San Francisco and the Starship Enterprise.....

SPOILER ALERT! You probably won't want to read the following until you see the movie!  Some plots critical to the storyline of the movie will be revealed and could affect your movie-going experience!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"To boldly go where no man has gone before...." is the well known motto of the USS Starship Enterprise and it's crew of space explorers.  In the new "Star Trek Into Darkness", the second prequel to the popular 1960's TV show, the writers instead decided to tackle some very familiar territory.  And in quite a unique way.

Taken partly from Star Trek's 1967 episode "Space Seed" and mostly from 1982's "The Wrath of Khan", the writers chose to explore the origins of perhaps Captain Kirk's greatest adversary, Khan Noonien Singh. Khan was one of a group of genetically engineered "supermen", bred to be superior to man in every mental and physical capacity. Khan had been the most successful of the group, ruling western Asia until he was deposed and put into a "cyro sleep" (with his crew of 72) before being discovered some 300 years later by Kirk and crew. What happens next depends on whether you believe the TV show or the movie.

Set some 20 years before the TV series, "Star Trek Into Darkness" again focuses on the earlier days of Captain James T. Kirk and his popular crew of Mr. Spock, Dr. McCoy, Uhura, Chekov, Sulu and Scotty. Not to give too much away, but Kirk and Khan are thrust together and lock horns as a result of a vengeful act committed by the latter. Or was it a vengeful act?  That's actually one of the writing highlights of the movie, as we really don't know what Khan's motives are.  Revenge or self-fulfilling?  Feel sorry for him or root against him?  We're really not sure.

This battle continues throughout the movie with many nice twists and turns included that keep us guessing. Some blatantly obvious references and parallels to "The Wrath of Khan" are shown, and although I'm sure some people thought them cheesy, rolled their eyes, or snickered when seeing them, I actually thought they were done well and a nice touch overall. And as expected, there is frequent non-stop action and special effects out the kazoo, with the Dr. McCoy and Scotty characters providing the occasional but much needed comic relief.

The movie concludes with Khan and his crew being put into "cyro sleep" tubes, which is where the TV episode picks up the story some 20 years later.  To refresh my memory, I watched the 1967 "Space Seed" again prior to writing this. Inconsistencies between the two are inevitable, but there are some that really stood out.  First and foremost, when Kirk and company first confront Khan in the TV episode, it is very clear that they had never met him before (unless the crew of the Enterprise suffered from some sort of space amnesia which we're not aware of). Also, Khan is described as being Indian and from India. Ok, Ricardo Montalbán (actor who played the original Khan) is certainly not Indian, but Benedict Cumberbatch, the actor portraying Khan in the movie is a blonde Englishman....not even close!  Finally the 20+ years Khan was "asleep" seemed to have zapped him of much of his powers. In the movie, he was quite the fighting machine. In the TV show, although stronger than an ordinary human, he didn't have anywhere near the physical abilities he had in the movie. These inconsistencies, and a few others, however, didn't take much away from my enjoyment of the movie.  It was thoroughly entertaining and lots of fun.

The writing was fabulous, as I mentioned earlier, and the acting spot on.  The makers of this film and it's 2009 predecessor did a terrific job casting the roles of a younger Kirk, Spock, etc.  As a fan of the original TV show, I was initially a little skeptical that this could pulled off. But it was. In fact, I'd love to see Zachary Quinto, who plays Mr. Spock in the movie, get some real attention during award season early next year.  He took a big risk by agreeing to portray an icon TV character, and he's really nailed it. Spock is a complex character, and I don't know how many other actors could have pulled it off the way he has. He was good in the 2009 Star Trek movie, but really excelled here.

Speaking of Spock, there is one storyline in this movie that was introduced in the prior movie I don't really care for, and that's his relationship with Commander Uhura.  Never really made sense to me. There is no inkling at all of a past relationship between the two in the TV show.  Plus I don't get the attraction.  I suspect that the writers (or movie execs) insisted on some sort of love interest plot be included. Most movies seem to include one these days, whether they have anything to do with the story or not. So why not Star Trek as well?

As an added treat for us bay area folks, the majority of the non-space scenes in the movie take place in San Francisco, somewhere in the 23rd century. You'll be glad to know that the Golden Gate Bridge is still around! So if you've ever wondered what San Francisco is going to look like 200 years from now, or had the desire to witness a space craft crash into the San Francisco Bay, you'll get your chance here.

