THE "INTO DARKNESS WTF MOMENT OF THE WEEK", PART 1: KHAAAAAAN!?

Welcome to my new series wherein I'll be dealing with the various problems with Star Trek Into Darkness. Here's my disclaimer to all those that liked the film : good for you. But I HATED it for being the piece of shit that it was. In my opinion.

In a recent interview in Variety, Star Trek Into Darkness producer and writer Damon Lindelof said this:

"When we did Star Trek Into Darkness for example, we decided that we weren’t going to tell people that Benedict Cumberbatch was playing Khan. And that was a mistake, because the audience was like, "We know he’s playing Khan." That was why it was a mistake."

Now, let me be clear here: technically, he is correct. Hiding Khan's identity was indeed stupid on several levels. But the far larger "Khan mistake" can best be shown visually.

When the first JJ Abrams Star Trek film's cast was announced, it told us that he was looking for direct contemporary counterparts of the actors from the original Star Trek series. So much so that Karl Urban seems to actually be channeling DeForrest Kelley! Here's the main cast with their counterparts:

It was obvious that whatever racial "type" the original actor was, Abrams was looking to emulate that. A black character like Uhura, for instance, was to be played by a new black actress. Sulu was to be played by a new Asian-American actor. Scotty would have his familiar Scottish lilt, and be played by a caucasian actor. Spock HAD to look a lot like the original character as played by Leonard Nimoy and on and on. Why was this necessary? Because, according to the script of the 2009 film, these characters ARE THE SAME ONES SEEN IN THE ORIGINAL SERIES, albeit in a different timeline. And, in the case of Spock, the original and new versions would be side by side on camera. So it was imperative that they look and sound similar or the conceit wouldn't work. For instance, had Kirk been played by a Chinese-American actor, the illusion would have been shattered. So ethnic consistency was adhered to.

Let's now fast-forward to Into Darkness. We're introduced to a character identified as John Harrison, a British character played by the whitest white man ever, Benedict Cumberbatch. However, as the film unfolds, we're told that, in reality, this guy is actually none other than (drumroll please) – KHAAAAAAANNN! Yes, THAT Khan, the character played by tan-skinned, accented Mexican-American actor Ricardo Montalban in the original series episode "Space Seed" and, most famously, in 1982's Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

So, for some reason, in this timeline, we are to believe that FOR SOME INEXPLICABLE REASON, Khan has suddenly changed nationalities, accent and skin color. It's important to remember that Khan was supposed to be an Asian-born dictator who once ruled over the Middle East and much of Asia and that in this new timeline, he's STILL THAT GUY. But where Montalban's Hispanic origins and accent gave him an air of exotic possibilities – a reasonable stand-in for an exotic Asian character given the standards of the day – Cumberbatch's Khan gives us none of that. In fact, with his light skin and perfect British accent, Cumberbatch gives us the ANTI-KHAN – a character who could not possibly be the Khan we met before.

Did he get plastic surgery? We're not told. Did he change his accent for some reason? Ditto on that. In short, having Cumberbatch play Khan was like having Anne Hathaway play Uhura. Picture that, please: we meet a lily-white female character who introduces herself as Jane Smith, only to later reveal to us that she's actually... Lt. Uhura! The SAME Uhura from the original show! Would you accept that? Of course not!

While I was not thrilled with the film up to that point, it was at the very moment that Cumberbatch uttered the line "my name is Khan" (in his perfect English accent) that I checked out. I was done.

You might as well have painted the Enterprise magenta and had Alf show up as an alien – I could not have become less invested in the rest of the movie if I tried.

I want to stress something here. I LOVE Benedict Cumberbatch as an actor. I think his Sherlock Holmes has become the definitive version of our times. But in this case, he was simply miscast.

So after setting the rules for us – these are the original characters but in a different timeline – the writers of Into Darkness said "forget that" and pulled the rug out. And expected us to not notice!!

I noticed. And many, MANY others did as well. So, Mr. Lindelof, your mistake wasn't hiding Khan's identity, it was totally miscasting the role!

