Scott Seldon's Blog, page 10
May 16, 2013
Broken Plot - Why Star Trek Into Darkness Fails (Spoilers!)
The more I read the more reviewers critical of Star Trek Into Darkness, the more I come away with the image of a broken script, full of plot holes and inconsistencies. As a writer, I am keenly interested as it pertains to my profession. Using my knowledge as a writer, I am going to break down the flaws in the script. Major spoilers are bound to follow so read at your own risk.
When stepping into an established universe, the first rule is always to aquatint yourself with what has been established so your work can fit smoothly. Even if you want to take it a different direction, you still need a grounding in what you are doing. J.J. Abrams made it clear that he was not acquainted with Star Trek and from the two movies that he has directed, it is clear he had only picked up the minimum he needed to take on the project. And while the failure of the films are on his shoulders for not catching and correcting the mistakes, everything wrong with both of his Star Trek offerings can be traced back to the screenplay and the writers.
All I'll say about the first movie is it had a weak villain and an implausible plot. That is the past. I'm more concerned with the current movie, Star Trek Into Darkness. Damon Lindelof, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman wrote the screenplay (Damon joining the team that brought us the screenplay for Star Trek in 2009). Right there lies one issue. It was a team effort. It would be fun to learn the details of how they went about sharing the writing duties, but for now I will have to give each of them an equal share of the blame.
The movie starts out with a setpiece that sets up the beginning of the main story. The crew of the Enterprise is trying to save a planet and it seems that the existence of the ship's transporter has been forgotten. Spock is willing to sacrifice himself to stop a volcano and preserve the Prime Directive. Where do I begin. There is nothing about this situation that would be a violation of the Prime Directive. There is no reason for the ship to be under water and there is no reason they can't beam Spock out of the volcano. The writers have failed to craft a scenario that should lead where they want it to go so they force it to. Bad writing.
Then we have a man who is forced into an act of terrorism. Except that the promise is delivered before the act is committed negating any need to carry it through. This part makes no logical sense, but the writers force us through it anyway.
Then there is the reveal of Khan. It seems to be a "yeah, so?" moment when it was clearly supposed to be a big deal. Why doesn't this work? It is because Khan is a nobody. No one has heard of him and they have no idea what he is capable of. In fact it lessens the impact of the movie. John Harrison, rogue Starfleet agent has great potential. But now that he is a late 20th century superman he is just some other type of crazy. If they had pulled out another old Trek villain, Garth of Izar, it could have enhanced their story. Instead they go with someone who isn't even perceived as a danger until Old Spock pops up to tell them how bad Khan is. This adds nothing to the tension within the story, though it might for some viewers. The only part where Khan makes sense is that it provides reason for Khan to help Kirk deal with Admiral Marcus.
That leads us to another can of worms. Admiral Marcus, somehow he stumbled on the S.S. Botany Bay with Khan and his people and is holding the other hostage to Khan will work for him. He is also manages to build a huge dreadnaught that dwarfs the Enterprise in secret. This strains credibility, but the film hides some of these flaws by not giving you time to think amid all the action.
Lastly we have far too many homages to Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. And that is all they are because they lack any of the impact they had the first time around. Kirk dies. So? Spock goes after Khan and screams his name. Okay, can we say unvulcan behavior? And something miraculous about Khan's blood brings Kirk back. Um, yeah, right. Khan is a genetic masterwork, not a creature of magic. Is he part vampire now? What sort of dreck is this. How can they think this makes a good plot?
Smoke and mirrors. The writers have chosen to give us a fast paced action film and aren't concerned with the details because they don't think you will notice. Well, sorry to say, people have noticed. (These links are filled with more spoilers than I have shared)
James Cawley - 10 Things That Make No SenseJeremy Conrad - Star Trek Into Darkness ReviewMatt Goldberg - Star Trek Into Darkness ReviewGraeme McMillan - Just A Disposable Summer MovieChristopher Orr - The Lightweight Appeal of Star Trek Into Darkness If you buy into the illusion of the action and special effects, you might miss the poor screenplay underneath. If you aren't wowed by the spectacle, the poor writing shows through plainly. In fact it is hard to hide. The sad thing is that it doesn't have to. A few alterations here and there and you would have essentially the same story, but packing more punch.
I've been writing for a long time, I even tried my hand at screenplays. While shorter than a novel, it really isn't a different process. What this screenplay lacks is writers knowledgeable about editing their own work. They missed so many things that would have been so easy to fix at that early stage. It shows that something about this writing team is seriously flawed. Not only do they lack the necessary knowledge of Star Trek, but they can't even create a dramatic sense of tension without relying on the action scenes (which are many). It is all smoke and mirrors to cover people who aren't good at their job. The addition of a new person to the team for this film obviously didn't fill this gaping maw in their ability to edit their own work.
Peel back everything on the surface, and this movie has one of the worst scripts to make it into production on a Star Trek movie. Ultimately it is the script that makes this movie fail. Add to that an unfortunate casting choice and those who know what a good story is find this movie to be a failure.
Updated 5/19/13 with new link.
When stepping into an established universe, the first rule is always to aquatint yourself with what has been established so your work can fit smoothly. Even if you want to take it a different direction, you still need a grounding in what you are doing. J.J. Abrams made it clear that he was not acquainted with Star Trek and from the two movies that he has directed, it is clear he had only picked up the minimum he needed to take on the project. And while the failure of the films are on his shoulders for not catching and correcting the mistakes, everything wrong with both of his Star Trek offerings can be traced back to the screenplay and the writers.
All I'll say about the first movie is it had a weak villain and an implausible plot. That is the past. I'm more concerned with the current movie, Star Trek Into Darkness. Damon Lindelof, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman wrote the screenplay (Damon joining the team that brought us the screenplay for Star Trek in 2009). Right there lies one issue. It was a team effort. It would be fun to learn the details of how they went about sharing the writing duties, but for now I will have to give each of them an equal share of the blame.
The movie starts out with a setpiece that sets up the beginning of the main story. The crew of the Enterprise is trying to save a planet and it seems that the existence of the ship's transporter has been forgotten. Spock is willing to sacrifice himself to stop a volcano and preserve the Prime Directive. Where do I begin. There is nothing about this situation that would be a violation of the Prime Directive. There is no reason for the ship to be under water and there is no reason they can't beam Spock out of the volcano. The writers have failed to craft a scenario that should lead where they want it to go so they force it to. Bad writing.
Then we have a man who is forced into an act of terrorism. Except that the promise is delivered before the act is committed negating any need to carry it through. This part makes no logical sense, but the writers force us through it anyway.
Then there is the reveal of Khan. It seems to be a "yeah, so?" moment when it was clearly supposed to be a big deal. Why doesn't this work? It is because Khan is a nobody. No one has heard of him and they have no idea what he is capable of. In fact it lessens the impact of the movie. John Harrison, rogue Starfleet agent has great potential. But now that he is a late 20th century superman he is just some other type of crazy. If they had pulled out another old Trek villain, Garth of Izar, it could have enhanced their story. Instead they go with someone who isn't even perceived as a danger until Old Spock pops up to tell them how bad Khan is. This adds nothing to the tension within the story, though it might for some viewers. The only part where Khan makes sense is that it provides reason for Khan to help Kirk deal with Admiral Marcus.
That leads us to another can of worms. Admiral Marcus, somehow he stumbled on the S.S. Botany Bay with Khan and his people and is holding the other hostage to Khan will work for him. He is also manages to build a huge dreadnaught that dwarfs the Enterprise in secret. This strains credibility, but the film hides some of these flaws by not giving you time to think amid all the action.
Lastly we have far too many homages to Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. And that is all they are because they lack any of the impact they had the first time around. Kirk dies. So? Spock goes after Khan and screams his name. Okay, can we say unvulcan behavior? And something miraculous about Khan's blood brings Kirk back. Um, yeah, right. Khan is a genetic masterwork, not a creature of magic. Is he part vampire now? What sort of dreck is this. How can they think this makes a good plot?
