John Kenneth Muir's Blog, page 900
May 14, 2012
The PC Principle covers Purple Rain: Music on Film
The PC Principle's Troy Foreman features an extensive interview with me, here regarding my new book for Limelight Editions, Purple Rain: Music on Film. Troy and I had a great chat. He's a Prince fan from way back, and had terrific questions and insights. We talked a lot about Purple Rain, and also Prince's not-always-successful movie career after the 1984 film. We also discussed why Purple Rain holds up today, and my process for writing the book, and how I came to the project.
Check out the full interview.
Here's a snippet of Troy's intro: "Who would have thought back in 1984, a little low-budget film starring an artist that most of the general public didn’t know about, would become a cult classic. Not only the film, but its fantastic soundtrack. Well, Purple Rain did just that. Regarded as one of the best rock films ever made, Purple Rain would go on to redefine the genre and make Prince a pop superstar. Award winning author John Kenneth Muir takes a look at the phenomenon that was and still is associated with the film."
I want to thank Troy for featuring my work at PC Principle, and for being a great host.
The Cult-TV Faces of: Games
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
May 13, 2012
Television and Cinema Verities # 19
"The occult is very attractive to young people - probably because it is such complete escapism. Thanks to a daily bombardment of bad news they get through the media, real life can be pretty scary...By contrast, vampires and ghosts don't seem so bad."
- Rod Serling, in Senior Scholastic, November 25, 1972, discussing Rod Serling's Night Gallery .
Cult-TV Blogging: Otherworld: "I am Woman, Hear Me Roar." (March 3, 1985)
In
the sixth episode of Otherworld, called “I am Woman, Hear
Me Roar,” and directed by Thomas Wright, the lost Sterling family finds itself
in scenic “Adore,” a fully-functioning matriarchy where men are second-class
citizens. The province was founded by a female
zone trooper named Livia, and is now maintained by strict gender “stratification laws.” Women are not allowed to set foot in grocery
stores or other shopping venues, as all such duties are now the exclusive
responsibility of male servants.
This
“conservative” town “resists compromise” on matters of sex,
we soon learn, and the Sterlings are deemed “progressives” for their gender equality beliefs. In relatively short order, Trace (Tony O’Dell)
is arrested by the Gender Patrol for parading about outside without his shirt
on. He is then taken to a weight room
and forcibly made to exercise by female officers. Then, finally, he is greased up (yes, greased up…) and put on the auction
block at the Gender Arcade. During the
auction, he shows off his muscular definition…
Female-dominatedsocieties have been the bread-and-butter of so many cult-tv programs across the
long decades, from Space: 1999 (“The Last Enemy,” “Devil’s Planet”) and The
Fantastic Journey (“Turnabout”) to Star Trek: The Next Generation (“Angel
On”) and Buck Rogers in the 25th Century (“Planet of the Amazon Women.”) Star Maidens (1975) is
actually an entire series dedicated to the premise.
My
problem with virtually all such episodes is the general lack of imagination
about what a female-dominated society might actually look like. Basically, in all these cult TV programs, the
women are just as brutal and sexist as men have been, in certain situations. In other words, the women in charge are
depicted as aping and mimicking stereotypical male qualities rather than
actually ruling as a female society might legitimately rule. I’m not saying that this sort of strong-arm,
bullying matriarchy isn’t possible, only that it somehow makes the premise seem
sillier and less realistic than it could be.
Justonce, I’d like to see a female-led society that isn’t based, seemingly, on some
silly male fantasy involving auction blocks, whips, cat-suits, and high-heeled
boots. Instead, I’d like to see a program
where the qualities of female leadership are identified and explored in a meaningful
way. But, of course, it never ceases to
be fun seeing gorgeous women in skin-tight outfits, dominating men, right? I suspect this adolescent fantasy is the
reason why Seven of Nine replaced the more three-dimensional Kes on Star
Trek: Voyager.
In
terms of Otherworld , the way that Hal (Sam Groom) acts in “I am Woman,
Hear Me Roar,” suggests that maybe he had this aggressive role-reversal
coming. When he meets a female leader,
he calls her a “charming lady” and
the condescension drips from his voice. Yikes.
In this throwaway moment, the episode reveals perhaps a bit more about
male-dominated society than intended. It’s an indication that the writers and
the actor can’t quite take the concept seriously.
Awoman in charge? That’s funny…
There’s
a tremendous amount of amusing satirical material in “I am Woman, Hear Me Roar,”
from the “serious” school discussion in Adore of “the male problem,” to the magazine pages of Available Hunk magazine. But
still, there’s something less-than-satisfying and less real about this episode
and perhaps that makes it the weakest program of the series so far, a title
which I had previously reserved for last week’s “Village of the Motorpigs.”
In
short, this episode plays things tongue-in-cheek just a bit too much, as though
no one can quite take seriously the concept of a society where women pass and enforce
the laws. It’s just a wee bit off, even
if some of the jokes really stick their landings.
Between
the condescending actions of Hal and Kroll in “I am Woman, Hear Me Roar,”
perhaps it’s necessary indeed that “collective sisterhood” strike back hard in
this episode of Otherworld.
May 12, 2012
Saturday Morning Cult-TV Blogging: Ark II: "The Flies (September 11, 1976)
“For millions of years, Earth was fertile and
rich. Then pollution and waste began to take their toll. Civilization fell into
ruin. This is the world of the 25th Century. Only a handful of scientists
remain, men who have vowed to re-build what has been destroyed. This is their
achievement: Ark II, a mobile storehouse of scientific knowledge manned by a
highly trained crew of young people. Their mission: to bring the hope of a new
future to mankind.”
-
Voice-over narration for Ark II
(1976)
With Jason of Star Command’s second season behind us, I’ve decided to feature
the one-season, post-apocalyptic Filmation series Ark II as the subject of our next Saturday morning
cult-tv series retrospective. I actually
started blogging the series once before, way back in December of 2006, but
stopped after a few episodes. Rather
than resume where I left off, I’ve decided to simply begin again on the
assumption that I’m a better writer now, and have more worthwhile observations
to offer. I hope I’m correct.
Ark II aired on Saturday mornings beginning
September 11, 1976 and ran for fifteen 22-minute episodes. Like many science
fiction TV efforts of the time, it was rather determinedly a “civilization of the week” program; meaning that each
week, the diverse protagonists traveled (usually by a ground vehicle; sometimes
on foot…) to a new and strange civilization.
