Showing posts with label star trek. Show all posts
Showing posts with label star trek. Show all posts

Sunday, October 17, 2021

Thoughts on Season 3 of Star Trek: Discovery

This post is a full spoiler zone for Star Trek: Discovery, although I'm not talking very much about specific plot points.

I just finished Season 3 of Star Trek: Discovery. I generally enjoyed it, as I do most Star Trek, but there were a couple of aspects that didn't fully work for me.

1. 930 years into the future

Star Trek: Discovery ended season 2 by jumping 930 years into the future, and season 3 covers their adventures there. 

However, I had trouble suspending disbelief that the crew of the Discovery could function in a way that's even remotely useful 930 years in the future, even taking into account that their ship has a spore drive in a universe where warp travel is severely limited.

Think about 930 years. 930 years ago was 1090. Think about the world in 1090. (I'm most immediately familiar with the history of England from that era, so most of my references here are English.) William the Conqueror had died just a few years earlier. The Domesday book had just been completed. Old English was still spoken - the Norman influence in England hadn't yet been around long enough for even Middle English to have evolved. In other words, the English language was completely devoid of French or Latin influences - such as the words "language" and "completely" and "devoid" and "French" and "Latin" and "influences"!

The internet tells me clocks hadn't yet been invented 930 years ago. Imagine a person who had never co-existed with clocks! It wouldn't just be a question of how to use a clock to tell time, but all the ways society is affected by the degree of time-telling precision they afford. The train leaves at 9:13. Your speech should be between 2 and 3 minutes long. Edit this video down to 30 seconds. It would be unfathomable!

Not to mention that their technology is sufficiently compatible. The charger for my eight-year-old ipod is no longer manufactured. There's a whole side market of CRT televisions because game consoles from my childhood won't work properly with modern TVs. The external hard drives I use for my computer backups occasionally just stop working. And I'm supposed to believe that they could just . . . update Discovery's computer database after nearly a thousand years??

There are fandom rumours that the creative team originally wanted to set Star Trek: Discovery in the distant future and were forced to set it 10 years pre-TOS for marketing reasons, so IRL this is likely the creative team shifting towards doing what they actually want to do now that they have the capital to do so. But I'm finding it hard to suspend disbelief, and that's a negative.

2. Adira and Gray and representation

Season 3 of Star Trek: Discovery included a milestone for the franchise: Star Trek's first transgender and non-binary characters!

However, I think the decision to make both Adira and Gray Trill was a strategic error. (Pedants will point out that Adira is human, but what's relevant here is that they are hosting a Trill symbiont.)

One audience who could have benefited particularly from Adira and Gray are people who are ignorant about or even completely unaware of transgender and/or non-binary - especially those who are or may one day become parents of trans or non-binary children. 

People who, like me, are old enough to be parents of trans or non-binary children didn't learn much about transgender or non-binary growing up. We only know what has reached us through general cultural in adulthood. This means that some parents of trans and non-binary kids aren't going to have heard of transgender and/or non-binary. Trans and non-binary Star Trek characters can help with this - a kid who has to say "Mom, I'm non-binary" can add the useful cultural reference of "Like Adira on Star Trek."

With Adira especially, I'm concerned that people who are unfamiliar with non-binary might think Adira's perception of themself as non-binary is the result of hosting a Trill symbiont (and therefore having memories and personality traits of all the symbiont's previous hosts), rather than being an actual real-life gender identity that occurs in actual real-life people.

I myself am familiar with they/them pronouns, knew from media coverage that Adira's pronouns are they/them, and knew from media coverage that after Adira was initially misgendered as "she", they'd be coming out as "they". But, even going in with this knowledge, when I heard Adira say "They, not she", my first thought was that they were about to say credit was due to their symbiont, or their symbiont's previous hosts.

I'm further concerned that some non-binary kid might see this, identify with Adira, explain it to their parents as "Like Adira on Star Trek!" and have their parents respond with "That's not a real thing, that's just Star Trek aliens!" Ignorant parents might even think their kid is delusional, like they would if their kid insisted they're a Vulcan.

