The Real Trouble With Voyager

I have to take issue with an article on RogerEbert.com entitled Now, "Voyager": In Praise Of The Trekkiest "Trek" Of All. In it, Ian Grey basically says that the reason Star Trek fans didn't like Voyager is because it had female characters as the lead, and male fans didn't like that.

To which I say: Bull puckey.
The problem with Voyager was never the female leads, but rather the lack of urgency and poor execution of an awesome idea.

Look, Voyager was supposed to be about two separate ships with opposing philosophies flung across the galaxy that had no one to turn to but each other. Think of the possibilities of that sort of Star Trek series. As a matter of fact, you don't need to think of the possibilities: Battlestar Galactica handled those possibilities through the first three seasons or so and showed what kind of show Voyager could have been.

At the end of every Voyager episode, the reset button was pushed. No matter how broken the ship was, it would be pulled back together. No matter how fractured the crew, there was a perfectly good reason for it and everything would be fixed. No one questioned Janeway's authority. No one tried to suggest settling down. No one gave in to despair. Compare this to BSG. BSG was willing to go to dark, dark places that Voyager never dared.

People don't like a TV show unless it feels real. Voyager never, ever felt real. Since the reset button was always being pushed, there were no stakes, hence no sense of realness.

Well, what about the female characters? Is that why the show never connected?

Not exactly. BSG gave us a strong female character in President Roslin who frequently butted heads with the male characters. No one complained about her.

Yet, here is Mr. Grey placing all of the blame for Voyager at the feet of misogynists who disliked female characters, when they were the best thing about the show. News Flash: A lot of Star Trek fans are female. They wanted to see a female character. No one was complaining about the female characters at the time, yet here we are, pointing fingers years later.

The real problem with Voyager is this: Voyager ran from 1995-2001. When it began, NYPD Blue, with its emphasis on real situations, conflict and story arcs that had consequences had just begun. By the time Voyager ended, The West Wing was at its full power and The Sopranos was signaling a paradigm shift in the way we thought of TV. Star Trek: Voyager pales in comparison to other shows that were on the air at the time, and only looks worse in retrospect.

And the amount of women on the show had nothing to do with it.

What I'll Miss About 30 Rock

Today, 30 Rock goes off the air. It's one of my favorite TV shows, and I'm going to miss it. Here is a list of things I'm going to miss about it.

• Liz Lemon. "I want to go to there."
• The movie Jefferson, made by Tracy Jordan with him playing all the parts. "It's not a comedy. It's a drama."
• Leap Day Williams, climbing up from the Mariana Trench.
• Jon Hamm in blackface with an indignant Tracy Morgan.
• Sabor de Soledad: Ahora con mas semen de toro!
• Dennis Duffy, the Beeper King. "Technology is cyclical."
• Everything Leo Spaceman said. "I'm a real doctor, with a degree from the Ho Chi Minh City School of Medicine."
• Dot-Com and Grizz. "Some day, I hope you'll ask us to fake being scientists."
• Cerie's cluelessness. "Cerie, I'm over 40." "I don't know what that means."
• Stacy Keach, growling two separate commercials for CouchTown and another for Bazooka Joe gum.
• Buzz Aldrin, yelling at the moon: "I walked on your face!"
• The great names they've used: Floyd DeBarber, Paul L'astname, Criss Chros, Carol Burnett.
• Margaret Cho as Kim Jong-Il.
• The failed Dealbreakers pilot. "Wave! Like a normal person!... Are you spinning a basketball?"
• The benefit concert to get Jack Donaghy's father a kidney, called "Kidney Now!"
• Buck Henry as Liz Lemon's father, Dick Lemon. "You can't have a Lemon party without old Dick!"
• The final heir to the Hapsburg dynasty, played by Paul Reubens with a ceramic hand. "I'm old enough to rent a car! HAAAA! It feels good to laugh."
• "Here comes the Funcooker!"
• "Let's not play the blame game." "Of course, I'm not wearing my outfit."
• "Tracy Jordan, the Black Crusaders are coming for you."
• "I don't like it here! I don't wanna be here! Who is this guy!"
• "I don't like 'Tubman.' That sounds sexist. Can we change that to 'Tubgirl'?"
• "No, Liz Lemon, I believe you dress me up as Oprah because you're concerned about maintaining our dignity."
• "Happy Valentine's Day, no one!"
• "So it's not the bandito blanco, a name for cocaine I just made up?"
• "A Mr. Brett Fav-ruh sent you this picture. I think it's a hot dog."
• "This is how I cry now after you had me get that offbrand eye surgery!"