Basically, it was Star Trek all
over again, only without the U.S.S. Enterprise and outer space as useful
backdrops. With some variation, the
format was seen in The Starlost (1973), Planet of the Apes ( 1974), Logan’s Run (1977) The Fantastic Journey (1977) and in the 1980s program Otherworld, to name a few examples. Star
Trek creator Gene Roddenberry himself had attempted to take the civilization
of the week formula to new heights with Genesis II and Planet Earth ,
two made-for-tv movie/backdoor series pilots from the early 1970s.
Although airing during America’s optimistic bicentennial year,
Ark II
was set in the new Dark Ages of 25thcentury, and focused on a large, impressive, high-tech tank-like vehicle, the
Ark II, which traversed the wasteland in order to aid the survivors of an
environmental disaster. In a hold-over from the popular youth movement of the
late 1960s and early 1970s, Ark II’s crew is described in each
week’s opening narration as a “highly
trained crew of young people.”
Specifically, the crew of Ark
II consisted of the
bearded Captain Jonah (Terry Lester), scientist Ruth (Jean Marie Hon), and
young scholar Samuel (Jose Flores). In a
weird, unpsoken acknowledgment of Planet of the Apes’ continuing
popularity, these young humans also traveled with a talking chimpanzee named Adam
who could play chess and drive the Ark in a pinch.
You may have noticed that all the crew names listed above arise
from Judaism, and thus carry resonances beyond the obvious. In the Hebrew Bible, Jonah was a “truth
seeker,” which is a term you might use for the stalwart captain of Ark II. Ruth was the name for a “companion,” in the
same text, and Samuel was a man on the cusp of two eras, the last Hebrew judge
and the first prophet. Similarly, on Ark
II, the young Samuel is a child of the Dark Age who will also live in
the period of the New Enlightenment, or recovery. As for the ape, he is named
for Adam, the first human male.
The name “ark,” of course, calls up imagery of Noah’s Ark, thecraft that repopulated the Earth after a disaster, the Great Flood.
The first episode of Ark II is
entitled “The Flies.” Written by Martin Roth and directed by Ted Post, it finds
Captain Jonah recording his log entry numbered 1444. The Ark is patrolling
Sector 83, Area 12, investigating a gang called “The Flies” that is responsible for “serious infringements on the rights of the others.”
The assignment: bring “discipline” and “reason” into their lives. The name “The Flies” conjures images of
William Golding’s novel Lord of the Flies (1954), which also
concerned a society of children.
Unfortunately for Jonah, the Flies – an interracial gang of youngsters
– are entirely loyal to their leader, a rapscallion named Fagan and a
scoundrel played by the one-and-only Jonathan Harris, Lost in Space’s Dr. Smith.
Fagan is named after Charles Dickens’ famous Oliver Twist character Fagin,
a “receiver of stolen goods” and man
who encourages a life of crime in children, turning them into thieves. In Ark
II’s “The Flies,” Fagin and his group of thieves discover ancient poison
gas canisters, ones that are still functional.
After capturing Jonah, Fagan takes the poison gas cylinders (anda gas mask to protect himself), and heads to the HQ of a local warlord Brack
(Malachi Throne), who lives in the “the Village of the Lords,”
actually the Ape City set from the live-action Planet of the Apes TV series and films. Fagan believes he
has found “the ultimate weapon,” and attempts to wrest control of
the warlords from Brack. Brack beats Fagan at his own game, however, and
captures the Flies, forcing Fagan to forfeit his leadership
Ruth, Samuel and Adam save Jonah and free Fagon and the Flies from
warlord subjugation. They also retrieve
and dismantle all the dangerous gas canisters without ever resorting to
violence. Instead, they neutralize the gas and change it into nitrous oxide
(laughing gas).
Finally, the episode ends with a moral statement from Jonah: “weapons man creates to use against others can easily be turned
against himself.”
Although the series I nearly forty years old the look and
production design of Ark II remains admirable. The main cast, for instance, wears
skin-tight and attractive space-age uniforms with computerized belts and cuffs
(replete with wrist communicators). One can see how this design influenced
later Star Trek outings,
including The Motion Picture (1979).
Also the exterior, post-apocalyptic set design is kind of interesting: a
mix of the Old West, Vikings, and the aforementioned Planet of the Apes .
Interestingly, Ark II presages the barbarity and chaos of The Road Warrior (1981) on a TV budget and within TV
restrictions.
The Ark II itself, built by the Brubaker Group, remains a
remarkable piece of hardware, a life-size, operational vehicle. It looks
thoroughly convincing….especially in motion. In the series, this high tech truck
is equipped with a protective force field.
The Ark II also billets a smaller exploratory vehicle, the fast-moving
roamer.
I find it fascinating that Ted Post directed this premiere
episode of Ark II. A veteran director of
The
Twilight Zone and Boris Karloff’s Thriller, his movie career had taken
off in the early 1970s with Beneath the Planet of the Apes
(1970) and the Dirty Harry sequel, Magnum Force (1973). Given this impressive CV, it’s odd that, by
1976, Post was helming Saturday morning television. He does a good job handling the actors and
action in “The Flies,” and of introducing all of the various tech, from the Ark
itself, to the roamer, to Jonah’s rocket pack (which looks identical to one
used on Lost in Space years earlier.)
Next week on Ark II : “The Slaves.”
May 11, 2012
CULT MOVIE REVIEW: Star Trek: Generations (1994)
[image error]
Can one bad concept, executed poorly, scuttle an entire movie?
That's the primary question to ask regarding the seventh feature film to boast the Star Trek name, 1994's Generations.
As Trekkers no doubt recall, Generations offers the irresistible lure of combining two generations of franchise characters and two exceedingly popular casts. The film's prologue is set in the 23rd century days of Captain Kirk (William Shatner) and crew (in this case meaning Scotty and Chekov), while the movie proper is set some seventy-eight years later, in the era of Captain Jean-Luc Picard (Patrick Stewart) and his stalwart crew (Riker, Data, Worf, LaForge, Crusher, and Troi). The film's climax stirs the ingredients together and brings forth both Kirk and Picard to double-team the film's nefarious villain, Dr. Tolian Soran (Malcolm McDowell).
This sounds like a slam dunk formula for space adventure success, no?
