Star Trek
Ten Days Later
Back from a great trip to Ottawa, exhausted but
happy. While in Ottawa, I not only attended a very
interesting course on alternative dispute resolution,
I also met some great people, got to spend time with
Mike, Elizabeth, Stephen, Isabelle and Edward, met up
with Rob, had meal after meal of fantastic food, went
through the fabulous National Gallery and even attend
the Kub Car races of my nephew's Scout Troop (and,
yes, Stephen won the entire competition for the
second year in a row!).
I got absolutely no writing done. Not a word. I feel like I was on a whirlwind the whole time I was there. I did read the first forty pages or so of Sue Grafton's T is for Trespass on the flight to our nation's capital but, quite frankly, it was so terrible I couldn't go on. I kept turning the page, waiting for something to happen, only to find more back story. Listen, Ms. Grafton, just about anyone who picks up T has already read A through S. We don't need to reread them all in capsule form. Get on with it.
So I put the book in my suitcase and never went back to it.
I had thought I might get the chance to work on Luke, my latest Phillip Gold novel, but I never even looked at it. That's not due to lack of interest (I'm quite looking forward to getting back to work on it); it's just that Ottawa kept me so busy!
I got back last night, enduring a rather windswept landing at Fredericton Airport along the way. After my first good night's sleep in a week, I spent some of the day today working on a Star-Trek-based workshop I'm facilitating later this week. I just love iMovie and iDVD, which make the whole task of creating multimedia so easy.
And it has occurred to me that, with February upon us, I have now left The Silent Goodbye sit on the shelf for more than a month. Pretty soon I'll be able to go back to it with a more objective eye to do the first major revision. That will be fun too!
I got absolutely no writing done. Not a word. I feel like I was on a whirlwind the whole time I was there. I did read the first forty pages or so of Sue Grafton's T is for Trespass on the flight to our nation's capital but, quite frankly, it was so terrible I couldn't go on. I kept turning the page, waiting for something to happen, only to find more back story. Listen, Ms. Grafton, just about anyone who picks up T has already read A through S. We don't need to reread them all in capsule form. Get on with it.
So I put the book in my suitcase and never went back to it.
I had thought I might get the chance to work on Luke, my latest Phillip Gold novel, but I never even looked at it. That's not due to lack of interest (I'm quite looking forward to getting back to work on it); it's just that Ottawa kept me so busy!
I got back last night, enduring a rather windswept landing at Fredericton Airport along the way. After my first good night's sleep in a week, I spent some of the day today working on a Star-Trek-based workshop I'm facilitating later this week. I just love iMovie and iDVD, which make the whole task of creating multimedia so easy.
And it has occurred to me that, with February upon us, I have now left The Silent Goodbye sit on the shelf for more than a month. Pretty soon I'll be able to go back to it with a more objective eye to do the first major revision. That will be fun too!
Holiday Diversions
With snow coming down outside in one thick blanket
(we're expecting up to 35 cm by the end of Saturday),
today is a good day to curl up and do nothing. Not
that we've been doing much for the past couple of
days! Mostly reading and watching DVDs.
Patti borrowed a number of vids from the local library for the holidays and we've plowed through most of those. In honour of my commitment to reading all of Dickens, she picked up the BBC mini-series of David Copperfield (starring a very young, pre-Potter Daniel Radcliffe) as well as the recent theatrical film version of Nicholas Nickleby. We watched the first 90 minutes of the mini-series (the thing is more than 180 minutes in total) before giving it up as too depressing. Nickleby lasted only 20 minutes before we hit "Stop" and walked away. Maybe Dickens is better read than viewed.
As I was flipping among the various American college football bowl games yesterday, I noticed that Vision TV was showing all six hours of the BBC's version of Little Dorrit, the Dickens novel I am actually reading right now. Awful. Though it did seem to be a little more light-hearted than the others, it was still really bleak. I'm starting to reconsider my intention to read the whole Dickens oeuvre.
We have been watching the first season of Mad Men, the American TV show set in the 1960s, and are finding it a challenge. Yes, the racism, anti-semitism and misogyny so blatantly on display in the show are likely accurate representations of the time but they are very hard to watch. And I can't help but wonder if the decision to set the show during that time period and to focus on those kinds of behaviours (as well as smoking and drinking) isn't, itself, a form of backlash against the small progress we've made as a society towards inclusion and equity. Many have argued that the show represents a critique of such conservative, hate-filled attitudes (a la All In the Family) but I'm not so sure.
I'm happy to report, however, that the problematic aspects of the show seem to decline as the first season goes on while the plots develop in interesting ways and the characters and their relationships continue to be quite fascinating. The jury is still out but we still have six episodes of the first season to watch before drawing any conclusions.
I have enjoyed reading the two volumes of The Complete Peanuts I received for Christmas: 1971-72 and 1973-74. These two Peanuts volumes involve the introduction of both Marcie, the bespectacled little girl who calls Peppermint Patti "sir" all the time, and "Rerun", the baby brother of Lucy and Linus. As a result, I was concerned that, at this point in the comic strip's history, we might have reached the "jumping the shark" moment that plagues many a successful series (be it a TV program or a comic strip), when the writer runs out of ideas and the characters become mere caricatures of themselves.
I'm pleased to find that my fears were unfounded. In fact, I think I've laughed out loud more often with these two volumes than with any of the earlier books. And I'm finding it very interesting to see how Peanuts strips are reflective of their times. For example, in a February 1972 strip, Snoopy mentions Star Trek, the first time that iconic sci-fi show was ever mentioned in the Peanuts world. This is notable because the original series of Star Trek aired on television between 1966 and 1969 and passed unnoticed by Charles Schulz into oblivion. It was only when the show began to pick up speed in syndication that it became important enough a cultural force to make its way into Snoopy's world.
