Has Star Trek taught them nothing?

I'd like to take this moment to denounce the nonsense that is Space Force's new/not at all new logo. You've probably seen it, the one that looks suspiciously like it was shamelessly copied from the Starfleet emblem from Star Trek?

Suspicious in the sense of blindingly obvious.

Or we could have universal healthcare
like the rest of the developed world...

Anyway, on behalf of Star Trek fans everywhere, I call bullshit. Bullshit. Not on Space Force as a thing but rather on-wait, why is it a thing? I mean, don't we already have the Air Force for that? Not to mention a cripplingly high military budget? So why are we adding a sixth branch to the armed forces? And before you accuse me of limp-wristed liberal hippy-ism, may I remind you that people with injuries and illnesses are turning to GoFundMe campaigns to live? Sorry, was that too dark? Well it's real, so here we are.

I know, I know, settle down there Bernie. Back to Space Force. According to my extensive research of Wikipedia, the organization's duties are 1: To protect the interests of the United States in space, 2: Deter aggression in, from and to space and 3: To conduct space operations. Which, first of all, as anyone at the chronically underfunded NASA will tell you, America is famously disinterested in space.

"We already landed and then played golf on the moon, what else is there to do?"

-America

"Worked for me..."

-basically the President

Secondly it seems like the-wait aggression from space? Like, aliens? Aliens from space? Look, I say this with the utmost support for our uh...Space Troops? But if aggressive aliens ever showed up with an invasion force we will are screwed. Screwed. They have warp drive and probably cloaking devices and phasers or whatever and there is nothing Space Force has or will have that will scratch the paint on their warships much less deter their alien aggression. In fact, they wouldn't even need phasers, they could just use our social media to turn us on each other.

Uh...most of the time...

If the administration had seen a single episode of Star Trek-and clearly someone there has-but you'd think they'd have seen how this is the least appropriate symbol they could have chosen for a space military. Not just because it's a trademark violation, but because Starfleet's all about seeking out strange new worlds and new civilizations. And while it occasionally has to protect the Federation from Borg or Romulans or whatever, it is expressly not a military organization but instead one dedicated to peaceful exploration.

I guess what I'm saying is that the President's vanity project of founding a new branch of the military is off to a great start. It's not even a year old but it's already adopted not only a highly recognizable and trademarked symbol, but one that represents a moneyless utopia that regards aggression, xenophobia and capitalism as barbarous and backwards. So the opposite of everything the administration stands for.

Incidentally, you might be tempted to draw a comparison between the
Ferengi and the President. And while it's true that both are greedy, hyper capitalist
misogynists, bear in mind that the Ferengi are actually good at business.

The rose-tinted VISOR of nostalgia!

Well yes, obviously we're going to talk about Star Trek: Picard. You couldn't possibly think I wasn't going to talk about it.

Oh don't look so shocked.

What's the internet for if not discussing
Star Trek. Huh? Well, sure, porn...

Was it any good? Yes. Will you like it? I don't know if I know how to answer that. Will I ever stop pretending that you're asking questions so that I have something to blog about? Probably not. It's an easy way for me to lead in to a subject, and really I'm nothing if not a lazy writer. Anyway, what were we talking about? Right. Star Trek. Probably a safe bet with me. Oh, and don't worry, I'm not really going to spoil anything important, I'm just musing about what I thought of the episode.

Pictured: Bruce Maddox, winner of the
Arnold J. Rimmer award for excellence
 in the field of resting douche face.

So, my musings. I liked the episode firstly because I'm a huge Star Trek fan and TNG was the one I grew up with and all they had to do to win me over was give me more Picard. Hey look, there's Picard on his vineyard from season four. And did they just name drop Dr. Maddox, the scientist who wanted to dismantle Data in season two's The Measure of a Man? They did! And look, Romulans! And Ten Forward! And holy shit is that the Captain Picard Day banner the kids on the Enterprise made in Chain of Command pt. 1! -it's full of Star Trek references is what I'm saying. Just full of'em.

But wait, am I like a totally hypocrite here? There I go again, asking questions just so I can answer them. But yes, yes I am a hypocrite. One of my criticisms of The Rise of Skywalker was how precious it was about Star Wars. The cameos, the call backs the fact that Rey had to take Luke's old X-Wing to re-kill Emperor Palatine using Luke's old lightsaber with a little help from Lando, Chewie and Wedge.

