Starship shows are back!

--------SPOILER ALERT--------

This season, the oft-delayed "Star Trek Discovery" finally premiered. Also, Seth MacFarlane introduced a show called "The Orville." Comparing these shows would be like comparing apples and oranges, but both shows are entertaining and successful, and well worth watching. Both shows have also been picked up for a second season.

First, "Star Trek Discovery." There had been a lot of chaos prior to the premiere date, with showrunner Bryan Fuller leaving, and the numerous delays. It was originally supposed to premiere in January 2017, but was pushed back multiple times to September 2017. This is different from any other Star Trek show. As the creators said, they needed a "Star Trek show for the post-Sopranos era of television."

The show is serialized and not as episodic, which works well here. Also, I like the opening credits, which uses images and blueprints as opposed to the ship flying through space through nebulas and asteroid belts. Also, there is no cheesy pop song during the credits, like the Show Which Will Not Be Named.

First of all, because this is on a pay-per-view platform (CBS charges $6 per month to subscribe to All Access with commercials, $10 without), the budget is huge, about $8 to $9 million per episode. That's more than a lot of movies. You can see it on screen, because the effects are movie-quality stunning. The ship uses an experimental "spore drive," which transports the ship to other parts of the universe instantaneously. The hull is made up of three concentric circles. When the drive is activated, the circles spin in opposite directions, the ship rotates fully, and then vanishes. Trust me, this looks cooler than it sounds.

Also, thanks to the pay-per-view format, there are no standards-and-practices requirements. The producers promise to keep things at a PG-13 level, and promise that there won't be any explicit sex scenes (save that for the fan fiction), but the violence is a little more bloody, and they went where no Star Trek movie or show has gone before by using the f-bomb. The word "shit" was used a few times in Star Trek IV, Generations (by Data with his newly activated emotion chip, and he said it for a good reason), and twice by Lily in First Contact (but she was from the late 21st century). Even though I never use the f-word (snicker), I am not offended by it. However, I don't buy its use in this show, because, based on what Spock said about the use of "colorful metaphors" in the 20th century in Star Trek IV, I thought cursing was no longer a "thing" by the 23rd century.

Okay, you are probably wondering what this show is about. It takes place 10 years before the timeline of the original series with Kirk and Spock. Michael Burnham (Sonequa Martin-Green) is a human raised by Spock's parents, Sarek and Amanda, on Vulcan. She is the first Starfleet officer to be charged with mutiny. She ends up on the Discovery while she is being transported between prisons, which is not coincidental.

Starfleet is at war with the Klingons, who are trying to unify and conquer the galaxy, because that is what Klingons like to do. However, the Klingons are given some depth and not portrayed as purely evil. They have clear motivations and goals, and it seems like they are at war with the Federation because they are simply in the way of their goal.

Other characters are first officer Saru, who is able to sense the coming of death, bright-eyed cadet Sylvia Tilly, and captain Gabriel Lorca, played by Jason Isaacs, who most of us know as Lucius Malfoy from the Harry Potter movies. He is a brilliant tactician, but he cares about his crew, like any good captain. However, they make it rather obvious that he has been out in space and in the heat of battle too long. (watch the last two episodes to learn more about this character's motivations).

Overall, this is a very good show, and I will continue to watch it. My only complaints are that the show tries too hard to be gritty sometimes, and is visually too similar to the new Star Trek reboot movies. Also, even though this show takes place 10 years before the original series, the technology is advanced, using touch screens and holographic communication. If they were going for continuity, the bridge would be painted in bright colors and have lots of beeping noises and blinking lights. However, I don't think they are going for continuity, and as Nicholas Meyer (who is on the writing staff for this show) said, every show or movie, regardless of when it takes place, is a product of the date it was released.

Finally, the show understandably gave the Klingons a makeover. It may have been a bit too drastic, because they are now bald-headed and look almost reptilian. For those of you who remember the 1980s, they look a lot like Grig from "The Last Starfighter." At least they are not a bunch of guys with tan makeup and mustaches.