OK, so maybe I'm just pleased to see Star Trek make an appearance in Peanuts. Cool. I like to see my interests meld. Now all we need to have is Hermione refer to Spock and McCoy in the next Harry Potter film.
Patti borrowed a number of vids from the local library for the holidays and we've plowed through most of those. In honour of my commitment to reading all of Dickens, she picked up the BBC mini-series of David Copperfield (starring a very young, pre-Potter Daniel Radcliffe) as well as the recent theatrical film version of Nicholas Nickleby. We watched the first 90 minutes of the mini-series (the thing is more than 180 minutes in total) before giving it up as too depressing. Nickleby lasted only 20 minutes before we hit "Stop" and walked away. Maybe Dickens is better read than viewed.
As I was flipping among the various American college football bowl games yesterday, I noticed that Vision TV was showing all six hours of the BBC's version of Little Dorrit, the Dickens novel I am actually reading right now. Awful. Though it did seem to be a little more light-hearted than the others, it was still really bleak. I'm starting to reconsider my intention to read the whole Dickens oeuvre.
We have been watching the first season of Mad Men, the American TV show set in the 1960s, and are finding it a challenge. Yes, the racism, anti-semitism and misogyny so blatantly on display in the show are likely accurate representations of the time but they are very hard to watch. And I can't help but wonder if the decision to set the show during that time period and to focus on those kinds of behaviours (as well as smoking and drinking) isn't, itself, a form of backlash against the small progress we've made as a society towards inclusion and equity. Many have argued that the show represents a critique of such conservative, hate-filled attitudes (a la All In the Family) but I'm not so sure.
I'm happy to report, however, that the problematic aspects of the show seem to decline as the first season goes on while the plots develop in interesting ways and the characters and their relationships continue to be quite fascinating. The jury is still out but we still have six episodes of the first season to watch before drawing any conclusions.
I have enjoyed reading the two volumes of The Complete Peanuts I received for Christmas: 1971-72 and 1973-74. These two Peanuts volumes involve the introduction of both Marcie, the bespectacled little girl who calls Peppermint Patti "sir" all the time, and "Rerun", the baby brother of Lucy and Linus. As a result, I was concerned that, at this point in the comic strip's history, we might have reached the "jumping the shark" moment that plagues many a successful series (be it a TV program or a comic strip), when the writer runs out of ideas and the characters become mere caricatures of themselves.
I'm pleased to find that my fears were unfounded. In fact, I think I've laughed out loud more often with these two volumes than with any of the earlier books. And I'm finding it very interesting to see how Peanuts strips are reflective of their times. For example, in a February 1972 strip, Snoopy mentions Star Trek, the first time that iconic sci-fi show was ever mentioned in the Peanuts world. This is notable because the original series of Star Trek aired on television between 1966 and 1969 and passed unnoticed by Charles Schulz into oblivion. It was only when the show began to pick up speed in syndication that it became important enough a cultural force to make its way into Snoopy's world.
OK, so maybe I'm just pleased to see Star Trek make an appearance in Peanuts. Cool. I like to see my interests meld. Now all we need to have is Hermione refer to Spock and McCoy in the next Harry Potter film.
Lions for Peanuts on a Star Trek
My writing slump has gotten so bad people are now
calling me on the telephone to see if I'm okay. "You
haven't blogged in days," they say. "We thought
something was wrong!"
Well, many things are wrong but none of them terminal. I haven't been able to sit myself down at the computer and write. That's the long and short of it. I actually built a fire the other night, got it going good and strong, then promptly fell asleep on the floor in front of the fireplace.
My mind is working on the next scene (a conversation between Gold and Stacey McLean) but I just haven't started writing it yet. It's getting quite frustrating. And the fact that my Rapidweaver program has now decided it doesn't want to insert Em Dashes any more I'm really upset.
So instead I've been spending my time reading The Complete Peanuts, watching movies (Lions for Lambs, starring Meryl Streep, Robert Redford and Tom Cruise, for example) and taking advantage of the surprisingly warm New Brunswick November to go golfing rather than working on the novel. My end-of-December deadline for a finished draft is still in play but I think it's getting more challenging with each passing day.
Meanwhile, Star Trek (2009) has finally come out on DVD. Of course, they have to make it complicated by releasing both a single disc version (which I take it just has the movie and not many special features) at about $20 and the two-disc steel box set that costs around $10 more. I have to admit, I'm less excited about this DVD release than I was about the last Harry Potter but I think, if I'm going to break down and buy it, I'll have to get the two-disc set, at least to see what kind of extras they include.
Lions for Lambs, by the way, was surprisingly good for a film that Rotten Tomatoes rated at about 18%. Structured more like a stage play than a major movie, it was a lot of talk but interesting talk and we thought the scenes involving Streep, as a cynical reporter, dueling with Cruise, a powerful Senator, were exceptionally good. Redford does a better job of directing this one than he does acting in it: I find the older he gets, the flatter his performances. The film's worth seeing, however. At least we think so.
Well, many things are wrong but none of them terminal. I haven't been able to sit myself down at the computer and write. That's the long and short of it. I actually built a fire the other night, got it going good and strong, then promptly fell asleep on the floor in front of the fireplace.
My mind is working on the next scene (a conversation between Gold and Stacey McLean) but I just haven't started writing it yet. It's getting quite frustrating. And the fact that my Rapidweaver program has now decided it doesn't want to insert Em Dashes any more I'm really upset.
So instead I've been spending my time reading The Complete Peanuts, watching movies (Lions for Lambs, starring Meryl Streep, Robert Redford and Tom Cruise, for example) and taking advantage of the surprisingly warm New Brunswick November to go golfing rather than working on the novel. My end-of-December deadline for a finished draft is still in play but I think it's getting more challenging with each passing day.
