First crew shots!: JJ's Star Trek

Turn your head, close your eyes, if you don't wish to see...



Lots more pics and information here and here!

I'm loving what I'm seeing!

Captain's Log: Supplemental.

I do recall one of the interviews discussing the filming of an iconic final scene with whole main cast, finally all in their TOS-inspired uniforms, and an assurance that, by the end of the movie, even the look of the bridge may be even more familiar to older fans. (Or did I dream that?)

One of the complaints about that cast shot we've seen, that seems to be driving people crazy, is that Kirk isn't wearing the gold part of his uniform, and/or that Spock is not even in that scene. A very deliberate tease by the publicity department. Well done! It's got people talking, asking questions, worrying about "the canon", yearning for a more complete picture.

I'm expecting that maybe, just maybe, some of the stark white on the bridge set portion we've recently glimpsed might end up with a more iconic black/silver colour scheme, with maybe bright orange/red bridge rails, etc., at the movie's conclusion. But I'm not expecting it will suddenly attempt to replicate the 60s exactly.

Spotlight on the old ways

IDW Publishing's "Alien Spotlight: Andorians: The Old Ways" comic is out! It is indeed a TNG era story this time. Placed in TNG's seventh year, writer Paul D Storrie presents Ortees Sharad, an Andorian Starfleet officer hitching a ride to Andoria for extended leave. We see him with Troi but, once the Enterprise-D gets him to Andor's moon, it's an all-Andorian blue fest!

Now, anyone who knows me will say I'm biased - or maybe they'll see it as a sign that IDW has done well with the "Alien Spotlights" so far - but I found "Andorians: The Old Ways" to be thoroughly entertaining. The story is strong, the characters have more visual differences than a typical ENT Andorian episode, and I loved some of the background layouts, esp. those using visuals from "The Aenar".

I didn't get the feeling that the story was rushed, and it certainly doesn't stomp over fans' memories of TNG, ENT or Heather Jarman's "Andor: Paradigm" (the Andorian novel in "Worlds of DS9, Book 1"). The lead character is strong and likeable. Fans worried about which approach to the four-partnered-marriage aspect would be taken should be well-pleased, too.



I said on my blog a few months ago that I've probably been waiting for a comic about Andorians since December 1979 (TMP), or perhaps even earlier than that: "Yesteryear" (TAS) on one Saturday morning in the 70s.

Thanks IDW!

Canon collision course?

William Shatner and Judith & Garfield Reeves-Stevens are writing about Kirk and Spock's Academy years in "Star Trek: Academy: Collision Course". Will it or won't it be overridden by the upcoming JJ Abrams "Star Trek" feature film now in pre-production?



Shatner and the Reeve-Stevens are free to create their own origins of Kirk and Spock meeting up, of course, since they are not contradicting any existing canonical Star Trek adventures, or even previous ST novels, except maybe a trilogy of "young adult" novels. This situation is no different to DC Fontana's "Vulcan's Glory", which specifically (and purposely) made the claim that Spock was the only son of Sarek in the lead-up to the release of "ST V: The Final Frontier", which was to feature Sybok.

The so-called "Shatnerverse", as written by Shatner and the Reeve-Stevens, already exists in its own continuity. Now nine books become ten. No problem.

If there's time, the ST authors can be requested to tweak their proposals and manuscripts to match changes brought about by impending/current canonical events. For example, Jeri Taylor had to revise "Pathways" to add Seven of Nine to the framing sequence, and to have Neelix channel the missing Kes's backstory. The Remans (of "Nemesis") had to be incorporated into the latter parts of the "Vulcan's Soul" trilogy by Josepha Sherman & Susan Shwartz.

But both of those rewrites caused scheduling delays, IIRC. So we end up with cranky fans no matter whether future canon is anticipated or not.

Awaiting the next collision course...

What's in a name, Shran?

GENERAL SHRAN OF STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE

Two recent Star Trek novels, released almost simultaneously, have caused a bit of a stir over the naming of Andorian General Shran. Which one, if any, will gain acceptance over the long term?

Writer of the (miniscule) text of the biographical computer screen image (below, as seen in the "Enterprise" two-parter, "In a Mirror, Darkly", set in the Mirror Universe), Mike Sussman uses Thy'lek as Mirror Shran's first name in his novel, written with Dayton Ward & Kevin Dilmore, "Age of the Empress" (in "Mirror Universe, Volume 1: Glass Empires"). It refers back to the first name he used in Archer's biography.



Mike Sussman once sent me an email, also copied to the TrekBBS, that said, "When I wrote this [for the TV episode], I assumed the text wouldn't be legible (silly me). There are probably some errors in here. One I can spot -- Archer took command of Enterprise in 2151, not 2150. Some of this text would seem to be contradicted by the finale (which obviously had not been written yet)... I wouldn't really consider any of this 'hard canon', so take it all with a grain of salt. Both bios were slapped together hastily and weren't approved by the exec producers."

In the days before High Definition television, the contents of the screen in "In a Mirror, Darkly" would never be discernable. These days, within seconds of broadcast, the freeze frames of Hoshi Sato's and Jonathan Archer's bio screens were all over the Internet.

