Sam and Tom get all Prohibition up in here, down some moonshine and dance the night away in our local speakeasy with a discussion of Lawless. They also find time to chatter about Berberian Sound Studio, Tom’s journey in the Star Trek universe, BBC America’s Copper and Charlie Brooker’s A Touch of Cloth.

Download the show from iTunes

Email us at movieoverdose@gmail.com

Read us at Screen Siren

Follow the Screen Siren Tumblr

Like us on Facebook

Tweet us @Titan_Tom and @SamUnsted. And you can tweet Screen Siren editor-in-chief Beth @BethSquires

Anyone leaving us reviews on the iTunes page will be very much appreciated. This helps us in the rankings for the TV & Film section and will get us out to more people.

Any suggestions for topics, special episodes or other features will be welcomed with open arms.

When I logged onto Google this morning I saw that their logo was honoring Star Trek’s 46th anniversary. And whatever is good enough for Google is good enough for me dammit! So that is why today I have decided to dress up as Spock from the original series.

Photo Credit: Billy Rubin

Black Wig: Spotlight

Blue Long Sleeve Top: Cotton On

Black Top: Threadless

Black Pants: Valleygirl

Black Shoes: Fabian

Spock Ears and Star Trek Gun: Home made out of cardboard

Google is at it again. Today they are celebrating ‘Star Trek: The Original Series’  46th anniversary.

So go on over to google and check out the different things that happen when you click on the various items.

Read on for a preview at they have waiting for you this time.

When you click on the doors it takes you to the transporter room. 

You can click on the ‘e’ and also the Transporter which lands you on the planet.

After you fight the monster and save the day you get beamed back onto the ship. After playing around a bit you can click on the doors and watch the credits. Or well …..

And all this is brought to you by the creative people at:

Google’s doodle today is especially awesome today, paying homage to Star Trek’s original series through a sequence of interactive animations.  If you miss it, you can still check it out at Google’s Doodles page.

Source: http://www.google.com

Author Mark Clark

In an otherwise favorable critique of my book Star Trek FAQ: Everything Left to Know About the First Voyages of the Starship Enterprise, reviewer Reed Farrington of the Film Junk web site, takes me to task for failing to address a simple question: Is Star Trek really that good? “The Star Trek books I have read all seem to be written by fans,” Farrington notes. “So I often wonder if Star Trek really deserves all the accolades heaped on it. And I wonder if fans have exaggerated the importance of the show.”

Farrington is correct that I never directly address this question within the pages of the book, mostly because the answer seemed to be self-evident. The original Trek has so far spawned another 647 TV episodes and 11 feature films (soon to be 12), as well as more than 600 published works of fiction. Star Trek changed the economics of television and altered the course of popular culture by changing perceptions of science fiction. Once dismissed as juvenile drivel, the genre is now the stuff of blockbuster movies, smash TV shows and best-selling novels, as well as university curriculums and museum exhibits. (And given that Star Trek counted Isaac Asimov, Ray Bradbury and Arthur C. Clarke among its fans, it must be quality science fiction.) Perhaps most importantly, the series enriched the lives of generations of fans, inspiring them to take up careers in science, engineering, medicine, and show business, and to work for political social change, to help bring about the utopian future creator Gene Roddenberry imagined. No other television show has such a massive, profound and enduring legacy. All this sets Star Trek apart.

Still, for the sake of argument, let’s compare Star Trek to the other most popular and critically acclaimed dramas of its era.

The mid- to late-1960s were a surprisingly conservative era in television history. Few shows overtly addressed the social and political upheavals of the day. The dramas that performed best were those that served the television equivalent of comfort food – old fashioned Westerns, escapist adventures and warm-and-fuzzy family fare. During the 1966-67 season, when Star Trek made its debut, the top-rated dramas on television were Bonanza (Number 1 overall), Daktari (Number 7), and The Virginian (Number 11) – two Western war horses and a cozy adventure series about an American veterinarian working in Africa. These were the only three dramas among the Nielsen Top 20. The following season, the highest-rated dramas were Gunsmoke (Number 4), Bonanza (Number 6), The Virginian (Number 14) and Gentle Ben (Number 19), about a family living in the Everglades with a cuddly, 650-pound black bear. During Star Trek’s final season, Bonanza (Number 3) and Gunsmoke (Number 6) finished in the Top 10, while Mission: Impossible, Ironside, The Virginian and Dragnet all landed in the Top 20. Today, Star Trek is much more popular than any of those higher-rated programs. Only Mission: Impossible (the Desilu-produced sister series of Trek) retains any significant cultural currency.

