Ender's Game: When Good Movies Get Nuffled by Bad Politics

I have to confess, I've not read the novel yet.  Ender's Game is one I own and it is on my "waiting to read" stack.  Between the insane hoopla around it's author, Orson Scott Card and the quality of the film, I'm inclined to move it up in priority of books to get to.

Yes, I did enjoy this film.  I enjoyed it a lot.  How true an adaptation of the book it is, I don't know, though I've heard from readers that it was a pretty true adaptation of the images, concepts and themes encapsulated by the book.

There is nothing in it about gay marriage, btw.  Or anything gay at all.  And that is why it is hard to write this review.  I tend to oppose OSC's publicly stated views on gay marriage.  And, he is said to have said some pretty outrageous things at points about Obama as well.  On the other hand, though I agree with many of the stances of the pro-gay marriage crowd, I LOATHE their tactics.  I love classic science fiction literature.  I love encouraging it's reading.  When an activist gets on a fanatical, hysterical tear and insists that their beloved idealogy become a black hole in which all drifting near it's even horizon must be dragged inside, we part ways and part it hard.

Yes, OSC has some hard, publically stated views about gay marriage.  Yes, he even is active in causes which oppose such.  But that does not make him bad or evil, despite what the activists say.  In fact, by many accounts, he is actually a decent guy.  Further, again, that stuff has nothing to do with Ender's Game, the book or movie.  And responsible activists are doing no favors to their cause dragging such into their net.  But they did, and it seemed their efforts may have contributed to the struggles of the film in the theater.

But what did they oppose exactly?  They opposed a film that posed a future environment where humanity is at war with an insectoid alien race known as the Formics, ant like creatures living in hive based societies.  Humanity has driven the Formics back to their homeworld, yet describe the situation as a "desperate" one, where they need a unique kind of soldier to prosecute this war at it's most lethal.  Such command best be executed by children trained in the techniques and technology developed to fight the Formics. Colonel Hyram Gruff (Harrison Ford) recruits Ender Wiggins (Asa Butterfield) to train with other cadets to fight this war and he turns out to be a prodigy, mastering and exceeding the standards and expectations of the program.  Eventually, he is given command of an exercise that simulates a final assault on the Formic homeworld.  But there are things that Ender is not telling.

Great story.  Not only does it deal with some classic science fiction themes in a military sense, but it asks some pertinent questions in our times.  Such as questioning military/policy leaders, even well meaning ones.  It poses questions of the dehumanizing and distancing effect of drone warfare.  It poses the concept of empathizing with the "other", learning about them, especially before you decide to exterminate them, hoping that it offers more choices than slaughter.  And it also raises disturbing questions about the use of child soldiers, an issue very much a problem in our modern world.  Is it right to train young people who still haven't formed their moral character to become killers (it does NOT advocate such, despite one anti-OSC activist claiming otherwise.  It in fact does the opposite, or at least asks pointed questions about it).

The relevant questions that Ender's Game posed are well worth pondering.  I hope that more discover the film in the after-market and read the book as well.  As to the activists who want to discourage such, based on their bloody single mindedness on one issue...shame on you. 

You are wrong.

My Fellow Nerds...Your Fandom Does NOT Equate to Entitlement...

Got news for you, fellow fanboys and girls.  Those who create movies, TV shows and other storytelling media that we love do not owe you.  Not a damn thing.  Not ONE THING.  Let us pause, let that sink in.

Ok, kid in the back in the ill-fitting gold command Star Trek TOS shirt...yes, you have something?

(from a distance, an indignant voice..."But I give them money!")

Yes...yes, you do.  We all do.  For said stories.  There.  The relationship ends, as far as who owes what.

Wait, girl in the Storm Trooper armor with the bare middrift (attractive, thankfully)...yes?

(But established properties have a legacy.  A fanbase going back decades, even generations.  Don't they have a responsibility to live up to those fans and to the creators?)

Sigh.  Look, I'm a fan of some long lasting franchises as well as new ones.  I have some ideas of what I would like to see.  And I like to think I understand what the creators intended.  But here's the thing.  Times change.  New creators come along with ideas of their own, and odds are, they are fans, too.  The way they can best do their job is know the material, what makes it work, how it FEELS, ie the things that create the emotional ties to it, what makes it familiar and a world worth visiting again and again.  What makes those characters worth hanging out with.  THAT is what a creator needs to know.  They then bring their own talents and spin to it and create something familiar, yet fresh and new.  Not only for old fans, but something the new fans can get onboard with.

For example, the new Doctor Who show has revitalized this franchise.  There have been two spinoff shows.  Most old fans are back on board as well as legions of new ones.  The cool thing is, many of those new fans will also go back and check out the old show episodes, now widely available in many different formats.  Will all of them appreciate them?  No, but many of them will.  And they will draw their friends to it.

Why won't all the new fans like the older show?  Because even though the core of the show is intact, that being an ancient alien time and space traveler going on adventures and solving problems with a rotating cast of companions, in a wild and wacky universe with new and familiar faces, the way the tales are told is very different.  The older show had a far lower production budget and looked much, much cheaper.  It is much more talky.  It is more about ideas and concepts.  The new show, while also having ideas and concepts, is much more about the emotions of the characters, their relationships, and the inner journey.  The older show was distant from those, mostly, and more about the outer journey.  The new show is MUCH faster paced, with characters zipping about.  On the older show, it was often much more leisurely paced.  The characters walked everywhere, often even in the midst of disaster.

Two fundamentally different shows, but the new Doctor Who fundamentally captured what made the old show so good, yet updating it to a new generation with different expectations. 

We could analyze other franchises, like Star Trek, which has gone through multiple incarnations, always with bitchy detractors.  We could talk about Battlestar Galactica, but some of the complainers there are weird and a little scary.  We could talk about comic book adaptations ad nauseum. Casting, production, etc.  One of the latest is Fantastic Four.  The new film is set to be helmed by indie director Josh Trank, who established some promise early with a widely regarded indie superhero effort Chronicle, that came out in 2012 (see it if you haven't yet, it is really good).
The Fantastic Four is an old comic property that has been abused in more than one film.  It has a sizeable fanbase, but it hasn't had the success other comic properties have had in bringing it to the silver screen.  We can speculate as to why, but bottom line is, the previous attempts have severely lacked.

Well, now it is Josh Trank's turn.  Because of the previous films, the fanbase is feeling understandably gun shy. I get that.  I even share it.  With the release of the official cast playing the team, it has some even more glum.  I will ask you...do these guys...

 

 

...look a lot like these guys?

