90

 
Happy 90th birthday to William Shatner (March 22), and remembering Leonard Nimoy on the 90th anniversary of his birth (March 26.)

Captain's Log: Summer Updates

Time for a brief review of Trek-related items on the web that caught my eye over the summer.

There's the new movie in production, of course, watched avidly by the general Trek fan sites like Trek Core, Trek Today and Trek Movie.  There have been a few interview comments by Simon Pegg, one of the movie's writers, in which his confidence and enthusiasm seem to vary.  Apparently there's a lot of re-writing going on, even during production?

Actually, I'd forgotten until a recent re-view of early Russell T Davis Doctor Whos that Pegg was involved in that series, as actor and as narrator on Doctor Who Confidential.  With his acting in the new Star Wars, that makes Pegg the only person I can think of who participated in these three great story universes.  Sweet!

There were also the first statements by Justin Lin, the new movie's director, indicating that he actually did grow up with Star Trek.  So deciding to direct the movie was a "very personal and emotional decision."

As for Star Trek stars, there's the new  video by William Shatner about the first years of Star Trek: The Next Generation, "Chaos on the Bridge," which seems to entail a lot of anti-GR promotional hype, regardless of the video's contents.  Adam Nimoy conducted a successful Kickstarter campaign for the documentary he's making about his father Leonard Nimoy and Star Trek called For the Love of Spock.  (That's Adam and dad on the Trek set in the top photo.)

 Allegiance, the musical inspired by George Takei's experiences of his family's internment during World War II--a story he told very effectively at conventions--is scheduled to open on Broadway.  Takei also helped the Japanese American Museum of  Los Angeles acquire artifacts that illustrate and document the internments.  Now if he--or the media he feeds--could just get over his anti-Shatner schtick.

Even after suffering a mild stroke, Nichelle Nichols announced she will fly on a NASA mission--not quite into space, but close.  Publicizing his new series "Blunt Talk" Patrick Stewart said that he wished politicians would spend more time watching Star Trek: Next Generation, because Jean-Luc Picard showed that "people don't have to die to achieve a satisfactory solution to anything...I believe that we reach for the weapons far too quickly."

And they all had a lot of fun at conventions.  I'm hoping for some good YouTubes out of Las Vegas.  But then, this year it seems what happened in Vegas has stayed in Vegas.

Speaking of Doctor Who (wasn't I?), two pieces caught my eye: one that interested me because it expressed some of my misgivings about the Steven Moffat era, and about the last Sherlock series as well.  However the piece also made me want to immediately defend Moffat, especially as an amazing writer.  I guess that means I have misgivings but not as many or much as reported in that article.

The other was on the apparently hot topic of whether the next Doctor should be a woman.  Among those saying "no" is a woman author, AL Kennedy.  This Guardian piece is fascinating not only for her point of view on this element but on the Doctor in general.

Back to Trek: Slate has a podcast with Manu Saadia, author of a book entitled Trekonomics.  It links to a site with an "amusing" clips video about it.  What I've heard and read is not as impressive as the Rick Webb article I cited in a post here that I called, oddly enough, "Trekonomics." And some of what he says on the podcast about the characters is completely wrongheaded. But it's interesting that people are seriously examining Trekonomics, particularly at this historical moment, for reasons I begin to suggest in my earlier post.

Slate also republished an essay-answer to the question "Which is better, Star Wars or Star Trek?" by Jon Ferreira.  He came out in favor of Star Trek as the more substantive.  One of the factors he named was "The Soul of Star Trek."  Now I know I was the first with that one.

Billions and Billions of Earths?

Science and science fiction exist on a continuum; neither category is pure.  But taking the speculations of science seriously for a moment,  the discoveries (though that word should be taken with a grain of salt) of so many extra-solar planets, including those that seem in some sense "Earth-like" (including the latest Earth.2) has led a NASA scientist to estimate (or exclaim) that our single galaxy is host to at least "a billion Earths."

Like a lot of the extra-solar planet news, you need to go beyond the headlines.  It doesn't mean a billion Earth duplicates, even physically.  But it does evoke the "similar worlds" theory that provided so many Star Trek stories in the original series, when budgets precluded more than atmospheric coloring, old movie style props and some makeup for "alien" actors.

But in terms of actual observation, the pictures that came back from Pluto were scientifically fascinating.  Detail of Pluto and satellite Charon enabled scientists to make more detailed maps and at least tentatively name places and features.  By the time the New Horizons mission team got to Charon, they'd run out of standard mythology and were heading into the mythologies of science fiction.

So at least for the moment, Charon has craters named after Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock and other Star Trek characters, as well as names from Star Wars, Doctor Who and Serenity.

Captain's Log: Captain Kirk at the Oscars, Meteor Meets Siberia

The talk of Trekdom has to be Captain Kirk visiting the 2013 Oscar ceremony from the 23rd century.  William Shatner's dialogue with host Seth McFarland opened the event.  He was there to warn McFarland that his first numbers were going to earn him terrible reviews.  He used newspaper headlines to prove it, somewhat reminiscent of how Spock used newspaper stories as evidence about Edith Keeler  in "City on the Edge of Forever."  

The responses on Trek Movie ran the gamut from joy to embarrassment.  Many noticed that even given the new JJA movies, William Shatner is still the real Captain Kirk.  One post pointed out that the Oscars' huge international audience (upwards of a billion) meant more people may have seen Shatner as Captain Kirk on that night than ever before, perhaps in total.  I'd say, surely never as many at one time as the Oscar telecast.  But in total, maybe not as many.  In the 90s it was estimated that Shatner as Kirk was known to a quarter of the planet's population, and that's several billion.

Still, if you needed evidence of Star Trek's enduring hold on the planetary imagination, this might suggest it.

In other possible Edith Keeler news, political scientist, movie buff and Trekkie Jonathan Bernstein blogged about a 1933 movie called Men Must Fight, and suggested that the leading female character--a pacifist--might be the inspiration for Keeler.