"Enterprise: The Good That Men Do" a new novel by Andy Mangels & Michael A Martin - that already "explains" that the controversial finale of "Enterprise", the episode "These Are the Voyages..." did not happen exactly the way Riker and Troi saw it play out on the holodeck - kicks off the post-series "Enterprise" fiction line. As they weren't compelled to use the name "Thy'lek", Mangels & Martin call Shran, in full: Hravishran th'Zoarhi. Thus their choice conforms, instead, to the DS9 post-series novels' naming conventions for a typical Andorian thaan (alpha male).

There's nothing like a good ol' "canon" argument to get Star Trek fans' blue blood boiling! Isn't that so, Thy'lek? I mean Hravishran? (Or does he just answer to "Shran"?)

"Political Correctness is Intellectual Facism"

Sounds a bit heavy for this particular blogpage, I know, but an incident today certainly clarified several of my random thoughts into one big... well, I dunno. Mmmm, did I say "clarified"? I guess I'm still working through it.

Firstly, it's the now well-worn chestnut of people seemingly choosing to misinterpret the motives of innocent posts on the Internet. I'm quite up-front that there's an awful lot of "ego-boo" (to use a very 70s fannish term) when I share my seemingly encyclopedic knowledge of Star Trek trivia. I do get a buzz out of it. And if I didn't share it, I'd have no excuse for saving all those issues of "Starlog", "Star Trek Communicator", "Cinefex" and "Cinfantastique".

Secondly, the Australian sense of humour (and, indeed, our unique brand of, umm, sarcasm) does not translate well on the Internet. If it wasn't for those little winking icons, I'd be totally sunk. ;) Sometimes it doesn't matter how carefully I prune a post, I'll wind up being accused of being deliberately: pompous; a know-it-all; egotistical (okay, I know I'm that, I just admitted as much); demeaning; abrasive... And so on.

Thirdly, I do know that the blame for ineffective communication falls upon the sender, not the receiver. But gee, scrutinizing every post for every possible permutation of misinterpretation does take away the spontaneity of posting to a Star Trek mailing list while eating breakfast.

Finally, I go back to two comments from last week's meeting of the Sydney Weblogger Meetup Group: the aforementioned quote by Steve Noble ("If you want to be noted by a particular audience... be noteworthy"), and another PR person's comment, when quoting a speaker at a conference about using new technologies, that if a blog entry wasn't confrontational to someone, then it wasn't really a blog, it was just a home page.

Yesterday, on a e-mailing list to which I belong, a question was asked about amateur Star Trek fan films. It seems that a recent, well-regarded fan film actually kills off a major character, whom fans know already survives into the Star Trek feature film series. So, my e-pal asked innocently enough, why weren't the fan films constrained to follow the official "Star Trek" canon?

As someone who's written many a fanzine story, and as an actor in an episode of Starship Exeter (not the fan film series in question, though), I answered thusly:

"Umm, because it's a work of fiction, based on TOS, but not the movies?

"Umm, because it wasn't produced by the copyright holder, so it's not a canonical episode.

"Umm, because no one dies in science fiction?

"Umm, because it's an alternative universe story?

"Just four of hundreds of possible answers."

That's written exactly as I thought it - no malice intended - but, in hindsight, it seems it was not the wisest way to write it. (Unless, perhaps, if I'm trying 'to be noted by a particular audience', some may suggest?) The person my answer was directed at took no offense to my comments - and, indeed, we'd had numerous very funny back-and-forth emails about several topics, fan films included, following that original first post.

But, this morning, all Hell broke loose (again). I read this comment, from Chris, another poster to the e-list:

"I saw a bumper sticker yesterday that said 'Political Correctness is Intellectual Facism'. I happen to agree with that statement. The world is waaaaaay too over-sensitive about everything these days.

"I didn't read Ian's post as demeaning at all. I actually appreciated the sarcasm and saw it for what it was. It was witty and at the same time it made me think about why it [the fan film] would or would not be canonical.

"It would have been a very different thing if his response had been: 'You're an idiot. Duh!' Now THAT'S demeaning. But it wasn't.

"If we have arrived at the day in which sarcasm is no longer an acceptable vehicle for human expression, then I, for one, am extremely saddened.

"To Ian: you on keep writing, I'll keep reading."

(Permission to quote requested and received; thanks Chris.)

How cool is that? Until Chris mentioned the issue, I had no idea my previous post had been the subject of a dissection - and branded as "demeaning". I told the complainer, who'd leapt to the original posters's defence, "Please reread my post with a laconic Aussie accent and you'll see I was being my usual, bouncy, positive, gregarious (but obviously not humorous at all) self. Think maybe Mel Gibson without the alcohol. And the good looks. And the fortune in Californian real estate. And all those kids."

But hey, maybe I'm not "demeaning", "pompous", "a know-it-all" or "egotistical" at all - just "noteworthy"!?

I know I've complained about a lack of comments to my entries here before, and I don't - as yet - have a monitoring tool on the page to check out who's looking and how they found me, but - as a measure of reassurance - I received two really great emails today, from distant "Star Trek" colleagues who say they read this blog with interest "every day"! Way cool. Or k3wl even.