Captain's Log: Khan-founded

Work on the script for the next Star Trek JJA movie begins soon, and the JJA folks say they are considering re-telling stories told in the Roddenberry universe, including revisiting Khan, but with different results.

Really? Apart from returning to a demented villain bent on revenge because his wife was killed (which they already did in Star Trek JJA), it seems retarded to me. Do they really want to make a movie that requires so many "re" words to report on?

It certainly would fit in well with current Hollywood orthodoxy. Just about all major movies--including, and maybe even especially, science fiction movies--are sequels, reboots or derived from TV shows, comics and blockbuster books. They come pre-branded and pre-sold, and even with an established core fan base. It's a small step from appropriating the iconic characters and universe to absorbing and tweaking old stories. Reboots of Spiderman and Batman revisit old villains, sometimes repeatedly. And it's so po-mo and hip, when even Jane Austen has generated stories that cannabalize hers, even overtly mocking the author's writing while sucking its blood.

But Star Trek didn't start out as Hollywood orthodoxy. It was about discovering new worlds. Whatever happened to "to boldly go"? Sure, new stories are risky, but a certain starship captain once asserted that "risk is our business." Even when it failed in other respects, Star Trek persistently tried to explore new worlds of meaning. It was about the wonder of new possibilities, not just new visuals effects. In its subtext it was about our changing world, and a different way of seeing the important currents moving in it, determining our future.

There's a word that seems to fit the tendency to re-do the familiar but bigger, faster and with more inflated hoopla surrounding it: decadence. It looks like splendor, but it smells like decay. I would hate to see Star Trek succumb to this.

In other Trek matters, two pieces of scholarship caught my eye: this piece by Harry Barber about scenes dropped from Star Trek JJA at some point in the process, and a TrekWeb edited analysis by Bill Williams of the evolution of Star Trek: Generations.

Captain's Log: Star Trek Wars (and President Obama Groks Spock)

Among the many comments and commentaries on Star Trek JJA, the most intriguing to me involve the perceived resemblances between this movie and Star Wars. There's a short video from College Humor deep in this Trek Movie thread that depicts the main points succinctly. I'm linking to it rather than the original source because of one of the comments, # 12 from Magic Al, which adds this:

The Star Wars comparison could be extended to the young hero lost and running from monsters on a snow planet until an old friend rescues him and tells him was he has to do next. It’s relevant because JJ Abrams is known to be a bigger Star Wars fan than a Star Trek fan. The comparison film illustrates the common “hero’s journey” mythology of these two films.

It reminded me that seeing J.J. Abrams on a Star Wars documentary prompted me to suggest here on this site, almost two years ago, what Abrams might do with his Star Trek movie. Abrams, I wrote:

... speaks about the first step, the hero's "Call to Adventure" (as [Joseph] Campbell called it). "At the heart of the story is some kid who is being called to service, to deal with something so much bigger than him."So of course I immediately thought of the Star Trek movie, and wondered if it might begin the Kirk story farther back than many have speculated--even earlier than at Starfleet Academy. With a boy in Iowa perhaps. What is his call? What is the crisis that changes his life? What is the "threshhold-crossing" event, in which (as someone said) you realize you're not in Kansas anymore. Or Iowa. That takes Kirk into a bigger world?

Later I wrote: Abrams talked about the appearance of the mentor. "In moments of absolute disconnect and loss and confusion and fear...these characters arrive that give purpose and confidence" to the hero. Who will be Kirk's mentor, I wondered, and the film gives us Captain Pike, challenging him at that crossroads moment. I also wondered:

The classic hero has companions to help on the quest, the journey. We know who Kirk's companions will be by the time the five year mission begins. Are they with him from the beginning?

That's what this film does--the story of how the hero's journey begins-- though how well or how meaningful it does it is an open question. There are lots of other questions in commentaries and comments since then, some of which the movie's writers addressed, as summarized in the above noted Trek Movie thread, or more directly at Darth Mojo.

I don't know that the answers are entirely consistent or satisfactory. But the basic question--reflected in a number of comments here--is how true to Trek this movie really is, beyond the superficial. Since it's become so popular, some of the possibilities JJA says he's entertaining for future stories worry me as well--like bringing back Khan, etc. This takeover of the classic characters was always dangerously close to exploitation. I would hate to see it go clearly over the line.

In general I'm sticking to what I said, possibly too far down in my commentary last time, concerning the differences between this movie and Star Trek GR: "Ultimately what we’ve got are stories. They may now occur in two separate Star Trek story universes, but they rise or fall on what they are as stories." So far, Star Trek JJA has but one story--even if you include the comic book prequel. Naturally we're talking about this one now because it's the newest and the biggest in awhile. But soon, this site will be getting back to those many other Star Trek stories, and what they tell us about the soul of Star Trek and the soul of the future.

It was the meaning in those stories, after all, that influenced several generations, including the current President of the United States, who has just screened the new movie at the White House, and talked about Star Trek to Newsweek. "Everybody was saying I was Spock, so I figured I should check it out and—[the president makes the Vulcan salute with his hand]." "I used to love Star Trek," the President said, not for its special effects but for its "evocative" stories and meaning, even to him at ten years old.


Speaking of this site, Soul of Star Trek appears recently on some fascinating lists: Blogs.com Top Ten Star Trek Blogs, the select Star Trek blog roll at UK's the Guardian, and the select Trek blog link list at Ex Astra Scientia. To which I humbly say, cool, and thanks a lot!

Final note: since torture is so much in the news again, I keep being reminded of the posts I did on the topic (also two years ago) and especially the TNG "Chain of Command" episodes (famous to fans for Picard's cry of "There are four lights!") It was in the second of those episodes, made all those years ago, that Picard says what was known even then: torture doesn't work in eliciting accurate information, a lesson that's more public than ever now.

So here's a link to that "Star Trek vs. 24" posting. I've also given the label "torture" to those and other relevant posts, which you can find in the label list in the sidebar column to the right, and see all those posts.

Star Trek GR is over. Star Trek JJA has begun. The new movie and the future, in posts below.

Star Trek JJA

Spoiler Assessment: Past the assertions in the first couple of paragraphs, this first section is pretty much spoiler-free. But in the sections that follow—after the subtitles—spoilers for those who haven’t seen the new movie are frequent.

Seeing the new Star Trek movie confirms that there are now two Star Trek story universes. There is Star Trek GR, the universe created by Gene Roddenberry and his collaborators on the original series and the Next Generation, altered but carried forward under the direction of Rick Berman. There are hundreds of hours of television and feature film stories set in this universe, along with many books and other forms of story.