Star Trek’s critical reception was mixed. It was panned by most critics upon its debut but earned back-to-back Emmy nominations as Outstanding Drama following its first two seasons (losing both times to Mission: Impossible). During its first season, the other Emmy nominees (besides Trek and M:I) were the lighthearted spy-fi series The Avengers and I Spy, and Run for Your Life, about a terminally ill man (Ben Gazzara) who decides to live to the fullest during his final months. Trek’s Season Two Emmy competitors also included those same four shows, as well as NET Playhouse, an anthology series broadcast on public television. Star Trek failed to earn an Emmy nomination following its troubled final season. That year, NET Playhouse won the Emmy, beating The F.B.I., Mission: Impossible, Judd for the Defense, and The Name of the Game, a glitzy, big-budget series about the staff of a large magazine publisher. The short-lived Judd for the Defense remains notable as one of the few shows on television that were more overtly socially conscious than Star Trek, and as one of the few series the lowly rated Trek outperformed in the Nielsen ratings. The Emmy nominees of the era are a diverse and intriguing assortment of programs, but Star Trek, at least during its first two seasons, was certainly as thoughtful, ambitious and well-crafted as any of the other honored series. This much, at least, was reflected by Emmy voters. However, given the many production and screenwriting challenges created by its sci-fi format, Star Trek’s achievements, arguably, were even more impressive.

In his review of my book, Mr. Farrington suggests, “Of course, maybe Star Trek is simply awesome.” It is.

Star Trek FAQ tells the complete story of Star Trek, from the before the beginning (the books, films, and TV shows that inspired producer Gene Roddenberry to create Star Trek) until after the end (when the show emerged as a cultural phenomenon in syndication), and including dramatic behind-the-scenes stories (e.g., Leonard Nimoy’s struggle with alcoholism and actress Grace Lee Whitney’s controversial firing) often omitted from “authorized” histories of the program. Along with in-depth looks at the pre- and post-Trek careers of the show’s iconic leads, Star Trek FAQ includes profiles of guest stars and “redshirt” extras alike, as well as the many writers, technicians, and artisans whose efforts enabled Star Trek to take flight. The book also explores the show’s unprecedented resurgence in the 1970s with chapters devoted to early Star Trek fiction, merchandising, and the short-lived animated series. Combining a wealth of fascinating information about every facet of the show’s production with original analysis of Star Trek‘s enduring appeal and cultural influence, Star Trek FAQ goes where no Star Trek book has gone before.

In the early 80s I started a story — never finished — about a homeless woman who solves a crime without having any intention of doing so by recognizing connections between disparate pieces of information because she has a compulsion to collect, read, and memorize  newspapers that are thrown in the trash.

The character was a fictional extrapolation — intended to be a non-exploitative one, but we’ll never know now — of a type of homeless person I’d often encountered.

Unlike the real people upon whom she was based, the character had unusual access to connections between things that normally went unnoticed simply because so many discrete pieces of information were stored in a persistent way in her mind, and minds are evolved to make connections between things (even when such connections don’t actually exist, a phenomenon called apophenia).

Of course the truth is that you don’t need to be any kind of savant to store that kind of information or identify those kinds of connections.  We have devices that allow us to  do that — they’re called card catalogues.

The pre-internet internet

Okay, in a previous incarnation they were called card catalogues.  Now such a device is called a database, or on a grander scale it’s called the internet, but before these existed the way that one hyperlinked from one piece of information to another was that the information was stored in a physical library full of books and the books:

• had their contents organized in an internal index at the back of the book, and
• were indexed as a collection in a massive accretion of small paper cards stored in a large cabinet made up of very deep, very small drawers.

