them. I took a twenty year break from TV during those years. The only exception to that was when TV introduced the Mini Series concept. But I only watched two of them. Roots and Shaka Zulu. Both of those productions were well worth watching. In fact, Shaka Zulu directly ties in with my fourth book, John Dunn, Heart of a Zulu. Because John Dunn became a Zulu Chief during the reign of Shaka's nephew, Cetshwayo.
But when it came to watching with any regularity, it wasn't until the nineties when I came back to TV. Some of the Star Trek spinoffs after Next Generation actually were pretty good. Deep Space Nine and Voyager had some interesting story arcs, and kept me interested. A couple other Sci Fi shows turned out to be good, too. Babylon 5 being the stand out. Never got in to Battlestar Galactica, though. Not the original in the 80s, nor the reboot. It just didn't appeal to me.
But still, the nineties came around, and I loved the tongue in cheek show called The Adventures of Brisco County. It was canceled after a year, but what a year. The X-Files was pretty good, and some animated shows turned out pretty good, starting with Batman, and then The X-Men, and even Spider-man. And of course, the Japanese animated shows, called Anime, hit the scene and really took off. They lifted the bar, even, and put out droves of series, and even feature films. All of them top notch.
Which brings us to the new millennium. And the latest thing is the now abundant Cable and Premium channels. AMC's Walking Dead has taken TV audiences by storm. And for good reason. It's a great show. AMC has followed up with another show I have come to like. TURN, as they call it. It takes place during the American Revolutionary War. It's a well written show.
And that's not to mention HBO, STARZ, and Showtime. I've talked repeatedly about the Spartacus series, and the actor Dustin Clare, who I think would be perfectly cast as the main character, Trent Smith in my debut novel, Killer of Killers.
And I would be remiss if I didn't mention the mega hit Game of Thrones. Game of Thrones matches the production values of any of the most expensive films ever made. No wonder it's a great show. But there's more. You have DaVinci's Demons, the countless vampire shows, (which I don't watch,) and the new comedy called Silicon Valley, which I started watching because I happen to live in the silicon valley. I thought it might be worthwhile watching a show that takes place in the area where I grew up and still live. It turned out to be hilarious!
And, to me, that's the future of TV. The Cable and Premium channels. With a no holds barred attitude, as clearly demonstrated in shows like Spartacus, and even Game of Thrones, you have productions that can reflect what the artists behind them envision. With no inhibitions regarding violence, sex, or nudity. Anything and everything goes. Sure some shows have taken advantage of that. Namely Spartacus. But that's all right. As long as you're not prudish, it's not a problem. I often criticized Spartacus here on the blog for being over the top in regards to sex, nudity, and violence, but I still loved the show.
It's something to look forward to, really. It seems these channels are in competition with each other, and that's a good thing. It seems they are trying to top each other, and it's working. I can't wait for the future episodes of the shows I'm watching, and I'll be going to On Demand to catch up on the one's I've missed. TV's golden age has returned. And I welcome it.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Walking Dead--Shocking, but Good
I like the Walking Dead show, but I never liked the child characters. OK, Carl has a role in the show, and it's an established character that I can handle. But when the two little girl characters were introduced, I found them unacceptable. And the reason is because it's not a kid's show. It really is an adult show. The graphic violence and over-the-top gore makes it an adult show. It's no place for two little girls, or two characters who are little girls.
Even when I was a kid I never liked shows with kids. I remember the old TV show Lost in Space. I was a kid, but never did I like the kids Will Robinson and his sister Penney in that show. I was able to accept it when they were side-story characters, but when the show came to focus on Will Robinson, it became a lousy kids show that I didn't like.
Ditto with the Star Trek Next Generation show. I loved the original Star Trek show, but when Next Generation came out, it featured another kid, Wesley Crusher, who, for me, ruined the show. The show actually focused on him, and he was almost always the hero, the one who figured out the problem at hand, and then figured out the solution, while all the adults, including the Captain and First Officer sat around with their heads up their you know whats. For me, that equated to a very bad show.
So back to the Walking Dead and the two little girls who have been on the show now for about one season, total, and that will be all, because they've been killed off. Of course I don't relish the event, or any event that sees children killed. It's one of the reasons I didn't like the Hunger Games movie. But those two little girls should never have been on the show in the first place. It's as if they were introduced just to be killed off. That isn't what should happen in a show. Maybe it's supposed to happen to the guys who wear the read uniform shirts in the original Star Trek show, but it's not what's supposed to happen to kids.
