New star trek and the mythology around it

So rant...I am a huge fan of star trek. I am not the biggest fan of the reboot (jj abrams) movies but I am still a fan of star trek as a whole.

CBS recently released a small teaser trailer for the upcoming 2017 series...and surprise surprise it has a few people upset. So let's break this down as to why. The trailer was nothing big it was designed to just inform people that there is a new series that will be featured on CBS's payed streaming site. THAT'S ALL...this show has not been cast yet it has drawn criticism from many fans. Why are fans bitching? Why are they upset? Well there are a lot of reasons. First lets make something clear Star Trek is essentially owned by 2 companies, CBS and Paramount, Paramount owns the movies CBS owns the Television endeavors. Both these companies have caused some in the fan base to loathe them, at least that's the fans perception. Let's dive in shall we...

Reason 1. 

REBOOTS...in 2009 the start of a new Star Trek Franchise began. In this version we get to see the original characters but completely recast and redesigned. Did this movie work? Eh kinda sorta sorta kinda. It worked to keep Star Trek alive after a period of a few years where it was dying. In my opinion it was dying after the 3rd season of Enterprise. This movie was flawed but it was fun in many ways. It was nice seeing a smart ass Kirk even though he was over the top but it was nice seeing Nimoy return albeit briefly to 'pass the baton' to the new crew. It failed to give us a traditional Trek story according to many fans. HOWEVER here is a problem before 2009 movie came out for over 13 years Paramount kept feeling that the fans wanted Star Trek to be a action movie. 

This perception was brought out by the fans. After Star Trek Generations many fans thought that movie was deeply flawed because 1. It killed Kirk, 2. Was boring. 3 didn't have a well developed story and so on. Then First Contact came out...most fan reaction was essentially 'OMG They brought the Bork its an action movie! YAY' Even in the behind the scenes features the cast of TNG movies stated the fans want Star Trek to be a ACTION MOVIE. It just took 13 years later to make Star Trek into a action movie. This is a disconnect of the fan base because Paramount listened to everything that the fans wanted but couldn't achieve it due to the people writing the TNG movies. There are more reasons but we will get to that later.

Ultimately Paramount wasn't sure what to do with Star Trek, they had a typical story that could be adapted into any sci-fi or action movie. Star Trek has name recognition and most people go with something they know about when going to a movie...ultimately this caused a backlash due to fans. The Fan base needed to be broadened unfortunately it was broadened by someone who didn't really understand intellectual trek. 

The nervousness is that the new Trek series will take place in the Reboot universe from JJ Abrams...THIS HAS BEEN STATED BY CBS TO NOT BE THE CASE (that was capitalized because no one seems to understand that). 

Reason 2. 

The myth of Gene Roddenberry and Star Trek...This one pains me to write actually, I admire Gene Roddenberry immensely, for not only Star Trek but his service to world war 2 and his talent to write. But ultimately I am a realist, it's easy for us to see as fans and say 'this man was a visionary' (which he was) and 'he wrote the best Star Trek' (which he didn't). Like all franchises Star Trek didn't start out as a franchise it started as a TV show to attract viewers and advertisers let's make that clear BUT something changed, Star Trek started to capture people's imagination during it's run and after, largely due to the space race and the lunar landing. Then more fans came into the fold which lead to something it lead to the evolution of what Star Trek was and is. There is a perception that Star Trek was always about people of the Earth working together for a common good with no need for want and material, while this is partially true it was for convenience of story. In the original series money is mentioned by starfleet and for it's use. Over time and over the movies and TV shows it evolved that humans do not use money because there is no want or need because of the technology of the time. Also the ideas of inclusiveness working together evolved as well. In TOS First pilot the Cage the cast was not that diverse. It was mostly white men and women that were on the main cast, probably because the two women on the cast was too much for that time anyway. It wasn't until the series went on did we get more diversity and it wasn't until the movies and TNG were made did we fully see more diversity. 

Gene was a good man BUT a heavily flawed man from the reports of people that were married and directly worked for and with him. He was known for stealing scripts by not crediting people fully (Ask D.C. Fontana). He also felt (Specifically in TNG) that conflicts should be minimal and it should be about exploration. Here is when Gene actually believed the mythology that fans built around him, this caused several problems with the writing staff and thereby causing people to quit be fired or going behind is back. My fellow fans, TNG was a ultimate disaster in the first 2-3 seasons due to fighting behind the scenes and because of Gene trying to control everything. Trek has grown to being what it is, just like Star Wars or any good franchise, it has evolved. 