 

 

 

 

 

The one especially receiving heat is Michael B. Jordan, who was previously in The Wire and was also directed by Josh Trank in Chronicle, which was probably a big part of him being picked for this role.  However, Mr. Jordan...

 

 

 

 





 



Doesn't match the blond haired, blue eyed Johnny Storm, the Human Torch, the character he has been casted as.  Double especially interesting, considering the actress cast to play his sister Sue Storm, The Invisible Woman, Kate Mara, is ethnically and aesthetically closer to her funnybook inspiration...

 

 

 

Yes, there are all kinds of ways this can be gotten around.  And this is not the first time the ethnicity of a comic book character has been changed.  Samuel L. Jackson, for example, is not the typical ethnic makeup for Nick Fury.  And the "It can be the Ultimates!" is a bit of a copout, as fewer people have read the Ultimates.  Then, Ving Rhames as the Kingpin in the Daredevil movie.  The movie wasn't that great, but Rhames was a good Kingpin.

 

Now, given the abuse the Fantastic Four franchise has received, I can understand those fans being anxious.  This is natural.  So many of us have been waiting for a good FF film to take us on their amazing adventures. 

 

BUT...fans are notoriously bad at gauging worthy actors to a role before the film comes out.  I could give you a list of fan fails in this regard.  But we all know them so no need to recite.  I don't think Johnny's ethnicity is that important in this case.  It is more important that his character is written well and Mr. Jordan can portray it convincingly.  I have a feeling he can.

 

Here is the deal, fan force.  Here is what a creator "owes" you.  To know the material and what makes it work and do his or her damdest to establish it faithfully within the medium in which he/she is working.  BUT they will bring their understanding to it.  THEIR vision.  Not yours.  They have been hired for a reason, likely several, and they are under no obligation to put out multiple fan force surveys just to make sure that every decision made squares with you.

 

Not a bit.

 

You vote at the box office.  If they do their job well, it is likely they will be rewarded.

 

No matter how good it is, some fans will still bitch.  It is the way of some fans.  They love the drama.

 

Let's be clear, I'm as disappointed at a bad film/tv/comic whatever involving beloved characters as anyone.  It may not suck.  It is a little early to surrender to that.  But on the off chance that it does...

 

The world will go on.  And rest easy, true believers.  You'll have a reboot coming in a few years, probably.

 

 



Guardians of the Galaxy trailer...I don't think we deserve the goodness to come...

Guardians of the Galaxy Trailer, peachy, eh?

Now, I'm a fan of the Guardians from WAY, way back, having been hip to them since I read about them when the Official Handbook to the Marvel Universe came out back in the day.  The team has gone through many, many incarnations in both membership and tone in it's long history.  At present, it is a surreal, absurdist space opera/romp.  This tone seems to be what they have captured, at least in the first trailer.  IMO, the first trailer did exactly what it needed to do.  First, it introduced the team in an interesting way that transcended an info dump.  Second, it established the humorous part of the film, which will be the hook for the deeper, more character driven parts later. 

Again, Marvel Studios have stuck to their winning formula of bringing on board creators who GET the material they are trying to adapt and understand how to make it work in the film format.  They even will hearken back to the earlier ages of the team and it's lineup (Yondu has already been announced as being in the film).

I am both hoping and banking this will be a huge success.  Not only will this further clear the way for future Marvel films featuring relatively unknown characters, it will reinforce the idea that Hollywood doesn't have to just go for the easy money, making tired, uninspired trips back to the well.  Hire the right creators, find great material and let the artists do the work.  Will it work every time?  No.  But quality work always finds it's audience sooner or later.  And when it hits, it has staying power.  And even when it doesn't, if it is quality, you will have an audience building over time.

On the other hand, schlock will only take you so far.

Bank on success for the Guardians.  It will do both us an Hollywood nothing but good.

Breasts in Zero Gravity Conditions, predicted by science fiction...

First, model Kate Upton on the "Vomit Comet"...

There they are...

This passage from a famous science fiction novel...

“Some women, Commander Norton had decided long ago, should not be allowed aboard ship; weightlessness did things to their breasts that were too damn distracting. It was bad enough when they were motionless; but when they started to move, and sympathetic vibrations set in, it was more than any warm-blooded male should be asked to take.” 
― Arthur C. Clarke, Rendezvous with Rama



Then this, talk of it as an art in both anime and real action...

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Gainaxing

And finally, scifi cinema fans will remember this classic with Jane Fonda...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw6WMdrzbJw


Again, fact is catching up with fiction, but fantasy has been racing ahead at warp speed.

Super Powered Hotness: Interview with Indie Comics Guy Scott Anthony Jones

One of the really cool things about this age of crowdfunded creation is easy contact with up and coming creators eager to not only talk about their art, but share about what motivates them.  As time goes on, I'm going to post interviews about a variety of artists, at various levels in their careers.  But I wanted to start out in that indie spirit with Scott Anthony Jones, creator of the Sinsations, an all female superhero team.  Let us kick things off...

 

VoS: Who are you? Tell me a bit about yourself, name, where from, how old

are you?

 

SAJ: "My name is Scott, but on the Internets I go by Shade. I'm 35, was born in

Los Angeles but now I live in Lake Havasu, Arizona."

 

VoS: A bit about your background, your interests in fandom and your geek cred.  How do you cope with being a geek in a "normal" world?

 

SAJ: "My geek rap sheet? Well, I'm a pretty big gamer(I don't have as much time

to play as I used to but still find time). I built a gaming/work PC a few
years back and a massive catalogue of games on Steam. My favorite movies?
Far too many to list, but here's a few:

The Matrix, Star Wars(original trilogy), Blade Runner, Alien and Aliens,
Legend, Heat, The Godfather 1 and 2, Inception, Man of Steel, The Dark Knight Trilogy, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, Metropolis, Heavy Metal, and a million others."

"I don't have a TV, but, through word of mouth I've found shows like Archer, Bob's Burgers, The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones. Those are pretty much the only TV shows I watch. Back in the day I used to watch Adult Swim religiously but I don't know what's become of it. All those old shows are probably canceled."

"I'm also a big mixed martial arts fan and watch the fights online whenever I can."

"Do I cope being a geek? I don't know. It's pretty normal to be a geek. Everyone seems to be a geek about something nowadays. Some people geek out on sports or music or movies or politics. I often wear comic/cartoon/gaming-related t-shirts out and about and get positive comments. I think because more and more people grew up with those characters. My generation really is the first of the home console/cartoon toys. We grew up with the NES and GI Joe/Transformers/He-Man, those cartoons that were made specifically to sell toys. lol"





VoS: Your background in comics? Is it mostly the big two for you? Are you into some indies as well? What characters or titles inspire you? Why?

