Colonialism. Star Trek.

From a post on Google+, which posited, that the Prime Directive from Star Trek was/is a safeguard against European and American colonialism.

The Prime Directive is a safeguard against any and all colonialism — not only European and American, but also those events of colonialism that are taking place now. Trouble is, that large EU members' leaders do not seem to be taking any notice.

In terms of rhetoric, past European and American colonialism is discussed often to the exclusion of colonialism of other nations and sociums, such Japanese and Soviet colonialism.

The bigger overall issue is any colonialism, especially that which is performed by peoples who possess nuclear weapons. Some of that colonialism is overt, some more insidious. See VOY:Displaced, a very useful episode. It started slowly...

Europeans and Americans themselves reflect on their own past colonialism (note that not all European nations were colonialist), as they are now mostly enlightened enough to do such reflecting. And also because it's history, and this history is now further in the past. (Or is it?) The distance of this history, of course, permits other nations to talk about European and American colonialism.

Yet some large and non-enlightened nations are very keen to usurp this reflective narrative to their own selfish and nationalistic purposes. And this is dangerous.

There are nations that actually do colonise, while at the same time they would feel insulted, if told that they do this, and if told that their colonialist behaviour is such. As it is with colonialism, people of such conviction do not respect the native language(s) and native customs of the country.

Strong Female Characters in Science Fiction

This post is a reply to a comment thread in Google+.
re Janeway
Janeway was written to be a rather poor 'strong female' character, and it often shows (episode "The Thaw" being the sole exception).

As for strong female characters in 'Trek, we see Kira, Sela, Troi, Crusher, and T'Pol.

• In TNG's "Face of the Enemy", Troi is a major powerpuff lady as the Romulan Major Rakal (undercover, though).
• In TNG:Descent (Part II, I recall), Dr. Crusher shines as a very capable combat commander.

In 'Trek, several Romulan characters depicted as important people are female.

In other franchises, Farscape gets the most points, as it's replete with strong female characters, such as Aeryn Sun, Zhaan, Chiana, Noranti ("Grandma"), Commandant Grayza, War Minister Akhna; not to mention a large trove of episodes with very strong women as guest characters.

Of all things, Farscape managed to show very capable women of all ages and all walks of life.

Whereas TNG had mostly sexy/entertainer types and tough commanders/lieutenants.

The reimagined Battlestar Galactica is somewhat comparable to Farscape, but usually vascillates between sexy and tough.

Interestingly, Stargate Universe (SGU) was structured in a very different fashion, and this show was well ahead of time in many, many ways.

At first, there is strife onboard Destiny between who gets to head the ship, as the base that the crew escaped from in the first two episodes appears to have been run like a civilian operation, headed by Camile Wray (Ming-Na). There was some strife on Destiny about that, but the situation slowly reversed in favour of the military guys running the ship, and Wray perhaps formally taking over the rest.

I could posit, that eventually there was a fair distribution of powers.

What I finally saw by the end of SGU, was, that the primary crew made big decisions based on a consensus, being flexible as the situation required, and not pulling rank on one another.

Unfortunately, this movie-quality series was cut short.

Paadi kõigutamisest

Võib-olla ongi ennetähtaegsed valimised parem variant, sest siis saaks välistada nii Keskerakonna, SDE ja IRL-i (Loomulikult ka EKRE, aga see käib alati asja juurde).

Normaalsetest valikutest jääksid alles ainult Reformierakond ja Vabaerakond.

Tuleb välja, et Jevgeni Ossinovski suhestumine riigivalitsemisse paistab kahjuks liiga naiivne, ning tema tegevusest on näha, et ta on jooksnud sündmustest ette. See lähtub nii selles, et iga hinna eest Reformierakonnale ära teha, kui ka plaanides premeerida Ratast valitsusliikme või lausa -juhi kohaga (vaid Savisaare taandumise tõttu), mis kõik pole mitte ainult enneaegne, vaid minu meelest ka riigi julgeolekule kahjulik.