It is, perhaps, until you consider the mechanism by which the two generations are combined. While all Star Trek films feature flaws of one type or another, Generations endures seismic contortions to bring together two captains from disparate eras, in the process creating a narrative sinkhole from which little emerges unscathed.
That sinkhole is called "The Nexus" or "the energy ribbon," and the script -- in true TNG techno-babble fashion -- generically describes the outer space phenomenon as a "conflux of temporal energy" that passes through our galaxy every thirty-eight years or so.
Alas, the Nexus is perhaps the most inconsistent plot device to feature prominently in a Star Trek film, thus causing many more problems than it solves. And because it plays such an important role in the film, logical questions about it are not easily side-stepped or avoided.
In addition, the screenplay by Ronald Moore and Brannon Braga feels schizophrenic. The book-end scenes involving Captain Kirk are filled with wit, nostalgia, pathos, and real humor, but the middle sections of the film are slow, tedious and lugubrious. Brent Spiner's delightful Data is transformed into a clown and a coward by the addition of an emotion chip, and the script badly mishandles the noble Captain Picard too, making him seem emotionally unstable and a sexist prude. As a feature film introduction to these beloved franchise characters, Generations serves both heroes poorly.
Yet despite such problems, Star Trek: Generations features many memorable and enjoyable moments. The exciting prologue reveals the inaugural flight of the U.S.S. Enterprise B, and there's also an impressive action scene involving a saucer separation and planetary crash. Generations also presents a laudable thematic leitmotif about mortality. It's not what we leave behind that's important, establishes Captain Picard, but "how we've lived" that matters. Picard, Kirk and Soran -- in various ways -- all embody this search for meaning in life.
In terms of its cinematic appeal, Generations re-uses the familiar TV sets, but cinematographer John Alonzo does a brilliant and beautiful job of up-fitting them for the silver screen. The cinematic lighting of these familiar sets lends a beautiful and affecting sense of melancholy to the dramatic proceedings. Some scenes are literally bathed in apricot sunlight, as though a golden age is burning out, coming to a rapid end. This too fits both the movie's narrative (which witnesses an end to Enterprise-D) and the thematic drive, which suggests that "time is the fire in which we burn."
I've re-watched the first five seasons of Star Trek: The Next Generation in the last year or so as part of my continuing retrospective of the series, and discovered a new appreciation for the series...one I didn't expect to find, but did. Yet love The Next Generation or hate it, Generations is not a high point in the franchise, rather a testament to the difficulty of moving beloved characters from one format to another.
The New York Times' Peter Nichols noted that Generations is "flabby and impenetrable in places, but it has enough pomp, spectacle and high-tech small talk to keep the franchise afloat." I largely agree with the reviewer in terms of the movies flaws and strengths. Generations really is flabby (feeling overlong and confusing) and impenetrable (largely because of the Nexus), but the film is also, often, quite spectacular in visualization.
"A quick run around the block..."
[image error]
In the 23rd century, Captain James T. Kirk (William Shatner), Captain Scott (James Doohan) and Commander Chekov (Walter Koenig) board the U.S.S. Enterprise-B for its maiden voyage, a short sojourn around the solar system.
Unfortunately, two El-Aurian ships carrying refugees to Earth have become caught in "The Ribbon" -- a dangerous space phenomenon -- and require rescue. The Enterprise, under Captain Harriman (Alan Ruck) is not prepared to meet the challenge, but Kirk and his team step in. Several El-Aurians are rescued, including Guinan (Whoopi Goldberg) and Dr. Soran (Malcolm McDowell) but during the rescue attempt, Captain Kirk is lost and presumed dead.
Seventy-eight years later, the crew of the Enterprise-D celebrates the promotion of Lt. Worf (Michael Dorn). Even as Captain Picard (Patrick Stewart) receives grave news regarding his family on Earth, the android Data (Brent Spiner) attempts to become "more human" by installing and activating his emotion chip.
The Enterprise receives a distress call from a nearby Federation facility, and discovers that it has fallen under attack, apparently by Romulans. A lone survivor is Dr. Soran, who is now working on a powerful Trilithium device -- a weapon that can destroy stars -- to shift the path of the Ribbon.
As Picard learns, Dr. Soran actually wishes to return to the Ribbon, so that he can enter into an alternate dimension called "The Nexus," a world of fantasy and bliss where his family still exists. Allied with Klingon renegades Lursa and B'etor, Soran hopes to destroy the sun in the Veridian system even though it means the deaths of millions of intelligent life forms, and thus rendezvous with his loved ones.
Picard attempts to stop Dr. Soran on a desolate planet surface while Riker battles the Klingons in orbit. After Picard enters the Nexus, he realizes he must enlist the help of the legendary Captain Kirk...
"Time is the fire in which we burn..."
[image error]
Star Trek: Generation's problems begin with the concept of the Nexus. It is a ribbon of energy that travels the galaxy. If you happen to be touched by the Nexus, you are transported to an alternate reality without time in which your thoughts dictate reality.
The Nexus/ribbon is incredibly intriguing in concept, and I've always appreciated outer space mystery films that deal with altered realities, such as Solaris . Indeed, you get the sense that this kind of depth is precisely what Generations was aiming for.
The problem is that the rules governing the Nexus are inconsistent. Follow the logic with me: According to Guinan (Whoopi Goldbeg), you can't go to the Nexus. The Nexus must come to you. This is why the film's villain, Soran, is using Trilithium, a quantum inhibitor, to destroy stars. The accordant changes in gravity in the aftermath of the star's destruction offer the opportunity to re-direct the the ribbon to a planet where Soran is waiting. There, he can be absorbed by the Nexus and returned to his family.
Yet, at the beginning of the film, Captain Kirk is absorbed into the Nexus (and assumed dead by the rest of the galaxy) after the Enterprise-B enters the Ribbon. So in this case, you can go into the Nexus. You can get to it by ship, directly contradicting Guinan's spoken testimony and Soran's belief that there's "no other way" to get inside the Nexus.
As has been asked by many fans on many discussion boards, why can't Soran merely fly a ship, or a thruster suit into the Ribbon, just the way the Enterprise B flew into the Ribbon? If, for a moment, I were to buy this whole "it has to come to you" deal, why not park a spaceship in front of the Ribbon, turn off your engines, and let it just happen. Same thing with a thruster suit.
Bluntly stated, there is no need for Soran's over-complicated plan to put millions of lives in danger by destroying stars. It's all a false threat and a contrivance. The film demonstrates, through Kirk's disappearance, that you can go to the Nexus, and that it doesn't have to come to you. Are we supposed to believe Guinan and Soran, or our own lying eyes?
