Like every other geek, I’ve seen the trailers for the next Star Trek movie, Star Trek Into Darkness. I even saw the extended preview when Mary and I went to see The Hobbit. I’ve seen J.J. Abrams relaunch of the Star Trek franchise and really enjoyed it. I’m a long time Star Trek fan although not to the degree many others are. For example, I have a nephew who groused that if he wanted to see Star WARS he would have watched Star Wars. And, of course, in about two years, he’ll be able to see J.J. Abrams actually directing a Star Wars film.
I’ve also read all the speculation about who the villain, played by Benedict Cumberbatch (memorably Sherlock Holmes in Stephen Moffat’s TV version), will be. The top contender is that he is a new version of Khan Noonien Singh played by Ricardo Montalbán in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That’s the movie that saved the Star Trek franchise after Star Trek: The Motionless Picturenearly ended it. Recently, Entertainment Weekly added to the fan frenzy by seeming to “leak” that Cumberbatch’s character is, indeed, Khan. Even that is disputed; Abrams has this thing about secrecy and is known to disseminate misinformation, leading the fans in one direction while he does something else.
The thing is – I hope it is misinformation. I don’t want or need a remake of ST:TWoK. Been there, saw that, thank you. I liked the first version just fine. Still works, as far as I’m concerned.
What I want is something new. The opening incantation of the original Star Trek series went as follows:
Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.
Strange new worlds. New life. New civilizations. To boldly go where no man (now no one) has gone before. Key operative words: New. Boldly. That’s what I’m looking for from Star Trek. Not a rehash. Not a remake. Not another re-imagining. Something new. Abrams’ first Star Trek movie did a fine job, so far as I’m concerned, of re-inventing and re-imagining the characters and the franchise. It’s an alternate timeline where things may not be as they once were. That made it fresh and exciting for me. They destroyed Vulcan. Uhura and Spock have a romantic relationship. They need to boldly go with things like that.
Other things in the trailers that I saw also bothered me. The most recent one had a shot of the Enterprise holed, smoking and (apparently) starting to crash. Been there, seen that. The franchise has blown up so many versions of the Enterprise over the years that it has no more shock value. One of the pleasures of the last film was a spanking new original Enterprise. The shock value at this point would be if it survives.
Another shot seems to replicate the famous climax of ST:TWoK. Spock has sacrificed himself for the ship and the crew; he is dying. He and Kirk both have their hands up to the transparent barrier that separates them, a gesture that defines their friendship and creates a real moment of pathos. Spock dies. He is brought back in the next film and restored to himself in the film after that but I don’t see how that will be possible in this version. Again, been there, seen that.
I may be falling for J.J. Abrams’ misdirection and I hope I am. I think there’s a better than even chance of it. What I want is for him to give me something new. No retreads, please. Boldly go where no fan has gone before, Mr. Abrams. Live long and… ah, you know.
If you didn’t make it to a theater this weekend to see The Hobbit, you haven’t yet seen the full-length trailer for Star Trek Into Darkness, so let’s take a look now…
When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving our world in a state of crisis. With a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction. As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew.
Star Trek: Into Darkness brings back Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, Anton Yelchin, John Cho, and Bruce Greenwood, and adds Benedict Cumberbatch and Peter Weller to the cast. It’s written by Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci, and Damon Lindelof, and directed by J.J. Abrams. The film is scheduled to hit theaters May 17, 2013.
And here’s a quick pic from the film of Quinto, Cumberbatch, and Pine…
Here’s the Star Trek Into Darkness announcement teaser. So what do we know so far?
When the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise is called home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within Starfleet has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving our world in a state of crisis. With a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction. As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew.
Star Trek: Into Darkness brings back Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, Anton Yelchin, John Cho, and Bruce Greenwood, and adds Benedict Cumberbatch and Peter Weller to the cast. It’s written by Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci, and Damon Lindelof, and directed by J.J. Abrams. The film is scheduled to hit theaters May 17, 2013.
When I was a girl, back in the Stone Age, September was a big, big deal. School started, so we got new clothes. There were new model cars in the showroom.
(Here’s a joke from those days: What are the three holiest days in the Jewish Calendar? Rosh Hashonah, Yom Kippur, and September 29. What’s September 29? The day the new Cadillacs come out. I love that joke. I think it’s kind of anti-Semitic, but it makes me laugh. Also, I’ve only heard it told by other Jews.)
Most important to childhood me was the new television season. After a summer of re-runs, the three major networks would launch new shows. TV Guide would explain what the new series were about, and what changes were coming to keep the old shows fresh. It was so exciting!
Today, now so much. As this article reports, new shows premiere all the time, and, of course, there are many more than three television networks offering them.
