TrekUnited Forum: TrekUnited Forum -> Terilynn's Trek

It's with both excitement and a tiny pinch of sadness that I'm writing this short entry.

You see, I'm going to be moving Terilynn's Trek to a new home for the foreseeable future and no longer posting entries here at TrekUnited.

TU has been a very cozy little blog area for me, but when offered an opportunity to bring TT wider exposure in a more formal setting, I had to take a little of Mr. Roddenberry's advice and tell myself to go boldly.

So I am.

I'm not exactly sure when things will get underway at the new place, but it should be sometime this month.

I want to thank everyone here at TU for their support and for the corner where I've set my soapbox for the past 1 ½ years. I'll still be active (hopefully more so, actually) in the forums here and on Twitter: https://twitter.com/TerilynnS

Keep your eyes peeled to www.airlockalpha.com to see when Terilynn's Trek debuts.

Again…thanks for your continued readership and support!

Love - Terilynn

Those of you who have read my blog over any length of time may remember that I used to like to read the licensed – official – authorized – whatever books published by CBS' company – Pocketbooks.

That's right – I USED to like to read them. That was until the authors grouped together and decided to make their own "canon" by starting to synch up storylines. It might have worked, but in my opinion all it did was serve to box-in all the characters and stories in ALL the series – whether it's from The Next Generation to Titan to DS9 to great and original works like the Klingon series and the Starfleet Corps of Engineers.

Worse – they have married and impregnated two characters that should never have been put together to satisfy a minority group of sappy fangirls (Crusher and Picard); and Christopher Bennett had the audacity to name the Riker/Troi progeny after his dead cat – all while he wrote 349 pages of dreck hashing out his own internal struggle with women he perceives as being irresponsible and can only gain self-fulfillment by changing their male superior's diapers.

Okay – SO maybe I am a little bitter about Star Trek: Titan – Over a Torrent Sea. It was after all, the WORST book I have yet read in the post-Nemesis world created any member of the team at Pocketbooks and found a way to insult everything about women, Starfleet, and The United Federation of Planets in one foul swoop.

So you can imagine why I'm SO nervous about the new book I just pre-ordered. Star Trek: Titan – Synthesis.

*bites nails*

The cover has what could only be deemed as a "Harlequin Romance" style – a generated shot of Riker holding a character we all know from season one of TNG – Minuet.

For those of you who may not know why I'm so hesitant about this book, one must understand how…creepy Minuet is.

She's a hologram – a very UNUSUAL hologram created by the Bynars – she was incredibly life-like and Riker essentially fell in love with her. The "depth" of her holographic character was lost at the end of the episode when the programming to get his cooperation was no longer necessary, but Riker always had a soft spot in his heart for her. Hell, she was supposedly his perfect mate. (No – not that Perfect Mate, that's a different TNG episode.)

In any event, Minuet played well as a plot-device in a subsequent episode called "Future Imperfect" when Riker is taken captive on an isolated planet and made to believe it's 15 years in the future. The woman he is led to believe is his dead wife is revealed to be Minuet and he knows that he is being fooled as she is really a hologram.

So – now that I know that her character will play a part in the new Titan book, I can't help but gird myself against the angst I feel, as in…

Oh crap – now what are they going to make Riker do?

He's a new father, a loving and loyal husband (even though EVERY book plays to the cliché that he's somehow a male whore) and a very honorable man.

I fear that this book will be…well…atrocious.

I am going to remain hopeful that James Swallow – the author of this book and also the author a wonderful DS9 Terok Nor book called Day of the Vipers – has the mental capacity to redeem Riker and the Titan crew from the dreck that Bennett dragged them all into in OaTS.

But I have to remain skeptical.

I'm not bolstered by the cover and I remain very nervous about the "guest character."

Flying Spaghetti Monster forbid that Swallow has a deep-seeded psychological condition that leads him to write Troi as new mother who ignores her husband and Riker as going to seek "solace" from a long-lost holographic old flame.

*screams*

I would never forgive them.

Synthesis comes out in October. I'll let you all know how things go then. In the meantime…I'm starting on Season 5 of DS9 and I'm really beginning to see what it was that people loved about that show. More on that later.

A ha!!! Yes – Surprise – it's a SECOND blog entry today!

Over the course of the last day, Twitter has been…well…atwitter with people who have just gone off about the worsening problem of the "reboot/rehash/remake" disease that has infected the very soul of what used to be a pretty wacky and original place. Yes – I used the word "original." There was a time when Hollywood used to produce some pretty creative things. Sure they produced a lot of crap too – but back then, at least it was creative crap.