Meanwhile on Earth, a huge meteorite streaked through the sky of Siberia, and caused a sonic bomb that did considerable damage.  There was a flurry of excitement afterwards for a few days, with people wondering how endangered the planet is from such impacts, or what the relationship was to the asteroid that was passing close by at the time (scientists so far say none.)  

This also inspired several sites to reminisce about asteroid doomsday movies.  Here at The Credits, scientists describe their favorites (while the Bruce Willis Armageddon was more popular, its 1998 rival Deep Impact was more scientifically accurate.)  Meanwhile, the New York Times interviewed science fiction writers (including Star Trek Into Darkness co-writer and producer Damon Lindelof) on yarns the meteor impact might inspire.

Stephen Baxter suggested that the most prophetic of such tales was H.G. Wells' "The Star," in which Earth watches a wandering star come closer and closer without any means to prevent it.  We're probably closer to that situation he said than the wish fulfillment of Armageddon.

The biggest impact on me was seeing a CNN interview with Lawrence Krauss, physicist and author of The Physics of Star Trek among many other popular science books.  Krauss explained how the damage in Russia was caused by the sonic boom.  But the CNN reporter had no idea what he was talking about.  Apparently the idea that sound could create physical force was a new concept to him.  People can make fun of the obsessions of Trek fans with techno-babble and geeky points of science.  That seems infinitely preferable to the blithe ignorance that is going to be unnecessarily shocked by, for instance, global warming causing bigger snow storms.

Captain's Log: DS9 at 20, Doctor Who at 50, Plus Billions and Billions

Marking the 20th anniversary of Deep Space Nine, John Tabin writes an appreciation in the conservative American Spectator which claims the series for conservatives, sort of.  I wouldn't go that far, but it did mark a change, as writers got more distant from their Roddenberry roots.  Simply as writers they rebelled against what they saw as the constraints of the Star Trek 24th century, and particularly in later years of the run they turned the series towards the Dominion War.  Writers who had never seen a real war--just war movies--recapitulated emotions and activities that were even a bit too simplistic for the Horatio Hornblower novels about the 18th century.  Kind of missed the point about Star Trek, in my view, as does all the ridicule of TNG.  Still, DS9 had a lot of great moments, characters and stories, and deserves to be celebrated, remembered and re-experienced.

Speaking of Captain Sisko, I've just seen the very entertaining and enlightening William Shatner docu "The Captains."  Shatner is amazing--his self-revelation and showmanship really get the other captains (or some of them anyway) to reveal themselves.  Some especially great moments with Kate Mulgrew and Patrick Stewart, and some unforgettable moments with Avery Brooks.






Billions and billions of planets?  That's what a new NASA report says--at least 100 billion planets in our galaxy. (If you're old enough to get the joke, Johnny Carson used to imitate his frequent guest, Carl Sagan, in saying "billions and billions of stars."  Although Sagan didn't really say that--at least not until Carson made it his trademark--Johnny was making affectionate fun of how Carl emphasized the "b" sound in "billions.")

This study also suggests that one in six stars hosts an Earth-sized planet.  So there should be like billions and billions of them.

More real space news: a meteorite from Mars is telling us more about the Red Planet that the Rover at the moment.  The one that landed in the Sahara is full of water, suggesting a lot of it on the Martian surface at one time.  Another meteorite that smashed down recently in California was very old and very rare.  But its arrival was also unusual: "Most notably, Jenniskens says the meteorite hit the Earth’s atmosphere at a blistering speed of nearly 18 miles per second, making it one of the fastest recorded object to strike Earth."  That's twice as fast as the usual meteorite, and had it been a larger chunk of its mother asteroid, it might have done significant damage.  Although maybe not as much as the meteorites that hit California in 1953, with those Martian fighting machines inside.

The White House hosts a number of petitions which citizens can post and sign--once there's a certain number of signatures, the White House must officially respond.  So apparently a petition for the United States to finance and build a Death Star got those signatures, because the White House did respond.

The answer from the Chief of the Science and Space Branch at the White House Office of Management and Budget was no, partly because "Why would we spend countless taxpayer dollars on a Death Star with a fundamental flaw that can be exploited by a one-man starship?"  But he does point out all that the U.S. and U.S.-based corporations are doing in space and space travel.  The response is full of Star Wars references (including its title, "This is not the petition response you were looking for") but it concludes: "We are living in the future! Enjoy it!"  Star Trek fans can identify with that, too.

I'm not going to repeat all the news (or what passes for news) on the forthcoming Star Trek JJA2 movie--there's plenty at Trek Movie (although the post claiming that Benedict Cumberbatch "contrasts" his role with Malcolm McDowell's Sorin in Generations is just wrong--he is saying how his portrayal is similar to McDowell's in that he is a villain who doesn't leer like one.) 

But I will pass on a bit of news concerning this year's Doctor Who 50th anniversary.  There's to be a Five Doctors radio/audio drama, starring the five surviving Doctors of the "classic" era (Tom Baker, Peter Davison, Colin Baker, Sylvester McCoy and Paul McGann.)  The story also mentions the 50th anniversary documentary that's written by Who writer/actor and current Sherlock co-producer Mark Gatiss.  (It misspells his name, though--should be a source of fun around the BBC for awhile.)  By the by, just saw Gatiss in an old Midsomers Murders playing a freaked-out parson, and he was quite convincing.

But still no word on what the TV series itself will do to mark the anniversary.  I just re-watched the 1983 Five Doctors special, produced for the 20th anniversary.  It's full of in-jokes and has a decent story, but you can see the problems of trying to crowd everybody (and their companions) in.  It also skimps on the interaction between the Doctors that's the real reason to do such a show.  As for the 50th, word at Doctor Who News  is that Christopher Eccleston won't appear as the Doctor again, but that David Tennant is being coy about it.  Meanwhile, the Christmas special, Snowmen, based on a story by Douglas Adams, got good reviews in the UK.  I haven't even seen the 2011 Christmas special yet.  So much for news on Doctor Who.

