Star Trek: Part One - The Sci Fi Classic

STAR TREK - A SCI FI CLASSIC

When one thinks of Science fiction, Star Trek is perhaps the most widely recognised show defining the genre. People who like Sci Fi usually love Star Trek, while those who don't like Sci Fi usually view the old series as being representative of the reasons why they don't like Sci Fi. But I'm not here to discuss them (lol) so lets get a few facts straight then into why I feel Star Trek is a Sci Fi Classic and the model representative of the genre.

Created by Gene Roddenberry in the mid 60s, Star Trek is the epitome of American science fiction entertainment franchise which began in 1966 with the television series Star Trek. Apparently (perhaps obviously) Gene Roddenberry was inspired by Westerns such as Wagon Train as well as the novel Gulliver's Travels when he created the first Star Trek. Craftily, while publicly marketing it as a Western in outer space (a so-called "Wagon Train to the Stars") allegedly he  told friends privately that he was modelling it on Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels (intending each episode to act as a suspenseful adventure story and a morality tale.

What made Star Trek so ground breaking was the fact The Original Series addressed issues of the 1960s such as civil and women's rights, with the main ideology being that humanity had entered an age where material gain was no longer the driving force compelling the human race.

As a result, most of the common diseases and social ills plaguing humanity had been eliminated, and it's the idea we can as a species grow beyond our current tribulations and have a brighter future that made the show so popular (even if most of the younger viewers like myself in the 70s was drawn into it by the Western-esque elements and the ultimate cool guy ladies man... Captain Kirk)

Regardless, the themes of the show had an impact on our young minds (if even subconsciously) piquing our interest in science, engendering a better than average ability to grasp concepts like quantum physics, quantum mechanics, the space/time (or time/space) continuum, causality loops and parallel universes or alternate reality paradoxes. Such concepts that usually have non Science/Sci Fi audience members or Norms (nerd terminology for normal, non Nerd/Geek/Dork/Dweeb or genre loving people... fitting or no?) scratching their heads in mild confusion is generally easy for Sci Fi lovers (Star Trek fans in particular) to comprehend and in some/most cases foresee.

Regarding his creation, Roddenberry said "By creating a new world with new rules, he could make statements about race, sex, religion, war (Vietnam) politics, and intercontinental (nuclear) missiles. He also said "we were sending messages and fortunately they all got by the network." Gotta love Gene.

Locked In THE CAGE Of Network Control

Although he was not fully forthcoming to the networks, he intended the show to have a highly progressive political agenda that was reflective of the emerging counter-culture of the youth movement (maybe the reason the show got cancelled is because they finally caught on that he wanted Star Trek to show what humanity it might develop into, if only we could only learn from the lessons of the past) he created an extreme example in the Vulcans (the alien species with the closest relationship with humanity) who had overcome their own violent past by embracing logic and learning to control their emotions.

Being most specific about ending violence, Roddenberry gave Star Trek an anti-war message and depicted the United Federation of Planets as an ideal, optimistic version of the United Nations (his efforts were opposed because of concerns over marketability??? opposing Roddenberry's insistence that the Enterprise have a racially diverse crew)

The network rejected the show's first pilot, "The Cage", starring Jeffrey Hunter as Enterprise Captain Christopher Pike, but TV executives, still impressed with the Western in Space concept made the unusual decision to commission a second pilot: "Where No Man Has Gone Before" (the show's main theme) starring William Shatner as Captain James Tiberius Kirk (couldn't resist)

While the regular show initially enjoyed high ratings, the average rating of the show at the end of its first season dropped to 52nd (out of 94 programs) When the Network threatened to cancel the show during its second season, the show's fan base conducted an unprecedented letter-writing campaign, petitioning the network to keep the show on the air. The show was renewed (with a substantially reduced budget) and was moved from prime time to what's still regarded as the "Friday night death slot" (ie. Fringe)

In protest Roddenberry resigned from his role as producer and reduced his direct involvement in the molding process of Star Trek. Roddenberry did co-author two scripts of the third and final season, but despite the protests in the form of a renewed letter-writing campaign, the series was cancelled.