The next inconsistency arises over the use to which the Nexus is put. Apparently, since the Nexus can shape reality according to thought, those trapped in the Nexus can choose to leave it any time, and return to any point in the timeline.
In the film, Picard solicits the aid of Captain Kirk and opts to return to the point five minutes before Veridian III is destroyed, to stop Soran. Why would he choose this particular time, and not a day earlier, in Ten Forward, when he first meets Soran aboard the Enterprise? Worf's security men could thus arrest Soran, and two star systems would survive. There would be no casualties, either. The Enterprise wouldn't get destroyed. End of story. Why would any person in his right mind -- let alone an incredibly intelligent starship captain -- choose to return to a point in time wherein Soran already holds all the cards, and the die is cast, as they say?
And there's more. When Picard and Kirk return from the Nexus, they are very quickly outmatched. In short order, it appears that one of them will have to sacrifice their life on a rickety bridge top a hill to stop Soran from destroying the star. Thus, I submit, Kirk and Picard should have put their heads together for about five seconds and determined to let Soran win, and permit the Nexus to take them again. Why? They're losing.
They can go back into the Nexus, leave again, pick another time to return to the real universe, and make a second, hopefully better-planned run at Soran. The Nexus, in fact, offers the possibility of infinite do-overs. It seems criminal to lose Kirk permanently in this story, when the Nexus allows characters to rewrite time again and again. I have a difficult time believing that the two best Captains in Starfleet history couldn't engineer a solution, together, that would spare both their lives and save the universe, given the Nexus's unique temporal properties.
In short, never has a gimmick in a Star Trek movie been quite so...gimmicky. The Nexus is a black hole of plot contrivance that sucks away all the good will the film generates. And it's not like that good will is that abundant in the first place, in part because of the film's sour and off-key depiction of the hero.
The Measure of a Man: The depiction of Captain Picard in Generations.
What I appreciate so much about Captain Picard is that his character was conceived as a man and as a captain very different from Captain Kirk. We didn't need an imitator...we needed a successor with his own style, approach and personality. That's precisely what the writers and Patrick Stewart gave us in the TV series. That fact established, Captain Picard as he was in the series is not an easy fit for a Star Trek movie. He is introspective, occasionally morose, emotionally detached from his crew, and not at all the standard action hero type.
In the series, Picard was always much more effective as a traveling diplomat and mediator than as a starship commander in combat situations. He surrendered the Enterprise in two of the first four episodes of the series ("Encounter at Farpoint" and "The Last Outpost"), and got his clock cleaned by an eighty year-old, broken-down starship in a war game scenario against Riker in "Peak Performance."
But Picard's admiral intellectual and diplomatic qualities don't really get audiences behind the character in a bigger film setting. When a Klingon Bird of Prey de-cloaks off the port bow of the Enterprise, Picard's response here is simply a befuddled "what?!" He can't even conceive of the possibility that a Klingon ship could be lurking nearby. He thus appears unimaginative. Just compare Picard's confused, ineffective response in Generations with Kirk's decisive reaction to a cloaked Klingon Bird of Prey in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984). Kirk spots the ship before it de-cloaks, and gets in the first licks with photon torpedoes. Is competence in the center seat too much to expect of Picard?
In Generations , Picard is also handily defeated in hand-to-hand combat with Soran. He fails to stop the scientist's dastardly plan, and must resort to cajoling Kirk back into action. Then, Kirk fights Soran and ultimately dies trying to reach a remote control (yes, a remote control). So not only does Picard fail against Soran once, but the second time around he also gets a Starfleet legend killed because he can't handle himself in a fist-fight. Remember, he's supposed to be the film's hero, and again, the portrayal isn't very flattering.
To top it all off, when at film's conclusion Riker notes that he never had the chance to captain the Enterprise, Captain Picard says, essentially, "don't worry...we'll get another one!" (Really: "I doubt this will be the last starship to carry the name Enterprise). Again, contrast Kirk's feelings of guilt and remorse over the destruction of his beloved starship in The Search for Spock with Picard's nonchalant, off-handed response in Generations . The impression is that Picard couldn't give a damn that the Enterprise is destroyed. He's lost ships before (the Stargazer), has done so again, and well, he certainly appears confident he'll get another shot at command, I guess. The script provides Picard not one word of regret that the Federation flagship has been destroyed. And he doesn't tell a soul, either, at least on screen, of Captain Kirk's noble sacrifice.
Then, bafflingly, after the moving death of Kirk and the destruction of the Enterprise, the film stops for an emotional scene in which Data cries after discovering that his cat, Spot, still lives. I wonder why the film could not have stopped, long enough, to feature a memorial service for Captain James T. Kirk, with a moving eulogy delivered by Jean-Luc Picard. Picard is a man more of words than action, and such a moment would have played to his strengths as a character; his intellect, his ability to contextualize a situation in terms of history and philosophy. If we get tears and sadness over a cat, why not tears and sadness over a legendary starship commander's sacrifice?
I maintain that the reason so many fans hunger for the return of William Shatner as Kirk today is because Generations failed so spectacularly to bring adequate closure to the character. He dies in virtual anonymity -- as if he were never there -- on a distant, unheard of planet. Had Picard eulogized him in a formal service, describing how he had "made a difference...one more time," the fans would have felt that their hero had been treated with at least some decorum and respect. His life could have been contextualized and rendered meaningful.
I'm still not through complaining about how Picard is treated in this film, either. Early on, he is given the news that his brother and nephew have died, and indeed, how awful. We get a long dialogue scene wherein he weeps and discusses at length the end of "the Picard line." This is why we see a Star Trek movie, right? To watch a character weep in his quarters over the death of family members. Is Picard so hopeless at interpersonal relationships that he's given no thought to the idea that he could still have a child? And isn't it rather selfish to be worrying about the end of the family line when his sister-in-law has lost something a lot less abstract, namely her husband and son? Something about this whole scene is way off, in terms of Picard's character. He comes off as inappropriately concerned with himself.
