I have spent the last hour or so trying to figure out which character I am from various shows/series. Let's just say, it produced interesting results.
Star Trek Your results: You are An Expendable Character (Redshirt)
An Expendable Character (Redshirt)
70%
Deanna Troi
55%
Spock
52%
Chekov
45%
James T. Kirk (Captain)
45%
Geordi LaForge
40%
Jean-Luc Picard
40%
Mr. Scott
30%
Worf
30%
Data
27%
Uhura
25%
Will Riker
25%
Leonard McCoy (Bones)
20%
Beverly Crusher
15%
Mr. Sulu
5%
Since your accomplishments are seldom noticed, and you are rarely thought of, you are expendable. That doesn't mean your job isn't important but if you were in Star Trek you would be killed off in the first episode you appeared in.
Just thought I'd post some pics of Ally that no one has seen. She's growing into a beautiful young dog! She pictures so well and Maggie and I have seriously considered if we should try to submit pictures of her to see if they can be published or put on dog food or something. Who knows? It could work!
We've just recently began to notice something in Ally's behavior. Whenever I come over to Maggie's, Ally also gets so excited to see me, jumping up and down, back and forth, onto me, onto Maggie, just smiling away! Maggie says that while Ally is excited to see her, she never gets that excited. But then last night, I got back to Maggie's house before she did and so when I went in, Ally was excited to see me, but not as excited as she normally is. But the moment Maggie got home, Ally broke out into this huge ball of excitement! We've come to realize that Ally is always excited to see us, but she is more excited to see us when we're together! It's as though she's shouting out, "We're all here together!"
I think it's so wonderful how Ally is excited when she's with both Maggie and me!
Before today, I have made 30 posts since starting this blog almost a year ago, 31 if you count today's post. Of those prior 30, five have been in regards to Star Trek, and three of those have been about the upcoming movie due to hit theaters May 8th (see local listings for showtimes). Make this post 31, six about Star Trek, and four about the movie!
As anyone can tell, I am quite excited about the upcoming movie. After the letdown that was 2002's Star Trek: Nemesis (good in concept, so-so in execution) and the huge disappointment that was Star Trek: Enterprise (canceled after only four seasons on TV), I was beginning to wonder whether or not Star Trek could be truly great again.
When it was announced in mid-2006 that J.J. Abrams (the genius behind Alias, Lost and the director of the recent Mission: Impossible movie) would be producing and subsequently directing, there was a glimmer of hope. Along with him he brought Alex Kurtzman and Robert Orci, writers from his previous projects and the ones who also scrippted M:i:III. Abrams' team consisted of a good mix of longtime Trek fans, casual Trek fans, and people who didn't know a whole lot about it. This meant insight from people who not only knew what Trek fans liked, but also who would know what it would take for Star Trek to appeal to the casual moviegoer.
Star Trek has spent too much time being the "poor Sci-Fi cousin" (so-to-speak) of Star Wars. With seven trips to the big screen (I unfortunately include the dreaded animated flick from last summer), Star Wars has made roughyl $1.9 billion in box office receipts! Its highest grossing movie was 1999's Episode I: The Phantom Menace, which brought in $431.1 million! Each of Star Wars' installments has had an average income of $274.0 million in the box office!
And Star Trek? The franchise has taken ten trips to the silver screen since 1979's Star Trek: The Motion Picture, with a grand total of $755.6 million in box office totals. Trek's most successful film was 1986's Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (the one with the whales, for those who aren't completely familiar with the franchise) which brought in $109.7 million, and remains to-date the first and only Star Trek movie to bring in over $100 million in the box office. The closest any other film came was 1996's First Contact (the one with the time traveling Borg) and that reached $92 million. The average Star Trek film has made $75.6 million.
The last figures for the new Star Trek (no subtitle) movie placed the budget somewhere near $130 million, and that doesn't include the big marketing plan Paramount is putting behind this movie. Paramount must like what they see if they put this much money behind it. Then again, I remember hearing great things about the last flick and look where that ended up: Number 2 opening weekend ($18.5 million) behind a Jennifer Lopez romantic comedy and a box office intake of $43.3 million.
What's the difference?
Star Trek has been Paramount's "golden cow", so to speak. It's been around since 1966, one of the longest running film and television franchises there is. Paramount can't allow it to die, what franchise does that leave them? So in an attempt to jump-start the franchise, J.J. Abrams was called upon and the decision was made to go back to the beginning. Star Trek is the origin story of Kirk and Spock and how they came to be aboard the Enterprise. Paramount is banking on the success of recent origin story/reboots like Batman Begins and Casino Royale to be duplicated with Star Trek.
It's an awfully big risk to take, because if you look for people who played Batman before Christian Bale, you'll find Adam West, Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer and George Clooney. If you look for people who played James Bond before Daniel Craig, you'll discover Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan. If you look at who played James Kirk before Chris Pine, you'll discover William Shatner.