Godspeed, 30 Rock. You shall be missed.

3DTV Struggling

So, how is 3DTV doing so far? According to the New York Post, 3DTV is struggling. It appears ESPN, one of the early champions of 3DTV, considered pulling out last year, but worst of all, 3DTV might be dragging down the entire TV industry!

Swann believes 3-D has scared and confused consumers -- and is now tanking the entire retail television marketplace.

In a recent survey of 45,000 households, Riddhi Patel of research firm IHS iSuppli found that America's "ongoing love affair with television" -- new and improved sets, that is -- may be over.

Her research found that only 13 percent of those surveyed planned on purchasing a new set in the next 12 months.

Patel says potential TV buyers are most interested in price, picture quality and Internet connectability -- not 3-D.

I point this out because I've said it before and I'll say it again: Pushing things on consumers that they don't want never works. 3D is something that people like in movies. It's a once-in-a-while treat, not an everyday thing.

In fact, the easiest device for viewing 3D is the 3DS, and sales on the 3DS are struggling. Sure, there are other factors at play (most notably, price) but still.

How did manufacturers think that 3DTV, with its bulky glasses and so-so picture, was going to succeed? The mind boggles.

What Do You Need For A Good TV Serial?

Lost was one of the biggest, most influential series in recent memory. It resonated with audiences and kept them guessing to the end. There was so much buzz around it and the ratings were so good that everyone thereafter wanted to copy its template. There were a pile of dramas afterwards that could be called "Lost, But With A Difference."

For instance:

• The Nine (Lost during a bank heist)
• The Event (Lost with some...event)
• Jericho (Lost after a nuclear explosion)
• V (Lost with extraterrestrials)
• Heroes (Lost with superheroes)
• FlashForward (Lost with a timetraveling conspiracy)
• DayBreak (Lost + Groundhog Day + MURDER)

Each show tried (or is trying) copying the supposed template: 1) Important event happens. 2) Characters try piecing together the mystery of what happened and why. The most successful one of these, at least in terms of audience size, was Heroes. We're going to tackle the rise and fall of Heroes in a later article, but for a brief, shining moment, they were oh-so-close to capturing the audience of Lost. Even that show fell apart, and most of the other shows are either fading, faded, or completely forgotten. Why? What happened?

We're going to use the notoriously bad movie Delgo as a clue. Delgo had a budget of $40 million and ended up grossing about $700,000. One of the reasons for it? Delgo opened with a long, boring explanation of the mythology of the world. Here's a quote from Nathan Rabin from AVClub:

You see, once upon a time in a land called Jhamora there lived a bunch of slithery lizard-people known as the Lokni. A loss of natural resources forced a bunch of dragonflies known as the Nohrin to settle on Jhamora with the permission of the Lokni. Alas, Sedessa (voiced by Anne Bancroft), the power-mad sister of Nohrin king King Zahn (voiced by Louis Gossett Jr., the young people’s favorite) decides to terrorize the Lokni out of a sense of racial superiority. In the process she and her goons murder the father (Burt Reynolds) of the titular young Lokni boy-lizard (voiced by Freddie Prinze Jr.). Meanwhile, Sedessa is stripped of her wings and banished from the kingdom of the Nhorin as punishment for her brutality. Fifteen years later, Sedessa forms a strategic alliance with a race of ogre people and conspires with one General Raius to exacerbate tensions between the Lokni and Nhorin people so war will break out and she can seize power.

OK, got all that? Rabin points out that Delgo assumes the battle is already won, so it has no problem dumping mythology on you without letting you know the characters. It gives you this plot diarrhea before telling you why you should even care.

