Ahsoka arrives in less than ten days :).

I don't like Rosario Dawson due to her politics in 2016. However, she does an amazing job as
Ahsoka Tano. I'm really pleased with the actress's professional work, so I do that 
"separate the artist from the art" thing in my head in order to enjoy her roles.

Ahsoka is coming soon (ten days and counting), and I'm really looking forward to it. One of the reasons is because of what happened in the Star Wars Rebels episode, The World Between Worlds. Before this episode, Ahsoka had been in hiding and hadn't seen Anakin/Darth Vader for a decade. When they fought each other in a Sith temple, Vader survived the fight and I "presumed" along with everyone else that Ahsoka was just dead. Then in the World Between Worlds episode coming very close to Rebels final run, Ezra saved Ahsoka through time travel using the power of the Force gods. It's one of my favorite episodes of Star Wars period (of all time). And then shortly after that Ezra road off into the Galactic sunset on space whales, which we saw shadows of in one of the Mandalorian hyperspace sequences.

The latest trailer that dropped for the show has a pretty long voiceover by Hayden Christensen/Anakin. It got me more excited than I thought I would be, because my brain started to imagine all of the possibilities with Anakin showing up as a Force ghost and interacting with the one other Jedi who meant a lot to him (the first obviously being Obi-Wan Kenobi). I'm also happy that Hayden Christensen is finally being embraced by the Star Wars fandom. When he played Darth Vader, he was young, inexperienced, and he had absolutely dog shit writing and directions. For example, the scenes between Anakin and Padme are just cringe worthy.

Talking just a bit more about The World Between Worlds, introducing a temple that could control space and time in Star Wars was a leap that I didn't think at the time that Star Wars was ever going to make. I mean...Trek does this kind of thing on a seasonal basis in practically every show, but nothing ever comes of it. In Trek it's usually just playing in the past, doing this and that, respecting the timeline. The one occasion where they did something huge was in Yesterday's Enterprise, which completely retconned Tasha Yar's death (who was killed in Skin of Evil) due to (I think) some real-life things she was doing that embarrassed the studio like posing nude (or something like that). Those are the rumors I heard back in the day.

But the fact that the Force is apparently capable of something as big as "time travel" with the potential to alter the future? That was a tool that opened up so many possible storylines for writers. I guess we'll have to see what goodies get unpacked by all of those creative minds once the strike has been settled (and once big studios honor artists and writers with the goods they are due). 

Strange New Worlds did a musical episode and I loved it.

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds keeps knocking it out of the park for me. I'm an avid "Trek" fan, but this episode (which aired last week) took me a bit by surprise. Here's your obligatory "spoiler warning," as I'm going to discuss the episode. So, if you haven't seen it, you may want to come back after viewing it.

The Enterprise finds a sub-space fold that may enable instantaneous communications across vast distances. In testing whether or not this could be true, the crew sends a song through it and unwittingly creates an expanding reality that makes people break out in song every time their emotions grow too complex for mere words. The result is that we are treated to song after song, many of which are performed by the crew (according to official sources in the know like Variety). Anyway, it turns out that the musical numbers were constructed around the actor's natural vocal range. But the thing I was most impressed with is how it appears to be so easy (for some gifted people) to turn regular dialogue that one might have in a situation into a song.

Look, I've never been musically inclined. I only barely attended my first karaoke experience. I did like it; however, I realize that the world is a better place if I don't sing and let professionals take that on. I do appreciate music a lot, and I've always been mystified at how people like Lin Manuel Miranda can seemingly churn out endless songs. Sometimes I wonder if their head is just a never-ending stream of melodies, and what that must be like.

Also, Spock is a strange character to see singing--doubly so for Klingons! I never thought I'd see that, but Strange New Worlds knows how to surprise. Somewhere in the back of my mind though, I have a question about the musical anomoly/subspace fold: was it created by the aliens from Close Encounters of the Third Kind? If so, that would make a lot of sense.

The Meg 2 and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles took me to the movies this weekend.

This weekend I went and saw The Meg 2: The Trench and the new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie. I'm going to discuss both shows in this post. So, here is your spoiler warning if you intend to watch.

