Good morning, gentle readers, and welcome to 'On This Day In Science Fiction History' for March 28, 2024.
How's your Thursday shaping up for you?
Aaaaaaah. Mine. Well, I had a rough night. Not difficult, per se, just ... rough. Have you ever had one of those nights where you just couldn't sleep? That was mine. I'd fall asleep for maybe about an hour at a clip; and then I'd wake up and be entirely unable to go back to slumberland for about two hours. Happened all damn night. Geesh. I'm kinda dragging this morning -- I did sleep in a bit in order to try to preserve a bit of strength -- but you know how that goes. Like I said, I'm dragging, but I give you my word that I'll make do.
Sigh.
What else have I got?
Well, I wandered into a bit of controversy overnight -- since I was up -- reading a good deal about the current state of affairs for the Star Trek franchise. (My two cents: it's deep in the crapper, my friends, and it isn't likely to flush any time soon.) Don't get me wrong: I'll always support anyone's right to like, say, Star Trek: Discovery, Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (which I occasionally find interesting), or Star Trek: Lower Decks ... but really? Meh. It just isn't Star Trek to me. Again: if you like it? That's all well and good. More power to you. I'm glad it tickles your fancy. It's just so horribly written (from what I've seen) that I just can't get into it on any major level. I've even tried dabbling in reviews for Strange New Worlds, but when I find myself reading some negative points after negative points over and over, I tend to pull out. I just don't want to expend significant effort on inferior episodes, so it is VERY challenging for me. I'll keep trying -- from time-to-time -- but don't look for much on that front any time soon.
I don't know that Gene Roddenberry would be rolling over in his grave. The truth is Gene was a flawed person -- flawed at least as much as you and I -- but I do recall an article suggesting that as The Next Generation went further into its run he became more and more concerned with its themes and tone. I've always thought Gene preferred stories that capitalized on 'the human experience,' but so much of what is Trek these days is closer to vanity messaging of its writing crew. There's nothing wrong with approaching life and entertainment from the point of view of trumpeting whatever 'cause du jour' you like, but when it infects everything on screen? Well, there's something to be said for nuance; and let's just leave it at "these writers couldn't find nuance if they fell out of a boat."
But again -- last time, even -- if you like it? Fine by me. Enjoy it until the cows come home.
Recently, there was a good deal of chitchat about Warner Bros. trying to purchase Paramount. When that fell apart, there came a rumor about the studio suits then offering to simply purchase the Star Trek property for their own. Yes, I watched some online blogs speculating how this could've been a grand development in the history of the franchise, but I don't know. Someone did reach out and ask me my thoughts on it; and I pointed out that the WB hasn't exactly done great things with DC Studios, so ... ? How am I to think they'd do any better than Paramount has done? There was further speculation that the WB's intent was to kinda/sorta reset the Trek timeline back to what it was before JJ Abrams, Bad Robot, and Secret Hideout pretty much threw dynamite into the whole shebang; and while that might've been nice I can't what a firestorm they would've released from the LGBTQ+ crowd given that they've now claimed ownership over the Roddenberry kingdom. It wouldn't have been pretty, and maybe things are -- cough cough -- better for the time being.
No. I didn't think the WB was going to make that deal then, and I don't think they're going to get it done now. I just don't see any real financial advantage to Paramount there: once the cash is paid, there's zero to be gained, and that's not typically how business moves forward.
Trek -- like Star Wars -- is largely dead, Jim. I really don't see that changing any time soon.
How's your Thursday shaping up for you?
Aaaaaaah. Mine. Well, I had a rough night. Not difficult, per se, just ... rough. Have you ever had one of those nights where you just couldn't sleep? That was mine. I'd fall asleep for maybe about an hour at a clip; and then I'd wake up and be entirely unable to go back to slumberland for about two hours. Happened all damn night. Geesh. I'm kinda dragging this morning -- I did sleep in a bit in order to try to preserve a bit of strength -- but you know how that goes. Like I said, I'm dragging, but I give you my word that I'll make do.
