ROBERTO ORCI NAMED AS DIRECTOR OF "TREK 3". STAR TREK FANS WEEP.

It's no secret: I didn't care much for the 2009 Star Trek and I downright DESPISED Star Trek Into Darkness. One of the key reasons for my views was what I felt to be lousy, lazy, uninspired writing. And one of the writers responsible was Roberto Orci. Along with Star Trek, Orci has also been a writer for such scintillating hits as The Island and Transformers 2, as well as the tepidly-received Amazing Spider-Man 2. As for directing, he's done none. Zippo.

So with that amazing resume, the powers-that-be at Paramount – who have proven that they no longer have any understanding about their own Star Trek property – decided that Orci would be ideal to bring the next Star Trek film to theaters. I thought things were bad enough when J.J. "I love lens flares more than content" Abrams was in the director's seat. But this time 'round he's strictly producing, so he's called on his go-to guy, Orci. You can read all about it HERE.

Orci and Abrams working out how to crap on yet another Trek movie.

If you're a fan of Orci's work, then you're in luck and I'm envious of you. As for me, I was hoping for new blood for Star Trek 3, but since that's not to be I have NOTHING to look forward to (until CBS remembers that Star Trek is supposed to be a TV show and gets on the stick). I have no reason to think that the next Trek won't be more of the same crap that Orci and company dished out to us before. I know the story will be derivative, silly and as far from what I consider to be Star Trek as it is humanly possible to get. It will be really complicated and ultimately make no sense.

It should be noted that when Orci was met with criticism of Into Darkness on Trekmovie.com, he maturely replied with this:

"STID has infinetly [sic] more social commentary than Raiders in every Universe, and I say that with Harrison Ford being a friend. You lose credibility big time when you don’t honestly engage with the FUCKING WRITER OF THE MOVIE ASKING YOU AN HONEST QUESTION. You prove the cliche of shitty fans. And rude in the process. So, as Simon Pegg would say: FUCK OFF!"

So Orci's idea of engaging with Star Trek fans is "fuck off". He could have said nothing or he could have been diplomatic. But instead, he went straight to DefCon 1 and the nuclear option.

As long as these clowns are in charge of Trek, I'll never spend a nickel on a ticket or DVD. Paramount has fooled me twice. now. And while I'm not the brightest guy in the room, even I get it after that many slaps. Maybe there will be a Star Trek down the road that doesn't insult our intelligence by telling us that "cold fusion" has something to do with making things really, really cold, or that Khan is LITERALLY Superman with super-strength and the power of flight.

If you liked Star Trek Into Darkness, then good for you, you're entitled to your opinion and you certainly weren't alone. Sometimes we forget that these are just movies and not a cure for cancer.

Though apparently, now you can use Khan's "magic blood" to cure that!

LLAP

Don

If you liked Star Trek Into Darkness, then good for you, you're entitled to that opinion and you weren't alone. It's good to remember that a movie is just a distraction from other things in life sometimes - it's not oxygen. - See more at: http://www.theshiznit.co.uk/feature/the-5-million-dumbest-things-about-star-trek-into-darkness.php#sthash.bR24PJEG.dpuf

DEEP TREK: THE CAPTAIN'S QUANDRY

THE SHAT WINS NASA'S HIGHEST CIVILIAN HONOR

Everybody's favorite starship captain (well, at least MY favorite) picked up a cool piece of NASA hardware this week. The Star Trek star was awarded the Distinguished Public Service medal, the space agency's highest award for civilians, according to CBS news.

William Shatner is presented with the medal by Bob Jacobs, NASA Deputy Associate Administrator, Communications. NASA photo

Apart from his Star Trek duties, Shatner has been a vocal advocate of science education and space exploration.

"William Shatner has been so generous with his time and energy in encouraging students to study science and math, and for inspiring generations of explorers, including many of the astronauts and engineers who are a part of NASA today, " David Weaver, NASA's associate administrator for the Office of Communications at NASA Headquarters in Washington, said in a statement.

"He's most deserving of this prestigious award," Weaver added.