That's what happens with some of these shows. Their primary concern is the mythology. They care so much about the world that they don't focus on why we these characters are worth caring about, and in turn, why we should keep watching.

Consider how Lost began. The first episode introduced the characters, the monster, then the creepy French radio message. The first season led us into the characters' lives and what decisions brought them to this point. Then and only then did they start deepening the mythology with the hatch, the Dharma Initiative, and all the other crazy stuff that they got into. For as crazy as Lost got in latter years, throughout the first season the show started out simple: People crash-land on an island that's more than what it seems, and they have to figure out how to survive there.

Because the set up was so simple, we could focus on getting to know the characters. It helped that the characters on Lost were so strong and nuanced that we cared about them and wanted to know more. Sawyer was an interesting character, for example. He was a charming rogue who didn't care about anyone, but he was also a victim with a scarred soul. Locke was a character who seemed like a rough, Special-Ops type of guy. It turned out he was a crippled, broken man who was living out the fantasy of being a tough guy. These are interesting characters who had goals and just so happened to be thrown into this situation together. If they never would have crashed on the island, you can easily envision what their lives would have been like.

Granted, Lost had the advantage of great ratings and a huge budget, so they could continue delving into their mythology. That being said, most successful serials follow the same template. Look at Battlestar Galactica, for example. BSG's first season is all about a simple concept: People on the run from robots bent on their destruction. Afterwards we started getting in to all of the other craziness, but not until we learned about the characters, like Starbuck, Tigh, and Adama.

We can see, therefore, that a high-concept show can't be too high-concept too soon. The most successful of these shows start with a simple concept and then deepens the concept over time. Why is that?

Let’s use an example of something unrelated to TV: Facebook. Your grandma can look at Facebook and understand it immediately. People who she knows will post about what they're doing. There's a big box at the type that you can type things in. You type in something and hit "Share," and it appears immediately. It's so easy to use that anyone can do it.

Can you do deeper things with it? Absolutely. You can share videos, post pictures, play games, list your favorite TV shows and get updates about them. You can create an ad and put it on the site if you want to. However, they don't splay all that in front of a first-time user. For a first-time user, they give you one message: How are you feeling? Share it!

That's what a high-concept show needs to be about. One of the deepest, most high-concept shows in history, The Prisoner, starts simply. A former spy is on an island. They're trying to break him, and he refuses. He tries to run away and gets caught. Using that basic template, The Prisoner was able to explore issues of identity, collectivism, Orwell, and others, but it all started out simple.

Let's run some comparisons. These are simple setups:

• Lost: A group of people crash land on an island and have to survive.
• Battlestar Galactica: A group of people are all that's left of humanity and have to survive.
• Heroes: A group of people get superpowers.
• Jericho: A group of people are survivors of a nuclear attack.
• The Walking Dead: A group of people are survivors of a zombie apocalypse.

Compare that with other setups:

• FlashForward: Everyone on earth sees two minutes of their future from six months down the line.
• DayBreak: A man is framed for murder and sees his girlfriend die and is forced to relive the day over and over again until he solves the murder and saves his girlfriend.
• V: Aliens come to Earth and claim to come in peace, but it's discovered that they're reptiles with more sinister objectives. (Admittedly, this is the same setup as the more successful 1983 miniseries, but the point still stands.)

Which setups are easier to understand and follow? Which shows were more successful? Sure, some of the aforementioned shows didn’t have very long runs, but they’re remembered as being GOOD. You’ll also notice that the “good” shows have premises that being with “a group of people,” as opposed to “something happens.”

That leads us to the next point: Once you have a simple setup, then it's time to set your characters in motion. Who are they? What kind of people are they? What were they doing with their lives before the show started?

This is the step that a lot of shows fumble. For example, Heroes was a great show for the first season when the characters had very clearly defined goals. Peter Petrelli wanted to be somebody, Hiro wanted to be a great hero, even stripper lady wanted to put aside her past and be a good mother. However, after that great first season, the characters went off the rails and did things that didn't make sense. It's no surprise that the show's ratings start plummeting when the characters fell apart.