I think having Adira and Gray being a couple exacerbates this. Not the romantic aspect specifically, but rather that they are positioned as a unit that includes the two of them and does not include anyone else. I'm thinking that framing might be othering towards trans and non-binary people, rather than positioning them as a regular everyday part of the population as a whole. 

I think a better strategic decision would have been to have our first trans character and our first non-binary character both be human, and be unaffiliated with each other. (For example, if one was Aurellio and the other was Aditya Sahil.) Also, include trans and non-binary actors as part of your diverse casting for minor roles, alien and human alike. So we have our key trans and non-binary characters, and also, like, a trans ensign in Vulcan ears operating the transporter and a non-binary Bajoran seated at the conference table.

Again, I am neither trans nor non-binary myself, so I could be delighted to hear that my concerns here are unfounded. But, until I hear that, I continue to be concerned that the decision to make Adira and Gray both Trills and a couple is detrimental to the good that our first trans and non-binary characters might do.

Sunday, February 23, 2020

Star Trek, colonialism and idealism: a braindump

What appealed to me about Star Trek as a kid was seeing a variety of different people all working together professionally, respecting each other's competence and intellect. In a middle-school world where I was ostracized for difference, competence and intellect, that's exactly what I wanted to be when I grew up, even though it seemed utterly impossible.

TNG ended when I was 13 and I wasn't yet ready for Voyager or DS9, so I took a break from Star Trek.  In the meantime, I learned and grew. The world around me learned and grew. I learned and grew from the learning and growing world around me. I finished middle school, high school, university, and had the extreme good fortune to end up in a place where a variety of different people all work together professionally, respecting each other's competence and intellect.

Eventually, well-established in this adulthood that my middle-school self never dared dream of, I settled in for a nice cozy re-watch of Star Trek . . . and came to the realization that it's awfully colonialist.

I mean, that's obvious in hindsight - they're literally colonizing places! The initial premise was "wagon train to the stars"! - but I didn't spot it as a kid because I was born into a colonialist society, my very origin story is one of colonization. I was like a fish who didn't know what water was.

But I'd learned and I'd grown, and as an adult I could see it. Every line about how humanity is special made me cringe at how presumptuous and oblivious all my faves were.


Star Trek: Discovery premiered in 2017, when reconciliation was the buzzword of the moment here in Canada. At the time, I tweeted that I hoped Discovery would address Star Trek's colonialism problem.

Discovery has been less colonialist than 20th-century Star Trek (at least, that's what I perceive as I swim around here in the ocean trying to detect signs of water), but things have gotten especially interesting with Picard.

Jean-Luc Picard became disillusioned with Starfleet and resigned when they fail to live up to their lofty ideals, sacrificing vulnerable people they define as expendable, closing ranks in a time of crisis, turning away refugees.

The systems and structures of the Federation, which he'd always believed in, which he'd always seen as forces for good, which had always served him well and uplifted him, were being used to do harm. And had been for longer and more deeply than he'd realized.

Which reminds me very much of some of the things I'd learned about once I started reading for reconciliation!


Another interesting thing about Picard is they're talking about money. Raffi comments on how Picard is living in a chateau on his family's estate while she lives in what looks like a trailer in the middle of a desert, suggesting that, even though the Star Trek universe has heretofore claimed to have transcended money, hereditary wealth might still have some impact on people's lives of which our privileged Starfleet officers have been ignorant.

Which reminded me of how people talked about money when I was a kid.

Around the age when I was first watching Star Trek, I got constant lectures from my father that all you have to do is go to school, get an education, get a job, work hard, and you'll have money. If you're poor or *gasp* have to go on welfare, my father's lectures went, it's obviously because you aren't working hard enough or being diligent enough.

When I entered the workforce, I came to realize it wasn't that simple.  And then, when I read Thomas Piketty, I further learned that the economic context in which my father had the experiences that led him to develop these ideas was fleeting and historically unprecedented. He was a fish in an aquarium, being fed regularly by his keepers, lecturing ocean fish on how to get food and avoid being caught in nets.