But Paramount, owner of Star Trek copyrights for movies at least, authorized a new Trek movie universe, represented by one story told over a couple of hours plus, in this new feature film: what I’m calling Star Trek JJA, for the movie’s producer and director, J. J. Abrams.

I have some thoughts about the implications of this below, but first: the movie.

The impression produced by the commercials and previews turned out to be accurate: this is a fast-paced action movie, with (mostly) convincing and even inspiring visuals. The sets, effects and cinematography produce an exciting ride in a credible and exciting Trek context.

In order to give themselves over to this ride, even casual viewers of past Trek need to have confidence in the actors playing these iconic characters. These actors succeed in creating that confidence, with skill, presence and—aided by the scriptwriters—with new colors to the characters as well as selected references to the spirit and sometimes the vocal and visual mannerisms of the actors who created these characters.

This is especially true of the crucial trio: Chris Pine as Kirk, Karl Urban as McCoy, Zachary Quinto as Spock. Urban is almost an idealized DeForrest Kelley—younger and stronger than we ever saw D.K. as McCoy. Pine has the Shatner swagger and smile, but he fits the premise of this movie especially well because he’s the same, only different. He’s Kirk in an alternate timeline.

The wonder is Quinto. It’s not just that he instantly looks like Spock, but that he establishes complete credibility as Spock with so little apparent effort. Playing any Vulcan is difficult, and several actors have visibly labored with their portrayals, not always successfully. But playing the ultimate Vulcan is the ultimate challenge, and Quinto does it with seeming ease. Even when he is behaving in ways unfamiliar from Star Trek GR, he’s believable.

I’d been neutral on whether Quinto would really make a credible Spock (though I was rooting for him as a fellow Pittsburgher), but I had real doubts about Zoe Saldana as Uhura. She doesn’t look or sound like Nichelle Nichols, so it seemed like it could have been a case of indifferent casting: any young black actress is good enough. But Saldana is gorgeous and alluring in her own way, and a fine actor. Her scenes with Quinto were models of restraint, yet full of emotion.

Simon Pegg makes a charming Scotty, and even though John Cho as Sulu and Anton Yelchin as Chekov didn’t do much for me, one of the virtues of this movie for Star Trek GR fans is how it expands on these characters, giving them real expertise.

They are a young and attractive group as well as a capable one, and together with the look and feel of the film—purchased, it must be said, with a budget that goes higher than any Star Trek GR film had gone before—this movie revitalizes Star Trek for feature films.

Beyond the young crew, Bruce Greenwood was outstanding in the crucial role of Captain Pike, and the other subsidiary characters were fine, although I didn't really believe Ben Cross as Spock’s father, Sarek. Leonard Nimoy was perfect as Spock Prime—which seems redundant, but to me this performance was better than his previous 24th century Spock portrayals in those Next Generation episodes.

There were several references or homages to Trek GR films, both visually (the Enterprise fly-by as in Star Trek: the Motion Picture) and in the dialogue (Spock Prime repeating a famous line from Star Trek: Wrath of Khan and both Spock and Kirk repeating or referencing lines from Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.) And that’s not counting the obligatory TOS echoes from Bones and Scotty.

There are as well some directorial references to other space opera movies, especially Star Wars and 2001: A Space Odyssey. Some of the Star Wars stuff was questionable: Scotty’s little Ewok-like alien buddy was cute I guess, but the animated monster chasing Kirk on the ice planet was an embarrassing drag.

As they enabled J.J. Abrams fluid direction, screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman noted one basic structural element of Trek GR movies: they properly begin with the Enterprise getting underway on this adventure, and they properly end with the Enterprise warping off to its next adventure.

Warp, by the way, is handled more realistically (that is, according to theory) than in other portrayals: the ships simply disappear, though with a satisfyingly loud pop.

I’ll leave it to others to parse the look of this Enterprise, but it looked pretty good to me, and though it wasn’t quite the “character” GR said it should be in a Trek story, it was an exciting vehicle.

As a movie script, I thought this one was fluid and skillful, especially given all that it had to accomplish. Part of its accomplishment was obviously knowing Trek—playing with what it wanted to keep, and knowing what it was departing from. I also really liked the music, especially in certain scenes, and appreciated the quotes from past Trek movie scores—although I noted that the signature four note theme beginning didn’t emerge until the end credits. You know, your father’s Star Trek.

[continued]

Time Travel and Its Implications

Any story that depends on time travel has some built- in wonder, lots of wonderful opportunities, and a lot of pitfalls and potential headaches. But this time there’s also an important outcome outside the story itself.

Villains who travel back through time to alter the past and hence the future, present a number of problems, especially when they fail. The Borg in First Contact failed, for example, but it’s not clear what prevented them from trying it again—and again and again. This problem is solved in this movie because it’s a single ship and a single villain, and neither survives. (Spock’s advanced 24th century ship doesn’t survive, either—but Spock Prime does. With his knowledge, the Federation could be centuries ahead of their competitors.)

Plus the effects of time travel can be complicated and hard to keep straight. It may take repeat viewings to sort out just what legitimately could have been changed in the Star Trek GR universe by the incursions from the future that wound up establishing Star Trek JJA.

But that was the outcome: the end of Star Trek GR and the beginning of Star Trek JJA.

For those who saw the movie but were confused about this, here’s how I understand it: a 24th century Romulan mining ship comes back in time to the 23rd century in search of Spock, but they come not to praise him, but to bury him. Or at least to force him to witness the destruction of his home planet of Vulcan, as revenge for his inability to stop the destruction of Romulus and the villain’s family.

24th century Spock is also pulled into the past, where the Romulans have already altered history by killing Kirk’s father. The destruction of Vulcan, the death of Spock’s mother, and other events further diverge from the conditions that must exist for the Star Trek stories we know to take place.

Even when the villain is defeated, this alternate timeline remains—apparently shocking some moviegoers who expected a characteristic reset button return to “normal.” But Spock Prime states it clearly: things will not be what they once were going to be.

There’s a certain elegance in beginning the Abrams era with an alternate timeline. There’s the built-in advantage of globally known iconic characters, revisited, revived and revised. But now their future is unknown, their adventures new. The constraints of a story universe filled with people, places, events and previous stories are avoided.

But Star Trek GR is honored in the sense that it isn’t just ignored. A connection is made—personified by Leonard Nimoy as Spock Prime—that acknowledges Star Trek GR, even making it integral to the plot. It also doesn’t completely negate the timeline of Star Trek GR. But this is a new timeline: Star Trek JJA, and this is where the action is going to be.