Kõlakad Reformierakonna läbirääkimistest Keskerakonnaga paistavadki esialgu ainult sahinad olevat, ning olid mõeldud ajamaks närvi SDE ja IRL-i, et nad liiguksid valitsuse kukutamise suunas. Ja läksidki kuulujuttude õnge nii SDE kui ka IRL, mis on ka põhjuseks, et viimane on nüüd minu valikutest lõpuni välistatav.

Kindlasti on SDE noor esimees väga ambitsioonikas, kuid lähtudes tema viimase nädala tegevustest ja toetavatest arvamusavaldustest Keskerakonna suunas jääb õhku tõsiseid küsimusi ses suhtes, et kui tähtis Eesti julgeolek SDE esimehe jaoks tegelikult on, ning kas ta tegelikult toetab seda julgeolekuarhitektuuri, mille najal Eesti seni väga edukalt hakkama saanud on.

Kes veel ei tea, siis mida parem julgeolek, seda rohkem välisinvesteeringuid ettevõtetelt nendest riikidest, kes jagavad Eestiga samu väärtusi. Paljuski sõltub kõik esimese asjana ainult julgeolekust.

Ossinovski praegune arvamus Reformierakonnast ei ole abiks. Igasugused väited teemal, et Rõivas polnud justkui paindlik, ei pea paika, ning minu meelest oleks Rõivas suutnud huvitavatele ja põhjendatud ettepanekutele vastu tulla küll, kui tema juurde oleks tuldud rääkima.

Tõsi, senise peaministri juhtimisstiili ja retoorikakasutust võib kritiseerida, kuid Taavi Rõivase puhul ei ole minul kunagi kahtlust olnud Eesti huvide ja julgeoleku ülimaks pidamises.

Kogu sellest olukorrast on väga kahju, sest ma ootasin IRL-i ja SDE juhtivliikmetelt suuremat riigimehelikkust, et hoida koos nii valitsus kui ka valitsusstabiilsus.

SDE esimehe valimisel ehk arvati ja arvasin ka mina naiivselt, et toonane uus ja praegune esimees Eesti seni poliitilist liini hoiab.

Kokkuvõttes võib kõige selle tõttu alles nüüd mõista Sven Mikseri nördimust ses suhtes, et miks tema ei saanud SDE esimeheks.

Lootus jääb,

• et Riigikogu peaministrit ei umbusalda;
• et President Kaljulaid valitsuse tagasiastumist maailma praeguses julgeolekuolukorras heaks ei kiida;
• või et Riigikogu pigem kiidab Reformierakonna toel heaks vähemusvalitsuse, kus on IRL, SDE ja ehk ka Vabaerakond.

Nii on võimalik nii IRL-il kui ka SDE-l säilitada oma mainet mitte sidudes endid Keskerakonnaga.

Sest hunt vaatab ikka metsa poole.

Nagu ikka, väljendan ma siin ainult oma isiklikku arvamust.

CBS/Paramount, Axanar and Discovery

This blogpost is based on comments at Trekmovie about the lawsuit around Star Trek. This blog entry comments on a current court case, and there's a great chance, that the post in many of its parts does not contain fact-checked information (I didn't start looking, so only assumed the veracity of the comments linked). This post also contains lots of speculation, commentary and criticism.

Timing

In terms of public relations, CBS/Paramount were too hasty in going after this Mr. Peters and his "Axanar". The brand owners could have waited him out to see his final product, and if the proprietors didn't like it, then they wouldn't have licensed it in the end; or they'd have claimed full or partial ownership per trademark laws or somesuch.

Rationale

In terms of the law, CBS/Paramount needed to sue, because of several reasons:
• Mr. Peters — per comments under the referred article — had collected a fair chunk of money using the Star Trek brand name in order to run a production. The company/-ies could not have decided to sue later, because this could have created a dangerous precedent and devalued the brand for them, and they would have been regarded (by their shareholders, for example) as negligent towards their property — something that executives and CEOs never do in good faith.
• Part of the execs' jobs is to protect the brand through lawyers and licensing, because companies must earn money and can't lose any.