Smoke and mirrors. The writers have chosen to give us a fast paced action film and aren't concerned with the details because they don't think you will notice. Well, sorry to say, people have noticed. (These links are filled with more spoilers than I have shared)
James Cawley - 10 Things That Make No SenseJeremy Conrad - Star Trek Into Darkness ReviewMatt Goldberg - Star Trek Into Darkness ReviewGraeme McMillan - Just A Disposable Summer MovieChristopher Orr - The Lightweight Appeal of Star Trek Into Darkness If you buy into the illusion of the action and special effects, you might miss the poor screenplay underneath. If you aren't wowed by the spectacle, the poor writing shows through plainly. In fact it is hard to hide. The sad thing is that it doesn't have to. A few alterations here and there and you would have essentially the same story, but packing more punch.
I've been writing for a long time, I even tried my hand at screenplays. While shorter than a novel, it really isn't a different process. What this screenplay lacks is writers knowledgeable about editing their own work. They missed so many things that would have been so easy to fix at that early stage. It shows that something about this writing team is seriously flawed. Not only do they lack the necessary knowledge of Star Trek, but they can't even create a dramatic sense of tension without relying on the action scenes (which are many). It is all smoke and mirrors to cover people who aren't good at their job. The addition of a new person to the team for this film obviously didn't fill this gaping maw in their ability to edit their own work.
Peel back everything on the surface, and this movie has one of the worst scripts to make it into production on a Star Trek movie. Ultimately it is the script that makes this movie fail. Add to that an unfortunate casting choice and those who know what a good story is find this movie to be a failure.
Updated 5/19/13 with new link.
Broken Plot - Why Star Trek Into Darkness Fails
The more I read the more reviewers critical of Star Trek Into Darkness, the more I come away with the image of a broken script, full of plot holes and inconsistencies. As a writer, I am keenly interested as it pertains to my profession. Using my knowledge as a writer, I am going to break down the flaws in the script. Major spoilers are bound to follow so read at your own risk.
When stepping into an established universe, the first rule is always to aquatint yourself with what has been established so your work can fit smoothly. Even if you want to take it a different direction, you still need a grounding in what you are doing. J.J. Abrams made it clear that he was not acquainted with Star Trek and from the two movies that he has directed, it is clear he had only picked up the minimum he needed to take on the project. And while the failure of the films are on his shoulders for not catching and correcting the mistakes, everything wrong with both of his Star Trek offerings can be traced back to the screenplay and the writers.
All I'll say about the first movie is it had a weak villain and an implausible plot. That is the past. I'm more concerned with the current movie, Star Trek Into Darkness. Damon Lindelof, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman wrote the screenplay (Damon joining the team that brought us the screenplay for Star Trek in 2009). Right there lies one issue. It was a team effort. It would be fun to learn the details of how they went about sharing the writing duties, but for now I will have to give each of them an equal share of the blame.
The movie starts out with a setpiece that sets up the beginning of the main story. The crew of the Enterprise is trying to save a planet and it seems that the existence of the ship's transporter has been forgotten. Spock is willing to sacrifice himself to stop a volcano and preserve the Prime Directive. Where do I begin. There is nothing about this situation that would be a violation of the Prime Directive. There is no reason for the ship to be under water and there is no reason they can't beam Spock out of the volcano. The writers have failed to craft a scenario that should lead where they want it to go so they force it to. Bad writing.
Then we have a man who is forced into an act of terrorism. Except that the promise is delivered before the act is committed negating any need to carry it through. This part makes no logical sense, but the writers force us through it anyway.
Then there is the reveal of Khan. It seems to be a "yeah, so?" moment when it was clearly supposed to be a big deal. Why doesn't this work? It is because Khan is a nobody. No one has heard of him and they have no idea what he is capable of. In fact it lessens the impact of the movie. John Harrison, rogue Starfleet agent has great potential. But now that he is a late 20th century superman he is just some other type of crazy. If they had pulled out another old Trek villain, Garth of Izar, it could have enhanced their story. Instead they go with someone who isn't even perceived as a danger until Old Spock pops up to tell them how bad Khan is. This adds nothing to the tension within the story, though it might for some viewers. The only part where Khan makes sense is that it provides reason for Khan to help Kirk deal with Admiral Marcus.
That leads us to another can of worms. Admiral Marcus, somehow he stumbled on the S.S. Botany Bay with Khan and his people and is holding the other hostage to Khan will work for him. He is also manages to build a huge dreadnaught that dwarfs the Enterprise in secret. This strains credibility, but the film hides some of these flaws by not giving you time to think amid all the action.
Lastly we have far too many homages to Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. And that is all they are because they lack any of the impact they had the first time around. Kirk dies. So? Spock goes after Khan and screams his name. Okay, can we say unvulcan behavior? And something miraculous about Khan's blood brings Kirk back. Um, yeah, right. Khan is a genetic masterwork, not a creature of magic. Is he part vampire now? What sort of dreck is this. How can they think this makes a good plot?
Smoke and mirrors. The writers have chosen to give us a fast paced action film and aren't concerned with the details because they don't think you will notice. Well, sorry to say, people have noticed.
James Cawley - 10 Things That Make No SenseJeremy Conrad - The Truth Is HereMatt Goldberg - Star Trek Into Darkness ReviewGraeme McMillan - Just A Disposable Summer MovieIf you buy into the illusion of the action and special effects, you might miss the poor screenplay underneath. If you aren't wowed by the spectacle, the poor writing shows through plainly. In fact it is hard to hide. The sad thing is that it doesn't have to. A few alterations here and there and you would have essentially the same story, but packing more punch.
I've been writing for a long time, I even tried my hand at screenplays. While shorter than a novel, it really isn't a different process. What this screenplay lacks is writers knowledgeable about editing their own work. They missed so many things that would have been so easy to fix at that early stage. It shows that something about this writing team is seriously flawed. Not only do they lack the necessary knowledge of Star Trek, but they can't even create a dramatic sense of tension without relying on the action scenes (which are many). It is all smoke and mirrors to cover people who aren't good at their job. The addition of a new person to the team for this film obviously didn't fill this gaping maw in their ability to edit their own work.
Peel back everything on the surface, and this movie has one of the worst scripts to make it into production on a Star Trek movie. Ultimately it is the script that makes this movie fail. Add to that an unfortunate casting choice and those who know what a good story is find this movie to be a failure.
When stepping into an established universe, the first rule is always to aquatint yourself with what has been established so your work can fit smoothly. Even if you want to take it a different direction, you still need a grounding in what you are doing. J.J. Abrams made it clear that he was not acquainted with Star Trek and from the two movies that he has directed, it is clear he had only picked up the minimum he needed to take on the project. And while the failure of the films are on his shoulders for not catching and correcting the mistakes, everything wrong with both of his Star Trek offerings can be traced back to the screenplay and the writers.
All I'll say about the first movie is it had a weak villain and an implausible plot. That is the past. I'm more concerned with the current movie, Star Trek Into Darkness. Damon Lindelof, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman wrote the screenplay (Damon joining the team that brought us the screenplay for Star Trek in 2009). Right there lies one issue. It was a team effort. It would be fun to learn the details of how they went about sharing the writing duties, but for now I will have to give each of them an equal share of the blame.
The movie starts out with a setpiece that sets up the beginning of the main story. The crew of the Enterprise is trying to save a planet and it seems that the existence of the ship's transporter has been forgotten. Spock is willing to sacrifice himself to stop a volcano and preserve the Prime Directive. Where do I begin. There is nothing about this situation that would be a violation of the Prime Directive. There is no reason for the ship to be under water and there is no reason they can't beam Spock out of the volcano. The writers have failed to craft a scenario that should lead where they want it to go so they force it to. Bad writing.
Then we have a man who is forced into an act of terrorism. Except that the promise is delivered before the act is committed negating any need to carry it through. This part makes no logical sense, but the writers force us through it anyway.