If Star Trek JJA doesn’t go all the Oedipal way by actually killing the father, it does make the death of the father definite. The dedication of the movie—coming at the end of the long end-credit sequence, instead of at the beginning—to Gene and Majel Roddenberry, was more like a tombstone: he’s dead, Jim.

Was this the only way to make new Star Trek stories? No--there's the 25th century still open, for example, as well as the post-Nemesis 24th. Was this the only way to revisit the 23rd century--did they have to destroy Vulcan, etc.? No, not really. What they should have done will doubtless be debated for awhile. But what they have done has consequences.

Clearly there are now events that happened in original series television episodes and the movies—beginning with the very first pilot episode, and including the Spock trilogy that began with Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan—that cannot happen in the Star Trek JJA timeline. Spock’s mother cannot beg him to save his father’s life, because she was killed, etc. All of this also calls into question the characters and events of Star Trek GR’s 24th century.

Let’s admit that there are inconsistencies in Star Trek GR, even within the original series, but certainly in the Berman era. An earlier time travel movie, Star Trek: First Contact, altered or at least stretched “facts” about Zephran Cochrane and other aspects of the GR universe past, as well as arguably altering the time line itself. Then there are elements of the prequel series Enterprise that trouble some, and let’s face it, there are 24th century stories that some wouldn’t mind erasing.

Ultimately what we’ve got are stories. They may now occur in two separate Star Trek story universes, but they rise or fall on what they are as stories.

New feature films will be in the Star Trek JJA universe. But the Star Trek GR universe still exists, in all those hours and pages. Star Trek GR can still generate new stories, though chances are they will be limited to novels, independent films and fan fictions. The canon of Star Trek GR ends with “Nemesis.” What happens next in that story universe is up to other imaginations, and those stories are all equal: they rise or fall on their own merits.

What is the Human Adventure?

Some observers are finding credibility gaps in this film, as in the villain’s ship, etc. but that happens in every movie, especially science fiction. Some have noted the villain’s clichéd motive, and though I agree that avenging your wife’s death has become so frequent and reflexive a motive as to be deadened, there’s also the cliché of an evil crew following the obsessions of the pirate captain. Some fundamentalist religious motive might have been more topical, but that would have brought out the protesters, so I assume Paramount wouldn’t go for that.

Still, the movie wisely didn’t spend a lot of time on the villain. (Khan’s generous screen time worked because his flamboyance nicely matched Shatner’s, but the villain-hero balance didn’t work in Nemesis on a visceral enough level.) Eric Bana is credibly creepy as Nero, although I can’t believe they used such a cheesy name—the most villainous Roman emperor as the Romulan working class villain? I don’t get it.

Keeping the fast forward momentum and the adrenalin attention of this film also has its costs. Action and dramatic scenes are pushed to the edge—in fact, Kirk is literally hanging off some kind of a cliff at least three times. (The Iowa Indiana Jones?) But there are only so many solutions to extreme jeopardy, and fortunate coincidence is one this movie uses more than once, when somebody (usually a bad guy) is distracted by something more important or pressing.

It’s all fun while it’s happening (which of course is the point) but perhaps as a result of maintaining that adrenalin attention along with all the other stuff the movie needed to do, there isn’t a lot of the kind of talk we got used to in Star Trek GR.

In this film, the talking moments are all taken up by character, plot and necessary exposition (as when Spock Prime explains the backstory.) There is some fine dialogue in this movie, and some memorable turns of phrase. (Pike suggesting that young Kirk was headed towards a future of being a “genius-level repeat offender” is my first favorite.) But the kind of talk—of debate over means and ends, over meaning and ethical responsibilities—that characterized Star Trek GR was largely absent.

But it wasn’t just talk about ethics that was absent. Leonard Nimoy was right in saying that this film portrayed a group of people getting together to solve problems—there was certainly that kind of talk on the Enterprise bridge. But personally I didn’t see much to support his assertion that this movie portrays the futility of seeking revenge, or at least that Kirk and Spock see it that way. I heard only a quick exchange on the subject between Kirk and Spock, with Spock seeming to speak in favor of vengeance, and once Nero expressed his preference for dying, Kirk quickly and happily assented, and destroyed an apparently helpless ship.

Otherwise, the new 23rd century of Star Trek JJA has some problems: Captain Pike thought Starfleet was getting stultified, and the Enterprise security officers—if that’s who there were—turn out to be bullies and thugs, who kept beating on the civilian Kirk when he was helpless. The one opportunity of going back in Trek history that’s appealed to me is to begin filling in a little more of how we got “from here to there,” to reference that awful song that introduced Enterprise: how Earth overcame its still-current quick march to self-destruction, and how Starfleet became what it is. It’s never really happened, and I don’t expect it to anymore. But I wonder if the 23rd century can be as much like the 21st as it seems to be in this movie—complete with Budwiser product placement—and we still survive, and form something like Starfleet and its Prime Directive.

It’s pretty clear already that this movie has resurrected Star Trek from the dead once more, at least in terms of commercial viability. Star Trek JJA has a credible young crew adding new dimensions and possibilities to familiar characters. The scriptwriting skills and the moviemaking skills are there, and there’s little doubt now that the money will be there, for another adventure and probably more. But just showing that humanity survives, still asserting some idealism, was a necessary but not sufficient for the Star Trek GR vision. What is the human adventure that continues?

Captain's Log: New Trek Buzz

It looks as though the new Star Trek feature is attracting a lot of ticket buyers this weekend. The reviews seem pretty positive, though I've avoided reading them in detail until after I've seen the movie on Sunday. Today I walked past the theatre where I'll see it in our college town, and noticed one of the students in a small line to see the first evening show. He looked both excited and embarrassed, and it reminded me what it's been like to be a Star Trek fan these past few years: weird. I admit I've been surprised by the articles and reviews that begin by acknowledging how important Star Trek and what it stands for have been. If this movie remains popular, we may have to get used to Star Trek being an acceptable enthusiasm again.

Among the many recent non-review articles was another one comparing President Obama to Spock, this one by Jeff Greenwald, author of the TNG nonfiction book, Future Perfect, and one of the panelists on my Soul of Star Trek panel at the 40th anniversary convention in Seattle. Those who doubted that Obama is a Trek fan, take note of these two stories: the report that President Obama wants to screen the new Trek film at the White House, and an interview with Leonard Nimoy who was an Obama supporter: he said that he was with a number of people waiting to meet candidate Obama, and when Obama spotted Nimoy, the future President immediately flashed the Vulcan salute. Not easy to do unless you've practiced it. I mean, that's logical, right?

