tous sont des prétentions

Favorite TNG Episodes

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 05:04:59 GMT

I have been re-watching Star Trek: The Next Generation lately, and I figured I would keep a list of my favorite episodes.

Season 1
The Battle
The Big Goodbye
11001001
Home Soil

Season 2
Elementary, Dear Data
Loud as a Whisper
The Measure of a Man
Contagion

Season 3
The Ensigns of Command
Who Watches the Watchers?
The Bonding
The Defector
The Hunted
The High Ground
Dejà Q
Yesterday's Enterprise
The Offspring
Sins of the Father
Sarek

Season 4
The Best of Both Worlds
Family
Brothers
Suddenly Human
Reunion
Data's Day
First Contact
The Drumhead
In Theory

Season 5
Darmok

Again with some reasoning...

Season 1
The Battle: The Picard Maneuver.
The Big Goodbye: Gimme the gun!
11001001: Oh, Commander Riker!
Home Soil: When a rock strikes back.

Season 2
Elementary, Dear Data: The Computer vs. Data.
Loud as a Whisper: Way to go for the deaf guy.
The Measure of a Man: What does it mean to be "alive"? And how do "human rights" apply to fanciful AIs as they might to different humans?
Contagion: Just a bit of fun.

Season 3
The Ensigns of Command: Data struggles to resolve a decidedly human conflict. In addition, Data roffles four guards at the aqueduct.
Who Watches the Watchers?: "The Picard." Also, Picard gets shot with an arrow.
The Bonding: A good look at Worf.
The Defector: I thought Jarok's story was rather poignant.
The Hunted: A relevant theme, no?
The High Ground: Picard tackles a terrorist--that and a theme that obviously resonates with today.
Dejà Q: Poor powerless Q.
Yesterday's Enterprise: "Not good enough, damnit! Not good enough!"
The Offspring: Pretty emotional.
Sins of the Father: Picard slays a Klingon assassin. Also, Worf shows why he's the most awesome Klingon of his time.
Sarek: Picard + Sarek for the win.

Season 4
The Best of Both Worlds: Wolf 359. How did Starfleet ever survive the Borg assault?
Family: The Rozhenkos and the Picards.
Brothers: Dr. Soong, I presume.
Suddenly Human: Something about the resolution surprised me.
Reunion: DURAAAAAS.
Data's Day: A day in the life of an android.
First Contact: Sounds eerily familiar. Also, an alien baby with Riker?
The Drumhead: OBJECTION! I find your behavior...objectionable!
In Theory: Nice try, Data.

Season 5
Darmok - Communication! Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra. Dathon and Picard at El-Adrel.

Tue, 21 Jul 2009 06:00:29 GMT

Former NASA administrator Mike Griffin knows what I'm talking about: "Let's Reach for the Stars Again".

Mon, 13 Jul 2009 07:23:06 GMT

So, I have been busy at work lately, so I have yet to make progress on my little pet projects. In the meantime, allow me to share with you a speech that has resonated with me the last few days:

In particular, 8:24:

But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask, why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.

I know, I know. "You just saw that on the Omega watch commercial. Nice try, wise guy." And that's true. I had not seen the complete speech until after I saw that commercial.

Yet, does it not still apply today? In your everyday life, even?

I am unsure at this time how to express the impact those words have on me. So, some initial thoughts, perhaps.

Parents remind their children not to rest on their laurels. Progress is made by challenging oneself, pushing oneself to his limits. "We choose to do these things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard." It is so easy to fall into a rut, to stagnate. After all, what is familiar provides a sense of security, security of one's confidence.

So, in daily life, don't settle. Take work assignments that are challenging. Take up new hobbies. Travel to new places.

And do so with all your energies. A challenge is only that when it forces one to recognize one's limits--in skills or perhaps simply in one's understanding of the problem--and to surpass them.

Of course, one must put this in the context of one's life.

I have some additional thoughts on how this speech relates to current affairs...but I shall save those for more personal conversations.

Fri, 12 Jun 2009 05:07:54 GMT

What happened to build number two? I wrecked that last week while trying to overcome massive thrust-induced pitch-down. It didn't even get more than a couple seconds of "flight."

I recessed the motor within the planform this time to reduce the thrust-induced pitch. I expected some thrust losses from the extra shielding of the motor behind all the junk on the wing. So, it seemed like a good deal.