SAJ: "I'll read anything. I grew up on DC and Marvel in the 80s. Had all the toys and watched all the cartoons. They left an indelible mark on me. Now I mostly still read DC and indie stuff. The occasional Marvel stuff. I actually follow artists more than titles. If a favorite artist of mine is
on a title I'll follow that book. If they move to another title then I go with them. I've been reading Justice League, Justice League of America, Invincible, Saga, and a few others. There's so many good indie books that it's hard to keep track."

"Superman still inspires me because the origin of the character is so mythic. Almost biblical. Batman and Wonder Woman for the same reasons. My fave character growing up was Hal Jordan because here was a guy whose power was a magic ring that allowed him to project his thoughts into constructs through willpower and imagination. That's every artist's dream, to be able to make your imagination literally real.

"Saga has been a really great story from what I've read. A very simplistic, gestural art style but extremely expressive. Very economical. The characters are great and really fleshed out. I LOVE Invincible because of the massive universe the comic has generated. Seemingly hundreds of
superhuman characters, a deep backstory, epic battles, etc."

VoS: Why did you decide to go indie? Do you ever want to create for the biggies or is indie the world you want to play in for your career?

SAJ: "I've never submitted to DC or Marvel. When I was 16 my uncle knew a guy who
worked for Marvel animation and I was supposed to get a mentorship through him but the guy was a flake and it never worked out. lol Years ago I submitted work to an talent agency that represents a bunch of Brazilian and Filipino artists(I'm half-Filipino) and, based on my samples, they said
they could get me work at DC, but I never followed up on it. Maybe if I tried again I could get professional work through those channels but I don't know."

"Working for the big two would definitely be more money, but you lose your freedom. You become just another cog. The 214th guy or girl to write/draw/ink/color Spiderman or Batman or Hulk. As an indie, even if you don't get as much attention for your comic, you're know for YOUR work. The
comic is really your art. You own it. The characters and everything are yours. It's like your unique signature."

VoS: Tell me about the Sinsationals? Who are they? What are they? Why do
they do what they do? Tell me about the individual characters. Who are they
and what motivates them?


SAJ: "The Sinsationals are a group of seven women from disparate backgrounds. In the beginning of the story they're just strangers in a strange world. They don't even know each other, but the first story arc finds them united under bizarre circumstances and they eventually become friends, allies and a team."

"As for the individual characters, there's M, a stoic, humorless Amazon
warrior whose fighting skills are unmatched..."



"Big Girl, a teenager who is unwittingly transformed into a giantess..."



"Allie, a girl from a race of feline humanoids thrust into the world of Infinity City..."



"Sasha Rain, an ex-dancer who is adopted by a cabal of trained killers and becomes a
dangerous assassin..."

 

 



"Gyna, an artificial intelligence that builds herself a robot body... Dollface, an amnesiac who is strangely proficient at killing and building wild contraptions..."






 "Gamma Sex Bomb, a scientist who is transformed, via a lab accident, into a tower of muscle..."




"Each character has specific goals and an arc they grow through: M wants to show her Amazon sisters that she has what it takes to lead, Big Girl wants to be restored to normal size, Sasha wants a normal, loving relationship(she'd never admit this), Gyna wants to really know what it's
like to be human, Dollface wants to know who she really is, Allie wants to embrace her heritage and be accepted by her people, Gamma wants to understand what happened to her."


VoS: Tell me a bit about their world?  What sort of place to they live in? What sort of situations can we expect to see them dealing with as they proceed in their careers and lives?

SAJ: "They live in a place called Infinity City which is one, massive, sprawling metropolis. The idea is that it's a cityscape that's so massive and has so many sub-locations that any conceivable story could be explored there. Infinity City is kind of like Metropolis, Gotham City, New York, LA, Chicago, Mega City One all rolled into one and more."




"The world is set up where it's Earth, but without the countries and continents we're familiar with. Infinity City is a place unto itself and then there are other "areas" that have a unique stylistic aesthetic to mimic real world places, but they'll be introduced later.In terms of situations, literally anything is possible. Their world is rife with robots, monsters, aliens, superheroes, elves, vampires, ghosts...
pretty much anything you can imagine."

"We'll see the ladies meet new allies, enemies, have love interests and get embroiled in stories that are epic and grand in scale and some that are smaller, character-oriented ones."


VoS: Why an all female super hero team? Are you trying to make some kind of statement, or is just how the muse has moved you on this front?


SAJ: "I am making a kind of statement. I started doing commissions full-time around 2002. My clients are mainly guys so most of the subject matter was women in fetishized situations. Now, I grew up on comics in the 80s and 90s, during the "bad girl" craze where one of every three comics was
borderline pornography with top-heavy women and super-strong spines with no personality and that was the culture. Things have changed drastically. There's been some people who have completely misunderstood the point of Sinsationals. Some guys have contacted me excited about the comic thinking it's a porn comic and I have to disappoint them by saying it's not. Then, some women have contacted me, angry because they think it's a porn comic and I have to explain it's not."

"The whole idea is that the women in the comic are misunderstood and not taken seriously(at first). The world just thinks that they're just pretty faces. They're underestimated and, ironically, some people here in the real world are doing the same thing the people in the comic are doing in regards
to the characters. They're judging them at face value and dismissing them. To me, beauty is not a reflection of weakness. Beauty can be strength. Beauty and strength are not mutually exclusive. One of the main themes of the comic is that the women use the ignorance of their detractors against
them, showing them that they're more than initially thought of. That's the struggle: they have to prove to the world that they're more than what people think of them. They want to prove everyone wrong.
I grew up on the Justice League comic and Super Friends cartoon where Wonder Woman was essentially the Hall of Justice's receptionist, taking calls and the like. None of the Sinsationals are taking anyone's calls. They're powerful, modern women who know what they want and are motivated to get it. "

"I think that women can be beautiful for a variety of reasons, from their personalities, sense of humor, confidence, intelligence and, yes, looks, but "looks" is a wide scale. If you notice, each character has a different body type. They're not Barbie dolls. This was by design. I want people to see the beauty in the characters and that doesn't mean just looks.  Some of the characters are designed to look provocative, specifically to incite a response from the audience, but then it's my job to show people
that their knee-jerk reactions are unfounded. These characters are extremely multi-dimensional. I have to achieve this through the stories."



VoS: What is it like being an indie creator in the modern age, vs what you
believe it might have been like a couple decades ago?



SAJ: "Well, a few decades ago I could've never ever created Sinsationals. Well, I could have but no one would've ever seen it, except my friends and family. The internet has connected the world on a scale once though unimaginable. On the Kickstarter for Sinsationals #0 I had backers from literally all over the world, from Indonesia to Italy to Canada and France to Australia. Amazing."