By the way, I've taken note of the comments left here about the movie. I'm waiting until I see it to respond.

With the new movie opening this week, the Star Trek story universe created by these actors and this crew will end. In the posts below, my pre-opening thoughts on the new movie, and in these last hours when this is still the crew of the Starship Enterprise, a tribute to the original cast and their final movie together, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered County.

Before the End...

If it wasn't clear before, recent interviews with Leonard Nimoy and the screenwriters of the new Star Trek movie have made it absolutely certain: the Star Trek story universe that began in the 1960s will end with the new movie. The canon is now closed.

Though it could be said that the action in the new movie is a time travel story generated in the post-Nemesis 24th century, these interviews indicate that future movies will take place in a different timeline--a different story universe, with characters whose names we know, with similarities but also with different characteristics and events.

The Star Trek universe we have known so far is finished. Even the new movie's title--just "Star Trek"--appropriates ownership, and declares that the new regime has taken control. Rather than extend the existing Trek universe in time and space, this film will cannibalize Star Trek's past. This is smart commercially: the characters are pre-sold icons. It may also turn out to be integral to re-enlivening Star Trek as a popular storytelling vehicle. We'll see. But it inevitably will change and even destroy aspects of Star Trek's past.

In reading some of the interviews and reviews during this final spasm of immense hype, it's possible to get the impression that fans who have qualms or are queasy about this can be disdained and dismissed as angry, bitter losers. That's neither generous nor accurate. People who care about Star Trek have legitimate concerns.

Because this is a greater change than Star Trek has ever experienced before. It's a greater separation than the original series from the Next Generation (new cast and century, but Gene Roddenberry and some of his original co-creators choosing and shaping.) It's greater than Harv Bennett and Nick Meyer changing the film series (partly because GR was still a force, but mostly because the original cast was there, actively maintaining continuity in character and meaning, even when Bennett and Meyer wanted to change things.)

I believe it's appropriate to emphasize the separation now. After I've seen the movie, maybe I'll be emphasizing the connections. We'll see.

By starting again with these classic characters, this movie also reinforces Star Trek as a mythology. The texts of Homer were not the only tales of brave Ulysses. More stories were created and told afterwards, and there are many variants of every myth. Various superheroes with origins in comics and novels have gone through this as well. This process has always been part of Trek, since the first fan fictions and commercial novels that weren't based on the TV episodes. The fan films--the independent films--that cast other actors as these classic characters really paved the way for the new feature. There will be no new canon, no new canonized Star Trek.

But more than some mythologies (from ancient times or comic books), Star Trek has always had a distinct core, a vision that may be ambiguous, but is at least emotionally clear enough to have rallied millions around it. How this film and those that follow will be regarded in relationship to what has come before depends in large part, not only on whether the new regime maintains the spirit of what came before, but whether they have anything new to say to make the vision relevant to today.


Let me make my position clear, before seeing the movie. I am neither "for" nor "against" this movie. My concerns on this site are not commercial. I don't cover or care about Burger King promotions or toys. ( That doesn't mean I'm against Star Trek stuff either--as I write these words I happen to be wearing a Starfleet Academy cap.)

What I care about and try to write about is the soul of Star Trek, and what Star Trek can illuminate about the soul of the future, especially the qualities and attitudes needed now to make a better future. Yes, it's a movie, and is to enjoyed and judged as a movie. But it is not "just" a movie. If that were so, we wouldn't have been talking about and caring about Star Trek for more than forty years.

Judging from the preview snippets and the visuals and music on the movie's official site one effect this film may well have--at least temporarily--is to make previous Trek seem slow and thin, outmoded and possibly even irrelevant. So before that happens, I feel it's both an honor and a duty to pay tribute to what has gone before, and some of the people who made it so--specifically, those who were there at the beginning, and who, for a few more hours at least, are the sole proprietors of the characters they created, in the last story they created together.

Artist's conception of the solar system that contains a just-discovered Earth-sized planet, along with a larger one that's in the same relative orbit as Earth's to its sun. It's in the constellation of Libra. More in the post below, along with the latest on the movie: maybe warp speed, but certainly we're in hype-rspace.

Captain's Log: Lost in Hype-rspace

When all is said and done, I won't be surprised if it turns out that Paramount spends more on promoting Star Trek XI than they spent on making and promoting Star Trek X. The hype is incredible. I haven't seen the movie (though I may be the only Star Trek blogger who hasn't) but the hype has certainly been professionally done.

In retrospect, the pattern emerges: first, seduce the fan base. Leonard Nimoy may be crucial to the movie, but he was certainly essential to gaining the confidence of the fan base. Actors from other Treks, perhaps hoping that a rising Trek tide raises all boatloads of Trek past, quickly got with the program. But when the major hype kicked in, it was all about the non-fans, expanding the market, etc. A laudable goal, but fans had to try to keep from wincing as director J.J. Abrams kept insisting he'd known nothing about Star Trek and hasn't seen the other movies.

Well, we'll know the result soon enough. Right now the hype is overwhelming.

Having said that, I may or may not become part of it: I have a piece pending for the Trek Movie site: a tribute to the original cast and their final movie together, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. It may appear some Sunday, but if not, I'll post it here before the new movie opens.

War and Trek

I was beginning to feel that my misgivings were generational until I heard from a current college student, not a fanboy but someone for whom Star Trek has been important. He's seen the commercials (who can avoid them?) and dismisses this as another summer sensationalist action film, the antithesis of what he valued in Trek. Trek wasn't about war but about the hard journey of making peace.

The filmmakers seem to feel they're being truer to the Trek spirit than that--at least in these interview excerpts--but since the hype is accenting the thrills and superficial appropriations of the original series, we don't really know yet.

It did remind me however that war and the galactic version of geopolitics (mostly a mix of Cold War and 19th or even 18th century geopolitics) had already been dominating the Trek story universe, beginning with the Dominion War years of DS9, and then in the past several years of Trek novels. For me, it's gotten so bad--and so boring--that I have no interest in reading the post-Nemesis novels. I prefer to imagine my own post-Nemesis 24th century, and what the TNG crew in particular is up to.

Part of the problem may have been that the Bush years and that administration's shameful culture of violence seeped into the imaginations of Trek novelists. So it's maybe a bit ironic that in its cover story Newsweek suggests that the return of Star Trek is well timed because we have a Vulcan in the White House.

