To Boldly Go... Ruin Star Trek

I was going to wait to spring upon you that I like Star Trek, but I guess I kinda did, the other day. Anyway, this is something I have to get off my chest.

Star Trek is not a comedy.

Apparently, J.J. Abrams missed that memo. He must've missed it because he didn't pass it along to his writers, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, either.

You're probably not familiar with Orci and Kurtzman's work. I mention them together because their resumes are i-fucking-dentical. I was going to try to display that here, but instead go here and here to see their credits on imdb.com. Go ahead. I'll wait.

...

See? Exactly the same. Exactly as stupid. You may notice that they wrote Transformers, which "graced" theater screens, last summer. Now, I don't know how much of what we actually ended up seeing was what they wrote and how much of it was Michael Bay. I'll be the first to blame Bay for Transformers. In fact, look for a future article called "Michael Bay Raped My Childhood." Bay may have trumped Kurtzman and Orci and re-wrote a lot of it, but they never protested. They didn't take their names off the script.

From a financial stand point, I guess that makes sense, but, I can't imagine two credible writers being morally okay with leaving their names on something like Transformers. Given their resumes, though (identical! I still can't get over that. It's creepy!), I argue that not only are they okay with poorly written, juvenile tripe, but that they set out to accomplish that in the first place.

Normally, I wouldn't care. There's a "Scary Movie" or "Epic Movie" or the like every month, practically, and I just shrug it off and keep rolling. Transformers hurt, though. Those of us who were little six-year-old boys during the Transformers hey-day were promised a lot of things by Kurtzorci (that's my name for them, since they're identical) that they did't follow through on.

Okay, I've digressed quite a bit. My point is, they've already got a mountain of crap under their collective belt. They've already proven, to me, that they can't treat a beloved franchise with the respect and dignity it deserves. How can we trust them to handle, properly, a franchise that's even more beloved and venerable (yes, Star Trek is. I'm serious)?

Maybe, hope lies in J.J. Abrams? Lost is pretty good, right (I don't watch it, but I hear it's good...)? Maybe he'll pull a Bay, and re-write a lot of Kurtzorci's work... except in a good way? Maybe he'll save it.

'Fraid not.

Remember: I said Abrams missed the memo that Star Trek is not a comedy. Turns out, three of the six major characters are being played by actors that, as far as I can tell, have only ever had comedic roles in... comedies. John Cho is playing Sulu. He's most well-known as Harold from Harold & Kumar. Comedy. Simon Pegg is playing Scotty. He's best known from Hot Fuzz and Sean of the Dead and most recently starred in Run, Fat Boy, Run. Comedy, comedy, comedy. Anton Yelchin is playing Chekov. He was most recently in Charlie Bartlett. Comedy.

Lastly, there's Karl Urban playing Dr. McCoy. He's not a comedy actor, but he did play "Vaako" in The Chronicles of Riddick, which was inadvertantly hilarious. So, I'm counting him, too. Actually, I'm not, but I think that anyone associated with Riddick shouldn't be allowed to work for at least ten years. It's only been four.

That's not everyone. I don't know anything about the guy playing Kirk or some of the other actors. I like that Zachary Quinto is playing Spock. He plays Sylar on Heroes. He's a good actor. He could do comedy, I'm sure, but he's not known for it.

So, there could be some good things about it. For now I'm suspending my disbelief on continuity and things like that because I don't know anything about the story. I will go see it, but with great reluctance. I just worry that with a producer who, despite his other potentially good work, seems to be ignoring fundemental elements of the franchise, in one hand, and a pair of writers who have, together, undisputedly man-handled another franchise, in the other hand, all we'll be left with, as fans, are two handfulls of mistreated American pop-culture.

At best we'll get something like the Brady Bunch movie. At worst, we'll get Harold and Kumar Save the Galaxy, or better yet: Star Trek Movie (see what I did there?).

Star Trek deserves better.

It's Called a Web Log

I hate internet shorthand. It drives me crazy. It has to stop.