First up is the Jason Statham fueled sequel to The Meg. I haven't read the books that these movies are based from, but I thoroughly have enjoyed both installations now. Folks, you go into these films as a person who needs to suspend a lot of their intelligence and just enjoy the ride as big, stupid fun. If you like kaiju movies, I'd think you'd be one of the first in line to see this kind of thing. But if the trailer didn't already give you an idea of what this movie is about, then just think Jurassic Park only with underwater creatures.

The sub in the movie that goes down into "The Trench" and manages to pierce the layer at the bottom that separates the world of giant creatures from the rest of humanity is the miracle exemption in this story. And in order to have a story at all, you just have to assume that there's going to be something bad that breaches that layer so that huge things can come through and terrorize the island people in the general area of that breach. But with the recent sub disaster where those tourists got killed when they paid exorbitant amounts of money to ride a tube down to the wreckage of The Titanic, I couldn't help but think that the sub in Meg 2: The Trench sure was luxurious. If only these kinds of crafts actually existed, with enormous windows, comfy seats, and all the safety you could want.  Nevermind that Jason Statham actually exits at the bottom of the trench and without any protective gear by just "emptying out his sinuses so he doesn't get crushed." None of that stuff matters, because this movie is pure action and fun.

There were three megalodons in this movie. But I think that the scariest creature was an enormous giant octopus that was a kind of mythical kraken. They came across it in the world of giant creatures, and it was surrounded by hundreds of other octopi that will probably end up getting as big as this gigantic one got. However, it didn't end up being much of a challenge for the megaladon that it attacked, so I was a bit disappointed by that. I'd think an enormous creature like that with arms covered in suckers would have at least taken out one of the sharks. But if they'd done that, then it would have made it harder to show Jason Statham killing two others single-handedly, especially since they needed one to survive for whatever reason. All in all, I give it a thumbs up. Just leave your brain at the door when you watch it.

The other movie I saw this weekend was Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem. It's a movie that seemed to be brought to the big screen by Seth Rogan. If I'm wrong on this then it certainly is a passion project for Seth. Once I got used to the claymation style animation, I really enjoyed the voice acting. The plot was quite good too, as it was able to both give life to the Turtles and their Dad while showing how actually badass Splinter was (the voice actor was Jackie Chan). I actually don't know much about the Turtles and their rogues gallery. So it was really cool to get a nice intro into this with characters like Superfly. He (they?) were a typical supervillain in that they were going to use the "ooze" (the miracle exemption for this story) to bring about an evolution of every other lifeform on earth that wasn't human and then enslave/kill all the humans. And in typical "Turtles" fashion, their skills become crucial in the defeat of Superfly. It is also through this act, the saving of New York, that they achieve acceptance from humanity and are able to go to school and just be themselves. That kind of narrative...the idea that to achieve acceptance that you must first work your ass off for other people to get respect...seems like one that would appeal to Americans. I don't necessarily know if I agree with that. But, it's the story they decided to tell.

Anyway, I enjoyed the movie a lot. Anyone else see any movies this weekend? If you watched the same ones I did, what did you think?

It's time for the August 2023 Insecure Writer's Support Group post.

July 2023 seemed long. I'm writing this post on Tuesday, August 1st, and for some reason it feels like ages since I participated in the last Insecure Writer's Support Group. Part of it is the heat (I'm sure), and the fact that summers just seem to feel longer these days. They probably are, with heat starting to settle in earlier and leaving later, the result being that we have shortened winter, spring, and fall. In any case, it's now time to do our monthly IWSG post. So, let's go over the details together.

What is the purpose of the IWSG?: It is to share and encourage. Writers can express doubts and concerns without fear of appearing foolish or weak. Those who have been through the fire can offer assistance and guidance. It’s a safe haven for insecure writers of all kinds.

When do y'all post?: The IWSG army posts on the first Wednesday of every month. This day is officially the Insecure Writer’s Support Group day. You are to post your thoughts on your own blog. You could talk about your doubts and the fears you have conquered. Or you could discuss your struggles and triumphs. If you have the inclination to do so, please offer a word of encouragement for others who are struggling. And last (but not least) please attempt to visit others in the group and connect with your fellow writers. You should aim for a dozen new people each time. And don't forget to return comments. This group is all about connecting. Be sure to link to this page and display the badge in your post. And please be sure your avatar links back to your blog. Otherwise, when you leave a comment, people can't find you to comment back.