In conclusion, the movie did have some storyline contradictions with the original "Khan" story, and there were certainly a few "check in your brain" moments, i.e. Chekov holding on to Kirk AND Scotty with one arm as the two dangle perilously off a bridge. And yes, some of the high tech, futuristic gadgets used by this Enterprise crew are not only more sophisticated than the ones used some 20 years later, they no longer seem to even exist 20 years later.  And I still don't get how the current Spock is able to channel in to the future Spock. But despite all of that, I found the movie very well made and particularly enjoyable. My favorite 2013 summer movie so far.

If you haven't seen "Star Trek Into Darkness" but plan to, I'd HIGHLY recommend watching the original 1967 Star Trek episode "Space Seed" and the 1982 Star Trek movie "The Wrath of Khan" first. And if you have seen the movie but neither the TV episode or 1982 movie, definitely try to watch them (both are on Netflix instant streaming and Amazon Prime). You'll appreciate and enjoy "Star Trek Into Darkness" more if you do.

Using my rating system (1= skip it, 2= rent it, 3= worth a matinee, 4= worth full price), I’d give it a 3.5. Worth the price of a full ticket, but try and see it at a matinee if you can.

Iron Man vs........the zombies?

Seems like a lot of movies these days are attempting to find a reason to include zombies into their plot, and unfortunately Iron Man 3 is no exception.  But first the good news.....

Contrary to the first two Iron Man movies, Iron Man 3 seemed to have more Tony Stark screen time than that of Iron Man. But since that means more Robert Downey Jr., it's definitely not a bad thing.  Downey Jr, in my opinion, has always been the best thing about the Iron Man movies, and getting to watch him do his thing even more in this sequel was probably the best thing about the movie.Not only do we get large doses of the expected Tony Stark humor, but we also get to see more of the real Tony Stark.  From his passion for Pepper Potts to his compassion towards a young boy, we get to experience full spectrum of what makes Tony Stark tick.  There is even a time in the movie where Stark is forced to use his brains over his brawn, which was a particularly nice touch by the screenwriters.

The story wasn't bad (with one exception...keep reading!) and kept you guessing though out most of it. The special effects were some of the best ever put on screen. And there were plenty of them.  And not all involving Iron Man. One of the new gimmicks in the movie was the evolution of an army of computerized Iron Men.  There were so many that at times it was difficult to identify the real Iron Man. Another gimmick was the development of an Iron Man suit that could be summoned remotely.  As a result, anyone who knew how to summon the suit could literally become Iron Man (evidently the Iron Man suit isn't that difficult to master).  And, because of this technology, we were briefly introduced to the first occurrence of "Iron Woman'.  You'll have to watch the movie to see what I mean!

The acting to me was only adequate. Gwyneth Paltrow and Don Cheadle were fine in reprising their roles as Potts and Colonel James Rhodes. But that's pretty much all they did.  Didn't particularly care for Guy Pearce as the villainous Aldrich Killian. Too much pretty boy, not enough sinister.

And that brings me to the Mandarin.

Portrayed by Academy Award-winner Ben Kingsley,  the Mandarin had been advertised via previews as the primarily villain in the movie. And although partly true, the Mandarin ended up being a huge disappointment for me. And in more ways than one.  Although the character had a promising start in the movie, and potentially could have become one of the most memorable villains in silver screen history thanks to Kingsley's protrayal, that all changed about half way through the film.  As much as I'd like to say why, I won't so not spoil the movie for those who haven't seen it.  But it's suffice to say that the Mandarin in this movie isn't close to the original Mandarin that was introduced as a notable villain in a 1964 comic book. A Mongolian nobleman in the comics, the Mandarin was a genius scientist/tactician and gifted strategist who possessed superhuman martial arts skills in a addition to possessing energy blasting rings.  The only similarity to this Mandarin and the one portrayed in Iron Man 3 was physical, thanks to the the make up job of Kingsley.  And with that, I'm not going to say any more except that I nearly fell out of my seat when the storyline of the Mandarin took an abrupt turn!

Another disappointment were the other villains of the movie....the zombie-like creatures I mentioned in the opening paragraph, who were unfortunate of victims of an unsuccessful medical experiment conducted by the aforementioned Killian.  Although not technically zombies, these characters were obviously designed after them, likely due to their (somewhat disturbing) popularity in movies in recent years with younger audiences.  Unfortunately, I no longer fall into the "younger audience" category anymore, so they pretty much bored me.