He was saying it's basically a solved problem, all you have to do is follow the system, but in reality he happened to be born in one of the rare niches where the system worked. As, we're coming to realize, was Jean-Luc Picard.


Some people have criticized 21st-century Star Trek for not having the idealism of 20th-century Star Trek.

But the fact of the matter is, in a world where we've had our consciousnesses raised to the notion of reconciliation and then watched it be sacrificed on the altar of short-sightedness, a wagon train to the stars isn't going to cut it any more.

But here comes Jean-Luc Picard.

He has become disillusioned with the harm that has been done by the systems and structures he'd always believed in, the very systems and structures from which he drew all his power and authority and expertise. He has come to realize that the economy into which he was born does not serve everyone as well as it serves him.

And he's out to right wrongs.

Yes, I do realize right now he thinks he's just on a simple rescue mission.  Yes, I do realize that I shouldn't get my hopes up.

But right now, right this minute as I type this, given what has happened so far and given what still remains up in the air (and, on a meta level, given the fact that the series has already been renewed for a second season) Jean-Luc Picard could maybe, just maybe, dedicate himself to fixing this shit.

He's become aware of the ways the systems and structures and economy he came up in have been used to harm others even as they've served him well. He's in possession of the power and authority and expertise and wealth that he accrued through these systems and structures, and he's using it to right wrongs.  Maybe, just maybe, once Soji is safe, he'll take on the bigger challenge of righting wrongs by fixing the systems and structures, so no more harm is done, so we have a universe that truly serves everyone well, and we can once again sincerely imagine an idealistic future.

Which is exactly what I want to be when I grow up, even though it seems utterly impossible.

Tuesday, November 27, 2018

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine braindump (full spoilers)

Nearly a year after I started watching, and 25 years after it first started airing, I finally finished watching DS9! My immediate thoughts:

- I didn't watch the series when it first came out because it was too dark my preteen self.  But I was pleasantly surprised about how light a touch they had on some of the darker storylines. For example, there's one plot line where Chief O'Brien is implanted with the memories of spending 20 years in prison.  I'd heard of this episode before I went in, so I was expecting to see an hour of O'Brien going through hell and then in the last act we learn it's all a dream.  But instead they start with him being released, and the memories come out in counselling sessions. The episode is much more tolerable knowing from the outset that he's okay! Other things I thought would be awkward, like the O'Briens' baby being implanted in Kira's uterus and the Dax symbiont being  implanted in Ezri (I sense a theme here?) were presented as a fait accompli rather than as the angst I was expecting,

- I blogged before about how I found the technobabble from Discovery and The Orville unconvincing.  It turns out I find the technobabble from DS9 perfectly convincing - and sometimes even informative! For example, someone on screen mentions tachyons, and my brain instantly goes "There must be a cloaked ship!" Moments later, a ship decloaks.

- Compared with other Star Treks, I can see the scaffolding of the writing, by which I mean I recognize things like "They showed Odo shape-shifting in the cold open so people who are just tuning in would know he's a shape-shifter" or "The away team is composed of humans only because having multiple alien species on the away team would complicate the intended plot." I can't tell if this reflects the writing, or if it reflects my own sophistication. The last time I watched new-to-me Star Trek was Voyager, which I watched 10 years ago, and I didn't see the scaffolding of the writing.  At first I was thinking this must reflect how my literary analysis skills have improved (despite the fact that DS9 takes place in a visual medium, recognizing the scaffolding of the writing is a literary analysis skill), but upon further reflection I think it's because I read TVTropes (warning: rabbithole). I now recognize things like lampshading and handwaving and MacGuffins and Applied Phlebotinum.

- Weirdly, I can't see the scaffolding of the writing nearly as much on Star Trek: Discovery. Again, I don't know if that's because of the quality of the writing, or just because of what I'm accustomed to.  I don't watch that much drama, so the more modern style of television writing we see on Discovery and the serial season-long arc structure are less familiar to me. I've probably watched less than 50 episodes of comparably-written television in my life.  In contrast, I have now watched over 500 episodes of 90s-era Star Trek, so I have a far better sense of how the story needs to work.