Captain's Log: Kepler 10b, Anti-Matter on Earth and the Very Lonely Future

First the discovery of a planet orbiting another star. Then progressively smaller planets, closer to Earth size. Then planets in their solar system zone that scientists deem most likely to allow life to develop. Now the latest in those discoveries, announced by NASA scientists at the annual American Astronomical Society convention: Kepler 10b, only 1.4 times the size of Earth, and rocky--that is, not entirely gaseous.

Like other exoplanets, Kepler 10b has been scientifically inferred rather than observed, so the three illustrations of it above are artist's conceptions. The first is a kind of close-up, the second is the view from its surface of its sun, Kepler, and the third a portrait of Kepler 10b in space. As the second illustration suggests, the planet is too close to its sun to harbor life as we know it.

Still... "A pioneer of the hunt for exoplanets, Geoffrey Marcy, from the University of California Berkeley, said that Kepler 10b represented "a planetary missing link, a bridge between the gas giant planets we've been finding and the Earth itself, a transition... between what we've been finding and what we're hoping to find. This report... will be marked as among the most profound scientific discoveries in human history."

Anti-Matter Near You

You might expect to find anti-matter in your starship's warp engines, but how about in the clouds above your backyard? "To the great surprise of physicists and meteorologists alike, NASA's orbiting Fermi gamma-ray observatory has discovered that thunderstorms are emitting powerful bursts of antimatter into space."

"Antimatter is a mirror image of normal matter with unusual properties" the LA Times story notes. "It was created in equal abundance to normal matter at the beginning of the universe, but was destroyed when it came in contact with the normal matter and is now primarily the subject of fiction: the material that powers the starship Enterprise..." Although scientists have spent a lot of time and money trying to create some in particle accelerators, they were shocked to find that the Fermi orbiter discovered some already on earth--in lightning. And not just a little.

Though this finding is brand new (announced at that same Astronomical Society convention), it's causing scientists to look harder at the tremendous power in lightning, when electrons are accelerated to near the speed of light. Maybe warp drive visionaries should leave the nice warm lab and go out into the rain.

The Dark Future

Anti-matter and so-called Dark Matter and Dark Energy are among those concepts and realities that science doesn't really know enough about. (Not that they know a whole lot more about, say, water.) But Brian Greene's recent essay in the New York Times is a nice narrative of the road so far leading to today's pressing questions: "If there is a diffuse, invisible energy permeating space, where did it come from? Is this dark energy (to use modern parlance) a permanent fixture of space, or might its strength change over time? Perhaps most perplexing of all is a question of quantitative detail. The most refined attempts to calculate the amount of dark energy suffusing space miss the measured value by a gargantuan factor of 10123 (that is, a 1 followed by 123 zeroes) — the single greatest mismatch between theory and observation in the history of science."

Greene then focuses on one possible implication: that if dark energy doesn't degrade over time, space will continue to expand and distant galaxies will move away from ours faster and faster--for only space itself, Greene writes, can move faster than the speed of light. (Which is in a sense is part of warp drive theory. It isn't really a faster engine--it's a way to warp space.) But one result for Earth is that in the very far distant future, the night sky will be much emptier, as the rest of the universe disappears into the cosmic distance. Of course, residents of Earth's big cities might not even notice. They can't see anything up there now.

Well, back to the present: when Time Magazine summarizes the current efforts of corporations to take humans into space, starring SpaceX founder Elon Musk, a name that not even sci-fi could invent. And as for Star Trek in the present, there's Tuesday's PBS Pioneers of Television focus on science-fiction, and the original Star Trek in particular. Trek Movie has some interview excerpts featuring William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy and Nichelle Nichols. We'll see if there's anything new to see or say.

Update: There wasn't. Considering the previous PBS series on the history of television, my expectations were pretty low, but this Pioneers of Television hour ostensibly about science fiction was just about the worst piece of TV on the subject I've ever seen: rambling, pointless and a near total waste of a great opportunity. They didn't even mention the actual pioneers of science fiction on television (Captain Video, Space Patrol, Tom Corbett, Science Fiction Theater etc.) and they even libelled s/f in the movies, reducing everything in the 50s and 60s to cheap monster movies. Instead they focused on three 1960s series, mostly Star Trek and Lost in Space. There was something of a storyline there at least--their contrast and network competition--but not a terribly interesting storyline to hang an hour on. I haven't checked any of the boards but I'm sure their version of Star Trek history is getting lambasted by knowledgeable fans. The interviews with Shatner, Nimoy and Nichelle didn't reveal anything new, nor could they be expected to after all these years. The Twilight Zone was practically an afterthought. Very disappointing.

Captain's Log: Trek Script, Indie Trek Flicks, UFO, and Enterprise Flies

In a story at TrekMovie.com headlined It's Not About the Villain, Star Trek JJA producer Damon Lindelof said the script for the next movie is "progressing," but contrary to the major speculation, they aren't starting with the villain. "Trek is not about villains, it is about the crew and their relationship with each other – that family. If the villain helps sort of flesh that out and bring that to life, then we have hit a home run." He mentions that "we are obviously aware of what people are saying on the web." Maybe it has nothing to do with it of course, but for instance, maybe this, right here, entitled Don't Start with the Villain.

Indie Trek Films at Hollywood Xpo

I'm seriously behind the timeline, because Hollywood Xpo came and went this past weekend, and I didn't get around to posting about a feature of it that most impressed me: the schedule of films there. I've seen some of them, parts of others, and know nothing about still others. They run the gamut from independent films with Star Trek talent (Walter Koenig's InAlienable, Nichelle Nichols in Lady Magdalene's, Tim Russ-directed Divas of Novella) or with a connection to others who appeared at this convention (Chrysalis, introduced by Ray Bradbury) to films about Star Trek or set in the Star Trek universe.

