You Cannot Erase Star Trek

J.J. Abrams has the potential to be a good writer and a good director. Super 8, which is the best film he's ever created, is proof of that. His Star Trek films? Not so much. 

I watched the 2009 Star Trek film like I was sucking on the beautiful tit of nostalgia. Then, like anybody with half a brain, I look up to see if the face matches the breast. I evoke a loud scream wishing I had never raised my head.

(That being said, Zoe Saldana is perfect as Uhura.)

Reading a piece from The Wrap about how J.J. Abrams wanted to keep the original series locked in a vault so that his vision of Trek could thrive is hilarious: He prefers Star Wars and essentially made a Star Trek franchise as if it were directed by a hyperactive child born of Michael Bay and George Lucas.  What is incredibly sad however about his idea of Trek is that the very style he imposed in his ST films will now be spray-painted all over the new Star Wars films. Disney, who now owns the Star Wars franchise, will not completely let allow Abrams to disregard for the public at large the original Star Wars legacy: They've already allegedly grabbed Carrie Fisher, Harrison Ford and Mark Hamill to join the newest film in the SW franchise. 

Backing up for a second, Abrams did bring in original Spock (Leonard Nimoy) for the last two films. If he wanted Nimoy there to connect the Star Trek of the past with the Star Trek of the future, why on earth would he suddenly prevent the original series from ever being seen again? Obviously the appearance of a much older Spock will lead people to wonder how he is connected to the franchise.

Although I applaud JJ Abrams for creating an alternate timeline so that he wouldn't have to contend with following the other Trek's that came after the original, he created the very headache that caused him to leave the Trek franchise. If JJ had simply made a new set of characters and adventures (and even a whole new ship), he could then have control of what Star Trek should look like. Taking on the legacy and reshaping it as if the franchises past didn't exist is a huge rotten egg that you throw at the general public who cling to their original series books, DVDs and video games.

But in a way, he did technically erase Star Trek. 

This is part one of a multi-part rant.

Do You Know What Color You Are?

This is blackness.

This is not blackness.

If there was anything that pissed me off as a child, and still pisses me off as an adult, it's the obsession with blackness. I could never measure exactly how people, blacks and non-blacks, gauged how close I was to being what an actual black was supposed to act like. What's worse? Blacks who like to bully other blacks with this kind of nitpicking don't exactly know what black is themselves. 

The central core of why our culture seems to continuously struggle to move forward in any way shape or form seems to be square be a question of identity to me. I mean, if you are successful and black, you are supposed to represent the interests of all black people and step in automatically when you see a pre-defined injustice against black people. Also if you are successful and black, somehow your newly-minted superpowers are supposed to erase all the societal issues of the lower-economic class of our culture.

If you somehow with your success fail to do act in the interests of the rest of your people, you are no longer black. Without your black skin, without your black culture, you are now a pre-defined person of the other people.

Sell-out.

Oreo.

Uncle Tom.

Your name is no longer the name you were given by your parents. Your name is now what the culture you are assigned to thinks represents you the best. This is where you have to decide what color you are.

What is it?

Are you black or are you white?

Successful and ignorant to racism.

White.

Poor and anti-establishment.

Black.

This list changes depending on the generation. I can't really keep up and I don't really care either.

I will be considered black no matter what my lifestyle is.

Now can we move on from this?

A Much Needed Day Of Silence

Sometimes in the wake of tragedy, silence is a friend.

Five Things Wrong With "The Name Of The Doctor"

I had high hopes for Steven Moffat when he stepped into the executive producer's seat of Doctor Who. For the longest I was irritated at how Russell T. Davies, who can write a good scene or two, could never actually write a full episode that was solid. Moffat on the other hand, with the exception of his last three in the Russell T. Davies era of Who, seemed to hit it out the ballpark.

Fast forward to the season finale of Series 7 which just aired this past Saturday and it's RTD all over again. I set off a firestorm of controversy, after watching the first episode of Series Six, where I stated on ChicagoNow that Doctor Who needed to be canceled. This finale still proves my point.

To keep this short, I will point out five things that bothered me about this entire story.

I will combine one and two here.

The logic of the opening is that in some way shape or form, Clara Oswald (played by the excellent Jenna-Louise Coleman) has helped with The Doctor throughout his entire timeline.

Bullshit.

This was created as a teaser for the 50th anniversary special and not a teaser for the actual episode itself. To make matters worse the editing and super-imposed inserts of Jenna-Louise Coleman in past Doctor Who episodes seems to hearken back to the dark ages of the series during the John-Nathan Turner era. I don't know if that was the entire point, but it just felt cheap (this is not to say it looked cheap).

The other issue I take with this particular opening is that it represents what something which i09's Charlie Jane Anders has with Steven Moffat's direction:

The more you put a hero at the center of the universe, the smaller that hero paradoxically becomes. A larger than life hero has larger than life adventures, encounters huge and unknowable things, and battles foes so great, you can hardly imagine how the hero could win. In fact, what makes heroes epic is how small and insignificant they are — and yet, how much of a difference they're able to make.

The Doctor was never considered the biggest thing in the room in the original series. In fact, there were times in the original series (particularly back in the early 60's) where the people around him were constantly fighting with his ability to make sound choices. To make him a legend within the context of the series itself confines the plot lines to two different tropes:

1. Why The Doctor Is A Hero.
2. Why The Doctor Is Also A Villain.

(I'm really upset that Ms. Anders took the words that I meant to type down right out of my mouth since she makes similar points)

Flawed hero's are fine and dandy. Explaining why over and over again as part of the plot element of the series gets irritating. Moffat, with this episode, has essentially turned  Doctor Who into a fanfic.

Pushing The Doctor into legendary status also reminds me of the fact that everyone who comes in contact with the guy suddenly becomes a gushing fan boy (or girl). That's what ruined Martha, why I couldn't stand Rose and why Donna's transformation into a companion in Series 4 made no sense.

So the episode is titled "The Name Of The Doctor". This suggests that we will finally discover as an audience the real name of the main character. What happens in the episode doesn't actually reveal his name at all.

It does however reveal, strategically, is that a mysterious man who is a past (or future) incarnation of The Doctor did something horrible in The Doctor's name. What that is doesn't matter because the entire name of the episode was designed to get you to watch a collective heap of crap for one great scene (thus making the episode "In The Name Of The Doctor").

Wait! This is RTD all over again.

The fourth issue is with Clara herself and the mystery of her character. I wanted her to be another timelord (Romana perhaps?). I wanted her to be, since the character was originally designed as a timelord, a regenerated Susan. I wanted her so badly to be something that actually makes sense.

To say that Clara's entire purpose is to save The Doctor is completely stupid. A show about a hero should never suddenly revolve around the side-kick. That's like Lois in Superman II suddenly figuring out a way to get Clark back his powers after figuring out who he is.

Now...the final issue.

John Hurt.

I think he is a solid choice to play an incarnation of The Doctor. If Matt Smith decides to leave, put him in his place. Too expensive? Maybe. At least with John there will be a captivating actor in the role as opposed to a guy just looking for a ticket to America.

Sigh. Guess I'll just wait for the 50th anniversary special and watch Moffat screw up his screen time.