Now, on to "The Orville." I had no idea this show even existed until this past summer (2017), and I thought it was going to be an all-out spoof of Star Trek, which I thought (and still think) is a terrible idea. It's not even a straight-ahead comedy like the great movie "Galaxy Quest." It still has plenty of laughs. MacFarlane's motivation to create this show was that he thought too much of today's sci-fi is dark and dystopian, and he wanted a bright, fun and optimistic view of the future, especially after he found out that "Discovery" was going to be dark and gritty.

The show takes place on a mid-size vessel (The Chevy Malibu of starships?) MacFarlane also stars in the show as captain Ed Mercer, who caught his then wife, Kelly, in bed with a blue-skinned alien a year before the show takes place. As luck would have it, Kelly ends up being Ed's second-in-command, but they develop a friendship and good working relationship. Other characters include a woman, who looks like she is 90 pounds soaking wet, with enough strength to knock down a metal door with her bare hands, and Isaac, an artificial lifeform who believes most species are inferior to his.

This is similar in tone and structure to the original Star Trek series, because the show introduces characters, and brings up issues like sexual mutilation, and how a true democracy functions where every single citizen has a say. There are just enough changes to this show to keep Fox from getting sued - the governing body is called the Union instead of the Federation, plasma torpedoes instead of photon torpedoes, etc. The effects aren't as detailed as "Discovery," but are still very good. They put a lot of money and effort into the show. A lot of writers and directors from Star Trek shows were poached for this show like Brannon Braga, and Jonathan Frakes (as a director). Jon Favreau, who directed "Iron Man," helmed the first episode of the series.

Although "Star Trek Discovery" is sprinkled with a fair bit of humor (especially the recent episodes with Rainn Wilson as intergalactic con man Harcourt Fenton "Harry" Mudd), "The Orville" tries for laughs much more often. The problem is, you have to like MacFarlane's sense of humor. Remember, this was the guy who sang "We Saw Your Boobs" (NSFW) at the Oscars. However, his jokes are greatly toned down compared to his animated shows, and, in my opinion, most of the jokes are downright funny. My favorite so far is when the crew is trying to teach Isaac how practical jokes work. They put "Mr. Potato" pieces on his head (He doesn't use his "eyes" to see, they are just there for aesthetic reasons). He got his revenge on the crew member by amputating his leg while he was sleeping. Don't worry, everyone was fine in the end.

So what is the verdict? Again, these shows are very different in tone and intent, so it's like comparing
apples and oranges. This is close, because both shows have great effects, good characters, and good acting. I will keep watching both shows. "Discovery" is better written and thought out as a single coherent story, while "The Orville" is episodic. However, "The Orville" benefits from its storylines that bring up moral debates, and its sense of humor. I will give "The Orville" the edge, because you have to pay $6-$10 per month for CBS All Access in order to watch "Discovery." However, in you don't like "Family Guy" or "American Dad," you probably won't like "The Orville."

"Wonder Woman" review: The DCEU is finally getting it together!

I was excited to see this after the rave reviews it received from critics and moviegoers alike. This was also a pleasant surprise after the mediocrity, like "Man of Steel" and "Dawn of Justice" that DC was churning out. Part of that was due to director Zack Snyder, who is up there with Michael Bay and Joel Schumacher on my list of hack directors, although I have to admit the "Dawn of the Dead" remake was good fun. I think the DC higher-ups are trying to get rid of Snyder, but more on that later.

The movie starts on an island full of Amazons, a bunch of women who can kick pretty much anyone's ass. A wayward World War I pilot crash lands near the island and is rescued by the Amazons. Diana, princess of the Amazons, wishes to go with the pilot and end the war, who she thinks was caused by her evil half-brother Ares.

The movie plays out as a good period piece, and makes a statement about the treatment and strength of women without shoving the point down viewers' throats. Also, it's about time a female superhero gets to lead a movie, instead of getting shoved into the background, like Black Widow.

Also, the movie is well-paced, with a good balance of character development and action. The action scenes are very entertaining and have great effects and fight choreography. The Lasso of Truth is especially cool. Director Patty Jenkins, who also helmed "Monster," is a very competent director, considering her lack of experience in this genre.

