Spare no expense

A few days ago, I was writing an e-mail to my nephew who's a mission for his church, and I happened to use a title — Good Morning, Good Morning — that was a Beatles reference. This is nothing unusual for me; I was literally raised from a toddler on The Beatles, and they were hugely important to me during my days as a musician. Today, they hold an exalted place in my musical pantheon, and it's nothing unusual for me to drop a Beatles reference every now and then.

Little did I know I'd be predicting the future. That very morning, a very short time after the e-mail left my computer on its way to California, I got an e-mail of my own from none other than The Beatles. 'Cause, you know, we're just that close.

It seems the folks at Apple Corps. thought I should know about the long-awaited remasters of the band's catalog, which will be released on Sept. 9, 2009 (09-09-09). There will be complete remixes, in both stereo and mono versions, of all of the original releases, along with the singles collection Past Masters. There will be a full stereo boxed set of all the albums, including a DVD about the recording of each album, as well as boxed set of mono releases. The Beatles actually preferred to work in mono, and, according to my research, weren't involved in the stereo mixes. So not only is the mono version what the artist preferred, my readings also tell me that the next mono mixes reveal things that listeners may not have noticed before.

In addition to being a Beatles freak, I'm also a latent audio snob. If there's a chance that I can wring something new from a recording of a band I really, desperately love — in my case Rush and The Beatles — then I'm there. The CDs that we have now were released in 1987 (the year I got married), and represent state of the art digital remastering for that time. Problem is, it's been almost 22 years since "that time" — less than the time it took the 8-Track tape format to be introduced, become popular, and die a richly deserved death. I'm thinking that maybe they've learned a few things since then.

So the fact that I have to have these new recordings is a given.

For most people, this would mean buying the individual discs, especially if you don't have an oil well in your backyard generating a steady supply of disposable cash. And, in fact, I'm still slowly replacing my Rush CDs with remasters, and have about 9 to go. Those came out at least four years ago. So, any normal person would be content to buy one or two new discs a week, getting to know each new recording before moving on to the next.

Like I said, any normal person. But this is me we're talking about.

For some reason, I have it in my makeup that when it comes to something I truly love, I have to have the ultimate version of it. You say the boxed set has a few extra features you can't get elsewhere? I'm there. You say the mono set is being created for collectors, and will only be available for a limited time? Who do I make the check out to?

If I have my way, on September 9, or shortly thereafter, I will be the proud owner of both the stereo and mono boxed sets. Realistically, it may be after Christmas before I achieve both. Either way, economically, this is going to hurt — I don't spend such sums on myself lightly, and we are talking something that is going to cost hundreds of dollars. Since I've been off work for so long, we'll just be getting back to normal when this hits. So why am I doing this?

Because, for me, it's the right thing to do.

One of the things I have learned from my wife is that sometimes, doing the smart thing with money isn't necessarily always the right thing. My wife and I are far from millionaires. Heck, we're not even middle middle class. Yet we have taken two trips to Disney World — an enormously expensive place to hang out — in the past five years. Why? Because to us, the memories are more important than the money. Because our quadrennial pilgrimage to The Happiest Place on Earth gives us all something to look forward to, and to get excited about planning together. And because, long after my daughter has moved on to a life of her own, we will all three share the bond of what good times we had as guests of the Mouse.

I could, and probably will, devote an entire post to the subject of why I think Disney World is important, both personally and in general. Here, it serves to illustrate the point that sometimes you have to suck it up, and sink large sums of money into things that will only serve to make you and your family happy. Because, let's face it, few retired couples sit on the front porch having conversations like this:

HE: "Say, you remember all the groceries and household items that we bought instead of taking the kids to Disney World?"
SHE: "Do I ever! It took me five years to use all of the laundry detergent we were able to buy."
HE: "Yep. We had the cleanest sheets in three counties. And how about all that diet soda we bought? We were burping for a year!"
SHE: "Those were sure some good times."
HE: "How are the kids, anyway?"
SHE: "Now you know they haven't spoken to us since they moved out after high school."
HE: "Oh, how could I forget. Hey, pass the diet soda!"

I'm being extremely flip, obviously (a character flaw), so please forgive the sarcasm. And I'm not suggesting for a moment that money should not be used wisely and prudently; babyfood should always take precedence over a remastered copy of "The Essential Jimi Hendrix." But part of that prudence is occasionally using it for the simple task of making yourself and your family happy. My master, C.S. Lewis, was sharply critical of the puritan concept of denial for denial's sake, and wrote glowingly of the need to foster those things that give you honest pleasure. And who am I to argue with my master?

I do not covet this for the sake of that most elusive of goals — a "complete collection." Since I want these new sets for the genuine pleasure of listening to it, and the joy of rediscovering something that is of immense importance to me, then I am content that my motives are pure.

Of course, it's equally possible that six months from now, I'll be found locked away in a dark room, clutching both sets to my chest and whispering "my preciousss" to myself over and over. But that's a chance I'm willing to take.