Older people, don’t get misty, and younger people please don’t retch. I am not about to get nostalgic for card catalogues.  I never liked them and I would still not like them if they were in use today.

Cards could be misfiled by the librarians or pulled out by vandals.  You couldn’t simultaneously keep your place in one drawer over here and also look up something that was indexed in a drawer way the hell over there because you physically couldn’t reach both drawers at the same time.

They smelled funny and, frankly, flipping by hand through a stack of absorbent paper cards that had previously been touched by several thousand other peoples’ sweaty fingers was not the most enticing thing to do when you were a kid who was given to reading science fiction stories about plagues gone wild (The Andromeda Strain or Earth Abides) and watching similar stories unfold on TV (the episode The Naked Time from the original Star Trek series).

Now that we have thankfully outgrown them as a technology, card catalogues can finally take the place in our lives that they should have had all along: as beautiful furniture for our homes.

The proper use of a card catalogue as an exquisite objet d'árt

The folks over at Dream Book Design will show you how to take a fusty old card catalogue and turn it into a beautiful buffet for your living or dining room.  In fact, these guys are serial card-catalogue-converters, having done this at least once before:

The first Dream Book Design card catalogue conversion

Looking at these refurbished dinosaurs of an earlier age of library science does bring back memories, but I’m fine with letting them remain memories.  I wouldn’t mind a card catalogue as an item of home décor, but when I want to find a book, give me a database any day.

Over the years, advances in computers and technology have helped make industry more efficient by mechanizing tasks that are too difficult or repetitive for human workers.  Allotting some of the least desirable and low-skill tasks to robots is ok, but in this Star Trek episode, the computer was intended to perform some of the most complex higher functions of a ship.  Inevitably, the computer failed because it was flawed.  The reason why it was flawed was because the programmer was flawed, which brings up an interesting point about artificial intelligence.  I believe that because the M-5 was programmed to mimic the complex cognitive behavior required to operate a starship, it was forced to subconsciously become human, which resulted in it making mistakes.  This is just one of the many parallels of this episode—another being that the computer was designed to preserve life but endangered it instead.

The episode took an anti-computer stance by proving that human operators will always have an advantage over artificial intelligence.  At least on Star Trek, the human operators had the ability to discern the context of a situation, trust in the loyalty of their fellow officers, value life, and, as Captain Kirk proved in the end, use prior experience with other colleagues to influence intuition.  Robots and computers are nice as an aid, but they should never replace who we are.

I enjoy reading the Star Trek novels especially since no new series have been made in a while. There are plenty of books to choose from and used book stores are my favorite place to pick them up. From Trek Today:

Star Trek: Unspoken Truth, written by Margaret Wander Bonanno and due out at the end of the month, tells the story of Lieutenant Saavik, left behind on Vulcan while the crew of the Enterprise is forced to return to Earth to be court-martialed for stealing the Enterprise and destroying it while on a mission to retrieve Spock’s body and katra.

That sounds good, I cannot wait for that one. More:

The second book, announced on Christopher L. Bennett’s website, has a working title of Star Trek: DTI (Department of Temporal Investigations.) The DTI was introduced in the Deep Space Nine Trials and Tribble-ations episode, when agents Lucsly and Dulmar paid Captain Sisko a visit after Sisko and crew’s visit to the past.“I’m able to announce my new Star Trek project now, and it’s my most offbeat one yet,” said Bennett. “The working title is Star Trek: DTI, with a more specific title to be settled on later.

I hope they keep writing books or make another television series or both, why not?!

Link.

Christianity teaches of a loving God that wants only the best for His creation, whereas the computer god of the tribal people demanded constant sacrifice and gave nothing back.  The God of Christianity also calls for devotion, but it is important to consider that God gives to His creation more than what He takes, and the sacrifices are meant to facilitate love and thanksgiving.  God wishes us to “have life and have it abundantly” (John 10:10 NRSV).  Perhaps the most striking differences between the God of Christianity and the computer in The Apple, is the view of both children and romantic love.  God commands his creation to “grow and multiply and fill the earth” (Gen. 1:28 NRSV), but the computer kept his tribal “slaves” stagnant and tightly regulated.  God loves little children and makes every person special and unique (Psalm 139 NRSV), while the computer regards children only as “replacements”.  In Christianity, the romantic relationship is sacred and reflects God’s love for humanity and the church.  Each partner is to love the other as they love God and as God loves them, because each was created in the image of God to contain God and all of His love.  The computer forbids even kissing.  Love is expressed by the unselfish caring one feels about another and the willingness to give of the self.  This is not because both lovers feel forced to serve each other; instead it originates from the value as an individual that each sees in the other person.  The computer had none of these traits, and therefore could never have been God.  I believe the Enterprise crew was right in releasing these people from their former overlord, because now they are free to grow, love, and enjoy abundant life.