- I was surprised by how often they did time travel and mirror universe episodes. I was watching at a rate of 5 episodes a week so I can't tell how well they would have fit into the original broadcast pacing, but to me they felt really frequent.  My visceral reaction was that the writers were "cheating" - which of course is a ridiculous reaction (especially since mirror universe/time travel doesn't necessarily produce a better episode), but nevertheless that is my visceral reaction.

- Another thing that surprised me watching 20-25 years after it was written is how gratuitously cis-heterocentric it appeared.  For example, if the Jem'Hadar don't procreate naturally, why would they all be male as opposed to being genderless? Why should the female changeling be female (or have any gender)?  I can see Odo opting to present as a gender because he grew up among solids, but the female changeling is from the link. Why should Odo only be sexually attracted to women? (Why should Odo be sexually attracted to anybody?)

- Since Odo is established as having a sex life, are his genitals sexually sensitive?  Can he make them sexually sensitive (or not) as he morphs?  Can he make other parts of his body sexually sensitive and, like, get off on shaking hands with someone?

- I appreciate how DS9 shows that the various alien cultures (Klingons, Ferengi, etc.) have complexity and nuance, and also suggests that we're only seeing a slice of their complexity and nuance.   Previous Star Treks made the aliens more one-dimensional, so that was a welcome and refreshing improvement.

- Speaking of only seeing a slice, another thing I wasn't expecting but appreciated was that I felt like we were only seeing anecdotes from the Dominion War.  Previous Star Treks (and Discovery, now that I think about it), I've felt like we're seeing everything that happens to the crew during the time period in question.  The argument could easily be made that we're not seeing everything, but I did come away with the impression that we were seeing everything in the other serieses.  However, by having the overarching Dominion War arc interspersed with smaller, lighter episodes that don't advance the Dominion War plot, I came away from DS9 feeling like we're not seeing everything, which leaves room for other things to happen in between. (Novels! Fanfic! Webisodes!)

- And speaking of leaving room for other things to happen, I appreciate that the writers obeyed the campsite rule as they ended the series, and left the Star Trek universe nice and tidy for future writers.  The Dominion War is over, so we have the option of picking up in a peaceful, optimistic future.  Many different alien species are more fleshed out, so we can have them as interesting allies in our peaceful optimistic future, but underlying tensions aren't completely gone so almost any old antagonism could be picked up.  And, if we need a mysterious enemy, the Breen are there.  Or they could just fade back into the background since they're so very mysterious. The Pah-wraiths are vanquished, so the Star Trek universe can go back to being aspiritual if needed, but they did exist (as did the Prophets) so that can be explored if needed.  I don't believe any protagonist character's return has been ruled out, and any given character can easily be written around.  Basically, the Alpha Quadrant is left nice and tidy so the next writers who come along can make full use of it however they need to.  I appreciate the planning and effort that went into doing that (and am vaguely amused that I can see it.)

Wednesday, July 11, 2018

What if Star Trek: Discovery could desexualize the miniskirt uniform?

I recently saw an article saying that Star Trek: Discovery should use unisex miniskirt uniforms.  The article quoted Nichelle Nichols:
“The show was created in the age of the miniskirt, and the crew women’s uniforms were very comfortable. Contrary to what many may think today, no one really saw it as demeaning back then. In fact, the miniskirt was a symbol of sexual liberation. More to the point, though, in the twenty-third century, you are respected for your abilities regardless of what you do or do not wear.”
I absolutely agree that, when Discovery inevitably runs up against the original series uniforms (which, being set about 10 years before TOS, it will if it has a full run), it should present the miniskirt uniforms as unisex/gender-neutral, like TNG briefly did before it phased them out entirely. 

But what if, in addition to making the miniskirts gender-neutral, Star Trek: Discovery could make them non-sexy?

Imagine if the most prominent occurrence of the miniskirt uniform was a person whom modern television costuming standards would not normally put in a miniskirt. Someone whose legs are hairier than average.  Someone whose thighs rub together below the hemline of the skirt.  Someone noticeably older than the rest of the cast.