And then the final straw is Picard's Nexus fantasy. Here, he visits a nineteenth century world, where a prim and proper Victorian woman -- one we've never seen before -- is his wife. She wears a traditionally frilly 19th century dress and pretty bows in her hair, and she dutifully dotes on Picard and his brood of children. So, we are meant to believe that this brilliant man of the 24th century secretly longs for a demure woman of the 19th century; one to keep his home clean and raise his kids, You wouldn't know that he was such a traditionalist from his previous attraction to the rogue, Vash, or from his relationship with Lt. Commander Nella Darren (Wendy Hughes) in "Lessons." Do the writers here remember the episode "Family," where Picard was defined as the brother who looked to the stars and the future, while his brother was the conservative traditionalist who looked to the past?
In the choice of fantasy mates for him, Generations transforms Picard -- the intellectual renaissance man of the future -- into someone who appears sexist to us, now, living here in the 21st century. It's a ridiculous choice of fantasy for the character, and one that suggests the writers -- after writing for him for so many years -- have no absolutely no idea who he is. The woman in Picard's fantasy should have been a woman that he respected: Dr. Crusher. She is a match for him in terms of intellect, opinion and physicality. Why wouldn't Picard imagine her as his dream woman, particularly after the events of "Attached?" More importantly, why wouldn't the writers think of Beverly Crusher, now that they were now longer constrained by the "no change" edicts of a weekly series, where you must keep everyone available for future dalliances with sexy guest stars? Frankly, in this Generations scene Picard comes off as infinitely more sexist than Captain Kirk ever did. Kirk may want to screw every woman that moves, but Picard apparently desires a chaste doormat for a life partner. Again, it doesn't ring true of the men we'd known for seven years and over a hundred adventures.
I also submit that Data is done a grave disservice in the film, begging for his life from Soran, and cackling like a madman. His belief that his "growth as an artificial life form has reached an impasse" is an interesting element on which to hang a story, but making the android a court jester and sniveling cowardly hardly does the character a service. What's the point? That to be human is to be an obnoxious, smug jerk?
Again, this judgment is not a reflection on Brent Spiner or on the character of Data as seen in the TV series overall; just a comment on the quality of writing and decision-making that informs Generations.
"You know, if Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illogical human being by taking on a mission like that. Sounds like fun!"
I
haven’t pulled many punches here regarding Star Trek: Generations. The film doesn’t work in terms of science
fiction premise, in terms of internal consistency and logic, or in terms of the
main characters, primarily Picard. But,
the film does succeed on at least two other specific fronts: spectacle and commentary on
human nature.
It’s
funny that Trek fans dislike Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
(1989) when, in many ways it felt true to the almost tongue-in-cheek spirit of the original
series. But that film also committed the cardinal sin of being very poor in terms of special effects presentation. By contrast, Generations doesn’t really
capture the spirit of The Next Generation, but proves absolutely thrilling in terms of
visual presentation. The section of the
film devoted to the Klingon gambit to destroy the Enterprise is absolutely
enthralling, and as jaunty, fun and engaging as any moment in the movie canon. Furthermore, the separation of the saucer
section and subsequent crash on the planet surface is rendered in breathtaking
and tense terms. These moments capture
the Star Trek spirit beautifully, particularly Data’s unexpected expletive (“Oh shit…”)
as the sequence begins. A sustained
set-piece, the crash of the Enterprise is something that fans have desired to
see dramatized for years, and Generations doesn’t disappoint.
William Shatner and Patrick Stewart also prove delightful together in the film. It really is great to see these two men stand shoulder-to-shoulder, working together and playing off one another. I only wish the script didn't have to go through so many contortions of believability and logic to bring Picard to Kirk. People can criticize Shatner's acting all they like, but I find his final moments in the role -- his acceptance of death -- immensely moving.
I
also must acknowledge that Moore and Braga have done an admirable job weaving
together some of the thematic, human elements of this particular tale. In one way or another, Kirk, Picard and Soran all grapple with their mortality, and their legacy in Generations . For Kirk, he’s done nothing in the Nexus that
matters, and to him a life without meaning is not worth living. It is better of him to die having achieved something important. Picard, meanwhile, has never devoted his considerable energies to family, and now he wonders if upon his death, he’ll be
remembered at all, or if the Picard name will be consigned to dead (rather than
living…) history. And Soran, of course,
wants to escape the bounds of mortality and live forever with his loved ones in
the nexus. His legacy is to be remembered here, in reality, as a monster. Each one of these characters
must contend with life and death in Generations, and a viewer can see how that
thread affects each of them. Again,
I’ve been tough with the writers here, but in having
three primary characters grapple with aging and mortality, Generations
certainly aspires to be Star Trek at its best. The film has something meaningful and
true to convey to all of us. How do we look at the passing of time? Are our lives burning up as the days and hours pass? Or are we building up a legacy that will inspire those who come after us?
So Generations
is visually gorgeous (perhaps second only to The Motion Picture in terms of cinematic appeal) and certainly, it hopes to be more than just another movie
chapter in Trek history. Yet the film stumbles over Kirk’s legacy. How can we know
that Kirk’s life meant something important if Picard doesn’t share his
sacrifice with his own crew and contextualize his sacrifice for us? Generations also trips over
Picard’s character, making him seem selfish, incompetent, and sexist. And the contrived nature of the Nexus damages
the film’s sense of credibility and logic almost beyond measure. The concept is confusing and confused, and Generation suffers mightily for it. As I noted above, the film feels schizophrenic, lunging from a weeping Picard to a psychotically-humorous Data, and back again.
I
am now and shall always be a Star Trek fan. But
Generations is not the franchise’s finest hour, and in fact, I rank it very
near the bottom of the movie pantheon despite the occasional moments of
tremendous spectacle and the worthwhile message regarding mortality. Good thing First Contact (1996) came next.
Can one bad concept, executed poorly, scuttle an entire movie?
That's the primary question to ask regarding the seventh feature film to boast the Star Trek name, 1994's Generations.
As Trekkers no doubt recall, Generations offers the irresistible lure of combining two generations of franchise characters and two exceedingly popular casts. The film's prologue is set in the 23rd century days of Captain Kirk (William Shatner) and crew (in this case meaning Scotty and Chekov), while the movie proper is set some seventy-eight years later, in the era of Captain Jean-Luc Picard (Patrick Stewart) and his stalwart crew (Riker, Data, Worf, LaForge, Crusher, and Troi). The film's climax stirs the ingredients together and brings forth both Kirk and Picard to double-team the film's nefarious villain, Dr. Tolian Soran (Malcolm McDowell).
This sounds like a slam dunk formula for space adventure success, no?