Sigh.
What else have I got?
Well, I wandered into a bit of controversy overnight -- since I was up -- reading a good deal about the current state of affairs for the Star Trek franchise. (My two cents: it's deep in the crapper, my friends, and it isn't likely to flush any time soon.) Don't get me wrong: I'll always support anyone's right to like, say, Star Trek: Discovery, Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (which I occasionally find interesting), or Star Trek: Lower Decks ... but really? Meh. It just isn't Star Trek to me. Again: if you like it? That's all well and good. More power to you. I'm glad it tickles your fancy. It's just so horribly written (from what I've seen) that I just can't get into it on any major level. I've even tried dabbling in reviews for Strange New Worlds, but when I find myself reading some negative points after negative points over and over, I tend to pull out. I just don't want to expend significant effort on inferior episodes, so it is VERY challenging for me. I'll keep trying -- from time-to-time -- but don't look for much on that front any time soon.
I don't know that Gene Roddenberry would be rolling over in his grave. The truth is Gene was a flawed person -- flawed at least as much as you and I -- but I do recall an article suggesting that as The Next Generation went further into its run he became more and more concerned with its themes and tone. I've always thought Gene preferred stories that capitalized on 'the human experience,' but so much of what is Trek these days is closer to vanity messaging of its writing crew. There's nothing wrong with approaching life and entertainment from the point of view of trumpeting whatever 'cause du jour' you like, but when it infects everything on screen? Well, there's something to be said for nuance; and let's just leave it at "these writers couldn't find nuance if they fell out of a boat."
But again -- last time, even -- if you like it? Fine by me. Enjoy it until the cows come home.
Recently, there was a good deal of chitchat about Warner Bros. trying to purchase Paramount. When that fell apart, there came a rumor about the studio suits then offering to simply purchase the Star Trek property for their own. Yes, I watched some online blogs speculating how this could've been a grand development in the history of the franchise, but I don't know. Someone did reach out and ask me my thoughts on it; and I pointed out that the WB hasn't exactly done great things with DC Studios, so ... ? How am I to think they'd do any better than Paramount has done? There was further speculation that the WB's intent was to kinda/sorta reset the Trek timeline back to what it was before JJ Abrams, Bad Robot, and Secret Hideout pretty much threw dynamite into the whole shebang; and while that might've been nice I can't what a firestorm they would've released from the LGBTQ+ crowd given that they've now claimed ownership over the Roddenberry kingdom. It wouldn't have been pretty, and maybe things are -- cough cough -- better for the time being.
No. I didn't think the WB was going to make that deal then, and I don't think they're going to get it done now. I just don't see any real financial advantage to Paramount there: once the cash is paid, there's zero to be gained, and that's not typically how business moves forward.
Trek -- like Star Wars -- is largely dead, Jim. I really don't see that changing any time soon.
Why ... I think it was just the other day that I was pontificating about the very best that Star Trek has had to offer in its nearly 60 years of existence.
I know, I know, I know. Every reader knows that I avoid doing lists. As I said then, I'll repeat it now: there's culturally very little gained from such an exercise. It's completely arbitrary, and -- while some might think they're founded on logic -- I just don't see it that way. What I do champion are installments of any television show that deserve a bit of extra attention -- ones that demonstrate what I personally believe it good storytelling -- and that's why I'm mentioning Star Trek: The Next Generation's 1992 outing, "The First Duty." It premiered (in TV syndication) on this day back then.
Though I'm also on record stating that the character of Wesley Crusher is one of the least interesting creations in all of Trek, that doesn't mean writers didn't occasionally make solid use of him; and I think "The First Duty" qualifies here. The premise is that a group of cadets exercised their own judgment in a Starfleet Academy celebration that, unfortunately, resulted in the death of one of their own. The script goes back and forth with whether or not those involved are willing to acknowledge their own failures in the mishap or if they'll cover it all up when given the chance. Naturally -- since Crusher was enrolled at the Academy at the time and was part of the incident -- the former shipmate gets a lot of screen time in the episode.