Stay Tuned for more!

LLAP

Don

"SCREEN USED" PHASER NOT WHAT IT'S CRACKED UP TO BE.

Recently, there's been a Star Trek VI-style Assault Phaser on Ebay that has been identified as "screen-used". It was originally priced at $3950 and didn't sell. It was then dropped to $3250 and still didn't sell. It's now been relisted at $2500. Here's one of the item's auction photos:

Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between a replica and a production-made screen-used piece. But because this prop is so well-documented in its various versions, this time it's an easy call to make. Unfortunately, it's my considered opinion that this is definitely NOT a screen-used piece but rather a replica made by someone named "Wakal" about 15-20 years ago. Owners of Wakal pieces have informed me of this along with shots showing their identical nature. Also, I own a screen-used hero-style fiberglass version and have also studied the background solid resin versions of this prop over the years. Here are the key "tells" – details that identify it as a replica.

1. No interior detail under the cutouts. There should be a "corncob"-textured piece inside the front cowling that should be visible through the cutouts. Here's a comparison of the auction piece and a screen-used piece:

There's something in there but it's not remotely correct. The Wakal did not come with this detail.

2. Excelsior Tag on the handle base is incorrect. On the left is the auction piece and on the right is a shot of a screen-used piece from "The Art of Star Trek". The piece shown was supplied by Greg Jein, the propmaker who actually worked on the film and made these props:

The auction piece appears to have a plastic plate while the screen-used is an etched metal plate. Also, the Starfleet emblem is reversed out incorrectly and the order of the ship's name and number are transposed. It exactly matches the Wakal.

3. LED detail on back cowling is incorrect. The screen-used versions were flat translucent plastic. The auction piece shows a definite ribbing and appears to be painted.

.
4. The description says it is "solid resin" but has a sliding cowl and supposedly a removable magazine. The resin pieces were background dummies and weren't detailed in any way – they were solid monolithic pieces. The fiberglass heroes (detailed pieces for close-ups) had a different mix of details and were hollow. The trigger shown is neither a resin version nor a fiberglass hero. But it does match the Wakal.

5. The small Phaser-1 exactly matches the Wakel version.

6. The various details on the sides of the body appear to be molded in place. That would have only happened on the static resin background pieces which would not have had any moving or removable parts.

Here's a shot of a Wakal replica (top) from collector Ethan Williams (thanks Ethan!) compared to the auction piece (bottom). Ethan's is an Enterprise version but they are the same otherwise. Note the name plate's details, the ribbed cowling detail (painted a different color) and the P1 match.

I think this shot is conclusive when taken with everything else. It's my opinion that this was cast from a true production-made piece (an opinion confirmed by others who own Wakal pieces) which is why it is so accurate in many key ways. As for the differences, most replica makers actually build in differences ("tells") so that their version could not be confused with an actual screen-used piece or any other replica. I believe that to be the case here.

The bottom line here is that it matches the Wakal replica in every way. It matches a screen-used piece only in general ways with key differences that show up in no other screen-used piece.

The piece comes with a COA from "Globo Associazione" based in Trieste, Italy, and states that it came from "Paramount Pictures Props/Costumes Department" and was "bought directly from Viacom". If that's true then somebody ripped them off because it's my opinion that this piece never saw a film studio.

Bottom line B: if this piece were real, I would have already bought it! It would easily be worth the asking price. But it's not.

As always: caveat emptor!

LLAP

Don

WELL, THAT SUCKS: THE PARKA SAGA, PART 2

I have been taken to task by the consignor of the Spock Parka for not revealing the original source of the piece and how it was originally identified as a "hero" piece, ie: a piece worn by Leonard Nimoy. While I don't think it will help his case (quite the opposite, in fact) in the interest of fairness I want to honor his request.

The piece was originally auctioned by Julien's auction house back in 2010. The Parka and a number of other 2009 Star Trek pieces were auctioned off with the proceeds being donated to two worthy charities. Here's the original auction information taken directly from the Julien's site:

The important thing that the seller wants people to take away from this is this wording:

"...and worn by Leonard Nimoy."