All-up weight was about 220g. Wingspan is 2 feet. That's the Medusa 5300KV motor with a GWS 40mm ducted fan and a 3s1p 450 mAh lipo.

Maidened it yesterday morning. It flew mostly okay. I had some issues with the airplane sinking a lot during turns. It wasn't a sudden wing drop or anything. It just kind of sank during a bank and wasn't always responsive to application of elevator to keep the nose up. I got about four short flights in before I finally failed to rescue it from such a sinking trajectory.

I'm not sure whether this is another thrust-induced pitch problem. I suppose it could also be underpowered...but I didn't get that sense from my launches. Perhaps all that crap on top is spoiling the lift? When it was flying, it seemed fairly responsive, though. Not that I have enough experience to speak authoritatively on the subject. I just didn't feel as if I was straining to keep it under control (sink rate excepted).

It got pretty torn up by the end of the morning. I got it all taped back up, and I'll hopefully give it another go this weekend.

Sun, 24 May 2009 04:53:19 GMT

So, I test flew my first home-built flat foamie airplane today. Results were...less than stellar. See below the break.

BEFORE:

AFTER:

It flew for all of about 30 seconds. I chalk the results up to pilot error. My "lazy turn" quickly became a "sharp turn," which I failed to rectify properly.

Well, it could have been worse. My wing could have fluttered and exploded. Or it could have just not taken off at all.

who are you?

Sun, 08 Mar 2009 10:35:30 GMT

So, I took another one of those career tests at livecareer.com. When I was taking it, I totally thought I was going to get messed up results, but I must say that I'm surprised that it seems to represent my interests.

Here's what it had to say about me:

Your highest score was on Science, which means that you enjoy working with abstract ideas, scientific equipment, and mathematical logic and reasoning to solve practical or abstract problems. You also scored highly on Writing, indicating that you enjoy creative or technical writing. You are also likely to be interested in a broad range subjects, so finding occupations that allow you to exercise these interests would lead to higher work satisfaction for you. Your high score on the Teaching / Social Service scale means that you enjoy instructing people in learning new things, helping people solve problems, and assisting others.

You lowest score was on Sales. You wouldn't be satisfied in careers that involve selling merchandise or services. These careers involve understanding products and services, informing customers of their features, demonstrating products, and being persuasive with others. You also showed low interest in Assertive, so you wouldn't be fulfilled working in situations where you were frequently required to assert authority over others, and to direct and monitor their work. Your low score on Persuasive means that you wouldn't be fulfilled with work that involves influencing, advising, counseling, guiding, motivating, or directing the activities of others.

Apparently, my career interests can also be represented on one of those cool radar graphs:

Investigative (Thinkers) - Investigative types enjoy the challenge of problem solving in mathematics, technology, and sciences, and the abstract and practical ideas related to these areas. Applied science, such as engineering, technology or computer science may also be of interest to them. They can be technically creative.

Social (Helpers) - Social types are interested in helping to keep others emotionally or physically healthy, or in teaching others. They enjoy giving advice and working directly with people, either in groups or individually.

Artistic (Creators) - Artistic types are often thought of as original and creative by others. Such people enjoy expressing themselves in artistic ways such as acting, dancing, creating music or visual art, or by expressing their ideas either through discussion or debate.

Realistic (Doers) - Realistic types like physical activity, working with their hands, and are mechanically-inclined. They enjoy working outdoors and do not mind physical risks on the job.

Attentive (Servers) - Attentive types enjoy helping others, serving others' personal needs and looking after the comfort and well-being of others. They are happy in jobs requiring sociability, politeness, patience and a happy disposition.

Conventional (Organizers) - Conventional types enjoy supervising others in jobs where rules and tasks are well defined. They show careful attention to detail, are organized, follow instructions well and prefer jobs where their daily duties are regular and fixed.

Enterprising (Persuaders) - Enterprising types are people-oriented. They like to talk to, influence and persuade others. They are confident, adventurous, assertive and show leadership.

Sounds about right, I think. More musings on this later.

the soothing sounds of music made by my own hands

Tue, 06 Jan 2009 09:37:27 GMT

I'm sure something that title can be read to mean something more base, but give me a break; I typed it out in less than ten seconds.