Sorry to trot out the ol' Trek vs. Wars thing...but hey, since
we're here: phaser, set to wide-beam-end of discussion.

VISOR? See what I did there? Even
my analogies are full of references. 

Yes, Picard is wall to wall fan service. In fact, the titular Picard actually goes to an archive full of props from the old show. Like, he needed to go to the archive to get information he needed to drive the story forward, it wasn't to insert a bunch of references...ok, it wasn't just to insert-look, I might just be wearing the rose-tinted VISOR of nostalgia when it comes to this kind of thing but it felt earned instead of indulgent. The show wasn't about rehashing old storylines, it just happened to contain incidental rehash.

What did you think I meant?

I loved the hash. I'm here for the hash. And I-just to be clear, when I say hash, I'm referring to references to earlier entires in Trek canon and not, you know, some other meaning of hash. But what I'm saying is that I don't think there's anything wrong with building on top of existing story elements. It's a sequel, and by definition based on some kind of source material. I think the problem comes when it becomes all about that source material and I think that's something Picard-at least in episode one-is doing right. But enough about hash and nerd references.

Shaka, when the falls fell: verb.

1. to fail utterly

2. a colossal fuckup

Let's go back to the original question you didn't really ask in the first place, but I pretended you did. Lazy writing, remember? So, will you like Star Trek: Picard? I think so. They would have had to seriously Shaka'd when the walls fell for me not have enjoyed this, and in fact, I think I can't really be objective here. But my sense is that even a casual fan would dig it. You don't need to be familiar with fifty years of Star Trek lore to enjoy it although it helps to have at least a passing familiarity with it.

Don't get me wrong, I like Disco. A lot,
but for real: hold the goddamn camera still.

The cast-at least those introduced so far, are great. The writing still feels Star Trek-y but a bit more natural than it did back on TNG or DS9, and it's light on technobabble. That's probably a good thing, especially for newcomers. Oh, and the pacing is less frenetic than say, Discovery where it sometimes feels like you can't take a breath. That might be down more to personal preference than anything else, but as an old, I appreciate it.

Anyway, it's true I don't like to review things on my blog, and I'm not. Like, I'm not telling you to go watch Picard. I just don't want that kind of responsibility. Think of it as a Prime Directive thing. I'm just telling you what I thought of the first episode, what you do with that information is your own business.

"It's like I always say: fuck the Prime Directive."

-Jean-Luc Picard, off-roading 

on a pre-warp planet

Today in walking right into it:

Walking right into what? You ask. Why the crosshairs of internet ire, of course. What with Mega Man the movie and the recent announcement that it's going to be written by Mattson Tomlin, the screenwriter for the Batman reboot imaginatively titled The Batman. 

Pictured: The Mattson Tomlin, seen here realizing what his life will
be like now that he's now writing two things with fans that have opinions.

This guy has a fan in his chest and so
is vulnerable to leaves. Obviously.

The news is surprisi-wait, you don't suppose they'll call it The Mega Man do you? Usually this is the part where I pretend you don't even know what it is I'm on about and explain. And this time is no different. What's a Mega Man? I pretend you ask. Here, allow me: I reply. So Mega Man, for the uninitiated is a long-running-and I mean, very long running. Like thirty years. They're action/platform games but the key gameplay gimmick is that you can steal the level boss' powers to use against the next boss. It's sort of a rock-paper-scissor thing. Ice Man's weapon defeats Fire Man, Needle Man's defeats Snake Man, and so on. What? Snakes hate needles. Fact.

I'm not saying the internet rage was
misplaced, I'm just saying it happened,
and now Sonic is a cartoon again.

Anyway, look, I like Mega Man and all, and I'm sure Mattson Tomlin is a great screenwriter, but still, is this a good idea? Video game movies are, traditionally, terrible. And even more unnerving is the fact that the last time anyone was talking about a Mega Man movie, it was going to be live action. Is that still the case? Because I'm just not sure the world is ready for photo realistic takes on video game characters. Remember that time realistic Sonic was instantly murdered by internet-based nerd rage? And all we saw was one trailer. One.

And when did playing the Joker
become everybody's Hamlet?