Real Space

In other news around the galaxy, scientists have discovered a couple of new planets outside our solar system: one that's about the size of Earth, and another that's in about the same relative location to its sun.

But an article in the New York Times threw cold water on the prospect of exploring such planets in person any time soon. Earth's glaciers may be melting, but the pace of space vehicle development is glacial--the article is titled "Boldly Going Nowhere." And speaking of melting glaciers, that's a real world reason why we're unlikely to devote resources to space travel: we'll be too busy coping with the effects of a Climate Crisis that could last centuries.

But that's the great thing about Star Trek: it piques imagination by giving the amazing prospect of exploring space a physical "reality" within its storytelling. But it told stories about today, and dealt with personal, interpersonal, ethical, political, conceptual issues that bear on our real future, even if it is an earthbound one.

Major publicity and first reviews of the new Star Trek movie this weekend, while in England the new Doctor Who special airs--and news of a Trek/Who crossover that wasn't to be. More in the post below.

Big Trek/Doctor Who Weekend

Though the new Paramount Star Trek movie doesn't open in the U.S. until May, premieres have already been held in Australia and New Zealand (plus a sneak preview in Texas), while an enormous flood of advertising and publicity lets loose, and the first reviews are in, with Trek Movie's promised later today. Update: Here it is.

After assiduously courting the traditional fan base, the new Trek honchos are going hard after a wider, younger audience that knows Trek only vaguely, perhaps as an antique. I caught an ad for Star Trek on TV with fast-cut action and "sexual situations" sequences that promises that this "is not your father's Star Trek."

Well, at least they didn't say "grandfather's."

Meanwhile, in the UK the BBC will air the Doctor Who Easter Special, Planet of the Dead. It's the second of the five final David Tennant episodes, written by Russell T. Davies--the Doctor's last romp before the final darker stories. In their publicity blitz, Davies revealed this: "I would have loved to have done a Star Trek crossover. The very first year, we talked about it. Then Star Trek finally went off air. Landing the Tardis on board the Enterprise would have been magnificent." He was talking about Star Trek Enterprise, the most recent Star Trek TV series.

There are a lot of such Trek/Who mashups on YouTube, but coincidentally the series from kelvington.com just released their "Easter Special" which continues the story they started at Christmas. It starts with the same scenes from the original series that several other such mashups use, but it gets more creative later, and it's technically the best I've seen. Here's another link to both, via Trek Movie.

The next actual Doctor Who special won't be seen in the UK until fall, perhaps November. The last two are likely to be around Christmas and New Year's. with a shorter than usual gap before the 2010 season starts with the new Doctor, Matt Smith.

According to Outpost Gallifrey, Canadians will see Planet of the Dead in June on the SPACE channel. They've already had last Christmas' Special, The Next Doctor, in March. The U.S. has seen nothing, and as far as I can tell, nothing has been scheduled. My guess is that if the Sci-Fi Channel--excuse me, the Sy-Fy Channel--continues to be the U.S. outlet for Doctor Who, none of them will be seen here until shortly before the 2010 season starts. Or at least not until all five are available. There just isn't the built-in interest here as there is in the UK, and they'll probably try to save on publicity costs.

There are rumors about the final episodes--for instance, that all the 10th Doctor's companions will be back, along with the Master--but all that's been confirmed is that Donna Noble will be in the final episode, and that the Doctor's final companion will be her grandfather, Wilfred Mott, played by Bernard Cribbins. It's a surprising choice, and caps Cribbins' unlikely participation. He had just a one-time small part, when the actor playing Donna's father became terminally ill. Cribbins was hired as Donna's grandfather on short notice, and actually re-did some scenes (preserved on the Series Four DVDs.)

But Tennant hints that there will be several special guests.

As for the interviews, the Times piece promises to tell "Why David Tennant and Russell T. Davies are leaving Doctor Who," but it's the same mumbo jumbo. The reason I'm leaning towards is easier to see in Davies, who is going Hollywood for the forseeable future. It could well be the same for Tennant. Leaving Doctor Who while they are still legendary gives them the proper aura to get some Hollywood stardom and bucks. They may already know they're getting opportunities England can't offer (though Tennant denies he has any future commitments.) Tennant is probably also weary of being under the microscope in the UK.

I still think Tennant leaving will be next door to disastrous for Doctor Who, especially in America. Like Davies, Tennant knew everything about Doctor Who through its entire history and he was involved in making sure the new series was right. Smith admits he knows nothing (although the new showrunner, Steven Moffat, is also a fanboy.) Tennant was a real asset to the show with the media and fans. Smith doesn't seem to have that kind of weight.

That may not matter so much in the UK, where boys wear Doctor-style suits with their Converse sneakers to school, chant SONTAR-HA! in the schoolyard and imitate the Doctor's WOT? WOT? from the Voyage of the Damned Christmas Special. But if Matt Smith falters, re-branding Doctor Who in the states--even with the rumored changes, like a new Tardis interior--may prove difficult.

What makes it a hard sell for me is the sense that we were about to see a more powerful, mature Doctor--a sense ironically put forward in the two Season Four episodes that Stephen Moffat wrote, Silence in the Library and Forest of the Dead. He meets a woman with whom he's had a powerful relationship--in a future incarnation--and through her he learns a bit of what he is to become. This character (played beautifully by Alex Kingston) could recur--(Tennant hints in one of his interviews that she might in his final episodes) but she would look more like Matt Smith's mother. Similarly, the Doctor's daughter, introduced in Season Four, would appear to be Smith's sister.

In any case, there was the sense that the Doctor's character would grow. Now with a regeneration, he faces yet another identity crisis and period of adjustment. Back to square one. That's not the change I can believe in.

Of course, a teenage Doctor (okay, he's 25 or something)--especially with one of the rumored teen idol blonds to be his companion--may attract a different audience. Still, I quoted Moffat in an earlier post suggesting that the Doctor should be played by an older actor. Apparently he was kidding, changed his mind, or has to live with what the BBC could afford--since these days, I suspect, money is an object.

Younger actors playing mythic roles seems to link the new Star Trek with the 2010 Doctor Who. Maybe the jolt of novelty as well as fresh creative visions will work in both cases. On the other hand, did you see the latest Flash Gordon series? I mean, when it existed?