REBIRTH?

Paramount Studios smartly bought Desilu Productions (the company co-owned by husband and wife Desi Arnaz and Lucille Bal, holders of  Star Trek's production rights) who sold the syndication rights to Star Trek to help recoup the original series' production losses. The primary reason we fans have for the series' continued evolution? Reruns.

In the fall of 1969 and by the late 1970s the series aired in over 150 domestic and 60 international markets which helped Star Trek develop a cult following greater than its popularity during its original run. The series' new found success led to rumours of reviving the franchise.

Although short lived, the first post original series show Star Trek: The Animated Series was produced, It running for twenty-two, half-hour episodes over two seasons on Saturday mornings from 1973 to 1974. Roddenberry began developing a new series, Star Trek: Phase II, in May 1975 in response to the franchise's new found popularity, unfortunately work on the series ended when the proposed Paramount Television Service folded.


 STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE

 

Following the success of the science fiction movies Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Paramount adapted the planned pilot episode of Phase II into the feature film, Star Trek: The Motion Picture. The film opened in North America on December 7, 1979, with mixed reviews from critics. Despite that fact, the motion picture revitalised the franchise with it's special effects (far better than the under budgeted TV series) and the reunion of the cast and the continued development of the well loved characters (Admiral Kirk, Spock's return to Star Fleet following a sojourn on Vulcan and a young new Captain of the Enterprise) Obviously, a feature film was what the fans craved.

The film earned $139 million worldwide (below expectations but enough for Paramount to create a sequel, which fans loved) Gene Roddenberry was forced to relinquish creative control of future sequels. The success of the critically acclaimed sequel, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (grossed less than the first movie) reversed the fortunes of the franchise with lower production costs making it net more profit.

Paramount produced six Star Trek feature films based on the original series, and in response to their popularity, the franchise returned to television with Star Trek: The Next Generation (TNG) in 1987, choosing to distribute it as a first-run syndication show rather than a network show. This post ended up being longer than anticipated, so in Part Two we'll take a look at the four spin offs, four TNG movies and the Star Trek movies for the 21st Century generation.

you can also follow me on

https://www.facebook.com/Shell?ref=stream#!/alex.pink.921

http://www.youtube.com/user/kniPxelA?feature=mhee
http://www.reddit.com/user/alex6pink/

https://plus.google.com/u/0/

 

BLOG WRITING VS. STORY WRITING

STORY WRITING VS. BLOG WRITING 

I've been writing (screen & novel) for about 15+ years and didn't start Blogging until getting involved with Network Marketing, and the chief difference that I've found is in creativity. As a lover of Science Fiction, there is far more room to use imagination to express my ideas.

Now, anyone can write a blog on just about anything, but unlike writing fiction, bloggers have to have what they're writing about stem from truth and accuracy. That means gathering information on the subject matter from trusted or reliable sources. That means research. Not to say that research isn't a major part of creative writing, but sometimes with blogging it feels like that's all I'm doing.

Of course that's not entirely true, but it feels like it. For me, I like to know the subject matter in order for it (the post) to be presented as trustworthy. With (science) fiction, the trustworthiness comes from the heart being poured into the pages. Thankfully, I live at a point in time in this civilization where information is at my fingertips (I don't have to run out to the library every day,lol)

The above is very true, and I can admit I don't have the same passion for blogging that I do for writing fiction, partly because sci fi (fantasy, anime, comics) has been a part of my life since childhood while blogging has been around for as long as a sneeze by comparison. I can say that blogging affords opportunities to take a tongue in cheek approach to presenting information, and I've read some very interesting (and entertaining) posts by people from many walks of life. Blogging does allow the average individual to express themselves and share thoughts... and actually... there are a lot of funny people out there.