Meanwhile, Star Trek (2009) has finally come out on DVD. Of course, they have to make it complicated by releasing both a single disc version (which I take it just has the movie and not many special features) at about $20 and the two-disc steel box set that costs around $10 more. I have to admit, I'm less excited about this DVD release than I was about the last Harry Potter but I think, if I'm going to break down and buy it, I'll have to get the two-disc set, at least to see what kind of extras they include.
Lions for Lambs, by the way, was surprisingly good for a film that Rotten Tomatoes rated at about 18%. Structured more like a stage play than a major movie, it was a lot of talk but interesting talk and we thought the scenes involving Streep, as a cynical reporter, dueling with Cruise, a powerful Senator, were exceptionally good. Redford does a better job of directing this one than he does acting in it: I find the older he gets, the flatter his performances. The film's worth seeing, however. At least we think so.
I Actually Wrote Something
Read that title again. Yes, it's true. I actually
wrote something. Honest.
With the plot plan for The Silent Goodbye now complete, I took it upon myself to write the first page (yes, all of a single page, perhaps 250 words) of the next section. Not much but it is something. Gold begins his long walk through the humid darkness back to his apartment.
It felt good. Really good. It took a while and I have already identified several revisions that I have to do to that single page but it felt sooo good to be writing again.
It also felt very good to re-read the court-room opening argument scene I had written several months ago and to find myself really enjoying it. It's a good scene. It's effective and dramatic and not so very far from what actually happens in criminal court that I have to be embarrassed by it. Opening arguments in criminal trials can go on for hours, even days, which makes it hard to make them both dramatic and realistic. Gold's opening is extremely short but I think it hits the right mark from a suspense and tension standpoint.
I'm pretty pleased with it.
So we start to work again. Slowly. Carefully. For now. Speed and stamina will come with time.
And another hummingbird appeared in our yard today. I saw him sitting on our clothesline and managed to snap all of two pictures, from long distance and through a dirty window, before he flew away. So check out the Backyard Birds page on this site for a grainy picture of the little humdinger (as my mother used to call them).
The photo is nowhere near the quality my friend Madeleine takes in her backyard back in Ontario but it will do for now.
Sexist Star Trek Note: In the episode "The Trouble With Tribbles", Captain Koloth complains to Kirk that Klingon vessels don't carry "non-essentials", meaning women. He even waves his hands in what appears to be a description of feminine curves as he says it. Yikes!
With the plot plan for The Silent Goodbye now complete, I took it upon myself to write the first page (yes, all of a single page, perhaps 250 words) of the next section. Not much but it is something. Gold begins his long walk through the humid darkness back to his apartment.
It felt good. Really good. It took a while and I have already identified several revisions that I have to do to that single page but it felt sooo good to be writing again.
It also felt very good to re-read the court-room opening argument scene I had written several months ago and to find myself really enjoying it. It's a good scene. It's effective and dramatic and not so very far from what actually happens in criminal court that I have to be embarrassed by it. Opening arguments in criminal trials can go on for hours, even days, which makes it hard to make them both dramatic and realistic. Gold's opening is extremely short but I think it hits the right mark from a suspense and tension standpoint.
I'm pretty pleased with it.
So we start to work again. Slowly. Carefully. For now. Speed and stamina will come with time.
And another hummingbird appeared in our yard today. I saw him sitting on our clothesline and managed to snap all of two pictures, from long distance and through a dirty window, before he flew away. So check out the Backyard Birds page on this site for a grainy picture of the little humdinger (as my mother used to call them).
The photo is nowhere near the quality my friend Madeleine takes in her backyard back in Ontario but it will do for now.
Sexist Star Trek Note: In the episode "The Trouble With Tribbles", Captain Koloth complains to Kirk that Klingon vessels don't carry "non-essentials", meaning women. He even waves his hands in what appears to be a description of feminine curves as he says it. Yikes!
Miscellaney
It has been an interesting week. A very good
conference at my home institution has taken up a lot
of my and Patti's time, filling it with interesting
new people, much-missed old friends and fascinating
discussions.
And the birds have been active too. We had a Ruby-Throated Hummingbird come to one of our new creeping vines and an American Redstart at the feeder. Too bad on both occasions the camera was not within reach.
And I actually sat down a couple of times at the laptop to work on the Harry Potter Concordance. I'm near the beginning of The Goblet of Fire right now, which means Harry and his friends are at the Quidditch World Cup. Lots and lots of characters flit on and off stage here, many of whom never reappear but, for thoroughness' sake, I have to catalogue them all. I spent an hour and completed only four pages of the novel.
Whenever I'm conducting a mundane task (like cooking or doing dishes), I set up my portable DVD player and watch an episode of The Original Series (TOS) of Star Trek. I've watched the entire first season and eight episodes of the second so far. It's interesting to see the arc of different television series and how long it takes them to hit their stride. I think the latter half of the first and early part of the second seasons are by far the best of TOS: with the characters established and most of the technology settled, the stories are stronger and deeper.
I have also been watching out for quotes I can use in my "Star Trek on Women" film-clip montage and there is no shortage of stuff (note, these are paraphrases, not direct quotes):
1) "Brain and brain, what is brain!" from "Spock's Brain";
2) Kirk despairing about how his good female officers all leave the service once they find husbands in "Who Mourns for Adonais?";
3) The highly respected, very successful Federation peace envoy who finally admits that her life is empty without the love of a good man in "Metamorphosis"; and
4) Spock telling a visiting computer that Uhura is a woman, which explains why the computer finds her erratic and emotional.