Captain's Log: The third trailer for the new Star Trek movie is making the rounds, and can be seen on the official site. This trailer does show that this is likely to be an impressive action movie, on a scale beyond at least the more recent Star Trek features. What else it is remains to be seen--starting in early May. Conspicuous absences in this trailer: Nimoy's Spock, the new Scotty's hair.
The Kepler spacecraft that will search for Earth-like worlds was successfully launched. Here's an eyewitness report. Latest news from Mars: the planet had running water recently--meaning within the past million years.

I've just finished watching the fourth season of Doctor Who on DVD, and am gearing up for a long post on that, and related Whovian matters.

Also: TrekCore, an invaluable site for photos and other archives, is holding a month long fundraiser. Learn how you can help them stay on the web here. Such archives are disappearing while theirs are expanding, and they aren't asking for a lot to keep going so check it out.

New Trek

Over at Trekmovie, Anthony Pascale has gotten new Trek movie writer Roberto Orci to admit that the forthcoming feature essentially takes place in an alternate Trek universe. (Their conversation is here, and a diligent follow-up post here checks in with Trek science experts and some real science video.)

The idea is that there's a Romulan named Nero who exists in the 24th century of the Trek universe we know. He goes back in time to alter the past, by killing off James T. Kirk's parents. He is pursued through time by Spock, who apprises his young self of what happened. There's more we don't know yet about this part of it, but Orci says that the premise is that because Kirk's past has been altered, this is an alternative universe according to the Many Worlds theory, which says there are many realities slightly different from each other, perhaps one branching out from every different action, like one for the universe in which Kirk's parents live, and this one, where they didn't. ( So it should probably should be called Many Universes theory, or "many timelines", especially because there is another Many Worlds theory that purports to show that intelligent life is likely on many worlds in our own universe.)

The theory of time travel Orci cites says that when someone goes back in time, he is going to (or is creating) a different universe (or timeline) by that very act. So when Nero goes back in time and changes the past, he creates the alternate universe the new Trek movie is in.

Orci stresses however that the essential characters are the same. (Their motto when writing the script, he says, was "different day, same ship.") He also uses an elaboration of the Many Worlds theory to account for why things are pretty close in this universe to the people and events we know--i.e. the same crew winds up on the Enterprise.

There are a bunch of things to say about this. First, the science. Orci repeatedly references "quantum mechanics" as providing the rationale for this approach, and refers to it repeatedly as the "most successful theory of science" and "the most successful, most tested scientific theory ever..."

Sheila Jones, in her introduction to her book, The Quantum Ten, makes a distinction I think is really worth making. She defines "quantum mechanics" as "the set of rules for how the physics and mathematics are used to make testable predictions," and she agrees that by this definition, these rules of quantum mechanics "have been used to unparalleled fruitfulness since their development in the 1920s."

But, she defines "quantum theory" as "explanation for why the quantum world behaves the way it does; this exercise is still fraught with controversy." She considers "quantum physics" as the umbrella term covering both the how (mechanics) and why (theory.)

So by these definitions I believe what Orci is talking about is quantum theory, not mechanics. Quantum mechanics seems to be entirely mathematical, and its "success" has been in testable results. Indeed, computers, cell phones, etc. would be impossible without successful quantum mechanics.

But quantum theory (which is also highly mathematical) largely can't be tested. It's been frustrating and embarrassing to physicists since the 1920s that they don't really know why quantum mechanics works. They have yet to come up with a "why" that is agreed upon.

Indeed, it's hard not to agree with Jones that the current state of quantum theory is very messy. There are a lot of competing ideas, and a lot of doubts about all of them (including string theory.) And that may be why Andre Bormanis (Star Trek science advisor and producer/writer) says Many Universes is "one way of looking at quantum mechanics but not everyone agrees that it is the right way, certainly it is not the only way." Or why, when The Physics of Star Trek author Lawrence Krauss considers the idea of universes branching off whenever someone goes back in time, he is "not convinced this remains consistent with the laws of physics as we understand them."

So, in terms of science, it's a respectable theory, but the success of quantum mechanics doesn't say much about whether it's true. Until somebody travels through time, it's probably not a testable hypothesis.

But in science fiction and particularly in Trek, the science is about what seems plausible at any given time, and also what sparks the imagination in terms of what future may result if it is true. Most of Star Trek is based on science fiction conventions that it either established or followed, roughly based on scientific and other possibilities.

So let's look at science fiction. Orci cites the TNG episode "Parallels" to establish the Many Universes theory as it relates to quantum physics. Which it does, but I don't see it as establishing a link between Many Universes and time travel, or that time travel places the traveler in an alternate universe forever. The story follows Worf through slightly different Trek universes, but it does get him back to the one he left--the one where he belongs. It is arguable however that every time travel in Star Trek results in a new timeline.

The Back to the Future time theory was discussed, in which Marty McFly has to avoid changing important elements of the past or he'll change the future, which is his present. The "grandfather paradox" is explored: if a time traveler shoots his grandfather as a boy, he'll prevent his own birth, but if he wasn't born, how could he travel through time to shoot his grandfather? I haven't seen another paradox discussed much, that was a key plot point in the most recent feature film version of The Time Machine, only loosely based on the classic H.G. Wells novel. In that movie, the (American) scientist is motivated to complete his time machine when his fiancee is killed by a mugger in Central Park. He goes back in time to prevent the murder, but she immediately is killed in another way. This continues to happen, and his inability to change this aspect of the past is explained to him by someone in the far future, who says that he couldn't change what motivated him to invent the time machine, because the time machine is what made it possible for him to go back to the past and try to change it.

But back to the new Trek movie. The revelation that it takes places in an alternate Trek universe seemed prompted by concerns among fans over canon--differences in the movie from the Trek universe we know. (Devoted readers know we've gone into this in excessive depth and detail before.) But I'm also going to be interested in how this movie deals with what is supposed to be the 24th century (TNG era) of the classic Trek universe. Who is this laughably named Nero anyway, and why doesn't he look like the Romulans we've known? How does he travel through time; how does Spock do it, too? (And since we're talking time travel paradoxes, what's to prevent him from doing it again?)

In moviemaking terms, the alternative universe solves problems with Trek canon in going back to the Trek past, and also allows the 23rd century Enterprise to look different--and probably much fancier and more advanced--than it did on the original series. As Orci and Pascale say, all of this may well be totally irrelevant to the average movie fan, and quite possibly a lot of Star Trek fans. Even fans may be more interested in their favorite characters, which are going to be somewhat different anyway because they're played by different actors. Although Orci justifies character consistency also with quantum theory, he also suggests it depends on "how much you believe in, for lack of a better word, their souls."