You can sometimes pull out a great show with a complex premise and great characters. Farscape is an example. The setup? An astronaut is sucked through a wormhole and ends up with a group of people on the run. It's not the easiest setup to wrap your head around. However, because what followed was good, it made it easier to keep up.

However, the point remains that a complex premise is just plain offputting for most viewers. You could say that "audiences just shouldn't be so dumb and maybe they’ll understand something complex," but that's not fair. Some of the best movies, books and TV shows start with a simple premise:

• Catcher In The Rye: A troubled youth runs away from home.
• Star Wars: A young man discovers a mysterious power inside of him.
• Catch-22: A soldier discovers the insanity of war.
• Citizen Kane: The rise and fall of a newspaper mogul.
• Singin' In The Rain: A silent movie star tries to make a talking picture.
• To Kill A Mockingbird: A girl comes of age and sees racism in her hometown.

From those simple premises, they're able to build and weave intricate stories with deep and interesting themes.

Am I saying that all entertainment needs to be simplistic? Well, no. I'm just saying that for a complex serial mystery that attempts to emulate Lost, it's important not to get bogged down in mythology. A simple premise that deepens later on along with great characters is all you need to make a great show.

What Does 3DTV Need To Do To Succeed?

I hated Avatar.  I thought it was boring, and I thought the 3D was just a gimmick that didn't add anything to the movie.  However, it's obvious that I'm in the minority.  It's made over a billion dollars worldwide (!!!) and is wooing and wowing audiences all over.  This could very well tilt the balance of 3D entertainment.

However, we still go back to the fact that I hate it and think that it's boring.  So now, as an analyst, I have to decide whether things I say about 3D entertainment are truly correct analysis or just my personal opinion.  Am I being cranky about it since I'm mad that Avatar is making so much money, or do I have legitimate concerns?  My opinion can't not enter into play, if you catch my drift.  Anything I read or see about new 3D displays is filtered through my personal opinion, so I'm going to lay out what I see happening with 3D and you can tell me if I'm being cranky or if I have legitimate concerns.

First, people like 3D.  That much is now established.  They liked it in the 50's too, but the complicated processes to make 3-D work both during filming and projection led to its downfall.  Now that its usage seems to be perfected through the use of digital film and computer technology, we should see a lot more 3D entertainment.  However, the question now becomes:  Do people like 3D at home?  There's virtually no media to show whether or not people will watch 3D on a regular basis at home.  Sure, 3D episodes of shows are popular, but those are one-off shots, not regular, day-in, day-out viewing habits.  Wearing dorky glasses that make you look like Rivers Cuomo is fine in a group setting where everyone's doing the same thing.  Will audiences be willing to do that at home?  It sounds silly, but has anyone ever really asked that question on a large scale?

Also, what led to 3D's downfall in the 50's?  They had to run two projectors in the theaters to display 3D properly, and if the projectors were even slightly off it would create headaches and eyestrain.  Here's where America's penchant for buying cheap crap comes into play.  You can explain the difference between a $300 HDTV and a $700 HDTV to a consumer for hours and explain why they need the better TV, but will that stop them from buying the cheap one?  Not really. Most consumers will crowd Walmart for a new Vizio TV instead of laying down the money for something slightly better that will cost them more.  A better HDTV might provide higher resolution, clarity, and contrast, things that are important, but most customers feel they can live with the slightly lower quality.  In 3DTVs, there's far less margin for error.  If a cheap 3D TV messes up the images even slightly, where are we?  Eyestrain, headaches and problems with people complaining about 3D.

So, cheap 3D TVs are a tricky proposition.  It will take a while for the price to come down to the point where everyone can purchase one.  Even now, the most popular HDTVs are the ones that are as cheap as possible.  If every HDTV had to be held to an extremely high standard, the price would be more and HDTV adoption would be much less than it already is, which is currently at a little less than 50% of households.  Let's wrap that up and put a little bow on it:  If people buy cheap stuff more often than expensive stuff, and 3DTVs will keep a high price point out of necessity, it'll take far longer for 3DTVs to become mainstream than HDTVs.