The Twitter (do we still call it "Twitter" or is it "X" now?) handle for the Insecure Writer's Support Group is @TheIWSG and the hashtag is #IWSG.

The awesome co-hosts for the August 2nd posting of the IWSG are Kate Larkindale, Diane Burton, Janet Alcorn, and Shannon Lawrence!

Every month, the IWSG announces a question that members can answer in their IWSG post. These questions may prompt you to share advice, insight, a personal experience or story. Include your answer to the question in your IWSG post or let it inspire your post if you are struggling with something to say.

Remember, the question is optional!

August 2 question: Have you ever written something that afterwards you felt conflicted about? If so, did you let it stay how it was, take it out, or rewrite it?

Yes. As I recall, this happened when I wrote a bunch of pages in first person. It just didn't feel right to me. So, I went back and rewrote them in third person omniscient. And then that didn't feel right to me, so I went back and rewrote them in third person one narrator perspective. By that time, it felt too weird, and I couldn't figure out what tense I wanted to work in. Eventually I settled on some version of third person, but I don't know if I was ever satisfied with any of it.

This is one of the things I continually struggle with when writing. That and tense. Do I use past tense? Do I use present tense? It's all in the verbs, you know? Anyway, I admire writers who can just lay something out in the tense and the person that they want to use, and then they stick with it and finish that project. That's pretty amazing. We probably don't even need to be worried about these things in the future, because ChatGPT or other a.i. programs are just going to write the books and people will just actively skip to the editing phase. I know that sounds cynical, but it's coming. And that's basically what I have to say about that.

I was not expecting Barbie to be as great as it was.

I saw the Barbie movie this weekend. I didn't expect that it would have such depth to its story, or that it would raise so many existential questions. There's a lot to unpack in the Barbie movie, so here's your spoiler warning in case you haven't seen it, and it looks like something you'd very much like to watch.

Conservative media was quick to brand the Barbie movie as yet another attack on masculinity. I definitely can see where people might think that. It's easy to assume that whenever anything is being criticized (or when people are painting boundaries) that the thing in question is "under attack." In this particular instance, that "thing" would be "patriarchy" and "toxic masculinity." But I think the message is more complex, and it comes through the words of the creator of Barbie as the ghost of Ruth Handler. In one of the best scenes in the movie, this ghost says to Barbie that ideas live forever. She points out that the pain of being human causes us to make up all kinds of things. Patriarchy is one of those things. But there are dozens of other things that we make up too that end up being harmful.

For both the Ken's and the Barbies in the movie, unrealistic body expectations are made up things that have been heaped on both genders. And the ones who have always been on top have always made it rough for the people who have been on the bottom. But it doesn't have to be this way, because "its all made up." It reminds me in some ways of the war that is going on between artists and people who are using a.i. I'm in several Facebook groups where people excitedly post their a.i. art and share their prompts, I have observed that an argument breaks out almost every other day. Do not underestimate what I'm saying here. These arguments generate upwards of a thousand comments in which artists are trashing a.i. and a.i. "prompt engineers" are calling artists "obsolete do nothings" or worse. The whole art industry looks like it is in meltdown, and art majors and art schools will probably vanish within ten years as there literally is no money for those people who want to do that kind of work now. It makes me sad, but this is just how humans are.

For the longest time, people who excelled at anything really would kind of lord that over people who were trying to do the same thing who couldn't. It shouldn't be a newsflash that people aren't born equal. Some have gifts and talents and assets that other people just don't have, and they start way ahead. If life were a race, everyone has a different starting point and some people are born in the deepest holes and are expected to climb out of that. If you realize that what I'm saying is true, you can see why a.i. is such a gift to so many people. Suddenly along comes this machine that can do the thing better than everyone, and the people who had no talent are flocking in droves to use the machine to be able to finally create things that they've wanted to be able to do and could never afford to do. And (at first) the artists laugh until they realize that they've been replaced. And now insults fly back and forth between the two camps of people. One is gloating that they now are in a position where they don't need the other. And the other is scared that they are going to be replaced and will have to eek out a living like people they previously had contempt for. It's awful, but its human nature.

