Showing posts with label Star Trek. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Star Trek. Show all posts

Firing Off My Canon

Thursday, November 23, 2017 0 comments
While I have many, many thoughts about the new Star Trek: Discovery, I'm only going to hit a few of the points right now (it still being NaNoWriMo and all).

(I figure by now that those of you who are going to see it, have. If not, I'll try to keep the spoilers to a minimum.)
  • When the Starfleet delta symbol became visible in the sand near the beginning of "The Vulcan Hello", I was grinning like a fool just as I did during the last few minutes of Star Trek (2009).
  • I adore(d) Captain Philippa Georgiou. I hope they find a way to bring her back. If not, they'd better keep the books coming.
  • The moment I came to love Lorca:
    (from "Context is for Kings")

    LORCA (to SARU): Number One, you served with Burnham aboard the Shenzhou. What is your assessment of her abilities?
    SARU: Her mutiny aside, she is the smartest Starfleet officer I have ever known.
    LORCA: Huh. (to STAMETS) And he knows you.

    Ouch.
  • I'm not wild about the uniforms, but I do think they are an interesting evolution from the ones used on Star Trek: Enterprise. But it does seem odd that they are not closer to the ones used in Star Trek (The Original Series). It will be interesting to see whether that's a piece of canon they try to resolve during the series run.
  • I find it absolutely fascinating that there seemed to be more uproar about the use of profanity (the f-bomb) in "Choose Your Pain" than, for example, from the graphic depiction of the bodies in "Context is for Kings". Star Trek: Discovery does have a TV-MA rating, after all. (That is a topic for discussion at a later date.) That said, I completely understand and appreciate the "but ... but Star Trek never used profanity before" argument. Personally, I found the moment perfect and it added a brief injection of badly-needed humor at just the right time. I actually felt it was much appropriate and necessary that Data's exclamation regarding excrement in Star Trek: Generations.
Labels:

Imagine There’s No Star Trek . . .

Saturday, October 01, 2011 0 comments
Star_Trek_blog_animationOkay, so this post is a little bit tardy. The month of the September was the time of Star Trek series premiere anniversaries. However, I could not let is pass unremarked upon, particularly considering the prolonged—and possibly evenly profound—impact that Star Trek has had on my life.

As the 45th anniversary of the premiere of Star Trek approached, I began to wonder what kind of world we might live in today were it not for its creation. Even those who are not fans of any the series or films have been in some way touched by their impact, if not in a personal, then in more subtle cultural ones.

In no particular order of importance or attempt at categorization, I’m going to start with these:
  • Would William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy (or any of the other cast members from any of the series) be the celebrities they are today?
  • Would we have known Patrick Stewart aside from the occasional Shakespeare production from across the Atlantic?
  • Would some of the scientific and technological advances of the past 40-plus years taken the form they had were it not for the models and ideas that Star Trek popularized?
  • Would there still be as large a group of people—fans and non-fans alike—who would have such fervent beliefs in a better future for humankind and a possible model for it?
  • Would there have been Star Wars, Stargate, Babylon 5, or Battlestar Galactica?
  • Would there have been another such unifying (and, occasionally, polarizing) phenomenon among science fiction fans?
  • What might have replaced the catchphrases “He’s dead, Jim.”, “Beam me up, Scotty.”, “Long Live and Prosper”, and “Make it so!”
I could go on, probably for hours, but these are just some of those that have come to my mind as I consider the possible implications of the past 45 years of Star Trek.

To Star Trek, in all of its forms: Live Long and Prosper. Make it so!

Whatever Happened to Hope?

Sunday, August 08, 2010 0 comments
"I think we gave it the ability to create its own sense of purpose out of our own human weaknesses, and the drive that compels us to overcome them."
Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek: The Motion Picture
If I read "post-9/11 sensibility" in one more book or movie review, I just might scream out loud. In deference to the horrific events of that—and the days that have followed--I would like to say this: We get it. As Q told Picard in "Q Who", "It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires, both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid."

I see movies and television series being praised because they are "gritty" and "real". The recent Battlestar Galactica fell into this category. I'll grant that it made for good drama, but as a friend of mine said in one of her comments, "I don't like any of the characters; none of them is anyone I'd want to be friends with, or even live down the block from. And the universe is totally hopeless." While I don't entirely agree with her dramatic assessment, I concur with the sentiment.

When did we lose hope?

I read an article somewhere (I wish I could remember where so I could post a link to it) offering the premise that Star Trek held little relevance in our current world, even with the not-insignificant success of the recent movie. I find this opinion more than a little sad and depressing. One of the things that Star Trek, in any of its incarnations, offered was a message of hope—hope that we would find our way past our global chauvinism and tendencies toward various types of self-destruction to a future of peace and common vision.

I guess my question at the end of this rambling essay is this: Do readers and viewers still want to experience stories of a hopeful future? Or is the new common denominator a collection of vampires, paranoia, and post-apocalyptic despair? If so, I won't be writing about it.