Nevertheless, I never thought those girls should have been in the show, so when they were killed off, it was acceptable to me. And the way they were killed off, I have to say, was a shocking development. And original, too. Seeing how things happen in that show, heck, even in real life, it was a good piece of writing, imo.
I say that because lately the show had become mundane. It was just people wandering around, killing off zombies, and nothing was really happening other than, say, building up characterization. But no real events were happening. Now, the deaths of the two littler girls, and especially the WAY that it happened was, not only shocking, but completely unexpected. When a story can do that, I mean, take a twisting turn that totally surprises the audience, then that is real good writing.
Kudos to The Walking Dead writers for being real good writers.
Even when I was a kid I never liked shows with kids. I remember the old TV show Lost in Space. I was a kid, but never did I like the kids Will Robinson and his sister Penney in that show. I was able to accept it when they were side-story characters, but when the show came to focus on Will Robinson, it became a lousy kids show that I didn't like.
Ditto with the Star Trek Next Generation show. I loved the original Star Trek show, but when Next Generation came out, it featured another kid, Wesley Crusher, who, for me, ruined the show. The show actually focused on him, and he was almost always the hero, the one who figured out the problem at hand, and then figured out the solution, while all the adults, including the Captain and First Officer sat around with their heads up their you know whats. For me, that equated to a very bad show.
So back to the Walking Dead and the two little girls who have been on the show now for about one season, total, and that will be all, because they've been killed off. Of course I don't relish the event, or any event that sees children killed. It's one of the reasons I didn't like the Hunger Games movie. But those two little girls should never have been on the show in the first place. It's as if they were introduced just to be killed off. That isn't what should happen in a show. Maybe it's supposed to happen to the guys who wear the read uniform shirts in the original Star Trek show, but it's not what's supposed to happen to kids.
Nevertheless, I never thought those girls should have been in the show, so when they were killed off, it was acceptable to me. And the way they were killed off, I have to say, was a shocking development. And original, too. Seeing how things happen in that show, heck, even in real life, it was a good piece of writing, imo.
I say that because lately the show had become mundane. It was just people wandering around, killing off zombies, and nothing was really happening other than, say, building up characterization. But no real events were happening. Now, the deaths of the two littler girls, and especially the WAY that it happened was, not only shocking, but completely unexpected. When a story can do that, I mean, take a twisting turn that totally surprises the audience, then that is real good writing.
Kudos to The Walking Dead writers for being real good writers.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
The Next Star Trek Movie
Okay, it was my son's birthday on Monday, but on Saturday I took him, his friends, and my second son to the new Star Trek movie. I've mentioned that I was a fan of the original series, and I've also said that I thought all of the Star Trek movies sucked. Even the first reboot of the original series. Captain Kirk, you see, is one of my all time favorite characters, and I hated how the first movie portrayed him, and I hated the entire reboot.
But I didn't hate the second one. No, I didn't like it, but I didn't hate it. It still sucked, to be sure, but not as much. Oh, heck, it did suck as much. Spoiler alert coming up. So stop reading if you plan on seeing it. Okay. Again, the rehashing of old stories is one thing, but the redoing of old stories is another. Can it be done? Sure. But it takes some great writing, and for some reason, no Star Trek movie can seem to find great writing. With all of the great stories from the original series to choose from, they keep going back to the Khan character. He was a great character, yes, but the other Star Trek movies already redid that guy. Doesn't mean these movies can't redo him, too, but making a Star Fleet Admiral the bad guy, as they did in this movie, is just bogus to me.
And changing a character's race, to me, seems like a cop out. The movies of the Marvel universe did that with Nick Fury. They changed him from a white man to a black man. It wasn't the first time. The movies changed the iconic character of James West from a white man to a black man. Both instances were bogus. Sure black men can be just as heroic, but that's not my point. (But thought I better throw that in.) Introduce a new character who's black if you want to feature a heroic black man. Don't just be lazy and change a white man into a black man. That sounds too much like that guy from the past who used to sing, "Mammy."
But I digress. In this new Star Trek movie, they changed the great villain Khan from being an East Indian to being another white man. It's as if Hollywood is too afraid to portray a minority as a villain. The villains, to them, seemingly, must be white for fear of criticism from which a minority group is represented, and in this case, the Indian people. Khan Noonian Singh. I've had plenty of students named Singh. All were brown-skinned people from India. The original Khan was played by a great Mexican actor, Ricardo Maltalban. Which worked. Ricardo Maltalban was not a blue-eyed white skinned person. He was a brown skinned, brown-eyed actor who fit the part.