And if you can’t watch a show when it airs, you don’t have to wait until the rerun comes around. You can record it on the DVR (which I still refer to as “taping” because I’m old. Sometimes I say “icebox”). You can watch it on On-Demand stations on cable, or on Hulu or other Internet sites.
You don’t even have to be home. You can watch on your phone, or your tablet.
It should be a golden age, but I find it causes me stress. Instead of making me feel safe, like I can actually live my life the way I want, I feel like I can’t keep up.
For example, on Sundays, there are currently four shows I want to watch between 8 PM and 11 PM. Two are on HBO, which means I can watch them at anytime either On Demand or on HBO Go. One is on a broadcast network, so I can “tape” it or, if I can stand commercials, On Demand. One is on BBC-America, and their On Demand is kind of dicey, so I tend to “tape.”
On Monday, there are also four shows I like, plus I’m out of the house for a part of prime time. More on the DVR.
Tuesdays are also packed, but a lot of what I like are the sit-coms, which tend to be 30 minutes and not 60, spit’s easier to find the 20 minutes of free time. And then, Wednesday there is hardly anything I like (at least so far). I can catch up.
Because if I don’t, Thursdays and Fridays are also clogged. If we come around to Sunday again and I haven’t watched any of the shows from the previous week, I’m behind. Aaaah!
(Also, back in the day, there weren’t continuing plot lines from one week to the next. You could watch a show without having seen any before it, and still figure out who the characters were, or what was going on.)
There’s a lot I’m curious about this year. Will Elementary be good enough to survive in a world that already has Sherlock? I hope so, because I have loved Jonny Lee Miller since Hackers, and it’s not his fault he’s not Benedict Cumberbatch. I have hopes for Vegas because The Big Easy is my idea of a sexy film. Fringe is back for a real conclusion, and all will be revealed.
As a geek, I’m also excited about the CW’s Arrow. The lead is really cute. It looks like they’re keeping a lot of what made the comic book fun (archery, riches, Dinah). They’ve added a mother, and I’m hoping she is not a harpy, but a way to add depth to Oliver Queen, at least through conversation. Did I mention the cute lead?
Recent television shows based on comics have a mixed track record. While I kind of liked
Birds of Prey because I have loved Barbara Gordon in every form, the series only lasted 13 episodes. Smallville did much better, perhaps because it, too, had a cute guy in the lead role.
I think just the concept will make some people I know very very happy, certainly happier than the concept of Elementary is making them.
And you know, you just need the actors to do voices. Certainly Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman can fit that into their schedules, right? After all, if Cumberbatch can muscle his way into an episode ofThe Simpsons, and there’s going to be a manga version of Sherlock coming this October, we’re already three quarters of the way there…
Spoiler Warning: In reviewing the second series on the BBC series Sherlock, I may discuss some plot points. If you haven’t seen it – and you should – and you want to remain unspoiled on plot twists, best skip this.
By the time I was ten I had read all of Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories. I love the characters, I love the settings, and I’ve watched many of the movie and TV incarnations of the world’s most famous detective. Basil Rathbone was my initiation to the cinematic Holmes and, for a long time, he was indelible. My major gripe with the Rathbone Holmes movies was that, with only the exception of one or two, they were all set in the era in which they were made, the 30s and 40s, and had little to do with the actual stories. I wanted the gaslight and the London fog; I wanted the deerstalker cap and the horse drawn carriages and the steam locomotives. The era was as important to me as the characters.
So – as you might guess – when I heard that the BBC was doing a new Holmes series (simply called Sherlock) and setting it in contemporary times, I was not keen. I would have given it a miss except that I learned that one of the co-creators was Steven Moffat (along with Mark Gatiss). I’ve loved Moffat’s work on Doctor Who as both writer and show runner; bright, intelligent, witty writing with vivid characters and real heart. I couldn’t resist looking at the new show and I was so glad I did.
The first series was brilliant and it absolutely worked. The creators obviously know the source material and respect it. In the original Conan Doyle stories, Dr. Watson is a former Army doctor who was wounded in Afghanistan. In the update – Doctor Watson is a former Army doctor who was wounded in Afghanistan. (How times don’t change.) In the original, Watson wrote up his adventures with Holmes as stories published in magazines. In the update, he writes them up as part of his blog.
The series is aided immensely by the two leads – Benedict Cumberbatch as Holmes and Martin Freeman as Doctor Watson. In case you don’t know, Cumberbatch is slated to play (if rumors are correct) the villain in the next Star Trek movie and Freeman will be Bilbo Baggins in The Hobbit. The chemistry between them as Holmes and Watson is terrific.