Here's what a lot of manufacturers are hoping for:  They're hoping that consumers who haven't yet adopted HDTV will skip right over purchasing an HDTV and go straight to 3DTV.  Is that a possibility?  Well, hand a consumer two choices.  Give them the brand new bright-and-shiny 3DTV that costs $3000 or the HDTV that costs $500, and see which one they'll pick.  They might want the 3DTV, but they'll end up going with the HDTV 9 times out of 10.  Why?  Because it's cheaper, and times are tough.

Here's where it becomes especially problematic.  You can watch an HDTV program on a standard definition TV and not have any problems.  Sure, it'll be in letterbox format, but you can still see the broadcast clearly, and even get a feel for the benefits of HD.  You can also obviously watch an HD program on an HDTV.  You CANNOT watch a 3D program on standard definition or high definition TV.  What does that mean?  Well, broadcast TV helped lead the charge for HDTV.  When shows like ER started broadcasting in high-def, it demystified the concept for the average user.  They understood that it was just the same as regular TV, just sharper and they needed a better TV to see the pretties.  In this case, broadcast TV no longer has the same effect as it once did, and most cable channels are finally getting around to doing HD.  The only way to go out of your way and watch 3D programming is by getting a 3D channel on your TV, but you can't view a 3D channel unless you have a 3D TV.  It's a chicken-and-egg scenario.

Now, where Avatar is so important is because it IS the egg.  It's the flashpoint where audiences are discovering that 3D is viable and cool.  After Avatar, TV manufacturers and TV channels don't have to do as much convincing explaining that 3D is cool, because the vast majority of people already understand that it is.  However, we're now going back to the question at the beginning:  3D is OK in the theater, but is it OK at home?  Do people want it in the house, or will they feel dorky and silly?  In other words, 3D is cool in the theater, but will it translate to the home?

Here's the next big issue: The movie industry has finally found their magic bullet to get butts in the theater.  Avatar is the biggest thing to happen to movies in a long time.  Will the movie industry be willing to lose its one big bargaining chip with audiences?  Think about it:  The movie industry has been haggling with audiences for a long time trying to get them into the theater.  That's where they make the bulk of their money from, with DVD sales providing a boost for movies that didn't do so hot in distribution.  The industry is also trying to stamp out piracy, and 3D may be the ticket.  I mean, if you film a 3D movie with a camcorder, you won't see it clearly, you won't get a good view of it, and it'll look weird and distorted.  Who would want to watch that at home?  Plus, a lot of people are going to the theater based on the premise of "I'm not going to be able to get the full effect of this movie by renting it so I should see it in the theater."  The movie industry has to be cackling with glee over this revelation.  Will they willingly let this brand-new advantage slide out of their fingers?

Let's put it all together.  Consumers like cheap TVs, so 3DTVs aren't going to sell as well since you can't make them cheap.  Early adopters and power users will be the ones who get them.  There will be some channels that broadcast 3D entertainment, but not that many since, once again, there won't be that many 3D users out there.  Movie companies may be reluctant to let their movies hit 3D Blu-Ray in an attempt to hold on to their money for longer.  They'll undoubtedly bank on this technology far more in order to make movies in the theater "events" instead of just "movies."

Meanwhile, the average Joe won't get what all the fuss is about.  Every time he watches a 3D program on his standard def or high def TV, it just looks blurry and the glasses don't work right.  Plus, he just spent X amount of dollars getting this new HDTV, and he'll be damned if he goes out and buys another one just so he can wear some glasses.  Our average Joe will certainly like 3D movies, and the one time he saw some sports in 3D it looked neat, but he can see everything just great in his HDTV.  Why switch?  Unlike HDTV, where the difference was palpable and unmistakable, 3DTV is a little more nebulous.  Sure, you can see things coming at you a little bit better, but besides that, what's the benefit?  

However, the major benefit actually comes down to one of the most immersive entertainments around:  Video games.  Imagine playing on your Playstation 3 and playing Modern Warfare 2 in 3D mode.  I get chills just thinking about it.  That's an experience that you cannot duplicate in the theater or anywhere else.  Remember, 3DTVs are not aimed at grandpa or grandma.  Those audiences simply won't be the primary users, and they'll be fine with their standard def TVs and digital converter boxes.  The aim of the 3DTV makers should be at the people who have the most disposable income and the most reason to upgrade:  Young male gamers.  They're used to looking like dorks anyway, since gaming implies a small measure of geekiness.  Then, once you've ensnared them, you can make inroads with other audiences and provide more TV and movies in home 3D.