But now, it's got to be a white skinned, blue-eyed actor for the villain. Which would be cool if it was someone else. Besides Khan. But Hollywood is almost always afraid. I remember many shows where they changed terrorists from the brown skinned Arabs, (which they are,) to white skinned neo-Nazis. Who have just as much potential for terror, no doubt, but they aren't the ones threatening the Western world today. Just some thoughts. And my final thought on the Star Trek movie is this: It kept me watching, but when it was over I thought it sucked. Period.
But I didn't hate the second one. No, I didn't like it, but I didn't hate it. It still sucked, to be sure, but not as much. Oh, heck, it did suck as much. Spoiler alert coming up. So stop reading if you plan on seeing it. Okay. Again, the rehashing of old stories is one thing, but the redoing of old stories is another. Can it be done? Sure. But it takes some great writing, and for some reason, no Star Trek movie can seem to find great writing. With all of the great stories from the original series to choose from, they keep going back to the Khan character. He was a great character, yes, but the other Star Trek movies already redid that guy. Doesn't mean these movies can't redo him, too, but making a Star Fleet Admiral the bad guy, as they did in this movie, is just bogus to me.
And changing a character's race, to me, seems like a cop out. The movies of the Marvel universe did that with Nick Fury. They changed him from a white man to a black man. It wasn't the first time. The movies changed the iconic character of James West from a white man to a black man. Both instances were bogus. Sure black men can be just as heroic, but that's not my point. (But thought I better throw that in.) Introduce a new character who's black if you want to feature a heroic black man. Don't just be lazy and change a white man into a black man. That sounds too much like that guy from the past who used to sing, "Mammy."
But I digress. In this new Star Trek movie, they changed the great villain Khan from being an East Indian to being another white man. It's as if Hollywood is too afraid to portray a minority as a villain. The villains, to them, seemingly, must be white for fear of criticism from which a minority group is represented, and in this case, the Indian people. Khan Noonian Singh. I've had plenty of students named Singh. All were brown-skinned people from India. The original Khan was played by a great Mexican actor, Ricardo Maltalban. Which worked. Ricardo Maltalban was not a blue-eyed white skinned person. He was a brown skinned, brown-eyed actor who fit the part.
But now, it's got to be a white skinned, blue-eyed actor for the villain. Which would be cool if it was someone else. Besides Khan. But Hollywood is almost always afraid. I remember many shows where they changed terrorists from the brown skinned Arabs, (which they are,) to white skinned neo-Nazis. Who have just as much potential for terror, no doubt, but they aren't the ones threatening the Western world today. Just some thoughts. And my final thought on the Star Trek movie is this: It kept me watching, but when it was over I thought it sucked. Period.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
New Star Trek Movie Coming
I panned the last Star Trek movie, the reboot of the original series. Heck, during that panning, I panned every Star Trek movie that's ever been made. They all sucked. While I was at it, I panned four of the six Star Wars movies, too. And I'm not that hard to please. Really.
But the people in charge of those movies just plain dropped the ball. Like Lucas after the Empire Strikes Back, they just seemed to lose sight of what the movies should be, or what the original series was all about -- a great show with great writing. Instead, Star Trek and Star Wars seemed to choose the bubble gum crowd as their audience. And in doing so, chose comedy and goofiness as a means of story telling. And when they did that, for me, at least, the magic was gone.
Star Trek the original series and the first two Star Wars were serious stories, gritty stories, even realistic, although that may be argued, but to me they were. You had a great character and a great hero in Capt. Kirk, and one in Spock, too. In Star Wars, Luke and Han Solo were great characters.
But they became adolescents, and thrown to the kiddy crowd. The stories and new supporting characters were cartoon-like, and comedic. I never cared much for comedies. Those are hard to do. Sure it's pulled off sometimes, and I agree that even serious movies should have some comedic elements in them, but turning a hard core dramatic genre into a tongue in cheek fiasco is just plain wrong. They did that with the James Bond franchise. Sure they made their money, but the films were far inferior. At least, with the Daniel Craig versions, the serious and gritty Bond flicks are back. Maybe it can happen with Star Trek and Star Wars, too. But I won't hold my breath.