That is Julien's saying that this piece is an authentic costume worn by Leonard Nimoy himself.  This is not being disputed by me. What IS being disputed by me is the accuracy of that statement in that we now know that there is not s SHRED of evidence to support that statement and a TON supporting it's inaccuracy.

Apparently the seller does not want us to go beyond whatever Julien's said and look at the facts of the piece itself. It has a label which states "Stunt". Not "Nimoy", but stunt. What this means is simply this: Julien's was mistaken. It's really that simple. But the current seller wants you to forget about that aspect and he's using the original wording to justify his actions.

Let me put this into non-movie costume terms.

If you ordered a red shirt and got a blue shirt, would you assume that red was blue? Or would you assume the supplier had made a mistake? Furthermore, a few years later, would you try to resell that (wrong) blue shirt and call it red? That would be either stupid or dishonest, right? If you wanted to resell it you'd simply call it a blue shirt and everyone's happy.

Except in this case the blue shirt (the "stunt" version) is worth a few thousand dollars while the red shirt (the "Nimoy" version) is worth about ten thousand dollars more! But to those in the know, red is not blue.

And the seller is definitely in the know, in my opinion. How so? Keep in mind that he is well-versed in film memorabilia collecting. As soon as he received the parka I think he knew the exact implications of that simple word "stunt". At that point he had two choices:

1. Keep the piece with the understanding that Julien's made a mistake but that he had a nice stunt Spock piece and a charity made some money

or

2. Send it back to Julien's for a refund as the piece did not meet the description as stated. Remember that what's written in a piece trumps everything else without specific proof to the contrary. If Julien's could not prove the "worn by" statement, they should never have made the claim. And if they COULD prove it, it was incumbent upon the buyer to get that proof so that it could accompany the piece in perpetuity.

The consignor obviously did not return the piece. Neither did he get any proof. But he apparently wanted the next generation of buyer to not realize what "stunt" means (which we now know is: "not Nimoy"). I think he was hoping to sell it to an unsophisticated buyer who would simply accept the "Nimoy" claim without any actual proof to back it up. And that is apparently what has happened.

So there's the whole story. Mr. Consignor, if I have any of my facts wrong, please let me know and I'll adjust accordingly. As for my opinions, well – those are mine and you don't get to vote on those.

LLAP

Don

WELL THAT SUCKS: PROFILES IN HISTORY SELLS STUNT PIECE AS HERO FOR $19K!

This past week, auction house Profiles in History held their latest Hollywood Auction. The catalog was quite a tome: over six hundred pages of movie memorabilia ranging from posters for silent movies to a shooting model from Star Wars that sold for $375,000 – quite a chunk of change for a 16 inch model seen on screen for about thirty seconds total! But, that, as they say, is show biz.

For Star Trek collectors, this auction had a few items of interest including original series Spock and McCoy tunics from 1967 as well as one of the last pieces ever worn by Spock on-screen – a winter parka from the 2009 Star Trek film. And as great as those 48-year-old pieces were, it's the parka that is at the center of my story.

Here's the piece in question:

Photo: Profiles in History

And here's the description taken word-for-word from the Profiles auction:

1621. Leonard Nimoy “Spock” parka and gloves from Star Trek. (Paramount, 2009) Original knee-length futuristic parka. Constructed of gray leather with matching fleece lining. Faux fur lines the unique fly-trap cuffs and quartered collar,  which is reinforced by rigid substructure allowing the wearer to fold the collar segments up to form a helmet shaped hood using unique magnetic catches. Featuring Velcro front closure and integral aluminum belt hooks at the hip of the garment. Retaining internal bias label, with typewritten, “Costume design by Michael Kaplan” with handwritten,  “Stunt”. Accompanied by Spock’s unique gray leather gloves with faux snakeskin accents. Worn by Leonard Nimoy as “Spock” during the majority of his screen time in the film when marooned on Delta Vega. Originally donated by Director J. J. Abrams and family to benefit the Children’s Defense Fund and Student Veterans of America. (estimate) $15,000 - $20,000

Sounds cool, right? A chance to own one of the last pieces of wardrobe ever worn by the late Leonard Nimoy in his legendary role as Spock. It's any Spock collector's dream piece. And, sure enough, one lucky Star Trek won the piece with a bid of $16,000 which actually means they paid about $19,000 because of a "buyer's premium" that gets added to every win. So the winner paid $19,000 for a Leonard Nimoy Spock piece!