Mid-March Madness

Monday, March 16, 2009 0 comments
What I'm Reading Now: Q & A by Keith R. A. DeCandido

I'm at all certain what this story is about yet, particularly as Q has not even made more than a passing appearance. To be fair, though, I'm only about 30 pages into the book.

What I'm Listening to Now: Hunters of Dune by Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson

Okay, I'm a completist. Having finished the audiobook edition of Chapterhouse Dune, I had to see once more how the entire end-story played out.

What I'm Watching Now: Watchmen

I deliberately did not re-read the original graphic novel before viewing the film. I didn't want to have the story that fresh in my mind with the accompanying expectations and preconceptions. That disclaimer now out of the way . . .

I thought the film was very, very good. Rather than possibly spoil the story for anyone who has not seen it or read the original graphic novel, I'll roughly summarize it by saying that it makes last year's The Dark Knight seem sunny and cheerful in comparison.

Returning to Strange New Worlds

Friday, March 06, 2009 0 comments
What I'm Reading Now: Death in Winter by Michael Jan Friedman

They've done an interesting thing over at Simon & Shuster with the Star Trek series of books. Previously, other than for the occasional trilogy, most of the books tended to be completely standalone, like extended written episodes from the various incarnations of the television series. Recently, though, they've become a much more connected set of novel, with a connected series of backstories.

While it is possible to read them independently, there are definitely nuances and inferences that readers might not fully grasp the significance of. Some readers might complain, but I'm finding it a more compelling reason to go back and read some of the books in the series that I might have otherwise missed so that I can have a greater appreciation and understanding of the new books published in the future.
Labels: ,

Virtual Friends, Life, and Relationships: Part 4 -- Points of World View

Monday, April 23, 2007 1 comments
As I reported before, I received some constructive criticism of one of my fictional characters that also extended into the entire setting in which that character lives. I found myself stewing over the remarks for several days, partly because I continued to be bothered by them and also because I greatly respect the person who provided them. The latter lent them considerable weight and impact.

In the end, I realized that the problem was two-fold: the character seemed underdeveloped and too "perfect" because of the setting and premise on which she was based. So, I took a closer look at the universe where she dwelled and came up with this realization: it's really all about one's personal world view.

Two of the few television series I watch on a regular basis (even to the point of purchasing them on DVD) are Star Trek (in all its incarnations) and Battlestar Galactica. I find the latter a really gripping piece of drama to the point that I've finally learned not to watch it right before trying to get to sleep. While both of these series are science fiction, there are some key differences in terms of the view of the world they portray.

Battlestar Galactica is gritty, often unpleasant, and tries for a realistic portrayal of its moral and political issues. Star Trek (in its various forms) also dealt with similar issues, but in its own way. The difference, I think, is in the setting.

As much as I enjoy the Galactica universe, it's not one I would want to live in. While I can identify with many of the characters, there's no one I want to be. (Okay, maybe Lee "Apollo" Adama. Maybe.) While the Dominion War era of Star Trek was (is?) probably not the most pleasant universe to live in, it was still part of a generally more optimistic future. In the Galactica universe, the best I might be able to hope for is to be a soldier. In the Trek universe, the possibilities are far more wide open.

What does this have to do with gaming and role-playing and writing?

Because I realized that in all of these things I create characters that I would want to be (mostly) and worlds I would want to live in (mostly). This doesn't mean that they're perfect, but I almost always try to have there be something positive about them—even if it's only a tiny, shining element of hope.

If they're not as gritty and flawed and "real" as others would like . . . well, they are entitled to their opinion. As with any other media, they are free to ignore it, not read it, not play with those characters, and build their own world that suits their preferences. It's all escapism after all. And, given the choice, I'll escape to some place where I want to be.

The WorldCon 2006 Report: Thursday, August 24

Thursday, August 24, 2006 0 comments
10:00 am
The Look of "Star Trek"
Rick Sternbach, long time Senior Illustrator and Technical Consultant for most all versions of Star Trek from the first film on, presents a slide show of his artwork for Star Trek.
Rick Sternbach has worked "Star Trek" since "Star Trek: The Next Generation". Some of the ships he designed include the Cardassians, Voyager, the Delta Flyer, the Eon, the Equinox, several of the Hirogen and Voth vessels, and Jupiter station. He also helped design several of the phaser weapons.
It was interesting to see how the various designs evolved the effort taken to give a consistent look at all Starfleet vessels, even when design future versions of ships like the Eon and the future Klingon Bird of Prey from "All Good Things…". The level of detail on which they designed the ships was astonishing. All those little shapes and designs actually are added with specific purposes in mind, such as escape pod hatches, sensor arrays, or power conduit covers.
One of the frequent constraints on the designs is that the interior sets are being designed and constructed at the same time, so some parts of the design cannot be changed since they need to match the configurations of the physical sets.
Sternbach showed early pen and marker drawings of the some of the ships, but has since moved almost exclusively to using rough CGI-generated models for his designs.