Then there is the reveal of Khan. It seems to be a "yeah, so?" moment when it was clearly supposed to be a big deal. Why doesn't this work? It is because Khan is a nobody. No one has heard of him and they have no idea what he is capable of. In fact it lessens the impact of the movie. John Harrison, rogue Starfleet agent has great potential. But now that he is a late 20th century superman he is just some other type of crazy. If they had pulled out another old Trek villain, Garth of Izar, it could have enhanced their story. Instead they go with someone who isn't even perceived as a danger until Old Spock pops up to tell them how bad Khan is. This adds nothing to the tension within the story, though it might for some viewers. The only part where Khan makes sense is that it provides reason for Khan to help Kirk deal with Admiral Marcus.
That leads us to another can of worms. Admiral Marcus, somehow he stumbled on the S.S. Botany Bay with Khan and his people and is holding the other hostage to Khan will work for him. He is also manages to build a huge dreadnaught that dwarfs the Enterprise in secret. This strains credibility, but the film hides some of these flaws by not giving you time to think amid all the action.
Lastly we have far too many homages to Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. And that is all they are because they lack any of the impact they had the first time around. Kirk dies. So? Spock goes after Khan and screams his name. Okay, can we say unvulcan behavior? And something miraculous about Khan's blood brings Kirk back. Um, yeah, right. Khan is a genetic masterwork, not a creature of magic. Is he part vampire now? What sort of dreck is this. How can they think this makes a good plot?
Smoke and mirrors. The writers have chosen to give us a fast paced action film and aren't concerned with the details because they don't think you will notice. Well, sorry to say, people have noticed.
James Cawley - 10 Things That Make No SenseJeremy Conrad - The Truth Is HereMatt Goldberg - Star Trek Into Darkness ReviewGraeme McMillan - Just A Disposable Summer MovieIf you buy into the illusion of the action and special effects, you might miss the poor screenplay underneath. If you aren't wowed by the spectacle, the poor writing shows through plainly. In fact it is hard to hide. The sad thing is that it doesn't have to. A few alterations here and there and you would have essentially the same story, but packing more punch.
I've been writing for a long time, I even tried my hand at screenplays. While shorter than a novel, it really isn't a different process. What this screenplay lacks is writers knowledgeable about editing their own work. They missed so many things that would have been so easy to fix at that early stage. It shows that something about this writing team is seriously flawed. Not only do they lack the necessary knowledge of Star Trek, but they can't even create a dramatic sense of tension without relying on the action scenes (which are many). It is all smoke and mirrors to cover people who aren't good at their job. The addition of a new person to the team for this film obviously didn't fill this gaping maw in their ability to edit their own work.
Peel back everything on the surface, and this movie has one of the worst scripts to make it into production on a Star Trek movie. Ultimately it is the script that makes this movie fail. Add to that an unfortunate casting choice and those who know what a good story is find this movie to be a failure.
May 14, 2013
Star Trek Into Darkness - More Spoilers
Since I am boycotting the movie, based mostly on the horrible whitewash casting of Cumberbatch, and have no plans to see it, ever, finding this detailed breakdown of the major plot holes, courtesy of actor/producer James Cawley, gives me a detailed report from someone I trust as to just how bad this movie is.
It really makes me call into question J.J. Abrams ability as a director. On one hand, he is technically good at his job. He can turn a script into moving images that capture the imagination. But a major part of a director's job is to make sure the final product turns out good. In that Abrams has failed. The failure leads back to either poor writing or poor execution on his part. I'll be generous and blame the writers. Bad writing was responsible for the horror that is Star Trek: Generations, so there is precedent for that. A good director would catch those things and question them. There are far too many plot holes in this movie and it is quite apparent that a good script was sacrificed to bring us more action. Action is great. But there are ways to write action and create a cohesive story without plot holes that are so easy to point out.
The movie opens with a sequence that makes no sense. Why is the Enterprise put underwater and why does it need to fly to Spock's rescue. Obviously the writers and director haven't watched much Star Trek and have forgotten what the Transporter is for. This sequence creates a nonsensical violation of the Prime Directive that is just stupid when compared to the real violations that Shatner's Kirk perpetrated and got away with.
And why does Pike have such blind faith in Kirk? It's great, but where did it come from and what is with the constant change of command. That kind of situation should lead to a breakdown in crew morale.
Cawley notes, but moves past the miscasting of Cumberbatch as Khan and focuses on the writing issues with his character. The original Khan is perhaps the greatest of Trek's villains. In this film, he isn't the primary villain and he even helps the Enterprise crew. A truly great character has been dumbed down and marginalized. No one is denying he made the most of this role, but the bad writing couldn't save it. Instead of a reprise of the greatest Trek villain, we have just a genetic superman. And the Mercy of Kirk and crew in their original encounters is absent.
And it just gets worse from there. The other guest stars are similarly written doing nonsensical things, from the bomber to the admiral to the Klingons. And the women's roles are handled badly. It's just one thing after another to grate on the nerve of a long time Trekkie. To the casual viewer who just wants an action romp, this may well be a great film. But for the latest installment in the Star Trek franchise, it is an embarrassment. Cawley does comment that it is better than the 2009 film, but for me, the miscasting of Cumberbatch makes it worse. He is a good actor and really deserved a part written for him, or at least one he would have had less difficulty in making his own. Ricardo Montalban was Khan. He inhabited the role, especially when he reprised it in Star Trek II, with a ferocity that is hard to match. Best of all, he was a well written villain in two well written scripts.
The failings of Star Trek Into Darkness all rest on the shoulders of the director. Bad writing and bad casting combine to make this the worst Star Trek movie. Please take the time to read Cawley's full report and don't see the movie. Trek can and has done so much better. Shatner did better with Star Trek V. I hate to admit that I would rather rewatch Star Trek: Generations than this latest installment of a half assed reboot.
It really makes me call into question J.J. Abrams ability as a director. On one hand, he is technically good at his job. He can turn a script into moving images that capture the imagination. But a major part of a director's job is to make sure the final product turns out good. In that Abrams has failed. The failure leads back to either poor writing or poor execution on his part. I'll be generous and blame the writers. Bad writing was responsible for the horror that is Star Trek: Generations, so there is precedent for that. A good director would catch those things and question them. There are far too many plot holes in this movie and it is quite apparent that a good script was sacrificed to bring us more action. Action is great. But there are ways to write action and create a cohesive story without plot holes that are so easy to point out.
The movie opens with a sequence that makes no sense. Why is the Enterprise put underwater and why does it need to fly to Spock's rescue. Obviously the writers and director haven't watched much Star Trek and have forgotten what the Transporter is for. This sequence creates a nonsensical violation of the Prime Directive that is just stupid when compared to the real violations that Shatner's Kirk perpetrated and got away with.
And why does Pike have such blind faith in Kirk? It's great, but where did it come from and what is with the constant change of command. That kind of situation should lead to a breakdown in crew morale.
Cawley notes, but moves past the miscasting of Cumberbatch as Khan and focuses on the writing issues with his character. The original Khan is perhaps the greatest of Trek's villains. In this film, he isn't the primary villain and he even helps the Enterprise crew. A truly great character has been dumbed down and marginalized. No one is denying he made the most of this role, but the bad writing couldn't save it. Instead of a reprise of the greatest Trek villain, we have just a genetic superman. And the Mercy of Kirk and crew in their original encounters is absent.
And it just gets worse from there. The other guest stars are similarly written doing nonsensical things, from the bomber to the admiral to the Klingons. And the women's roles are handled badly. It's just one thing after another to grate on the nerve of a long time Trekkie. To the casual viewer who just wants an action romp, this may well be a great film. But for the latest installment in the Star Trek franchise, it is an embarrassment. Cawley does comment that it is better than the 2009 film, but for me, the miscasting of Cumberbatch makes it worse. He is a good actor and really deserved a part written for him, or at least one he would have had less difficulty in making his own. Ricardo Montalban was Khan. He inhabited the role, especially when he reprised it in Star Trek II, with a ferocity that is hard to match. Best of all, he was a well written villain in two well written scripts.