So imagine how thrilled I was to read this blog: (Once again I must thank my Twitter acquaintance "Broadus" who said he wanted to read my thoughts on this piece.) So please do yourself a favor and read this! Not only did it have me weeping with laughter, it also had me shedding bitter, bitter tears.

http://www.tvsquad.c...e-do-tv-talent/

Jay Black, the comedian and author of the eloquent article puts forth...

(*mumble* phloxing grammar – an hypothesis? A hypothesis? Huh – according to the little green thing in Word it says it's "a hypothesis". Yes, "a" before a consonant "an" before a vowel. Duh, Ter.)

...a hypothesis that television sucks big donkey Richards because there simply aren't enough good writers out there; that they have reached a critical mass so to speak, and not only are all the good writers being used, the "suits' have backfilled the void with the leftover crappy writers.

While I laughed all the way through his article, I simply can't agree with this statement. I think there are hordes of incredibly talented writers that just can't get a job. And while I can see his point that the expansion of available channels should actually bring more opportunity to the writers/actors, etc – I'm afraid it all rolls right back around to the same problem that's affecting ALL of Hollywood – fear of the new, the original and the untested.

It really does all come down to money and, using Mr. Black's own method, I'll be working off of two axioms here:

1) Studios aren't openly willing to pay anyone for anything and
2) They only spend money either due to desperation or because they are legally required to do so in some instances.

I know of many, many incredibly talented people…writers, producers, actors – all of whom would love to just get a crack at a role, or having their script produced or a studio buy their show, but the studios simply haven't shown much of an interest in original works, original looks or original ideas.

They fear originality for originality equals risk, and in the post Enron/Sarbanes-Oxley world in which we live risk = possible failure and possible failure = potential shareholder lawsuit and potential shareholder lawsuit = death. And using the ever-loving transitive theory, since death must be avoided "at all costs" therefore originality must be avoided "at all costs."

Literally.

(I also joked that maybe the really good writers know better than to waste their time putting forth their creative efforts knowing that they'll either be shot down – OR WORSE – losing all control over their creations to some set of paid hacks who assure the soul is surgically removed from most work, so they're not even trying to sell their wares anymore and learning how to enjoy their work by sharing it on the net…GASP…for free.)

I'm sure it's different for the actor – those who would love to stretch their creativity by playing a role – ANY role, as long as it's a challenge.

OMFSM – Another tweet from Broadus produced this gem of an interview: (Ahem, Ms. Megan Fox! You may want to read this! You could learn a lot from this woman!)

http://www.guardian....-sophie-okonedo

Damn, what a gorgeous woman…in more ways than one.

Ms. Okonedo speaks directly to the heart of the problem I think – there is a lot of phlox out there. She's incredibly forthright to be able to tell the powers that be "no" when she's offered that stuff too. She's also built a reputation for taking meatier and better-written roles too. She wields a power that very few actors hold – the ability to say no and still know that they will be sought for another role in the future. She and others like her are simply THAT GOOD.

All of the actors I personally know don't get that luxury. They're faced with either not working – or taking that role in the poorly written dramedy, or cry with joy when they land a commercial, something – just something that gives them a few things more on that resume and headshot. There's simply not enough "good stuff" out there to be able to say no to. It's not that those people aren't capable of being "THAT GOOD" they just don't have the material that allows them to show it.

Mr. Black has a lot of great points but I don't think expansion of the market has caused dissolution of the talent-pool.

When studios stop producing scripted shows in order to save money and they turn to filming "unscripted" dreck – that is what I believe is television's greatest problem. It's not that there are less good writers – the good writers just aren't being used!

Yes, we're getting a lot more material thrown at us as viewers but we're just getting less material that has a plot. We're not getting more dramas, comedies or musicals – we're getting American Idol; Big Brother; Big Brother After Dark; Ghost Hunters; Haunted Castles; Haunted Ships; Haunted Pool Halls; Dark-Haired Survival Guy; Lighter-Haired Survival Guy; Nasty Chef Yells at Poorly Trained Food Service Industry People; Deadliest Catch and Ice Flow Truckers of the South Pacific (where I understand driving a truck on an iceberg is really dangerous!)

Now – I know the writers of these "unscripted shows" don't get paid diddley for their work and I can't imagine that a majority of the people in them are now suddenly members of SAG…

I would have hoped that with the influx of cable channels that we would be able to see a greater degree of opportunity for the writer/actor/electricians/musician/set-builders etc – but when Hollywood realized it could bypass the unions and make money hand-over-twisted claw by avoiding having to hire anyone but a camera operator, a boom operator and maybe a few grips…yeah – cheap to make and huge on the profit ratio.

Sorry Mr. Black – I think the Earth is swimming in talented people and you're definitely one of them.