Shatner accepted the honor last Saturday evening, April 26, at his Hollywood Charity Horse Show in L,A., an annual event in which he raises money for children's causes, NASA officials said.

According to the medal's citation, Shatner was honored for "outstanding generosity and dedication to inspiring new generations of explorers around the world, and for unwavering support for NASA and its missions of discovery."

Shatner has been an informal spokesman for NASA, especially in recent years. In 2011, Shatner beamed a wakeup call that recreated his "Star Trek" introduction to NASA astronauts working on the shuttle mission, STS-133, the final flight of the shuttle Discovery. The next year, he recorded a message for the real-life spacemen living aboard the International Space Station. And to help drum up excitement for NASA's Curiosity Mars rover, Shatner narrated a video about the robot that was released just a week before it landed on the Red Planet in 2012.

Shatner has also supported his home country's smaller space agency; last year, he traded tweets with astronaut Chris Hadfield, Canada's first space station commander.

Go Shat!


LLAP


Don

TOS ACTRESS SHERRY JACKSON STARTED OPPOSITE JOHN FREAKIN' WAYNE. WHO KNEW?

So the other day I'm watching yet another old movie on AMC, this time a little-known John Wayne movie from 1953 called "Trouble Along The Way". It's a movie I've seen several times before and always enjoy. It features The Duke in an unusual kind of movie: a RomCom. That's right, America's hero, John Wayne, in a romantic comedy with Donna Reed, the great Charles Coburn and, as The Duke's daughter, a young girl named Sherry Jackson.

Wait, what? Sherry Jackson? Sherry Jackson?!? 

In the countless times I'd seen the movie, I had never noticed the actress' name before. And I recognized it instantly. An actress with that name played the character of Andrea on the classic Star Trek TOS Season 1 episode "What Are Little Girls Made Of?". And here was a girl who was 10 years old in 1953 with the same name. Could it be?

I grabbed my iphone and opened my IMDB Ap (hey, I'm a classic movie nerd, what can I say?), typed in the film and there it was – it was the same actress! Here she was in beautiful black and white  as the precocious daughter of John Wayne's football coach character. And she wasn't just in the movie – she was one of the main characters! I had always enjoyed her performance but now it took on a new aspect. I watched with a new-born interest. She was great!

 

 Here's Sherry with her daddy, The Duke himself, John Wayne!

And here's Sherry as the android Andrea in "What Are Little Girls Made Of?"

Between "Trouble" and Star Trek, Sherry did a lot of growing and in all the right places! Her performance in Star Trek was very reined in and rather wooden. But it had to be – she was an android, after all. But her performance in "Trouble" really showed off her acting abilities. She holds her own with an all-star cast of Hollywood greats. And "Trouble" wasn't her first film. She began four years earlier at the age of six!

Sherry Jackson is one of those actresses that connects us to Hollywood's golden age actors like Wayne, Reed and Coburn. Though no longer acting, Ms. Jackson is alive and well, and I for one am grateful for her great turns in both Star Trek and "Trouble Along The Way".

LLAP

Don

STARSHIP COLLECTION

CLAPPER OF THE WEEK: 1967 "I MUDD"

This week's clapper features the return of one of Star Trek's most beloved rogues, Harry Mudd, played by the great character actor Roger C. Carmel. No other guest character ever made more than one appearance in TOS, so his return was a real milestone. The scene takes place on Harry's android-filled world and everyone seems in good spirits. Of course, that can't last for our heroes.

Scene 61A / Take 1
8/17/67

LLAP

Don

STARSHIP COLLECTION

NOW THAT IS MOTIVATION!

One of my favorite "faux-tivational" posters:

LLAP!

Don

STARSHIP COLLECTION

CAPTAIN AMERICA SOARS: WHAT PARAMOUNT COULD LEARN FROM MARVEL

I make no bones about the fact that I hate JJ Trek. If you like it, good for you. I wish I was in your shoes, because I'd love to have a Trek movie that delights me. These don't. I consider them lousy movies, period.

