DaT sHoUt-OuTz D kOoLeSt mArKy-MaRk, Yo, BuT u 4gOt D aLtRnTn CaPs. ThAnKz, MaN, yO, dOn’ We JuZ kIcK tOtAl AzN aZz?
I feel soiled. Must… restore… rational speech patterns… ^_^
Insurrection
I watched Star Trek: Insurrection again yesterday, and it reminded me of why I prefer Classic Star Trek over the Next Generation, and why Next Gen doesn’t appeal to me like it used to.
I’ve been a die-hard classic-series Trekker since grade school, but when the Next Generation came out, I followed it with equal enthusiasm. For a time, it worked well, and I enjoyed it; though I never stopped loving the original series’ innocent campiness. But it was the Next Generation movies that slowly began to change my outlook on what Star Trek is becoming: Insurrection most of all.
Despite the sci-fi setting, most Star Trek episode or movie plots are centered around personal conflict: between characters, within characters. As Q implied in the final Next-Gen episode, “All Good Things,” it isn’t about exploring the farthest reaches of the universe, but exploring the uncharted depths of the human soul. Patrick Stewart, I must say, has been an excellent vehicle for this kind of storytelling: he has brought an intense profundity to the role of Captain Picard, on par with, if not exceeding, Shatner’s Kirk, Nimoy’s Spock, and Kelley’s McCoy. It’s storytelling along those veins that make Star Trek what it is in any generation.
But not in later Next-Gen movies. Insurrection wasn’t so much a good story as it was a walk through the Next Generation Technical Guide. Technological knicknacks came into focus as primary plot devices, and any kind of character development or conflict took a back seat to phaser cannons, transport disruptors, holodecks, tricorders, ramscoops, mithrion gas, subspace weapons, and warp-core ejections.
That was disappointing.
Where the classic series pitted Spock’s cold logic against McCoy’s fiery human-ness, where The Wrath of Khan drew a sharp contrast between Khan’s vengeful mania and Kirk’s middle-age anxiety, where even the unsatisfactory Next-Gen movies Generations and First Contact brought Picard’s burden of grief and trauma into focus; Insurrection utterly failed to deliver any kind of profundity or insight into the personal universe of Star Trek. A romantic interest for Picard and the “reconciliation” between the two brother races do not count.
“Macho-geeky.” That was the word I came up with to describe Star Trek: Insurrection. It’s true: all these techno-cool gimmicks came came into play, not only as Deus ex Machina devices to forward the plot, or as justification for a huge effects budget, but also to draw in the fans who love to hear things like, “Activate the ramscoop! Eject the warp core! Fire tachyon burst! Synchronize deflector shield harmonics!”
It made money, I’m sure, and gave Trekkies and Trekkers alike something to talk about, but did it uplift the deeper human dimension of Star Trek which I used to love?
If that’s what Star Trek is made of these days, then give me back the old green model Enterprise with its cardboard sets and papier-mache props and campy acting. I’ll take Captain Kirk’s interstellar soap opera any day.
Frayed
I just remembered where I got my inspiration for the plane-window design, but the realization only occurred to me after uploading. Thank you for the link, stranger from Metababy.
I hate watching Filipino noontime programming. It is annoying, degrading drivel. I don’t have the venom on my tongue right now to adequately tell you just how crappy Eat Bulaga and MTB and IBC Lunchbreak are. I would rather be checking out some white rapperz who iz takin’ ova the 2G+1. Yea, chill, u foolz.
Eleven, Twelve
The Denim Couches of Kamiseta
The ultimate couch, the best seat I have ever sat in, is in the Kamiseta branch in Glorietta, Makati.
It looks innocent enough: a small blue denim couch. But sit in it, and you will know why it is the ultimate couch. It is incredibly soft and wonderfully cushioned, and it does not radiate heat like everything else does in these summer months. Just sitting in it is an experience of joy. I could live in a couch like that. It just feels so darn good to sit in.