In a nutshell, the movie was particularly entertaining if you like Robert Downey Jr. The action and visuals will definitely hold your attention, which is more than I can say for bad guys in the movie, who, like I said, were primarily aimed more toward the teen and 20-something group.

Using my rating system (1= skip it, 2= rent it, 3= worth a matinee, 4= worth full price), I’d give it a 2.5 for Downey Jr. and the special effects and action (although I wouldn't pay much more to see it in 3D).  Outside of that, it would definitely be worth a trip to your nearest Red Box. 

Marriage: A Battle of the Logos....

You've probably been seeing one or both of the above logos appearing on Facebook as social media users are beginning to voice their opinions on what defines marriage, while the United States Supreme Court tries to do the same.

I really didn't want to use this blog to discuss issues like this, but I'm going to go against my brain and go with my heart this time! I expect many of you won't agree with what I'm about to say, and that's fine. But hopefully what I discuss will give you something to think about, or something new to consider. At the very least, you'll get an understanding why I and many others believe what we believe.

A Little Background

As you can tell from some of my other posts, I'm a God/Bible believer (surprise!).  I believe God created the universe, the earth and us. I was raised with that belief, was skeptical for a short time, like anyone else, but re-embraced it 10 years ago and believe it now more than ever. You can be presented with all of the historical, geographical and archeological proof that currently exists to support what's in the Bible (and there is more than you might think), but it really comes down to faith. Either you believe it with your heart or you don't. (Same thing, by the way, is true with science. It's obvious that no one was around to experience the "big bang", thus proponents must form their belief on historical/geographical/archeological evidence and ultimately put their faith in that).  So the bottom line is really this:  in which one does your faith lie? One of the first scriptures I remember reading that really stuck in my mind is John 20:29, and comes directly from the mouth of Jesus: "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed".

With that said, and with what I believe, I needed to explore what the Bible says about marriage and same sex relationships to determine what is right. (OK, I know this may cause some of you to want to stop reading....but please continue! You actually might find this interesting!) The Bible, after all, makes it pretty clear that God divinely influenced the human authors of the scriptures in such a way that they wrote what He wanted (2 Timothy 16:17, 1 Corinthians 2:12-13, 2 Peter 1:21 - I'll let you look them up!). Since it's my belief that He created me, I'm obligated to believe what He wrote and to follow His rules. All of His rules, whether I like them or not!  As result, I don't believe I/we have the right to pick and choose what in the Bible to believe. We're putting ourselves above God if we do that. It's all or nothing. Sure some of it doesn't make sense to us. Not everything in it is supposed to, at least right away (Romans 11:33, Jeremiah 33:3).

But unless you read the entire Bible, and preferable more than once, a lot of it won't.  It's no different than picking up any book and reading chapter 11, chapter 6, and then chapter 18.  A lot of what you read won't make sense because you don't have the knowledge or scope of what happened in the prior chapters. That frequently happens with people who randomly pick out a single scripture. They'll form an opinion on it without getting the facts around it. A lot of people fall into the trap of  believing what they think the Bible says (or hopes it says) rather than what it actually does say. Plus we need to remember that if God created us, He can do whatever He wants! He's not obligated to tell us why He does everything He does. Just like our parents. When we were kids they didn't always tell us why they disciplined us or why they had us do things that we didn't understand at the time.  But looking back now, we understand a lot of it. Similarly, as God's children, I think they'll be a time in the future where we'll look back and better understand things that God is doing now.  I can do that now, actually.

Marriage

As far as "marriage" goes, the actual word is never used in the Bible, but there are several references to what it means. But because of time and space, I'll just focus on the first example God gave us:  His original creations....Adam and Eve.  Clearly a man and a woman, and one of each. The best scripture to emphasize that is Matthew 19:4-6, which says, from Jesus' own mouth: "And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female,  and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh." Jesus, by the way, is actually quoting Genesis 2:23-24 here. Another good scripture to check out is Ephesians 5:22-33. Sure, there are instances in the Bible where people had multiple wives (notably David and Solomon), but it's clear that wasn't God's original intention. But He did let it happen, although both David and Solomon paid the consequences several times because of it. Sometimes we have to learn the hard way, which is why God occasionally lets us "reap what we sow" (Galatians 6:7 - "Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows"). But the Bible doesn't really say why God let polygamy happen in those days. Some speculation includes the fact that there were many more women then men in those days, partly because of the great loss of life among men because of the many deadly wars that occurred during that time.  Unlike now, it was difficult for unmarried women to provide for themselves back then as most were uneducated and relied on male figures for support.  But it's not known for sure why.