I remember reading somewhere that writers are god-like (don't get your pants in a bunch, wait to see where I'm going with this before taking offence or hurling accusations of blasphemy) in that the world they create often takes on a life of it's own. The writer exists in the mind of every character and knows all elements of the past, present and future of the story (it's always advisable for writers to start off knowing how the story is going to end before they start writing the beginning) like creation the story couldn't exist without the writer, in most ways the story is the writer... on paper.

So what do I prefer? It's not really a fair question... to me it's like comparing apples to oranges. There's no comparison. But if I were forced to answer... I'd say I've come to like blogging very much, but love writing Sci Fi, and always will. However, the one thing I do like about blogging is that it can be short and sweet... (most times) just like this post., lol.

you can also follow me on

https://www.facebook.com/Shell?ref=stream#!/alex.pink.921

http://www.reddit.com/user/alex6pink/

https://plus.google.com/u/0/

http://pinterest.com/alex8pink/ (fyi some boards are NSFW)

So The World Didn't End In 2012, Now What?

So The World Didn't End In 2012

So the world didn't end in 2012, why not? Quite simply, it was never meant to. Proponents of the Mayan end of the world theory who based the idea on the long count calender didn't consider the most important thing with translating ancient text/script... the meaning of the words and the fact that the meanings of words are not necessarily fixed in stone. English dictionaries grow more every year as our capacity for acquiring and using complex communication systems expands.

Languages evolve and diversify over time, and the history of their evolution can actually be reconstructed by comparing modern languages to determine which traits their ancestral languages must have had in order for the later stages to have occurred. While the Bantu languages, which include Swahili, Zulu, Shona, and hundreds of other languages are spoken throughout Africa and Semitic languages which include Arabic, Amharic, and Hebrew are far older, the most common (and more recent) languages such as English, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, and Hindi belong to the Indo-European family.

It seems the fact that languages express meaning by relating a sign form to a meaning, or its content may not have been a consideration in regards to translating the end of world predictions. Sign forms must be something that can be perceived, for example, in sounds, images, or gestures, and then related to a specific meaning by social convention. With the basic relation of meaning for most linguistic signs being based on social convention, linguistic signs can be considered arbitrary in the sense that the convention is established socially and historically, rather than by means of a natural relation between a specific sign form and its meaning.

Below is an Ancient Egyptian carving on the wall of the Temple of Isis at Philae, Aswan, Egypt. If the Egyptians vanished the same way the Mayans supposedly did, and left everything without a frame of reference (ie. the Greeks) contemporary translators could have mistaken the carving below to mean dog house rather than it being representative of the Jackal headed god Anubis, patron of mummification,

and keeper of the dead on their path through the underworld for the "weighing of the heart" (afterlife judgement).

 .

So when the translators of the more recently developed language groups translated the ancient texts/scripts from the original, there was no consideration the actual meaning of the words from ancient times could vary from similar to completely different. Human languages also employ grammatical and semantic categories, such as noun and pronoun, verb, present and past tense, to express exceedingly complex meanings (the way run could mean physical movement or management of a company or political campaign)

Human language is also the only known natural communication system that is modality independent, (it can be used not only for communication through one channel or medium such as vocalization, but through several writing, pictograph, sign languages and braille which uses the tactile (touch) modality.

The study of language (linguistics) has been developing into a science since the first grammatical descriptions of particular languages in India more than 2000 years ago. Today, linguistics is a science that concerns itself with all aspects of language, examining it from all of the theoretical viewpoints.

No blame can be held against contemporary scholars if you think about it, they have analysed Nostradamus 2012 predictions, scholars from various disciplines quickly dismissed predictions of concomitant cataclysmic events as they arose. Professional Mayanist scholars stated that no extant classic Maya accounts forecast impending doom, and that the idea that the Long Count calendar ends in 2012 misrepresented Maya history and culture, while astronomers rejected the various proposed doomsday scenarios as pseudoscience easily refuted by elementary astronomical observations. Yet somehow the idea his end of the world prediction taking place took root despite the fact that his book Les Propheties (The Prophecies) never mentions the end of the world, let alone the year 2012.