I got tricked by it when I was young. I discovered the internet back before many of you, I'll wager, even knew what a computer was, and before the rest of you knew how to use one. I got into this shit back when 1200 bits per second was fast (that's 1,200 bits, compared to something like 3 to 10 MILLION bits per second, that today's cable and DSL services can achieve).

So, I've been internetting for a while. Okay. I was young back then. I thought "lol" and the like (didn't see much "omg" back then) were cool. I was known to use a "brb" or a "bbl" or something more often than not. I could write all kinds of jacked up emoticons (making :) look 19th-centuryish). But then, something amazing happened.

I grew up.

If one is older than twelve years old, one should not be mistreating the English language in such a way. Lots of our ancestors went to a lot of trouble to shape our language into something useful. While it was left open to adapt and evolve, I'm pretty sure no one had "wtf" or "n00b" in mind.

I've heard of being young at heart, but for Christ's sake. If you're not twelve, write with a little dignity, please. Some people have said to me, "It's the internet. We don't have to try. We can be lazy here."

WRONG.

It's the English language, whether it's in a book, on the TV, a street sign, a store sign, or the internet. Treat it with respect. It's the only language you've got (this does not apply to those talented over-achievers out there who can speak two or more languages).

That brings me to the two worst culprits of this bastardization of the English language: "podcast," "blog" and all the derivatives therein.

PODCAST
Our first perp, "podcast," is a pretentious offender. It is derived from the ubiquitous iPod that Apple has successfully shoved down our collective throats over the past seven years. The very nature of "podcast" suggests that there are no other mp3 players that have existed or will exist.

That's all a "podcast" is. It's an mp3. You can play it on your computer, you can play it on the thousands of brands of mp3 players (gasp, yes, they do exist) other than Apple's iPod. Some lucky folks out there can even play them in their car without the use of an iPod or any other mp3 player.

I'll spare you how several brands of players out there are actually better than an iPod and how iTunes is the devil. That's another topic for another day. "Podcast" is an arrogant, assumptive title for a piece of media that can be played on many different devices. It's like calling "software" a "computer program" because you can only run it on a computer...

...oh, wait.

BLOG
"Blog" is often seen wreaking havoc in the streets of the English Language, hand-in-hand with "podcast." It's even worse than "podcast," though, because at least "podcast" is a genuine compound word ("pod" and "cast" - both real words). "Blog" is something totally different. A mutated, reject of a word.

No one but the likes of Dr. Frankenstein could take one letter from a real word (weB) and the whole word from, er, another word (log) and create an unholy amalgam of letters that flips off the English language anytime anyone utters it. It's a wonder the villagers haven't hunted it down, yet.

Oh, that's because everyone and their mother writes a blog -- I'm sorry web_log -- these days. Like "podcast," it distracts the general populace from it's blatant raping of English with the cool concept to which it's attached.

The creation of "blog" reminds me of an episode of Star Trek called "The Omega Glory." The people on the planet the Enterprise was visiting had a copy of the Declaration of Independence, but they didn't understand how the letters were grouped together, so they were pronouncing it differently. They came up with "blog." Kirk set 'em straight, though, and I'm going to set you straight, now.

"But, Ipsy," you might say. "You have a blog, you idiot." No, I have a web_log. But, I am an idiot. You might go on to add, "Ipsy, your web_log is hosted by Blogger. You're a hypocrite!" All right, well, you have me there. But, I'd argue that I never have had a problem with the concept of an online journal. Clearly I don't; I'm using one. I went with this site because the few other web_logs I visit seem to be hosted here, too. It was a matter of convenience. Sue me.

What it all boils down to is this: on the Internet, until very recently (thanks, YouTube), all we've had to express our thoughts was the written word. I, for one, like to be taken seriously when expressing my thoughts, unless I distinctly point out otherwise (and I will, a lot; don't worry).

I guess I'm old-fashioned, but I think twelve year old girls should sound like twelve year old girls. Adults should write and express themselves like adults.

Not like twelve year old girls.