"Back in the day you were relegated into either the Marvel or DC camp. Now, the spectrum is infinitely diversified. Literally anyone can create a comic and distribute it how they like. The "middle-man" of the big publishers are unnecessary and unneeded. The cost of digital distribution of
content(digital comics) is zero. The proliferation of mobile devices like phones and tablets has given
people the ability to access things like digital comics on the go via convenient and affordable delivery systems like Comixology. Being an indie creator now is like being on a crowded beach. Everyone is
talking and everyone has something to say but it'd difficult to be heard unless your message rings with something unique, either with an interesting art style or story hook or what have you. Back in the day, being a creator was like being in the executive bathroom. To get access you had to have the
code key and access was limited and exclusive. Now, the indie comic market is all inclusive. This is a double-edged sword: anyone can get in.. BUT anyone can get in. Getting noticed is the problem, not getting in."


VoS: How did you learn your craft, both as an artist and a writer? What are
your inspirations?

SAJ: "Just self-taught. Years of practice. Still learning everyday. So many holes in my work that I constantly strive to improve."

"Yeah, if we're going by movie ratings then I'd give it a soft(or maybe hard, actually) R-rating for graphic violence, language, some mature content and suggestive sexual content. There is already some implied nudity(not explicit) as well as other content that isn't for kids. In issue #1, for instance, Sasha Rain eviscerates a group of demons, turning them into piles of bullet-riddled meat. There are some suggestive shots of Sasha because she is a very sexually confident woman in the same way the classic femme fatales are. Other things, like that."

"In order to explore these characters personalities and the world they live in I can't be limited to trying to cater to kids. Can't do it, therefore, the R-rating. The comic will never EVER feature explicit sex but once some of the love interests are introduced there will be implicit, but respectful, attention made towards their sex lives."

VoS: On female physicality...

SAJ: "I'm a red-blooded heterosexual male so, yes, I agree that boobs rock. Hence, M's body shape. lol I'll never betray my admiration for the female
form. :)"

VoS: Now, the bonus round?  Am I too old or does today's music for the most part kinda suck?

SAJ: "I'd say that music is art and art is subjective. Whether a song sucks is up to the listener. I'd also say that the old way of consuming music has been decentralized. Before it was a handful of record companies that owned, or highly influenced, radio stations and then forced them to play what they
wanted."

"With the advent of the Internet, again, that model has been destroyed. It's all been democratized. People can get satellite radio and listen to any of hundreds of stations or they can rip music and make their own playlists. You can watch music videos on YouTube instead of MTV(which is a punchline
now) and you can buy a record directly from an artist's personal website, giving them all the profits, instead of to a record company who gives a small percent to the artist.The "middleman" business model is slowly eroding. I don't listen to the radio often, except when I'm driving, and it's the same as before: a rotation of a limited number of songs played on a loop, ad nauseum. Thankfully, we have the Internet for our personal musical tastes."

VoS:  Thank you, SAJ.  I look forward to the Sinsationals!  Here's the link to the Kickstarter...

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/67830803/sinsationals-1-superhero-comic-book

Rush: Making You Care About Fast Moving Bombs On Wheels

Ok, I am a fan of Chris Hemsworth and do like many of Ron Howard's films.  I also am even tangeantally interested in the subject of Formula 1 racing.  But the trailers...didn't really communicate the essence of the film.  They pumped up the studly Hemsworth, playing British racer James Hunt starting out in lower tier racing with the intent of making a career out of it.  He's talented, he's handsome, he is a devil-may care personality who lives life off the track like he does on.  Purely on instinct, taking risks, living in the moment.  As you may guess, this has benefits as well as costs.  But he honestly does not know any other way to do anything.  Then, you have Niki Lauda, a rival racer from Austria, who is just as driven, just as focused, but in every other way,the polar opposite of Hunt, in that where Hunt is impulsive, Lauda is deliberate.  Where Hunt goes on instinct, Lauda goes on calculation.  Hunt is charismatic and loves playing the crowd.  Lauda comes across as cold, distant and disdainful.  You would think these two would hate each other.  And they do...at first.  But like many other stories with two  people living lives few others understand, sharing the same risks and the same passions when it comes to racing, circumstances eventually engender respect and eventually, true friendship and brotherhood.

And that is the real remarkable tale of this film, which is NOT emphasized in the trailer.  This is the tale of two adventurers, two travelers on parallel tracks in an unusual lane of life.  The unusual nature of the way they live and how they look at the world can create a certain isolation.  So despite the intense rivalry, it can create onramps of opportunity for friendship that one may not have been aware of.  This film gives you a look into a very unusual lifestyle and helps you understand.  Others who also live unusual lives of other sorts may be especially inclined to understand the journey of these two men and what they do.

Passion.  Life on some kind of edge.  Knowing most around don't understand and, you know what?  That's perfectly ok.

You have to pick your own course, regardless.  And drive.

Great movie.

Star Trek The Next Generation...Those other two movies...

Yeppers, I picked up the Blu Rays of Insurrection and Nemesis, the Next Generation films that happened after First Contact.  I've gone back and forth on those movies and though I disagree with some that they are the abominations that they say, to me, those films feel like the Bond franchise, the end of the Roger Moore era and all through the Timothy Dalton era.  It feels like the franchise is listless and coasting, the parent company doesn't want to invest real money, and the fans are being taken for granted.  Not to mention, the general public is being treated like a bunch of saps.

What do I mean?  Attend...

Star Trek Insurrection:  The basic idea of this film was a faction of Starfleet brass cooperating with an unscrupulous galactic power to wrest control of a natural resource away from the natives and use it for it's own interests.  They kept telling our crew that it was "for the good of Federation citizens", but that was just lip service.  We knew it and our crew knows it.  So...mayhem ensues.

Now, what went right with this movie?  For our crew, lots of good character moments, both funny and poignant.  Also, even though the "badmiral" trope is a bit tired, in the context of institutional Starfleet being shaken by wall to wall crises, like the Dominion war and Borg attacks, it does make sense that factions in the institution might become morally unmored and try to take advantage of the confusion while they think no one is looking.

Also, the references to the crises themselves acknowledge a much bigger universe going on around them, which is always a plus.

What went wrong?  The main plot, though not bad, did not feel..."big" enough for a movie.  It felt like an average episode of the TV series.  Which is one of the main disadvantages of just doing movies.  "Smaller" stories are more difficult to fit.  Not impossible, but it takes more to pull one off on the big screen than the small.

And again, big crazy villain, big captain centered showdown with 'splosions, big shoot 'em up finish.  Wash, rinse, repeat.  Which brings us to...