Over the years, Star Trek and many other Sci-Fi stories have introduced us to a vast assortment of bizarre and amazing animal varieties, but offered little if any attention to plants; considering how fundamental the plant kingdom is to all life on Earth, one should expect plant-life on distant planets to be just as unique.  Examples of such individuality of plants could be adaptive colors that help the organisms absorb light in a different spectrum, possibly more efficient than Earth plants, most of which cannot make use of the energy in green light.  Also, extraterrestrial flora should be expected to have adaptations that would help it coexist with existing animal life, such as how plants on Earth make use of animals to pollinate and spread seeds.  Plants and animals exist in symbiotic relationships all the time and without one, the other would not survive.  If the animals are unique and bizarre, the plants should be too.  Ironically, the spores in this episode that helped the colonists survive the Berthold radiation were not produced by the plants themselves, but instead were only using the plant as a host until it came in contact with another host, the humans.  (Angiosperms [flowering plants] don’t produce spores anyway, they reproduce by seeds).  More can be done to expand on the life cycle of the spores themselves, but I’m afraid the episode didn’t provide enough information to construct a complete life cycle.

Nevertheless, this review would not be complete without talking about the actual point of the episode.  The colonists seemed perfect and happy; the spores had given them ideal health and eliminated their anger.  The drawback was that the people never accomplished anything, but instead were kept stagnant in a never ending, mindless bliss.  The story almost suggests that humans need to retain their anger and strong negative emotions in order to be productive or contribute to society.  This is a reoccurring theme in many of the Original Series episodes such as “The Return of the Archons”, “The Apple”, “Errand of Mercy, and to some extent “A Taste of Armageddon”.  The question is: would you want to live in paradise if it meant you couldn’t accomplish anything?

This one was a great episode, and I got to see captain Pike and parts of what was originally the pilot episode to Star Trek, “The Cage”. Spock takes Pike, who is now disabled, back to Talos IV where he will be happy. It took the entire two part episode to finally figure out what Spock was doing, but in the end, all his disjointed actions and random facts came together and made sense. I think Spock should have just told Kirk what he was doing in the first place, but I guess this was logical at the time. Basically the only thing I have to say about this episode is that I think it is really ironic that the Talos IV aliens, whom Pike fought so hard to escape when he was captured, are now the very source of his liberation. In “The Cage” Pike was trapped by his own thoughts and imagination and wanted nothing but to escape. In “The Menagerie” the aliens freed him from his reality, which had become a cage. So in Spock’s view, it was all very logical. Upon first glance the aliens seemed like little bastards that trap things for their own amusement, but in the end, I realized that they meant no real harm and only wanted what was best for their ‘specimen’. Either way, I’m glad Pike can now say more than just yes and no!

Poor Alexander was the victim of all the bullying but the remarkable thing is that even though he suffered through all that, he never wanted powers like they had because he didn’t want to become monsters like them. Put this same situation in a different context, say high school. I was teased, by many different groups, but never really did anything to stand up for myself. Like Alexander, the whole time I went through the teasing thinking it is my fault, or there is something wrong with me, but it’s not me, it’s them! Bullies will always try to have power over their victims, but sometimes it is the victims that have the power. Alexander could have killed them or tortured them just like they did to him, but the only reason he didn’t is because Alexander, and eventually Kirk, choose not to. Why choose not to? If you were to implement power over someone else, than you would become the bully yourself. You become exactly what you hate. So should someone bear insult just so they can remain the victim? Well, that’s what I did. Besides, everyone gets to be the victim and the bully at some point in their life.