I just think Hollywood is dying from its own fear.

Tomorrow begins a week-long celebration of the 40^th Anniversary of the Apollo 11 mission. It'll be a time where someone (who's old enough of course) will likely ask you (if you're old enough of course) where you were when you watched Neil Armstrong set foot on the surface of Earth's moon.

I was young – merely 4 ½ years old – but I can tell you exactly what I remember.

Oddly, I remember a lot of scents actually; the bar reeked of scotch, whiskey, bourbon, Chanel No. 5, Aqua Net hair spray and decades of cigarette and cigar smoke. I recall wooden paneling, black vinyl stools and a few small, curved booths. A tiny black and white television was hung precariously from the corner of the bar and I distinctly remember a lit aquarium with several colorful fish in it.

I was sitting next to my mother who was nursing a Manhattan. She was wearing her favorite avocado-green outfit – a tight fitting skirt and matching ¾ sleeve mini-jacket. My father was standing next to her, allowing me to have a barstool all to myself. He was wearing what every other man seemed to wear in the late 1960s – a black suit with a pencil-thin black tie. There were a lot of men in the place and those who weren't wearing the "black suit," were all in military attire. I remember sitting next to a tall gentleman on the stool next to me and he and my mother both worked to assure I didn't fall off the stool. I remember playing with the little plastic drink animals and the bars of ribbons the man had on his jacket. They were so pretty and because I kept reaching for them over his pocket, he willingly removed them from his coat. I decorated myself with them and used them as "jumps" for the little plastic animals that the bartender had crowded into my Shirley Temple – never realizing they were his military decorations.

You see – we were at the Officer's Club at the local Military Base.

The bartender, the officer sitting next to me and my parents sweetly kept me entertained even though their eyes were really glued to the television.

At that time my father had already been retired from the Air Force for years – hence the reason for his civvies – but when it came time for the moon landing he wanted to be with others who, like him, understood what Collins, Aldrin and Armstrong were doing. He himself had been accepted into the Mercury program as a flight surgeon long beforehand, but he didn't pass the final physical and not only did he lose out on a career in space medicine, he was forced to retire from the USAF altogether.

It broke his heart, but he took another path and he practiced medicine for the civilian population until he retired in 1997; but he still loves everything and anything to do with the aerospace industry and I can safely say he's the reason why I love it so much.

And it all goes back to that smoke-filled bar.

It was the first time I ever remember seeing him (or any man for that matter) cry.

Just before Armstrong set his foot down on the powdery surface of Luna, the man sitting next to me stood – lifted me up and sat me back down on his lap and whispered in my ear, "Pay attention Terry – this is history."

So of course I set down my little plastic monkey and watched the TV with the rest of the silent crowd – but when I heard my dad actually sniffle and then saw him wipe his eyes? I thought something was horribly wrong.

Maybe for him there was more to it than seeing humans break free of the planet and touch truly foreign soil – maybe for him there was a touch of regret in his eyes. I don't know, I was too young to have understood it, but even if he did regret not becoming a part of the program, he's the kind of man who would never reveal such things to me or to the rest of the family - it would have been a sign of weakness in his eyes.

I remember my mother had tears in her eyes too and the man who was holding me tightened his hug. All I saw was a bunch of blurry images on the TV screen. But just as my concern began to grow, the place erupted in cheers and applause, hollering and laughter…it was so loud! Mom turned and kissed me; took me onto her lap and the man who had been holding me hugged her tightly. Dad shook his hand and the two men laughed as my dad pulled out his box of Eric cigars and they lit up in celebration.

That's what I remember.

I remember it because I was told to remember it; that is was important – that it was history.

But I only realized how important it was by seeing how it affected my father. If something was important enough to make him cry…I knew it must have been pretty big.

I have never lost my love of the space program. I took pride in seeing the "Welcome to Downey – Home of Apollo" signs in my hometown. Sally Ride was and still is a personal hero, as is Gene Kranz. I try never to miss a shuttle launch. My husband and I frequently look for Iridium flares or watch as the ISS passes gracefully over our home.

The words "aim high" mean just as much to me as the words "go boldly" and they always will.

I never knew who the nice man was that told me to pay attention. He was certainly a decorated individual and had a comfortable lap and infinite patience with a 4 year old child. Alas, my father's cognitive skills have weakened and he no longer remembers much about that day so he is no longer able to recall who the man may have been. I regret not asking him sooner. My mother doesn't recall either, she only knew him as a friend of my father's from the Air Force. He was older than my father and I doubt that he's alive now, but I remember his kindness. To whoever and wherever he is – I'd like to thank him for helping me remember the day that man set foot on the Moon. Because of him, my memories of that day are filled with the happy thoughts of laughter, little plastic monkeys, mermaids and giraffes; military ribbons and realizing just how human my father really is.