I have to admit, when I start to line up the evidence like that, I wonder how I could possibly watch the show at all. And it was considered advanced in the 1960s.
Meanwhile, we have rain in the forecast for the next week so I may find myself with more indoor time to write or work on other creative projects. The lawn is going crazy but the garden is, for the most part, looking great.
And, of course, the US Men's Open Golf Tournament is on this weekend. Watching golf always makes me miss my Mom even more. We'd watch golf together and marvel at the greatness that is Tiger Woods or take shots at Phil Mickelson or just wonder at the beautiful weather. This is my first US Men's Open without her, the first of many other such firsts I'll have to endure.
And the birds have been active too. We had a Ruby-Throated Hummingbird come to one of our new creeping vines and an American Redstart at the feeder. Too bad on both occasions the camera was not within reach.
And I actually sat down a couple of times at the laptop to work on the Harry Potter Concordance. I'm near the beginning of The Goblet of Fire right now, which means Harry and his friends are at the Quidditch World Cup. Lots and lots of characters flit on and off stage here, many of whom never reappear but, for thoroughness' sake, I have to catalogue them all. I spent an hour and completed only four pages of the novel.
Whenever I'm conducting a mundane task (like cooking or doing dishes), I set up my portable DVD player and watch an episode of The Original Series (TOS) of Star Trek. I've watched the entire first season and eight episodes of the second so far. It's interesting to see the arc of different television series and how long it takes them to hit their stride. I think the latter half of the first and early part of the second seasons are by far the best of TOS: with the characters established and most of the technology settled, the stories are stronger and deeper.
I have also been watching out for quotes I can use in my "Star Trek on Women" film-clip montage and there is no shortage of stuff (note, these are paraphrases, not direct quotes):
1) "Brain and brain, what is brain!" from "Spock's Brain";
2) Kirk despairing about how his good female officers all leave the service once they find husbands in "Who Mourns for Adonais?";
3) The highly respected, very successful Federation peace envoy who finally admits that her life is empty without the love of a good man in "Metamorphosis"; and
4) Spock telling a visiting computer that Uhura is a woman, which explains why the computer finds her erratic and emotional.
I have to admit, when I start to line up the evidence like that, I wonder how I could possibly watch the show at all. And it was considered advanced in the 1960s.
Meanwhile, we have rain in the forecast for the next week so I may find myself with more indoor time to write or work on other creative projects. The lawn is going crazy but the garden is, for the most part, looking great.
And, of course, the US Men's Open Golf Tournament is on this weekend. Watching golf always makes me miss my Mom even more. We'd watch golf together and marvel at the greatness that is Tiger Woods or take shots at Phil Mickelson or just wonder at the beautiful weather. This is my first US Men's Open without her, the first of many other such firsts I'll have to endure.
Film Projects
08/06/09 22:10 Filed in: Films
So now I've gotten into movie making. With iMovie on
our new iMac, our digital camera and other stuff, I'm
starting to enjoy working with moving pictures and
sound, creating interesting effects.
The only problem is, it's really time consuming. A file of my writing takes a second or so to save or print or travel by e-mail. A movie file (especially one that's in reasonable quality with sound) takes forever to do anything. Just moving a two-minute movie from our camera to iMovie takes several minutes. E-mailing it takes even longer. I'll have to learn patience, I guess.
I've even created a Youtube Channel for my creations: I'm "markwwnb" and I hope soon to be uploading little bits of film for people to enjoy. I am planning to make a trip down to McAdam soon to film a tour of the station and hotel there, for example, and I'm also thinking of creating some fun short films using clips from existing movies and TV shows.
For example, I was watching the Star Trek episode, "Who Mourns for Adonais?", and I realised it might be fun to package up all the ridiculously sexist things characters on the original series say about women. In that particular episode, Kirk bemoans losing useful female officers when they decide to get married and (of course) leave Star Fleet to take care of their husbands and babies. Later, the god Apollo says a female lieutenant is very intelligent "for a woman". And then there's "Turnabout Intruder", an interesting episode that centres on Janice Lester's frustration at being denied a starship command on the basis of her sex: a seemingly pro-woman plot is undermined by the insulting portrayal of Kirk's body as inhabited by Lester's soul.
The problem is, this new fascination with film-making is taking time away from my writing. And then there's gardening and birding.
So much to do with so little time!
The only problem is, it's really time consuming. A file of my writing takes a second or so to save or print or travel by e-mail. A movie file (especially one that's in reasonable quality with sound) takes forever to do anything. Just moving a two-minute movie from our camera to iMovie takes several minutes. E-mailing it takes even longer. I'll have to learn patience, I guess.
I've even created a Youtube Channel for my creations: I'm "markwwnb" and I hope soon to be uploading little bits of film for people to enjoy. I am planning to make a trip down to McAdam soon to film a tour of the station and hotel there, for example, and I'm also thinking of creating some fun short films using clips from existing movies and TV shows.
For example, I was watching the Star Trek episode, "Who Mourns for Adonais?", and I realised it might be fun to package up all the ridiculously sexist things characters on the original series say about women. In that particular episode, Kirk bemoans losing useful female officers when they decide to get married and (of course) leave Star Fleet to take care of their husbands and babies. Later, the god Apollo says a female lieutenant is very intelligent "for a woman". And then there's "Turnabout Intruder", an interesting episode that centres on Janice Lester's frustration at being denied a starship command on the basis of her sex: a seemingly pro-woman plot is undermined by the insulting portrayal of Kirk's body as inhabited by Lester's soul.
The problem is, this new fascination with film-making is taking time away from my writing. And then there's gardening and birding.
So much to do with so little time!