But the message of Barbie is that it doesn't have to be this way. However, it isn't all rosy in its messaging either. It freely admits that equality for all people may come in time, but that history doesn't paint such a rosy picture of how things have gone in the past.

I have to give Mattel a few kudos that it was willing to poke so much fun at itself in this. The boardroom that wants to guide women on their path is completely run by men. And they allowed Aqua's song "Barbie Girl" to be sampled into a new song for the movie that plays over the credits. Originally, Mattel tried to sue Aqua for defamation for coming out with that song, which has some pretty rapey lyrics to it. But now, they see that it's basically what people do with Barbie dolls. And even though Barbie gave girls a lot of representation in different fields, there was always the question of, "What was Ken?" And by the end of the movie, we realize that he's just a stand-in for straight American (modern) men who decided to tie their self worth to a girlfriend's approval.

This take on the state of the modern man surprised me. It's an untenable position for many, where boys are told by the system that their entire worth as a man rests on their ability to get a woman to be their girlfriend. In Ken's case, he doesn't even know what to do with a girlfriend. He just knows he needs to have one. But since the Barbies are independent and self-sufficient, they don't need a Ken. So a Ken has no reason to exist.

In the movie, Ken's journey is a particular fascination for me. Ken (once he's in the real world) finds that men rule everything, and he interprets it the way a lot of people in Ken's position would interpret it in order to refute its existence: all men are on top by the very fact of being men. But then he gets his dose of reality: being a man is not enough. You have to be the right kind of man. You have to be educated and wealthy, and meet a number of arbitrary criteria. The ending message then is that if Ken wants to be happy, he needs to define his own role in life. And society needs to change so that Ken has that space to find that role. And our current society (sadly) too often does not allow for this kind of self-discovery.

As I finish this essay on Barbie I want to end with this: one gender being in charge and ignoring the struggles of the other is a problem. But honestly, it goes beyond gender. Just replace that word with just about anything else within context, and you'll understand what I'm saying. One "caste" being in charge and ignoring the struggles the other is a problem. One political party being in charge and ignoring the struggles of the other is a problem. And repeat, etc. We all could do better, and once again, it doesn't have to be this way.

Boimler and Mariner from Lower Decks just crossed over in live action to Strange New Worlds and the episode was amazing.

The Star Trek Strange New Worlds and Lower Decks crossover was pretty great. If you haven't seen it online yet, then you should be aware that I'm gonna talk about it in this post. So, this is your one and only "Spoiler Warning."

In the episode called "These Old Scientists," Boimler (played by Jack Quaid and my favorite character in Lower Decks) gets sent a century or so into the past by a time-travel device. Shenanigans ensue, as he arrives right in front of Pike and Spock (who are his heroes), and they (then) take him back to the Enterprise to try and find a solution to send him back to the future. A little while later, their solution doesn't pan out as the time travel device also spits out Mariner (also from Lower Decks).

I can say without any doubt that I want more of this. I hope that Lower Decks crosses over with Strange New Worlds in a future season as it was so much fun. But here are a few random thoughts I had after viewing the episode and having a little time to think about what I saw:

1) The moment when Nurse Chapel realized that her relationship with Spock doesn't even make it to a historical footnote was genuinely touching. "History needs him to be the exact opposite of what you need him to be in a relationship" would have been very difficult to hear.

2) The scene where Ortegas and Uhura idolized Mayweather and Hoshi from Enterprise (the Star Trek series that a lot of people didn't like) was a lot of fun. It just took the Lower Deckers being present for it to come out. There's nothing quite like being validated to make things come to the surface (which I suppose is why we need to prevent this kind of validation around negative things like white supremacy).

3) The episode also sets up characters from Lower Decks and from Strange New Worlds to experience future growth. Pike was given a nudge to make the most of his remaining time to forge bonds. Number One received affirmation that she is the ideal of Starfleet in the wake of her trials. Uhura realized work/life balance helps both and collaboration leads to unexpected results. And as for Boimler and Mariner, I feel like in meeting their heroes, they appreciated their own timeline so much more.