Unlike some adventures of The Next Generation, this one largely functions much like classic Trek in that it presents a dilemma that a closeknit group must come to terms with. Of course, not everyone agrees with the final solution; but that's the stuff of good television drama. This is a terrific hour of entertainment -- one that boasts solid performances within the context of the morality play -- and kudos to all involved for pulling it off.
I know, I know, I know. Every reader knows that I avoid doing lists. As I said then, I'll repeat it now: there's culturally very little gained from such an exercise. It's completely arbitrary, and -- while some might think they're founded on logic -- I just don't see it that way. What I do champion are installments of any television show that deserve a bit of extra attention -- ones that demonstrate what I personally believe it good storytelling -- and that's why I'm mentioning Star Trek: The Next Generation's 1992 outing, "The First Duty." It premiered (in TV syndication) on this day back then.
Though I'm also on record stating that the character of Wesley Crusher is one of the least interesting creations in all of Trek, that doesn't mean writers didn't occasionally make solid use of him; and I think "The First Duty" qualifies here. The premise is that a group of cadets exercised their own judgment in a Starfleet Academy celebration that, unfortunately, resulted in the death of one of their own. The script goes back and forth with whether or not those involved are willing to acknowledge their own failures in the mishap or if they'll cover it all up when given the chance. Naturally -- since Crusher was enrolled at the Academy at the time and was part of the incident -- the former shipmate gets a lot of screen time in the episode.
Unlike some adventures of The Next Generation, this one largely functions much like classic Trek in that it presents a dilemma that a closeknit group must come to terms with. Of course, not everyone agrees with the final solution; but that's the stuff of good television drama. This is a terrific hour of entertainment -- one that boasts solid performances within the context of the morality play -- and kudos to all involved for pulling it off.
Wow. The truth of the matter for me is that I honestly don't think Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds -- which first released on this day all the way back in 1963 -- is a great film. Mind you: I think it's a great Horror film, but as for the story? Meh. It's kinda/sorta middling. I prefer stories that definitively provide answers -- not suggestions or possible theories -- as I don't like to have to come up with conclusions all of my own. With its ending as is, I think viewers are encouraged to kinda/sorta "fill in the blanks" all on their own, and I'm just not a fan of that.
I've read commentary from other sites and critics that suggest it's the director's best film; and -- gasp -- I certainly wouldn't agree with that. Yes, I think it's probably one of his most relatable and most effective crowd-pleasing features, but that doesn't necessarily make it a favorite much less better than Hitchcock's other works. But because it's well-made and functions like a great carnival attraction (once it gets in gear), The Birds benefits from that audience goodwill over the years, so I'm comfy leaving the topic at that. Plus, I think it made me fall in love with Tippi Hedren -- one of the screen's loveliest faces, so far as I'm concerned -- so that's a plus.
I've read commentary from other sites and critics that suggest it's the director's best film; and -- gasp -- I certainly wouldn't agree with that. Yes, I think it's probably one of his most relatable and most effective crowd-pleasing features, but that doesn't necessarily make it a favorite much less better than Hitchcock's other works. But because it's well-made and functions like a great carnival attraction (once it gets in gear), The Birds benefits from that audience goodwill over the years, so I'm comfy leaving the topic at that. Plus, I think it made me fall in love with Tippi Hedren -- one of the screen's loveliest faces, so far as I'm concerned -- so that's a plus.
But ... did you see that headline? 66 genre trivia citations? I mean ... 66 GENRE TRIVIA CITATIONS! Wow. That gives you plenty to consider as you head on over to the Daily Citation Page for March 28 and check out the good and gory details for your own pleasure.
As always, thank you for reading ... thank you for sharing ... thank you for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
RSS Feed