Have We All Become Judge Dredd?

When it comes to Star Trek vs. Star Wars . . . wars, I have to admit I’m pretty much on the side of Star Trek. Not that I dislike Star Wars, it’s just that I never got into that universe (or, more appropriately, that “galaxy far far away”). I don’t think I’ve ever watched a Star Wars movie more than once. I may have, but don’t recall. Now, Star Trek, on the other hand . . .

I think my love for Star Trek is partly due to my love of all things “time” related. I also enjoy the stories of us Earthlings and where the future may take us.

My wife and I have worked our ways through The Original Series, The Animated Series, The Next Generation, and Deep Space Nine. We are in the first season of Voyager currently. Being that we have several seasons to go with that series, and the entire Enterprise series as well, it may be a while before we get to the newest (current) incarnation: Discovery.

However, in the “I Want That Exact Same Suit But In A Completely Different Style” category, there is the newest creation from the mind of Seth MacFarlane: The Orville.

Oh. My. God. I LOVE The Orville. It is so much like Star Trek while at the same time being nothing like Star Trek. Each of the nine episodes (as of this writing) have been a fantastic ride - and very different in style from each other. I’m excited to say that the series has been green-lit for a second season.

The episodes have also been timely in the issues they have tackled. One such episode, “Majority Rule” (S01 E07) is almost a distress call to our current society.

As the episode is described, “Ed sends a team to find missing anthropologists on a planet similar to 21st century Earth; the mission goes awry when they realize the planet uses a public voting system to determine punishment.”

Today we are inundated in social media. Facebook and Twitter have been daily topics in the news. Was there collusion in the 2016 election by Russia via the purchase and display of political ads in Facebook? President Trump continually “kicks the hornet’s nest” with his tweets. And now, celebrities of all ilks are being “outed” as sex offenders and child molesters - many judged guilty in the “court” of social media as if it were fact.

Recently, George Takei had spoken out against Kevin Spacey over Spacey’s recent child molestation charges, announcing himself as gay, and his reinforcement of the stereotype that conflate said homosexuality with pedophilia.

What happened next? George Takei was accused of sexually assaulting a model back in 1981.

I saw George Takei’s rebuttal/apology/explanation in Twitter. The comment thread that followed was people believing it to be true because the victim is always the truthful one, people believing it to be false because false accusations are common, and people wanting to believe George Takei because he is George Takei.

Which brings me back to The Orville episode.

Have we become a society that allows social media to be the voice of reason, and ultimately judge, jury, and prosecution? Does anyone else see the danger here?

From "The Orville" - "Majority Rule"

Taylor Swift went through hell online because she didn’t say something against the Nazi march QUICK ENOUGH.  

People agree with things (“like” things), or disagree with things, just so their social circles will accept them. There is dopamine hits for liking and hating things online.

It has gotten to the point that if a man had looked at a woman the wrong way that woman will cry out on social media that she was molested. And more so, there are women who are saying #MeToo so they don’t “suffer” the same consequences as Taylor Swift.

The danger is that when all forms of harassment are classified as the most heinous, the most heinous will no longer be the most heinous. They will lose their impact (and therefore the attention such vile acts should receive.)

I’m going to confess something: I’m a white male. I was born this way. It was not a choice. And therefore, I can be accused of a life of “white privilege”. And being male, I am automatically guilty of sexual harassment if I’ve ever given a woman a compliment. Am I perfect? God no. Have I ever said or done something that might be deemed inappropriate? Absolutely. As Jesus made it so clear, “He who is without sin cast the first stone.”

You won’t find a stone in MY hand.

But on social media, there are many with both hands cocked and ready to throw a heater.

Does that sound extreme? It should. And if it doesn’t?

Well, I guess that is something to think about.

© Emittravel 2017

Please J.J., No More

Have you ever heard of J.J. Abrams? He's a producer, writer, and director; best known for shows like "Lost", "Alias", and "Fringe", and movies like "Super 8", "Star Trek", and the upcoming "Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens". I really enjoy his work, overall. There is just one thing that really bugs me about it: lens flairs.

What are lens flairs? They are small glares that cut across the camera lens; usually because strong sunlight hits at just the right spot while filming. Now, I really don't mind lens flairs overall. It's just that Mr. Abrams (may I call you "J.J."?) likes to put them in post - after the shots have been taken - as a "special effect" - a sort of signature.

I think that J.J. likes to use them to create a sort of realism - to give the viewer what the director might see from his perspective.

Please, J.J., no more lens flairs.

It's one thing to see them in a highly-lit scene, where the small flash can go almost completely unnoticed. But, when there is an outdoor scene, in November, in Boston, with an overcast sky, there is NO REASON for a lens flair. At that point you don't have a neat effect: you have a distraction that takes you out of the scene. STOP IT!

There was an episode in the show "Fringe" where the above HAPPENED. My wife and I are watching through the series, and, you can confirm with her, I find I keep yelling at the screen: "Stop it, J.J.! Enough with the lens flairs!" What does this mean? Instead of being pulled into the scene, captivated by what I'm seeing, I'm being told "Hey you! You there! Sitting on your couch! This is only a TV show!!"

We're also watching the series "Doctor Who" (a non-J.J. Abrams production). But, unlike most, instead of starting with the more recent "reboot", we went back to the original, black and white, first episode. For me, I love a good story. I don't care if the ship in space is a model held up by really visible strings. Tell me a good story and I won't mind. The difference is, those effects weren't added in later. They were the actual scenes. The lens flairs added after the fact take me out of the story. It's like seeing the boom mic floating over the heads of the actors. You can't help but notice the mic, and then not even hear what they were saying.

So what's next, J.J.? What do you plan for Star Wars? Will we get flairs off of R2D2? Maybe off of the shaft of Luke Skywalker's light saber? Most likely, we'll get one on Tatooine, in a cave, without a single light source.

So please, for the sake of the story: stop it.

I wanted to post a bunch of pictures of lens flairs throughout this post, but I found something better. Below is a link to one of my favorite YouTube channels, Screen Junkies. They have what they call Honest Trailers. They are both hysterical and thought-provoking. After you watch this, you'll want to see all of them.

Enjoy: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OTfBH-XFdSc

© Emittravel 2015

And no, I'm not switching to "chick flicks" . . .

Getting really tired of the trend in filming action scenes lately. It looks like they find a cameraman who is experiencing the DTs, give him a handheld camera with the zoom all the way in, and film the fight. The shots are so close up, and so jerky, that you can neither focus on what you are watching (the screen itself), nor tell what is happening. Makes me long for the old Kung-Fu movies where the fights were choreographed dances (or, for those of you wanting a little more recent example: "The Matrix")!

A couple of movies lately that I've seen where this seems to be the "norm" are "Star Trek" and "Clash of the Titans". In the fight scene in the bar in "Star Trek", for example, you really had no idea who was punching who, or who was winning or losing, at any given point.

The space battles were shown the same; just a lot of explosions, spastic imagery, and hollering. Maybe the studios are so concerned with actors being injured on the set, and the inevitable lawsuits that follow, that they do this to portray action without actually having the action. Probably takes less to film an action scene when you don't have to take the time to teach the actors choreography.

I'm told this is the way of action movies now-a-days. I think it is a cinematic copout.

Let's not be so lazy – and so insulting to us, the audience. I'm sure it is still possible to captivate without causing visual damage. Besides, don't actors have to sign a waiver anyways?

©Emittravel 2010