If you're not already aware, I started working at Northrop Grumman in El Segundo last month. It's tough--getting up early every morning, that is. I am a morning person; that is, I derive mental and, I suppose, spiritual energy from the sunrise and the crisp morning air. But that doesn't mean I particularly enjoy getting up early or that I am especially productive in the morning. I just feel better in the morning than I do in the afternoon.

Anyway, the point is that I'm starting to adjust to the routine. And since I got my Casio Privia, I think I've learned something essential about myself: playing the piano calms my nerves. Over the winter break, I neglected to play; I was busy shooting people up and then reviving them in Battlefield. I found, by the end, that I was extremely agitated every evening. I couldn't sit still. I felt as if I was in some sort of funk or depressed state. On a whim, the other day, I decided to play the piano before commencing with the pre-sleep checks. And I mean really play--not simply to get some practice in, but to get into the "feeling" of playing. You wouldn't believe how much better I felt afterward. It was one of those cathartic moments that seem so elusive.

I suppose you might wonder whether merely listening to music would achieve the same effect. I would say it does not. It will either have no effect at all or get me jazzed up about something; that is, it has the opposite effect. To be fair, though, I haven't exactly "tested" this. But consider this: I typically use music to help keep me awake and focused (for homework and, more recently, at work).

That said, enjoy this piece of artistry I found the other day:

That, my friends, is multi-talented.

headlines

Fri, 28 Nov 2008 02:35:08 GMT

An old high school friend used to complain to me that journalists need to stop using in their articles euphemisms for death. Among other things, they can sometimes sound misleading. Such as this one, taken from an latimes.com headline I just saw: "Pianist's life lost during a walk home." Did the pianist die? Or did he drop his life when he was fishing his keys out of his pocket?

More descriptive was the subhead: "John Osnes, a pedestrians' advocate, died in an alleged road rage attack by Swedish rapper David Moses Jassy. The performer, so far, faces charges of assault, battery and leaving an accident scene."

Movie Night

Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:09:28 GMT

So, a few friends and I went to see Quantum of Solace. Okay movie. Lots of fun action sequences, but it seemed to be missing...something. But I'll save my thoughts on that for another time because the hot topic for "Trekkies" to blog about right now is the new trailer for the upcoming Star Trek movie.

I'll keep my discourse somewhat brief in light of the fact that I'm not in a rambling mood, just a venting mood.

I speculated/complained earlier this year that I expect Stargate: Universe to be some sort of "Stargate Voyager, 90210." Younger, faster, edgier, sexier--and ultimately, for me, more annoying. The trailer left me with the same sort of feeling. That and the mix of the classic TOS styles (e.g. the clothes) with modern styles and special effects struck me as, well, odd. Everything about it seemed so unnecessarily over the top.

I'm sorry, but my sense of style must still be living in the eighties and nineties; I just couldn't get excited about what I saw. I imagine it'll make for a great movie, and since I'm such a franchise nut, I'm going to go see it, no matter what. So, the movie wins by default, I guess.

What did you think?

What kind of gamer are you?!

Tue, 28 Oct 2008 22:04:20 GMT

The exclamation point makes this more exciting.

Anyway, according to this gamer personality quiz, I am:

"The Helping Hand"

Generous, helpful, kind...a few of many positive attributes people see in you, the Helping Hand. Nothing satisfies you more than helping your teammates or friends out in all the games that you play. You may even look to assist people in some cases if there is no one around asking for help. In fact, the enjoyment that you receive from helping people rivals that of solving a puzzle, winning a battle, or achieving a hard objective in a game.

Heavily social intensive games tend to be what you enjoy the most although you can probably find something to take pleasure in with most games. For instance, if you happen to find yourself in a competitive first person shooter, you'd probably take the support class. We recommend you stick to games (and crowds!) where people will appreciate you more; these include more casual gamers seeking fun and excitement from games rather than the serious competitive ones.

It actually pegged my gaming tendencies pretty well. Those of you who play BattleField with me might be able to attest to that. I'm always laying down support fire or holding the rear door open for a tactical retreat or running through the trenches while tossing medpacks or using my defibrillator of salvation on forgotten comrades.

music obsession

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:54:49 GMT

I've become rather obsessed with jazz, especially jazz pianists, lately. I really don't know what to say about it. I never really know what to expect when I find a track to sample. I mean...I understand that there will be certain musical elements that I'll find, but I'm always surprised by what I actually hear. It's just so awesome.