Alternative universe

In order to make mostly his work of fiction happen, Mr. Peters collected funds from the public using the "Star Trek" name (per comments read), which name was not his, and which was not licensed to him.

For Mr. Peters, it would have legally (IANAL) been far more hassle-free [to have created | to have tried to create] his own science fiction franchise and set up a funding drive. Mr. Roddenberry did it with his brainchild, and sold it to Desilu. The rest of _that_ is history.

A recent example of space-based stories made into a successful sci-fi show is "The Expanse".

Why?

Some think, that the lawsuit was prompted from fears, that Mr. Peters could have made better stories. His supporters already believe in better stories as originating from Mr. Peters, but no actual "Axanar" film/episode has been released, and the jury is out on this one.

The detractors of "Axanar" counter — based on the actual "Prelude to Axanar" trailer — that that film/show would have turned out to be very amateurish.

In both cases, Paramount/CBS could also have let it slide and not file suit. If "Axanar" is indeed (or turns out to be) as bad as its detractors claim, then filing suit seems frivolous and really not worth the effort.

Or that "Axanar" is so bad, that it had to be stopped in order to avoid it tarnishing the Star Trek brand. This can happen, and brand integrity is a thing.

OTOH, if "Axanar" showed true quality, then CBS/Paramount should have felt embarrassed enough to create their own series that would have been (or could be) an order of magnitude better. As we are seeing already, "Star Trek: Discovery" seems to be in extended pre-production. Just so.

I don't really rule out embarrassment as one of the drivers of the lawsuit, which could have been meant to shut down the production of "Axanar" just to eliminate competition that looked better.

I mean, a large media company is sitting on a huge franchise, and there's no running tv production based on it, until some small outfit releases a trailer for something that looks and feels almost exactly what The Original Series used to look and feel like.

Maybe this might have prompted the green-lighting of Discovery.

The great divide.

As it is, the lawsuit is not helping, because its presence divides the fans into two main camps that think the other is worse by every parameter imaginable.

The ongoing court proceedings unintentionally serve as cause for antagonism from some fans towards the official creative side. (to wit: lambasting the design of USS Discovery as hideous and worse..)

The camp supporting "Axanar" might think, that as CBS weren't doing anything at all with the franchise in the tv market, while the movie studio simultaneously churned out blasphemous material in violation of established dogma (those fans whinging about "JJ-Trek", etc.), there was somehow a void that needed to be filled.

The official side and the camp that supports that side — and certainly also the lawsuit — are now seen as anti-fan; and the official creators are now also regarded as the party ripping off, this time apparently from "Axanar" itself, as some commenters vehemently posited.

There is no information if the final "Axanar" product exists, or whether Paramount/CBS have seen any of it beyond the trailer. As far as I know, "Axanar" production was halted because of the court case.

Who wins?

The real winners in this dispute would be all the other fresh sci-fi tv shows, notably "The Expanse", "The Man in the High Castle", and "Westworld". Now, if only "Stargate Universe" were resurrected...

And Discovery?

Well, I liked the new ship reveal, with a majestic vessel based on an earlier Ralph McQuarrie design, the strong music and the mysterious setting. And I have no idea, why do people find that design so digusting. The savagery of comments under the YouTube reveal clip resembled fat-shaming.

Why many men are anti-abortionists?

While this post discusses many of the abortion/anti-abortion issues, it does not offer any concrete solutions.

It's about control, and I agree with the those who posit, that men see the child as an extension of themselves.

There isn't all that much to do about the child, but controlling the woman and their possible relationships in the future.

There are two aspects to this: one is cultural, the other emotional —

1. If a child is born, some guy finally feels validated (I don't know... of his powers or anything);

2. If a child is born, then for a hapless straight male it's just a device to control the future of a woman who might not even love that guy, while that guy can then partially or wholly control the life [path] of that woman through the child by tying her to him, or him to her (depending on material circumstances, etc). Because the child exists.

2.1 It's also about competition, and that is to deny other men the woman they desire. Because when a woman is pregnant, she is not available to other men.

(Women do similar things with alimony.)