Nemesis.  Take that last line, repeat dot to dot, just blow it up some more.  Sigh.  Cept the crazy villain is supremely poorly written, though Tom Hardy has long since redeemed himself with some amazing work, did his best with a supremely poorly conceived villain, a Picard clone who is upset with his lot in life.  Boo hoo.

Other than that, the movie really had some cool stuff, like great character moments, some good space battle sequences, and even a decent Data "death" scene.

But...the villain was sooooo poor, the rest of the movie around it goes from being really good to just barely making it.  NOT being helped by the "prototype B4 Lore" that Dr. Soong never though to mention in all those times we met him before.

The main reason to enjoy these films is further adventures of our characters and a window into this beloved universe.  But the universe nor the characters are not really service or moved forward by said window.

Trek, we know you can do it when you really try. 

Defiance: Blandly going where everyone has gone before...

Oh, Defiance, you let me down.  You invite me to a post apocalyptic world, alien invasion style.  You butter me up with beautiful alien spaceship and a landscape that is otherworldly yet familiar.  You further pull me in with a charming salute to The Man In Black, Johnny Cash, the perfect musical accompaniment to a series pursuing a "Western" feel.  And then...you let me down.

The hero?  Bland.  The characters?  Not interesting.  The suggestions of intrigue?  Not intriguing.  The aliens?  For the most part, they are like castoffs from lazy designers on Star Trek.  The attempt at a hint of a Romeo and Juliet thing going on between two powerful families?  Sigh.

You know, when I hear that a new show has creative folks from Battlestar Galactica and Farscape, I am not so cynical as to believe this is just hype.  I want something with the political intrigue and hope hidden in darkness of Galactica.  I want the quirk, creativity and humor of Farscape. I want a show that isn't a clone of those other shows, but I want something that shows the pedigree it is supposedly being born out of.

Yes, I know you were going for a Western motif, and believe me, I LOVE me a Space Western.  But after Firefly, I guess I'm kind of spoiled, now that I know that "Western" can mean something more than set dressing and wall paper.

Disappointed.

Captain Phillips: A Modern Sea Story

I remember hearing about this story in the news and wondering about our modern high tech age.  This is an age where America supposedly owns the seas and our tricked out military mariners control all they survey.  It became apparent that in this day and age, though the US Navy is the supreme power on the sea and other nations besides us sport potent maritime power, the piracy plaguing the horn of Africa like the days of old revealed that the power, as always, has limits.

In the news, the details weren't clear, at least in the stories I heard.  What I had heard was that some Somaili pirates had somehow taken a merchant marine ship captain hostage and was later rescued by US Navy SEAL snipers.  It did sound at the time like a tale ready made for Hollywood emulation.  I see that I wasn't alone in that evaluation.  Paul Greengrass, director of some of the Borne films as well as having a background in TV journalism, brings both the documentary and thriller sensibilities to this film to great effect.  He clearly shows the modern military action elements, but doesn't overplay them at all.  He also shows the clearly human heart beating among all the players, the freighter crew, pirates and US Navy alike, but avoids Hollywood-esque sentimentality and schmaltz.  He tries to remain true to the events as reported and lets the story spin itself.  All to the good.

First, we contrast two crews preparing to take to sea.  First up is Abduwali Muse (Barkhad Abdi), the leader of the pirate crew.  He frankly is reluctant to go to see, having been part of a successful pirate haul recently.  But his bosses push him into taking the job.  We then see Captain Richard Phillips (Tom Hanks) being driven out to meet his ship, the Mearske Alabama, talking with his wife about their kids, concern about how they are doing in school and how "tough" the modern working place is, that kind of thing.

The Mearske Alabama is then seen at sea, on route.  Captain Phillips begins instilling new drills and disciplines in his crew as preventive measures against piracy, which they grumblingly go along with, clearly not taking it seriously.  His officers are more cooperative, but the crew seems to not be too concerned about the possibility of pirate attacks.  But one day, Muse's crew and Phillips' intersect.  And a long stand off begins.

This was a gripping modern sea story and several things really stood out for me.  First off, I love the contrast of the two crews, Phillips's and Muse's.  Phillips' crew is mostly civilian blue collar, paid well and just see themselves getting a paycheck.  They slouch their way through the anti-pirate drills, grumbling and doing the bare minimum.  But when things get real, they seem to snap to.  I was rather impressed by what even an unarmed freighter can do against marauding pirates when the crew knows what it is doing and sets it's mind to the task.

Then, there were the pirates.  The modern African sea marauders aren't the fabled sea bandits of old. These are desperate thieves who just want to make enough cash to hopefully retire and not have to do that anymore.  They see themselves as having little alternative.  Now, Muse is leading a group of cowards and scum, it would seem, but he seems to have a decent bone or two in his body.  He is interested in avoiding bloodshed and is also open to the humanity of his prey.  

The third crew in consideration, the US Navy, the model of efficiency, are also human, but extremely proficient and focused, both the ship crews and the SEALs.  Behind those eyes, you can see the emotions and the minds working.  But the training has taken over and they are running the scenario.

A modern sea tale and a contrast of crews.  

This was a great film.

Phantom: A Pearl from the rancid corpse of a dessicated oyster...

Or at least that is the impression you would get, seeing the 25% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.  I never even heard of this thing in theaters in 2013 and my impression is that Phantoms, starring Ed Harris as a veteran Russian sub skipper and David Duchovny as a Spetznaz commado on a mission with the KGB, went to DVD pretty darn quickly.  I saw it many times for a cheap price on the racks at the commissary.  I love the casting and I love a good submarine movie.  After a fellow joe recommended it, I took the plunge.

 

 

Now, just what did I get for diving deep into this?  I saw in the beginning Ed Harris playing the aforementioned Demi, an about-to-retire Russian sub skipper given one last cruise before he hangs up his Captain's rank for good (the Admiral who gives him his diving orders is played always excellently by Lance Henrickson).  The boat is an old diesel powered missile carrier, and interestingly, also about to retire (she will be stripped of her classified gear and sold to the Chinese after this cruise).  It is also the boat he first commanded when Demi rose to the position of Captain. 

 

To complicate things even more, some "civilians" are in the ship's company for this mission, their purpose and identities cloudy.  Eventually, it comes out that they are Spetznaz commandos, elite Soviet soldiers with an agenda of their own, which on the surface looks like the testing of new gear designed to disguise the boat's acoustic signature, making it appear to be other ships.  Which is cool, but...Demi is suspicious of Bruni (Duchovny) and the other commandos.