THE MAYAN'S CONCEPT OF THE END OF THE WORLD

To put it simply, the Mayans referred to ages/long periods of time as worlds. In the Mayan belief system, it is believed there have been five worlds (ages) when humanity grew from humble hunter gatherers to more sophisticated and complex societies (implementing usage of tools, animal husbandry and growing crops to understanding medicine, mathematics, science, ect.) between each of which humanity experienced massive changes due to environmental/cosmic cataclysm. Simply put, the "world" that the Mayans believed would come to an end December 21 2012 was actually the end of the current (now previous) age, referred to as the fifth sun.

While most of the western world's population experienced the roller coaster of emotions with

everything from sceptical to open minded, anticipation and excitement to deep anxiety and terrifying fear, the Mayans marked the end of the era (the Fifth World) and 5,200-year solar cycle at Guatemala's Jaguar Temple and aapparently it was quite a party, did they know something the West didn't? (lol)

REVELATIONS AND THE APOCALYPSE

In the Revelation of John, the "revelation" is of Jesus Christ as Messiah and the present tribulations leading to the ending of this age and the coming of God's Kingdom. Hence the term 'apocalypse' had come to be used, very loosely, for the end of the world.

However, the word Apocalypse literally translates from Greek as a disclosure of knowledge hidden from humanity during an era dominated by falsehood and misconception. The idea of the lifting of the veil of ignorance or providing the revelation did not enter English until the 14th century.

The Biblical prophets' revelations show God's justice as taking place in the future (or as imminent now) The genre of revelation aims to show God's way of dealing with humankind and His ultimate plan, and its writers often reveal the meaning of present events in connection with the ending of the present age, not the cataclysmic end of the world as we know it.

The World Is Still Here... So Now What?

Life goes on. The sun will rise and fall, the seasons will change and the fantastic voyage that is life on Earth will continue. Happily, there was a growing movement of many who subscribed to the idea Humanity was to enter an evolutionary change, hopefully the fact nothing happened on the day of won't leave those who expected change to be drastic and immediate so disappointed as to fall back into old (and often destructive) mentalities. Even the evolutionary leap from the australopithecines to the genus Homo took millions of years.

Sure, with all the various calenders modified and codified through the ages something massive could occur (I never say never) but like Y2K, the 2012 thing is over and done with, so let's get back to living for today and planning for the future. 

By the way, I've already heard the recalculated date for the end of the world is Jan 1st 2017. Recalculated? Sounds familiar. Can you recall the three revised dates for the Rapture much?

you can also follow me on

https://www.facebook.com/Shell?ref=stream#!/alex.pink.921

http://www.youtube.com/user/kniPxelA?feature=mhee
http://www.reddit.com/user/alex6pink/

https://plus.google.com/u/0/

Nerds... Geeks... Is There Real Difference... Really?

Nerds... Geeks... is there a real difference?

The definition of geek has changed considerably over time, and no longer has a definitive meaning. The term nerd has a similar, practically synonymous meaning as geek, but many choose to identify different connotations among these two terms, although the differences are disputed.

Ask a "cool" person or a so called "norm" and the answer would probably be no... no difference. But to the once socially inept, there is a difference... apparently. So let's have a quick look at some defined traits.

NERD

The prevailing thought seems to be that nerds have above average intelligence, are socially awkward, wear Coke bottle glasses, suspenders in  stead of belts, flood pants with the waist pulled up to the stomach line, nasal voiced computer geniuses who spend their time consumed in some unpopular endeavour.