 Or did they? Because there's something very wrong with the description. It says:

"Worn by Leonard Nimoy as “Spock” during the majority of his screen time in the film when marooned on Delta Vega." And, of course, the item's actual title states:

"Leonard Nimoy “Spock” parka and gloves from Star Trek"

So this piece was was specifically used by Nimoy in the movie, right? But hold on because the listing also says this:

"Retaining internal bias label, with typewritten, “Costume design by Michael Kaplan” with handwritten,  “Stunt” "

This is nothing new to collectors of movie wardrobe, of course. Internal labels can be found regularly in many pieces and are used to keep track of the multiple, identical versions of a given costume piece. This parka, for instance, probably had at least three copies – two for use by Mr. Nimoy and at least one for use by a stuntman. Hence the handwritten "Stunt" on the label which designates this parka for use by a stunt double. But a stunt double is definitely NOT Leonard Nimoy.

Now, this gets a little tricky so bear with me.

So the label says "Stunt", but the description says "Leonard Nimoy" and these would normally be two contradictory claims. A "Stunt" wouldn't be worn by the star, but a star's coat might become a stunt version after the star is done. But the label doesn't say "Leonard Nimoy" as would a piece of wardrobe made for Nimoy that would later be used for stunt work. It ONLY says "Stunt". Which – based on how such things are done with wardrobe – probably means that this piece was assigned   exclusively as a stunt piece and was never worn by Mr. Nimoy. If it was for Nimoy's use it would say "Nimoy" or nothing at all. But it would NOT say "stunt"!

But if there's even a chance it was worn by Nimoy, how would you prove it? By doing what is called "screen-matching" – finding small unique details – a flaw, a tear, a stain, a pattern – something that is unlikely to be (or impossible to be) replicated on another copy– and matching those details to versions actually seen on screen. I have to tell you that, while screen-matching is possible, it's really REALLY difficult to do because usually there's just not enough detail captured on film to allow for it. You need super-sharp, high resolution images to see the kinds of details needed and that's usually just not possible. And even when it is possible, there's no match because there are always multiple versions of a piece and it's just dumb luck when yours is the one on-screen.

But, as luck would have it, it just might be possible to do it with a Spock parka because it has several things going for it:

1. It has a grain pattern which, like a fingerprint, would be unique to each copy

2. It's a medium color which means details stand out better than on light or dark colors

3. Nimoy has several close-ups while wearing a parka, and close-ups are the only thing that work

So with all that going for it, it might be possible to take the catalog image (which is nice and sharp) and screen captures from the film (which are also pretty sharp) and compare them. And that's what I assumed the seller of the coat had done. They had a stunt piece that they thought might be a Nimoy piece so they researched it and – bam! – they found a match!

Except that they didn't. How do I know? Because I did a comparison myself in Photoshop using every close-up in the film and came up with nothing. In every case, each coat Nimoy wears in the film itself looks different from the version sold. I can find a number of details on the auction piece that should translate to at least one of the screen uses, but I found NO MATCHES at all.

Let me put in a sidebar here regarding my own experience with screen-prop/costume comparison: I've done a lot of it over the years. I'm a professional graphic designer so I know all the tricks there are to getting detail out of an image and how to find things that can't normally be seen. But keep in mind that the vast number of times one tries to screen-match something, the screen-match tells us that the items DON'T match far more often than they DO match. As I said earlier, it's really hard and really unlikely. (For more about screen-matching go HERE).

In this case, without a solid, proof-positive screen match of several specific, totally unique details, I can't see how anyone could, in good conscience, call this a piece that was definitely worn by Leonard Nimoy.

