Random thoughts on Borg, Jedi and Twitti

When you start off a Monday morning with a migraine so bad you think your eyeballs are going to explode, it's never a good sign.

Ah well. Random links and short musings then:
• A nice profile appeared in the Sunday Star-Times of my father-in-law Peter Siddell and his ongoing experience with a brain tumour. I'm inclined to bag on my fellow journalists more often than not but other than a few errors this story is pretty good, I think it captures his voice well. And they managed to spell my wife's name correctly, which is always a plus.

• I have rediscovered the joy of "Star Trek" thanks to the new movie, and the swell "Fan Collective" series of DVD box sets which are perfect for the non-obsessive fan like me, offering a nice sampler of 20 or so episodes spread amongst the five series and organized by themes such as "Borg," "Time Travel" and "Klingons." I like a lot of "Trek" but freely admit even the best of series had its share of duds and am not interested in mammoth 7-season box sets, so these "Fan Collectives" are an awesome way to get my "Trek" fix without breaking the budget. Heck, I even found an episode of the hugely mediocre "Enterprise" on there that wasn't half-bad!

• ...I am sad to see that it seems like a lot of blogs I like to read have gone dark in favour of Twitter apparently. I don't want to be the grouchy old guy going on about the newfangled technology, but I have to admit I'm just not into Twitter. The forced minimalism doesn't appeal to me. Hell, I can barely keep my blog posts below 1400 words, let alone 140 characters! Anyway, although there's little reward sometimes in this bloggin', I guess I'll keep bloggin' away in the old media for a while... "Follow" me if you will! (And yeah, that's why I'll soon have Google Ads on the site.)

• So it was 10 years ago today that "Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace" (whew!) opened. Hard to believe, harder still that a movie went from being so hugely anticipated to so hugely maligned in just a decade. I admit it's not a great flick, although curiously 5-year-old Peter digs all the prequels (except "Episode III" which is a little intense for him). We stood in line up at Lake Tahoe to watch it on opening day and according to my journal entry of the time, "fantastic movie." I guess the disappointment took a while to set in, or perhaps it's the nature of fan obsessions to curdle a bit in the light of time. I wonder if part of the failure of the prequels to take is that they were viewed by 20- and 30-somethings who watched the originals as kids and who couldn't get into the same mindset again? But then I remember Jar Jar Binks and Jake Lloyd and pidgin-Asian speaking aliens and think again. It did have Liam Neeson and Darth Maul going for it, though, and 10 years on I still remember the thrill when Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon zip on their lightsabers for the first time. Give Lucas another few years, maybe he'll release a "reimagined" "Phantom Menace" that cuts down on the flaws.

These are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise...

It's funny: I don't think a lot of people would call you a nerd for talking about being a fan of "Star Wars," but bring up "Star Trek" and the geek sensors immediately go off. The new "Star Trek" movie, slick, shiny and genetically engineered to entertain, is trying to wipe off some of that stigma, break the inwardly spiraling loop of fan obsession that turned "Trek" into too much of a niche industry.

Like any mild geek, I've always been interested in "Star Trek." I have to admit, though, I've never been an enormous fan of the "original" series -- I've seen a lot of them, and they were good, cowboys in space fun, but the Trek I first really became a fan of was "Next Generation," which after a shaky couple of early seasons developed into really engaging science-fiction, with the superb Patrick Stewart leading the way in a way hammy William Shatner never managed. I also dug "Deep Space Nine," which tried to do something quite different with the concept, but both the routine "Voyager" and "Enterprise" left me cold, and I gave up on them after a season or two.

However, in what I suspect is a rare sentiment among "Trek" fans, I actually did like most of the "Next Generation" movies – "Generations" with its creaky plot maneuvers probably the worst, but "First Contact" was top-notch and while they're a bit small-in-scale and rough about the edges, "Insurrection" and "Nemesis" were still decent entertainment for me. Yet, I'll admit, both in movies and TV there was a growing conservatism in "Star Trek's" approach that was hurting it. Few chances were taken, too many space-time conundrums and aliens with forehead disfigurements. By "Nemesis," which took a significant moment like Data's death and immediately rendered it moot with a long-lost "twin brother," it became rather unimportant. Irrelevant, as Spock might say.

All this is a preamble to "Star Trek" version 2009, which is terrific entertainment and a nice re-imagining of the franchise which doesn't completely negate what came before. Chris Pine makes a fine young Kirk, Zachary Quinto is miles better than his cheesy "Heroes" role as Spock, and it's a fast-paced, well-directed thrill ride that's light and passionate summer entertainment, kind of this year's "Iron Man." It isn't terrifically deep, but Quinto and Pine put enough fire in their bellies to make us believe in Kirk and Spock again, to make the possibility of bold new journeys welcome.

Although the time-tangling bits of the plot aren't really necessary, except to make old fans happy and to give us a much-enjoyed appearance by Leonard Nimoy, it's respectful to the legacy. It doesn't utterly reinvent the wheel, but it at least puts a nice new coat of paint on the cart. For the first time in a while, "Star Trek" seems fresh again. Maybe even kind of cool.