Star Trek
May 23, 2009 ~ 12:18pm
I saw the new Star Trek movie over a week ago, but I was too busy to post a review (or rant).
The movie by itself was an entertaining movie. It opened with a really well-done amazing epic scene and from there it flowed smoothly and didn't have too many dull points or lags in the story. I think as a science fiction movie, it was definitely above average, and in that you had semi-decent actors with countless cheesy lines, massive special effects, plot that almost kinda makes sense and of course a perfect setting for sequels. Perfect for a summer action flick.
Now, as a "Trekkie", who has watched every show and movie since the mid-80's, I was greatly disappointed. Anyone who has watched as much as I have is completely knowledgeable that none of the history really makes sense. Each show and movie was made in such different times that none of the time lines really make any sense and there are countless inconsistencies about how the "future" is supposed to play out. So in all fairness anyone trying to make such a movie would run in to these problems. So I ask: "Why bother?" Can we please stop with the prequels?
The story itself from the "Star Trek" universe essentially is a "fork" from the original story. So basically employing the most over used technique: time travel, a new "time line" was created, thus allowing the writers to do what ever they wanted. For 2 basic reasons: 1. bring in a new generation of fans and 2. make it more sexy. Or maybe they want sexy new fans? Hmmm, I don't know but in any event, I think this is the perfect formula for failure.
So what happens in the movie? I don't want to spoil it, but I will spoil one thing: my impression of the main characters.
- Sulu - had no real role, a Japanese character played by a Chinese actor? ("Harold" nonetheless)
- Checkov - what a terribly annoying fake accent and goofy acting as well, also did I mention the bad accent?
- Uhura - the slight romantic subplot was quite disconcerting
- Scotty - quite entertaining and great comic relief, but I don't see how he could end up to be our loveable "Mr. Scott"
- McCoy - well done and really fit nicely
Which brings us to our final two: Kirk and Spock. I personally think Spock was the most annoying role. There was a bit too much emphasis on him and the acting was so flat and his wannabe Vulcan Voice was very vexing to my ears. And our man Kirk. I must admit he was the only redeeming aspect. He was totally refreshing and still completely believable. I liked his dynamic with probably everyone except Spock. Overall mixed casting for the whole crew, but I guess acceptable.
Anyways, I think I was a bit more satisfied with my older Star Trek, warps and all (laugh its a joke). I don't have very positive view of seeing "Star Trek Action Figures" or "Star Trek Happy Meals" at McDonald's. If this is the resurrection of the Star Trek franchise, I think I might just check out here. When the obvious sequels come out, I don't think I will care to watch them. ... Unless maybe, just maybe, if someone forces me into a theater and pays for my ticket.
Battlestar Galactica is Bad Fiction
April 29, 2008 ~ 08:15am
I've been watching BSG since it premiered as a mini-series. I admit that the show is entertaining and has just enough mystery/curiosity in it to keep me watching it. What I do find horribly annoying is that it's science-fiction is nonsensical (they have FTL, but nothing else). They try to merge in some quasi-allusion to religion (Neo in Matrix was bad enough). And the worst thing is that the characters have nothing concrete about them, they keep changing dynamically from a show-to-show basis. And somehow all the "critics" say that the show is sooo edgy and provocative. Hmmm, would they say that about a Soap-Opera???
I saw this post about "clues" being hinted in the recent episodes, and out of all the fanboys only one commenter wrote reply that made sense:
But seriously, what would I call this other than "hard sci-fi"? Bad fiction for one. The stories are so damn pat, and they've been following the "Issue of the Week" formula since half way through the second season. It's like some after school special in space, except with angsty speeches. Their idea of character development is to have people wake up one day and say "I'm going to cause unexpected, out of character mayhem today because dagnabit; everything's going to be back to normal tomorrow anyway." People need to stop mistaking conflict , emphatic voices, deus ex machinas and self-righteousness for good writing.
Yes, I'll bet he'll keep watching the show till the finale as will I. And while some fans have already admitted being immensely "sad" about the impending culmination, I, for one, will feel relieved that I have one less obligatory sci-fi show to watch.
Stargate: SG-1 Finale
June 25, 2007 ~ 07:24pm
Well as most science fiction fans know last friday was the series finale for Stargate: SG-1, ending the longest running sci-fi series ever. (Yes, longer than the X-Files - which was very lame to begin with) In any event, it was incredibly disappointing. On so many levels.
First of all let's ignore the issue that the series should have culminated at the end of season 8 when all the "bad guys" were defeated and every unique plot line and character seemed to have some closure. But NO, they introduced a new villian in season 9, bumped off several main characters, added new ones and just dragged it on.