11:30 am
Revise, Revise, Revise!
Often the difference between an amateur writer and a professional is that the pro knows how to rewrite and the amateur thinks he got it right the first time.
Panelists: Louise Marley, Peter S. Beagle, James Patrick Kelly, Kay Kenyon, Jacqueline Litchenberg
What a difference a computer makes! Pretty much gone are the days when a second (or third or fourth) draft meant a complete re-typing of an entire manuscript. These authors shared not only their techniques for editing and revising their work, but also some good writing advice in general.
The opening quip was that the majority of the attendees in the almost-full room were only there to see Peter S. Beagle. (I wasn't, as I had not paid that close of attention to the panelists for the session. But it was certainly a very pleasant surprise, as Beagle is one of my favorite authors. In addition, he has a terrific speaking and reading voice. I had an old recording of Hour 25 from1987 of him and Harlan Ellison taking turns reading the first few chapters from The Folk of the Air. It's an amazing impromptu performance.)
The methods for revision were as varied as the styles of the writers themselves. Some still used the traditional print-it-out-and-mark-it-up technique. One of the techniques that I find myself using is to re-read the last few paragraphs or start of the chapter that you're currently working on and do a light re-work on that as a warm-up to starting the new writing for the day.
Another interesting approach, which I think is as much a general writing technique as it is an editing one, is to write the story in layers, which each consecutive pass adding (or modifying a level of detail. For example, the first layer is plot development and dialogue, the next might be character development, and another adds scenery description. It was suggested that word processing programs make this technique possible in a way that typewriters would have made far too tedious.
One specific point that stuck in my mind that one of the panelists suggested was that each story should have at least two revision passes: one for the story, and the other for style. This strikes me as a reasonable approach, as it does force the writer into at least two revision passes when they might otherwise have settled for one.

2:30 pm
Getting Started Writing SF – Part I
Going from amateur to professional is a big step. How do you get started? Should you write every day, whether the muse strikes or not? What mistakes shouldn't you make? Writers who have recently broken in will give you their advice today.
Panelists: Hilari Bell, Brenda Cooper, Jean-Noel Bassior, Michael S. Brotherton, K. A. Bedford
I have to admit that I recognize none of the names of the writers in this session, but that didn't mean that they might not have valuable information to share. (I do have a vague recollection of the Brenda Cooper's name, probably from seeing it in Locus, but I could not tell you off the top of my memory anything that she might have written.)
One thing that the panelists started with—and I appreciated it even if I already grasped it—was that this was not a writing workshop-type session. It was about the practical aspects of getting your work noticed and published in the science fiction (and fantasy) field.
I didn't learn a lot new from this session that I didn't already know from past experience, but it nice reinforcement to hear that the rules hadn’t changed that much in recent years. One item that was made very clear was that, in terms of book-length works, your query letter was perhaps your most powerful tool in terms of getting your work noticed. It was particularly interesting to hear that many writers will "leave out" too much in their query letters rather than reveal too much about their book. The advice was that your query letter should not be a press release for your book, but instead give the agent or editor a mental vision of your book strong enough that they want to see it.
It was also interesting to hear nearly all (or it might have been all) of these writers recommend that beginning writers read books on writing. Writing workshops were also recommended, provided that you felt they were constructive and productive.
(Part II of this session is scheduled for Friday morning at 10:00 am.)

4:00 pm
Writing While Holding Down a Day Job

Even some of the most prominent writers don't make enough from their writing to give up their day jobs. What compromises do you have to make to make it work?
Panelists: Sheila Finch, Deborah J. Ross, Tobias J. Bucknell, Sharon Shinn, Jay Lake
I attended a very similar panel at WorldCon 2002, so I mostly attended this as a refresher course and also to see what these writers offered as advice and insight into this real-life balancing act. I actually had heard of (and read!) several of these writers, so the relevance quotient was significantly elevated for me.
One of the more astonishing things that came out of this panel was that Bucknell's claim that he could produce 2,000 words an hour when on a roll. I'm a fairly fast typist, but I cannot even imagine being able to produce work that fast. I'm sure I could at times when the muse is being particularly insistent, but I don’t know that my keyboard could keep up!
One of the issues discussed in this session was kind of job was ideal for someone who wanted to write. It was generally agreed that a job that did not involve writing and reading other people's writing (such as an English teacher) was probably best. Why some of these writers had day jobs at all also offered interesting insight, the most common being the need for affordable medical insurance, particularly for those writers with school-age children.
An issue that seemed to be discussed in more depth at this session than in the others (and in 2002) was time management. While one of the common threads was how to squeeze writing time into an already-crammed schedule, there was also discussion involving dealing with the other writing-related tasks such as talking to editors and other writers, and other people who wanted pieces of your time that you had set aside for writing. It's a delicate balance between serving your muse and becoming a hermit, and a good, successful writer needs to find a way to do both.
The common technique suggested was to make an appointment with yourself for when you are going to write and treat that appointment as you would any other in your life/schedule. A corollary to this was to make a contract with yourself in terms of your productivity or output, such as pages per day or completed pieces of work in a year. Also, determine what time of day you might you are most productive and try to write during that time, if possible.