Which is a way of saying they are essentially the same, and Star Trek--including the ethos governing the stories--is essentially the same. All this of course remains to be seen... because the movie remains to be seen.

But if this movie follows quantum theory as Orci seems to be interpreting it, hasn't the Abrams Era trapped itself in an alternate Trek universe? So now there will be New Trek, separate from Classic Trek... Remind you of anything?

Back in 1985, Coca Cola saw its market share drop, and decided it was time for a reboot, a reinvention--something new, different and modernized. So the company introduced New Coke, though it wasn't called that at first. It was a new flavor that was supposed to completely replace old Coke. But gradually the public rebelled, and for awhile there was New Coke and what came to be called Coke Classic--the flavor New Coke replaced. When Classic Coke became much more popular, New Coke became Coke II, and pretty much faded from history.

What differences there really were between the two drinks, and even if Classic Coke is exactly the same as it was before the switch, remain debatable. But what's clear is that New Coke didn't triumph enough to have much of a future. Will New Trek?


I must add here a belated fond farewell to Denny Crane and Boston Legal. It was a great series, and although I'm not always a fan of all of William Shatner's activities, I deeply admire his acting work as Denny Crane. Simply as acting I feel it's the best work of his career. I would have loved to see the series continue, just for the writing--and a homemaking with Denny and Alan spin-off could be a lot of fun--but it certainly went out with a lot of class, and both Shatner and Spader did some of their best acting in those final episodes.

Captain's Log: Star Trek, Mars, Atomic Souvenirs and Harry Potter

In addition to the trailer for the upcoming Star Trek movie, there's been a media tour of major cities which included screenings of four scenes. Anthony Pascale, impressario of Trek Movie.com, describes and evaluates them in detail here.

Planet News

There were a couple of recent discoveries involving planets outside our solar system. In September, the first planet was found circling a star much like our sun. Previous planets were located in "brown dwarf" systems. It's a very large planet, very far away from a star somewhat younger than our sun, about 500 light years away.

More recently, scientists managed to take the first ever photograph of a planet outside our solar system, only 25 light years away. It's not much of a picture--just a dot--but the feat stunned other scientists. "This is amazing," said Eugene Chiang, an astronomer at UC Berkeley. "It's almost science fiction. I didn't think this day would occur until years from now." Some 200 "exo-planets" have been discovered, but by indirect means. This is the first time an exo-planet has been "seen." However, it is far too distant from its sun to support life, the scientists say.

In planetary news closer to home, scientists examining radar imaging of Mars say they "strongly suggest that the lobes are pure ice in the form of glaciers, buried under a thin layer of soil and rock." Recent discoveries have shown that water does exist on Mars--and now it looks as if there might be quite a lot of it.

A Science Advisor to President Clinton suggests "How to Save the U.S. Space Program."

The Year (Plus) of Shooting Harry Potter

Charlie Rose interviewed Daniel Radcliffe (who plays Harry Potter) and Richard Griffiths (who plays his stepfather, Mr. Dursley), about Equus, the Peter Shaffer classic now on Broadway. Radcliffe plays the young and very troubled stable boy, and Griffiths the psychiatrist who examines him to determine why he suddenly blinded several horses. A clip from the play revealed that the cast also includes Kate Mulgrew (Captain Janeway of Star Trek: Voyager.)

Towards the end of the interview, Radcliffe said that the play would close in February because he had to return to England to begin work on the two movies being filmed from the last Harry Potter book. They'll be shot at the same time, but the amazing fact Radcliffe revealed is that he'll be shooting this story for 14 straight months.

The Irradiated Generation Jones

Though only two atomic bombs were ever used in war (so far), increasingly powerful nuclear bombs were exploded in the atmosphere from 1945 until the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty proposed by President Kennedy took effect in 1963. Radiation from tests traveled around the world, and new research suggests that everyone who was alive then and is still alive today is carrying residues from those tests in their bodies, namely some carbon-14:

The latest study was of trees, and it found: It turns out that virtually every tree that was alive starting in 1954 has a "spike" — an atomic bomb souvenir. Everywhere botanists have looked, "you can find studies in Thailand, studies in Mexico, studies in Brazil where when you measure for carbon-14, you see it there," Nadkarni says. All trees carry this "marker" — northern trees, tropical trees, rainforest trees — it is a world-wide phenomenon."

It is also true of people: "The amazing lesson of all this is that a bunch of atomic bomb blasts from 50 years ago changed the biology of the world, searing themselves into most living things, and the evidence is still there. If you were born around 1954 or shortly thereafter, those bombs made their mark — in you!"

Unhappy Trailer?

A trailer for the Abrams Star Trek film is attached to the new James Bond movie and is now at the usual locations on the Internet. The Daily Mail enthuses: "The eagerly anticipated Star Trek film is set to cast off the geeky associations of the sci-fi genre with a handsome cast, vicious fights and sex scenes." Among the frames reproduced is this one, of Zoe Saldana as Uhura.

Response at TrekMovie.com was mixed, at least at first. Some were troubled by the trailer's first scene, in which a child is driving a Corvette at 80mph+ towards a massive hole in the ground (from which, one surmises, will rise the Enterprise), jumps out of the car as it tumbles down, barely scratching a hold to keep from following it to his doom. When a Robocop lookalike demands his name, he announces it as "James Tiberius Kirk." Various objections were raised, and I'll add a few more: as moviemaking, it's another version of Steven Spielberg's unfortunate habit of repeating the last possible second avoiding of death so often and so predictably that it's become a cliche, and worse, unbelievable and without the slightest suspense or sense of actual danger. The other is more troubling: this scene, plus the hint of others in the trailer add up to the impression that the new James T. Kirk is a jerk, working on becoming an asshole.

The New York Times story about the trailer begins: “I’ve never been a fan of ‘Star Trek,’” J. J. Abrams told a movie theater full of journalists on Monday night... No surprise there.

Captain's Log: Good News on New Trek, Dr. Who's Big Finish

Most of the gab about the new Star Trek movie gives me the same feelings: could be good, could be bad, gives me hope, gives me the willies. For instance, this story at Trek Today, referring to the "Batman Returns-style reboot" (which if that's what it is could threaten a Star Trek war) and quotes director J.J. Abrams: "The whole point was to try to make this movie for fans of movies, not fans of 'Star Trek' necessarily," said Abrams. "It was an opportunity to take what I think has been a maligned world and treat it in a way that felt genuinely thrilling."