4) I loved a lot of the fan service that the show received from historical episodes of Trek. For example, Boimler yells out "Q" only to be corrected by Mariner that in this time period the crew hasn't met Q, but there's going to be a whole "Trelane" thing (if I remember correctly, the role of Trelane was played by Liberace). 

5) They changed the intro so that it was animated, and it had a smiling Koala and what looked like a space worm from the Lower Decks intro attached to the Enterprise's nacelle.

6) And can we all just take a moment to note how great the Cerritos uniforms look in live action? They are definitely one of the best-looking Starfleet uniforms, and they did a great job translating the animation design into a workable uniform costume.

7) I want Pelia to star on Lower Decks. Her alien's long life should allow it to be easily slipped in without too much trouble.

8) Boimler really does have blue hair. I always thought maybe it was blue/black, but nope. It's blue.

My thoughts on Oppenheimer

This weekend, like many audiences around the world, I went to see Christopher Nolan's latest film called Oppenheimer. The decision to go was fun. For the first time in a while I had to strategize. It made me realize that my "movie going skills" were a little rusty, having atrophied quite a bit as the theaters have been noticeably emptier than I ever remember them being. But for Oppenheimer I had a suspicion that this might be a more popular movie. So, I decided to try and buy tickets early, which put me on a path of narrowing choices.

The first thing I wanted to do was see it in IMAX. We have several theaters in my town that offer IMAX, but as I've gotten bigger around the middle (and older) and my friends that were going with me have (for the most part) done the same, I wanted to try for luxury seating in the IMAX. Luxury seating is where one row has been dedicated to reclining seats. Personally, I think all seats should be recliners. And the Cinemarks in my area have all done this. But they don't have an IMAX theater. So, I tried looking at all showtimes for Oppenheimer within the next week to see if that row of special "luxury seats" had all been filled. And...unfortunately...it had. Like literally sold out for as far ahead as they schedule events, and in every IMAX in the Salt Lake valley.

So then I started to question my own decision on seeing it in IMAX. There are only 17 theaters nationwide in IMAX that offer Oppenheimer in 70mm format, and none of those are in my state. The rest are just a bigger screen. But the sound system in the other theaters that I usually go to (Cinemark) is always good. And from what I understand, all 70mm does is make the film look hyper-realistic with its resolution, adding to the film immersion. I don't know if that necessarily would have made the viewing of Oppenheimer any better. That's when I decided that I'd just give up on the IMAX experience and go to the Cinemark and watch it there. And that's what myself and two of my friends ended up doing. In the following paragraphs, I'm going to talk about my takes from Oppenheimer which (as far as I can tell) are all parts of history. So I don't think there are any spoilers, unless you think that history is a spoiler. If that is you, then this is your "spoiler warning."

I think (for me) J. Robert Oppenheimer was the only historical figure in this movie that I actually liked. I've never been a fan of the era in which this man lived. And all of the things you would expect about the telling of this story happen within the background to all of these important men doing whatever they needed to do in order to win a war that had consumed the world. Yes, we need to remember that hundreds of thousands of people were going to die and were dying. War is awful. But the movie Oppenheimer is here to firmly validate that not only is war awful, but that war is human, and humans are awful to each other all of the time.

War then is just the escalation of hatred of the other to the most violent circumstances. And what one nation says is peace can in many ways be defined by another as "tyranny." But that's just how the chips fall with our species. All of us have never been united, and barring that utopia of a one world government, there is always a winner and a loser. When you think of nation states deciding the outcomes of civilization, you realize that there are always power brokers and arms races within the borders of any single nation that you pick. It's always a "game of thrones," and J. Robert Oppenheimer, the historical figure and scientist, was smack dab in the middle of a toxic mix of people who were patriots (yes...of that there is no doubt), but they were also men feeding off vast narcissistic supply in the pursuit of their legacy and their greatness.