The failings of Star Trek Into Darkness all rest on the shoulders of the director. Bad writing and bad casting combine to make this the worst Star Trek movie. Please take the time to read Cawley's full report and don't see the movie. Trek can and has done so much better. Shatner did better with Star Trek V. I hate to admit that I would rather rewatch Star Trek: Generations than this latest installment of a half assed reboot.
May 9, 2013
Star Trek Into Darkness Spoilers
There are times when you just need to know things about a movie before you see it. My enjoyment or even desire to see a franchise film is often based on what they do with the story. I'm a long time Star Wars and Star Trek fan and so certain key aspects of the new Star Trek film have seriously pissed me off, to the point of where I feel it is my responsibility to share.
Having started out with Star Wars before migrating to Star Trek (the movies hooked me before I actually got to enjoy the entire original series, then Deep Space Nine and Voyager lost me) and then back to Star Wars, I've experienced the movies as they came out and have a pretty reasonable view of how good or bad they are. Prior to this reboot, Star Trek Generations was the only one I found unacceptable. I went into this reboot and this sequel with an open mind. The last movie lacked a villain of any character and the story left a lot to be desired, though they did a good job of capturing the original characters, mostly thanks to good casting.
Which brings me to Star Trek Into Darkness. There has been this buildup over who Benedict Cumberbatch's character is. Then they release the name and the hype made no sense. That is until a few people dropped a hint yesterday and then I checked out IMDB and looked up the spoilers for the film, which I had confirmed by someone in Europe has seen it. Cumberbatch is actually Khan Noonian Singh. Yes, that is right. They hired a white English actor to play an Indian. This is at odds for their excellent recasting of the other roles, including Carol Marcus.
So, we have the racist recasting of an Indian with a white guy that isn't revealed until halfway through the movie. From there the movie devolves into lots of action scenes that mimic Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and parts of Star Trek III: The Search For Spock. The did mix it up a bit and reversed Kirk and Spock. Kirk dies and is resurrected while Spock battles their foe and yells, "Khaaaan!" In the end McCoy is able to bring Kirk back to life because of something in Khan's blood. (For more detailed spoilers go here.)
When I found this out last night, I was still willing to give it a shot, but the more I've thought about it the more I've decided I am not going to watch this movie at all. The way my friend in Europe explained it is that if you are a true Star Trek fan, the second half of the movie is terrible. If you aren't, it's a good action flick. It just isn't Star Trek.
I would recommend anyone who likes Star Trek avoid this movie. Wait for it on Netflix, rental, on demand, or something like that where you don't have to pay more than a pittance. This movie may be visually stunning, but J.J. Abrams has again delivered a dud that fails to have a story that makes any sort of sense. Plus the casting of Cumberbatch as Khan is offensive. That really was the tipping point. Ricardo Montalban was at least an ethnicity that could pass for Indian (I know several people from the sub-continent who have been mistaken for Mexican). Cumberbactch isn't even close and they didn't even try.
Having started out with Star Wars before migrating to Star Trek (the movies hooked me before I actually got to enjoy the entire original series, then Deep Space Nine and Voyager lost me) and then back to Star Wars, I've experienced the movies as they came out and have a pretty reasonable view of how good or bad they are. Prior to this reboot, Star Trek Generations was the only one I found unacceptable. I went into this reboot and this sequel with an open mind. The last movie lacked a villain of any character and the story left a lot to be desired, though they did a good job of capturing the original characters, mostly thanks to good casting.
Which brings me to Star Trek Into Darkness. There has been this buildup over who Benedict Cumberbatch's character is. Then they release the name and the hype made no sense. That is until a few people dropped a hint yesterday and then I checked out IMDB and looked up the spoilers for the film, which I had confirmed by someone in Europe has seen it. Cumberbatch is actually Khan Noonian Singh. Yes, that is right. They hired a white English actor to play an Indian. This is at odds for their excellent recasting of the other roles, including Carol Marcus.
So, we have the racist recasting of an Indian with a white guy that isn't revealed until halfway through the movie. From there the movie devolves into lots of action scenes that mimic Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and parts of Star Trek III: The Search For Spock. The did mix it up a bit and reversed Kirk and Spock. Kirk dies and is resurrected while Spock battles their foe and yells, "Khaaaan!" In the end McCoy is able to bring Kirk back to life because of something in Khan's blood. (For more detailed spoilers go here.)
When I found this out last night, I was still willing to give it a shot, but the more I've thought about it the more I've decided I am not going to watch this movie at all. The way my friend in Europe explained it is that if you are a true Star Trek fan, the second half of the movie is terrible. If you aren't, it's a good action flick. It just isn't Star Trek.
I would recommend anyone who likes Star Trek avoid this movie. Wait for it on Netflix, rental, on demand, or something like that where you don't have to pay more than a pittance. This movie may be visually stunning, but J.J. Abrams has again delivered a dud that fails to have a story that makes any sort of sense. Plus the casting of Cumberbatch as Khan is offensive. That really was the tipping point. Ricardo Montalban was at least an ethnicity that could pass for Indian (I know several people from the sub-continent who have been mistaken for Mexican). Cumberbactch isn't even close and they didn't even try.
April 26, 2013
Back to Serious Space Exploration
I stumbled upon a wonderful article today (www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-04/16/f-1-moon-rocket). A must read.
In the late 1960's, as the US strove to be first to the moon, Werner von Braun and his team, and the many different contractors who did the grunt work, created the Saturn V launch vehicle. It was truly the pinnacle of Rocket technology. We can learn many lessons from what they did. The above article describes how a team is currently at work to reverse engineer two of the remaining mighty F-1 engines that lay at the heart of the Saturn V. These are the engines that carried us to the moon. 24 men went, 12 walked on the surface. And we have never been back and the Saturn V has passed into history. 3 complete launch vehicles remain, stored outside and corroded past usability. But two of the main engines were in storage. One with NASA, the other with the Smithsonian.
The engine at NASA has been completely disassembled and is being scanned to create a hyper accurate computer model for virtual testing. The Engine from the Smithsonian is being put back into working order for testing with hopes that they can fire up the F-1 for the first time in nearly 40 years.
While this may seem like a history lesson and not much more important than restoring your Dad's 57 Chevy, it is very relevant and pertinent to our future. There were a number of designers who achieved great things in the days before computers and their achievements have not been matched. The Saturn V and the SR-71 stand at the top of their respective fields and are unmatched in performance by anything created since. We can learn a few things from these incredible feats of engineering.
It may be that the next step that was missed 40 years ago is at hand. The Saturn V's F-1 engines may lead to a new generation, a merger of 1960's ingenuity with 21st century production and refinements, and create something even better. It just goes to show that sometimes we need to dip into the past to go forward into the future.
In the late 1960's, as the US strove to be first to the moon, Werner von Braun and his team, and the many different contractors who did the grunt work, created the Saturn V launch vehicle. It was truly the pinnacle of Rocket technology. We can learn many lessons from what they did. The above article describes how a team is currently at work to reverse engineer two of the remaining mighty F-1 engines that lay at the heart of the Saturn V. These are the engines that carried us to the moon. 24 men went, 12 walked on the surface. And we have never been back and the Saturn V has passed into history. 3 complete launch vehicles remain, stored outside and corroded past usability. But two of the main engines were in storage. One with NASA, the other with the Smithsonian.
The engine at NASA has been completely disassembled and is being scanned to create a hyper accurate computer model for virtual testing. The Engine from the Smithsonian is being put back into working order for testing with hopes that they can fire up the F-1 for the first time in nearly 40 years.
While this may seem like a history lesson and not much more important than restoring your Dad's 57 Chevy, it is very relevant and pertinent to our future. There were a number of designers who achieved great things in the days before computers and their achievements have not been matched. The Saturn V and the SR-71 stand at the top of their respective fields and are unmatched in performance by anything created since. We can learn a few things from these incredible feats of engineering.
It may be that the next step that was missed 40 years ago is at hand. The Saturn V's F-1 engines may lead to a new generation, a merger of 1960's ingenuity with 21st century production and refinements, and create something even better. It just goes to show that sometimes we need to dip into the past to go forward into the future.