If it wasn't for a certain movie sequel featuring a CGI raccoon, a baby tree and Stallone, this would have been the best comic book/superhero adaptation of the year.

Also, Gal Gadot, even though she was Miss Israel 2004, has limited acting experience. However, she is cast well for this iconic role. Her statuesque looks and decent acting make her a good choice for Wonder Woman.

A sequel, which will once again feature Gadot in the starring role and Jenkins as the director, is slated for summer 2019.

This flick was unsurprisingly one of the top hits of the year, making more than $410 million in the U.S. (second only to the Beauty and the Beast live-action remake) and more than $800 million worldwide. Also, its quality puts it on par with the Marvel movies. However, the DCEU has a long way to go before it can go head to head with the Marvel Cinematic universe, which is essentially a machine that turns out nothing but good, entertaining popcorn movies. There hasn't been a bad Marvel movie yet. Most of them are good, some of them are great.

My only gripe is I wish that they would havc explained when and where Diana picked up the name Wonder Woman. Maybe that will be addressed in the sequel.

As always, the DCEU is trying to play catch-up. In a couple of weeks (November 2017) the Justice League movie hits theaters. This movie features Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Cyborg and The Flash. I also think there is a pretty good chance that a certain Man of Steel will return to fight with the League. Zack Snyder was directing the movie and will be credited as the director. Earlier this year, Snyder "left" the project after his daughter committed suicide, and the overworked Joss Whedon was hired to direct the reshoots and wrap up the film.

Personally, I think Snyder leaving was no accident. With "Dawn of Justice" being a critical and box office disappointment, I think it might have been the studio's intention to get rid of Snyder, since this is the most important film by far in the DCEU. You can already see Whedon's influence in the trailers for the film. The newest trailers, presumably overseen by Whedon, actually make sense and give you some idea of the story, as opposed to the first trailers, which resembled a music video, complete with loud music and slice-and-dice editing.

Anyway, pardon my digression. The bottom line is Wonder Woman is a damn good movie that fans and non-fans will like. (My wife also enjoyed this movie).

Have the Eagles found their perfect QB?

Last season, the Eagles were able to trade up in the draft to take QB Carson Wentz, a 6'5" passer from North Dakota State. Although his first season was a little shaky, the Birds finished with a mediocre, but not horrible, 7-9 season. This year, they are 6-1 out of the gate, and much of that is due to Wentz's incredible play. Although he didn't have crazy high numbers last week, this is one of the best games I've ever seen from any Eagles quarterback (and he is in good company with Randall Cunningham and Donovan McNabb). Here are some of the reasons Wentz is the perfect player for the Eagles and Philly.

1. He is an accurate passer.

Most of his passes are thrown with pinpoint accuracy. He knows how to put balls in the receivers' hands, and doesn't throw too many interceptions. The only times he seems to be off the mark is when there is a miscommunication between the QB and receiver in the huddle.

2. He is mobile.

For a lanky 6'5" guy, he really can move. He seems to know when he is out of options and has to keep the ball. The play where there was a pile of players almost certainly looked like a sack, but Wentz managed to wriggle out of the pile of large humans and rush for 17 yards. That was one of the most amazing plays I have ever seen. (link courtesy of NFL)

3. He has field awareness.

I think the most important skill for a QB to have at any level is being able to see the big picture. Wentz does this very well. He knows when his receivers are open, when they aren't, and how the defense is lined up. He isn't afraid to call an audible if he doesn't like what he sees.

4. He is tough and hardworking.

The most important skill for an athlete to have in Philadelphia is to be tough and play your heart out. More than 20 years on, people still hate on Ricky Watters after the "For Who, For What" game, and rightfully so. This town has no place for prima donnas who care more about their own stats than their team. Wentz will usually slide on a run like a QB is supposed to do, but he isn't afraid to take a hit to get a first down or extra yard. Also, he can take a hit and get back up. In Sunday's game, he was slammed to the turf. The very next play, he threw a bomb down the field, setting up a touchdown. (sorry, no clip yet).The commentators said he was "North Dakota Tough," but I am going to call him "Philly Tough." Philadelphia is a proud, working-class town, and they want athletes that don't quit and give their all on every play. That is why some of the names mentioned most in Eagles lore are Reggie White, "Concrete Charlie" Bednarik, and the incomparable Brian Dawkins.