Reason 3.

This is another part I hate to point out because I will get labeled a hater by fellow fans (if anyone reads this that is). Fan's feel that we own what we are a fan of, we feel because we 'invested' in a franchise we own it. I understand this feeling, I have felt that way at times, that this was my personal thing that I share with the fans...the bitter truth...WE DO NOT OWN STAR TREK. Paramount and CBS own it, for better or worse. Star Trek is a product, that we pay for ultimately, just like me buying an iPod or a Marvel movie doesn't mean I own a Apple or a part of Marvel. It is a product that I purchase and enjoy. 

CBS and Paramount recently sued a 'fan film' that for a while I was hoping to see, however over time a lot of read flags appeared and after CBS and Paramount discovered  that this production was selling versions of star trek merchandise, raised almost 1.5 million dollars and proclaiming that they are a professional film CBS and Paramount had enough and sued this person (While not suing all fan films). Under the law they have a right to do this but this actually caused a small backlash among some fans that continue to support this 'fan film'. A few are calling for an outright boycott of any new trek without giving it a chance, while I understand that sentiment of the reboot movies, I don't understand that when it comes to a new series that has wonderful talent attached to it such as Nicholas Meyer. This whole boycott thing comes from a sentiment that us fans own star trek and there is nothing that CBS and Paramount can do about it, this isn't true we have a choice of what to purchase but we don't own the brand. CBS and Paramount can let star trek die but that means what they have invested will fall. They do need to make a profit if there is no profit they will drop it. This was done in the early 2000's because essentially they over saturated the market. This caused the absence. Fan films filled a vacancy and CBS and Paramount allowed this UNTIL you merchandise your film and make almost $2million for what you call a professional film. (Yes I understand I simplified this a bit because essentially that is what it is about, I also understand that many fans who support this fan film are extremely defensive...that's fine but understand that facts play into this not just what a 'producer' states on his facebook or website).


Ultimately the point of this was for me to say what I wanted to, Star Trek is getting a new series and I am excited for that because they have a good writer with Nicholas Meyer. Star Trek works as a TV series more than a movie when you are reintroducing a new crew. That is something Paramount tried to get over by using the same characters. Ultimately it lacked a lot of the interaction the fans are wanting. What bothers me is a few are complaining that they won't pay $6.00 a month for a star trek series, that's their decision but these people shouldn't complain that there is no new star trek coming out. 

Continuation of the movies and trailers of 2013

So yesterday I posted my rambling rant of the Man of steel movie, today I figured I would mention a few other movies but mostly comparing a couple of Marvel trailers. So let the rambling begin…

Thor: Dark world was a movie that I was looking forward to. After all I liked the first one, I enjoyed the visuals of Asgard and the quasi sci-fi/fantasy that it enveloped. Imagine my surprise when I left the movie a bit confused. Many people were talking about how this was the best superhero movie of this year…after seeing a few of these reviews I wondered did they see the same movie I did? Don't get me wrong it was a decent movie, visually it was adequate, acting was done very well especially when the actor wasn't Natalie Portman. Character wise…I wondered if they forgot who they were writing for. Loki was perfect as always, all you have to do is tell Tom Hiddleston what his lines are and he will always give you a great performance. Loki basically can write himself. Thor, well this was relatively the same Thor that we saw in the Avengers so there wasn't going to be a deep meaning for him like there was in the first Thor movie. What really bothered me the most was Odin, I enjoyed Odin in the original movie. Probably because I am a fan of Anthony Hopkins, however it goes a bit deeper than that. A movie such as Thor or any superhero movie needs a character that is the moral foundation of the franchise, this character is the teacher to the hot headed characters the rock to which everyone looks to for guidance or to see what they can become. In Superman movies it was Jor-El, in the Star Wars (ORIGINAL TRILOGY) it was Obi-Wan and later Yoda, in Captain America it was Dr. Abraham, etc…In Thor: Dark Underworld Odin wasn't the wise old sage/king he was the demented character who wasn't the same as he was in the first Thor. This 'new' Odin didn't care about Earth for the most part and thought of Humans as a inferior species who didn't need Asgard's help. He was willing to let Natalie Portman's character die (Which might have been a good decision considering her acting recently.) But in the first movie it was explained that he defended Earth, and fought for the 'freedom' for other world's. In the first movie we heard Odin speak of being wise, of being generous of being virtuous. In the sequel we get a man who is no longer wise but unwilling to budge when it concerns Asgard and the other realms. The funny thing is at the end (SPOILER ALERT) when Thor is talking to Odin, Odin seems wiser, he is the person he was in the original movie, at least until it's revealed that that Odin is actually Loki. Which is another point, this movie should have been called Loki, when that character is in the scenes I enjoyed watching it. I was able to delve back into the movie, the problem with that is this movie was suppose to be a Thor movie, and while I love Loki's character he has been in 3 Marvel movies. It's time to move on from a Loki themed movie and bring more of the Thor universe to the screen. Just a few thoughts. I didn't hate the movie but I didn't think it was a great superhero movie.