And is this going to be a serious take on Mega Man? I mean, Tomlin doesn't have a ton of credits yet but he is co-writing The Batman. And I have no idea if it's another grounded grim dark interpretation á la the Christopher Nolan films, but given that series success and the fact Joaquin Phoenix is being nominated for all awards ever for playing the Joker as a grounded grim dark serial killer/clown, I'd say the likelihood is high. So is Tomlin is working on a gritty and grounded version of Mega Man?

The mind reels. Whatever the approach, the movie is almost certainly going to attract the attention of Mega Man fans and I just hope Mattson Tomlin is ready for the inevitable criticism that comes with adapting something that has a fan base. After all, the story of a scientist who builds a robot son to battle some other scientist and his evil, yet adorable robots is a tale that must be-oh, and sometimes the robots play soccer together. Is that going to be in the movie?

Because if it's not, I'm starting an internet petition.

Finally, a job I'm qualified for...

That scene where they ride horses on a
Star Destroyer? Actually I kind of liked that.
Just when you think you've got me sussed...

I...I uh, want to apologize in advance for this one. Partly because I'm about to rag on The Rise of Skywalker again even though I said I wouldn't and partly because the thing I'm about to bring up is dumb. Even by nit-picky nerd standards. I'll understand if you want to-huh? No, it's not about the exposition Hobbit again. Anyway, I'll understand if you want to bail out on-what's that? No, it's not about Ochi of Bestoon's Sith hood ornament although, c'mon, Sith hood ornament? Anyway, it's about Palpatine's skylight. See? Dumb.

Dang, you got me...

Like I was saying, if you want to bail, now's probably the time. No one will think less of you. In fact, they might think more. Still there? Super. So I think a reasonable question here is what's my beef with Palpatine's skylight and why do I even care about it? Well, the answer is I don't. Care that is. Not really. I'm an adult with a job and responsibilities. Sure, sometimes I like a good deep dive into plot holes and inconsistancies, but I'm not loosing sleep over it. And if we're being honest here, half the time I'm just writing about things like this to pad out my nerd blog.

Speaking of padding, the movie opens with Kylo Ren finding his way to Palpatine's planet where he walks under this hovering trapezoidal thing and on to a floating platform elevator that he rides down into the temple proper past looming statues of ancient Sith lords or whatever. Anyway, the operative word here is down, establishing that the room we see Palpatine and his henchmonkies in is underground.

Pictured: The Sith Temple. I think. A lot of this
 movie was blue and kind of hard to see.

This elevator gets more screen
time than Kelly Marie Tran.

Later, Rey goes down there as well to confront Palpatine about the preposterous retcon that is the big twist in the movie and Kylo follows shortly there after. We watch as both characters again take this elevator down into thrown room/amphitheater where Palpatine is hanging out, surrounded by thousands of-I don't know, robed Sith fans? Doesn't matter. What does matter is that Palpatine steals Rey and Kylo's wonder twin powers which restore his incredibly shitty age make-up and grows his fingers back.

You heard me. Newly fingered.

Newly fingered and shriveled, Palpatine then opens up the skylight so he can force-lightning the rebel fleet from the comfort of the Iron Throne. Not enough to wipe them out, just enough to drag out the scene and build dramatic tension. But again, that's not important. What I want to know is how does that skylight open to the sky and not say, to the underside of the trapezoid? Or, better yet, more rock? Because they are like, way underground.

How I ask you? And, again, I don't care, but the movie doesn't either and that's a problem. Don't they have someone to point these things out? Someone to catch plot holes and inconsistencies before the film comes out and jerks on the internet tear it apart? Because if they don't, I'd be happy to offer my services. At a reasonable, yet extravagant salary of course. I mean, c'mon, they've got Disney money now.

Plot holes and inconsistencies like how come the plan Palpatine came up with
after he died was better than anything he came up with while alive? That was a freebie.

Theme parks have trailers now?

"Remember, this wand chose you...just
like it chose all the other three hundred kids
today. Go on, give it a swish or whatever."