It is, perhaps, until you consider the mechanism by which the two generations are combined. While all Star Trek films feature flaws of one type or another, Generations endures seismic contortions to bring together two captains from disparate eras, in the process creating a narrative sinkhole from which little emerges unscathed.
That sinkhole is called "The Nexus" or "the energy ribbon," and the script -- in true TNG techno-babble fashion -- generically describes the outer space phenomenon as a "conflux of temporal energy" that passes through our galaxy every thirty-eight years or so.
Alas, the Nexus is perhaps the most inconsistent plot device to feature prominently in a Star Trek film, thus causing many more problems than it solves. And because it plays such an important role in the film, logical questions about it are not easily side-stepped or avoided.
In addition, the screenplay by Ronald Moore and Brannon Braga feels schizophrenic. The book-end scenes involving Captain Kirk are filled with wit, nostalgia, pathos, and real humor, but the middle sections of the film are slow, tedious and lugubrious. Brent Spiner's delightful Data is transformed into a clown and a coward by the addition of an emotion chip, and the script badly mishandles the noble Captain Picard too, making him seem emotionally unstable and a sexist prude. As a feature film introduction to these beloved franchise characters, Generations serves both heroes poorly.
Yet despite such problems, Star Trek: Generations features many memorable and enjoyable moments. The exciting prologue reveals the inaugural flight of the U.S.S. Enterprise B, and there's also an impressive action scene involving a saucer separation and planetary crash. Generations also presents a laudable thematic leitmotif about mortality. It's not what we leave behind that's important, establishes Captain Picard, but "how we've lived" that matters. Picard, Kirk and Soran -- in various ways -- all embody this search for meaning in life.
In terms of its cinematic appeal, Generations re-uses the familiar TV sets, but cinematographer John Alonzo does a brilliant and beautiful job of up-fitting them for the silver screen. The cinematic lighting of these familiar sets lends a beautiful and affecting sense of melancholy to the dramatic proceedings. Some scenes are literally bathed in apricot sunlight, as though a golden age is burning out, coming to a rapid end. This too fits both the movie's narrative (which witnesses an end to Enterprise-D) and the thematic drive, which suggests that "time is the fire in which we burn."
I've re-watched the first five seasons of Star Trek: The Next Generation in the last year or so as part of my continuing retrospective of the series, and discovered a new appreciation for the series...one I didn't expect to find, but did. Yet love The Next Generation or hate it, Generations is not a high point in the franchise, rather a testament to the difficulty of moving beloved characters from one format to another.
The New York Times' Peter Nichols noted that Generations is "flabby and impenetrable in places, but it has enough pomp, spectacle and high-tech small talk to keep the franchise afloat." I largely agree with the reviewer in terms of the movies flaws and strengths. Generations really is flabby (feeling overlong and confusing) and impenetrable (largely because of the Nexus), but the film is also, often, quite spectacular in visualization.
"A quick run around the block..."
[image error]
In the 23rd century, Captain James T. Kirk (William Shatner), Captain Scott (James Doohan) and Commander Chekov (Walter Koenig) board the U.S.S. Enterprise-B for its maiden voyage, a short sojourn around the solar system.
Unfortunately, two El-Aurian ships carrying refugees to Earth have become caught in "The Ribbon" -- a dangerous space phenomenon -- and require rescue. The Enterprise, under Captain Harriman (Alan Ruck) is not prepared to meet the challenge, but Kirk and his team step in. Several El-Aurians are rescued, including Guinan (Whoopi Goldberg) and Dr. Soran (Malcolm McDowell) but during the rescue attempt, Captain Kirk is lost and presumed dead.
Seventy-eight years later, the crew of the Enterprise-D celebrates the promotion of Lt. Worf (Michael Dorn). Even as Captain Picard (Patrick Stewart) receives grave news regarding his family on Earth, the android Data (Brent Spiner) attempts to become "more human" by installing and activating his emotion chip.
The Enterprise receives a distress call from a nearby Federation facility, and discovers that it has fallen under attack, apparently by Romulans. A lone survivor is Dr. Soran, who is now working on a powerful Trilithium device -- a weapon that can destroy stars -- to shift the path of the Ribbon.
As Picard learns, Dr. Soran actually wishes to return to the Ribbon, so that he can enter into an alternate dimension called "The Nexus," a world of fantasy and bliss where his family still exists. Allied with Klingon renegades Lursa and B'etor, Soran hopes to destroy the sun in the Veridian system even though it means the deaths of millions of intelligent life forms, and thus rendezvous with his loved ones.
Picard attempts to stop Dr. Soran on a desolate planet surface while Riker battles the Klingons in orbit. After Picard enters the Nexus, he realizes he must enlist the help of the legendary Captain Kirk...
"Time is the fire in which we burn..."
[image error]
Star Trek: Generation's problems begin with the concept of the Nexus. It is a ribbon of energy that travels the galaxy. If you happen to be touched by the Nexus, you are transported to an alternate reality without time in which your thoughts dictate reality.
The Nexus/ribbon is incredibly intriguing in concept, and I've always appreciated outer space mystery films that deal with altered realities, such as Solaris . Indeed, you get the sense that this kind of depth is precisely what Generations was aiming for.
The problem is that the rules governing the Nexus are inconsistent. Follow the logic with me: According to Guinan (Whoopi Goldbeg), you can't go to the Nexus. The Nexus must come to you. This is why the film's villain, Soran, is using Trilithium, a quantum inhibitor, to destroy stars. The accordant changes in gravity in the aftermath of the star's destruction offer the opportunity to re-direct the the ribbon to a planet where Soran is waiting. There, he can be absorbed by the Nexus and returned to his family.
Yet, at the beginning of the film, Captain Kirk is absorbed into the Nexus (and assumed dead by the rest of the galaxy) after the Enterprise-B enters the Ribbon. So in this case, you can go into the Nexus. You can get to it by ship, directly contradicting Guinan's spoken testimony and Soran's belief that there's "no other way" to get inside the Nexus.
As has been asked by many fans on many discussion boards, why can't Soran merely fly a ship, or a thruster suit into the Ribbon, just the way the Enterprise B flew into the Ribbon? If, for a moment, I were to buy this whole "it has to come to you" deal, why not park a spaceship in front of the Ribbon, turn off your engines, and let it just happen. Same thing with a thruster suit.