There was a "pop-up cut" of Star Trek: Of Gods and Men, which sounds intriguing, though I have no idea what it means. And episodes of Star Trek Phase II and Starship Farragut. I just watched one of the Farragut films online--For Want of a Nail--and I was totally blown away by it. The filmmaking and effects are convincing enough and even startling at times, and the storytelling is absorbing. Plus it's a real Star Trek story. These independent films (and others, like those at Hidden Frontier) more than anything else testify to the enduring power of Star Trek to inspire creativity and imagination. If you haven't visited these sites or otherwise checked out these films recently, it's always worthwhile.

UFO Over China, Balloon Over Earth--and Other News

From the reel world to the real world, so-called: Word has reached the West of a major UFO sighting in China some weeks ago that led to closing a major airport: strange lights and shapes in the sky (captured in the top photo above, and video) that a Chinese scientist said "cannot yet be explained by existing scientific knowledge or natural phenomena."

From possible extraterrestrials to extra-cool earthlings, there's this story about a guy in Brooklyn and his 7 year old son who tied a camera to a weather balloon and came away with a viral video condensed from its 90 minute trip into space. The second photo above comes from it.

Meanwhile, the Virgin Galactic spacecraft Enterprise took another step towards its ultimate trip with a glide and an earth landing, and international partners (U.S., Russia, European Union) are discussing the possibility of a manned return to the Moon via the International Space Station.

This Just In! Shatner Wants to Save the Earth!

Actually there's nothing new here--William Shatner has been an ardent environmentalist for decades--he was trying to save the whales even before Star Trek IV. But the Climate Progress blog inflated a few offhand comments Shatner made to the ace denier Glenn Beck, mostly as a way to get a little Captain Kirk bling. Still, the post includes video that Shatner did on the Climate Crisis for the Sierra Club.

But speaking of the Climate Crisis, Bruce Sterling makes some actual substantive comments in this new interview. He talks cogently about its timeline, and adds:"I can tell people that the climate will get worse, because that's the truth. But I'm not a politician, scientist, engineer or financier. I'm just a visionary novelist. I can advocate some things and maybe increase some public awareness of things. Practically speaking, I am not a major actor in this old, colossal, dreadful story. I am just a talkative artist, someone who can smell that future coming. I do smell it. I smell it every day. It smells like your home, on fire."

Also since my last log, Patrick Stewart's Macbeth had its first run on PBS here in the U.S. You can see it online here. Stroke of genius, that moustache. It's a provocative and effective version, and I say that having acted in it myself (In college I played the often overlooked but actually key character of the play--the Thane of Ross.) In news breaking today, the BBC is taking a big financial hit as the UK government is slashing its budget. How this might affect Doctor Who--still a big TV hit, and making steady inroads in the U.S.--is yet a question.

Captain's Log: Shatner as Spock, the Two Kirks, planetary images and humanoid robots




What if William Shatner had gotten the role of Spock instead of portraying Captain Kirk? The top photo above is as close as I've seen to what he might have looked like, at least with a semblance of the haircut if not the ears. It's apparently from a Shakespearian stage production, published this weekend in a collage accompanying a fascinating interview with William Shatner in the New York Times Magazine. Shatner talks a little about Trek, but most of the piece is about his post-Trek success and an account of a day spent with him. I didn't get an interview with Shatner when I did my Times piece on Trek several years ago, and judging from this article, that may have been just as well--I don't know if I would have survived it as well as Jordan did.

Among his many recent projects, Shatner did voice work for a 3-D animated film, Quantum Quest:A Cassini Space Odyssey, along with several Star Wars stars (Mark Hamill, Samuel L. Jackson, James Earl Jones and Hayden Christensen) and Chris Pine,who played Captain Kirk in Star Trek JJA. The Quantum Quest movie uses actual NASA footage, presumably including such dramatic shots of Saturn and its moons taken by the Cassini spacecraft as were reproduced recently in Wired. (One of them being the middle photo above.) Wired also published some unusual shots of Mars taken from orbit.

More NASA news: Fourteen Nobel Prize-winning scientists signed a letter supporting President Obama's plan for funding space exploration, and criticizing the bill in the U.S. House that “substantially underfunded” the areas of technology development, commercial spaceflight, robotic missions, and university and student research.

And the September Space Shuttle mission will carry not only human astronauts but, for the first time, humanoid robots, like the two pictured above. These "robonauts" will be going to the International Space Station, to help out the human crew. It's partly an experiment to see if human-robot interaction is enhanced when the robots look like people. A small step for a robot, a giant leap for...Data?

One small step...40 years ago today, Neil Armstrong became the first human to set foot on ground not of this Earth. In July 1969, Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins blasted off to the moon in the powerful Saturn rocket (second photo). Today, those three met with President Obama, who appears to be not quite giving the Vulcan salute. He'd just shaken hands with Neil Armstrong, and as I never tire of telling, I met Armstrong when he spoke at the Farewell to James Doohan convention in 2004. Nichelle Nichols introduced me to him.

If few outside of science fiction fans believed humans would walk on the moon by 1969, few science fiction fans or writers imagined that the Apollo program would be the last voyage beyond Earth orbit in more than three decades. NASA has plans for a return to the moon and then on to Mars, and the astronauts today talked about it, but got no commitment from the President--although the administration is studying it, and with all the other spending priorities, they are unlikely to announce anything for at least a couple of years. But the new NASA director Obama appointed seems determined to get to Mars, and beyond.

As for the moon landing, William Shatner wrote about it in one of his books. Star Trek had been cancelled and he was out of work, a divorce left him broke and essentially homeless, so he watched Neil Armstrong while lying on his back in his makeshift camper and residence in the parking lot of a dinner theatre where he was appearing, on a tiny TV balanced on his chest, pulling in the signal with a small antennae augmented by aluminum foil. But as it turned out, even if NASA wasn't going where no one had gone before in the next few decades, Captain Kirk--and several captains after him--would be.