Happy 40^th Anniversary to all who worked on the Apollo 11 mission!

Aim high!

I told you all in the last blog that Megan Fox, the hot starlet from Transformers 2 and several upcoming films, was a personality that was worthy of dedicating an entire blog post to…

Well she is.

She is that one enigma that both infuriates me and causes me to wonder whether or not I actually admire her.

She's gorgeous. She's smart. She definitely knows exactly what she's getting herself into and she's vocal about it; but I can't figure out if her career is a consequence of Hollywood's cesspit mentality or an ongoing reason for its continued existence.

I think it's both actually.

Ms. Fox was recently (a few weeks ago actually) given the opportunity to become the latest cover and interview focus for Entertainment Weekly magazine. I read the entire article three times.

She describes herself and all women and their sexuality as being "commodities" in Hollywood and she's only doing what she needs to do to be successful. And she's really successful, that's for sure. She also surmised that the reason why a lot of women hate her is because they must be jealous of her.

Now I will admit I wasn't born with the genes that make her so beautiful. So sure, I'm totally envious of her looks and how they give her the ability to make crap loads of money. But jealous? I don't think so. I can tell you I have a little more self-esteem than to crave to be her or worse, having to be in her shoes…and here's why: (thanks sevnson71)

http://jalopnik.com/...ox-wash-ferrari

It seems as though Michael Bay – the director for Transformers 1 & 2 required Ms. Fox to "audition" for her RECURRING role in the sequel by making her wash his car. And of course, he filmed the "screen test."

Michael Bay can try to call that an "audition" all he wants to and it really does prove Ms. Fox's statement that Transformers 2 was NOT about acting – because it's pretty clear her "audition" was not about her showing her acting talent, just her ability to do a Paris Hilton on Michael Bay's wet Ferrari.

I don't know who to feel sorrier for - Megan Fox because she's right; extraordinarily gifted actresses who do not posses a 22 inch waist line or women in general because we have to deal with guys like the ones who are commenting on that auto blog linked above.

It's disheartening really.

Ms. Fox: I have to say I really do appreciate your candor. I really do. You call it just like it is. It's honesty seldom seen in Hollywood. You actually know that you're selling yourself for money - just like every woman on the corner of Fair Oaks and Orange Grove. You're just prettier and you get paid a hell of a lot more than they do.

I've known a lot of hookers – I even liked a few of them. (I worked in a jail by the way.) There were even some that seemed pretty comfortable with themselves too and made no excuses for their lifestyle. They keep a lot of men off the street and busy for a couple of hours...just like your movies do.

And you know what? I'm not jealous of them either.

I just feel like asking you to do one thing...just one thing...why don't you gain just a little more self-respect and next time some richardhead like Michael Bay tells you that he's not sure you're sexy enough for his film (when it's incomprehensible that you aren't) – would you do me and the rest of the world a favor and just kick him in the nards?

I'll contribute to your defense fund!



To everyone else...I would love to hear your answer to my question -

Megan Fox and actresses like her - are they merely victims trying just trying to get a break - or by allowing themselves to become objectified are they contributing to the continued subjugation of women in the entertainment industry?

This morning I was graciously directed to a couple of articles about the entertainment industry as a whole as well as an article that genuinely shocked me. That's kind of hard to do.

And what shocked me pray tell?

Apparently Transformers 2, Revenge of the Fallen has managed to use a little of its own red matter and imploded Star Trek's standing in the BO takes. It has, in its first 5 days, grossed just under $400 million globally and well over $200 million domestically. This is a feat Star Trek was unable to attain in it first 8 WEEKS.

I have read multitudes of articles surrounding the idea that Michael Bay, along with writers Kruger/Orci/Kurtzman, have created two racially insulting characters by the names of Mudflaps and Skids. The opinions about these two characters are intensely passionate – from both sides of the argument. I have not seen the movie and because of the opinions I've seen about these two characters, I likely will avoid seeing it for my own psychological health; but from what I've read about them and from what I've seen as far as their CGI appearances I have a very bad taste in my mouth and I have no trouble seeing why anyone might be offended by them. But they're now a part of the summer's biggest movie so far.

Up – Disney/Pixar's new film also kicked Star Trek's overall butt last week – so that means – if my calculations are correct…Star Trek has been relegated to 3^rd place in overall box and will likely take a much lower spot in the ranking after Harry Potter flies in on his broom and will undoubtedly proceed to sweep away all remaining competition.