Here are my conclusions:

1. 99% of the time when something is labeled a stunt, it's just that: a stunt

2. To prove star use, some specific, provable link has to be made to said star –  a scene from the film or a PR photo of the star with the piece in question are really the only ways to establish such proof.

3. No proof was offered by the seller or by Profiles and I, myself, cannot find anything remotely worthy of being called a screen-match. To the contrary, the evidence points to specific non-matches.

It should be noted that the seller, an experienced Star Trek collector, is seasoned enough to know that a claim of use by Nimoy without specific proof of that claim, was questionable at best. And yet, he put the item up for sale at Profiles anyway. Did Profiles take it upon themselves to call the piece a Nimoy without the seller's knowledge or consent? If so, the seller – known to his fellow collectors –  had weeks between the release of the Profiles catalog and the actual auction to clear things up. But he said nothing publicly so he tacitly approved of their description through his silence.

And as a result, someone is now the proud owner of the most expensive Spock stunt piece of wardrobe ever sold on the open market. $19,000!! Easily triple (or maybe quadruple) what a stunt-only piece would have fetched!

Well done, Mr. Consignor.

Well done, Profiles in History.

Caveat emptor, indeed.

NOTE: Please see my next article for some additional information requested by the consignor of the piece in question.

LLAP

Don

If anyone can offer real proof that this piece is indeed a true Nimoy piece, by all means, please contact me. All I'm ever after are the facts and if I've missed something, I want to know. But it needs to be incontrovertible proof, please!

MORE STAR TREK PORN FROM PROPSTORE'S UPCOMING AUCTION

Here's even more shots of some of the great pieces that will be up for auction from Propstore next week! You won't find these high-rez shots in the catalog. All images courtesy of Propstore.

Up first, from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, it's the "damaged rollbar" model part from the USS Reliant:

For the DS9 fans, here's a fantastic version of Sisko's "First Contact" style Captain's uniform:

Of course, where Sisko goes, Dax is soon to follow:

 

Here's something super-cool – a "First Contact" Spacesuit later used in Voyager by Chakotay. Check out all the great detail:

 To go along with that spacesuit, how about a hero EVA rifle complete with lights from "First Contact"?

From the Next Generation, it's the Good Doctor's Starfleet uniform and lab coat. Worn by Dr. Crusher herself, this is the definitive look for the character.

From Star Trek III: The Search For Spock, here's an amazingly detailed prototype of the enormous Spacedock facility. The model is almost 18 inches tall and comes complete with a custom-built stand.

And wrapping things up, from "Enterprise", here's T'Pol's Vulcan uniform in all its form-fitting glory:

That's it for me but you can check out all the details on these and other great pieces from Star Trek (and other properties) by clicking here: PROPSTORE.

Good luck at the auction!

LLAP

Don

PROPSTORE OFFERS AN INCREDIBLE STAR TREK MODEL – THE ENTERPRISE-C FROM "YESTERDAY'S ENTERPRISE"!

Next up in my coverage of Propstore's great Star Trek offerings is an amazing opportunity to actually own a model of one of the Starship Enterprise incarnations created for production. It's the seldom seen Ambassador Class model made by model-maker extraordinaire Greg Jein for what is surely on everyone's Top Five list of the best TNG episodes – "Yesterday's Enterprise".

Don't be fooled by the name on the hull. The Enterprise-C model was later reused as the USS Yamaguchi for the Deep Space Nine opening episode "Emissary" as one of the ships that engaged the Borg at the Battle of Wolf 359 and was destroyed. But only on screen, of course. Between its original use and "Emissary", the model was also modified to be the Zhokov in the TNG Ep "Data's Day", and as the Excalibur in "Redemption Part II". It was modified a bit along the way and was even considered for use in "Star Trek: Generations" but ultimately did not appear (which is too bad because that movie needed all the help it could get – even from a model).

Here's some shots that don't appear in the Propstore catalog featuring some great close-ups showing the construction details (click for larger images). All photos courtesy of Propstore.