For example, maybe 10% of the background cast is in miniskirts (at least 50% of whom are male), and maybe one or two characters who have "Aye, Captain" sort of lines are seen wearing miniskirts in one or two brief scenes.  And then the most prominent instance of a miniskirt is on a stout, battle-hardened octogenarian admiral, with a reputation for being a brilliant military tactician as well as a bit of a hardass (like Captain Jellico), who is called in for some particularly dire crisis where particular bravery, heroics and expertise are required. And throughout, the camerawork is done exactly the same way it would be if everyone is wearing pants, neither lingering on nor ignoring any particular character's legs.

From a production perspective, this would be difficult to carry off well.  First of all, every actor deserves the dignity of flattering, thoughtful costuming, and non-sexy miniskirts would not be perceived as flattering.  Secondly, there's a history of putting revealing female-coded clothing on performers who aren't women who meet the narrow Hollywood definition of sexy and presenting it as comedic. ("HA HA HA! Look at that dude's hairy man-legs in that miniskirt!")  It would be absolutely essential to avoid inadvertently doing this, and I don't know whether they could avoid having the less-savoury parts of the audience interpret the scene that way.

But if they could carry it off, it would disarm the unfortunate connotations of the miniskirt uniform and reclaim its original empowering intention s in a way that's consistent with woke Star Trek: Discovery values and with Federation values.

Thursday, February 15, 2018

Technobabble

When watching both Star Trek: Discovery and The Orville, I've had moments when I find the technobabble unconvincing.  My visceral reaction is sometimes "No, that will never work!" or even "WTF? It doesn't work that way!"

Which is ridiculous, because it's technobabble - it doesn't reflect any aspect of reality, and if the writers say it works that way, it's works that way. (And every technobabble I've questioned did end up working on screen.)

Nevertheless, I find myself convinced that it doesn't work that way, even though I don't actually know how it works.

I wonder if this might be due to translator brain. Some of my work involves translating things that I don't fully understand - sometimes the author and the audience know exactly what they're talking about and I don't, other times I'm learning the technical terminology and how the processes work as I go. Even when I don't fully understand the text, I still need to understand its internal logic. Should this be a "however" or a "moreover"? (Sometimes the source language vocabulary is ambiguous and I need to look at the actual logical structure.) Does this sentence support the thesis of the text, or is it a counter-argument to be refuted?

It's been over a decade since I watched new-to-me Star Trek (and for the purpose of analyzing my response to technobabble, The Orville can be grouped in with Star Trek), so it's quite possible my translator brain has developed significantly since then. Of course, it's also possible that my understanding of science and technology have developed significantly, so I'm more sensitive to meaningless technobabble.

And it's also possible that Television Writers Today are simply not as good at technobabble as the Star Trek writers of my youth.

I've just started watching DS9 (which I wasn't able to watch when it first came out), so we'll see how I handle their technobabble.


Saturday, January 13, 2018

Do tone and aesthetics make TV audiences self-selecting?

Even before the PTSD plotline, there was some discussion around whether Star Trek: Discovery was appropriate for children.  Some have fond childhood memories of watching Star Trek and want it to be suitable for their children, others pointed out that even if children did enjoy it, it was always intended for adults.

TNG is my primary Star Trek, which I watched and enjoyed starting in my preteen years.  However, when DS9 and Voyager came out, I wasn't able to enjoy them because they were too dark for me at that age.

The interesting thing is I could tell by looking at them that they were too dark for me.  I perceived this to be a function of lighting and set design, although incidental music may also have had an impact (I wasn't mindful of incidental music at the time, and blithely allowed it to manipulate my emotions without giving it a single thought.)  I watched like half an episode of each, and I just felt like "This is going to be too scary or sad for me," so I stopped watching.

Aesthetically as well as tonally, Discovery is even darker than DS9 and Voyager.  So I wonder if my child-self's reaction to the aesthetic darkness of DS9 and Voyager is typical and, if so, people who aren't ready for Discovery will screen themselves out?

As an interesting side note, other shows that I found too dark aesthetically as a child were Cheers and MASH.  I've watched both of them in adult life and they worked for me, but I do think they were too adult for my younger self.