Back to the point. The biggest issue is that the finale did not really finalize anything at all. Several big plot changes occured in the second half of this season alone. IMDB tells me that 2 straight to DVD movies will be made for Stargate. The first of which will conclude the plotline and after that who knows? Am I really anxious? No. But I would still like to know how it all ends. And if they were going to make 2 movies anyways, why not just end the show and create some cool movies that potentially newcomers could watch (perhaps something like Serenity)?
And how did it all end? ... The problem with many science fiction storylines is their over-dependence on time travel. Stargate ended (I don't care if I spoil it) with a scenario playing out where every main character ran the full extent of their lives. Probably something like the finale of Six Feet Under but with less satisfaction. Well here they were "trapped" but of course it "didn't happen" because they can go back in time and fix it! Yeah, how convenient.
Well anyways, I'm glad the show is over now. Once upon a time friday night could mean 3 or 4 different sci-fi shows to catch up on. Tough life for a geek. I'm glad there's one less. So now, I'll wait for the DVD's.
In all fairness, Stargate: SG-1 was a great show in its prime with the original cast. Highly entertaining, not too much mumbo-jumbo and great characters. Next to ST:TNG, it was probably one of the best sci-fi shows ever. I'll miss it. But after 10 years, its time to move onto something else.
American Idol: Season 6
February 15, 2007 ~ 12:28pm
I can't beleive I'm confessing on my blog that I am actually watching America Idol for the first time in my life and I actually enjoying it. Past few weeks were pretty entertaining with all the humiliation and belittling (sad fact of our human nature). But anyways, I've never watched the show before . I saw 15 minutes of Fantasia performing when I was in India in 2004 and otherwise I really have not found many "Idol's" very impressive. So last night the final 24 (12 girls and 12 boys) were selected. And the picks made for some possible interesting television.
During the auditions Indian siblings, Shaymali and Sanjaya Malakar both made it. And even though both thought the older sister (Shaymali) was the better singer, her brother proved to be the shining talent when she was cut. However sadly for this desi, this is American idol and as much as I think he's a good singer, I doubt he'll make it. After all america wants people like Katharine McPhee
Otherwise outside the obvious indian talent, I'm rather impressed by Chris Sligh - the christian wanna-be rocker who's got a killer sense of humor. Sadly he reminds me of Jack Osbourne and I think he'll struggle in the sex-appeal department as well. And even though I doubt I'd ever buy her music, I was very much impressed with the vocal ability of Melinda Doolittle. An honorable mention to Sundance Head, who had an awesome audition but really went south during the infamous "Hollywood Week".
Oh well, there are some obvious one's who won't get very far including bare-foot boy and the young Antonella. But I'm sure there will probably be some fun with the i-can't-beleive-i'm-not-beat-boxing Blake Lewis. And I feel sorry for the kid who apparently his mother didn't love him until he auditioned for American Idol, too bad he got cut.
I can't believe I've been sucked into this gimmick. What have I become?
Digital Cable Newbie
January 28, 2007 ~ 09:15pm
"Nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there." Everytime I visited a friend or relative with digital cable, I always thought "how cool". Yeah, so I have digital cable now, I didn't choose to get it, it's sort of just there, so I sort of use it. And it's somewhat of a disappointment. Yeah, not as nice as the brochure.
Biggest pain: It effectively killed my urge to channel surf. You know when there isn't anything on, but you just want to flip? Now it takes like 2 seconds for the image to display and for the "information" to show. And worse, sometimes the channel doesn't update on the screen, so it jumps like 2 or 3 channels. A co-worker recommended I start flipping through the "tv guide" menu and read the words. Unfortunately, its not quite the same.
The On Demand Movies feature is very disappointing. The free movies are either all black and white or they are those movies that no one really wanted to watch. Chances are if it's good, I have already seen it. So the new movies are all $3.99 - but in 10 minutes I can rent the DVD for $3.00 in wide screen and 5.1 surround sound. Worse yet, the fast forward and rewind are incredibly non-responsive. And to add insult to injury the sound sometimes "blips" and on occasion there is some digitization or loss of frames.
So you pay more for a premium service right? The TV channel guide actually has ads!!! It shows 3 channels and their schedules and in the forth row is a little banner for another TV show or movie. And I watched a (free) On Demand horror movie and every 30 minutes at the bottom flashed an advertisement for Fear.net. Not small - taking up a quarter of the screen.
So everyone who has had digital service probably already knows this, but to me I'm shocked how pathetic it all is. I remember reading in the early 90's how cool this technology would be, unfortunately it has quite a ways to go.
RSS feed