Bluntly stated, there is no need for Soran's over-complicated plan to put millions of lives in danger by destroying stars. It's all a false threat and a contrivance. The film demonstrates, through Kirk's disappearance, that you can go to the Nexus, and that it doesn't have to come to you. Are we supposed to believe Guinan and Soran, or our own lying eyes?
The next inconsistency arises over the use to which the Nexus is put. Apparently, since the Nexus can shape reality according to thought, those trapped in the Nexus can choose to leave it any time, and return to any point in the timeline.
In the film, Picard solicits the aid of Captain Kirk and opts to return to the point five minutes before Veridian III is destroyed, to stop Soran. Why would he choose this particular time, and not a day earlier, in Ten Forward, when he first meets Soran aboard the Enterprise? Worf's security men could thus arrest Soran, and two star systems would survive. There would be no casualties, either. The Enterprise wouldn't get destroyed. End of story. Why would any person in his right mind -- let alone an incredibly intelligent starship captain -- choose to return to a point in time wherein Soran already holds all the cards, and the die is cast, as they say?
And there's more. When Picard and Kirk return from the Nexus, they are very quickly outmatched. In short order, it appears that one of them will have to sacrifice their life on a rickety bridge top a hill to stop Soran from destroying the star. Thus, I submit, Kirk and Picard should have put their heads together for about five seconds and determined to let Soran win, and permit the Nexus to take them again. Why? They're losing.
They can go back into the Nexus, leave again, pick another time to return to the real universe, and make a second, hopefully better-planned run at Soran. The Nexus, in fact, offers the possibility of infinite do-overs. It seems criminal to lose Kirk permanently in this story, when the Nexus allows characters to rewrite time again and again. I have a difficult time believing that the two best Captains in Starfleet history couldn't engineer a solution, together, that would spare both their lives and save the universe, given the Nexus's unique temporal properties.
In short, never has a gimmick in a Star Trek movie been quite so...gimmicky. The Nexus is a black hole of plot contrivance that sucks away all the good will the film generates. And it's not like that good will is that abundant in the first place, in part because of the film's sour and off-key depiction of the hero.
The Measure of a Man: The depiction of Captain Picard in Generations.
What I appreciate so much about Captain Picard is that his character was conceived as a man and as a captain very different from Captain Kirk. We didn't need an imitator...we needed a successor with his own style, approach and personality. That's precisely what the writers and Patrick Stewart gave us in the TV series. That fact established, Captain Picard as he was in the series is not an easy fit for a Star Trek movie. He is introspective, occasionally morose, emotionally detached from his crew, and not at all the standard action hero type.
In the series, Picard was always much more effective as a traveling diplomat and mediator than as a starship commander in combat situations. He surrendered the Enterprise in two of the first four episodes of the series ("Encounter at Farpoint" and "The Last Outpost"), and got his clock cleaned by an eighty year-old, broken-down starship in a war game scenario against Riker in "Peak Performance."
But Picard's admiral intellectual and diplomatic qualities don't really get audiences behind the character in a bigger film setting. When a Klingon Bird of Prey de-cloaks off the port bow of the Enterprise, Picard's response here is simply a befuddled "what?!" He can't even conceive of the possibility that a Klingon ship could be lurking nearby. He thus appears unimaginative. Just compare Picard's confused, ineffective response in Generations with Kirk's decisive reaction to a cloaked Klingon Bird of Prey in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984). Kirk spots the ship before it de-cloaks, and gets in the first licks with photon torpedoes. Is competence in the center seat too much to expect of Picard?
In Generations , Picard is also handily defeated in hand-to-hand combat with Soran. He fails to stop the scientist's dastardly plan, and must resort to cajoling Kirk back into action. Then, Kirk fights Soran and ultimately dies trying to reach a remote control (yes, a remote control). So not only does Picard fail against Soran once, but the second time around he also gets a Starfleet legend killed because he can't handle himself in a fist-fight. Remember, he's supposed to be the film's hero, and again, the portrayal isn't very flattering.
To top it all off, when at film's conclusion Riker notes that he never had the chance to captain the Enterprise, Captain Picard says, essentially, "don't worry...we'll get another one!" (Really: "I doubt this will be the last starship to carry the name Enterprise). Again, contrast Kirk's feelings of guilt and remorse over the destruction of his beloved starship in The Search for Spock with Picard's nonchalant, off-handed response in Generations . The impression is that Picard couldn't give a damn that the Enterprise is destroyed. He's lost ships before (the Stargazer), has done so again, and well, he certainly appears confident he'll get another shot at command, I guess. The script provides Picard not one word of regret that the Federation flagship has been destroyed. And he doesn't tell a soul, either, at least on screen, of Captain Kirk's noble sacrifice.
Then, bafflingly, after the moving death of Kirk and the destruction of the Enterprise, the film stops for an emotional scene in which Data cries after discovering that his cat, Spot, still lives. I wonder why the film could not have stopped, long enough, to feature a memorial service for Captain James T. Kirk, with a moving eulogy delivered by Jean-Luc Picard. Picard is a man more of words than action, and such a moment would have played to his strengths as a character; his intellect, his ability to contextualize a situation in terms of history and philosophy. If we get tears and sadness over a cat, why not tears and sadness over a legendary starship commander's sacrifice?
I maintain that the reason so many fans hunger for the return of William Shatner as Kirk today is because Generations failed so spectacularly to bring adequate closure to the character. He dies in virtual anonymity -- as if he were never there -- on a distant, unheard of planet. Had Picard eulogized him in a formal service, describing how he had "made a difference...one more time," the fans would have felt that their hero had been treated with at least some decorum and respect. His life could have been contextualized and rendered meaningful.
I'm still not through complaining about how Picard is treated in this film, either. Early on, he is given the news that his brother and nephew have died, and indeed, how awful. We get a long dialogue scene wherein he weeps and discusses at length the end of "the Picard line." This is why we see a Star Trek movie, right? To watch a character weep in his quarters over the death of family members. Is Picard so hopeless at interpersonal relationships that he's given no thought to the idea that he could still have a child? And isn't it rather selfish to be worrying about the end of the family line when his sister-in-law has lost something a lot less abstract, namely her husband and son? Something about this whole scene is way off, in terms of Picard's character. He comes off as inappropriately concerned with himself.