My parents watched Doctor Who in the mid-80s, and I found the theme music so scary that I'd leave the room. Many people talk about hiding behind the sofa when the scary parts of Doctor Who came on, but I didn't even get that far because the theme music so accurately conveyed to me that it would be scary!

I wonder if TV shows also work this way for other people?

Friday, September 29, 2017

Shoes, Star Trek, and the glories of adult life

I recently got a new pair of Fluevogs, and, in addition to my usual pleasure in having a beautiful, funky pair of boots to wear, I also felt a renewed frisson of delight that I get to be a person who has a favourite shoe designer (acquired organically, not through a deliberate attempt to wear cool brands!) and a life (and paycheque) that accommodates wearing awesome shoes.

This didn't even occur to me as a possibility when I was a kid.  I wasn't into fashion not because I didn't like fashion, but because it didn't even occur to me that a person like me was allowed to even think about being into fashion. Fashion was for pretty people and cool people, which I most decidedly was not.

One thing I was into as a kid was Star Trek. And that got me bullied. The pretty people and the cool people would make my life a living hell for not being pretty and for not being cool and for being into Star Trek.

Star Trek: Discovery is the first Star Trek I've gotten to enjoy "live" - watching each episode as it comes out rather than watching the whole thing in syndicated reruns - in over 25 years. (And thank you, by the way, to Space Channel for showing Discovery on actual TV, so Canadians can enjoy our Star Trek in its traditional medium - and my preferred medium - without having to deal with streaming!)

So this has me thinking about 25 years ago, and appreciating everything that has changed in 25 years. I got to become the kind of person who has awesome shoes! I can be pretty whenever I feel inclined to make the effort. I'm not cool (although I've successfully tricked one or two people into thinking I am), but I'm in a place where my lack of coolness is irrelevant and I can love the things I love without worrying about coolness. I can watch Star Trek whenever I want without anyone giving me a hard time, and I can also tell everyone that I'm watching Star Trek and they still don't give me a hard time!

Plus, through the magic of 21st-century technology (i.e. Twitter) I can discuss Star Trek with like-minded people even if there aren't any in the room or in my social circle. I can talk to Star Trek cast members and Klingon translators (and have done so - and gotten likes replies - repeatedly!), and discuss serious themes like economics and colonialism interspersed with jokes and fannish speculation.

And I do all this from my very own condo in Toronto, which is significant because all those pretty people and cool people who bullied me aspired to leaving our small town and moving to Toronto, and, even though it didn't even occur to me at the time that a person like me was allowed to aspire to such things, I seem to have achieved it anyway.

My adolescent self would be mindblown!

I wonder if, 25 years from now, there will be elements of my life that currently don't seem like things I am even allowed to aspire to?

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Miscellaneous thoughts about the Star Trek reboot

I finally got around to watching the Star Trek reboot, and I have some random thoughts that aren't really a fully review.

1. When I first heard that it takes place in an alternate timeline, I thought that was just a handwave for any inconsistencies and was questioning whether that's actually good screenwriting. But after watching the movie, I think the alternate timeline was a good decision because it attends to our emotional needs as fans.

Fans tend to get disappointed when an adaptation or sequel doesn't fit into their concept of the existing universe. We have an emotional attachment to our fictional universes, and when they're messed with it ruins our happy place. Think of all the people who don't accept the Harry Potter movies or the Star Wars prequels as canon.

But, because it's an alternate timeline, we don't need to worry about whether it's canon. It doesn't change or negate the timeline we all know and love, and our favourite characters are still waiting right where we left them. This means we don't have to worry about whether they're in character or canonical or compatible with our own version of the fictional universe (just like we don't have to worry about these factors in the Mirror Universe episodes), and can just enjoy a space adventure.

2. The dialogue in this movie seemed more realistic than in any of the other Trek incarnations. In the midst of a space battle, someone on the bridge says "Are the shields even up?" Totally something a real person would say in that situation. But in other Trek incarnations, they'd say something more formal/military sounding. "Give me a status on the shields" or similar. I appreciated that.