 

I am not sure what those who gave the film negative reviews saw, but I saw a well acted, well produced submarine movie which played well with convention of this kind of film, distrust and paranoia in claustrophobic conditions.  I also saw a film construct a story out of  an apparent near thing in actual history, the loss of a Russian missile submarine in 1968 at the height of the Cold War.  Also, a single launched missle was alleged to have been found.

 

This is a taught, modest tale in the genre with a melancholy ending, about old soldiers giving all, and the wonder if the state they serve appreciates their sacrifies and that of their families.



It looks like Redshirts is getting a TV series adaptation

If you haven't read this book, imagine Galaxy Quest with a more philosophical bent, as well as more melancholy and metaphysics.  But still quite hilarious.  This has potential to be great, but by all means, read the book...

http://io9.com/redshits-is-getting-its-own-tv-series-1518552683

Y'know, if you have to show up at the last minute for an official function...

...and are just parched, a Long Island Iced Tea downed quickly just makes the occasion more entertaining.

Troof.

2000 Views! You REALLY LOVE ME!!!

Ok, it is very small potatoes, but as a baby blogger, I'm grateful someone is coming by and reading.  I started this thing before I deployed to Afghanistan in '10 and resumed it late last year.  Eventually, this will be part of a greater concern that will include a podcast, video, voice over services, etc.  So...ground floor.  Thank you to those of you who have been around since the start.

Nye/Ham Creation Evolution Debate: This was intellectual professional wrestling...

The conclusion I walked away from in what I saw of the Ham/Nye debate was this. Science is about a systematic exploration and attempt to figure out the natural processes of our universe as best we can, given present tools, knowledge and assumptions. At best, with the proper mindset, it not only helps us understand how things work, but gives us a greater appreciation of the wonder of it all. Religion/spirituality/faith, properly pursued, is about the inner self, the true self, that which transcends space and time, and seeking transcendent understanding of ourselves and greater realities. The two don't dabble in each other's realms, though I believe an open-minded embrace of each enhances appreciation and metaphysical understanding of both. What corrupts BOTH, and we see it in all kinds of ways in our modern culture, is when we let world views formed by the embrace of either one become ideology. When it ceases being the humble pursuit of understanding and enlightenment and becomes the arrogant quest for idealogical conquest, both become corrupted, base, and far from the higher as pirations they should stand for, and the inspiration they should provide.

Now, don't get me wrong.  Both men were polite and erudite, but they came in both misrepresenting the world views upon which they stand.  Mr. Ham loses credibility for himself when he presents a world view that says to be a person of faith, you must accept the most literal interpretations of Holy Scripture you can muster, never mind that such an interpretation comes apart at just the slightest bit of critical thinking.  Also, such an interpretation not only isn't the point of the faiths represented by the text, the faith gets mired in an argument that takes attention away from the main reason the faith exists in the first place.  For Nye's part, sure, he may have the science, at least as we presently understand it, correct, but again, he doesn't let that just say within the bounds of science itself.  It does inform for him an ideology that is also harmful and does not stand up to scrutiny.  Plus, for me, scientists wanting to brawl with creationists always strikes me as...unsporting.

Here's to a polite, gentlemanly debate.  Just wish it wasn't an unnecessary freak show. 

The Hobbit-Peter Jackson Opus, Extended Edition...

Just a few things to observe.  Most of those I talked to who saw this film, even those who enjoyed it (I was one) agreed that it was bloated, that Mr. Jackson, Master of Middle Earth lore he is, took a simple adventure story, in many ways an opposite tale from Lord of the Rings and just bloated the hell out of it form scraps from all over elsewhere in Tolkien's tales.  Now, between the frenetic, video game-esque action sequences and said stuffing, I felt the bloat myself, along with the wonder that I enjoyed.

However, the extended version includes several dialogue sequences that slow the pace down, relaxes the viewer, gives one time to digest the meal that is The Hobbit, Pt 1.  Personally, though it is longer, it actually feels shorter, like this is again a window into another world, rather than a promo for a computer game.

I do  recommend.

Spartacus Season 1: In between all the skin, blood and gratuitous sex, they slipped in a few Kubrick references as well as portrayed Rome as a land of little honor and much backstabbing bastardry...

Yessir, I finally got around to seeing this series.  Ancient Rome is one of my favorite eras in history.  Not only does much out of it form the foundation of much western culture, it is also fascinating in both what it did right as well as what it did tragically wrong.  It is one of the world's first attempts at a more egalitarian society, at least as much as the ancient world could muster.  It is also one of the first experiments at representative government, though that eventually went dreadfully wrong.  However, Rome, as much mistakes as the leaders made, managed to last many centuries and leave a legacy in lore, artifacts, architecture and memory that stays with us to this day.  We still honor it with books, films and TV shows.

Spartacus is one of those tales we gravitate to, as it tells the tale of a slave who found fame in the gladiator arenas and eventually led a rebellion against Roman authority.  Many aspects of that tale we are drawn to, from the gladiator spectacles themselves, to the idea of a slave accruing power in said arenas, to the idea of a mass break for freedom, succeed or fail.  We are drawn to such stories as they stir many cultural chords inside us as Americans.

Now, I'm not sure as the the historical accuracy of the series, and it differs in it's method of telling from, say, the Kubrick film.  However, the makers of the show do the film homage by slipping in a few easter eggs here and there.  For example, the line, "I am Spartacus!" does make itself present.  Watch for it.

You won't see a Kubrick remake, though.  It is it's own animal, showing the sleazy ebb and flow of Roman political power and the dehumanizing effects of the institution of slavery, how human beings can only have value in pure physical function, and one human can own another as property and not be recognized for their humanity.  This can serve as a corruptor of a society and be one of the rotting boards fading away beneath it's footing.

Still,  Spartacus is a thoughtful examination of power and human nature, though dark and brutal.  It allows sentiment, honor and even a bit of spirituality, but does not let you forget this realm you are in, where life is cheap, though if fate smiles, life becomes briefly glorious.

Spartacus' name is indeed one remembered, for it is one of the few from this period that I recall from my unremarkable high school history classes.

But yeah, not for the squeamish, with lots of sex, violence and blood.  But if you like the period and/or your swords and sandals spectacles, Spartacus will do ya fine.

Person of Interest, stealth science fiction on TV...

Person of Interest...I sit and think about this show.  Generally, I'm a fan of what comes out of JJ Abrams and his Bad Robot production house.  The man is clearly a first order geek and seeks to make his own impact on imaginative storytelling.  The man has nothing to prove, what with Alias, and even more to the point, LOST. But he has gone on to Fringe and other shows...like Person of Interest.  Now, I had to take a couple passes at this show before it truly gripped me.  Yes, it deals with lots of pertinent issues of our times, like lots of good science fiction does, such as the War on Terror, the Surveillance State, artificially intelligence and the like.  At first, though, it appears to be a procedural police show with some spy stuff.  And if you didn't hang around long enough or pay close enough attention, that is all you would see, at least in the first two seasons.