Once again – films made for and directed to the "family" unit as opposed to the focused male 14-24 market are showing their absolute power in the marketplace. I have maintained and will continue to maintain that Abrams and Paramount blew it by making Star Trek "edgier" and "sexier" as opposed to making it simply more palatable to parents. If they had broadened the appeal to say oh…Star Trek's core market, the families, and still given us the tighter special effects, they may have had the $400 million opening week. Sigh.

Now, thanks to a new acquaintance (Broadus) on Twitter, I was led to an interesting article about the "A-list" actor's appeal on the BO performance.

http://www.latimes.c...nment/news/...0,7110271.story

It's oddly true.

"A-listers," as we so quaintly call them, are no longer what seems to draw people to movies – this year at least.

The successful films so far have been filled with actors who aren't necessarily well known. And the films that were filled with actors that were "bankable" are tanking. (See Will Ferrell's Land of the Lost for example.)

I'm not so sure it doesn't speak directly to what I was talking about in my last post with regard to AMPAS' attempts to draw the audience back to the Oscars, it's possible the public is just tiring of perceived "self-important" celebrity.

Transformers 2 is successful because it's had a toy franchise, an animated series and a movie that came before it that did well. It had fairly likeable actors – Shia LeBeouf and a gorgeous Megan Fox in the lead roles. Ms. Fox herself stated in her EW interview that Transformers is NOT about the acting – it's about carrying what thin plot there is through the CGI shots and making sure she's a commodity. (Yes - I've reserved a special place in my future blogs about Ms. Fox. She is a very, very special case for me to tackle and she deserves her very own focused blog.)

Land of the Lost tanked because it was…well…Land of the Lost. It's the same reason why Thunderbirds is still walking funny after so many years – it was based on a television show that most of us remember with a cringe, not a heart flutter (although I have to admit – if they had used Stone and Parker's puppets to remake Thunderbirds – it would have rocked.)

When I saw the preview for Land of the Lost at the theater and realized they made Holly the love interest as opposed to the daughter I got a severe case of the willies and decided I wasn't going to waste my money on it. (Oh yeah, the Cha-Ka boob-grab didn't do much to sell the movie to me either.)

I have the same fear about Gilligan's Island and Tron (OMG I still can't believe they're remaking Tron) or any other number of rehashed television shows or even old movies. I mean – not even Denzel Washington and John Travolta could pump life into what was a perfectly good movie to begin with - Taking of Pelham 123. What was wrong with the original?

NOTHING!!!!

Hence our problem.

I still haven't finished my research on the possibilities that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act hasn't been at the root of the rehash/reboot/sequel infections plaguing major American studios, but I might focus once again on that research. With rumors of studio mergers on the horizon it will be interesting to note how a law designed to protect what is really IMHO nothing more than legalized gambling (stock investments which are now the basis of most Americans retirement potential as pensions are dying quick deaths) forces boards to make decisions based on profit ratio potential as opposed to truly being quality film-makers.

I'm kind of disturbed by Transformers' success but I'm not surprised. I hope what I'm hearing about the racist undertones in the film are dealt with for the same reasons I still take issue with what I saw as sexist undertones in Trek.

What I fear more however – is that due to both Transformers 2's and Star Trek's box office success there will only be more excuses made for scripts that make weak attempts to hide those stereotypes under animation and mini-skirts as opposed to a real sense of dignity coming from the writers who are seemingly the "golden boys" of Hollywood right now.

So, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences finally succumbed to the almighty dollar and has opened its Best Picture category to ten nominees.

Sources:

http://airlockalpha.com/node/6470

http://www.variety.c...2...=1&nid=2854

So what will this mean for the average movie goer? Titillation? Excitement? The actual thought that more mainstream films will be included and actually have a chance of winning? Well – here's my take on it:

I see it as possibly being the biggest bait and switch show ever. Seriously – you think that by leading the general public into naming five more films in the Best Picture category that successful box films like Star Trek or Transformers 2 would actually have a shot?

Do you really believe that a popular film would get a better chance at winning if it got to be nominated?

I can tell you right now – no way folks.

They might get nominated – but the fans of those shows will only be sucked into watching the Oscars just to see the better film win.

You've got to hand it to the Academy though, faced with plummeting ratings of their awards show, they've done almost everything to lure the viewer back.

The problem is "genre" films which happen to be both popular and brilliantly made – The Dark Knight for instance – are extremely rare. Most popular films really aren't that great – they're formulaic drivel. Movies like Star Trek XI, Wolverine and Terminator Salvation simply aren't that good.

The Academy prides itself in the promotion of its ART. Movies like that are automatic rejects by the Academy voters and I have to say – for good reason. They may be flashy – but they're still not art.