March 28, 2013
The Breaking of Barsoom
Many years ago I copied the 1970's Martian surface survey maps and assembled them and copied them into a single Mercator projection that I then proceeded to color for elevation. I was imagining a terraformed Mars, but the result was an interesting observation that not many people have repeated. I was reminded of it again this week while watching the Science Channel.
The Mars we know today is a dead world. We have yet to find a trace of life on it. Everything we have found, except for dust storms and some freezing and thawing cycles, has been lifeless, but shows that once there was more activity than there is now. And while I use Burroughs name for the planet in the title of this post, perhaps evoking thoughts of the alien species he envisioned, the use is more poetic. I don't think they was every life on Mars. Calling it Barsoom before the event I am about to describe is more about the chance of life cut short.
Mars features many of the Sol System's most extreme cases: the largest crater, the largest volcanoes, and the largest canyon. These features do not fall at random locations and are interconnected to the same ancient event roughly 4 billion years ago.
The crater is called the Hellas Crater. It is 8 km deep and ringed by highlands. It is 2100 km in diameter and it has been estimated that the asteroid that created the crater was over 200 km in diameter. It is larger than anything known to have hit Earth since the Moon was formed.
Which brings me to Olympus Mons and Valles Marineris. I keep hearing them cited for their size, but their size brings into question of how and why they formed. There is no good answer for that. Between them lies the Tharsis Plateau, an area as elevated as the Hallas Crater is deep. And there is the link. The impact that caused the Hellas Crater also caused the Tharsis Plateau. The force of such an impact was almost enough to break the planet. For practical considerations, it did. We will never know what the planet might have looked like had the impact not occurred. Much of what we take for granted on Mars may not be the case. Many theories exist on why Mars has so little atmosphere and water and such an enormous impact provides a much more likely reason that most others.
The impact not only raised the Tharsis Plateau, but led to the extreme vulcanism that dominates that region. The Valles Marineris is the remains of a crack that did not spew forth lava and it probably much filled in from what it once was. Time and erosion have turned a deep crack into a wide valley. The force of the impact would have sent material flying off, possibly at sufficient velocity to escape Mars orbit. What might have once been on it's way to becoming a cold but almost habitable world is now dead and lifeless.
These are just my observations and suppositions, but I have found I am not alone in my analysis. Others have come to the same conclusion that these features are all related. What erases any doubt in my mind are how extreme and unusual for the Martian surface they are. Some may point out a smaller grouping of volcanoes north of the Hellas Crater, but I would also point out that directly opposite on the surface of Mars is another sizable crater. Proportionally, they match the Hellas Crater and the Tharsis Plateau with its volcanoes. Both incidents indicate that the early Mars (or euphemistically, Barsoom) had a crust and molten mantle just like Earth still does. It accounts for the traces of running water that now seems to be absent and the lack of a viable atmosphere. It's a plausible explanation that fits the pieces of the puzzle.
Burroughs dreamed of a Mars that might have been before we fully understood it. His Barsoom is closer to what Mars might have been without the impact that produced the Hellas Crater. Barsoom was broken and leaves us with a challenge; can we bring it back?
The Mars we know today is a dead world. We have yet to find a trace of life on it. Everything we have found, except for dust storms and some freezing and thawing cycles, has been lifeless, but shows that once there was more activity than there is now. And while I use Burroughs name for the planet in the title of this post, perhaps evoking thoughts of the alien species he envisioned, the use is more poetic. I don't think they was every life on Mars. Calling it Barsoom before the event I am about to describe is more about the chance of life cut short.
Mars features many of the Sol System's most extreme cases: the largest crater, the largest volcanoes, and the largest canyon. These features do not fall at random locations and are interconnected to the same ancient event roughly 4 billion years ago.
The crater is called the Hellas Crater. It is 8 km deep and ringed by highlands. It is 2100 km in diameter and it has been estimated that the asteroid that created the crater was over 200 km in diameter. It is larger than anything known to have hit Earth since the Moon was formed.
Which brings me to Olympus Mons and Valles Marineris. I keep hearing them cited for their size, but their size brings into question of how and why they formed. There is no good answer for that. Between them lies the Tharsis Plateau, an area as elevated as the Hallas Crater is deep. And there is the link. The impact that caused the Hellas Crater also caused the Tharsis Plateau. The force of such an impact was almost enough to break the planet. For practical considerations, it did. We will never know what the planet might have looked like had the impact not occurred. Much of what we take for granted on Mars may not be the case. Many theories exist on why Mars has so little atmosphere and water and such an enormous impact provides a much more likely reason that most others.
The impact not only raised the Tharsis Plateau, but led to the extreme vulcanism that dominates that region. The Valles Marineris is the remains of a crack that did not spew forth lava and it probably much filled in from what it once was. Time and erosion have turned a deep crack into a wide valley. The force of the impact would have sent material flying off, possibly at sufficient velocity to escape Mars orbit. What might have once been on it's way to becoming a cold but almost habitable world is now dead and lifeless.
These are just my observations and suppositions, but I have found I am not alone in my analysis. Others have come to the same conclusion that these features are all related. What erases any doubt in my mind are how extreme and unusual for the Martian surface they are. Some may point out a smaller grouping of volcanoes north of the Hellas Crater, but I would also point out that directly opposite on the surface of Mars is another sizable crater. Proportionally, they match the Hellas Crater and the Tharsis Plateau with its volcanoes. Both incidents indicate that the early Mars (or euphemistically, Barsoom) had a crust and molten mantle just like Earth still does. It accounts for the traces of running water that now seems to be absent and the lack of a viable atmosphere. It's a plausible explanation that fits the pieces of the puzzle.
Burroughs dreamed of a Mars that might have been before we fully understood it. His Barsoom is closer to what Mars might have been without the impact that produced the Hellas Crater. Barsoom was broken and leaves us with a challenge; can we bring it back?
March 7, 2013
A Conversation On Black Holes
Sometimes it is good to be an outsider. I consider myself to be an armchair physicist and cosmologist, but not an expert by any means. I just know enough to write science fiction. I definitely am not adept at the higher mathematics needed to work the calculations, but fortunately there is more to these sciences that just math. Most of it is quite easy to grasp and understand even without the math.
One area that has come to my attention is the ruckus over black holes. On one hand you have Stephen Hawking who at first said matter is destroyed in a black hole. Then you have his detractors who said that violates the principle of conservation of information (meaning that if you could reverse the process you could recreate anything that appeared to be changed or destroyed). On top of that you have the larger work of all of physics. Hawking has since come out and said that because of something he thought of that matter is both destroyed and not destroyed. Another physicist postulated that the when a black hole takes in matter that it's size changes and because of that an image of anything destroyed is preserved thereby allow the retrieval of the information.
I find it all a bit ridiculous. These people are so focused on studying black holes that they are ignoring other areas of physics that already have the answer. The secret to the answer came to me when I read Michio Kaku's Hyperspace. In there he revealed that the mathematics of both black holes and the singularity behind the big bang resulted in the same unsolvable mathematical riddle. I haven't looked it up lately, but I believe it was the square root of infinity.
So the answer of what happens to matter that enters a black hole is that it returns to whatever state it was in before the big bang (or the early stages of the big bang). Therefor no information is lost, but the matter ceases to be matter. String theory has some good answers to what the sequence of events was that led to the creation of matter so it would just be reversed in a black hole. Rather than a string cooling and resonating in our space and creating a particle. The particle warms up so much that the string can no longer maintain the particle and the particle disappears leaving the string to do what it did before it created the particle in the first place. From simple 4 dimension physics, the big bang created matter and black holes destroy matter. When you add the proposed additional dimensions of String Theory, there is a source for matter in the big bang in a black hole it just returns to that source. No need for crazy theories or to grasp for straws. It all makes sense and there is no need for controversy.
I've noticed that this focused (a polite way of saying narrow minded) approach is pretty typical in higher academic circles. I've seen it in history, Egyptology, physics, and a few other subjects. Solutions that seem so plain to an outsider are missed by the pros. I think that is why it is the younger generation who always make the leaps. Einstein made the leap to consider time a variable dimension. Hawking made great leaps in understanding black holes. Both men have failed later in their careers to make the same kinds of leaps of logic that they did when they were younger. They built on their initial success, but were never able to expand on it. I look forward to seeing what the next generation of physicists and cosmologists come up with. I'm sure it will be amazing.