If you haven't noticed on my scrobbler, I've been playing a few songs and artists to death lately. Here are the highlights:
-- Takashi Matsunaga - "Southern Cross" and "New Morning" - KJZZ played this on the radio one afternoon during my first week at UCLA Library Business Services
-- Jessica Williams - "Soldaji" - all her stuff is so awesome, but by far and away, I'm addicted to Soldaji
-- Thelonius Monk - "Straight, No Chaser" - a classic whose work I'm just beginning to explore
-- Bill Evans - "Waltz for Debby" - I could probably listen to Evans' stuff for hours

Anyway, I don't mean to sound pretentious, but if I've piqued your curiosity, check those songs/artists out.

succès

Fri, 17 Oct 2008 10:53:57 GMT

So, I finally got a job offer. It's from Northrop Grumman in their integrated defense systems company. In a rare fit of unabashed enthusiasm, hooray for me!

Of course, I still have to officially accept it and fill out a bunch of paperwork. You know, the kind of paperwork that needs to exist to generate the employee that would have my name and likeness.

I know a fair number of engineers who are staying away from defense due to moral conflict with the application of their work. For example, they would not want to work on air-to-ground guided missiles or their delivery systems, such as, say, a fighter jet. Clearly, such devices are intended to be used against human targets, to extinguish life; these people object to being a part of making that happen. Certainly, this is a valid and very respectable opinion.

Of course, I, too, have such qualms about working in a division whose end products will likely be used at some point as weapons of war. But aside from the fact that I need an income, my objections are outweighed by my professional interest in the work. In other words, it sounds cool. I could embark on a meandering explanation to justify my actions, somehow linking a sense of patriotism, a desire to save lives, and argumentation about how elements of cutting edge military technologies may one day filter into everyday life. But I shall spare the world and myself the effort.

For the moment, I'll just enjoy a lingering sense of relief tinged with anxiety about what is to come.

in a mirror...

Tue, 14 Oct 2008 06:48:19 GMT

Oh, man. I was just reading some of my early journal posts. I know I'm a narcissistic jerk, but some of the crap I used to write about astounds me. But the kicker? It's that the quality of my writing--the vocabulary I used on a daily basis, at any rate--was better.

Engineering, you destroyed my mastery of the English language. I should have known you would betray me in this fashion.

Mon, 15 Sep 2008 04:20:06 GMT

Well, I've uploaded the first of a few played-by-ear, interpretation attempts. It's a cover of Stargate SG-1's End Credits.

Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:14:22 GMT

I wanted to preserve this information while it is (relatively) fresh in my mind.

So, my friend Jimmy and I were talking tonight, and we got to chatting about the future. No, not more science fiction speculation. We were talking about what to do as recent UCLA graduates.

We agreed that we have absolutely no clue what to do next. We're just pushing blindly forward, hoping that everything will resolve itself in time. In particular, he felt that he lacked a certain sense of knowing oneself enough to be able to make any of these early career decisions that could change one's fate. Certainly, there were activities and jobs that he enjoyed. For example, he likes teaching. He enjoys playing video games. And he likes looking at the sweep of history. But none of these sentiments have been able to guide him in choosing a career path.

The question he posed then became one of finding defining characteristics, something that has remained consistent in his personal life. He settled on the idea that he likes to spend his time thinking up ideas and (whenever possible) putting them into practice. As Bruce Willis' character in Armageddon might say, he's the type that sits around thinking up shit. I suggested that the kind of job that might suit that habit, of sorts, might be similar to that of a television producer, pitching and developing the show ideas and getting the project set up. The examples that I blurted out were Gene Roddenberry and J. J. Abrams. (Go figure, I guess.)

Of course, I had trouble thinking up something to define myself, but I did eventually settle on something: I like to drive (when driving is involved, not just sitting in traffic or looking for the right exit--on open roads, say). Where driving is concerned, I like that sense of freedom, of sorts, to choose the destination and how I get there. I know, it doesn't sound related to anything. Let's take another self-description: I like to take existing ideas and to refine or combine them. In other words, I like having the freedom to exercise creativity in reaching a personal goal. If true, it might be seen in such things as my commitments to UCLA AIAA and my personal projects, such as my piano playing, art projects, and engineering projects. For example...