That's a big difference. This is the first time in the 43-year history of the Star Trek franchise that the original characters have been recast. Star Trek fans are well-known for being extremely touchy, sensitive and very picky about their Star Trek. Why do you think the franchise has lost so much of its fanbase over the last 15 years? Because it became fragmented because you had those who preferred the original series, TNG, DS9, Voyager or Enterprise. There are fans who loved DS9 but hate Voyager, and vice-versa. There are fans who love Enterprise but hate the original series. There are fans of the original series who want this movie to fail because William Shatner's not playing Captain Kirk!
J.J. Abrams and Paramount Pictures are taking a huge risk in taking the franchise in this direction. To be honest, I don't care who plays Jim Kirk as long as they are convincing and don't make me pine (pardon the pun) for the days of Shatner as Kirk. In an attempt to try to link this new vision of Star Trek to the original, Leonard Nimoy returns as an older version of Spock. And if Leonard Nimoy's involved (remember he walked away from doing Star Trek: Generations because the script wasn't good enough) then there must be promise, right?
My big question is, what does Star Trek need to not only be fresh and original again, but to also be appealing enough to be successful?
Paramount has kicked their marketing campaign into full drive, because I have read a remarkable story about the "premiere" of the movie.
According to TrekMovie.com, tonight fans in Austin, TX were actually shown the entire new Star Trek movie instead of The Wrath of Khan and a 10 minute preview of new footage (a secret US premiere hours ahead of the gala world premiere in Sydney, Australia).
Two minutes in to the showing of Star Trek II, the film appeared to have ‘melted' and Star Trek star Leonard Nimoy came out in front of the audience holding a film can.
Nimoy asked them "wouldn't you rather see the new movie?" And apparently the crowd went wild. Nimoy stayed for the entire screening as did Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof.
The full report (including photos of the event and various reviews) can be found at TrekMovie.
Talk about a surprise! And reviews are starting to come out as well!
From the Hollywood Reporter:
Putting a much-loved but over-the-hill vehicle back in shape takes more than a new battery and a lick of paint. It demands a full-bore refit, and that's exactly what J.J. Abrams has given "Star Trek."
Paced at warp speed with spectacular action sequences rendered brilliantly and with a cast so expert that all the familiar characters are instantly identifiable, the film gives Paramount Pictures a new lease of life on its franchise.
Remakes, reboots, reimaginings - whatever you want to call return visits to oft-explored franchise, JJ Abrams' take on Star Trek is hardly a journey into the final frontier. Yet in handing the Lost creator the reins to overhaul a landmark, 40-year-old TV series with ten film spin-offs, Paramount Studios have not just kicked off an inevitably lucrative new movie saga, but also managed to give a much-parodied source new life and devotees. Abrams has more than proved his dramatic and comedic credentials in the likes of Felicity, Alias and - before it went a bit mad - Lost and revealed a surprising talent for action direction in 2006's Mission: Impossible III but in Star Trek, he is now confirmed as the one of the most talented filmmakers of his generation. The pulse-raising, balls-to-the-wall action filmmaking on show here shows he is able to breathe new life into a potentially stagnant source, to find humanity in a profoundly absurd situation and to satisfy the fanboys while attracting new converts.
Abrams's version of Gene Roddenberry's idealistic space western isn't perfect. But it is confident, clever and above all spectacular enough to please die-hard fans and newcomers alike.
Just when you thought that the Star Trek phenomenon had truly run its course, along comes J. J. Abrams's stunning prequel to resuscitate the most enduring franchise in sci-fi history. The past five decades have produced five television series and ten films - not all of them successful - so veteran Trekkers had no right to expect such a dazzling and beautiful rebirth.
Star Trek is a decent film that does exactly what it says on the tin. It's big, flashy and action packed with impressive special effects. Kids will enjoy it and the snappy dialogue provides enough laughs for mum and dad.
J.J. Abrams had come up with a tremendous idea, inspired no doubt by the success of Batman Begins and Casino Royale, both of which had reinvigorated tired franchises by recasting and going back to basics.
The result is not only by far the best of the 11 Star Trek movies, it must rank as the outstanding prequel of all time.
So far every review is gushing positive about this movie. For a fan who was worried about whether this would be good (after all, the same writers behind this script wrote 2007's Transformers, a movie I really didn't like), this is excellent news. And considering I've read multiple reviews stating how this movie is what the Star Wars prequels should've been, that's saying something!
But will it be enough? In order to be a success, Star Trek not only needs that big opening weekend, it's going to need staying power, and it's going to have some stiff competition this summer.
May 1: X-Men Origins: Wolverine May 15: Angels & Demons May 21: Terminator: Salvation May 22: Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian June 24: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen July 1: Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs July 15: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince Aug. 7: G.I. Joe
And somewhere in there is Pixar's latest, Up.
So despite the nothing-but-good reviews Star Trek is getting, will it be enough to be a success and keep the franchise alive?
Just a quick aside, Paramount commissioned a script for a sequel two weeks ago, so I guess they're banking on big success, but only time will tell. Opening weekend is still two weeks away.
I know it's been a while since I last posted, so I thought I'd share this video that I found online this morning. I actually first saw it a few years ago and didn't rediscover it until now! Enjoy!