So, if you're a TV manufacturer and you want 3D to become a big deal, what should you do?  Don't bother showing off 3D with reruns of The King of Queens or crappy concerts starring Taylor Swift.  Get young guys at a Best Buy to put on some glasses, pick up a controller, and see for themselves.  If they do that, I guarantee you'll have converts, and it could change the very nature of the gaming industry for good as well as tilt the 3DTV battle in their favor.  3DTV will still never take over the marketplace totally until they can replicate 3D consistently without need for glasses, but it's the surest way to give it the best possible shot.

So, how about it?  Was I too cranky?  Was I right on the mark?  Or am I just blowing smoke?

Cupla Things

First, great Scrubs finale last night.  Scrubs has always straddled the line between funny and sentimental, and the finale was pitch-perfect.  I'll admit to choking up during the final scene where J.D. envisions his life from here on out.  Very well done.  I also love how we still don't really know the janitor's real name.  It might be Glenn Matthews...or Tony...or Jan Itor.  We'll never really know.  Great stuff all around.

Second, Manny Ramirez might have tested positive for PEDs!  I guess that's just Manny juicing Manny.

6 Things I Would Change About Star Trek

Like a lot of people, I'm really excited about the new Star Trek movie. Early returns are looking good, although time will tell whether or not it's as good as the early reviews are saying it is.

However, I have a couple of bones to pick with Star Trek. These are all things that I wish that they either wouldn't have done since the beginning or would fix now. Be warned: This entry includes spoilers and massive amounts of geekdom. You might want to avert your eyes.

1) Stop the time travel.

Look, I love time travel as much as anyone. Some of Star Trek's best episodes have been about it. I mean, what would Star Trek be without "City on the Edge of Forever" or "Yesterday's Enterprise?" At least on the aforementioned examples, no timelines were really changed and the plots were actually, you know, thought through.

What I wish they would stop is time travel that causes paradoxes. For instance, in the season finale of Voyager, Janeway goes back to help Voyager get back home much sooner than they did in her timeline. So what does that mean for Janeway? Does that mean that she still goes back in time at the same time that she did in the alternate timeline just to complete the mission she went back to do in the alternate timeline? And if she doesn't go back at that exact time, then the crew never actually goes home early, which means she then goes back, which means they get home early, which means she never goes back, and-

My head hurts. Alternate timeline stuff is sloppy and demonstrates a lack of creativity. Not mention the fact that time travel in the Star Trek universe is getting absurdly simple to do. It's time to stop using it as a crutch for lazy writers.

2) More backstory.

We know that Kirk was an immature kid who grew up once he was joined Starfleet, and we know that Picard was a hellion in the Academy until he was stabbed in the heart and realized his own mortality. But what about Sulu's backstory? Tell me about Uhura. Tell me about Geordi LaForge.

Now, these characters have backstories, but how much do we really know about them? I'm going to hold up Lost as an example, because they do a lot of things right. We know far more about Jack and Sawyer than we ever did about William Riker or Chekov. I mean, on Lost, we even know that Sayid snapped a chicken's neck as a child.

Why does this help? Well, a great character isn't just a great actor playing a person. It's years of learning why this character does what they do. That's why Lost's characters work, that's why Captain Kirk works, why Spock works, why Picard works, why Data works, why Sisko works, and why stiffs like Harry Kim and the ciphers from Enterprise don't work.

3) Add risk.

In every episode we know who will live and who will die. It doesn't matter if Tom Paris and B'Elanna Torres get stuck outside the ship in spacesuits. They'll find a way back in. They're not going anywhere. It doesn't matter if the crew is kidnapped and forced into slavery. They're not going to die. There's no long-term threat.