One area that has come to my attention is the ruckus over black holes. On one hand you have Stephen Hawking who at first said matter is destroyed in a black hole. Then you have his detractors who said that violates the principle of conservation of information (meaning that if you could reverse the process you could recreate anything that appeared to be changed or destroyed). On top of that you have the larger work of all of physics. Hawking has since come out and said that because of something he thought of that matter is both destroyed and not destroyed. Another physicist postulated that the when a black hole takes in matter that it's size changes and because of that an image of anything destroyed is preserved thereby allow the retrieval of the information.
I find it all a bit ridiculous. These people are so focused on studying black holes that they are ignoring other areas of physics that already have the answer. The secret to the answer came to me when I read Michio Kaku's Hyperspace. In there he revealed that the mathematics of both black holes and the singularity behind the big bang resulted in the same unsolvable mathematical riddle. I haven't looked it up lately, but I believe it was the square root of infinity.
So the answer of what happens to matter that enters a black hole is that it returns to whatever state it was in before the big bang (or the early stages of the big bang). Therefor no information is lost, but the matter ceases to be matter. String theory has some good answers to what the sequence of events was that led to the creation of matter so it would just be reversed in a black hole. Rather than a string cooling and resonating in our space and creating a particle. The particle warms up so much that the string can no longer maintain the particle and the particle disappears leaving the string to do what it did before it created the particle in the first place. From simple 4 dimension physics, the big bang created matter and black holes destroy matter. When you add the proposed additional dimensions of String Theory, there is a source for matter in the big bang in a black hole it just returns to that source. No need for crazy theories or to grasp for straws. It all makes sense and there is no need for controversy.
I've noticed that this focused (a polite way of saying narrow minded) approach is pretty typical in higher academic circles. I've seen it in history, Egyptology, physics, and a few other subjects. Solutions that seem so plain to an outsider are missed by the pros. I think that is why it is the younger generation who always make the leaps. Einstein made the leap to consider time a variable dimension. Hawking made great leaps in understanding black holes. Both men have failed later in their careers to make the same kinds of leaps of logic that they did when they were younger. They built on their initial success, but were never able to expand on it. I look forward to seeing what the next generation of physicists and cosmologists come up with. I'm sure it will be amazing.
February 27, 2013
Misfit Science
I find the political discussion about science to be rather ridiculous (as a science fiction writer, I would hope I would not need to explain my position on science). I hear arguments that science isn't exact, they keep changing their minds.... WTF. You think religion doesn't do this? Then explain to me how we have more than 10 major denomination of Christianity, at least 3 of Judaism, 3 of Islam, and at least 2 of Buddhism. And those are just the major division and don't even count the differences of opinion within each of those.
Yeah, science isn't exact. Why? Quite simple, it is the attempt by the collective of humanity to describe the world around them and an attempt to understand it and be able to predict future events. In some areas, it is so well understood that we can rely on it. The science behind space flight is accurate enough for us to send probes to the other planets (or dwarf planets in the case of Pluto) and have them reach their target. With the vast distances involved, that is nothing short of miraculous unless we truly do have it right.
What is hilarious is that so many who seem to oppose science rely so much on the products of science. Before they were common, every day items, cars, phones, computers, and a host of other items had to be developed. A great many of our modern conveniences came from the US Space program and were created by scientists using their understanding of the way things work.
This argument really comes down to ignorance vs. education. What many don't understand is that the education I speak of is not dependent on how many years you have spent in school. It is totally dependent on how willing you are to learn new things, to strive to understand, to explore, to delve into the mysteries of the world with an open mind. You can be in this world with five doctorates and be ignorant. You can have dropped out of school, barely be able to read, and be highly educated. It's not how much you have done, but how well you have done it. Education never stops and is not confined to one area. Even if we dedicate our lives to specializing in one very narrow field, we must be willing to expand our horizons when challenged.
Another aspect is questioning vs. accepting. Education involves questioning everything. Accepting involves questioning nothing. There is a time for each, such as you should never question why someone loves you. But you should question everything you are told. As children we asked why incessantly and we should never let that go. Asking why is at the heart of science and education. When we cease to ask why, we cease to learn and ignorance sets in. The world is an every changing place and science is ever changing to go with it. Just when we understand one thing the universe does, it raises questions about others. By continuing to question and find the answers, we continue to understand more and more.
So the next time someone tells you something, ask why. Better yet, check into it from other sources and other political viewpoints. No piece of information in a vacuum is a fact. Facts have provenance and sources and data to back them up. Everything else is rumor and supposition and believing them without checking is the number one source of ignorance in the world.
Yeah, science isn't exact. Why? Quite simple, it is the attempt by the collective of humanity to describe the world around them and an attempt to understand it and be able to predict future events. In some areas, it is so well understood that we can rely on it. The science behind space flight is accurate enough for us to send probes to the other planets (or dwarf planets in the case of Pluto) and have them reach their target. With the vast distances involved, that is nothing short of miraculous unless we truly do have it right.
What is hilarious is that so many who seem to oppose science rely so much on the products of science. Before they were common, every day items, cars, phones, computers, and a host of other items had to be developed. A great many of our modern conveniences came from the US Space program and were created by scientists using their understanding of the way things work.
This argument really comes down to ignorance vs. education. What many don't understand is that the education I speak of is not dependent on how many years you have spent in school. It is totally dependent on how willing you are to learn new things, to strive to understand, to explore, to delve into the mysteries of the world with an open mind. You can be in this world with five doctorates and be ignorant. You can have dropped out of school, barely be able to read, and be highly educated. It's not how much you have done, but how well you have done it. Education never stops and is not confined to one area. Even if we dedicate our lives to specializing in one very narrow field, we must be willing to expand our horizons when challenged.
Another aspect is questioning vs. accepting. Education involves questioning everything. Accepting involves questioning nothing. There is a time for each, such as you should never question why someone loves you. But you should question everything you are told. As children we asked why incessantly and we should never let that go. Asking why is at the heart of science and education. When we cease to ask why, we cease to learn and ignorance sets in. The world is an every changing place and science is ever changing to go with it. Just when we understand one thing the universe does, it raises questions about others. By continuing to question and find the answers, we continue to understand more and more.
So the next time someone tells you something, ask why. Better yet, check into it from other sources and other political viewpoints. No piece of information in a vacuum is a fact. Facts have provenance and sources and data to back them up. Everything else is rumor and supposition and believing them without checking is the number one source of ignorance in the world.
February 17, 2013
A Shining Example Of What Not To Do
For years I have heard the story of what happened to Harlan Ellison when he worked on Star Trek back in the 60's. He is the writer credited with what very well may be the best episode of the original Star Trek. Definitely the most critically acclaimed one. The final episode won a Hugo Award and Ellison's first draft script won Best Original Teleplay from the Writers Guild of America. And to this day, Ellison rails against what he claimed was done to his script.
Let's start with Ellison's claim (and I use that word because I will show later how he has been in error) about what was done to his script. He claims that the first draft was prefect and didn't need to be changed. A look at the summary of his treatments and drafts of the script show that there were indeed a lot of changes. So that part is true. It also isn't very unusual in television. So Ellison's basic claim cannot be argued against. He also claims that several in the production staff, particularly Gene Roddenberry, treated him badly. Ellison's claims are backed up by others making similar claims. Roddenberry was not easy to work with. Okay, so his basic claims are correct - his script was changed and there is little doubt he wasn't treated very well.
Yet his claim, probably bolstered by his WGA award for best screenplay, that there was no need to change his script is where his argument starts to break down. It further breaks down with how he has behaved on the entire subject. Forty-plus years of ranting is quite enough, Probably too much.
