Complaints

The odds are pretty even, and have been for a while, that two of my favorite TV shows will be canceled with the WB/UPN smoosh that'll be happening in the fall. Which makes me disappointed in the viewing habits of the people this world has. Do we really need three nights a week of a white "comedian" who shaves his head asking "Deal or no deal?" Is there really an audience for CSI and its two spin-offs? How about Law and Order and its two spin-offs? But there may not be room for two wonderful shows out there because people will watch any show with CSI or Law and Order in the title.

Then I read that J. J. Abrams will be in charge of the next Star Trek movie. (I know I'm a few days behind on the entertainment stuff, so what.) As I read more, I learned that it'll be based on Kirk at the Academy. Although I think Abrams will do a decent job with this movie, to me it seems like a slap in the face of people who have been watching Star Trek for a long time.

I do understand why the studio would do a young Kirk and Spock movie, it's all about recognizability. When most of the world thinks Star Trek, they still think of that excellent first season and the pretty good second season and the iffy third season from the original series because these episodes are the reason the show thrived after it was canceled. These are the people who successfully moved the television series into movies. These are the characters that people who have never seen a Star Trek episode or movie know the names of. The thought process probably is that if more people recognize the character name, the more likely they'll be willing to go see it.

As a fan, I don't want this movie. Continuity will be ignored. (Which was one of the main problems with the series Enterprise, which deserves a complaint all on its own.) Character will be ignored. Did you check out the link that goes to Ain't It Cool News? In the review of the script, it's made pretty clear that Kirk is a reckless kid at the Academy, I always thought that the show made it clear that at the Academy, Kirk was kind of dull, very much into his studies and after he got on a ship he became the risk taker to help to propel himself through the ranks. This is the Kirk that I'd like to see, however, this isn't the Kirk that, nearly, everyone else wants to see. They want to see Kirk acting rash. They want to hear Spock saying Kirk is acting in an illogical and irrational manner, but back Kirk up anyway. They want McCoy to be Kirks heart to Spock being Kirk's head, even though Kirk and Bones have just met.

Personally, I'd like to see a Trek movie that takes place after Nemesis (a totally lost opportunity) and shows the rebuilding of Cardassia. It could be a science fiction, political thriller, action movie. Start the movie at Deep Space 9, Doctor Bashir receives a letter from Garak filled with Obsidian Order codes that Garak taught the doctor during the Dominion War. Decoded, the letter reveals information about a faction of Cardassians breeding a hybrid Cardassian/Klingon/Jem'Hadar to strike and destroy the fragile new democracy that was once the Cardassian Union. Cut to the Enterprise orbiting Cardassia Prime, with other Federation star ships, shipping humanitarian aid people of the planet. (For the uber-fans, like me, if Gul Macet or Gul Evek were to meet with Picard, creaming of pants may occur at the movie theater. If Garak appears later in the movie, a creaming will occur.) After a time getting to know the situation, Commander Kira (in a Starfleet uniform, to show that Bajor has joined the Federation, things have changed since the end of DS9) contacts Picard with Garak's warning. After the relevant information has been passed along, but before the conversation is over, a couple of ships decloak (they looks like a cross between a Jem'Hadar attack ship and a Cardassian Hideki-class ship, small and maneuverable, good for hit-and-run attacks) and attack and destroy some of the supply ships before the Enterprise and the other escort ships, if there are other escort ships, finish them off. And then the chase, the mystery, and the attempt to keep a fragile relationship begins. In the end, in a perfect world, the "bad guys" should be Gul Madred, the Cardassian who tortured Picard in the excellent episode "Chain of Command, Part II" and a rouge clone of Weyoun, who snuck in from the Gamma Quadrant, two people with a real grudge against the Federation and who would want Cardassia to go back to being the militarily led government it once was.

And there you have my beginning and partial cast to what I'd like to see as the next Trek movie. It's ripe with opportunities for guest appearance from everyone who appeared on TNG, DS9, and Voyager. Of course, I'm really only out to give the fans something fun, something to really reward their years of watching the shows and movies, reading the books, and buying the other stuff that's been put out over the years, but I think that there'd be a way to make it fairly accessible to regular people.

In the end, though, Paramount will get Abrams to do the movie they want, basically a young Star Trek with young Kirk acting like an older Kirk and a young Spock and a young McCoy acting like their older counterparts. The worst part of this, I'll go to and see this movie and probably enjoy it for what it is, but it's not the Star Trek that I grew up with. It's not the Star Trek that was Great. It's not the Star Trek that existed until September of 1999, when DS9 went off the air. (For the record, I thought Voyager lost its way when they gave Kes the boot and made the Borg with boobs their #1 go to girl. Too bad, too, that show had potential, but that's a whole other complaint.)

After getting myself worked up over Star Trek, I read the interview of Amy Sherman-Palladino and Dan Palladino. For those of you who don't watch Gilmore Girls, those two leaving Gilmore Girls is reminiscent of Aaron Sorkin leaving The West Wing. Fortunately, and it's not much, it's unlikely that there will be a nearly two seasons worth of comparative crap (the bad episodes of The West Wing are still pretty good when compared to other shows out there, just not itself, although much of Sorkin’s last season didn't work well either) since next season will probably see the end of Gilmore Girls. That's not really a good thing, but it's nice to think if next season doesn't work there probably won't be another one that doesn't work after it.