The thin line between love and hate

In the past few days, there have been two vital bits of web flotsam that I have been moved by. Both involve the new Star Trek movie, and, between the two of them, they are giving me some very conflicted emotions about this re-imagining.

On the positive side, we have the new Star Trek trailer (images from which come from the ever-faithful trekmovie.com website). This is the third Trek trailer to be released, and they just keep getting better and better. Although nothing, for me, will come close to the anticipation and excitement I felt from seeing the two Phantom Menace trailers, this last Trek trailer punched all of my fan boy buttons big-time. Of particular interest was the first on-screen speech by Captain Pike, whose character has always fascinated me.

I already like this character. I want to know more about Pike, just from hearing a few snatches of dialog. Heck, at this point, they could move the Kirk character into the background, and give the movie to this guy. He looks like a starship captain, and he sounds like a starship captain. As it happens, way more than the new Kirk. But to be fair, the movie is about how Kirk became THE Jim Kirk, so we have to allow for some character development, I suppose.

Speaking of Kirk, another view getting a big fan reaction is our first glimpse of Kirk sitting in the captain's chair for the very first time. The center seat on the bridge has always been a powerful symbol for me, and I once had a beloved poster of William Shatner's Kirk sitting at his rightful place on the Enterprise's bridge. While I don't think this will be taking its place in my heart anytime soon, it's still a pretty cool moment.

Viewers should note that this screenshot is taken as Pine is completing the act of sitting down. So the fact that his head is lowered isn't an indication that he's nodded off on the bridge after a particularly vigorous shore leave. I thought I should point that out, since after all, this is Kirk that we're talking about.

(By the way, I'm assuming it should be patently obvious that I don't own any of the pictures or characters I'm putting up, don't pretend to, that they belong to whatever lucky corporate entity holds their respective copyright, and that I'm not making any money by using them to illustrate my rather rambling points. Pretty please don't sue me).

Anyway, I'm still in the dark how somebody as young as Chris Pine's Kirk gets to sit in the center seat when there are a whole starship full of people who seem to be at least as qualified, if not more so. But if I knew that, I wouldn't need to go see this movie. And, after seeing this trailer, I need to see this movie.

Mind you, I've been led astray by Star Trek trailers in the past. After Star Trek IV came out, I was panting for the next Star Trek movie. And when I saw the trailer for Star Trek V the first time, I was convinced it was going to be just as great as IV, if not better. Imagine, then, my disappointment, when I figured out that it had taken every interesting, exciting or funny moment in an entire two-plus hour film just to make a two minute trailer, and that the remaining umpity-ump seconds should have been left on the cutting room floor. Today, I feel about Trek V the way I feel about bad fan fiction. It never happened. There was no Trek movie between The Voyage Home and The Undiscovered Country.

So, there is precedent for disappointment, but until I am proven wrong by the actual facts, I will remain excited about this movie.

One thing that is already tempering my excitement, though, is this recent image gallery from Quantum Mechanix, which is a replica prop and model house I'm afraid I've never heard of. They were kind enough to post a series of views of their outstandingly detailed model of the new USS Enterprise, giving me for the first time a variety of different angles of this most iconic of ships. And, after a good long look by yours truly, the verdict is in.

I hate it.

I'm not usually one to talk badly about what I don't like about my fandoms. My disdain for the "Jar-Jar haters" is, or should be, the stuff of legend, and I have little patience for people who are supposed to like something, but instead spend all of their time complaining about what doesn't measure up. If you don't like something, that's fine, but don't throw water on my fire. And its possible that someone could find something to love about the new Enterprise. But that someone is not me. So if you don't want me to do that to you, now is the time to stop reading. And whatever you do, you should go to the gallery link above, and draw your own conclusion.

And, just for clarity's sake, the actual QM model is absolutely superb. It is the design the model was based on that I have issues with.

With those caveats out of the way, I can tell you that I only have three main problems — the nacelles, the primary hull and the secondary hull. Since these are the three principle components of the ship, that doesn't leave much left to like.

My biggest problems are the nacelles. The front domes (known as the Bussard collectors to us Trek engineering geeks) are grotesquely huge given the scale of the rest of the ship. Putting them so close together only accentuates this effect. In "Gung Ho," a Michael Keaton comedy about the auto industry, one of the Japanese workers describes a back-heavy 70s-era Chrysler as looking like "a fat American woman in stretch pants." Alas, that is similar to the feeling I get from looking at the new Enterprise's stern.

By contrast, the secondary hull would look sleek and graceful on any other ship. But with the almost-cartoonish look of the warp engines, it looks overwhelmed and out of balance. I say this as an admitted fan of bigger secondary hulls — a fact I will elaborate on in my promised, later post on my favorite Enterprise designs.

But back to this one. The best piece is possibly the circular, or primary, hull. This has historically been my favorite feature of the Enterprise's design. The new one is good, but is so similar to the movie Enterprise's primary as to be almost indistinguishable. The aztec detailing, raised phaser banks and identification fonts are strictly out of the first movie. I loved that design, mind you, but I was hoping for something new; not a re-hash of a thirty year old design.