I have often remarked to Jon that it is he who was accomplishing the truly amazing shit in our Autonomous UAV project. He was uncovering the mysteries of multiplexing, micro-controllers, and software/hardware interfaces by building circuits from scratch. But when I made an accomplishment, it was something less complex, incorporating already existing technologies, but more flashy. The chief example was my Wiimote-controlled gimbaled camera that I wanted for the UCLA AIAA Blimp. Every system I used was developed by someone else; I just generated the software that coordinated the components. My talent, so to speak, was to identify technologies that I could combine to generate a product that I wanted and that I could then further refine.

Jimmy got to thinking that I might do well as some sort of consultant or product support kind of guy. Something where I might generate new ideas from existing ones.

Of course, whatever any of this means, no one really knows. In the end, we're probably just spouting introspective bullshit. But it was an interesting conversation, anyway.

Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:54:56 GMT

So, apparently, hot on the heels of Atlantis's cancellation, MGM and Sci Fi have given the go-ahead for a new Stargate show, Stargate Universe.

You would think I'd be ecstatic. I am not.

Atlantis has had its ups and downs. But overall, it's showing signs of getting better. After the big cast shake-up from season one, it's taken this long for the characters to fit together. And apparently, I'm supposed to exchange that for...what? A story pitch that sounds eerily familiar, but overflowing with wishful thinking? Promises for a better show and whisperings of dollar signs under your breath? Way to fail, Sci Fi and MGM.

I went through something like this already. Enterprise was just getting better. And it got killed. When Season Four of Enterprise was over, I found many more hits than misses with that year's episodes. I hope I don't find that to be the case this time. Tell me their case was justified. That they're putting a merciful bullet to the head of a dying beast. Otherwise...they're taking my cake and handing me a wad of Monopoly money in exchange. (And we all know how much I love cake.)

Now that I've been all melodramatic, I'll get a little more serious...but no less parochial in my views. Some of the words chosen to describe the show and its appeal suggest that this will be one of those new-fangled science fiction shows aimed at a younger audience. Possibly with less sci-fi and more drama.

I'm afraid that what I'm going to be shown is a teenage/young adult soap opera. With some guns and maybe some really great special effects. (This reminds me of the parody of the "younger, edgier SG-1" from the episode "200.") I'm sorry, but I've had my fill of that kind of show. Those of you who hear me rant about my television preferences know what shows I'm referring to.

That said, I shall return to being melodramatic. Only good writing can salvage the maneuver called "selling out." Returning to Enterprise, look at how the first two seasons turned out. Lack of good writing did not make up for the shortcomings (and some selling out) that it inherited.

The premise of the new show--"stranded with little hope of returning home in a new world of wondrous technology and new discoveries"--sounds a lot like how Atlantis started out. And then the writing of the story turned it into...something else. Something it probably wasn't supposed to be for at least two or three years. But it's okay. This one will be younger, edgier, more fraught with peril. Because living in fear of impending annihilation isn't perilous enough. Because knowing that, despite your overwhelming confidence or arrogance, your teammate may not return home with you whenever you step through the Gate isn't sufficiently exhilarating.

Yeah. This will be totally cool.

Goals List

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 06:22:32 GMT

So, it's been a while since I wrote up a "To Do" list like this. But it's about time that I start trying to get some perspective on the near future. There are a lot of things that I want and/or need to accomplish in the next year. Here are the highlights:

file my application to UCLA's Mech and Aero Engineering M.S. program for next fall

unfortunately, this includes obtaining some letters of recommendation from a couple professors. not exactly my cup of tea.

score an industry internship - I'm running out of time to figure out if industry work is for me and, if it is, where in the industry.

help UCLA AIAA start a pseudo-class on basic airplane design for underclassmen - perhaps my last act as one of its leading members

assemble, test, and demonstrate my own autonomous/RC-airplane

that is, I want to put together my own autopilot. i have something to prove

remember what it was like to write, draw, and/or play the piano on a regular basis

Trouble with some of that is...I need money. That means, I probably need a job. Unfortunately, I don't want to work part-time while at school. Tried that. It sucks for someone like me. Being a student is already a full-time job. But I'm also hesitant to rush my education so that I can work or to fall back on research or TA-ships. (Seriously, I have a right to be picky at UCLA.)

I guess the bottom line is that I need to figure out what to do with my life. Jeez.

Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:00:42 GMT

Betrayed!

Sci Fi canceled Stargate Atlantis. At episode 100. Just like they canceled Stargate SG-1 after they hit 200. First, CBS kills Jericho (twice). Now, Sci Fi (or MGM, I suppose) kills Stargate (twice).

Jerks.

There is now only one show I watch on television: Law & Order Special Victims Unit.

Congratulations, world. You killed what was left of my home entertainment. I'm glad I can count on you to appreciate the good things in life.

Ugh. Sci Fi and MGM for the loss.

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 05:31:26 GMT

So, another sci-fi tech tangent.

This has been bothering me for a while. So, check it out. It's Stargate SG-1's F-302, the humans' first spaceship designed and built using the alien technologies they found in the previous five seasons. Its role is, I suppose, a "space superiority fighter."

Pretty cool-looking, right? It has that neat reverse-swept, drooping wing geometry that's standard fare in the form of the series' Goa'uld death gliders. Plenty of blinking lights, too. No sci-fi ship would look right without flashing lights, knobs, and some random exterior protrusions to add some texture.

There are some fuzzy things about it, though....but the one I'm blogging about this time is its propulsion system.

According to the dialogue in Season 6's opener, the prototype F-302 is equipped with four forms of propulsion:
a) and b) twin air-breathing jet engines with aerospike for high-speed, high-altitude operation (think: Lockheed's SR-71 Blackbird)
c) rocket booster (apparently, primarily used for rocketing into sub-orbital flight since you never see it being used during normal operation)
d) naquadria-enhanced hyperspace generator

Well, that's all well and good...except you can't use the first two in space...where there's hardly any air to ram into those intakes. (Not to mention that the rocket booster was probably sized for Earth escape. They might have a hard time escaping from a planet with much higher gravity. But let's assume that they covered that, designing enough margin into the rocket engine to make it a non-issue as long as they're not flying around any really massive bodies.) So...they rocket into space to fight the enemy, and...now what? They slowly re-enter the atmosphere, luring the enemy fighters down to where the odds are more even?

Now...to the show's credit, they never specified whether upgrades were made to the design to incorporate a true space-faring propulsion system. I mean...just look at the second human spaceship to emerge from Season 6:

There's no propulsion system currently in use that could fly such a behemoth in space. So, that's where I get to relent and say, "I guess that's the magic of science fiction at work."

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:35:23 GMT

I don't like to "recommend" things very often. (I prefer to suggest. It sounds like less of an endorsement.) Anyway, I have become entranced by the sounds of Yellow Magic Orchestra. They're a Japanese band from the late '70s best known for paving the way for electropop music. Their music videos from "back in the day" are pretty...sick. Perhaps you'll better understand how I mean to use that word by seeing them for yourself:

First, a classic: "Technopolis"

Second, my favorite so far: Rydeen (1979)

They're still around, actually. Check out this live performance of one of their remixes of Rydeen:

They're so old...but so awesome!

Sat, 09 Aug 2008 10:17:20 GMT

So, check this out. I just realized something.

When I have people to talk to, I don't blog. When the only person I talk to is myself (and even those conversations don't go too well), I talk to the wall that is the Internet.

There was a time when I wished I had fewer lunches/dinners with the same people over and over again. Now that I have none, I want those days back. I mean...the extent of my talking to others is using the radio call-outs in Battlefield 2142 and Battlefield 2.

delarhi: I need a medic!
me: No way, man!

This is so sad.

Sat, 09 Aug 2008 09:53:18 GMT

I'm still rewatching my favorite moments from Stargate. I also rented Stargate: Continuum today. So, in my attempt not to do pressing work, I shall post about my ramblings regarding the pair of direct-to-DVD movies following from Stargate SG-1.

So, we're talking about Continuum and Ark of Truth. They're both pretty cool, so let's start with these direct-to-dvd movies taken together.

Thanks to the label of "movie," both productions got extra budget for special effects and on-location shooting. That's probably the big thing that these two flicks have going for them. Stargate's special effects have been pretty great in recent years, but the movies allow for more such sequences than in an ordinary pair of episodes. The on-location shooting is cool, such as the arctic shots in Continuum. It obviously looks more real than the last time they went to Earth's poles. (You couldn't really tell that there was more ice beyond the screen; it was just dark.)