Busy Times
06/06/09 09:13 Filed in: Writing
Life is hotting up again. Work is very busy and, with
all the beautiful weather we've been enjoying, I've
got so many yard chores to do it's amazing.
So not much writing is getting done. My brother is in town for a couple of days of rest and recreation and we've been having a really nice visit. Yesterday, Mike and I went to see Star Trek (2009) again and then we went with Patti and Marlee Marie down to McAdam to introduce Mike to the magnificent station and hotel.
It was good to get back to McAdam, now that I've written all of those Abigail Massey stories. As I learned during our visit yesterday, my own fictional image of the station and hotel has actually replaced in my mind the real thing. In writing my stories, I have made several major errors in describing the design of the building and in setting the action in it.
For example, I wrote the stories on the assumption that there were sets of stairs at either end of the building that connect all three floors. Wrong. The stairs from the first to the second floors (from the station and eating areas to the hotel rooms) rise from a space almost a third of the way along the building from the western end, between the ladies sitting room and the formal dining room. The stairs located at the ends of the station connect only the second floor with the third-floor staff quarters.
I also realised that the hotel does not stretch the entire length of the building. It fills only the western two-thirds of the second floor. Another error on my part. Also, the girls' living area has a large kitchen room (where they probably ate) as well as a large shared bath, both located at the top of the stairs. I had the stairs opening directly into the sleeping area and the girls eating at a table in the sleeping area. Interesting. I'll have to do some re-writing to correct my errors.
Patti and I have also discovered the joys of iMovie. We work on Mac computers. We also have a fairly advanced digital camera that, with our memory card, can take up to an hour of good quality moving pictures (with sound, if we wish). That's led us to put the two together and figure out that, with iMovie, we can do some amazing things with the movies we take. I probably won't incorporate those movies into this website but I'll have to see about taking a more active part on Youtube. For example, as I sit here now I realise I should have done a film of our visit to McAdam yesterday. That probably would have become very popular on Youtube.
We'll have to go back.
And I'll have to get back to my writing. After, of course, I mow and edge the lawn, tend to my garden, clear out the dead, dying and unwanted tree bits in the back of the yard and tidy up our growing pile of refuse branches, sticks and trees.
Don't worry. I'll get there.
So not much writing is getting done. My brother is in town for a couple of days of rest and recreation and we've been having a really nice visit. Yesterday, Mike and I went to see Star Trek (2009) again and then we went with Patti and Marlee Marie down to McAdam to introduce Mike to the magnificent station and hotel.
It was good to get back to McAdam, now that I've written all of those Abigail Massey stories. As I learned during our visit yesterday, my own fictional image of the station and hotel has actually replaced in my mind the real thing. In writing my stories, I have made several major errors in describing the design of the building and in setting the action in it.
For example, I wrote the stories on the assumption that there were sets of stairs at either end of the building that connect all three floors. Wrong. The stairs from the first to the second floors (from the station and eating areas to the hotel rooms) rise from a space almost a third of the way along the building from the western end, between the ladies sitting room and the formal dining room. The stairs located at the ends of the station connect only the second floor with the third-floor staff quarters.
I also realised that the hotel does not stretch the entire length of the building. It fills only the western two-thirds of the second floor. Another error on my part. Also, the girls' living area has a large kitchen room (where they probably ate) as well as a large shared bath, both located at the top of the stairs. I had the stairs opening directly into the sleeping area and the girls eating at a table in the sleeping area. Interesting. I'll have to do some re-writing to correct my errors.
Patti and I have also discovered the joys of iMovie. We work on Mac computers. We also have a fairly advanced digital camera that, with our memory card, can take up to an hour of good quality moving pictures (with sound, if we wish). That's led us to put the two together and figure out that, with iMovie, we can do some amazing things with the movies we take. I probably won't incorporate those movies into this website but I'll have to see about taking a more active part on Youtube. For example, as I sit here now I realise I should have done a film of our visit to McAdam yesterday. That probably would have become very popular on Youtube.
We'll have to go back.
And I'll have to get back to my writing. After, of course, I mow and edge the lawn, tend to my garden, clear out the dead, dying and unwanted tree bits in the back of the yard and tidy up our growing pile of refuse branches, sticks and trees.
Don't worry. I'll get there.
Star Trek Hangover
13/05/09 20:51 Filed in: Star Trek
Star Trek conversations abound in my life, even on my
Facebook page. Why didn't the Vulcans attack the
drilling platform themselves? Why did Kirk let the
red-shirt carry the explosive charges? Is the new
version of Chekov really just a Wesley Crusher clone?
A colleague down in Saint John supports the Spock/Uhura romantic entanglement on two fronts: first, Uhura sang a love song to a grinning Spock in "Charlie X", an early TOS episode, and second a lot of the fan fiction involves the science and communications officers getting it on. Interesting.
Trekkies coming out of the wood work all over the place.
So far I've rewatched the first nine of TOS episodes in the order they aired. I've been watching them on my seven-inch portable DVD player to better simulate what it must have been like with a small 1960s-era TV set. Interesting to see them again. A lot of sexuality. A lot of helpless women being taken care of by strong strong men. So maybe the new movie has it right!
Still not feeling well, though. Marlee seems to be getting better but not so much me. Soon, I hope.
And I saw my first real live purple finch. Wow. Bright red head, with the colouring bleeding strongly down onto the body. Now that I've seen a real one, I'll never mistake a house finch for a purple finch again. The house finch, while still pretty, is nowhere near as spectacular.
A colleague down in Saint John supports the Spock/Uhura romantic entanglement on two fronts: first, Uhura sang a love song to a grinning Spock in "Charlie X", an early TOS episode, and second a lot of the fan fiction involves the science and communications officers getting it on. Interesting.