What brought this really to light was the release of Robert Justman's notes on the revised second draft. These were internal comments on just how the script fit with Star Trek, their budget, and the characters. You can view the first five pages here. When you stop and consider what the demands of writing for television are, these documents reveal that Ellison had a compelling story, but he failed in execution to deliver a script that they could use. His script contains many elements that are out of character for the Star Trek characters and for Starfleet in general. It also failed in delivering a script that could be filmed on Star Trek's limited budget. Even so, they felt it was worth spending more on that episode than they usually did.
It all boils down to a couple of questions. Was the treatment Ellison received from the Star Trek staff unusual or uncalled for? And has all the energy and vitriol that Ellison has spent over the years really worth it? The answer to both questions is no. Ellison is mostly miffed that they would dare rewrite his script, not realizing that is a normal procedure, especially in cases where they like the story idea and want to make it work. Being treated ill by a producer seems pretty typical in Holllywood. And to make matters worse, Ellison has never seemed to realize that he wasn't working for Star Trek, he was working for Desilu Studios, NBC, NBC's sponsors and the viewing audience. Ultimately Robert Justman and Gene Roddenberry had to answer all these higher forces themselves and had to deliver the promised product. That is absolutely normal for a TV series. And they did something right because all you have to do is look at the enduring legacy of Star Trek. Gene Roddenberry had already compromised his vision to get the show on the air. I don't see where Ellison has any right to expect to be held to a different standard than any other writer or the creator of the series.
When you objectively look at the situation, the things that pissed off Ellison the most, the things that he still goes off about, are all a normal part of television production for a writer. Movie production as well. The writer has no say in the finished product. The director, actors, editor, producers, and studio all have a say and it is quite normal for any one of them to ignore the writer's words and do something else. Ellison would have had a field day working with Robert Altman.
What this boils down to is not Ellison's ability to write. That is well established. But from Justman's comments about the second draft of the script, while Ellison delivered a good story, it failed to fit into Star Trek, it failed to be shootable on their budget, and it failed to deliver suitable drama. Basically it failed to meet the requirements that Star Trek needed it to. So they rewrote it because they liked the heart of the story. What came out retains the core of Ellison's story. The changes that were made brought the story in line with the established characters, message, and nature of the series. The changes heightened the drama and made incredible television from what started out as an incredible story.
So what Harlan Ellison has presented us with the last forty-plus years is the perfect example of how NOT to behave. He gets credit for a WGA award and a Hugo award. So what that they rewrote the script. He wasn't the first writer that it happened to and he wasn't the last. What he has done is to set a bad example and unrealistic expectations for those who want to write in Hollywood. They can't expect to write a screenplay or teleplay and expect it to remain unchanged. The norm is a string of edits to make everyone happy and the final product invariably differs from the script. The script is just the starting point. Rather than Ellison making a valiant stand or a valid point, he comes off as whining and childish about the entire matter.
Is he wrong to be mad? No. Has he said anything that wasn't true. Yes. He claims his script didn't need any work when clearly it did. The rest is true, but that is not. Yes, his original script won an award, but so did the final product. It is a fan favorite. Of all the writers who worked on Star Trek, only Ellison has made such vocal complaints and he was not the only writer to have been rewritten. Most were. All he is doing at this point is showing a level of immaturity that is unbecoming to a professional writer. What is funny is that he thinks that as a professional he shouldn't be subject to rewrites. That runs contrary to what the true professionals say. George R.R. Martin, better known today for Game of Thrones, was one of the main writers on Beauty and the Beast and has stated how much they had to compromise on every episode. The network wanted action without violence and they got what they wanted. Compromise is the name of the game and Ellison won't admit that. You have to kill your darlings as a writer and Ellison has never let go of this darling, even though it was killed and buried more than forty years ago. Mad can be good, but never letting it go is poison.
It is hard to say a great writer such as Harlan Ellison is wrong, but it is quite clear that in this he is very wrong. He was not wronged and should be proud that the episode bears his name. The final product is magnificent because of his ideas. But as an example of how a writer should behave, he is a miserable failure. Yes, writers should expect a certain level of respect, but you have to be cognizant of your industry. Things are not the same for short stories, novels, teleplays, screenplays, stage plays, or musicals. You have to be aware of your role as writer and what the requirements are. In 1966, Harlan Ellison was doing a one off script for a science fiction television series. That brings with it a certain expectation. One of the things to expect is that the script will have to be rewritten, either by the writer, or by staff writers. To ignore that expectation for over forty years and pretend that you are so great a writer that it shouldn't have applied to you is lunacy. Get over yourself Harlan. Grow up and be professional.
Let's start with Ellison's claim (and I use that word because I will show later how he has been in error) about what was done to his script. He claims that the first draft was prefect and didn't need to be changed. A look at the summary of his treatments and drafts of the script show that there were indeed a lot of changes. So that part is true. It also isn't very unusual in television. So Ellison's basic claim cannot be argued against. He also claims that several in the production staff, particularly Gene Roddenberry, treated him badly. Ellison's claims are backed up by others making similar claims. Roddenberry was not easy to work with. Okay, so his basic claims are correct - his script was changed and there is little doubt he wasn't treated very well.
Yet his claim, probably bolstered by his WGA award for best screenplay, that there was no need to change his script is where his argument starts to break down. It further breaks down with how he has behaved on the entire subject. Forty-plus years of ranting is quite enough, Probably too much.
What brought this really to light was the release of Robert Justman's notes on the revised second draft. These were internal comments on just how the script fit with Star Trek, their budget, and the characters. You can view the first five pages here. When you stop and consider what the demands of writing for television are, these documents reveal that Ellison had a compelling story, but he failed in execution to deliver a script that they could use. His script contains many elements that are out of character for the Star Trek characters and for Starfleet in general. It also failed in delivering a script that could be filmed on Star Trek's limited budget. Even so, they felt it was worth spending more on that episode than they usually did.
It all boils down to a couple of questions. Was the treatment Ellison received from the Star Trek staff unusual or uncalled for? And has all the energy and vitriol that Ellison has spent over the years really worth it? The answer to both questions is no. Ellison is mostly miffed that they would dare rewrite his script, not realizing that is a normal procedure, especially in cases where they like the story idea and want to make it work. Being treated ill by a producer seems pretty typical in Holllywood. And to make matters worse, Ellison has never seemed to realize that he wasn't working for Star Trek, he was working for Desilu Studios, NBC, NBC's sponsors and the viewing audience. Ultimately Robert Justman and Gene Roddenberry had to answer all these higher forces themselves and had to deliver the promised product. That is absolutely normal for a TV series. And they did something right because all you have to do is look at the enduring legacy of Star Trek. Gene Roddenberry had already compromised his vision to get the show on the air. I don't see where Ellison has any right to expect to be held to a different standard than any other writer or the creator of the series.
When you objectively look at the situation, the things that pissed off Ellison the most, the things that he still goes off about, are all a normal part of television production for a writer. Movie production as well. The writer has no say in the finished product. The director, actors, editor, producers, and studio all have a say and it is quite normal for any one of them to ignore the writer's words and do something else. Ellison would have had a field day working with Robert Altman.
What this boils down to is not Ellison's ability to write. That is well established. But from Justman's comments about the second draft of the script, while Ellison delivered a good story, it failed to fit into Star Trek, it failed to be shootable on their budget, and it failed to deliver suitable drama. Basically it failed to meet the requirements that Star Trek needed it to. So they rewrote it because they liked the heart of the story. What came out retains the core of Ellison's story. The changes that were made brought the story in line with the established characters, message, and nature of the series. The changes heightened the drama and made incredible television from what started out as an incredible story.
So what Harlan Ellison has presented us with the last forty-plus years is the perfect example of how NOT to behave. He gets credit for a WGA award and a Hugo award. So what that they rewrote the script. He wasn't the first writer that it happened to and he wasn't the last. What he has done is to set a bad example and unrealistic expectations for those who want to write in Hollywood. They can't expect to write a screenplay or teleplay and expect it to remain unchanged. The norm is a string of edits to make everyone happy and the final product invariably differs from the script. The script is just the starting point. Rather than Ellison making a valiant stand or a valid point, he comes off as whining and childish about the entire matter.