Each series has consisted of three ninety-minute episodes and the first series ended in a cliffhanger. Holmes had confronted his nemesis, James “Jimmy” Moriarty; Watson has a vest full of explosives strapped on to him and Holmes has three snipers homed in on him. A complete death trap! How will they escape?
The second series updates/adapts three of the better-known stories in the Holmes canon: A Scandal in Bohemia becomes A Scandal in Belgravia, The Hound of the Baskervilles becomes The Hounds of Baskerville, and The Final Problem becomes The Reichenbach Fall.
The first introduced Irene Adler, The Woman in the Holmes canon, an actress who went up against Holmes over some compromising letters involving the royal family and she proved to be a complete match for the sleuth. In the remake, she’s a dominatrix who has compromising photos of a (female) member of the Royal Family on her cell phone. When Holmes calls on Adler, she greets him in the nude which leaves the Great Detective somewhat flummoxed and he can’t deduce anything from her because she isn’t wearing any clothes.
Oh, and Holmes himself winds up in the Royal Palace wrapped only in a bedsheet. This is not your great-great -grandfather’s Sherlock Holmes.
The Hounds of the Baskervilles deals with a possible spectral hound from hell threatening the life of Holmes’ client. The episode, The Hounds of Baskerville has that element but also brings in secret military testing and conspiracies. Changing “Hound” to “Hounds” is not just clever; it really ties to the secret at the heart of the mystery.
In the original “The Final Solution,” Doyle attempted to kill off Holmes by having him plummet down the Reichenbach Falls with his arch-enemy, Professor James Moriarty. In this new version, Moriarty is out to destroy his enemy and his enemy’s reputation. It also ends with what appears to be Holmes’ fall to his death although the very final shot of the episode reveals Holmes still alive. The question that needs to be answered is – how? Hopefully, that will be answered in the third season of Sherlock whenever they get around to making it.
Performances throughout are first rate, as are the production values. It doesn’t make the series perfect. They get out of the first season’s cliffhanger by having Moriarty getting a phone call and walking away. Not satisfying. I also found the conceptualization and performance of Moriarty (by Andrew Scott) too over the top. It was Moriarty as Heath Ledger’s Joker. I don’t mind a different interpretation that works, such as Lara Pulver’s Irene Adler, but Moriarty as giggling sociopath didn’t work for me.
And I have a concern. As I’ve said, the writing on this series is very clever and, for me, enjoyably so. There’s such a thing, however, as being too clever and that’s the trap into which Sherlock could easily fall – and that would be a more deadly trap than anything Moriarty could devise. The series so far has skirted the edge of it but it could easily step over and, sometimes, you don’t know how far is too far until you’ve gone too far.
All that said, I think this incarnation of Sherlock Holmes to be one of the best ever, constantly and consistently entertaining. It has intelligence and it has passion and it captures the essence of what made the Holmes stories work. The changes make us see the stories in a fresh way. I’m looking forward to the next season – which will be whenever our two main actors come back from Middle Earth, where no one has gone before.
AP: Martin, thanks for joining ALL PULP once again for an interview. Can you catch us up to speed on some of the things you’ve been doing since your last visit?
POWELL:Thanks for asking me back.It’s been a crazily busy time since we last spoke.I’m writing several new comics, graphic novels, and co-writing a screenplay, as well as a top secret new pulp prose novel featuring a very famous classic character.Also, I have a new novella for teens about to be published.There’s a lot going on here.I’m not sure where to begin.
AP: You are involved in a very special project, one that means a lot to you both professionally and personally. Talk a bit, if you would, about the professional aspects of FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF MAN, how you became involved, the process of getting the project going, etc.?
POWELL:I’ve written a vintage-style “filmbook” treatment of the classic Universal movie FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF MAN for the newly resurrected Famous Monsters of Filmland magazine.Fans of the magazine will know exactly what I mean, but to clarify, this will be a pulpy prose version of the story as adapted from Curt Siodmak’s original screenplay, profusely illustrated with photos from the film.Thisis one of the secret projects I’ve been teasing about on Facebook for the past few months.I pitched the proposal around last Halloween to editor Jessie Lilley, and she was wild about it.Next, we approached Joe Jusko for the cover.There was no other artist better suited and we were absolutely thrilled when he enthusiastically agreed.Joe loves this stuff as much as we do, and he created a magnificently monstrous cover painting.
AP: One question is why? Why does a classic monster movie need the sort of adaptation you’re giving it decades after it was released?
POWELL:Because this version of the movie has never been seen before, containing several scenes that were cut from the released film.In my filmbook, Bela Lugosi’s Frankenstein Monster is blind, and will speak, as Siodmak originally intended. Think of it as a sort of “Director’s Cut” of a long-cherished classic monster movie.Today, there are almost always novelized paperbacks of current hit movies, and FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF MAN was a ground-breaking blockbuster at the box office, and deserves the very same attention today.