That they were really smart boys (in men's bodies) being mothered by their wives while they went about the important task of ending the war and bringing other boys home is never lost on me. At one point, Matt Damon's character (a general in charge of building the entire town of Los Alamos) says to a scientist that "this is the most important work in the history of mankind" or something like that. The point in me quoting that is that clearly...it is very important. But then...of course it is...because men rule everything and everything that the men participated in was in fact important. That importance is everywhere. And history shows it probably was the most important thing in the history of mankind. But the irony of that statement isn't lost on me because of the blatant sexism of that time period. But all of that is just historical fact.

The importance of developing the bomb was left to men while women just needed to focus on the laundry and provide sex when needed and definitely keep the houses cleaned so that important meetings could take place. Oh...and child rearing too. Men didn't rear children. If your wife was overwhelmed you drove your crying brat to another house and imposed on another man's wife. That's just how things were done. It makes me wonder why our species is so awful, and why I'm not excited or nostalgic for those times. As a man, I clearly stood to benefit, right? So why wouldn't I want to return to the forties and fifties in America? Only it's clear to me I wouldn't have been smart enough in this particular time period to warrant a level of importance that excused abusing others for the sake of getting something done and ending a huge war. So, maybe it would have been left to me to do the cleaning and the serving of drinks while important men sat around discussing ideas. I'll pass on that, thanks. And we see a lot of that today, right? Everyone saying "no thanks" to that kind of undignified work, which is why we have a labor shortage in America right now. I can't say that I blame anyone making that choice, because "being important" is a small group and it is most definitely not inclusive.

The movie Oppenheimer is a remarkable film. But it is less about the development of the bombs that were dropped on the Japanese, and it is more about this historical figure that the author (that is the movie's source material) likened to a "Prometheus." This is a Titan that stole fire from the gods and gave it to man to do with as he pleased. That then is the metaphor used to describe the man J. Robert Oppenheimer who was punished by his own government, because they feared his power to sway public opinion regarding toxic capitalism. In other words, this incredibly intelligent man spoke of restraint.

He wanted to limit those who had placed their hands upon something that they sensed would give them the unlimited means to bulldoze a path wherever they wanted to go. He foresaw that this would just start an arms race (which it did). There have always been those men who have no restraint and look at you with a puzzled look when you say, "You need to keep your pig in check. Stop being a glutton." To them their desire is just absolute freedom. It is the freedom to do anything to anyone and anywhere at anytime and you can't stop them because they are more powerful. Others might view that as tyranny, but these terms are just two sides of the same coin. In their eyes, if you limit someone, then you are the bad guy. But the thing is (and we are still learning this today), when there are no limits, it leaves very little for the rest of us. A healthy society has to have limits and personal responsibilities and accountabilities. J. Robert Oppenheimer knew this, and it made everyone else who was in his orbit (who believed the opposite) really angry. That's just unfortunate.

This movie is definitely a thumbs up. It is filled with A-Listers jostling for scraps in a script that is thankfully crowded with lots of words for them to memorize and perform in front of the camera. There were easily three to four Oscar winners taking bit parts in this movie. Rami Malek and Casey Affleck are two that I spotted. Matt Damon's part was much larger (another Oscar winner). It shows how much power Nolan has as a Director that these people probably fought hard to get into this movie to help solidify their status as the best actors in the world. This is also a film for men. The women are there, yes, but their roles are not really memorable at all. I don't blame Nolan. That's just how history was, and I trust that he's telling it like it is (at least to the best of our knowledge). I'm just glad I didn't have to grow up in these times, and that I was able to find friends who are not consumed with their own legacy and greatness. Being around those kinds of people would have taken a mental toll on me (I'd probably have developed all kinds of mental illnesses and personality disorders). It also would have been exhausting, because there would have been sparingly few emotional connections one could make. At the end of the day, the work everyone was doing was too important for anything but the work itself.

I like to end these reviews by asking myself if I would watch this movie again. It was an excellent movie, and I definitely think everyone should see it. But I don't think I'd watch it again. It's thick subject matter, and it affects my mood in a way that I wouldn't classify as entertainment. But for what it's worth, a single viewing of it was time well spent. It's also a reminder that nothing was ever as important as the Manhattan Project was, but there is never a shortage of self-important people walking the Earth who would argue that point with you while seeking to use you as their own personal doormat. If we are all smart, we'll keep that from happening, and by doing so build a better future for our shared civilization.