Here's the details from the Propstore description:

"The starship model is made of resin with internal fibreglass reinforcement and an array of styrene rib detailing running across the hull and nacelles. The shuttle bay at the rear of the ship is exposed revealing internal cabling. The model has a blue and grey paint finish with additional blue and faux gold detailing on the nacelles and deflector dish. White appliqué panels are applied on the saucer as part of the Yamaguchi transformation.

Red and black Starfleet decals are applied to the exterior of the vessel. The Excalibur’s registration number “NCC-26517” is applied on the underside of the saucer dish and a decal displaying the name “Excalibur” is applied beneath the shuttle bay. Decals with the number “NCC-26510” and the name “USS Yamaguchi” have been applied across the top of the saucer with “NCC-26510” decals on the port side of the nacelles.

Internal lights are fitted across the saucer, hull and nacelles with lights fitted behind transparent red plastic diffusers on the nacelles and the rear of the saucer. Additional lights run through the body of the starship to replicate the look of lit windows, all of which are powered using a cable running from the saucer section of the ship.

Well-used in the Star Trek saga, certain decals have come away or show wear from use and age, with the model exhibiting minor cracks and wear to the paint finish. The model is presented on a custom made, poseable display and remains overall in very good condition. The piece was originally sold in CBS-Paramount’s 2006 40 Years of Star Trek auction. Dimensions: 65 cm x 110 cm x 41 cm (25 ½” x 43 ½” x 16 ¼”)

As this item contains electronic components, every effort has been made to describe them accurately; however no guarantee or warranty is made as to functionality, lifespan or safety of those components. It is entirely incumbent on the new owner to satisfy themselves as to their safe use and maintenance.

£40,000-60,000"

A beautiful piece of Star Trek artistry and history all in one item. The model originally sold at the 2006 Christie's auction for $48,000. The ask here is approximately $60,000 (plus the buyer's premium) so it won't go cheap, that's for sure. But something this important in Star Trek lore shouldn't go cheaply, right?

Check out the entire Propstore catalog for yourself HERE.

More to come!

LLAP

Don

PROPSTORE SETS PHASERS TO "KILL" WITH ORIGINAL UHURA DRESS

Continuing our coverage of the upcoming Propstore auction, here's the next incredible piece: an Original Series Uhura dress! I'll let it speak for itself:

 

 

Amazing stuff, right? Here's the official scoop from Propstore:

"Uhura's (Nichelle Nichols) Starfleet dress from sci-fi television series Star Trek. This dress was
worn exclusively by Uhura in The Original Series’ second season and is believed to screen match to episodes “Return to Tomorrow,” “The Gamesters of Triskelion,” “The Ultimate Computer” and “The Omega Glory,” based on the placement and stitching of the Engineering Division patch and rank braids.

The dress is made of red velour with a black ribbed fabric collar and features original faux-gold rank braids on both sleeves, indicating the rank of Lieutenant, with a Starfleet engineering patch made of reflective faux-gold material with black embroidery affixed to the left breast along the collar line.

Made using the distinctive diagonal stitching first seen on red dresses in the second season and uniquely tailored for Nichols in the role of Uhura, the dress has a concealed zipper running along the left hand side and a set of small snaps on the collar, with the Starfleet patch partially secured with Velcro to allow easy access during wear.

Acquired directly from Paramount in the early 1990s, the dress displays some light signs of wear and aging from use and years spent in storage. However, the piece remains in excellent condition.

£20,000-30,000"

Like the Spock tunic, this came straight from Paramount. According to Propstore COO Brandon Alinger, "we obtained this from a source who had a high-level business relationship with Paramount and obtained the costume as part of a deal with the studio." Man, that's a source I'd love to meet.

The dress appears to be in astoundingly good condition. Some pilling seems to be happening but given the type of fabric these were made from (the polyester didn't come until Season 3) and the piece's age, it's very little.

So Propstore is offering not just one amazing TOS piece, but two: Spock and Uhura, together again. Don't miss your chance. And stay tuned for more!

LLAP

Don