There is, of course, a downside. And it's that both of these seem to me to be souped-up episodes. They're not very...movie-y. It's kind of difficult for me to pin down. Right now, it's like the feeling I got when I watched Star Trek: Insurrection. Cool things happened, but it wasn't intense. Star Trek: Nemesis had more of a movie feel. Maybe parts of it were the pacing and presentation. The conflict was simple, but you could savor its development. The characters had to try a few different approaches to solve their problem. But most of all, the conflict felt epic.

Not that movies have to be epic. The conflict just has to feel huge to the viewer, even if it's actually somewhat unremarkable. Maybe what I'm really trying to say is: I couldn't really put myself in the characters' shoes. The movie just hopped from one major plot point to the next...like an episode. There wasn't much to challenge the characters on-screen. I knew what they were probably thinking, but I wasn't made to feel the same way.

Something like that. Maybe I'll post more later.

Anyway, it sort of makes sense that these wouldn't be too much like a good ol' movie. The show was canceled, after all, and this is their way of getting fresh content to fans. And the people working on these productions are the same folks who did the television series. Makes sense for the personality to be the same.

(Next time, I'll probably ramble about one of the two movies individually.)

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 05:10:53 GMT

Okay, anyone of you who knows me and actually reads this: I have one question for you right now. Are you playing the Red Alert 3 beta?! (I already know the answer...but I'm bored.) I need a testing partner, kind of like when I started playing Battlefield 2. Darn beta doesn't have an offline skirmish mode so that I can figure out what the heck everything does.

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 04:22:16 GMT

I was re-watching some episodes of Stargate today and, out of some sense of boredom mixed with fandom, was compelled to blog about it.

Right now, having just viewed the very first episode of Stargate Atlantis, I'll waste some time ramble about some ramblings on this spin-off series from Stargate SG-1.

As you may know, I'm a science fiction fan. Back in the day, I read every Star Wars, Star Trek, and Classic BattleTech novel I could get my hands on. (Those were good days!) I read some recommended pieces from Clarke, Asimov, and Bradbury, too. My favorite when I was a kid was Clarke's Rendezvous with Rama. I sat down in front of the television to catch the daily/weekly episode of shows like Star Trek, Andromeda, and Earth: Final Conflict. Heck, I drew incarnations of the Enterprise and Rebel starfighters during class in middle school.

So, I'm not a sci-fi nut like some other folks. And seeing as how Firefly and the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica aren't listed above, I'm also not one of these "new school" sci-fi fans that adore those shows. I guess I'm just not hip or modern enough. But that's a tangent for another day.

Anyhow, Stargate is my kind of show. If you're familiar with the movie, you might be saying, "Well, then the show is just a manly action hour full of explosions and special effects."

Damn straight. Stargate is a sci-fi action show. It's not a drama. It's not a "slice-of-life" show. And it's not a "WTF is this shit" mind-trip.

SG-1 blazed the trail that Atlantis was to follow. It established the characteristics that I've come to like in the Stargate series:
--focus around a strong, central character and his relationships with a small group of other major players in the show's cast (I find it's similar to Star Trek's "character triangle" of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy.)
--a large cast of recurring characters, reinforcing a sense of continuity
--large, simple story arcs that unfold slowly over the course of the show's lifespan
--stories that place exceptional characters in exceptional situations (You know when you say, "That wouldn't happen"? Well, guess what. It did.)
--the occasional old-fashioned "morality play"
--great, even if a bit campy, special effects shots

For the most part, Atlantis has held up pretty well. The special effects and action shots get better, and more ambitious, every year. A lot of the same elements that I liked about SG-1 were kept in the spin-off. But it has also suffered its own share of problems. Here is the big one I (and apparently, other fans) have noticed:

Atlantis has a tendency to resolve major story arcs/episode threads too quickly. In other words, stories tend to unfold at an awkward pace. My roommate a couple years ago commented, having seen only a few episodes from the second season, "I thought it would be more..exciting." I replied, "Well, it was. The first season, at least." He asked me what happened that would change that. I said, "The big problem? They got back to Earth too soon."