The thing that really got me was reading some of the comments that people posted to the story. People called the two who were interviewed arrogant because they had a vision for the show, thought they had done an excellent job for the last six seasons, and thought that they deserved two years worth of job security. Damn. Saying that they were spinning the situation in their favor is probably accurate, but shouldn't be a surprise since all of us try to spin conversations about things that don't work out for us in our favor all the time. Then there are the commenters who jumped all over the rumors about what's going to happen in the last episode of the season as if it has happened. It's just a rumor, people, wait until you see the episode, then bitch, but as you're bitching remember that you weren't forced to watch, you could have changed the channel or left the room. I didn't like how people said they just should have gone for that one year contract again. What's wrong with them wanting a little job security? If the show ended at the end of next season, they'd still be working for the studio, probably doing spec for other shows or maybe creating a new show themselves. The worst thing, in my opinion, were the people complaining that Amy Sherman-Palladino and Dan Palladino wouldn't tell what they had planned for next season because they didn't want to put any pressure on people who are taking over next season. They did the right thing because if they told and it didn't happen next season, people would complain that they didn't get what they were told would happen. If they told and it did happen next season, but fell short, people would complain that the Palladino's never should have left and now the show is ruined. Or if they told and it did happen next season and turned out pretty good people would say that it was only because the new crew was working off of an idea from the Palladinos and they couldn't have succeeded with their own ideas. That looks like a no win situation for the show, the people making the show, and the Palladinos.

In the end, I think the Palladinos made the choice they had to make. Was it the right one? No one can tell until we see what happens to with the show next season and what happens to the Palladinos in the long run. In a few years, we'll know.

One more thing about Gilmore Girls, I like this season and think that the girls have been in character even though they're not quite acting like they have in previous seasons. I'm gonna go through the main complaints and tell why I'm right.

Let's start at the end of last/beginning of this Rory thing:
Rory is told that she can't do the thing she wants to do, the thing she's always wanted to do, the thing she's worked for all her life, by someone she respects. She flips out, tries to steal a boat and drops out of school. Her mom won't support this change, so she runs to her grandparents, who she knows can't say no, and Rory doesn't talk to her mom for a while, but starts to take over the DAR. Eventually, she realizes that she's not going anywhere and decides that she can do what she wants no matter what her boyfriend's asshole father says.
In character because Rory has never been told that she can't do anything. When she started Chilton, she was told that it would be hard, but she was never told that she couldn't do it and should quit, she was told to try harder. That was the first time she was ever told to just give up, she couldn't cut it. It shattered her (it would shatter lots of people) so she decided that maybe quitting was the best move. For only the second time in her life, her mother doesn't support a decision she's made, so she cuts her mother off, just like Lorelai cut her parents off for not supporting her decisions. Rory's just reacting like she's seen her mother react time and time again. She dropped out of school because if she assumed she was good at being a journalist and is told she isn't, what's the point of going to school, of doing anything that lead to what she was absolutely sure she'd do for the rest of her life. After she started doing good for the DAR and her grandmother tried to tell her she was doing it all wrong, but she knew she wasn't, Rory finally realized, on her own, that it doesn't matter what a jackass with an ulterior motive says, they don't care about the work, only tearing you down. She learned that it's only worth listening to the message if the messenger isn't working another angle.
(There's also the whole Logan issue, but I seem to be the only person out there who hates him, but still see the rational behind her going back with him. Ugh.)

The more recent episodes are all about Lorelai:
Right after telling Lorelai that they have to be totally honest with each other, Luke learns he has a daughter and doesn't tell Lorelai about her. Two months later, Lorelai finds out by meeting the daughter, but doesn't say "I'm your father's fiancée." How stupid is that.) She finds out that he's been keeping her a secret for two months and doesn't rip his head off, she lets it go. She continues to let it fester, not bringing up the daughter and when the daughter is brought up Lorelai doesn't ask when she's going to meet her. Luke and Lorelai go to Logan's family's house in Martha's Vineyard and we finally hear them say they love each other and they have a wonderful talk without I-haven't-met-your-daughter awkwardness they'd been having, but the awkwardness reappear when they get back into town. As of last week's episode, the awkwardness is still there and Lorelai hasn't officially met the daughter.
Sure, when we think Lorelai, we like to think feisty and in your face, but she's not really that way unless she's really angry, which is a place she hasn't gotten yet. In the past, she's let her mother walk all over her, inviting boring insurance men to dinner, praising Christopher (who's a jackass), rearranging things in Lorelai's house, Emily regifting a coat rack then asking for it back, and many other little things that Lorelai lets her mother get away with, Lorelai just lets these little things go so she doesn't upset the dangerous balance in her life. But in the moments of monumental Emily stupidity, most notably trying to force Luke out and Christopher in last season, Lorelai finally get's mad and says "No more!" She hasn't gotten to this point with Luke yet. She nearly lost Luke already over something her mother did, she's afraid that if she forces the issue over the daughter that, Luke'll leave. She's never had a good relationship, outside of the one with her daughter and her friendship with Sookie, that's lasted as long as the one she has with Luke. She scared of losing the one that she wants. She didn't want Christopher. She didn't want Max. She didn't want Jason "Digger" Stiles (even though he was really funny). She wants Luke. (We all knew that from their first moment together in the series premier.) Until her sadness over him not sharing his daughter with her turns into anger, she's not going to be meeting the daughter. I, along with everyone else out there, hope that she does something soon, but I think that what she has been doing is true to who she's been throughout the series so far.

And that's what I have to say today. To those of you who made it to the end. Why? Or I must be related to you. Or you must be bored. Thanks, though.