Same Sex Relations

As far as same sex couples go, the Bible doesn't specifically mention same sex marriage either, but the above scriptures (Matthew 19:4-6 and Genesis 2:23-24) are pretty good indications of God's intentions....."male and female". Although there are references to multiple wives, as mentioned earlier, the Bible gives no examples of same sex couples. Where the Bible is very clear, however, is in its stance on sexual immorality, which includes, but is not exclusive to homosexuality.  Like it or not, the Bible consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). The fact it does so in both the Old Testament and New Testament should not be overlooked. It's important to note that homosexuality is not the only sin involving sexual immorality. Adultery and fornication, are just a couple of others that are mentioned (1 Corinthians 6:9).

The Bible also seems to indicate that God does not create a person with homosexual desires. Romans 1:26-27 tells us that people become homosexuals because of sin and ultimately because of their own choice. Admittedly, this doesn't make complete sense or even seem fair. But God created us, thus has the right to do what He wants, and has His own reasons for doing what He does, which someday I believe He will reveal to us. Again, that's where faith comes in (Hebrews 11:1 - "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen")!  A person may be born with a greater susceptibility to homosexuality, just as some people are born with a tendency (upbringing, life experiences, etc) to violence and other sins. That does not excuse the person’s choosing to sin by giving in to those sinful desires. For example, if a person is born with a greater susceptibility to anger/rage, that doesn't make it right for him to give into those desires. In my case, as a kid I grew up experiencing a person who regularly displayed anger and even rage while driving. Even though I told myself that I would never let that happen when I got older, I can still feel those same urges inside of me, and I have to fight them all of the time. Just because I was exposed to that behavior as a kid and thus am susceptible to them as an adult, there's no excuse if I let it happen. It's still a sin that requires repentance. But with God's help and a strong desire on my part, it's a sin that I can fight and overcome.

Romans 1:28-31 also indicates that when people continue in sin (any sin) and unbelief, God “gives them over” to even more wicked and depraved sin in order to show them the futility and hopelessness of life apart from God.

That said, the Bible also does NOT describe homosexuality as a “greater” sin than any other. All sin is offensive to God. Homosexuality is just one of the many things listed in the Bible (see 1 Corinthians 6:9-10) that will keep a person from a close relationship with God (and NOT an automatic sentence to hell). According to the Bible, God’s forgiveness is just as available to a homosexual as it is to an adulterer, idol worshiper, murderer, thief, etc.  So if you ever see a sign that says "God hates homosexuals" or that "Homosexuals will burn in hell",  ignore them.  Those people are misinformed radicals. God hates the sin, but not the sinner (1 John 4:8, Romans 5:8, John 3:16). Why do you think God allowed His only son to experience such a horrible death on the cross?  The personal, trusting, faith-filled, grateful relationship each of us have been asked to have with Jesus (John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10, 1John 4:9, John 6:40, Acts 4:12) is what ultimately determines our fate. But that's a topic for another blog!  Proverbs 6:16-19 actually lists the seven things God hates, in case you're interested. Although homosexuality isn't one of them, there's no denying that the Bible, hence God, doesn't approve of it.

Conclusion

As a result,  if someone is homosexual, or same sex couples want to live together, have a relationship together, or even commit their lives to each other, that's no business of mine. That's between them and God.  It would never stop me from being friends or associating with them. But if I'm asked to legally put same sex marriage on equal terms with traditional marriage, I simply can't for the above reasons. That's really the bottom line. So because that's the stance I (and others) choose to take, please don't tell me/us that I/we hate homosexuals. It's simply not true! To me, they are two separate issues. And I think the fact that many pro-same sex marriage supporters assume the latter if someone supports the former is a mistake they make.

In Matthew 12:30, Jesus warns us, "He who is not with Me is against Me....". Believing and following everything in the Bible isn't easy. But I suppose more people would be doing so if it was.  Anyhow, whether you agree or disagree with what you just read, I hope it''ll give you something to think about. At the very least, you should have a better understanding why people like me feel the way we do.