Do characters die in Star Trek? Yes, they do, but for stupid reasons. Tasha Yar died because Denise Crosby wanted to leave the show. Jadzia Dax died because Terry Farrell wanted off Deep Space Nine. No one dies just because sometimes people die. When you add in that sense of risk, it adds pathos and tension to the stories. You actually get nervous that someone might die because no one is truly safe.

I hold up as an example Serenity. MAJOR SPOILERS! WARNING! Over the course of the Firefly series, you get to know Shepherd Book and Wash very well. Shepherd Book dies in Serenity, and as sad as it is, you kind of expect it. You figure, "Someone has to die, why not have it be this guy?" It made sense for the narrative, but it took away the tension you felt throughout the big space battle afterwards because you know that no one else is going to die.

Then Wash dies suddenly and with no warning. It shocks you back to your senses. Anything is now possible. Anyone can die from here on out. Suddenly, the stakes are raised for everyone and you don't know who's going to get it next. That makes the fact that everyone escapes much more gratifying. END SPOILERS!

Star Trek would do well to heed that. When no one's off-limits, there's so much more dramatic tension and danger. The galaxy is a scary place, and Star Trek would do well to demonstrate it.

4) Jump ahead 50-100 years.

The 2300-2400's are becoming very well-tread ground. It's getting to the point that you can't shoot a phaser without hitting some legend of the Star Trek universe, and the plotlines are starting to get more and more insular. Every story has to be mindful of canon and can't interfere with anything else. You can't have any major, seismic changes in the galaxy because it'll upset what's already known.

So, why not jump ahead? We know the Dominion fell. We know the Borg are weakened. We know that Cardassia and the Klingon Empire are in decline. So now what? Where do we go from here? There are myriad possibilities that this opens up, and it finally takes the shackles off the writers, allowing for spec scripts and all sorts of things that you wouldn't have been able to do if they had kept the timeline in the same place.

This also does something else: It enables the other actors to retire in peace. Patrick Stewart is 67. Jonathan Frakes is in his late 50s. You can't keep trotting these people out and expecting them to play the same young versions of themselves. The original cast is already dying off, as sad as it is. Someday, the rest of them will go too. We need to move on from a narrative sense and a practical sense.

5) No more human-alien hybrids.

OK, you can't really retcon this stuff out. I mean, Spock is half-human, half-Vulcan. That can't change. But ask yourself: How can a creature that has green blood and a creature that has red blood have a child? How is it that myriad humanoids evolving separately across the galaxy all have the same reproductive organs and systems?

I say no more. Leave the ones that are able to reproduce alone. Fine. I'll accept those. But no more hybrids. No more Trill/Klingon coupling or Human/Mud Monster babies.

Why? Well, for one, it makes no sense. These aren't like different races of human. These are different species, and should be treated as such.

Secondly, it adds emotional depth. Imagine this plotline: One character falls in love with another character, but they can never be together because they're from a different species. Think about it: A relationship based on trust and love that can never be consummated that opens the door for social commentary, which is what Star Trek was meant for. What could be more dramatic and heartfelt than that?

6) Stop focusing on nothing but Galaxy-class Federation ships.

We all love the Enterprise. Everyone knows it, and it's one of the most enduring symbols of Star Trek. That shouldn't change. But how about giving us a full picture of the galaxy? We know a little about the Maquis, a smattering of the Romulans and an amount about the Klingons. Let's bring it all together. Let's focus on something like, say, a ship of Maquis on the run, the adventures they have, and the Federation ship that's trying to track them down. Let's say that sometimes the Federation has to get their hands dirty trying to track down the Maquis.

Using that plotline, you can delve into a whole variety of issues, like whether or not the end justifies the means, terrorism, or any other real hot-button issue of this time. Why is it more effective? Because you're not going to be exploring these issues merely from the strait-laced views of the Federation, but the fast-and-loose style of the Maquis. You get to see the best and worst of both sides.

--

Star Trek is great, but what makes it great isn't just Captain Kirk and Spock. They're the most recognizable part of it, but they're not all that Star Trek is about. Star Trek made its mark by being provocative and forward. It was a show that made you think in a time when most shows didn't. It was a show that gave you heroes and antiheroes, questioned established prejudices, and made you care about characters. It can still be that show, but it needs to make these changes to be relevant once again.