AP: How do you as a writer take this entire concept, including the very classic, but also in some views very stereotypical portrayals of these monsters and make it appeal to a modern audience?
POWELL:In no way do I consider these characters “stereotypical.”Someone might as well say Superman, Sherlock Holmes, or Tarzan are stereotypes.The Frankenstein Monster and the Wolf Man are legendary archetypes of the cinema, and will far outlive the soulless slashers and the zombie-glut of today.I doubt there are very many kids over the age of six, anywhere in this country, who can’t name the classic monsters by sight, even if they’ve never seen one of the old movies.
AP: What does this being a feature in a magazine add to the concept, if anything? Why this particular medium?
POWELL:It’s not just any magazine—this is Famous Monsters of Filmland!As co-created by the late, great Forrest J Ackerman, it’s been the single most influential publication of my life.This is a national magazine with a tremendous readership, and there’s no greater home for this project.I can hardly express how exciting it is to be the writer of a cover feature in this iconic magazine!
AP: All right, now let’s talk about your personal affection for these characters. Why do these monsters mean so much to you?
POWELL:That’s tough to describe, but I’ll try.I was sick a lot as a little kid and Famous Monsters of Filmland magazine served as a sort of security blanket for me every dreaded time I went to the doctor’s office. FM never, ever failed to make me feel better.I was a monster movie fanatic, and my older brothers have told me that Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi were the first movie stars I recognized on TV.FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF MAN was only the second Frankenstein film I ever saw—and also was my first encounter with the Wolf Man—when I was six years old, and I was utterly fascinated.When I first read Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein novel at the age of eleven, it was a life-defining moment.That book, and especially the Boris Karloff films, changed me forever and I’ve never been the same since.
AP: Horror in recent years has moved away from Frankenstein, Wolf Man, Dracula, etc., and more to the visceral slasher type killers and the torture types. Why do you think this has occurred? And can the classic monsters and the stories those movies told be made viable again?
POWELL:Personally, I feel these slasher/torture movies represent lazy storytelling.Somewhere, somehow, the horror film became the gross-out film, with visceral effects replacing story and performance.To each his own, but I don’t find that sort of thing very entertaining.The classic monster movies have their peaks and valleys, but they’ve always returned to the screen and to new popularity.It’s happening again already.I recently read in Variety that no less than a half-dozen new Frankenstein films are currently in production in Hollywood.Plus, there’s The National Theatre’s brilliant new Frankenstein stage play by Danny Boyle and Nick Dear, where actors Benedict Cumberbatch and Jonny Lee Miller alternated the roles of Victor Frankenstein and the Creature.The play was a huge critical success and a phenomenal sell-out hit.Audiences are always ready for something done exceptionally well.
AP: This is a Pulp news site. Some would, and actually have, argued that things such as movie adaptations of classic monster tales and other such things don’t qualify as Pulp. How would you respond to that?
POWELL:‘Pulp’, at least as I understand it, is difficult to contain with such a narrow view, and by its nature has a very broad definition.
AP: You’ve also got a ton of other projects going. Care to share any information on what you can talk about?
POWELL:Well, I’m the writer for the continuing comic book series of THE SPIDER, for Moonstone, including a Halloween Special issue with artist Jay Piscopo, whom I’m very excited to be working with again.And speaking of my favorite holiday, my teen-readers mystery novella THE HALLOWEEN LEGION will be published later in the summer, and is probably the most personal project I’ve ever written.Also, I’ve just been contracted for a number of graphic novels coming from Sequential Pulp Comics, an imprint of Dark Horse Comics, including an exciting collaboration with my favorite author, Edgar Rice Burroughs, which will be happily teaming me again with my good friend, and Golden Lion Award Winner, illustrator Tom Floyd.Very shortly, I’ll be co-writing the screenplay for a new murder mystery set in the 1920s, but there’s not much more I can say about that right now.Most importantly, I’m surrounded by the things I love, which is the luckiest place for any writer to be.
AP: Martin, it’s been absolutely great to have you back on ALL PULP!
POWELL:Thank you very much.I always appreciate your interest in what I’m doing.
Like every other geek, I’ve seen the trailers for the next Star Trek movie, Star Trek Into Darkness. I even saw the extended preview when Mary and I went to see The Hobbit. I’ve seen J.J. Abrams relaunch of the Star Trek franchise and really enjoyed it. I’m a long time Star Trek fan although not to the degree many others are. For example, I have a nephew who groused that if he wanted to see Star WARS he would have watched Star Wars. And, of course, in about two years, he’ll be able to see J.J. Abrams actually directing a Star Wars film.