Taken as a whole, the new ship looks like the movie Enterprise with a bad makeover; not a re-imagining of one of the most beautiful and iconic designs in the whole of science fiction. If I sound slightly miffed, it's because I am one of those fans to whom the Enterprise is one of the main characters. In my entire life, we have only been given six new variations of the original design. Considering how much I have loved some of the past versions, I must admit to being let down by this one. In fact, it may be one of the worst versions of the Enterprise yet conceived. And, for me, if you're going to get something wrong in a Star Trek movie, it had better not be the Enterprise.

I have heard it said that J.J. Abrams told the designers to take the movie and original series models, and combine them. If that's true, then I guess I know who to blame. Hopefully, this will be the only misstep the movie makes. And after some time to get acquainted, maybe the new proportions will grow on me. But right now, it's hard to get past the thought that somebody — maybe even a lot of somebodies — could have done a better job than this.

Time out

Sorry it's been so long since my last post. Ain't it funny how time slips away?

I have been taken out of the race by a ruptured disc. By doctor's orders, I am laying on my living room floor, surrounded by books, DVDs and iPods, and watching a DVD of 101 Dalmatians.

Okay, so the doctor just told me to lay on the floor. He didn't say anything about the DVDs, or any of that other stuff. Oh, yeah, and he gave me drugs to take, and told me to stay here for two weeks.

Since I have been put in the penalty box for 14 days, I am going to try to catch up on my reading. This means studying my Bible, but it also means returning to my place in The Lord of the Rings. I had just arrived at "A Shortcut to Mushrooms" when I lost the track. My wife also wants me to follow her into the Twilight series. I am loath to pick up another series when I'm trying to make my way through Tolkien, and I've never been much for vampires. Still, I may humor her, just so she'll have someone to talk to about the series.

One of the blogs I follow, 2719 Hyperion, has a fascinating post on the myth that Walt Disney once owned the rights to make a movie of The Lord of the Rings. Of course, Disney never actually even approached the professor for the rights, after his story department (I think, correctly), told him that the story was too unwieldy for a feature film. Then there's the not-too-surprising revelation that Tolkien had a "heartfelt loathing" for Disney's treatment of fairy tales and faerie creatures.

As a lover of both Disney's and the Professor's works, I thought the post was fascinating food for thought. What would Disney's artists and storytellers have managed to create with the wealth of imaginative imagery present in the Professor's masterpiece?

A disaster, I am quite sure. Disney would have stripped Tolkien's story down to its barest bones, and slapped on the carcass his own unique artistic vision, leaving something that resembled Tolkien only superficially. P.L. Travers, who Walt wooed for years in an attempt to get his hands on her Mary Poppins stories, was, according to many accounts, heartbroken by the treatment of her story. The friction between Disney and Travers was well-documented, and somewhat nasty. The clash of ego and artistic vision that would have surely happened betwen Walt and the Professor during the creation of Walt Disney's The Lord of the Rings would been an epic battle the like of which the world has never seen.

In the end, I think we can all be grateful that such a battle never had cause to come to pass. Jackson's films, despite their flaws, are head and shoulders above anything that the Disney studios could have produced. The Tolkien books have too much detail, and too intricate a plot, for the Disney treatment. Nearly all of the classic Disney films that I can recall at the present were adapted from shorter fare — short stories and fairy tales. I don't think even a longer story, such as The Hobbit, would have fared well at all as a Disney film.

That's all for this week, campers. If you need me, I'll be here on the floor. Mind your feet, please.

The road goes ever on...

I was going to call this "Queer Lodgings," since I was reading that chapter in The Hobbit when I was staying in my daughter's hospital room. Happily, she has since been discharged, and I have since moved on all the way to "Concerning Hobbits" in The Fellowship of the Ring.

I have made several false starts on The Trilogy (note the allcaps) in the past decade or so, but I really believe I'm going to manage it this time. For a time, I believe I lost the ability to read. That's a bit of an exaggeration, but it really was quite hard for me to finish anything for a while there. It was demoralizing and depressing.

I don't know if it's the fact that I'm re-reading something I already know quite well, or if it's because I'm re-reading my favorite book of all time, but so far, reading The Trilogy been a delight. I savored every page of The Hobbit, and intend to do the same with Fellowship. It was about this time 32 years ago that I read the book for the first time, and the memories of that first reading are with me still. In fact, I was giving serious consideration to giving full vent to my nostalgia by listening to the same music I did then, and using my mint condition copies of the same Ballentine paperback set I read back then. Money to buy saidsame music made me chicken out on the former, and my hopelessly OCD personality made me chicken out on the latter (Eeek! Is that a crease in the cover?), but I'm remembering that time just the same.

In fact, I've already made a pact with myself to re-read the trilogy at this same time of the year prior to the release of the film version of The Hobbit. It's not quite Christopher Lee's "every year" discipline, but it's a start.

Stay tuned for another post on a completely different topic within a few days time — I'm simply too tired to manage it right now, and my bed is calling...