But the people in charge of those movies just plain dropped the ball. Like Lucas after the Empire Strikes Back, they just seemed to lose sight of what the movies should be, or what the original series was all about -- a great show with great writing. Instead, Star Trek and Star Wars seemed to choose the bubble gum crowd as their audience. And in doing so, chose comedy and goofiness as a means of story telling. And when they did that, for me, at least, the magic was gone.
Star Trek the original series and the first two Star Wars were serious stories, gritty stories, even realistic, although that may be argued, but to me they were. You had a great character and a great hero in Capt. Kirk, and one in Spock, too. In Star Wars, Luke and Han Solo were great characters.
But they became adolescents, and thrown to the kiddy crowd. The stories and new supporting characters were cartoon-like, and comedic. I never cared much for comedies. Those are hard to do. Sure it's pulled off sometimes, and I agree that even serious movies should have some comedic elements in them, but turning a hard core dramatic genre into a tongue in cheek fiasco is just plain wrong. They did that with the James Bond franchise. Sure they made their money, but the films were far inferior. At least, with the Daniel Craig versions, the serious and gritty Bond flicks are back. Maybe it can happen with Star Trek and Star Wars, too. But I won't hold my breath.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Speaking of Movies
Talked about the Star Trek movie yesterday, about how bad it was, but today I remembered all of the Star Trek movies sucked. Every one of them. I remember way back when they decided to make the first Star Trek movie. Star Trek, the Motion Picture, it was called. Sure I was excited about it. It was frustrating that they had to witness the phenomenal success of the Star Wars movies to convince them that they should do it. But they did. And I saw it. And it sucked.
The producers sucked, the story sucked, the writing sucked. It was great they got all the original actors, but every movie, right up to the reboot, sucked. If they could have hired Harlan Ellison, or someone who can actually write, it probably would have been great. But rehashing two of the original series episodes was a lousy idea. I'm talking about The Changeling, which was what the first movie was based on, and then Space Seed, which is what the second movie was based on. Both were horrid, and so was every Star Trek movie since.
Meanwhile, Star Wars finally came out with its second trilogy and it sucked, too. I'm not going o go into those, but after The Empire Strikes Back, which was the best, they have all sucked. And no, I'm not hard to please. But I'll call it like I see it. Star Wars one and two were great. Number 3 sucked, and so did all the rest. I'm not optimistic about what Disney's going to do. But I'll probably see them. And then I'll have more to complain about. But maybe not. Disney has a knack of making good movies. Usually.
The producers sucked, the story sucked, the writing sucked. It was great they got all the original actors, but every movie, right up to the reboot, sucked. If they could have hired Harlan Ellison, or someone who can actually write, it probably would have been great. But rehashing two of the original series episodes was a lousy idea. I'm talking about The Changeling, which was what the first movie was based on, and then Space Seed, which is what the second movie was based on. Both were horrid, and so was every Star Trek movie since.
Meanwhile, Star Wars finally came out with its second trilogy and it sucked, too. I'm not going o go into those, but after The Empire Strikes Back, which was the best, they have all sucked. And no, I'm not hard to please. But I'll call it like I see it. Star Wars one and two were great. Number 3 sucked, and so did all the rest. I'm not optimistic about what Disney's going to do. But I'll probably see them. And then I'll have more to complain about. But maybe not. Disney has a knack of making good movies. Usually.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Star Trek Reboot--Hated it
I never talked about the Star Trek reboot movie that came out a couple years ago. The one where time is changed, and Captain Kirk and his crew live their lives in a different time line. It sucked. Really bad. I was a fan of the original series, and I can't believe how bad that movie was. James Kirk is now a delinquent, Spock's planet gets destroyed, Dr. McCoy is the ultimate warrior, Vaako, from Chronicles of Riddick, Uhura is in love with Spock, Scotty is on some obscure planet living a solitary existence with a pet alien, Chekov is some boy genius, the likes of Will Robinson, or even, shudder, Wesley Crusher, who I never could stand, and Sulu is the guy from Harold and Kumar.
It was all a bad joke to me, and to anyone else who was a hardcore fan of the original series. Nor could I stand the stand-in aliens, one in a bar, a la Star Wars, and a spattering of cartoon-like aliens here and there. Again, it was a complete rip-off of Star Wars. And again, it was a bad joke.
All of the characters were miscast, except, perhaps, Spock. Zachary Quinto actually looked the part. But Kirk? Wrong actor. Chris Pine looked just like what they portrayed him as--a delinquent. And that's my problem. Captain Kirk, even in a different time line, was no delinquent. I'm sure the writers will argue that growing up without his father made him into a delinquent, but that's assuming that anyone who grows up without a father is guaranteed to be a delinquent. And I'll never believe that. It's bull crap.