For a man's frame of mind — if the poor foetus is terminated, all that physical and emotional effort goes to waste (for a guy), and the woman is free to choose a more suitable mate.

Before abortion was safe, many women were virtual prisoners of the men and their whims from the moment of conception.

The availability of abortion actually strengthens natural selection, and leaves less levity for chance and circumstance, on which (lots of) ugly, old, or otherwise spurious men depend/ed. There had to have been a very large amount of shotgun marriages that were never ever happy.

I guess, women used to get raped a lot more, and that was in order for some men to force themselves upon the women throughout the women's future lives. Even if that kind of involvement was very short.

So, conceiving a child alters the life path of a woman without her consent, and often at the behest of men (many of whom lack any good faith in the first place).

With safe abortion, all that "privilege" has been taken away from men, but pro-choice men tend not to frame it that way, and certainly won't speak like that.

Life

A whole 'nother issue is the life of a child.

I do support the child being brought to term and maybe given up for adoption in the event it's impossible for a mother to bring the child up. This requires that the adoption system is effective and not corrupt. Well...

And that the woman and the child then both have the right to meet one another even before the child reaches adulthood, while the woman is still free to look for a suitable mate. But not all orphanages and foster parents have been good, nor are many nowadays.

On the wisdom of marking things down on paper

This was a comment reply discussing a prop on the table of an important Romulan personality (a pro-consul or senator) from Star Trek: TNG's Unification two-parter. The discussion was then about real-life things used in sci-fi as props, and I put the following related memories into that discussion.

I have somewhere the Canadian TV Guide's 1996 "30th Anniversary Star Trek" edition that contains feature articles, production how-tos, and episode guides up to VOY's "Basics", and there was one article, where set design and props people explained, how they'd add funny easter eggs to props that had text on them.

The tv guide was a gift and was supposed to be a collector's item for me, but being a youngish kid and very nearly totally unaware of this, I used pen or pencil (whichever was available) to mark down episodes I'd recently seen as ok/not ok. I wish I'd copied episode titles on separate pieces of paper at least, but back then, this thought never crossed my mind. Poor tv guide collector's edition, I grieve thy former purity :\

Then in the late-1990s/early 2000s I learned of Farscape, and somewhere out on the interwebs there was a website that documented the many bloopers in Farscape, including real-life stuff that was converted into some fantastic sci-fi thingy :-)

A shortlist of composers for SGU

Joel Goldsmith was the score composer for Stargate Universe -- a short-lived, but high-quality science fiction tv series. His music for SGU made a lasting impression on me. The son of Jerry Goldsmith, Joel passed away in 2012, and he left very large shoes to fill.

So, here's a shortlist of musicians I would consider to compose music for any future iteration of Stargate Universe (hopefully a continuation).

People who have contributed a lot to science fiction and fantasy, and who are now major composers:
* Brian Tyler -- Best-known for his piece from Frank Herbert's Children of Dune, which featured in the first trailer for Star Trek 2009. Tyler also contributed to Star Trek: Enterprise episode "Regeneration". Track here. Tyler is now known for his work on major action movies.
* Steve Jablonsky -- Desperate Housewives (the theme is best-known), The Island, Ender's Game. Major composer, lots of movies.
* Ramin Djawadi -- Thunderbirds (film), Prison Break, Game of Thrones, The Island (additional music).

Other film and television composers:
* Ty Unwin -- BBC's documentary series: Earth, Space, Journey to the Edge of the Universe, The Incredible Human Journey, and several others.
* Leonard J. Paul -- The Corporation (documentary)
* Peter Golub -- Countdown to Zero (documentary)

Musicians who have written scores for films:
* Trent Reznor / Nine Inch Nails -- The Social Network, Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (U.S. version)
* Pärt Uusberg -- In the Crosswind (Risttuules)

Musicians who should and would, given the opportunity:
* Front Line Assembly -- pioneering work in Techno-Industrial, soundtrack for the AirMech game
* Mike Foyle & Signalrunners -- Love Theme Dusk, Shipwrecked.

Composers, who generally don't write for film, but whose works have extensively been used in film and television:
* Arvo Pärt