Well last year the Academy rightfully took some heat for snubbing The Dark Knight (with the exception of Ledger's posthumous award.)

Now they want to expand the category to allow for more competition?

I smell desperation and it's pretty stinky. Why not just vote for the best five movies? Better yet Academy members – why don't you stop voting with your hearts and stop giving away awards to people who should have won them in years beforehand?

You see, I think the Academy can only fix their awards show when they fix their credibility. When movies/actors/directors win awards from their peers out of pity or popularity the product is diluted. End of story. When the viewing audience – who's not stupid by the way – knows a better film or actor lost out because the voting contingent needs to make amends for snubbing someone/some film from the year(s) before – they get a little put off. They know it's unfair and then they see it whole thing as some sort of sick popularity contest as opposed to a fair and fun competition.

And I think that's all the Academy is doing with the expansion of the Best Picture category. They're diluting their credibility to make up for the years of snubbing genre films like The Dark Knight.

Sure successful films will be tossed in and get a nomination – and now those films will get to plaster the term "Oscar nominated" all over their DVD boxes, billboards, and ads to increase the sales of their movie but will it really increase their chances of winning an Oscar?

I'm not so sure. Fates forbid we get an influx of drivel nominated because they were successful at the box office and popular with the public. That would be the end of the Academy's credibility in my eyes.

Personally, I think it's the wrong tack to take. If a successful film is good enough the Academy should just drop their revulsion of genre films and vote for it. They proved they could do it with Lord of the Rings. They nominated an animated film for Best Picture (they just couldn't vote for it – so now they've created their own category.) There was nothing holding back Academy voters from choosing to give a nod to any film before now – they were just too full of their own preconceptions about the sci-fi, fantasy and comic book genres to want to affiliate themselves with it. The Golden Globes gets around their prejudices by dividing up the drama from the comedy/musicals.

It's why I think they just lost touch with the real world. Throwing a meaningless nomination at five more films to entice viewers to their show is not only insulting to the viewers it's potentially a huge backfire waiting to happen. It simply smacks of elitism – like the Academy is saying "Here – we'll lower ourselves and nominate some more popular films now and hope to tune into root for your faves – but don't be surprised when we actually vote for the low-budget drama."

So I am actually looking forward to next year to see which 10 films will get to increase their sales potential by getting the "honor" of being nominated for Best Picture but never really having a chance at winning; because the Academy – if it values its own brand – will never let a genre film win over a heart-breaking or politically pointed drama unless it's so amazing they can't ignore it (like LOTR.)

It's kind of weird – I just feel like the Academy is throwing a bone to the mutts and is hoping we're dumb enough to enjoy chewing on it while they give the steak to the poodles.

I'm a little bummed but more excited today. If I had the time to take a day off I would have in a heartbeat.

Why?

I would have driven down south toward Las Cruces, NM to see the groundbreaking ceremony at the new Spacestation America – Virgin Galactic's new homeport.

Spacestation.

Homeport.

*giggles with schoolgirl delight.*

We skipped over flying cars and went straight to galactic tourism. I can't tell you how excited this makes me.

For those of you who don't know (and I doubt that this is possible as anyone who would be reading a Star Trek – themed blog must surely know) the infamous Richard Branson and his Virgin Galactic are beginning construction on the new Spaceport in New Mexico. This is the area in which people who have the dough ($200,000.00 per person) can take a ride into suborbital flight and return to Earth on one of several new incredible spacecraft.

Here's Virgin Galactic's Website : http://www.virgingal...anguage=english

and the Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia....Virgin_Galactic

I also understood that one of the spacecraft is to be named VSS Enterprise.

http://en.wikipedia..../VSS_Enterprise

I've got nothing much else to say except… Good luck Virgin Galactic! Go Boldly!!!




Wait…I do have one thing to say…

Anyone got a spare $200k?

Seriously – what the phlox is wrong with some people?! I don't get it sometimes. There are some people making really lousy decisions based on personal biases. Then it takes a crapload of extremely embarrassing articles and blogs AND A BUNCH OF LAWYERS to get the poor fools to make the RIGHT decision?

What the hell is she talking about you ask?

Well – here it is, and once again I must thank Mike at Airlock Alpha for "enlightening" me to the fact that misogyny and idiocy are still RIPE in the sci-fi, comic book – oh hell, in Hollywood in general.

Here we go folks!!!