Scotty being played by Simon Pegg, was all right, but being assigned to a solitary assignment removed and apart from everyone else? Nope. His talent was such that he would be heading the most important engineering jobs around at the time. Which was why he was assigned head engineer to the USS Enterprise, and not falling into that job by mere chance as this movie had it.
And Uhura? Uhura was African, not African American, as established at least twice in the original series. Her first language was Swahili, not English and the writers of this movie disregarded that. Which I believe is an insult to all of Africa and all Africans. (It would have been the same thing if they made Scotty no longer Scottish, or Chekov no longer Russian, but they didn't do that, did they?) But Zoe Saldana was no African and she just didn't look the part. She didn't convey the elegance, the dignity that was played to perfection by Nichelle Nichols. And that pathetic attraction to Spock? It's true she flirted with Spock in a very early episode on STTOS, but to anyone who has any perception abilities, she was just messing with Spock,while singing a song. She wasn't attracted to him. Her taste in men was exemplified twice during the original series. First, she was attracted to a strong looking and well spoken African man, as depicted in The Man Trap. Second, she admitted being attracted to Captain Kirk himself in the episode Plato's Children. But she was never attracted to Spock. That was nothing more than a joke.
And Sulu? Harold? Come on.
And Dr. McCoy? Played by the warrior Vaako? Well, actually, he kind of did look the part. But Karl Urban (Vaako) playing Dr. McCoy is akin to Eric Bana, (Hector) playing Dr. Bruce Banner. It's just not him. BTW, Eric Bana, the perennial good guy in all of his other movies, just happened to be the bad guy, Nero, in this movie. Another example of miscasting.
And the guy playing Chekov didn't even remotely look like him. And another thing. Chekov wasn't even around for the first year of the series, which means he wouldn't have been there for the Enterprise's maiden voyage, as he was depicted in this movie. All wrong.
Oh, well. Now the second one is about to come out. I'll see it. And then probably have some more to complain about. It'll give me something to write about.
It was all a bad joke to me, and to anyone else who was a hardcore fan of the original series. Nor could I stand the stand-in aliens, one in a bar, a la Star Wars, and a spattering of cartoon-like aliens here and there. Again, it was a complete rip-off of Star Wars. And again, it was a bad joke.
All of the characters were miscast, except, perhaps, Spock. Zachary Quinto actually looked the part. But Kirk? Wrong actor. Chris Pine looked just like what they portrayed him as--a delinquent. And that's my problem. Captain Kirk, even in a different time line, was no delinquent. I'm sure the writers will argue that growing up without his father made him into a delinquent, but that's assuming that anyone who grows up without a father is guaranteed to be a delinquent. And I'll never believe that. It's bull crap.
Scotty being played by Simon Pegg, was all right, but being assigned to a solitary assignment removed and apart from everyone else? Nope. His talent was such that he would be heading the most important engineering jobs around at the time. Which was why he was assigned head engineer to the USS Enterprise, and not falling into that job by mere chance as this movie had it.
And Uhura? Uhura was African, not African American, as established at least twice in the original series. Her first language was Swahili, not English and the writers of this movie disregarded that. Which I believe is an insult to all of Africa and all Africans. (It would have been the same thing if they made Scotty no longer Scottish, or Chekov no longer Russian, but they didn't do that, did they?) But Zoe Saldana was no African and she just didn't look the part. She didn't convey the elegance, the dignity that was played to perfection by Nichelle Nichols. And that pathetic attraction to Spock? It's true she flirted with Spock in a very early episode on STTOS, but to anyone who has any perception abilities, she was just messing with Spock,while singing a song. She wasn't attracted to him. Her taste in men was exemplified twice during the original series. First, she was attracted to a strong looking and well spoken African man, as depicted in The Man Trap. Second, she admitted being attracted to Captain Kirk himself in the episode Plato's Children. But she was never attracted to Spock. That was nothing more than a joke.
And Sulu? Harold? Come on.
And Dr. McCoy? Played by the warrior Vaako? Well, actually, he kind of did look the part. But Karl Urban (Vaako) playing Dr. McCoy is akin to Eric Bana, (Hector) playing Dr. Bruce Banner. It's just not him. BTW, Eric Bana, the perennial good guy in all of his other movies, just happened to be the bad guy, Nero, in this movie. Another example of miscasting.