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.

Concerning the ongoing adventure, Star Trek: Grumpy Old Men. Cartoon by Don Asmussen in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Trek Movie found this clip of William Shatner's last "appearance" as Captain Kirk--a heavily worked-over simulation for a Direct TV ad. It's kind of bittersweet, as it shows both what we're losing and what can never be again anyway.

William Shatner as Captain Kirk in Generations

How to Get Shatner Into Star Trek XI

by William S. Kowinski

Once again, Star Trek XI writer Roberto Orci is saying that a part for William Shatner in the new Paramount Trek movie is still possible, if they can only figure out how to get around the death of Captain Kirk in Star Trek Generations. (Though the interview quoted on the Sci-Fi Wire was in November, Orci apparently confirmed to Trek Movie Report this week that it's still true.)

"From my point of view, it's a very long shoot, and things change. It's just whether we can figure it out," Orci said. He's been saying this for a long time, and I haven't found it entirely credible, but let's take him at his word. I know this is going to be presumptuous because it's their movie and I don't know what the movie's story is anyway, but at this point, maybe it's worth thinking this through.

With some of the movie already shot, and a lot of it locked in by the writers strike, it's obvious that making Captain Kirk a major character is no longer possible. The best that could be done now, probably, is a brief appearance, probably at the end of the story.

So given that Kirk was killed on Veridian 3 after leaving the Nexus to help Captain Picard defeat Soren, what are the options? His presence would have to be simple to explain quickly: it's too late for a story involving, for instance, Q bringing him from a parallel universe to help Spock solve some galactic conundrum.

So last night I sat down to think about it and came up with several ideas, based on two possibilities. One is the Nexus. In Generations, Guinan is on the Enterprise when she explains to Picard she had been in the Nexus, but had been ripped out of it by the Enterprise B, in the event that saw Kirk lost (presumed killed, but actually swept into the Nexus energy ribbon.) But later, when Picard is in the Nexus, Guinan is there. She says she is an "echo" of the Guinan he knows on the Enterprise. There are several possible interpretations of what this "echo" person is.

The most direct exploitation of the "echo" Kirk might go like this:

1. 24th century Spock is returning from his adventure when he spots a ribbon in the sky, swooping towards him. It's the Nexus, which Kirk's "echo" has learned to "pilot," and because of the knowledge of the universe he has within the Nexus, he knows of Spock's mission. So he takes the Nexus to Spock to pepper him with questions about how the mission went, what happened, what was it like. He's gotten tired of living the Nexus possibilities of his life, including seeing his grandchildren born, which is what he was doing when he realized Spock was nearby. This gives us the excitable, impetuous, resourceful and conflicted Kirk--with an unbreakable bond with Spock-- that only Shatner can play.

The other obvious possibility is a holographic Kirk. (I believe this was considered for how to bring Kirk and Picard together in the movie that became Generations.) The most basic way this could work might be:

2. Having revisited the past and seen the very young Kirk again, back in the 24th century Spock desires closure that he never got, since he wasn't there for Kirk's death, and perhaps didn't even hear about it until weeks later. So he programs a holographic Kirk, makes him an age that is the human equivalent of his own age, and converses with him. Spock of course would realize the illogic of talking with a hologram as it it were alive, of conversing with a simulation when it cannot be the real Kirk. And yet, he feels compelled to do it. The holographic Kirk teases him about it, holds his feet to the fire over it, and ultimately they do achieve closure--on this mission and its purpose, on their dedication to Starfleet and the ideals of the Federation, and on their lives--their triumphs, mistakes, what they learned, and their legacy.

Those are the basic ideas. I also came up with two ways to combine the Nexus option with the hologram.

3. At the conclusion of this mission, 24th century Spock finally visits Kirk's grave on Veridan 3. While there, gazing on a monument that has since been erected, he is startled to hear Kirk's voice. Then he sees the memorial pavilion, and inside it is a holographic "interactive Kirk," programmed to answer questions about himself from visitors, especially schoolchildren. When Spock enters, Kirk recognizes him. He says that the Nexus passed just close enough at the time of his death that "an echo" of himself was preserved here. He has inhabited his own simulation, waiting for Spock to arrive. They talk about Spock's mission, and everything described above.

Then there's a variation with a familiar but perhaps still effective twist:

4. Aboard his returning ship, 24th century Spock is visited by a holographic image of Kirk. He says that he's found a way to transmit a hologram outside the Nexus, but only for a few minutes. They converse, as above. Finally Spock says, it is not logical that you can do this. Kirk smiles--the Nexus is a very strange place. It isn't limited by logic--or technology. But you're right--I didn't get a transdimensional hologram emitter for Christmas. Still, there's no power in the universe like the power of the mind, and the heart. I may not be able to get myself into your time and space, but I am already in your mind, and your heart. So it was easier to go directly there--to your dreams." Spock wakes up--and wonders, was it only a dream, or was it really Kirk?

Those are possibilities for Shatner as Captain Kirk. But there are also more ambiguous possibilities. For example:

5. Aboard a 24th century starship, Spock is returning from his mission when he is confronted by an officer he doesn't know--and yet seems shockingly familiar. The officer is very eager to know how his mission went, what was it like, and he asks about Captain Kirk--did he see him, is Kirk's legacy secure? All this time Spock is about as freaked out as a Vulcan can be, because the officer is the image of Jim Kirk, although years older than Kirk was when he "died." Finally, Spock says, "You seem to know a great deal about Captain Kirk, Commander--" "Commander Crane, sir." Spock seems finally to believe Commander Crane is a strange coincidence, but the twinkle in Shatner's eye tells us maybe, somehow...