Trekkies coming out of the wood work all over the place.
So far I've rewatched the first nine of TOS episodes in the order they aired. I've been watching them on my seven-inch portable DVD player to better simulate what it must have been like with a small 1960s-era TV set. Interesting to see them again. A lot of sexuality. A lot of helpless women being taken care of by strong strong men. So maybe the new movie has it right!
Still not feeling well, though. Marlee seems to be getting better but not so much me. Soon, I hope.
And I saw my first real live purple finch. Wow. Bright red head, with the colouring bleeding strongly down onto the body. Now that I've seen a real one, I'll never mistake a house finch for a purple finch again. The house finch, while still pretty, is nowhere near as spectacular.
Star Trek Lives
10/05/09 18:27 Filed in: Films
My thoughts on Star Trek (2009), the new
re-booting of the Star Trek franchise,
directed by J.J. Abrams.
Executive Summary
While I was watching and immediately thereafter, I loved the movie. Every minute of it. It was exhilarating, interesting, fun, neat, cool, wowee. I came out of the theatre breathless. Since then, however, little things have started to bother me. Thoughts have occurred, concerns have been raised, worries have arisen.
Disclaimers
I am a Trekkie. Or a Trekker. Or a nut, a geek, a weirdo. I am committed to Star Trek (The Original Series that is, hereinafter referred to as “TOS” to differentiate it from later TV iterations) and the films that flowed from TOS. The Kirk/Spock/McCoy stories.
I have watched the 79 TOS episodes enough times that I am pretty confident in my knowledge and understanding of them. I can answer most trivia questions, as long as they are not too inane or petty (I can’t name the planets visited in each individual episode, for example). I could probably recite a pretty close approximation of the dialogue from most of TOS movies, especially II, III, IV and VI, to the point where I annoy the heck out of my partner and any one else who might watch one of the movies with me.
I don’t particularly like Star Chat: The Next Conversation, Star Trek: Deep Sleep Nine or Enterprise. Voyager had its moments. I believe that Brannon Braga and Rick Berman destroyed Star Trek by straying immediately and significantly from Gene Roddenberry’s original vision as soon as he died and I do not support their contention that TOS’s optimism would not play to a 80s or 90s audience. I think it was their commitment to making Star Trek “real” by making it dark and pessimistic that drove audiences away.
Star Trek (2009) as a Movie
This movie has it all and is well-deserving of the praise being heaped on it by professional and amateur reviewers across North America. It moves, from the first frame to the last. It features well drawn characters and surprisingly good acting performances across the board.
People who are new or fairly new to Star Trek will have no problem following the very simple plot: bad guy attacks, new recruits get called into action on an understaffed ship to repel the bad guy, people die. Lots of action, lots of funny bits, not too heavy on the message.
People who know Star Trek, once they get over their initial aversion to the new actors in well-loved roles, will like it because, while it truly re-starts the whole Kirk/Spock/McCoy story on a new track, the characters and their relationships are, for the most part, true to the original.
And it’s a darn good, entertaining story.
Actors and Roles
Simon Pegg’s Montgomery Scott is the only real miss among the re-casting of the roles. It may not be Pegg’s fault. It may just be the writing. But I can find nothing in the Montgomery Scott of the original series that suggests the laugh-a-minute character Pegg portrays.
In the cases of all the other roles, the re-casting and reformulating work for me. I like Spock as a passionate young man, caught between the two worlds. This is a Spock who still struggles with the decision to join Star Fleet and upon whom the dire events of this movie have the most significant impact. In light of his new reality, it should not surprise us that this Spock shows more fire. And Zachary Quinto is more than up to the task of this new, fiery Spock.
I very much liked how Spock's relationship with his father is consistent with the series — Sarek's absolute disdain for Spock's decision to forsake the Vulcan Science Academy for Starfleet comes through beautifully in early scenes — yet is affected in a realistic and believable manner first by the death of Amanda, Spock's human mother, and second by the destruction of the planet Vulcan and about six billion of its inhabitants: in this case, the relationship between father and son is appropriately strengthened, the anger over Spock's decision quickly vanishes, and Sarek allows his own emotional side to show much much earlier in this new reality than in the original series.
Chris Pine as Kirk works well too. Pine has that youthful arrogance, that brash confidence that Shatner’s Kirk seemed to lament losing in the movies. I can see Pine as the younger version and I think he captures the essence of James T. Kirk well.
Karl Urban is, in my opinion, slightly less effective as Leonard McCoy. His first appearance on screen comes across a bit “over the top” but he settles in nicely into the role of the folksy doctor, not entirely comfortable with technology nor with military power structures, who pledges his loyalty early to Kirk and the gang.
Zoe Saldana is a revelation as Uhura. I always liked Nichelle Nichols and her portrayal of the efficient communications officer but Saladna is given more to work with and she works it well. She’s like the uber-Uhura: smarter, more capable, more confident, sexier even. Too bad they reduce her to the trophy by the end of the movie.
John Cho does a heck of a job with the part of Sulu, another of my faves from TOS. George Takei was amazing in the role and Cho carries the torch well. As Takei did way back when, Cho plays his scenes with the big boys as an equal and he compares favourably with them. More Sulu, please.
The final regular role picked up from TOS is Anton Yelchin as Pavel Chekov. Well, to be honest, it really is Anton Yelchin as a Chekov/Wesley Crusher blend. I don’t mind Yelchin in the part but I just don’t like the part. Leave Wesley out of it, please. We don’t need a smart-alecky teenager on the bridge!
Star Trek (2009) as Star Trek
This section is not for the faint of heart nor, probably, for non-Trekkers.
First, Star Trek (2009) is Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan re-done with new actors, better effects and a brighter ship. It’s that simple. Same basic plot, similar gang of rookies, same outcome.
