I posted that Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczynski has given advice to Paramount about how to save the Star Trek universe. I have no idea what he said to them, but that together with all the time travel postings has got me thinking about what I think are the three biggest problems in the Star Trek universe. This has nothing to do with writing, character development, plots, acting, or anything someone evaluating a TV show or movie is likely to question. This is purely about the Star Trek universe itself, which will have serious continuity problems unless they can deal with these three issues.
Fun/Entertainment: June 2004 Archives
Um, shouldn't that be 'trekker'?
Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczynski has written up his plan to save the Star Trek franchise. When I saw this on the mailing list of everything he posts to newsgroups, I was incredibly surprised. He never wanted to have anything to do with Star Trek. Apparently they asked him to take over Enterprise, and he refused but was willing to tell them how to improve their franchise with a plan for a new show. I'd love to see such a show, even if he wouldn't be willing to produce it himself. I consider Babylon 5 to be the best TV show ever, not just the best scifi show ever. His followup Crusade was canceled before it ever aired, and they only made 13 episodes, but what they produced together with the scripts released on the internet that were never filmed gave a sign that it would be equally good.
A fine, amiable and dreamy young man, skilled in horsemanship and archery, you were also from a long line of dribbling madmen. King at 12 and quickly married to your sweetheart, Bavarian Princess Isabeau, you enjoyed many happy months together before either of you could speak anything of the other's language. However, after illness you became a tad unstable. When a raving lunatic ran up to your entourage spouting an incoherent prophecy of doom, you were unsettled enough to slaughter four of your best men when a page dropped a lance. Your hair and nails fell out. At a royal masquerade, you and your courtiers dressed as wild men, ending in tragedy when four of them accidentally caught fire and burned to death. You were saved by the timely intervention of the Duchess of Berry's underskirts.
This brought on another bout of sickness, which surgeons countered by drilling holes in your skull. The following months saw you suffer an exorcism, beg your friends to kill you, go into hyperactive fits of gaiety, run through your rooms to the point of exhaustion, hide from imaginary assassins, claim your name was Georges, deny that you were King and fail to recognise your family. You smashed furniture and wet yourself at regular intervals. Passing briefly into erratic genius, you believed yourself to be made of glass and demanded iron rods in your attire to prevent you breaking.
In 1405 you stopped bathing, shaving or changing your clothes. This went on until several men were hired to blacken their faces, hide, jump out and shout "boo!", upon which you resumed basic hygiene. Despite this, your wife continued sleeping with you until 1407, when she hired a young beauty, Odette de Champdivers, to take her place. Isabeau then consoled herself, as it were, with your brother. Her lovers followed thick and fast while you became a pawn of your court, until you had her latest beau strangled and drowned.
A severe fever was fended off with oranges and pomegranates in vast quantities, but you succumbed again in 1422 and died. Your disease was most likely hereditary. Unfortunately, you had anywhere up to eleven children, who variously went on to develop capriciousness, great cruelty, insecurity, paranoia, revulsion towards food and, in one case, a phobia of bridges.
The second time I found this, it was at Jollyblogger. I took this test a couple months ago and got someone entirely different (the self-declared emperor of the United States). Somehow I lost it before I could post the results.
Gimli Gloin's son
If I were a character in The Lord of the Rings, I would be Gimli, Dwarf, handy with an axe when orcs are about.
In the movie, I am played by John Rhys-Davies.
If I were a character in The Return of the King, I would be Treebeard, an Ent and one of the last of the shepherds of trees.
In the movie, I am played by Joyn Rhys-Davies.
The only things I can think of that these two have in common are:
1. They both have beards.
2. They're both ents, except for Gimli.
3. They're both played by John Rhys-Davies, the one cast member who has his political head on straight (at least out of the ones talking about politics).
I found one of these at Jollyblogger, and the other was listed at it.
From The Holy Observer, Tru Dawgma, theological hip-hop. Of course, Tourniquet really did do something like this. They're a Christian prog metal/thrash group who frequently use technical medical jargon as metaphors for theological and moral issues. See Psycho Surgery and Pathogenic Ocular Dissonance. Then there's also the theologically rich Harlot Widow and the Virgin Bride complete with a heavily distorted power chord wedding march with guitars tuned down a step and a half. You need a pretty good education just to figure out what they're talking about. I'm not sure even that will help a lot with Tru Dawgma, though. Check out the lyrics.
Here's some more stuff I've been catching up on from the weekend away:
Poliblogger links to a story about three washed-up action hero actors playing three washed-up action hero actors who open up a private investigtor firm. The actors? William Shatner, Robert Wagner, and Lee Majors. I'd watch that.
King of Fools points out that John Kerry is now advocating unilateral engagement with North Korea. He's also got a good post on lust and objectification that picks up on themes I blogged about recently.
Rebecca Writes gives some helpful reflections on the moral implications of Philippians 2:1-8, including just what it is about Jesus' giving of himself that Paul is telling the Philippians to imitate. This post got a mention on Blogs4God.
I would have thought my brain was gray, but there is interesting information here. There's something right about this and something distressingly wrong. It's the same sort of thing that often causes more simplistic personality tests to put me in the wrong category because my interests are more similar to those with a personality almost opposite mine, but I approach those interests very differently. So I'll use this opportunity to write a little bit about personality tests and why they often fail to describe me well.