And then the final straw is Picard's Nexus fantasy. Here, he visits a nineteenth century world, where a prim and proper Victorian woman -- one we've never seen before -- is his wife. She wears a traditionally frilly 19th century dress and pretty bows in her hair, and she dutifully dotes on Picard and his brood of children. So, we are meant to believe that this brilliant man of the 24th century secretly longs for a demure woman of the 19th century; one to keep his home clean and raise his kids, You wouldn't know that he was such a traditionalist from his previous attraction to the rogue, Vash, or from his relationship with Lt. Commander Nella Darren (Wendy Hughes) in "Lessons." Do the writers here remember the episode "Family," where Picard was defined as the brother who looked to the stars and the future, while his brother was the conservative traditionalist who looked to the past?
In the choice of fantasy mates for him, Generations transforms Picard -- the intellectual renaissance man of the future -- into someone who appears sexist to us, now, living here in the 21st century. It's a ridiculous choice of fantasy for the character, and one that suggests the writers -- after writing for him for so many years -- have no absolutely no idea who he is. The woman in Picard's fantasy should have been a woman that he respected: Dr. Crusher. She is a match for him in terms of intellect, opinion and physicality. Why wouldn't Picard imagine her as his dream woman, particularly after the events of "Attached?" More importantly, why wouldn't the writers think of Beverly Crusher, now that they were now longer constrained by the "no change" edicts of a weekly series, where you must keep everyone available for future dalliances with sexy guest stars? Frankly, in this Generations scene Picard comes off as infinitely more sexist than Captain Kirk ever did. Kirk may want to screw every woman that moves, but Picard apparently desires a chaste doormat for a life partner. Again, it doesn't ring true of the men we'd known for seven years and over a hundred adventures.
I also submit that Data is done a grave disservice in the film, begging for his life from Soran, and cackling like a madman. His belief that his "growth as an artificial life form has reached an impasse" is an interesting element on which to hang a story, but making the android a court jester and sniveling cowardly hardly does the character a service. What's the point? That to be human is to be an obnoxious, smug jerk?
Again, this judgment is not a reflection on Brent Spiner or on the character of Data as seen in the TV series overall; just a comment on the quality of writing and decision-making that informs Generations.
"You know, if Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illogical human being by taking on a mission like that. Sounds like fun!"
I
haven’t pulled many punches here regarding Star Trek: Generations. The film doesn’t work in terms of science
fiction premise, in terms of internal consistency and logic, or in terms of the
main characters, primarily Picard. But,
the film does succeed on at least two other specific fronts: spectacle and commentary on
human nature.
It’s
funny that Trek fans dislike Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
(1989) when, in many ways it felt true to the almost tongue-in-cheek spirit of the original
series. But that film also committed the cardinal sin of being very poor in terms of special effects presentation. By contrast, Generations doesn’t really
capture the spirit of The Next Generation, but proves absolutely thrilling in terms of
visual presentation. The section of the
film devoted to the Klingon gambit to destroy the Enterprise is absolutely
enthralling, and as jaunty, fun and engaging as any moment in the movie canon. Furthermore, the separation of the saucer
section and subsequent crash on the planet surface is rendered in breathtaking
and tense terms. These moments capture
the Star Trek spirit beautifully, particularly Data’s unexpected expletive (“Oh shit…”)
as the sequence begins. A sustained
set-piece, the crash of the Enterprise is something that fans have desired to
see dramatized for years, and Generations doesn’t disappoint.
William Shatner and Patrick Stewart also prove delightful together in the film. It really is great to see these two men stand shoulder-to-shoulder, working together and playing off one another. I only wish the script didn't have to go through so many contortions of believability and logic to bring Picard to Kirk. People can criticize Shatner's acting all they like, but I find his final moments in the role -- his acceptance of death -- immensely moving.
I
also must acknowledge that Moore and Braga have done an admirable job weaving
together some of the thematic, human elements of this particular tale. In one way or another, Kirk, Picard and Soran all grapple with their mortality, and their legacy in Generations . For Kirk, he’s done nothing in the Nexus that
matters, and to him a life without meaning is not worth living. It is better of him to die having achieved something important. Picard, meanwhile, has never devoted his considerable energies to family, and now he wonders if upon his death, he’ll be
remembered at all, or if the Picard name will be consigned to dead (rather than
living…) history. And Soran, of course,
wants to escape the bounds of mortality and live forever with his loved ones in
the nexus. His legacy is to be remembered here, in reality, as a monster. Each one of these characters
must contend with life and death in Generations, and a viewer can see how that
thread affects each of them. Again,
I’ve been tough with the writers here, but in having
three primary characters grapple with aging and mortality, Generations
certainly aspires to be Star Trek at its best. The film has something meaningful and
true to convey to all of us. How do we look at the passing of time? Are our lives burning up as the days and hours pass? Or are we building up a legacy that will inspire those who come after us?
So Generations
is visually gorgeous (perhaps second only to The Motion Picture in terms of cinematic appeal) and certainly, it hopes to be more than just another movie
chapter in Trek history. Yet the film stumbles over Kirk’s legacy. How can we know
that Kirk’s life meant something important if Picard doesn’t share his
sacrifice with his own crew and contextualize his sacrifice for us? Generations also trips over
Picard’s character, making him seem selfish, incompetent, and sexist. And the contrived nature of the Nexus damages
the film’s sense of credibility and logic almost beyond measure. The concept is confusing and confused, and Generation suffers mightily for it. As I noted above, the film feels schizophrenic, lunging from a weeping Picard to a psychotically-humorous Data, and back again.
I
am now and shall always be a Star Trek fan. But
Generations is not the franchise’s finest hour, and in fact, I rank it very
near the bottom of the movie pantheon despite the occasional moments of
tremendous spectacle and the worthwhile message regarding mortality. Good thing First Contact (1996) came next.
May 10, 2012
Sci-Fi Wisdom of the Week
"Someone once told me that time was a predator that stalked us all our lives. I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey and reminds us to cherish every moment, because it will never come again. What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived. After all Number One, we're only mortal."
- Star Trek: Generations (1994).
![[image error]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NF_wuEgflXw/TgiCoaFP8kI/AAAAAAAAHJY/CQUOCOFDdD0/s1600/gen1.jpg){kind=link}
![[image error]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Mj2zX3eY0H4/TgiCrMyLWdI/AAAAAAAAHJc/uXI8niq77SY/s1600/gen2.jpg){kind=link}
![[image error]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SqTUAAeR9g4/TgiCsxWmZvI/AAAAAAAAHJg/b-eTPm6edU0/s1600/gen3.jpg){kind=link}