Now to what really has fascinated me recently, the trailers to a few movies. For this I am going to focus on two of the recent ones, X-Men:Days of future past and The Amazing Spiderman 2. Before I begin I have to say these franchises, at least when it comes to comics, are two of my top 5. Both have similarities the mutants in X-men are trying to be accepted by the Human race, Spiderman/Peter Parker is also trying to fit into society. For the most part he is still an awkward teenager. So I want to say I am looking forward to these movies. BUT one has peaked my curiosity more than the other.

When I heard that Brian Singer was going to be coming back to the X-men franchise I was somewhat nervous. Let's face it Superman: Returns is still somewhat fresh in our minds as nerds, but also what can he do after the disastrous X-men 3 from Bret Ratner. While it's hard to judge a movie by a trailer it can at least give us some insight for what is to come. When the trailer for Days of future past came out, I played it…and played it. I must have watched it 10 times before realizing that the trailer had so much emotion. There are certain things we can determine, obviously this movie was going to feature Wolverine alot, yea I get it people like Wolverine. Fine. I can live with that I suppose. BUT when watching the trailer I was drawn to Patrick Stewart as Xavier and Ian McKellan as Magneto. It was the voice that caught me and the way they looked. These are two actors who are getting older, it's obvious but something in the trailer made them look even older. They had the look on their face of two leaders who were extremely tired of what they were facing. They knew that defeat was on the horizon and they might have a chance to correct it so that it doesn't happen so that their 'kind' was not exterminated. The few words they spoke was something that gave me goosebumps and pulled at the heart strings (I suppose kids today use the word feels). This seems like an X-men movie different not just from the third one but the others as well. With the glimpses of Wolverine in the past interacting with Xavier and Magneto we get a sense of how big the conflict is. When I heard the young Xavier say "I don't want your suffering I don't want your future!" It gave me even more goosebumps. This is going to be a darker movie, especially when they use parts of the Days of Future past comic series as a guide. But the thing that let's X-men get away with this as opposed to making a dark Superman or Spiderman movie, is the X-men were about what could happen, that a holocaust was possible when it came to mutants. That their struggle was more than a freedom but that they had a right to exist. This is the kind of movie that needs to be dark, that needs to be dramatic because of what's at stake. It isn't about turning world leaders into mutants, it's about the mutual survival of both species Humans and Mutants. With this trailer it was also announced that the sequel will be called X-men: Apocalypse, as nerds we can imply that this movie will set up the next one's villain the ultimate mutant Apocalypse. This is a nerdgasm, something we always wanted the villain who everyone has to rally to defeat. I am looking forward to this more and more. I hope and pray Brian Singer doesn't disappoint.

Now to a trailer that I thought was good just not great, The Amazing Spiderman 2. If anyone hasn't seen it watch it here-