-Some wand seller

Look, I'm not a theme park person. I just...it seems like walking around in a Truman Show based on Star Wars or Harry Potter or whatever-and I can't stand this word- franchise, seems kind of commercial. Overpriced food, screaming children whose parents treat the staff like unpaid babysitters and costumed actors who probably wish they were, you know, acting and not posing for selfies with fans. It all kind of sounds like where terrible people go when they die. I'm not yum yucking, at least I'm not trying to, but yuck. It don't know, i's just not for me and that's fine.

"Hey! I'm right here..."

-Thwomp

But there's one opening later this year in Japan that almost comes close to being in range of the possibly of maybe being something I wouldn't flat out refuse immediately if someone absolutely forced me to go. It's based on Super Mario Bros. and is part of Universal Studios in Osaka. It's the result of two corporations leveraging and synergizing  their IP's. Or in layman's terms, business sex. Anyway, I'm not going to it. It's just that I could see myself being talked into it even though I have no delusions about it it being little more than a cynical cash grab. Does that make me a big hypocrite? Sure, but look, I grew up with video games and they're going to have live action Mario Kart and c'mon, I mean, I'm not made of stone, ok?

Pictured: an office worker leaping over
a railing and into a magic pipe only she
can see...holy shit, this just got dark.

That said, did you see the trailer for this place? Yeah, amusement parks have trailers now. Everything has trailers now. It's a bleak world in which we live. Anyway, it starts out kind of obvious, regular people from all over the globe are sitting around in public playing on their handhelds instead of, you know, talking and storming healthy human relationships when suddenly green warp pipes from the Mario games start to crop up all over the place. And in typical commercial logic, everyone just dives in instead of assuming, as you or I would, that they're having a psychotic episode.

"Sure, climb in kids! It's probably safe."

-Some terrible parents

Like, say you're a parent and enjoying some quality quiet time while your kids stare at a video game for a few hours. Sounds harsh, but at least it shuts them up for a while, right? But then out of nowhere a gigantic pipe materializes in the middle of your living room. Now, is your first instinct to let the kids explore what's down there? When I see pipes, I think sewage, not adventure. A wise parent gather up the kids, put them in the car and call the city to send someone to come take a look at it.

Ok, but this is an advertisement, so the warp pipes just Malcovich them out in Nintendo World and family fun ensues. But the one person I'd really like to have a chat with is the astronaut who's playing his goddamn Switch on the space station.

Where...where is he going? Doesn't someone
have to keep this thing in orbit? I mean, is he
 the one in charge of the air? We don't know!

"Hey, is that flaming debris re-
entering the atmosphere?"

This astronaut has been to space. Space! Yet somehow the magic of Nintendo's IP's have coaxed him away from the peerless experience of seeing the entire planet from the Himalayas to the coast of South America all at once and down to Earth for some rides and, one assumes ice cream shaped like Mario's face. He just hops down a magic pipe and back into the surly bonds faster than you can say "dereliction of duty," that's how amazing this place must be, right? Well that's hard to say. Most of the trailer is CG.

Unless Nintendo has perfected holograms or Westworld-style androids, I suspect that what we're seeing here is an "interpretation" of the kind of experience fans can expect. Which is probably for the best given that so much of the game involves smashing bricks with your hands and stomping on living creatures and surely that's not going to make it into a park aimed at family entertainm-oh...oh, no...

Pictured: park guests slaughtering the defenseless Goombas which, yikes.

Today in why Brigitte gets the kids:

So I'm not a lawyer, but I do have a bachelor's degree in theatre which up until now has been mostly useless. But then this happened and just like that those fours years of Meisner exercises and Julia Cameron's The Artist's Way have finally paid off.

I'm kidding. These college students are making a huge mistake.

Pictured: David Ostrom looking very
much as I think we all pictured him.

If you clicked on that link, and I trust you did, since this whole blog/reader relationship is based on honesty, so when you clicked that link, it took you to a story about David Ostrom, a Kansas man who asked a judge to let him challenge his ex-wife and her lawyer to a duel in order to settle their custody dispute...which I assume is over a child, but given that this guy wants the judge to give him time to get some samurai swords from Japan, I think it's equally possible they're fighting over a jet ski or possibly a case of Monster energy drink.

Huh? Yeah, I said Japan. For whatever reason, Ostrom-who has no sword training or experience whatsoever, is insisting that he be given enough lead time to fly to Japan and pick up some authentic samurai swords. So not only is he a lunatic, he's also a snob.