BEGIN RANT/

#1: The IGN – Columbia TriStar Contest Fiasco

Seems as though a few uneducated, thoroughly misinformed and tragically narrow-minded marketing IDIOTS at Columbia TriStar Pictures decided to work with IGN games to produce a contest revolving around the new (and really cool looking) movie District – 9. IGN moved forward with the contest (the winner would get to go to SD Comic-Con next month) and IGN – while NOT THINKING FOR THEMSELVES and the appropriateness of such an idiotic thing – moved forward with making the contest open to men only.

Nope – not kidding. *swears on Mother Earth.*

Here's IGN's Rebecca Wright's response left as a comment on this blog: http://community.fem...est-sexism.html

Quote

I'm dying to know if IGN had to scrounge up a woman to make the comment. Sorry my cynicism runs DEEP. But IGN should have known better. Seriously! There is NO excuse for exclusionary treatment – NONE! Who the hell at IGN didn't see the words "open to men" from Columbia/TriStar and didn't at least go "Oh…nope – You know...I don't think that will work!"

Holy crap!

Even if there was only ONE female comic-book, sci-fi or movie fan on this planet the contest should never had been limited to men only! Never!

Regardless of Columbia TriStar's idiocy – IGN had a separate responsibility to NOT act as stupidly and could have raised their hands and said…Uhm…NO.

They have since altered the rules – allowing women to enter and even granted them additional time…*facepalm* http://microsites.ign.com/d9/

Other sources: http://www.tor.com/i...o...og&id=33695




Ready for Rant Portion #2?!

You sure? Okay then...

#2 – The Los Angeles Times produces a "Girls Guide to Comic-Con."

I can hardly contain my fury.

Because women are apparently too stupid to understand why ComicCon might be of interest - Here's the LA Times "guidebook" it is in all its inglorious shame: http://www.latimes.c...gallery?index=1

Here are some lovely quotes from this "incredible" piece of journalism:

Quote

Emphasis added.

Quote

Quote

Those are just a couple of the "insightful" tips for women who might be thinking of going to Comic-Con.

Cuz you know for me – I strive to feel good enough about myself to feel worthy of doing Jake Gyllenhaal's laundry on his abdominal muscles and wondering whether or not my personal appearance at the function might give me a shot at doing something so phloxing extraordinary!!! (YES that was sarcasm for those of you who might have had an inkling it wasn't!)

AAHHHHHHHHHHHHRGH! LAUNDRY? LAUNDRY?

I hate sexism! And what fries my ass the most is the fact that this INCREDIBLE PIECE OF DOGPHLOX was actually PUBLISHED by the LOS ANGELES FREAKING TIMES!!

What the HELL were you thinking LAT? I'm sorry – but to say your editors WEREN'T thinking is NO excuse! Fire them…PLEASE! They're on the payroll to do nothing BUT think about stuff like this!

As to the whole kit and unbephloxingleivable kaboodle of the "ComicCon is for boys mentality": These are PRIME examples of the DANGERS of basing works, publications, articles, contests, MOVIES and conventions on incredibly irrational and EXCLUSIONARY marketing poll results.

If you have the slightest trouble comprehending why I find these two issues so repulsive – think about most "isms"…racism being a perfect example: If a marketing poll said that ComicCon and its "target" (*cough bullphlox*) audience was Caucasians between the ages of 16-24 and then a game manufacturer and a MAJOR HOLLYWOOD STUDIO created a contest to increase the sales of their movie and games and then only allowed Caucasians to enter a contest to go to ComicCon - you don't think there'd be some pretty pissed off (and rightfully so) people??? So why did GENDER play ANY SORT OF ROLE in this? Now in the same vein, if a newspaper wanted to appeal to those people of African American or Asian or Latin or any other descent who weren't in the "target audience" of Caucasian and developed the "Non-White Guide to ComicCon"...don't you think everyone would be insulted?

I'm practically begging here…

PLEASE major studios, game manufacturers, oh hell EVERYONE…Stop thinking that women aren't capable of being interested in Comic books, heroes, television, movies or any other form of entertainment for reasons other than handsome men or sappy Twilighty story-lines!!!! You're insulting the legions of women who love sci-fi, comic books and the genre for reasons well above and beyond sex.

IGN & Columbia/TriStar need to be publicly humiliated for their unbelievable stupidity and so does the LA Times.

I was hoping to go to Comic-Con in San Diego – not to ogle over some movie-stars "washboard abs" – but for the spectacle of sci-fi, comic book, gaming, entertainment and other genre companies gathering in one place to show off their wares to the interested public and then writing about the experience. Alas, I cannot as I have commitments I cannot break, but I have every intention of going next year and you'd better believe I'm going with an eye on how women are treated - or ignored.

I just didn't think that these companies somehow thought that women weren't a part of a public interested in what has become something as big and important as ComicCon.