Second, while I accept fully (and actually embrace) that the arrival of the villain from the 24th Century on the date of Kirk’s birth in the 23rd Century changes the timeline irrevocably from that date onward, I cannot understand how the script writers could completely and totally erase Kirk’s older brother, George Samuel (see TOS episode “Operation: Annihilate”) who would have been born before the time line changed. As a result, he would exist in the movie world and should at least have been dealt with somehow (how’s that for Trekkie pickiness?).
Third, I like very much that the writers incorporated so many references and homages to TOS episodes and movies. It helps the new movie feel right. From the explanation for McCoy’s nickname to the original Spock greeting the new Kirk with “I have been and ever shall be your friend” to “I’m a doctor not a…” to Scotty crooning about coaxing more power out of the engines, there is a lot there that the Trekkie could love but that would slip right past the casual viewer. There is even a scene between Kirk and Spock that, in goal, tone and flavour, is lifted right out of TOS episode “This Side of Paradise”. And the last look we have of Christopher Pike has the great captain in a wheelchair, an interesting foreshadowing of his future fate. All good stuff.
Fourth, I agree with several critics who complained that the Enterprise is almost invisible as a character in this movie. The ship looks great but the audience is rarely treated to a full shot of this beautiful spacecraft. I am willing to admit to a certain feeling of awe as the new-look Enterprise rose majestically from the rings of Saturn halfway through the movie but that was about it for wow shots of the ship.
Fifth (and final, I promise), I like the fact that the villain, Nero, is just your average Romulan (well, just your average Romulan whose appearance resembles the villain from Star Trek: Nemesis, who wasn’t even Romulan, rather than any real Romulan we’ve ever seen). Nero is the run-of-the-mill commander of a run-of-the-mill drilling ship. In the 24th Century, he’s really a nobody. When he accidentally finds himself in the 23rd Century, however, suddenly he’s in command of the most modern ship around. It’s the technology that makes him scary, not any particular trait of his own. In fact, he’s quite banal as a person and the filmmakers don’t try to make him anything more. A refreshing change and I think a reference back to such TOS episodes as "Charlie X", "The Squire of Gothos", and even "Devil in the Dark", where the villain is just an average, flawed being trying to cope with the life he, she or it has been presented.
One Last Issue
It bothers me that Star Trek (2009) is completely lacking in strong female roles. We counted a grand total of five speaking roles for women in the entire movie: Kirk’s mom, Spock’s mom, the green woman, the Starfleet officer on the shuttle early in the movie, and Uhura.
Kirk’s mom gives birth, then disappears both from Kirk’s life and from the movie. Spock’s mom emotes, then disappears as well. The green woman is portrayed as a dim-witted sex-pot; the officer on the shuttle puts McCoy in his place and then disappears.
Even Uhura, who gets a distinct bump up in her role and expertise over TOS, ends up being little more than a prize in the on-going competition between Kirk and Spock.
It’s scary. I wondered for a while whether this seemingly deliberate choice was intended to be ironic – a send up of the lack of representation of women in leadership roles in TOS and even in TNG and the other series. I wish I could believe it. The fact of the matter is, Star Trek (2009) is a very male film. Male in flavour, male in attitude, male in on-screen representation. It’s sad, really.
Executive Summary
While I was watching and immediately thereafter, I loved the movie. Every minute of it. It was exhilarating, interesting, fun, neat, cool, wowee. I came out of the theatre breathless. Since then, however, little things have started to bother me. Thoughts have occurred, concerns have been raised, worries have arisen.
Disclaimers
I am a Trekkie. Or a Trekker. Or a nut, a geek, a weirdo. I am committed to Star Trek (The Original Series that is, hereinafter referred to as “TOS” to differentiate it from later TV iterations) and the films that flowed from TOS. The Kirk/Spock/McCoy stories.
I have watched the 79 TOS episodes enough times that I am pretty confident in my knowledge and understanding of them. I can answer most trivia questions, as long as they are not too inane or petty (I can’t name the planets visited in each individual episode, for example). I could probably recite a pretty close approximation of the dialogue from most of TOS movies, especially II, III, IV and VI, to the point where I annoy the heck out of my partner and any one else who might watch one of the movies with me.
I don’t particularly like Star Chat: The Next Conversation, Star Trek: Deep Sleep Nine or Enterprise. Voyager had its moments. I believe that Brannon Braga and Rick Berman destroyed Star Trek by straying immediately and significantly from Gene Roddenberry’s original vision as soon as he died and I do not support their contention that TOS’s optimism would not play to a 80s or 90s audience. I think it was their commitment to making Star Trek “real” by making it dark and pessimistic that drove audiences away.
Star Trek (2009) as a Movie
This movie has it all and is well-deserving of the praise being heaped on it by professional and amateur reviewers across North America. It moves, from the first frame to the last. It features well drawn characters and surprisingly good acting performances across the board.
People who are new or fairly new to Star Trek will have no problem following the very simple plot: bad guy attacks, new recruits get called into action on an understaffed ship to repel the bad guy, people die. Lots of action, lots of funny bits, not too heavy on the message.
People who know Star Trek, once they get over their initial aversion to the new actors in well-loved roles, will like it because, while it truly re-starts the whole Kirk/Spock/McCoy story on a new track, the characters and their relationships are, for the most part, true to the original.
And it’s a darn good, entertaining story.
Actors and Roles
Simon Pegg’s Montgomery Scott is the only real miss among the re-casting of the roles. It may not be Pegg’s fault. It may just be the writing. But I can find nothing in the Montgomery Scott of the original series that suggests the laugh-a-minute character Pegg portrays.