The Amazing Spiderman 2 Trailer

Okay after you watched it I have one question, were you disappointed? Were you ecstatic? I was both, there have been rumors for over a year that this would set up the next movie which will feature the sinister six, again something that fans have wanted since the Raimi version, well that and a good Venom who was in a movie for longer than 10 minutes…but again I digress. I was disappointed because it's the same Parker we get in just about EVERY Spiderman movie. The Peter who is having trouble balancing personal life with the life he feels he needs to leave as a hero. We get it it's hard wearing tights and swinging through the city, the audience isn't stupid it's implied in EVERY superhero movie that this balancing act is difficult and can ultimately be his Achilles heal due to villains finding out who he really is, who his family and friends are and using them as leverage. BUT we don't need to have this thrown into our faces in every movie. Some movies do it casually, they do it with a bit of tongue in cheek. I will use two examples Batman (1989) and Batman Begins (I'm leaving man of steel out due to the fact I think it was clumsily written when it comes to this) In the '89 version of Batman Bruce Wayne is trying to tell Vicky that he's Batman in his apartment, now he tells her that his life is 'complex' and all before being interrupted by the Joker. You can tell from the scene that Bruce really can't balance heroic life and social life. That he is defined not by his money but by what he does behind the scenes. That was all the audience needed basically a five minute scene to see how tortured Bruce Wayne was. Then in Batman Begins we don't see a necessarily tortured Bruce we see a Bruce who needs to have an excuse as to why he isn't Batman but a billionaire-playboy. We get a scene with Alfred telling him how to take up a sport to explain the bruises he receives, how he needed to throw money around and act like, well an asshole. That's basically it, another 5 minute scene that shows the audience that 'hey I do this in my time but also have a hard time balancing things.' These two movies, while they had their flaws didn't necessarily think the audience was stupid and couldn't understand their points of view. In my opinion Spiderman movies are hard to write, therefore the writers and director have to go to the tried and sometimes true method of internal conflict of the hero. For me, this trailer fails to grasp my attention. It fails to let my imagination fill in all the holes of what will happen, sure I will see the movie but I am not as excited as I was when the first Spiderman came out or the first The amazing spiderman came out. I think the acting will be well done but I am more excited about X-men, Captain America, etc. I want to be excited about this movie like I am about days of future past or even Godzilla. BUT I am not, which is sad in a way. From Sony's point of view they want to compete with Warner Bros., The Avengers, and Fox's marvel franchise. Some will say 'but all they got is the spiderman universe' which I think should be enough, it should be enough. The Spiderman universe is a large area to draw from, a large enough area to change Peter Parker to being the reluctant hero to being a hero who quits bitching about all his problems in at least every movie. I hope this movie surpasses my expectations.

So what are your thoughts, what are your opinions comment and subscribe and let's share.

The superhero reviews of 2013 MAN OF STEEL

Been a long time since I published anything and I am glad that life has somewhat calmed down for me to write again. 2013 saw some major changes, I recently moved and now things have settled. In between work I was at least able to see some 'nerd' movies as my sister would say but what I was more surprised by was the trailers for next years movies that have sprout up. Let's start with the movies first.

The Tale of two Supermen movies.

This year we finally got another Superman movie, granted it was Man of Steel. While I enjoyed the movie I have to say I am not sure it was a Superman movie, at least it didn't feel like it to me. The cast did a great job, so did the director but for me (and what I am about to mention has been mentioned alot but I still think it rings true. Let's start by the character of superman, in most of the comics and incarnations Superman/Clark Kent/Kal El is the opposite of Batman at least with personality and motives. In man of steel he was Batman with blue spandex as opposed to black armor, which is fine I have no problems seeing Henry Cavill in tights or shirtless or naked. BUT I digress, the way the character was written just seemed off. I get it he's alone no one can relate to him (just like every other superhero movie) but the way he was written he is dark, moody, not sure what to do. This was a new take on Superman, but it wasn't a completely new take on the superhero movie. While being dark and moody works for some heroes it doesn't necessarily work for a man that claims his symbol is the symbol of hope, he was suppose to be the man of tomorrow. This works for Batman, this is a person who saw his parents get killed in front of him. He's depressed lost and not sure what to do initially. In Man of Steel, Clark learns where he came from from both his dad's and through archives from Krypton. That was the most enjoyable part for me, it was a revamping of the scene from the Christopher Reeve movies. Again this is an old tale of the confused hero, we had it in all of the batman movies, we had it in most of the spiderman movies we even got it in Thor, Captain America and even Iron Man. Superman is suppose to be different he is suppose to be the opposite of Batman, the opposite of the hero's who are willing to even kill to punish the villain.