To those companies I say they're the fools for failing to appreciate the purchasing power women have…and they will rue the day they failed to increase their profit ratios by not just ignoring us but also by openly insulting us. I hope their stockholders and investors are happy.

No - to my knowledge I do not own any stock in Columbia/TriStar...and I won't any time soon.

/rant....for today.

Can I just say, thanks Wowbagger!!!

Last night I tweeted that I was having trouble finding true inspiration for another blog entry and that Winona Ryder's most recent fluffy, Abrams-butt-kissing in an interview with the Japan Times http://search.japant...20090605r1.html and reported on by TrekMovie.com http://trekmovie.com...fri-box-office/ was just too easy for me to target, rip-apart and leave in tatters on the floor. Mind you, I don't mind hunting – but damn Winona – give me a challenge would ya? I don't hunt with a car and she's simply a deer walking in the middle of a dark road in that "interview." Sorry to disagree with you Ms. Ryder, but Star Trek XI was NOT a female-friendly movie. It was friendly to her sure, she got a role! She got a paycheck!

Then this morning Wowbagger tipped me off to TrekMovie.com's most recent article on "TrekMovie After Dark": Anthony Pascale's report on the sexier side of Star Trek and a few more recent finds of his own.

Sweet! Look – fodder! http://trekmovie.com...-erotic-fanfic/

So here's the real shocker folks…this didn't "upset" me!

Not. At. All.

I'm NOT asexual. Oh for crap's sake no. I'm a sexual human being.

I use the following picture as my avatar on two Trek forums and as the background on my Twitter (https://twitter.com/TerilynnS ) page:




Oh wait – not those…*digs around.*



NO!! Not those!! *Digs again*

THESE!!!



The above image was created by "Eden" over at The Omega Sector BBS and she graciously allows me to use it. I am known for my "bootz" after all. See – my caricature done by David Reddick even reflects my affection for the sexier things!:




The corsets, the erotic fanfic, the XXX movie – they all crack me up.

SHOCK? HORROR?

I can hear people already… "But Terilynn! You're always ranting about women's treatment in Trek!!" And you're right – but as the title of the XXX movie says – that ain't Trek.

None of these images are put out, distributed by or have anything to do with those that produce what we consider to be the real Star Trek.

Star Trek was a television show that was meant to appeal to a wider family audience – a sort of transitional show for kids; that first real taste of critical thinking story-telling that helped people learn the difference between right and wrong, unconditional love, tolerance, acceptance and overcoming fear and adversity.

When I beef about the new Uhura character I'm beefing about the fact that her character has been reduced to nothing more than what's being slung in those corset ads, the XXX movie or the individuals who grasped onto Zoe's "classic" strip-tease and making a YouTube video of Trek tarts. Hey – whatever floats your proverbial boat.

But Star Trek XI was the movie that Abrams said would be keeping Trek's core message alive. Let's go back – shall we? In the series Star Trek: Sure Kirk was a womanizer and Uhura wasn't by any means, a prude. They were both sexual and very easy on the eyes. Nurse Chapel was horribly in love with Spock, the universe's most emotionally unavailable man, and her love remained unrequited. But no one among the team actually slept with each other! The one time Uhura and Kirk kissed, they were forced to do so. I never saw their reluctance at kissing each other as a racial thing; I saw their torment of being forced to kiss each other in the same way I'd be tormented if I was forced to kiss my boss. (No offense Maureen – you're nice and all, but dude, no thanks.)

When someone writes erotic fanfiction – they don't intend for it to be read by the "regular fan." They intend for it to be read by fans that have an interest in erotic fiction and Star Trek. When someone makes a XXX movie using Star Trek themed characters, they intend to sell that movie to men and women who watch porn, and maybe get a few Trekkies to buy it for the kitsch. They certainly could care less about how women are portrayed in a professional light. (That's putting it mildly.) And when someone creates corsets that look like TNG uniforms – Terilynn wonders whether or not they can be made for real women who have real bustlines. *sheepish grin* Cuz…that red one Is. To. Die. For.

But they're simply NOT the Star Trek I defend. They're not the Trek I phlox about. They're the toys. Some people collect models, action figures and autographs. Some people write fanfiction (erotic, traditional, alternate and extended universes) make fanfilms and audio dramas. Some people like to tweak Trek into their own thing. I should know – I'm one of them!

But Abrams wasn't creating a fan movie. He was supposed to be creating REAL Star Trek. And I feel like what we got was a watered down action flick with an Uhura that wasn't so much a part of the team as she was an object to be ogled. The Trek heart wasn't even beating in that film.

Although - when Uhura was stripping, I'm sure a few other things were beating.

OH!!! Okay! Okay! Rant over.