Hearing enough voices say, "PoI, possibly the best science fiction on TV right now!", I felt obligated to try to stick it out, especially being an Abrams fan as well as trusting the pedigree of others on the show.  It is subtle.  You get a few hints in the first season, some more in the second, but apparently the science fiction element, the evolution of a true artificial consciousness, comes to full bloom in season three.

Robots are all over the place in science fiction, but the exploration of an AI, a self aware machine, has it's highest marks in literature.  There are movies that deal with it, too, like 2001 and the Terminator films (notably 2).  But on TV, the key examples seem to be Data on Star Trek The Next Generation and Ronald D. Moore's handling of the Cylons in his remake of Battlestar Galactica.  Person of Interest, out of all the other ideas wants to explore, this is the big one.

I'm down.

More Treks, More Treats

I also watched/rewatched some other Star Trek recently, I just wanted to write a few thoughts....

Star Trek First Contact: This Next Gen film, scripted by Deep Space Nine/Battlestar Galactica mastermind Ronald D. Moore, uses the same unfortunate formula that a chunk of the Trek films, including ALL of the Next Gen films do, that being action movies in scifi skin, with a big villain and an over the top explosion filled finale.  However, due to the skill of Mr. Moore, and maybe a bid to redeem himself after the missteps of Generations, and also given the skillful, knowledgable direction of Jonathan Frakes (William Ryker), this is widely regarded as the best of the Next Generation movies, featuring the crew at their best, giving excellent performances all around and getting great moments, all of them.  You had an important figure in Trek history, Zephram Cochrane, played amazingly by James Cromwell.  You had a dark period in human history shown, along with a pivotal moment in Trek history, first contact with an extraterrestrial civilization, the Vulcans, wrote about in non-canon stories for years, but this was the first time the event was shown on the screen.  Jerry Goldsmith teamed up with his son Joel to compose the soundtrack.  Industrial Light and Magic did an amazing job with the special effects.  HR Giger, designer of the Alien, gave the Borg a wonderful makeover.

Is the film flawless? Of course not.  But the kind of nitpicks a disgruntled few throw up to try to dismiss the film fall flat, as do said critics.  Sure, it used the "action formula".  But this time, it seemed to work.  As did all the rest of the pieces.  It is a grand Trek time at the cinema and on disc many years later.

Star Trek Enterprise Season 3: I've been going through the seasons of Enterprise on disc, having missed most of them in their original running, and briefly getting on the "down on Ent" bandwagon.  As I've gone through the seasons, imo, the derision is mostly undeserved.  Was Enterprise not the best call as to where to go next in the franchise?  Yeah, I'd say.  But is it the abomination some Trek fans say it is?  I most heartily disagree.  There's some great stories in all the seasons.  Season two, especially episodes like First Flight, Future Tense, Stigma, Cease Fire and Judgement go into the lore of the Trek univers and our characters.  Regeneration, possibly one of the most controversial of the season two episodes, shows the aftermath of Star Trek First Contact, and is one of the scariest Borg episodes on any episode of any Star Trek.  But that's all seasons two, which I like much more than average.  Season three, on the other hand, is the season where they, in response to declining ratings, tried to kick it in the pants, so to speak.  They started with an attack on Earth, where some alien superweapon strikes from out of nowhere, cutting off the state of Florida from the rest of the continental US, killing millions of humans.  The Enterprise is sent in to the Delphic Expanse, the origin space of this weapon, to find where it come from and stop it.

 Ok, the time shenanigans where the series originates are interesting, the problem is that it is not strongly conceptualized from the get-go and the showrunners don't seem to be confident as to how to develop it.  Further, it seems to give the impression that merely being a prequel isn't enough.  That the early pre-Kirk Trek U can't stand on it's own, so we have to zazz it up.  Christopher L. Bennet, one of my favorite Trek fiction writers, shows that in the hands of real talent, this could pay off, but it seems to me that those who came up with this just didn't know where to go and what to do.  The Delphic Expanse stuff and the Xindi come across as more of the same.  Retcons, I'm not against as a matter of course.  But interweaving them into established history must be done with care, or else the viewer gets a bit of narrative whiplash.  Xindi?  Surely a power this potent we would have heard of before.  Such an attack on Earth, we also should have known of before.  If we haven't, we need a reason as to why not.  None was really forthcoming.

Not to say there aren't some good eps in the season.  There are.  Always when Shran (Jeffrey Combs) shows up, he's a welcome sight.  The female Andorian weapons officer will also play an important part in Season 4, my favorite of Enterprise.  The episode "Twilight", directed by Robert Duncan MacNeil (Tom Paris on Voyager), was a great "what if" ep, showing humans trying to survive after the demise of Earth and still dealing with a Xindi threat.  "Stratagem" showed a more subtle approach to the Xindi and began to finally differentiate them from just being moustache twirling baddies (took way too long to get to that, but when they did, they did it well).  And there were others.

There were great episodes in Season 3.  However, the season is hobbled by a concept that seems more thrown up there, see if it works.  Which is kind of the problem with Enterprise.  When it succeeds, it does it despite itself, not because.


Star Trek The Next Generation Season 5: Next Gen at this point was a confident, powerful, charismatic show that knew exactly what it was about and how it wanted to go about things.  Cast, crew and audience were all enthusiastically along for the ride.  This season had powerful episodes like "Redemption Part 2", showing the conclusion of the Klingon civil war, reintroducing Sela and setting up both Klingon and Romulan politics for some time to come.  We also got Sarek again, along with Spock, who had been referenced in the 24th century a couple times, but not shown, or his fate known, until that point.  His activities would also set him up for the first  JJ Abrams Trek film.  Michelle Forbes got thrown into the mix with "Ensign Ro", showing the limits of power politics in policy, even as those played by the benevolent United Federation of Planets.  Many other wonderful episodes abounded, but still powerful are "Darmok" which was a mediation on both the importance of storytelling as well as the difficulty of communication.  And then, there was "Inner Light", playing with the idea that what if you could get a good look at the road less traveled.  And then, the Ronald D. Moore penned "The First Duty", with Wesley Crusher dealing with scandal at Starfleet Academy (first appearance of Robert Duncan MacNeil in Trek, btw).

A wonderful season of tv, Trek or no.

Star Trek V The Final Frontier-A Lesson In Having Something To Say, But Hobbled In The Way You Say It...