In the cases of all the other roles, the re-casting and reformulating work for me. I like Spock as a passionate young man, caught between the two worlds. This is a Spock who still struggles with the decision to join Star Fleet and upon whom the dire events of this movie have the most significant impact. In light of his new reality, it should not surprise us that this Spock shows more fire. And Zachary Quinto is more than up to the task of this new, fiery Spock.
I very much liked how Spock's relationship with his father is consistent with the series — Sarek's absolute disdain for Spock's decision to forsake the Vulcan Science Academy for Starfleet comes through beautifully in early scenes — yet is affected in a realistic and believable manner first by the death of Amanda, Spock's human mother, and second by the destruction of the planet Vulcan and about six billion of its inhabitants: in this case, the relationship between father and son is appropriately strengthened, the anger over Spock's decision quickly vanishes, and Sarek allows his own emotional side to show much much earlier in this new reality than in the original series.
Chris Pine as Kirk works well too. Pine has that youthful arrogance, that brash confidence that Shatner’s Kirk seemed to lament losing in the movies. I can see Pine as the younger version and I think he captures the essence of James T. Kirk well.
Karl Urban is, in my opinion, slightly less effective as Leonard McCoy. His first appearance on screen comes across a bit “over the top” but he settles in nicely into the role of the folksy doctor, not entirely comfortable with technology nor with military power structures, who pledges his loyalty early to Kirk and the gang.
Zoe Saldana is a revelation as Uhura. I always liked Nichelle Nichols and her portrayal of the efficient communications officer but Saladna is given more to work with and she works it well. She’s like the uber-Uhura: smarter, more capable, more confident, sexier even. Too bad they reduce her to the trophy by the end of the movie.
John Cho does a heck of a job with the part of Sulu, another of my faves from TOS. George Takei was amazing in the role and Cho carries the torch well. As Takei did way back when, Cho plays his scenes with the big boys as an equal and he compares favourably with them. More Sulu, please.
The final regular role picked up from TOS is Anton Yelchin as Pavel Chekov. Well, to be honest, it really is Anton Yelchin as a Chekov/Wesley Crusher blend. I don’t mind Yelchin in the part but I just don’t like the part. Leave Wesley out of it, please. We don’t need a smart-alecky teenager on the bridge!
Star Trek (2009) as Star Trek
This section is not for the faint of heart nor, probably, for non-Trekkers.
First, Star Trek (2009) is Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan re-done with new actors, better effects and a brighter ship. It’s that simple. Same basic plot, similar gang of rookies, same outcome.
Second, while I accept fully (and actually embrace) that the arrival of the villain from the 24th Century on the date of Kirk’s birth in the 23rd Century changes the timeline irrevocably from that date onward, I cannot understand how the script writers could completely and totally erase Kirk’s older brother, George Samuel (see TOS episode “Operation: Annihilate”) who would have been born before the time line changed. As a result, he would exist in the movie world and should at least have been dealt with somehow (how’s that for Trekkie pickiness?).
Third, I like very much that the writers incorporated so many references and homages to TOS episodes and movies. It helps the new movie feel right. From the explanation for McCoy’s nickname to the original Spock greeting the new Kirk with “I have been and ever shall be your friend” to “I’m a doctor not a…” to Scotty crooning about coaxing more power out of the engines, there is a lot there that the Trekkie could love but that would slip right past the casual viewer. There is even a scene between Kirk and Spock that, in goal, tone and flavour, is lifted right out of TOS episode “This Side of Paradise”. And the last look we have of Christopher Pike has the great captain in a wheelchair, an interesting foreshadowing of his future fate. All good stuff.
Fourth, I agree with several critics who complained that the Enterprise is almost invisible as a character in this movie. The ship looks great but the audience is rarely treated to a full shot of this beautiful spacecraft. I am willing to admit to a certain feeling of awe as the new-look Enterprise rose majestically from the rings of Saturn halfway through the movie but that was about it for wow shots of the ship.
Fifth (and final, I promise), I like the fact that the villain, Nero, is just your average Romulan (well, just your average Romulan whose appearance resembles the villain from Star Trek: Nemesis, who wasn’t even Romulan, rather than any real Romulan we’ve ever seen). Nero is the run-of-the-mill commander of a run-of-the-mill drilling ship. In the 24th Century, he’s really a nobody. When he accidentally finds himself in the 23rd Century, however, suddenly he’s in command of the most modern ship around. It’s the technology that makes him scary, not any particular trait of his own. In fact, he’s quite banal as a person and the filmmakers don’t try to make him anything more. A refreshing change and I think a reference back to such TOS episodes as "Charlie X", "The Squire of Gothos", and even "Devil in the Dark", where the villain is just an average, flawed being trying to cope with the life he, she or it has been presented.
One Last Issue
It bothers me that Star Trek (2009) is completely lacking in strong female roles. We counted a grand total of five speaking roles for women in the entire movie: Kirk’s mom, Spock’s mom, the green woman, the Starfleet officer on the shuttle early in the movie, and Uhura.
Kirk’s mom gives birth, then disappears both from Kirk’s life and from the movie. Spock’s mom emotes, then disappears as well. The green woman is portrayed as a dim-witted sex-pot; the officer on the shuttle puts McCoy in his place and then disappears.
Even Uhura, who gets a distinct bump up in her role and expertise over TOS, ends up being little more than a prize in the on-going competition between Kirk and Spock.
It’s scary. I wondered for a while whether this seemingly deliberate choice was intended to be ironic – a send up of the lack of representation of women in leadership roles in TOS and even in TNG and the other series. I wish I could believe it. The fact of the matter is, Star Trek (2009) is a very male film. Male in flavour, male in attitude, male in on-screen representation. It’s sad, really.