These may be totally impractical and ineffective suggestions, though I don't think they are uninteresting. And I may be wrong that they demonstrate that it's possible to get William Shatner "as" Captain Kirk into this movie, if it really is a priority.

Captain's Log: New Trek Movie Cast, Academy Collision Course

The new Star Trek movie is about to begin shooting. What strikes me now about the members of the cast who have been announced and rumored is that except for Leonard Nimoy, there isn't a name among them known to many potential moviegoers over the age of 30 or so.

The strategy behind this, if there is a strategy, seems obvious: by bringing Star Trek to a new audience, the new masters of the Trek universe mean bringing it to a younger audience. They are doing this by re-branding it--by taking the iconic characters everyone has heard of and replacing the actors with younger ones. This has its own risks, but the security of a successful "franchise"--the original series characters--must appeal to the studio.

The studio may also be pleased that these are the only Trek characters completely unassociated with the previous regime of Rick Berman, that ended with box office and ratings disappointments. (Some actors in the later Trek series' felt this instinctively; they knew they would not get a role in this movie because as one said they're all branded with a B for Berman.)

But getting back to the original point, unless late announcements are part of the strategy, I am frankly surprised that there haven't been a few "name" actors known to the broad moviegoing public added to the mix. It seemed to me a natural situation, not unlike the Harry Potter movies--you have older teachers (or officers) played by established names, and the younger characters played by "new faces."

The youth movement strategy may pay off, but it may leave older Trek fans feeling left out, as well as giving older moviegoers no reason to go to this movie.

Another fly in the ointment is William Shatner. As he regularly professes his disappointment in not being included, and his fans mount organized campaigns to include him, he could become the symbol of everyone who feels left out. In any case, I agree with Anthony Pascale at Trek Movie Report that this business of "we're trying to get Shatner into the movie" but with no action (that we know of) taken in that direction should stop. With the writers strike, it probably has to stop--they will have no way of changing the script to include him while the strike is on. Director Abrams should make and announce a definitive decision.

I tend to believe that if they wanted Shatner in the movie, he would be in the movie. And Shatner must feel the same way.

Collision Course

Trek fans often come at everything new in Trek with so many preconceptions. Sometimes they're factual, sometimes mistaken, or prejudices derived from other people's prejudices repeated so often that they become the standard view in a particular group --a cascade of opinion that becomes part of the price of belonging. (And that's without including rumor--as a comment said on Trekweb recently about the rumored new trailer for the new movie, we're now dealing with rumors of spoilers of a trailer for a movie that hasn't been made yet.) Fortunately, Trek fans all include more independent minds than most, and they can decide for themselves, and listen to their own individual responses.

For example, the response to the new Trek novel, Star Trek: The Academy-- Collision Course by William Shatner and Judith & Garfield Reeves-Stevens. After a dismissive review at Trekweb--which started one set of preconceptions-- I published a positive one at Trek Movie Report . The comments reflected both the preconceptions and the independence to say what they felt after reading the novel. (Are you wondering why the book cover isn't floating by in the slide show to the right? It's supposed to be there, but no matter how many times I've redone it, this Amazon widget won't include it. Sigh. Update: it's suddenly appeared! There it is!)

Common preconceptions include those about what is and isn't "canon," and they aren't always right. For example, one poster insists that Spock was so much older than Kirk that they could never be at the Academy together. In fact, the original series establishes that Kirk was born in 2233 and Spock in 2230, so they could very well be 17 and 19 as they are in the novel. The Trek Encyclopedia--as close to codified canon as Trek gets-- has their years in the Academy overlapping. It's the same with other canon objections--the Reeves-Stevens did their homework.

In fact there are possible anomalies that no one brought up--they don't contradict canon, but they raise questions. The ones that occur to me involve young Kirk and Spock having adventures in San Francisco, and never mentioning them later. But mostly having to do with the plot involving Kodos the Executioner, from the original series episode "The Conscience of the King." To say what my questions are would give away too much of the story right now. But I look forward to reading how Shatner and the Reeves-Stevens deal with them in the next novel in this series (and apparently the only other one planned), as I'm sure they will.

There is another set of preconceptions that's more understandable: some readers found past Shatnerverse books to be too much Kirk at the expense of other Trek characters, and the universe. I haven't read them all, but I do remember thinking that one that I read was a little too Kirkcentric. Still, I thought there were a lot of creative ideas in them. But my reading of this novel is that it is much more balanced--there's as much Spock as Kirk in it--and there are some other interesting characters, especially one that hasn't appeared before. And some of the comments confirm that other readers feel this way. We agree that the characterizations--Spock's inner struggles, how witnessing the violence on Tarsus IV when he was only 14 changed Jim Kirk--are masterful.

I'll say this for my review--it mentioned the contemporary child soldiers of Africa and Asia reflected in some of the characters in this novel, and in his comments since, Shatner has confirmed that he was thinking specifically about Darfur, but also other revelations from former child soldiers, when he conceived of this story.

Well, you can go read my review for the rest. Or just to put aside your preconceptions, take a deep breath and open this book. You might enjoy the ride. I did.

Conscience of the King

As for that episode, I took another look at it last week. As an early first season episode, "Conscience of the King" shows the series still finding itself and its characters. Kirk excludes Spock from what he's doing and is abrupt and authoritarian with him. Spock goes to McCoy with his suspicions about Kirk. At least one of the Kirk and the girl scenes are so obvious they're embarrassing. In a scene not often repeated in the rest of the series, there's a break in the action for a musical number, for this is the episode in which Nichelle Nichols sings "Beyond Antares," accompanying herself on the Vulcan harp. However, the scene does have a dramatic purpose, and because Uhura is singing over an open intercom, Riley's poisoning is discovered soon enough to save his life.

The plot is not terribly original, not even the twist at the end, though even with its awkwardness it's pretty effectively done. The action does parallel very well the Shakespeare plays that Kodos--calling himself Karidian--and his company do. (The Okuda text commentary on the DVD skillfully points them out.) The theme of technology versus humanity, which would be an important one in the original series especially but also later in Trek, is brought up but seems awkward to me. But like a lot of the original series, it does transcend its limitations to become really affecting.