Star Trek V The Final Frontier,W oh, you poor dear.  The main reason why William Shatner never got a shot at the director's chair again.  The reason Trek fans breathed such a huge sigh of relief when Star Trek VI The Undiscovered Country rocked the house as suicide stats probably would have creeped up amongst Trekkies had you been the swansong of the original crew.  And you know what?  I was right there along with them, piling derision and scorn upon your sad, sad head.  It has been a long time.  The only thing that has kept me coming back to you time and again is twofold.  First, you are Trek, and apparent blemishes aside, those of us who love this universe and these characters as much as we do, we often can find something worthy in the most dire of outings to the Final Frontier.  Also, we want to figure out why you are such a mixed bag of goods.  You should be better.

What if...you actually are and most of us have not noticed?

I recently watched this film again after purchasing it on Blu Ray.  The Star Trek film blu rays are available here at the PX for cheaps and all my DVDs are locked up in storage at Ft Benning, they have been since I deployed to Afghanistan.  So, I've been picking them up, including the "unwanted step children".

Well, looking over you again...I saw you in a way that I never have before.  You introduced us to Nimbus III, the Planet of Galactic Peace, a combined galactic government in social engineering conducted by the United Federation of Planets, the Romulan Star Empire and the Klingon Empire that has seemingly utterly failed.  Your population is composed of rejects and dregs that no one wants.  Your "settlements" are dirt farmers out digging holes in sterile soil and your one town is crime filled shanty.  But it apparently is prime recruiting ground for a Vulcan who laughs.

The ambassadors of the three governments, also rejects of one sort or another (the Fed and Klingon ambassadors are burnouts staggering drunkenly to retirement, the Romulan is a wide eyed naïve noob) send out messages to their governments.  The Enterprise gets there first, but the Klingon captain, Klaugh, and his first officer, a brawny female named Vixis (played by the lovely Spice Williams) are spoiling to take Kirk on.  So, when Kirk and company are taken prisoner in a hostage rescue that goes bad, the Klingons come gunning.  And they are ready to follow the Enterprise wherever it goes to get their shot at Kirk, including through the Great Barrier.  Why are they going there?  Sybok, the Vulcan leading this cult, is a spiritual leader with a vision.  God is waiting on the other side of the Barrier.  For them.  For him.  And he wants to share in the revelation.

So the story goes.  I hated this film.  Why?  Oh, count the reasons.  Since Star Trek IV The Voyage Home was a hit, the script writers though, hey, they like jokes, let's give them jokes.  But "jokes" they though did it were slapsticky pratfalls.  No, guys, that's not it.  CHEAP looking SFX, no ILM in the credits at all in this one.   Improbable things like the 1701-A Enterprise being such a lemon THEN being sent into action.  There is more, but that's the stuff that STILL stands out as bad.  But the good that also still stands...

First, Kirk, Spock and McCoy, taking shore leave together.  The buddy chemistry and the adopted family/brotherhood still stands out.  Those scenes hit from the first and still bring it home for those of us who know and love these characters.  The other characters also have moments that work, as they usually do in these films.  In fact, this team, this family coming together is what brings you back to perhaps reconsider other elements.  Now, what seemingly didn't work before, reconsidered...

First, Sybok.  Yes, Spock having this half brother is quite out of the blue.  But...consider that Vulcans are very close mouthed about deep emotional matters, especially that which is scandalous or embarrassing.   We have to remember that Vulcans, for all their emphasis on IDIC, are a very closed and conservative society.  They aren't mean or hostile about it, but the social pressure they can bring to conform is crushing.  Sybok was rebelling against all that, the control of emotion, the rule of logic and yes, the pursuit of spirituality and mysticism and meaning beyond rigid logic.  He even had the hypocrisy  and contraditions of his own people to look back on.  For Vulcans, even though they have rejected their gods of old, still cling to ceremony, ritual, and even mystic traditions that have real world effects, such as the phenomenon of katra and the like.  Sybok wanted to pursue spirituality far more boldly, far more fully. He ended up way off the reservation.  But this is certainly not without real world precedence.

Second, the MacGuffin, "God".  Many thought that was a silly trope.  I disagree.  Spirituality has a confused place in the Star Trek universe.  For example, humanity is said to have established a certain utopia in the Star Trek universe, with material want mostly gone, crime well under control and politics extremely stable.  The culture among 23rd century humanity is very humanistic and materialistic and it is assumed that that is the inevitable future trend among some in real life.  However, religious and spiritual references abound and it is made clear that not all humans, never mind extraterrestrial civilizations see things this way.  That spiritual yearning is about transcendence, reaching for something that deep down, we know is there, and we are meant to seek for it.  That the meeting of material needs does not even begin to quench this most profound of desires.  Sybok manifests this need.  But, this quest of his went off the rails and opened him up to one of the most common temptations amongst those who seek spiritual connection.  If one is not careful, the ego can slip in the way of the spirit, and what one seeks can take on the cast of...yourself, without you even knowing it.  It becomes a quest to obtain, to control, to make some part of the world more like what you think it should be, to put your face on it.  "God" at the end drives this point home.

Finally, the scene where Spock surrenders the ship to Sybok.  This bothered me greatly.  Spock is defined by duty and loyalty.  He will most willingly sacrifice to see that his friends, comrades and ship are safe.  But...would he sacrifice family?  If it is one fault the movie had, and as you can see in one of the cut scenes they tried to establish, they didn't show just how deep Spock's tie to Sybok went.  Spock has always been the perennial outsider, the guy out on his own, and you can point to many instances with him identifying with other outsiders.  He sympathizes with underdogs.  Further, he'll be the first one to tell you that conformity to the dominant culture isn't necessarily a virtue.  He sympathizes with Sybok and his quest.  And part of him even believes that he may have indeed discovered something.  And he knows that Sybok is no killer or bloodthirsty bastard.  He is just an extremely deterrmined Seeker willing to go to great lengths short of bloodshed to achieve his quest.  He won't kill for it, intentionally.  He will die for it, though.  Could Spock have shot to wound in that scene where Kirk orders him to shoot?  Even with those crappy guns, probably.  But...Spock knew that surrendering to Sybok would not get anyone killed, that to fight at that point might necessitate his killing Sybok, and...deep down, he wanted to help see Sybok's quest through.  And Nimoy did portray this conflict in Spock wonderfully. I also loved Shatner's portrayal of Kirk feeling fundamentally betrayed.  Also, DeForest Kelley's portrayal of McCoy and that part of him wanted to understand what Spock did.  Well done  on all their parts.

Star Trek V The Final Frontier is a very flawed movie.  But it is flawed movie with a huge heart and wonderful intent.  And if one allows, it is intent that actually payed off.

Just took me a couple decades to see it.

I think I owe William Shatner an apology.