Is he wrong to be mad? No. Has he said anything that wasn't true. Yes. He claims his script didn't need any work when clearly it did. The rest is true, but that is not. Yes, his original script won an award, but so did the final product. It is a fan favorite. Of all the writers who worked on Star Trek, only Ellison has made such vocal complaints and he was not the only writer to have been rewritten. Most were. All he is doing at this point is showing a level of immaturity that is unbecoming to a professional writer. What is funny is that he thinks that as a professional he shouldn't be subject to rewrites. That runs contrary to what the true professionals say. George R.R. Martin, better known today for Game of Thrones, was one of the main writers on Beauty and the Beast and has stated how much they had to compromise on every episode. The network wanted action without violence and they got what they wanted. Compromise is the name of the game and Ellison won't admit that. You have to kill your darlings as a writer and Ellison has never let go of this darling, even though it was killed and buried more than forty years ago. Mad can be good, but never letting it go is poison.
It is hard to say a great writer such as Harlan Ellison is wrong, but it is quite clear that in this he is very wrong. He was not wronged and should be proud that the episode bears his name. The final product is magnificent because of his ideas. But as an example of how a writer should behave, he is a miserable failure. Yes, writers should expect a certain level of respect, but you have to be cognizant of your industry. Things are not the same for short stories, novels, teleplays, screenplays, stage plays, or musicals. You have to be aware of your role as writer and what the requirements are. In 1966, Harlan Ellison was doing a one off script for a science fiction television series. That brings with it a certain expectation. One of the things to expect is that the script will have to be rewritten, either by the writer, or by staff writers. To ignore that expectation for over forty years and pretend that you are so great a writer that it shouldn't have applied to you is lunacy. Get over yourself Harlan. Grow up and be professional.
February 1, 2013
The Direction I'd Like to See Computers Go
What we use computers for is in flux. In many ways the rise of the smartphone and tablet are a step in what I think is the right direction. In the short run they are changing the nature of computers. Gone are the days of being tied to the desk with keyboard, mouse, and monitor. Now you can do virtually everything on the go, either with a laptop, tablet, or smartphone.
But we still are tied to a device driven technology. Each device does something different. We have no freedom to mix hardware and software to our own liking. I've had this argument with a friend for years. He is an avid Linux user and hates Microsoft. I hate Microsoft myself, but I am an avid Windows user because it has the software I want. I know what to get, where to get it, and how to use it. Through a bit of trickery, I've figured out how to use my windows software just about wherever I want. I remote in to my Windows computer. I get none of the advantages of the local hardware. What I would like to see is something more.
There are many pieces to a computer. They do not have to be linked as they are now. There are ways to reform the setup so that we can gain true independence. First there is the interface. Be it large or small, it has to do the same things. We have to be able to see, type, and navigate. And hear, but that component is the easiest of all and is already universal. Then we have the computational power of the computer. This is what processes the numbers, renders the images, processed encoding and decoding of files, and really does the grunt work. For the highest quality results, these things have to be done locally, but for the day to day uses that most people force their computers to do, it can be done remotely. That leaves data storage. Data is what we live for. Our pictures, documents, messages, movies, and all our personal settings. This is what makes the computer ours. Try moving from a Windows PC to a Mac. A lot of data will transfer, but some won't. We're getting better about this, but the entire process is still time consuming.
What we need to do is separate these things. The interface will be varied, from desktop, to tablet, to smartphone, to home entertainment system, to hotel, to plane, to car. The processing power for some things can be with the interface, it could be in the cloud, or it can be portable. We are getting to the point where a smartphone, in a tiny package, has more computing power than a not so old desktop. Data can be in the cloud, portable, or local. What we need to do now is take the idea of a computer and disconnect it from all of these and make it something new. Rather than have a Windows computer for your desktop, an iPhone on the go, and an Android interface in your car, what we need is something that let's the user choose what they find most effective for how they interface with the computer, and make it compatible with all data and hardware interfaces.
The smartphone is a good place to start. It has limited amounts of data storage and a limited physical interface. Most commonly it is connected to the internet as part of the phone service, with wi-fi as a backup (and maybe even to function as a wi-fi hotspot). You can access the cloud, you can use Facebook, Google Docs, access your blog, stream music and movies. You can even remote to your desktop. Now imagine an interface where local storage, cloud storage, even distant desktop storage, are all merged together. Imagine remotely accessing your desktop is not necessary because both your desktop and your smartphone use the same interface, either stored on the phone or in the cloud. Imagine the phone is more like a key. You have a default user profile, with all your internet shortcuts, favorite programs, and important files, right there at your fingertips and there is no difference when you move from device to device.
I see computers becoming more and more disconnected with a great need arising to have a system to unify the disparate pieces. Either through something we carry with us, like a phone, or though an internet log in, we connect and access all our data from any interface point in the world. No longer does the underlying operating system matter, no longer can we forget a document at home or at work. It will all be at our fingertips 24/7 form anyplace we can use our device or log in over the internet. Now that is a computer I'd like to see in the future. We could be there in a decade. In fact we are already heading in that direction.
But we still are tied to a device driven technology. Each device does something different. We have no freedom to mix hardware and software to our own liking. I've had this argument with a friend for years. He is an avid Linux user and hates Microsoft. I hate Microsoft myself, but I am an avid Windows user because it has the software I want. I know what to get, where to get it, and how to use it. Through a bit of trickery, I've figured out how to use my windows software just about wherever I want. I remote in to my Windows computer. I get none of the advantages of the local hardware. What I would like to see is something more.
There are many pieces to a computer. They do not have to be linked as they are now. There are ways to reform the setup so that we can gain true independence. First there is the interface. Be it large or small, it has to do the same things. We have to be able to see, type, and navigate. And hear, but that component is the easiest of all and is already universal. Then we have the computational power of the computer. This is what processes the numbers, renders the images, processed encoding and decoding of files, and really does the grunt work. For the highest quality results, these things have to be done locally, but for the day to day uses that most people force their computers to do, it can be done remotely. That leaves data storage. Data is what we live for. Our pictures, documents, messages, movies, and all our personal settings. This is what makes the computer ours. Try moving from a Windows PC to a Mac. A lot of data will transfer, but some won't. We're getting better about this, but the entire process is still time consuming.
What we need to do is separate these things. The interface will be varied, from desktop, to tablet, to smartphone, to home entertainment system, to hotel, to plane, to car. The processing power for some things can be with the interface, it could be in the cloud, or it can be portable. We are getting to the point where a smartphone, in a tiny package, has more computing power than a not so old desktop. Data can be in the cloud, portable, or local. What we need to do now is take the idea of a computer and disconnect it from all of these and make it something new. Rather than have a Windows computer for your desktop, an iPhone on the go, and an Android interface in your car, what we need is something that let's the user choose what they find most effective for how they interface with the computer, and make it compatible with all data and hardware interfaces.
The smartphone is a good place to start. It has limited amounts of data storage and a limited physical interface. Most commonly it is connected to the internet as part of the phone service, with wi-fi as a backup (and maybe even to function as a wi-fi hotspot). You can access the cloud, you can use Facebook, Google Docs, access your blog, stream music and movies. You can even remote to your desktop. Now imagine an interface where local storage, cloud storage, even distant desktop storage, are all merged together. Imagine remotely accessing your desktop is not necessary because both your desktop and your smartphone use the same interface, either stored on the phone or in the cloud. Imagine the phone is more like a key. You have a default user profile, with all your internet shortcuts, favorite programs, and important files, right there at your fingertips and there is no difference when you move from device to device.
I see computers becoming more and more disconnected with a great need arising to have a system to unify the disparate pieces. Either through something we carry with us, like a phone, or though an internet log in, we connect and access all our data from any interface point in the world. No longer does the underlying operating system matter, no longer can we forget a document at home or at work. It will all be at our fingertips 24/7 form anyplace we can use our device or log in over the internet. Now that is a computer I'd like to see in the future. We could be there in a decade. In fact we are already heading in that direction.
