My 'Star Trek'

I don't recall my first voyage with the crew of the Enterprise. But, I can tell you it makes me think of my grandfather.

My best guess is I first saw "Star Trek," Gene Roddenberry's "Wagon Train" to the stars as it was once called, on the old WKCH-43 when it was an independent station. This was back in the days, for any kiddos out there, when we only got four channels -- five on a clear day.

But I vividly remember my grandfather bringing home a rented copy of "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock" when my uncle Jeff bought his first VCR. Mom told me later that "Star Trek" was one of two TV series that Papaw wouldn't let anyone interrupt. (The other was "Gunsmoke.")

As I got older, I began to watch the original series in syndication, captivated by the adventure, intrigued by space (a passion that endures), and drawn to the one thing that to me makes "Star Trek" stand out from its other incarnations and competitors -- the palpable chemistry between Capt. James T. Kirk (William Shatner), Mr. Spock (Leonard Nimoy), and Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy (DeForest Kelley). Theirs felt like a real friendship. They felt -- and feel -- like real people.

My best buddy Matthew Shelton introduced me to "Star Trek: The Next Generation" when we were of middle school age. And we saw every film from "Star Trek V" forward in the theater together. (I'm not getting into J.J. Abrams tonight.)

I liked "TNG," especially the character Data, but eventually stopped watching the series. My grandfather and I watched the premiere of "Deep Space Nine," and liked it well enough, but neither of us stuck with it. (I'm trying, however slowly, to remedy that via Netflix.) "Voyager" did nothing for me (well, other than Jeri Ryan), and I tried my best to like "Enterprise" -- 'cause of its premise and 'cause I liked Scott Bakula in "Quantum Leap" -- but I couldn't get into it, either.

No, there was something special about that original series. I'm not going to get into the "which show is better" debate. That's subjective. But this is my trek, after all.

Going back more than a quarter century ago, I bought a few episodes on VHS, devoured several of the Pocket Books novels, even bought an Enterprise technical manual.

When I got old enough to "get" it, I finally discovered that I was captivated not only by the characters, but by Roddenberry's vision of the future -- a hopeful one, an exciting one.

I took a long break from the franchise for whatever reason until Shelton started buying the movies on DVD. We laughed our way through "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" (I still can't believe Robert Wise directed that train wreck), and seemed to enjoy the even-numbered films best. A local station began airing remastered episodes in 2008 or so, and I started watching it again. A few years later, I bought the Blu-ray set that contains your choice of watching the original episode as it aired or enhanced with technology not available in the mid-1960s. It's pretty cool. I also bought the animated series. It's OK.

Shelton and I even went on a whirlwind weekend trip to New York and back to see "Shatner's World" in 2012. I marveled that a man his age could stand up there and tell tales, and do it well, alone, for an hour and a half.

Today is the 50th anniversary of "Star Trek." In a little while, I'll watch  "The Man Trap" just as it aired on Thursday, Sept. 8, 1966, on NBC. If I can't fall asleep, I might watch another episode.

My friend Bill Householder is the biggest Trekkie I know. (He shared his thoughts today, too.) He and I are going to be blogging about the series in the coming weeks, discussing our favorite episodes, maybe even doing a "live chat" conversation, I don't know.

What I do know is that "Star Trek" endures. Its ethos, quite relevant in the mid-20th century, are still relevant today. Among many, many other things, its vision of cooperation, of human beings finally putting aside their differences to explore the universe is as fantastic a future as we can hope to create.

It seems bleak now, what with everyone divided over everything, NASA a shell of its former self, and few dreamers daring to dream.

But dream they will, and dream Gene Roddenberry did, and we're better off for it, entertained, enlightened, uplifted. Fifty years later, "Star Trek" and its legions of fans continue to boldly go...

Well, you know where...

Two films

Something old, something new. We'll start with the latter.

Ventured into a mass of humanity at Regal's Pinnacle Theater at Turkey Creek last night. Big crowd. Bright lights.

I went to see "Star Trek," the new take on the old franchise, a film I have been reluctant to screen. I didn't care much for any of the later incarnations of Gene Roddenberry's space opera, but I loved the original. For William Shatner, of course, and Leonard Nimoy, and DeForest Kelley, and the ties between their respective characters. I liked its vision for the future and, yes, its Cold War undertones.

Thus my initially tepid response to this film. I get tired of remakes. Makes me wonder if anybody has an original idea anymore or whether Hollywood is just too cheap to pay writers. And, also, I heard about this film's revisionism. My friend Dewayne Lawson's first words were, "It changes everything."

Well, it does, and I'll leave the particulars to the wind, in case you go see it. But, I liked it. Its take on the origin of how the crew of the Enterprise assemble and evolve is imaginative. It is exciting, face-paced, true enough to "Trek" to satisfy the old guard, avant-garde enough to bring in the kids. And, it was good to see old friend Nimoy again. And, Bruce Greenwood plays one cool Captain Pike.

About halfway through the movie, I remembered why I loved the old show, and also why I didn't much care for its successors. To me, the best thing about "Star Trek" is its interplay between James T. Kirk, Mr. Spock and Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy. Theirs is a troika that feels real, a friendship that isn't fake, a bond that can't be broken.

It was good to see them again, even if played by younger and unfamiliar actors, and fly at warp speed together for a couple of hours. If this is the benchmark by which future films would be judged, here's hoping a new "Star Trek" franchise lives long and prospers, indeed.

OK, now to something old.

A few weeks ago, I watched "To Kill a Mockingbird," the 1962 classic based on the brilliant Harper Lee novel. I've waxed poetically about the film before, so I mention it now only to say that I was struck again by its excellent screenplay, written by Horton Foote. (I've often said it's the only movie that might be better than the book.)

So I did a little digging and found a few other movies with which Foote was involved. One, "Tender Mercies," stood out, because it stars a favorite actor -- Robert Duvall.

Its title sounds like a chick flick, but "Tender Mercies" is basically a cowboy picture about an alcoholic, washed up country singer named Mac (Duvall) who wakes up one morning at a tiny gas station/motel in a small Texas town. It is owned and operated by a woman named Rosa Lee (Tess Harper) whose husband was killed in Vietnam. She has a little boy named Sonny. She's a little lonely.

Mac sobers up, marries Rosa Lee, forms a bond with Sonny. And he tries to reconnect with his daughter Sue Anne (Ellen Barkin). But, she's heavily guarded by Mac's ex-wife, country superstar Dixie Scott (Betty Buckley). I won't give away too much, but let's just say that Mac starts singing again, puts his life back together, and loses one treasure just as he finds another.

I like Texas stories. Always have. Larry McMurtry. "The Last Picture Show." LBJ.

(I'm currently reading "The Lone Star," a book about former Texas governor John Connally. If the name doesn't ring a bell, he's the other guy who was shot in the limo when JFK was killed in Dallas.)

There's just something about the flat, desolate Lone Star landscape strikes a chord. Plus, Duvall did his own singing. Which wasn't bad.

There you have it. Two films. One from 1982, the other from last week.

Both are good. Be sure and see them.