Tuesday, December 07, 2010

Your Federation Station

I was saddened to hear of the passing of CityTV's Mark Dailey at the too-young age of 57. Like everyone, I know him as The Voice from the CityTV announcements. But what is strongest is my memory is is the "Your Federation Station" tagline.

It was the early 90s, I was a shy, awkward, dorky preteen, and a consummate Trekkie. Star Trek was my first fandom (although I didn't know the word yet), and the Enterprise was my happy place. I mentally wrote fanfic (although I didn't know the word yet) starring a curly-haired ensign Mary Sue (although I didn't know the word yet) who maybe sometimes got to kiss Welsey Crusher. It made me very happy.

However, the rest of the world had a problem with it. My classmates mocked me endlessly for being a Trekkie, and whenever I got too excited about something fannish, my parents would give me a lecture on how it isn't real.

On CityTV, Star Trek often aired right after Fashion Television. We'd see the last couple minutes of FT with models walking on the runways and Jeanne Becker talking to us like we know who Karl Langerfeld is. Then we'd get a quick shot of something mildly interesting happening on the streets of Toronto, Mark Dailey would say "You're watching CityTV: Your Federation Station." Then it was Star Trek time.

I found that all mildly validating. The TV station was acknowledging that Star Trek was appointment programming, and people cool enough to work for a TV station knew enough about Star Trek to namedrop the Federation. They segued smoothly from runway fashion to the bridge of the Enterprise via a brief shot of Toronto street life, without making a great big fuss over the fact that they're going from something cooler than I'll ever be to something that gets me mocked. As though it's completely unremarkable to have these two things next to each other. Familiarity with Star Trek juxtaposed with city life and fashion - two things that my bullies aspired to, that I didn't dare even think about aspiring to because I wasn't cool enough. It gave me a glimmer of hope that maybe what I was doing wasn't so bizarre after all.

Now that I've escaped to a bigger and better world where watching Star Trek, wearing fashion, and living in the city are all utterly unremarkable, I can see that it was just marketing. They're the channel with Star Trek, there is an audience for Star Trek, so they market that fact. Most people (including, actually, my bullies) do have enough of a passing familiarity with Star Trek that for a marketing team to come up with "Federation Station" is unsurprising. But even though it was marketing, it was the only validation I was receiving. In a world of mockery and lectures, the positioning of Star Trek as a good thing, as appointment TV, as something with which people on TV were familiar, as of interest to people for whom urban life is relevant, as not incompatible with fashion, all made me think that maybe there's nothing wrong with curling up on the couch to escape to the bridge of the Enterprise for an hour. And maybe, just maybe, the problem was with the people who gave me shit for it. It's a small thing, but small things can be important when you live in a small world and deal with small people.

And so, I mourn the loss of the man whose voice gave my child-self that flicker of reassurance.

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Wil Wheaton is awesome!

This story isn't new, but I just heard it yesterday.

Wil Wheaton personally replied to an 8-year-old's lost fan club application - 21 years after the fact.

Wil was my very first celebrity crush, back before it ever occurred to me that I might enjoy kissing someone someday, possibly before any real-life crush. It seems my excellent taste in celebrity crushes started early.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Wesley Crusher

I've recently been reading and enjoying podcasts of Wil Wheaton's Memories of the Future, and I'm particularly enjoying seeing his thoughts on the character of Wesley Crusher.

This also has me thinking about Wesley Crusher from an adult perspective and man, I gotta say: WTF?

Wesley Crusher made sense to me the first time around. I was in my preteens surrounded by adults who were far more idiotic than they should be. If Wesley hadn't existed, my fledgling attempts at fan fiction (although I didn't yet know it was called that) would have had to invent him. (Although I would have invented him as a curly-haired girl.)

But the thing is, Wesley Crusher wasn't invented by an adolescent fanfic author. He was invented by Gene Roddenberry, who was very much a full-fledged adult at the time. (I think he was well into his 60s?)