"Um...you know they're not going to let you take this on the plane, right?"

-the clerk at the sword store

If your motion is also a Magic:
The Gathering card, there's a better
than 50/50 shot it'll be denied...

Ostrom, who I feel compelled to point out is from Kansas and not, as I must keep reminding myself, Florida, claims his now ex-wife Brigitte Ostrom and her lawyer have "destroyed [him]" and he now wants to confront them "on the field of battle where [he] will rend their souls from their corporeal bodies." I just-holy shit, right? Well, ok, he actually said "corporal bodies," but poor spelling feels like the least of this guy's issues. Surprisingly, Brigitte's lawyer, Mathew Hudson, used the typo as a reason to get the motion thrown out. I say surprisingly because Hudson used the typo and not say, the part about the soul rending to argue that Ostrom's suggestion was ludicrous, but as I mentioned earlier, I'm not a lawyer. Anyway, according to David Ostrom, the judge has the legal power to allow him and Bridgette to resolve their dispute in trial by combat. Like it's goddamn Game of Thrones.

"Huh, it says here that the man who represents
himself in court has a fool for a lawyer."

-Ostrom, floating majestically
somewhere over these United States

Regardless, Ostrom, who is apparently representing himself, insists that since trail by combat "hasn't been explicitly banned or restricted as a right in these United States..." it is therefore totally legal. Which, no, of course it isn't. First, people who use the phrase these United States, are almost always crackpots. Next, what possible incentive would Bridgitte have for agreeing to a duel? And lastly, challenging his ex-wife to a whimsical hot-air balloon race around the world isn't illegal either but that doesn't make it a good way to decide who gets the kids.

Oh, the play is also super misogynistic,
but I think the argument stands.

And this brings us back to how my otherwise unmarketable skills as a theatre professional are perfectly suited to render a verdict in this case. You see, in Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, Shylock demands a pound of flesh as payment of a debt from a merchant called Antonio. Why does he want this instead of money? Because 17th century antisemitism. Anyway, they go to court and Antonio's lawyer, Portia, makes the case that taking a pound of flesh is tantamount to, you know, murder, and is therefore illegal.

So Ostrom is essentially making a death threat-or at least a soul-rending threat-against his ex and the lawyer. And that's not only explicitly banned in these United States, but it's also probably not the best strategy for winning a custody case. Ipso facto. Brigitte gets the kids.

"Mr. Ostrom, you lost the case the minute you brought soul rending 
into it. I just let you go on arguing for my own amusement."

-The judge, probably... I mean, I hope?

This is Kansas-shit, now I'm not so sure...

OMM on the Rage

Look out fans of weak-ass curse words, One Million Moms, a spin-off of noted Christian fundamentalist anti-LGBTQ+ hate group, The American Family Association, has Burger King in their sights because they did a swear. A swear!

Above: Men kissing, with tongues and everything.
Because fuck the AFA and everything they stand for.

Actors: turns out they're not really people.

You heard me, Burger King ran an ad in which totally real people who are definitely not actors, attended the launch party (which is a thing) of the restaurant's Impossible Burger Whopper. Sorry, that was a lot of trademarks. Impossible Burger is a plant based meat substitute and a Whopper is a burger with secret sauce. And secret sauce is like mayo and ketchup, so secret's out. Anyway, at this real event, non-actors have big, not at all scripted reactions to being a part of this historic moment.

Even their censor blur is branded.
Welcome to corporate dystopia.

Here's one attendee who was driven to profanity by the sheer irresistibility of plant based protein:

"I love Impossible Burgers, I hunt them down, I camped out <all fucking night> (she's bleeped, but that's my best guess) to have the Impossible Burger. I have pictures if you want to see."

-An Impossible Burger enthusiast,

grossly overestimating our interest 

in evidence of her burger camp-out

But that spontaneous intensifier wasn't what OMM-that's the deceptively peaceful acronym-were well I never-ing about. Instead it was this guy and his uncensored use of the d-word.

"Damn that's good."

                          -This guy

Yeah, and kids love swears.
So what's the problem?

Well OMM isn't having it. In an article on their site entitled: Burger King Continues to Cross the Line, the group says they-

...[find] "this highly inappropriate. When responding to the taste test, he didn't have to curse...It is extremely destructive and damaging to the impressionable children viewing the commercial. We all know children repeat what they hear."