BUT "We've made sure we're serving the people who are completely enamored with 'Star Trek'," he explained. "But at the same time, this film is so unlike what you expect, so unlike the 'Star Trek' you've seen. I can tell you that the idea of the universe of 'Star Trek' has never been given this kind of treatment."

Well, it might be true that it's completely different--then again, it's what Rick Berman said before Nemesis and Enterprise. But how different do we really want it to be? So much of Star Trek depends on how it's handled, and despite being "maligned," there are aspects of its style that are as essential as its content.

But in the end, it's all adjectives--none of this tells us anything, really. But I did read one comment that gave me real hope--and that constitutes what I consider very good news. It came in an interview Leonard Nimoy gave to Trek Movie.com, and I don't know if anyone else noticed this part of it. While describing the upcoming movie as an adventure story, Nimoy did explain what he understood to be its theme:

"I would say if there is one major driving emotional force to it, it has to do with the concept of revenge and the damage that the desire for revenge can cause.

And I have always been interested in that as a concern. I think that we have seen in our time, various political factions, various political leaders, various political peoples want to get revenge for what they feel has been an unjust attack and the cycle goes around and around and it doesn’t stop. Somebody has to say "lets quit this, we are just destroying each other." So I think, if anything, I come away from this movie with that concept."

Now that's a Star Trek movie concept! It fits perfectly with the kind of thinking and the values that Star Trek has most consistently represented, and it is at the same time a bold alternative to the conventional take of the time, both in the "real world" of politics and nations, and in the stories responding to the times we most often see in films and television, and even some Star Trek novels.

Because for at least the past 7 years, revenge has been In, big time. An understandable reaction quickly becomes over-reaction, and suddenly we're taking vengeance on people who didn't do anything to us. In the U.S., the mood has been so toxic that a lot of people aren't even bothering to dispute that their calls for capital punishment is anything other than vengeance.

In his book The Future of the Self, Walter Truett Anderson wrote, "I used to watch Star Trek reruns with my son, and I often mused, as I followed those stirring adventures in outer space, that although we have brilliant powers of imagination regarding technological and even political changes, we seem to wax wimpy when it comes to imagining any fundamental psychological changes. There on the screen were all those gallant men and women of the far-distant future, acting in pretty much the same way as the characters in World War II movies."

I'd differ with Anderson to a degree--the original series and original cast movies as well as Next Generation did at times attempt to show that a better future depends not only on better technology, but on becoming better people. And I'd add that a TV or film story can only move so far away in a few ways from audience expectations or the characters become unbelievable, and audiences can't identify with them. And point out that Star Trek allegories were often about the present, and secondarily about the future.

But his point is valid to the extent that a lot of Star Trek, like other science fiction set in the future, does not think beyond current and past stereotypes of behavior and motivation, especially as represented in stories. Cold War psychology was often presented as future psychology in Star Trek, and I'd argue that Deep Space Nine was quite often indistinguishable from a World War II movie, except with bumps and better tech.

Of course, however bold it may be in today's atmosphere to suggest that revenge is self-destructive, it isn't exactly evidence of psychology beyond present human capability. It's not only been preached and dramatized for centuries, but this insight is at the heart of some elaborate behavior in other primate species. It is as it has always been, a matter of emphasis. It is in us to be better, and we need only the vision and the courage (and the cultural support) to make it so.

So I am encouraged by Leonard Nimoy's suggestion that this theme is the emotional center of the upcoming Star Trek movie. I hope it is a strong theme. With all the special effects available to a big budget movie, the temptation is strong to concentrate on war movie thrills. I would hate to see Star Trek die that way.

Journey's End

No longer the title only of one of my favorite Next Generation episodes, but now "Journey's End" is the apt title of the final story of the new Doctor Who fourth season, which played on the U.S. Sci-Fi channel recently. (Apparently this year saw ratings for the series grow by almost a quarter.) It ended a trilogy of episodes, and as the title promises, it pretty much ended the entire four year journey so far.

For the series, it marked the last episodes of several main producers, and even though Exec Producer Russell T. Davis remains to engineer the transition to the Stephen Moffat era in the four stories next season (the Christmas Special, and three other specials), it effectively ends his creative reign.

For fans, the final stories return just about every major character of the past four years: Rose, Captain Jack, Sarah Jane, Martha as well as this year's companion, Donna, and other characters from the spin-offs, Torchwood and Sarah Jane Mysteries. Mickey, Rose's mother. Even K-9! All in an adventure that saw the return of the Daleks and the first appearance in the new series of Davros. (Davros' appearance and accent reminded me that I heard years ago that George Lucas based several characters on those in Doctor Who. I see a lot of the Emperor in Davros.)

I watched the first of this last trilogy, "Turn Left" (the now traditional yearly ep without much of the Doctor in it) recorded from Sci-Fi Channel, but with the return of Rose and Bad Wolf, I wasn't going to wait around several weeks for the rest of the story. So I watched the last two eps, "The Stolen Earth" and "Journey's End" the same night, on YouTube. Then watched them again on TV. And "Journey's End" again on YouTube with the commentary. I'm not obsessed, no, not at all, not one bit. Weeelll, maybe a tiny bit. Little tiny bit.

In most ways that matter, it was a fitting conclusion. Davis handled the sci-fi elements beautifully, and if there were holes in the elaborate conceptual underpinning, I didn't notice them, yet. Tennant was brilliant, as he has been all season, and Catherine Tate did some astonishing work as Donna Noble, especially in that last episode. My quibble would be that in order to get everybody else in, there wasn't much time to hone in on any of them. Rose had her big scenes, but she also was standing around a lot.

The payoff for the audience was in the bliss of seeing them all at the TARDIS controls together, and the emotional roller coaster ride of Rose coming to something like a happy ending. But Donna's bitter fate, and the Doctor's essential loneliness, kept the edge of melancholy and the longing that, let's face it, keeps viewers coming back for more. There was substance of a paradoxical sort (the peace-loving Doctor changing companions into warriors; but also the warrior in the doctor humanized by compassionate companions.)

I suspect the BBC is going to make enough money on the DVDs for this season (did I see somewhere that they might offer a bargain pack of that final trilogy?) to keep them busy counting it all through the missing episodes next year.

As for David Tennant, he's in all the specials next year and no announcement has been made about the future beyond that. People may be coming around to my view that he will do one more year at least. I really want to see what Moffat will do with him, and I'll bet he's intrigued, too.

In any case, David Tennant and Patrick Stewart are doing Hamlet on stage in England now, and the entire run is sold out. The reviews have been mostly positive. Here's another interview with P.S. that deals with Trek as well as Hamlet.