Indeed, the first season was especially epic; it was a lot of fun to watch. But the desperation that came from being alone in Pegasus, cut off from home, evaporated within a year. There was no "Good, we've kept them at bay...this time" moment like there was with SG-1's second season opener. There, an enemy invasion was thwarted, but the situation remained as it was before: the next invasion was only a matter of time, and there was little they could do to stop it. The tension remained. Atlantis' situation, however, changed drastically. They suddenly gained the ability to request resupply and reinforcement from Earth (provided that they had enough time). The tension dropped significantly, replaced by the possibility of coolness through special effects.

It had its moments, but the second season overall had a strange pace to it. Part of it came from the loss of Rainbow Sun-Francks as Ford; another season's worth of plot threads had to be devoted to picking up and integrating a new main character. The show also returned to a more episodic nature. But I think the big one was that it was no longer a survival story.

Sometimes, it feels like individual episodes also suffer this problem. Take the season four finale, for example. This episode started with the major thread being that Sheppard was flung 10,000 years into the future with little hope of returning back. The entire episode was spent seeing how that future unfolded and setting him up for the rescue. But in the final minutes, the episode skipped from set-up of the rescue to the results of the attempt. Granted, the culmination of that particular plan 10,000 years in the making probably would have been underwhelming or exceedingly campy, but the episode switched gears so quickly that it felt as if the tension that had built up had nowhere to go.

Well, it's still a fun show. It just feels like the ups and downs of the big story seem more pronounced than when I was watching SG-1 all those years ago. Maybe it's all these cast shake-ups....

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:52:53 GMT

So, I read Michael Crichton's State of Fear all yesterday. It was an awesome read. I recommend it to any of you thoughtful folk who like a pinch of an adventure story. In summary, a government agent and a generous philanthropist must race to stop a group of eco-terrorists from creating a string of natural disasters during a global warming conference.

The story itself is pretty interesting. It kept me turning the page, at least. It closes somewhat abruptly, though, and by the end, you might think you're reading some sort of 20th century version of a morality play. In addition, some of the plot threads (mostly for the secondary characters) I expected to see developed weren't addressed. But that's okay. There's a lot going on in the story, and the main points were closed up. So, I can't complain. The bottom line is that I enjoyed it; that I spent all night reading it shows that much.

But don't dwell too much on the science that the characters discuss; I don't think the question of "fact or fiction" was the point. (His novels don't seem to be about whether the science is right or wrong, anyway; he just centers stories around little-known ideas in the same way that Star Trek assumes the physics behind faster than light travel to be unquestionably true. Seriously, with the way some people these days insist on "realism," you'd think people lost the ability to use their imagination.) I myself took interest in a few issues presented in the novel, such as the following:

--the idea that today's media has an obsession with topics that instill fear in people // I've always thought that was the case; after all, it just makes sense for getting people's attention. The novel made sure to bring that idea to light in its depiction of the antagonistic environmental activists in the story.

--the need for honesty, impartiality in conducting science // It's important that scientists report the truth. Manipulating data to achieve a certain ends, no matter how noble the motive, is unethical. Acting on such information could, in fact, lead to even greater disaster than would have otherwise been the case. After all, Phoenix Wright believes in the truth. Why shouldn't you?

--take what you read in the news with a grain of salt // I learned this as a former wannabe journalist, and the novel made sure to take this lesson to heart. Everyone has an agenda, unconsciously or not; there is no unbiased news. When it comes to making important decisions, be sure to scrutinize sources and the veracity of the information, not just the reputation of the author or publication. The challenge is to present different facets of a topic of discussion in such a way that readers can "fairly" judge for themselves what to think.

--based on the preceding three issues...don't blindly trust what everyone thinks // Just like in a good game of "Telephone," the truth can become obscured when passed from person to person. The real challenge is to object in the face of agreement.

Some of the reviews on Amazon expressed dissatisfaction with the science mentioned in the novel. Regardless of what you believe, the book brings attention to the issue/debate/idea/whatever you want to call it. And that's important on its own. In particular, it asks that readers be careful about believing what they read regarding such big issues. Rather than implying that no one can be trusted, the tale urges caution; it suggests that readers be mindful of the context in which an article was written. In other words, it asks you to exercise that "critical thinking" we were supposed to learn in school. And at the end of the novel, it closes the circle. It mentions that such thinking ought to be put to practical use; all the thinking in the world does no one good if, at the end of the day, the only result of debate is that we debated.

All in all, I'm sure my thoughts sound rather...trite, as they often do. But when you read as little as I do, it's important to remember to be careful about what you consider to be "the truth."