5. His O-line protects him.

Even the best quarterbacks struggle if the offensive line can't block and the QB has no time to throw the ball. After some struggles in the first couple of games, the line has jelled as a unit and are doing a good job protecting their quarterback. Jason Peters' injury will hurt the line, but I am sure Vaitai (I'm not even going to attempt to spell the man's first name) will become accustomed to his new role after a week of practice.

6. He has some good receivers who know how to make plays.

One of the reasons the Eagles haven't been able to win a big game is the lack of playmaking receivers. Todd Pinkston? James Thrash? This season has seen a lot of production from free agency acquisition Alshon Jeffery, and some catches from Torrey Smith. Third-year man Nelson Agholor seems to have found his place as a great slot receiver.

7. Wow! A running game!

Last season, the Eagles were very pass-heavy. This is one of the reasons Wentz struggled a bit. It looked like more of the same early this season, as the offense remained out of balance. However, during the win over the Giants in Week 3, the running game came to life, led by LeGarrette Blount, with lots of help from Wendell Smallwood. Blount is a classic (I hate this cliche) downhill runner who can burst through the line. A strong running game takes pressure off the QB and balances the offense.

8. He has a good relationship with the players and coaches.

His fellow players seem to think Wentz is a nice guy. He doesn't hesitate to congratulate his teammates after a big play or score. He has also earned respect from the coaching staff. Doug Pederson seems like a laid-back "players' coach" and he has even managed to get some of his schemes from North Dakota State into the playbook. One of them was even used on a scoring play.

Now that I wrote this, I have probably jinxed him. Watch him start to suck or get hurt next week. Just don't hold me responsible.

Everything you wanted to know about Optune (but were afraid to ask)

Now that I am back on Facebook (yay!) A few people have been interested in Optune, the new treatment I am undergoing. Here are a few questions answered about this fascinating device. In the interest of education and passing on what I am learning, I am using some information from the patient packet to complete this. I am having a bit of trouble getting pictures on here, but I hope to put them here eventually.

What is Optune?
Optune is a treatment for glioblastoma patients 22 years or older. Optune delivers electric fields (called TTFields) that stop cancer cells from dividing and also destroying some cancer cells. It has been proven that, in conjunction with chemotherapy like Temodar, it has extended survival rates for GBM patients.

What does it look like?
The unit itself is in a small bag that can go over the shoulder, or can be carried hand-held. There is also a backpack available to carry the device.It is connected to four arrays that adhere to the scalp. It can be powered by electricity via a wall plug (ideal for sleeping or work), or with lithium-ion batteries for portability. The unit comes with four batteries, and a charger that holds three of them.

Does it hurt to wear it?
No, if it is applied correctly. The only thing I feel is a small amount of warmth from the arrays.

How do you put it on? 
First, your scalp needs to be completely shaved. An electric razor is included that seems to work well. Next, you need to swab your scalp with isopropyl alcohol. Then, you apply the four arrays. The location and placement of the arrays depends on the location of the tumor and the size of the patient's head. This process needs to be repeated with new arrays every 2-4 days depending on hair growth.

Are there any side effects?
Not really. Some patients have complained about sores and irritation on the scalp, and that is usually caused by too much hair on the scalp. If you shave your head and replace the arrays regularly, you should be able to avoid this. Luckily, I have one of the most anal caregivers you can possibly have.

How often are you supposed to wear it?
The FDA recommends 18 hours per day minimum. Optimum is 22 hours per day. You are supposed to sleep with the device on. Aside from the first night, I have had few problems sleeping with it, even while using it with a CPAP (for sleep apnea).

Can you wear something over the arrays?
Yes, you can wear a breathable wig or hat over the arrays.

Can it get wet?
No, you should take it off if it rains, and take it off or use a shower cap when bathing.