Great Episode of Lost + Baseball's Back

Okay, so I've been trying to contain my excitement, but I can't anymore...BASEBALL'S BACK! Last night, the Brewers were up against the venerable Randy Johnson, and he was in great control, getting strikeout after strikeout in the first couple of innings. Then, Mike Cameron cracked a home run and all of a sudden the Big Unit looked vulnerable.

I stopped watching when Yovani Gallardo (Yovani Gallardo!) hit a homer in the 5th. They intentionally walked Jason Kendall to get to him. Good choice, Giants. Brewers won, 4-2.

Get used to these baseball updates. I'm probably going to be doing this throughout the season, like it or not.

So, Lost.

Michael Emerson is a great actor. He plays Ben, the man who always seems in control no matter how bad the situation. The frustrating thing is, he usually is in control. He always has people right where he wants them, so it's great to see him totally out of control like he was in last night's episode.

Ben has now been forced to accept that John Locke is his new leader. How will he react? Will a man who is a known manipulator and liar be content with sitting in a No. 2 role? He's used to getting his own way. Is he going to want his decisions filtered through someone wiser than he? We're heading into some great territory here, and I can't wait.

Finally Back Into Lost

I had heard some good things about Lost recently. I heard that they were finally moving the story forward, and the fact that the show now has an endpoint intrigued me. The trouble was, I couldn't get my wife to watch it with me. A couple of days ago, we were channel surfing and I happened upon Lost in HD. I stopped to admire how it looked in HD, and something happened along the way.

My wife kept asking me, "Who's that? Why are they doing that? What are they doing there?" I would plainly confess that I didn't know, and I kept on bringing up the fact that she was the one who got tired of it and didn't want to watch. My lovely wife got intrigued, and now we're plowing through Season 3 en route to Season 4. I'm actually really psyched, because we're seeing some really great stuff and we don't have to wait a week between each episode.

The more I watch, the more theories I'll have. Stay tuned.

Lost Makes Me Angry

So, I've finally figured out why "Lost" makes me so angry.

It's not the hanging plot details. No, those I expected from Day One.

It's not the slow pace of the show. I like slow-paced shows.

It's not the incessant flashbacks. I think it works perfectly.

I'm angry because they don't have a point.

Here's what I mean: They spent all of Season 2 setting up the Tailies. Ana Lucia, Libby, Eko, all these interesting characters. They give them back stories. (Except for Libby. What was that about? They set this up so mysteriously. "Oooh! She's in the mental institution! Oooh, she ran into Desmond!" AND?!) Eko's back story, in particular, was incredible.

So, what do they do? They kill Ana Lucia and Libby. I'm okay with that. It was a really shocking moment. You didn't expect it. It reinforced the whole "any character can die at any time" thing. No big deal.

Next, there's this big "incident" in the hatch. You spend all season in this hatch, and now, everyone just walks away from it and not another word is said. There was a freaking IMPLOSION in the hatch. And, mysteriously, no one wants to talk about it. Okay, I'm all right.

Now, there might be OTHER people on the island. There's a lady interrogating Jack, and more of the Others that are introduced. Plus, you're pushing to the forefront some other random couple that's been in the background the whole time. As if we need more characters, more balls to juggle. Okay, I'm still okay.

Then they kill Eko.

Now, this was the straw that broke the camel's back. One of the most intriguing characters of last season, Eko was just plain cool. He did everything the island told him to do, all while carrying around a Bible beat-down stick. You give him, not one, but TWO whole episodes of exposition. You save the guy from a polar bear. And for what? Just to kill him?

This is the problem. Much like this blog, Lost is getting more and more unfocused as time goes on. They're not tying anything together.

Take a look at Heroes. Already, halfway through the first season, they're explaining things. You see which direction the show is going. Shows are now being advertised with taglines that basically say, "Watch our show for 10 episodes and we'll explain everything. Scout's Honor."

Does this mean that when Lost comes on for the spring season, I will refuse to watch? Probably not. But I will feel very put out indeed.