While watching the Super Bowl the other night (and it was a very exciting 4th quarter, I might add), this commercial aired. Of course, everyone knows that I probably cannot help but post it online for all to see!
Any posts I would've made concerning this week's inauguration and my thoughts and feelings on now-President Barack Obama have unfortunately been delayed due to a really bad stomach flu that hit me mid-week. I hope to be able to share my thoughts and feelings soon.
In the meantime, I'm a big fan of Jon Stewart and The Daily Show and his ability to point out the obvious in such a humorous, yet honest way. Everyone knows that CNN is probably the most ridiculous cable news network when it comes to new "methods" of hi-tech news wizardry. MSNBC is very left-wing and pro-Obama, and Fox News is the complete opposite of MSNBC in that it is so far right-wing...well, let's just say this video speaks for itself.
It's not often, especially today, to get a moment like this; five (well, four plus the incoming) living Presidents all in one room together. At a time where this country needs leadership, it's nice to know that whether you're Democrat or Republican and whether or not the incoming guy is not of your party, that there are people willing enough to stand together to say that they want a better future for our country.
I have been alive through four Presidential transitions (Reagan/Bush, Bush/Clinton, Clinton/Bush, Bush/Obama) and I can really only remember the last two. I must say that I am quite impressed with the way that this transition has been handled. It's nice to see that President Bush is doing what he can to help make a smooth and successful transition for Barack Obama into the Oval Office. I think that says a lot about the kind of man that Bush is. Whether or not you think he's a good leader or a good President, it does seem like he is a man of character.
I also think that it says a lot about Obama's character and his willingness to look to his predecessors for tips on how to run the White House. Obama could've come in and tried to learn things as he went, but instead he has not only turned to both Bush and Clinton, but also George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter to get their perspectives on life in the White House and how to effectively run the country. It's really encouraging to see someone who is open-minded in the White House, especially during such trying times.
Okay, it's official! It is now absolutely ridiculous how much attention this guy gets. I once again speak of the "political celebrity" Joe the Plumber. His latest headline news maker is that he is headed to the Middle East. That's right! Joe the Plumber's going to the Middle East, and his trip his making headlines on CNN!
He is going to be a news correspondent for pjtv.com to cover the Israeli perspective of the violence in Gaza. And according to him, it's "tragic, I mean it really is...I don't say that in any little way." And according to Joe's publicist, the Israelis are "very excited" to have him coming!
Can someone stick a fork in this guy's "celebrity" and be done with it! Let's just move on already! What's with the media and this obscure obsession with every little thing that is done by Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin? Has anyone else noticed that John McCain has been in the headlines maybe once or twice since the election? Let's take a break from election-related coverage and focus on some actually news!
Based upon the 1995 novel by Bernhard Schlink, The Reader is the story of a young German teen, Michael Berg (David Kross), who falls in love with an older woman, Hanna Schmitz (Kate Winslet). After a passionate affair, the two break-up and go their separate ways, but the affect that the two have on each other changes their lives forever. A few years later, while attending a Nazi war crimes trial with his law school class, Michael discovers that Hanna is one of the defendants. Through the course of the trial, Michael realizes a secret that Hanna has held all her life and will go to any length to protect, even if it costs her life.
The premise of The Reader is very promising. It makes one wonder how they would feel if they learned that someone they loved was on trial for the atrocities Hanna is accused of, and how anyone would go to such lengths to keep a secret about themselves even if it meant the difference between guilt and innocence. Unfortunately the execution does not follow through.
While the performances of Kate Winslet (always reliable) and young David Kross are quite good, they're not enough to rescue the story. The pacing is slow and the first half hour in which the initial affair takes place is slow and very repetitive to the point where you begin to lose interest. While it picks up once Hanna is revealed as a former Nazi, it still moves quite slow. The story is told in flashback, jumping back and forth between past events and scenes depicting an older Michael's guilt, as portrayed by Ralph Fiennes. Whether this is how it was scripted or was edited to keep Fiennes in throughout the picture, the film might have been better had they allowed the story to be told completely in order instead of the frequent jumps back and forth. Unfortunately, Fiennes' performance is rather bland and average, leaving one to wonder if they would've been better off casting another less-known actor for the part.
The premise is good, but the direction and editing come across as forced, given the impression that the filmmakers knew they had a strong concept that could be a major awards winner if done right. Unfortunately, it tries too hard to be good. It feels too aware of itself and the power behind the story, and unfortunately the big emotional payoff that you know is coming at the end simply falls flat. Instead of allowing the story to be itself and to allow the emotion to fall into place, too much effort is put into trying to make it a powerful tear-jerker. When the climax is finally reached, the movie's run out of gas.
As mentioned before, the pacing is long and slow and unforunately it leads to the movie feeling long and drawn-out. Even just over 2 hours, The Reader feels a lot longer. I found myself checking my watch frequently after the hour mark!
Even though there are strong performances from Winslet and Kross, it's not enough to keep one interested in a movie that feels like it knows it has a strong premise but just wants to force the emotion into our face.