And the guy playing Chekov didn't even remotely look like him. And another thing. Chekov wasn't even around for the first year of the series, which means he wouldn't have been there for the Enterprise's maiden voyage, as he was depicted in this movie. All wrong.
Oh, well. Now the second one is about to come out. I'll see it. And then probably have some more to complain about. It'll give me something to write about.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Good Writing is Key
I mentioned Star Trek yesterday, so today I thought I'd add why it was such a great show. It was the writing. Sure, it's true, the casting was great. Shatner as Kirk, Nimoy as Spock, etc. But if there wasn't such great writing to carry that show, especially during the first two seasons, it would never have had the resurgence it had later. The characters were right on, their acting was right on, but the stories, the writing was the key to its success.
It's when the writing suffered during the third season, that's when the plug was pulled on the series. Sure there were some good episodes in the third season, a couple really great ones, but overall the writing suffered and the show ended. Of course we all know what happened next. From reruns, a new generation fell in love with Star Trek, and then the movies came back with the original cast.
But the movies sucked. I was astonished at how horrible the first one turned out. You would think with an opportunity to reclaim a place in Sci Fi annals, they would put their best foot forward, but no. They rehashed an old plot, and played up a romanctic angle with some newbie character, and thought it would fly.
Sure the audience came, after over a decade of waiting, and the success of Star Wars, they were bound to come. But the bottom line was it was a lousy movie, a lousy plot and lousy writing. In my opinion, all the Star Trek movies were bad, and that goes for the latest reboot, too.
Don't even get me started on the Next Generation show. Yuck.
It's when the writing suffered during the third season, that's when the plug was pulled on the series. Sure there were some good episodes in the third season, a couple really great ones, but overall the writing suffered and the show ended. Of course we all know what happened next. From reruns, a new generation fell in love with Star Trek, and then the movies came back with the original cast.
But the movies sucked. I was astonished at how horrible the first one turned out. You would think with an opportunity to reclaim a place in Sci Fi annals, they would put their best foot forward, but no. They rehashed an old plot, and played up a romanctic angle with some newbie character, and thought it would fly.
Sure the audience came, after over a decade of waiting, and the success of Star Wars, they were bound to come. But the bottom line was it was a lousy movie, a lousy plot and lousy writing. In my opinion, all the Star Trek movies were bad, and that goes for the latest reboot, too.
Don't even get me started on the Next Generation show. Yuck.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Indie Publishers, E-Books, and Paper
I've been submitting THE VASE to some Indie Publishers because, mostly, they are the ones who don't require an agent. I'm hesitant, however, to submit to those publishers who only do E-Books. I'm old school, like I've mentioned before, and I still have that dream of seeing my book in print. You know, the kind of print that you can hold in your hand, and turn paper pages.
I don't doubt that the future of publishing is electronic. I still remember that Star Trek pilot episode, "Where No Man Has Gone Before" when Gary Mitchell, played by Gary Lockwood, was recovering from that psychic shock, and he was reading at super fast speeds. Well, the books he read were on a computer monitor. Even back in 1966, Star Trek had it right about the future of books on a computer screen.
Yet I also remember another Star Trek episode, the one called "Court Martial" where some old school lawyer had filled Captain Kirk's quarters with old-fashioned style books. And he raved about his preference of them over computers. Yes, as right as Star Trek was about books being on monitors, they also allowed for the still-in-existence old-fashioned paper-bound books.
I hope they got that right, too. Like I said, I don't doubt the future of publishing is electronic, but I hope, like Star Trek portrayed, that the good old-fashioned paper bound books don't go the way of the dinosaur.
I don't doubt that the future of publishing is electronic. I still remember that Star Trek pilot episode, "Where No Man Has Gone Before" when Gary Mitchell, played by Gary Lockwood, was recovering from that psychic shock, and he was reading at super fast speeds. Well, the books he read were on a computer monitor. Even back in 1966, Star Trek had it right about the future of books on a computer screen.
Yet I also remember another Star Trek episode, the one called "Court Martial" where some old school lawyer had filled Captain Kirk's quarters with old-fashioned style books. And he raved about his preference of them over computers. Yes, as right as Star Trek was about books being on monitors, they also allowed for the still-in-existence old-fashioned paper-bound books.
I hope they got that right, too. Like I said, I don't doubt the future of publishing is electronic, but I hope, like Star Trek portrayed, that the good old-fashioned paper bound books don't go the way of the dinosaur.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)