The heart of the story involves an issue more alive in the 1960s than now--the Holocaust and the Nazis eugenics experiments, and related issues from World War II and the Korean conflict, as well as issues being discussed about fallout shelters and who would survive nuclear war. We certainly have more contemporary instances, though perhaps they are less a part of the culture generally than these were. The themes do lend themselves to Shakespearian treatment.

But like a lot of original series stories, the new characters and situations are sketchy, and they exist only to make this particular story work. Though that causes some problems for people working with them now, like the Reeves-Stevens, it also offers opportunities to flesh them out and make them more relevant to us today, for instance with the idea that Kodos employed child soldiers. I'm looking forward to reading the next installment.

Captain's Log: new Trek movie news, Who concludes, and a Nobel for Sci-fi

If you've been reading the Trek Movie Report (where I'll be appearing from time to time) you've seen the announcements of actors who will be playing arguably the most famous bridge crew in the history of Earth in the new Star Trek movie. I have little to say about the choices--I know little or nothing about these actors or why they were chosen for those particular roles. But I do note the curious swiftness with which the actors who played these characters originally (or in Scotty's case, his son and heir) have endorsed these choices. Fans might not give these new actors an even break if the actors who created the characters were negative about them. The new moviemakers likely know this, so I keep wondering how coincidental these endorsements are. But they certainly are fortuitous.

I do have an opinion on Eric Bana, who I liked in The Incredible Hulk, a movie I also liked, despite its excesses. He was credible and skillful. He's been signed to play the villain, named for the moment "Nero" (which seems unlikely to be the real name of the character), presumably a Romulan.

A name has been put forward for the new Captain Kirk, and pre-endorsed by the new Spock. In an interview with Trek Movie Report, Roberto Orci, one of the writers of the new film, reinterated that they are still looking for a way to include William Shatner as the elder Captain Kirk. This statement has three possibilities: one is that they really aren't but they show respect for Shatner and his fans by saying so, but that seems less likely now because Orci repeated it several months and a script draft after director J.J. Abrams said it at Comicon. Another is that they really are. And the third is that they've already got Shatner but don't want to announce it yet. If they do have him, they may produce another old-and-new act by revealing it when the new Kirk actor is officially announced. Or, they could even save it as a surprise for the movie itself.

In this interview, by the way, both Orci and interviewer Anthony Pascale used the phrase "the soul of Star Trek." That's apparently a big concern for those making the movie. I saw that Orci liked my review of Star Trek IV at Trek Movie, but I have no idea if any of the people involved in the new movie, as some involved in the old movies, read this blog. The subject of which, of course, is that very same Soul of Star Trek.

Who Concludes

Us backward North Americans just saw the conclusion of Doctor Who's third season. As you may recall, my response to the penultimate episode was pretty cranky. But even given the Sci-Fi channel's distractions, "Last of the Time Lords" was a powerful episode and ending to the season. After milking prior devices and references perhaps a bit too much in the first parts of this arc, this last story paid off with a surprise or two in those references, and especially by turning some elements in an unexpected--yet very Dr. Who--direction.

For instance, [SPOILERS AHEAD] I liked that the device of the satellites controlling the population (so similar to the alternate universe Cybermen episodes) becoming the means for the Doctor to reassert control, by channeling the psychic energy of the planet's population, focused on his name.

Russell Davies has more than flirted with the Doctor as a god, and this time he's made him quite Christ-like (although it must be said that there are earlier prototypes in human mythologies and rituals for the redeemer.) We've seen the Doctor several times this year spend long periods in exile, actually living through time rather than popping in and out of it. This culminates in this episode, in which he, along with humans associated with him, are seen to suffer for a full year. Martha Jones becomes a kind of prophet, a John the Baptist, by spreading the Doctor's word (literally, the word "Doctor") around the world.

In the end, the Doctor derives his power from believers, as a past and hoped-for future savior. And after saying (in an episode last year) that he used to have so much mercy but was now too old to exercise it, he triumphs in this episode by loving his enemy, and forgiving (after becoming his actual age, and apparently helpless.) That was perhaps the difference in the Christian story, a product (in mythic terms) of Christ being both god and human, which the Doctor has now been as well. But of course this isn't an overt theme, let alone a blasphemous one.

The last part of the episode--the comic twist concerning the Face of Boe, the parting with Martha-- was very well handled, making this an emotional and on the whole buoyant conclusion.

Now David Tennant goes off to do Hamlet with Patrick Stewart. I recently heard an old interview with Canadian actor Paul Gross who said that the conventional wisdom in the theatre is that actors are either pre-Hamlet or post-Hamlet--that it changes the actors who play that part. Since the episodes we'll see next season are already in the can, we won't see the post-Hamlet Tennant until the Christmas special in 2008 (which we'll see here in 2009.)

Nobel for Sci-Fi

Along with Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize for his work calling attention to the "planetary emergency" (his words, as well as words from Star Trek IV) of the Climate Crisis, this week the Nobel Prize in Literature was given to Doris Lessing, a longtime resident of England, though earlier in her life she lived in Africa. I note this here because among her novels are several that expanded the genre of science fiction, in particular the "Canopus in Argos" series that are among my favorite science fiction novels: Shikasta, The Making of the Representative for Planet 8, The Sentimental Agents, The Sirian Experiments, The Marriages Between Zones Three, Four, and Five.

Lessing is not the first Nobel laureate to have written some works that are at least sometimes classified as science fiction or futuristic (William Golding, Nadine Gordimer, Jose Saramago, to name a few). But these and other novels with a science fiction theme (including her most recent, The Story of General Dann and Mara's Daughter, Griot and the Snow Dog) went a long way to breaking the barrier between genres, and also paving the way for women writers identified as realists (Margaret Atwood) and as genre writers (Ursula LeGuin) to get closer together in readership, even when they moved in the opposite direction from their supposed niche.