Wiki definition? A nerd is a person, typically described as being overly intellectual, obsessive, or socially impaired. They may spend inordinate amounts of time on unpopular, obscure, or non-mainstream activities, which are generally either highly technical or relating to topics of fiction or fantasy, to the exclusion of more mainstream activities. Additionally, many nerds are described as being shy, quirky, and unattractive, and may have difficulty participating in, or even following, sports. "Nerd" was a derogatory, stereotypical term, but as with other pejoratives, it has been reclaimed and redefined by some as a term of pride and group identity.

GEEKS

The prevailing thought seems to be that geeks have above average intelligence, are socially awkward, come with or without Coke bottle glasses, possesses a dismal fashion sense, computer literate, video gaming geniuses who spend their time consumed in some unpopular endeavor.

Wiki definition? The word geek is a slang term for odd or non-mainstream people, with different connotations ranging from "a computer expert or enthusiast" to "a person heavily interested in a hobby" (like video gaming) with a general pejorative meaning of "a peculiar or otherwise dislikable person, especially one who is perceived to be overly intellectual".

Although often considered as a pejorative, the term is also often used self-referentially without malice or as a source of pride. Yup... no difference. But if you ask either, they would suggest there is a marked difference. Coming from a Nerd (or geek) I don't think there's much point in debating the differences when there are so many similarities that are being celebrated in the 21st Century. Today's Nerd/Geek is considered a lovable in their obsessions, sweet in their awkwardness, have substituted the Coke bottle glasses for slim designer frames or contacts (if visual aid is even required) they are more physically inclined (although not necessarily athletic) and not only have so much more fashion sense that Neeks (that's right, I just combined the two, lol) even have their own style within popular culture

a style now being bolstered by some celebrities, hip hop and pop artists

in favour of the long played out, five sizes way to baggy, no belt wearing pant waist on the hips, crotch at the knee, unable catch a bus or run across the street without looking like a penguin when the traffic light changes to yellow, hip surgery inducing style that took 20 years to die despite the departure of Kris Kross from the music scene (lol, remember ChrisCross- jump jump?)  

well, even they've embraced the new Neek look.

 

21st Century Empowered Neeks

Regardless of what term is chosen (Nerd, Geek, Dork, Geenerdork) it seems their time has come. Today, "Hot Girls" seek the Geek. The Nerd's the word. The Dork is getting all the... attention they so richly deserve. But why do you ask? I can sum it in three words... twenty first century. Everything that came before was the unfairly balanced, scale tipping paradigm that supported the so called alpha male and theroy of evolution.

An entire theory of human existence focused on the notion of survival of the fittest, the physically dominant always prevails (and is the most desired by women) sure, big muscle men and jocks are still considered desirable when it comes to straight up lust, but girls (hot or not, nerd or cool) want someone who can be more sensitive, more open to sharing their emotions, not solely governed by the male ego, smart and who doesn't spend countless hours watching whatever sport women still aren't as generally interested in. Someone who's not afraid to dress up as his/her favourite comic book, anime or manga, super hero, film, TV or video game character and go down to a comic convention.

As if living at a time when Sci Fi and comic books, anime and manga, video games and collecting genre action figures, ever increasing computer technology, faster Internet speeds and Cosplay being popular the world over, Neeks now have something else working in their favour... weightlifters who are specifically targeting nerds who'd like to build muscle, offering tips, advice, and even personal training.

Below are a few pics of  known stand up comedy Nerds that have integrated weight training into their life routines, possibly taking their inspiration from Joe Piscopo

Comedians Carrot top

 and yes, that is Dave Chappelle that has put on some pounds.

Nerds... Geeks... Is There  Real Difference... in my opinion, Not Really. Check out the video below to see how Norms, Nerds, Geeks, Cosplay Models and Cosplay girls all jump into the melting pot in celebration of Cosplay Culture.

you can also follow me on

https://www.facebook.com/Shell?ref=stream#!/alex.pink.921
http://www.youtube.com/user/kniPxelA?feature=mhee
http://www.reddit.com/user/alex6pink/
https://plus.google.com/u/0/