If you ever drop by Glorietta, go to Kamiseta and try sitting in any of those blue couches. You will not be disappointed.
Thinking of Grad School 3
I am perusing graduate computer design programs.
Carnegie Mellon University (Thanks, Eric!)
Master of Design, Interaction Design
Rochester Institute of Technology
University of Denver
Thinking of Grad School 2
All things considered, it’s probably best if my graduate studies focus on graphic design for the web and multimedia. I’m a lot more passionate about that than I am about programming and development, and my bachelor’s degree was in Communication Arts, after all. If I still want to learn things like Java or XML… well, that’s what electives are for.
Thinking of Grad School
It’s time I started thinking about grad school.
Soon, if God wills it, I plan to move to the US to pursue my master’s degree. I’m aiming for something IT-related, building on my graphic design knowledge and pursuing further studies in web development. The problem is, I have no idea where to begin: what school can I go to, what graduate course should I take? I know web design and graphic art, but I don’t want to enroll in an Arts course. I want to seriously go into Perl, PHP, ASP, XML, Java — all of which I have no experience in, and which I want to learn in a controlled classroom environment. Where do I start? Should I go for a full-blown Computer Science program, or aim for a Graphic Design course with programming electives? Where in the US should I go? What schools offer an affordable but high-quality IT program for someone who came from a Communication Arts course?
HOT!
It’s hot. It’s so frigging hot. The temperature yesterday hit 40 degrees Celsius. FORTY. That’s almost halfway to boiling.
I don’t really like touching anything right now, because the heat has worked its way into everything. The wood of the desk I’m typing on is warm under my arms. When I lie down on my bed, my sheets and pillows are so warm I feel like I’m lying down on a hot plate. Ugh.
Perfect weather for a nice cold Quickly Taro Ice with sago, nata de coco, and Taro pudding. Mmmm.
More on Biblical Literalism
I accidentally deleted this entry a few days ago, but here it is again: a response from Roger to an earlier post on biblical literalism…
How about this – the Bible is infallible and true in everything about which it talks. Yet, we still have to interpret it. We need to develop sound hermeneutical principles with which to interpret the Bible. One thing I try to keep in mind when I’m reading the Bible is to try to discern the author’s intent. This means studying the historical context of the writings itself (involves understanding the culture of the author, the audience to which the author is writing, as well as the culturally formed genre in which the author is writing), as well as the grammatical context (where the word fits within the sentence; where the sentence within the paragraph; where the paragraph within the letter/narrative/poem, etc.). Each book of the Bible has to be approaches somewhat differently, depending on (for instance) the genre being used. I read Paul’s letters much differently than, say, Psalm 1 or Lamentations. Paul’s letters usually require understanding what was going on within the churches to whom he is writing.
These are just basic hermeneutical principles, but necessary nonetheless. And I think they allow us to gain fairly certain assurance of what the authors of the books in the Bible were trying to say at certain points. Hence, Solomon when he says things like, “Everything is meaningless” may not necessarily be written to persuade the reader to adopt that same stance. For instance, what do we do when the Pharisees say certain things? Do we jump to the conclusion that when the Pharisees reject Christ, that because the Bible is written by God, that God wants us to reject Christ? You see where I’m going. The question we ask is what is the author trying to communicate to us. Certain genres will force us to adopt a different mode of interpretation to answer that question (narrative as opposed to epistle as opposed to poetry).
The last hermeneutical principle, though, is found in the book of Luke when the resurrected Messiah is talking with the two disciples on a road. He tells them that the Law and the prophets all spoke of Him, and Christ then commenced to unfold the meaning of the Scriptures to the two men – the meaning being Christ Himself. This last hermeneutical principle, I think, can’t be forgotten. The primary message the authors are trying to communicate has to do with Christ. Usually about His redemption, usually typological in some way.
That last paragraph is something I take so much for granted I often forget the concept in my readings of the Old Testament: the Law and the Prophets unequivocably point to Jesus as Lord and Savior!
But then, go to PEX and try telling this guy that.