Month: May 2005

Basically, the last episode of “Star Trek” consists of a guy in a Starfleet outfit sitting around watching a rerun of “Star Trek,” and even creating his own fanfic by writing himself into the story and making himself a wise, wonderfully intelligent individual who all the crewmembers unburden themselves to.

Not exactly the way *I* would have gone for a last episode, although it can certainly be considered a final commentary on Trek fandom. Then again, my ideal episode would have involved Sam Beckett leaping out of the body of Jonathan Archer and to his next adventure, so…

My assumption is that there were various Trek personnel sitting in the cheap seats at the end. Anyone have a tally of who was there?

PAD

A new magazine called “Radar” is working on beating drums for itself by running an article that profiles how college students working for Disney party hardy in their dorms after hours, blowing off steam after a long day of steaming inside their hot Mickey and Minnie costumes.

I will be making sure to avoid this magazine.

I mean, how in the world does this qualify as news? College students are horny and act on their impulses in seclusion after hours. This is NEWS? This rates an article ANYWHERE, much less in the New York Daily News and CBS Evening news?

First off, the fact that Disney employees blow off steam after hours is something I found out twenty years ago, when someone slipped me a brilliantly satirical video filmed on the fly in the Park tunnels after hours. Called “Captain Eeyore,” it was a shot-for-shot parody of “Captain EO” except featuring Disney costumed characters. You have not lived until you’ve seen Eeyore moonwalking. So a new concept this is not.

So we’ve got over-18 Park employees, on their own time, in the privacy of their secluded dorm, doing whatever the hëll they want, and it doesn’t impact on their interaction with tourists during the day. So flipping what? The author of the magazine claims that there are “legends” of character actors mixing with the public while still stoned or hungover. Okay. “Legends.” Trot out the proof that it’s ever happened, and/or that it’s a pervasive problem, or shut the hëll up.

Understand, I don’t view Disney through rose-colored Mickey glasses. I’m busy reading “Disney War.” I have no illusions. But this…this is just crap journalism. It’s sensationalistic twaddle, and the NY Daily News (which, by the way, cops to the fact that its chairman and publisher is co-chairman of “Radar”) and any other news venue which picks this up should be ashamed of themselves.

PAD

Rachel Weisz. That’s who I’d like to see playing Diana.

She’s got the acting chops, she’s a hard body (as anyone who saw her in “The Mummy Returns” will attest) and she’s got a knack for carrying herself well in crazy movie situations that would serve her well in the role.

Is she especially tall? Not at 5′ 7″. But anyone who thinks that’s a major problem simply doesn’t have a clue as to “movie magic.” Camera angles, apple boxes, trenches, stunt doubles…guys, if the six-foot-plus Hugh Jackman could play that runt, Wolverine, and Peter Jackson could knock about two feet of height off John Rhys-Davies, I don’t think it’s that much of a trick to add four inches of height to an actress.

Plus I think she’d look good visually with Lynda Carter as her mom.

So that’s my vote.

PAD

Curiously, I find a question so burning that it consumed the cover of “Wizard” holds no curiosity for me at all. I absolutely don’t care who plays Wonder Woman in the scheduled Joss Whedon film…

…as long as Lynda Carter plays Hippolyta.

Seriously. If they cast her as Diana’s mom, then I’ll take whoever handles the title role in stride.

PAD

Tony nominations are out, and “Spamalot” did extremely well. But horrifically missing from the nominations (including acting noms for Tim Curry as Arthur and Hank Azaria as Lancelot) was David Hyde-Pierce as Sir Robin.

I have to wonder what the hëll goes on with the New York theater community and the cast of “Frasier.” When Kelsey Grammer trod the boards in the Scottish play, he was lacerated by critics. We attended a quarter filled house during his truncated run, and he was great. A quality performance, wholly unacknowledged by anyone “in the know.” Now his TV kid brother, while not getting negative reviews at least, is ignored while his co-stars bask in the Tony limelight. I’m almost wondering if–and I hate to say it–there were individuals in the decision-making process who were (best Queen Victoria voice here) “not amused” by Hyde-Pierce’s major solo number (Azaria, though he sang a bit and was the focus of one particular large number, really didn’t have anything comparable to Hyde-Pierce’s showcase). The name of Sir Robin’s song? “You Need a Jew,” a hilarious ditty explaining why it’s impossible to succeed on Broadway unless you have Jews in the show. It was hysterical, with laceratingly funny lyrics and choreography that culminated in a send-up of “Fiddler’s” bottle dance with Sir Robin and company balancing grails on their heads. Now I’m wondering if the political uncorrectness of the song cost Hyde-Pierce a deserved nomination.

PAD

Orson Scott Card recently heaped some abuse on “Star Trek” in the LA Times, vigorously trashing everything about original “Star Trek,” although generously conceding:

“The later spinoffs were much better performed, but the content continued to be stuck in Roddenberry’s rut. So why did the Trekkies throw themselves into this poorly imagined, weakly written, badly acted television series with such commitment and dedication? Why did it last so long?”

Well, I can answer that: They, and I, did NOT see it as poorly imagined, weakly written, or badly acted. Opinions are merely opinions, and not absolutes. That, and the growth of “Trek” conventions made it more than a canceled TV show, but instead a solid socialization experience for many people–including me–who had no social life to speak of.

“Here’s what I think: Most people weren’t reading all that brilliant science fiction. Most people weren’t reading at all. So when they saw “Star Trek,” primitive as it was, it was their first glimpse of science fiction. It was grade school for those who had let the whole science fiction revolution pass them by.”

I wouldn’t disagree. But that’s not the point. Rather than gleefully heaping dirt on Trek’s ostensible grave, as Card does, he might stop to consider that a considerable number of those “grade school” fans went on to high school and college. The first time I saw the name “Harlan Ellison” was on the credits of “City.” Granted, the aired version didn’t represent his vision. Didn’t matter. It led me like an arrow to other works of his that most certainly DID represent his vision. Nor was I alone in that respect. I was already reading SF when “Trek” came along, but others weren’t, and “Trek” created a new wave of SF fans whose interest spread from “Trek” to Ellison, Asimov, Clarke, Bradbury, Gerrold, and even some guy named Card.

To say nothing of the fact that “Trek” fandom had a huge female population (no, not a population of huge females, although yeah, there was a bit of that.). Maggie Thompson recounted how she was at a WorldCon where a roomful of fans were bìŧçhìņg about this influx of *yuckickypoo* Trek fans to their beloved WorldCon. And Maggie pointed out, “Guys? You’ve been crabbing for years how there’s hardly any women attending these conventions. Look around the room; I’m the only female here. Have ANY of you noticed that the vast majority of the Trek fans are female?” The guys looked at each other; they hadn’t noticed, because they’d been so busy excoriating the TV show that brought them there.

“Trek” got me into conventions, and I met both my wives at conventions (at different times). Four kids were the cumulative result, all of whom have attended conventions. “Star Trek,” if NOTHING else, may well be the single greatest contributor to the perpetuation of SF fandom in general.

So, Mr. Card…how about a little gøddámņ respect, okay?

PAD

The last issue…for the moment. Whad’ja think?

PAD