That said, this past weekend, I joined millions of other moviegoers and saw "Captain America: The Winter Soldier", the latest comic book-based film from Marvel Studios and parent company Disney. It was a thoroughly enjoyable movie in that it was what it needed to be – a comic book brought to life on film. The story was solid, the acting excellent and the effects were cool without being overwhelming (overwhelming as defined by "Transformers", for instance). It was wryly funny and deadly serious, both as needed. I loved it.

As I did with Star Trek, I grew up with comics. Captain America was one of those constant superheroes that I'd occasionally buy but that I also saw in "The Avengers" and other Marvel titles. The Cap got around. Unlike Star Trek, however, Cap needed to wait until very recently to become translated faithfully to the big screen. Yes, attempts were made in the past, but they were so awful that I won't even waste my time on them. To me, they simply don't exist.

Comic book movies needed CGI in order to fully realize their true potential. Whether you're talking about Spidey swinging down Fifth Avenue, or Cap fighting the Red Skull in a huge bomber heading for New York, CGI enable us as moviegoers to be fully – and realistically – become immersed in the fictional worlds of out heroes. When comic book movie makers remember that at their core, a CB movie must be about interesting characters doing remarkable things, great things happen like "The Avengers" and "Winter Soldier". When they forget that and rely on the CGI to hold the audience in thrall, we get "Green Lantern". While I don't think GL is as awful as a lot of people, it ain't great, that's for sure. Oh, and when you don't care at all, you get "Catwoman".

So far, beginning with 2008's Iron Man, Marvel has done an outstanding job of delivering good (or great!) CB films, all of which build on the previous ones in a very synergistic way. The "Marvel Universe" is literally being transferred to the screen, one film at a time.

So what's this got to do with Star Trek? Everything. Marvel films are made by people who understand comics. They know who Cap is and what makes him tick. They understand why he is a character that has endured for 75 years, and they bring all that knowledge and understanding with them into the big-screen incarnation.

On the flip side, Star Trek is now being made by someone who says "it always felt too philosophical to me". Too philosophical. Too thought-provoking. Too intelligent. Well, Mr. Abrams, you've certainly taken care of that. No one would ever accuse your movies of being too smart.

Note to producers: if your director says Indiana Jones movies are "too action-packed" or James Bond films are "too British", maybe you shouldn't hire them for those franchises because they obviously don't understand them.

Star Trek has never been a franchise with its heart in the action movie genre. It is adventure – a very different thing. Yes, there are actions scenes in every Star Trek episode and movie. Action is an important element of adventure, after all. But Star Trek – the BEST Star Trek – is first and foremost a morality play. "Wrath of Khan" featured Khan as Ahab, who would not rest until he pulled down his Moby Dick in the form of James T. Kirk. "City on the Edge of Forever", one of (if not the) greatest Trek episodes ever, is about lost love and responsibility. Friendship is a recurring Star Trek theme, as is duty and the desire to know the unknown. None of these themes gets anything but lip service in JJ Trek. It's all about the loud, stupid, over-done, all-consuming, illogical, unneeded ACTION. And nothing else. There are no emotional connections with the audience, because explosions don't care.

All the great screen writers I've read about all said the same thing – they write a movie they'd like to see. So apparently JJ Abrams and pals don't want to see a smart Star Trek film. They don't want to see Star Trek that doesn't tread on old tropes. They FIRMLY want to go EXACTLY where every Trek has gone before – in a cliche and silly way – without injecting a single original idea along the way.

"Captain America: The Winter Soldier" works because it is true to its comic book roots. It understands how best to tell the story of the man out of time.

2009's "Star Trek" and last year's "Star Trek: Into Darkness" fail because they ignore the soul of Star Trek – a great story about ideas told by characters who care about each other.

So to Paramount I say this: you don't have to reinvent the wheel to be successful with Star Trek. But you sure need to know that a wheel is round. Marvel gets it. Maybe you could, too.

I'm putting you on notice, Paramount. You've used up the last of my good will (and that of millions of other Trek fans, I think) with the abortion of STID. I won't be suckered in again. For any future Trek movies I will wait until I hear something from trusted sources. If it is positive, only then will I give it a go. You've fooled me twice. I won't be had again.

LLAP

Don

STARSHIP COLLECTION