-Like, eight thousand Moms, tops 

So first of all, damn. I mean, damn. With everything wrong in the world right now, a dumb ad offhandedly using the mildest swear in the English language is worth a petition? I mean, sure, we live in a world where not liking the end of Game of Thrones justifies a Change.org, but holy shit OMM. Pick your battles.

I mean, at least go after them for something genuinely
damaging, like the nightmare fuel that was their mascot.

Repeatedly accused of. By like
twenty women, but sure, the d-word.

Of course, as a shitty right-wing group, they have a massive blindspot when it comes to conservatives using harsh language. Donald Trump routinely tweets far worse and is in a way more influential position as president than goddamn Burger King, yet there's nothing on their site about "shithole countries" or "grab 'em by the pussy." There is however a petition calling out Fox for an episode of Family Guy from last year in which a character is sexually assaulted by Trump. Which, is something he's been accused of.

Look, I don't care about Burger King or their dumb burger. What I can't fathom however is how the however many OMM members there actually are can have so short a fuse when it comes to taking offense. I mean, walk outside, you will hear all kinds of words. Can you imagine loosing your mind over it like the OMM folks do? How are these people not popping aneurisms every twenty minutes?

Um...they know the Bible is like full of instances of the words
"damn," "hell" and even "ass," right? If not, can I tell them?

Can't live with'em, can't schism...

I mean, it's just a movie,
lighten up. Have a sandwich.

...or can you? Schism, I mean. Turns out, you can. That's what's going on right now in the Methodist Church, America's second largest protestant denomina-huh? What do you mean what's their deal? I don't know, what am I, like a religion expert? But if I were to take a stab at it, I'd say that they center their theological world view on the teachings of Konstantin Stanislavski, inventor of method acting and the reason Christian Bale nearly starved himself for The Machinist.

It's just a name...

-The UMC's future slogan

But that's not important right now, what is is that in May the United Methodist Church is going to vote on whether or not to break up into two separate factions. One that will allow the ordination of LGBTQ+ clergy and same-sex marriages and another which will stubbornly cling to their own prejudiced, backwards worldview about how even though Jesus never mentioned homosexuality once in the entire Bible, they're pretty sure he's agin' it.

"How 'bout that baby Yoda, huh? Right?
So uh, let's open our hymnals to..."

Sorry, that was a bit salty...but not untrue. Not being particularly religious, I really have no dog in this hunt but I mean, c'mon, it's 2020 and church attendance is plummeting. Sure, there're all kinds of reasons for this. People are busy and have Disney + now and of course science is like super popular but when you come right down to it, calling people deviants and sodomites isn't the way to claw your way back to relevancy. So the UMC decided to join the twenty-first century and allow LGBTQ+ and same sex weddings.

"Show me Carol, show me the part
where I said I have a problem with gays.
 No? Nothing? Yeah, that's what I thought."

But a not insignificant portion of Methodists however aren't having it, hence the proposal to split the church in two. Proponents feel that once freed of the baggage of...what's the phrase I'm looking for? More traditional elements? No, that's not right. Homophobes. Once freed of homophobes, the church can get back to more Christian values like charity, peace and loving your fellow man-which, hello, right? Meanwhile, the other branch, who will call themselves the Traditionalist Methodists, will be free to stew in their own bitterness secure in the knowledge that no one's going to get the gay all over them at church.

See what I did there Tom?
About a wall? Because your name.
C'mon buddy, I'm on your side here.

Building an entire denomination on prejudice seems like not the best solution, but according to Methodist pastor Tom Berlin in an interview with NPR, it's the only way to move forward:

"If this actually passes, it will be a great relief. What this proposal allows us to do is to be a more inclusive United Methodist Church."

-Rev. Tom Berlin, on 

building that figurative wall

Yikes, I mean, that's got to be exhausting, right? Constantly fighting with half your population about something so fundamental as acceptance that you'd think everyone would be on board with, but here you are, listening to incoherent screeds from traditionalists unwilling to recognize the basic equality of people. It's got to feel like they're holding you back. Dragging you down with them. Maybe sometimes just going your separate ways is for the best.

Huh? Oh, this? What's this doing here?