Lessing's Canopus books also added a new sophistication to the science fiction epic-- especially Shikasta, which portrayed a resonant new history for planet Earth. She especially linked ancient belief systems to a sense of how the universe works that we're still groping towards scientifically. I think of that novel more often than a lot of others, science fiction and otherwise.

Among its fans--as dedicated as science fiction fans often are--this book also attracted cultists, which she talks about in this excellent short interview with Newsday. I don't know if this novel and the rest of the Canopus books are especially popular with Star Trek fans, but they probably should be. They're intelligent science fiction about a past that links us with the universe and an inspiring sense of what it's all about, even if the future includes tragedy.

Captain's Log: Two Spocks and One World

Very cagey, J.J. Abrams; very astute. The panel at Comicon last week featuring Abrams and the others most responsible for the 11th Trek movie (which is apparently going to call itself simply but portentously, Star Trek) was very skillfully done.

Abrams paid homage to the Star Trek tradition, and short-circuited much fan controversy especially by introducing the new actor who will play Spock ( Zachary Quinto, currently in TV's Heroes) with the actor who is Spock, at least until Christmas 2008: Leonard Nimoy. Nimoy confirmed that he will appear in the new movie, playing Spock, too.

Nimoy's endorsement of the movie and especially the script is no small potatoes. In my conversation with him a few years ago, he referred to Star Trek as a "beached whale," helplessly flopping around. But he noted that whenever the situation was most dire, something or someone saved the Star Trek galaxy with a new infusion of creativity. He apparently believes this movie will do it again.

He also told me as he has told others that Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home was his Star Trek statement. Note that he didn't say Wrath of Khan. He pointed out that The Voyage Home had almost no violence, yet it was dramatic. I'm assuming that if the new script was nothing but special effects battles, he wouldn't be endorsing it.

[Update: Trek Movie Report has a terrific two-part interview with Nimoy, here and here. ]

Abrams also said that they were actively looking for a way to include William Shatner as Captain Kirk in the movie, and that the search for an actor to play young Kirk was ongoing. This was the canniest of all. He'd introduced the new Spock only in tandem with the old. He wasn't going to slight Shatner and risk the ire of Kirk fans by introducing a new Kirk with no Shatner, especially when he was introducing the two Spocks. How sincerely they are trying to work Shatner into the story, and how successfully they'll be, is questionable. But he's told everybody that he's trying, and that may be enough for many fans. Eventually (the film is scheduled to start shooting in November), announcing the new Kirk--whether with Shatner or not--will give the movie a separate dose of publicity.

One World

We here in the U.S. know so little about the rest of the world. It's also pretty depressing to realize how much suffering there is in places we do know about, like Iraq and Darfur. But what about all the millions of people affected by regional wars, political and racial oppression, the lack of simple medicines to fight deadly diseases, as well as drought, floods and other global heating effects? It often seems to take a celebrity's involvement to bring specific situations to wider attention, as Richard Gere did for Tibet, George Clooney for Darfur and more recently Sting (and especially his wife, Trudie Styler) for the deforestation and death-causing pollution among Native peoples caused by big oil companies in Ecuador.

Star Trek stars are a natural for this kind of work. Walter Koenig is drawing attention to the plight of refugees from Burma (now called Myanmar), where (one activist said) more villages have been destroyed than even in Darfur. This month he visited refugee camps along the Thailand border, and has committed himself to helping to get out the word about human rights violations and the desperate need of these people. He cited Star Trek fans as natural allies.

"Star Trek fans share a value system that will help connect them to the refugees and shine a spotlight on their plight," Koenig told the AP. "In the original series, we were an international, interethnic, interracial community... People have responded to that for 40 years and I think there's a sense of benevolence and humanity in the fans." There more on his web site.

Before McCoy

I was watching another episode of the 1950s series, Science Fiction Theatre on the DVD I got on eBay: a group of military technicians at the North Pole suddenly developed ESP powers, and a professor and his stacked blond assistant were called to the scene to figure out why. The assistant, herself naturally adept at ESP, fell suddenly into a coma, attended by the medical doctor of the outfit. This DVD is not broadcast quality--it's in color, though the shows weren't broadcast that way, and the picture is often pretty bad. So it was more the voice than the picture that tipped me off--it was Doctor McCoy!

Or rather it was a noticeably younger DeForest Kelley--a fleshier face, with a thin moustache! But there he was, playing the doctor (and trying, not too successfully, to keep his hands from straying to those big American breasts.) The episode was called Y.O.R.D. (1955) and was one of three he did for this series, but the only named character (Captain Hall, M.D.). The episode also featured Kenneth Tobey, best known for playing another military guy at another North Pole base in another extraterrestrial story, the classic movie: The Thing. He was in another 50s s/f classic, The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms (Ray Bradbury story) and one of his last credited appearances was on Deep Space Nine. Rachel Ames (then called Judith Ames) was the babe; her acting career began with yet another 50s s/f classic, When Worlds Collide (1951). She was in a half dozen Science Fiction Theatre episodes and did lots of TV before settling down as the longest running performer in the longest running soap opera ever, General Hospital.

Science Fiction Theatre was a mid-1950s ZIV production, the company that produced West Point Story and other series that Gene Roddenberry wrote for early in his career. Ironically, he never wrote an episode for this series, though according to his biographer, David Alexander, he submitted a script idea that was deemed too expensive to make. It was about the inventor of a machine that produced what we would today call "virtual reality" (a decade before Philip K. Dick published his story about it, Alexander writes, that became the basis of Total Recall), but the inventor had second thoughts when he realized how commercial interests would exploit it. As host Truman Bradley says at the end of most S/F Theatre episodes, the fiction of today often becomes the reality of tomorrow.