Looking at it from an adult perspective, I'm really surprised an adult writer would come up with a teenage Mary Sue for use in an adult context. You need to infiltrate Hogwarts? Sure, bring out the 17-year-old transfer student. But you're on a starship? Why not a newly minted ensign, fresh out of the Academy, who quickly rises through the ranks? If you need them to be a wunderkind, they could have also done a PhD in Warp Theory alongside.

I wish we had more information on why exactly Gene Roddenberry's Mary Sue ended up being a teenager.

Sunday, May 31, 2009

What's up with today's Foxtrot?

Warp factor 11???

Surely both Bill Amend and Jason Fox know that the warp scale only goes up to 10.

(Yes, I am that kind of nerd. We already know that. My point is that so is Jason Fox.)

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Acting

The first couple of times I see something on TV, I don't normally notice the acting because I'm following the story. But then when I revist something much later, I notice acting that I wasn't appreciating before.

For example, Hugh Laurie (i.e. the tall one) here:



And OMG Brent Spiner! This scene is a bit cringy out of necessity, but he's playing the role of an emotionless android trying to figure out courtship rituals. Okay, yeah, whatever. But it's so much more amazing once you consciously think that the actor inside this android is a real person with a sense of humour!

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Hoshi Sato demonstrates translator brain

I love this scene. It perfectly captures how the perfectionism that is necessary to our profession can paralyze us.

Thursday, January 08, 2009

Trekonomics

Money doesn't exist in the Federation.

The entire Ferengi culture is based on the acquistion of wealth.

So how do they coexist on DS9? Quark wouldn't give the Starfleet people food and drink for free, but they don't earn money so they (theoretically) have nothing with which to pay him.

Friday, January 02, 2009

Things They Should Invent: Klingon translation of La Marseillaise

It occurs to me that the sentiments of La Marseillaise are rather Klingon. Someone should do a Klingon translation. Surprisingly, I can't seem to google one up.

Friday, December 19, 2008

Majel Barrett died! :(

Lwaxana Troi, the voice of the Enterprise computer, Mrs. Roddenberry. Passed away yesterday at the age of 76 from leukemia.

The National Post, of all places, has a best-of.

Monday, December 15, 2008

Why we should all be worried about the Dziekanski ruling (plus: the definitive guide to when it's appropriate to use a taser)

They aren't laying charges against the Mounties who tased Robert Dziekanski to death.

This is only one of many recent cases where cops have tased people for acting agitated or erratic (here's another). Even if you aren't opposed to tasers, we need our police to not go around tasing people for acting erratic or agitated.

Why? Think for a second, quietly and to yourself, about situations you, personally, might one day find yourself in where you would require police assistance. You dial 911, you need the police to come quickly and help you because that's their job as police, to come quickly and help you in emergencies. Just think of these situations and how you'd feel.

Wouldn't you most likely be a bit agitated and erratic?

People who need police assistance are going to be agitated and erratic, so the police need to be able to help people who are agitated and erratic, not zap them so they'll shut up!

Tasers were undoubtedly inspired by Star Trek's phasers, which have a harmless stun setting that has never killed anyone, not even heretofore unknown aliens on whom they're being used for the first time ever. I'm sure the ease of stunning with a phaser has informed (consciously or not) people's perception of when it is or is not appropriate to use a taser.

But think about when they actually use phasers on Star Trek. They would never stun someone just for acting erratic. They'd draw them, sure, but they'd try to talk them down. Even if the person started throwing (smallish, non-lethal) stuff, they'd never stun them, they'd just dodge the projectiles. Apart from that one very clever moment in Enterprise when T'Pol was being held hostage by cowboy aliens so Reed stunned her (making the enemy think he'd killed her and therefore that she was no longer useful as a hostage), every single instance of person-to-person phaser fire by a good-guy Starfleet officer has been in response to a direct and immediate threat on their own or someone else's life. The bad guy has started shooting or is about to destroy the ship or something.

I think that's a good guideline on when to use tasers. Think to yourself: "Would a Starfleet officer fire their phasers in this circumstance?" If the answer is no, don't use your taser.

"But," you protest, "Starfleet officers are held to impossibly high standards! They're held up as ideal examples of all that is good and fair and right and just about humanity!"

Yes, yes they are. Just like Mounties.