Which brings up the differences of other Superman movies. In Man of Steel, Zod was different than the one in Superman 2 which was great. This Zod was still in the mindset of being a protector of Krypton, even by killing the ruling council of Krypton in the beginning. This wasn't done just for power, Zod felt that the planet that he was doomed by it's present leadership. So he took the action that he saw was the only solution for the survival of his people. After his imprisonment he realizes that Jor-El was right and Krypton was destroyed. So he tries to recreate Krypton, no matter the cost to Earth or any other planet, it just happened that Kal-El was on Earth and it was convenient to get the Codex from him and use the planet he's already on. BUT this is where Superman gets written poorly in my opinion, Superman, the defender of Truth and Justice and the American way (Is he still?) battles Zod and his army. In some ways it was reminiscent of the Superman 2 battle in metropolis except for a few items. First did Superman kill Zod in the Christopher reeve series, YES. Did he let metropolis get destroyed, no. In Superman 2 when Zod realized that Superman was trying to save the people of Metropolis Zod realized Superman's achilles heal, the compassion for the people of Earth. So Superman had to lure Zod and his minions to a place where no one could get hurt. In Man of Steel even after Superman destroys the terraforming device, Metroplis gets destroyed more and more. I get it we live in an age where there has to be spectacular destruction or violence for an audience of this day and age to understand the magnitude of the conflict. I felt the terraforming machine was enough but we still had to see more and more buildings topple down. It was awkward, it wasn't superman. Even in the Avengers the team evacuated and saved as many citizens as they could. In Man of steel he was to preoccupied. Even in the flawed Superman Returns movie, we still see Superman save the citizens of Gotham, we saw him make the extra effort even when he could have fought Lex sooner rather than later. In Man of Steel we only see Superman take it personally when a family is about to be vaporized by Zod's heat vision.

This movie was difficult for me to fathom that it was actually a Superman movie, there are other reasons but the reasons I just stated are the bigger items. This is what bothers me when it comes to the sequel that will feature Batman, why do we need two Superheroes who are dark and moody? Will they change Superman to fit the more accepted characteristics or will it really be about two of the same heroes who just wear different color clothing…

Happy Passover, and nerd ramblings.

Even though it's late, happy Passover. Passover is the day Jew's remember the day that we left slavery in Egypt. This is a holiday for which I hold in high esteem. Not just for Jew's but for all people's faith, there are things holding us back, things that we know will not let us live up to our full potential. When we know what those are we need to leave and become free. Shalom.

Now for nerd ramblings- I've been getting more and more into the issue of Star Wars and watching the original trilogy. I remember when I was a kid amazed at the wonders of the force and Yoda. Then I realized that these movies will be made into 3D...What the hell happened? When did George Lucas stop fighting the system and become the system. Avatar was made to show 3D (I hated Avatar because it's a story based solely on special effects and not on characters or story...sorry James Cameron is a asshole.) I realize Lucas became the system during or after Return of the Jedi. This was when people like Gary Kurtz left the franchise because of disagreements with Lucas. Then 20 plus years later Lucas became the system. Other film's he wanted to do were horrible. This was when Lucas refused to hear form people who disagreed with him, such as Kurtz and others...you can't throw a rock and not hit someone who had a better idea of writing the prequels. SO here is what I want to do to see if I can get any comments on this blog. I will post what I think should've happened with the prequels, if anyone reads this blog regularly I want to see comments on what they would do. Let's see if we could make the prequels what we wanted at least on here....may the force be with you

Dragon con

So my partner and I are finally going to dragon con this year in Atlanta. If all goes well he will have his spiderman costume (both from the Raimi movies and the upcoming) and I will well I HAVE NO IDEA what I will be wearing other than my 'nerd' shirts and jerseys yet, still not sure how wearing spandex in public will work for me. But I have questions, what should we know about going to our first dragon con? Any comments, suggestions would definitely be appreciated.

Peace and happiness

I've found myself in an odd situation. For the first time in my life I am happy, sure money could be better but because of my partner I am truly happy. I enjoy life again, I want to wake up assured that my life is getting better and better. I feel that the secret of life is love, and mine is my partner. Life is stressful, no doubt about it, and even with the mistakes I have made I am happy to be alive. If anyone feels the same or differently please share your experiences.

Convention season

This goes to I am a nerd affirmation type post. So, My partner and I really were hoping to be in Orlando by now, why BECAUSE OF MEGACON! For those of you that don't know it conventions are gathering places for people (nerds, geeks) who want to dress up as their favorite character from sci-fi, nerd lore. I've been to a few, mostly adventure con and a few others. But we really wanted to go to Megacon because it's the local con to where we will live. Most people see people in skin tight spandex and people getting geeky, and well they are right. Especially the hot guys. It's more than that, it's people becoming as physically close to their fictional 'heroes' as possible. There is something seductive to becoming your impervious hero. I wish we made it there, and to top it off here are is a video about how much fun it is.