Can you talk on a cell phone while using Optune?
Yes. There have been no reported problems related to using the Optune device with a cell phone.

Does insurance cover Optune?
Although the device is approved by the FDA, the actual cost of the device and supplies is very high. The supplier itself provides financial support, and we were lucky enough that our medical insurance (through Penn State) approved it right away. Jaci thinks it is because my file was "flagged" by the insurance company because they did not approve a head CT back in January, and we could sue them if we wanted to.

Can Optune be used for other types of cancer?
As of now, it is used exclusively for GBM. They are supposedly working on adapting Optune to treat lung cancer, using an array that adheres to the chest.

The website Optune.com also provides a lot of great information and some useful testimonial videos.

Any other questions, please ask!

Hurricane Harvey: Helpers and Non-Helpers

The largest and costliest natural disaster in American history is still taking place as Harvey tears through the U.S. Like any disaster, this is bringing out the best and worst in people. Once again, I will take the advice of Fred Rogers and identify the helpers.

All rescuers and emergency workers: Self-explanatory. I would like to single out Houston police officer Steve Perez, who was swept away by floodwaters on his way to work.

The bakers at El Bolillo: Mexican bakers were trapped in their bakery, so, to keep themselves occupied, they baked loaves of bread for two days to feed flood victims. As one Facebook user said, "These people are as sweet as their bread."

Generous celebrities: Sandra Bullock gave $1 million to flood victims. Leonardo DiCaprio donated $1 million. Ellen DeGeneres donated $1 million. Miley Cyrus donated $500,000. Kevin Hart donated $50K and rallied other celebrities to donate to hurricane victims. Dwayne Johnson also pledged $50K. DJ Khaled, Nicki Minaj, J-Lo and A-Rod each pledged $25K. Houston Texans player J.J. Watt started a fund for hurricane victims. His goal was to raise $2 million, and so far, he has raised more than $10 million.

Jim McIngvale: This owner of a chain of furniture stores opened up several of his locations as shelters, and allowed people to sleep on the brand new furniture he was selling.

Shelter workers: Many people are volunteering their time to give people a place to stay after their homes have been flooded or destroyed.

The jury is still out...

President Trump: I give him credit for acting somewhat presidential during his visit to Texas, and his personal donation of $1 million. I think he should have met with some of the victims, although he gave the valid excuse that he didn't want to interfere with rescue operations, although I think the real reason is that Melania didn't want to get her designer shoes muddy.

Tom Llamas: This ABC reporter snitched to the police on looters entering a supermarket to police and was savaged on social media. Some argue that the people were starving and needed food, and others argued that the looters were breaking the law. I think this needs to be further investigated, and questions should be asked like "Did these people have easy access to food and shelter," and "Was this enough of an emergency to allow the taking of items from a business?"

Non-Helpers:

Joel Osteen: This piece of subhuman slime, who claims to be a good Christian, did not let flood victims stay in his 20,000 seat megachurch at first. He didn't let people in until he got bad press and people began to throw shade on him through social media. He, along with the equally contemptible Creflo Dollar, practices the so-called "prosperity theology," which states that good, pious Christians will be rewarded with material gain. So, according to this theory, are poor people bad Christians?

Looters: People should not use a natural disaster to take people's belongings.

Price gougers: $5 for a bottle of water. Up to $99 for a case. $10 per gallon for gas. It takes a true a-hole to use a natural disaster for financial gain.

Chris Christie: The New Jersey governor lambasted Texas senator Ted Cruz for asking for billions in disaster funding after voting against funding for East Coast states after superstorm Sandy. I am no fan of Ted Cruz, but this criticism is coming from a guy who deliberately closed on-ramps to the George Washington Bridge as an act of revenge, and has a lower approval rating than Trump.

Great article on what NOT to do as a journalist/copy editor, health update

I remember seeing this when I worked at the Reading Eagle in 1997, and this was passed around to newspaper employees and J-school students across the country as a cautionary tale. It concerns putting "joke" text or content in the story, with the intent of replacing it later with real copy. The difference with this was that some obscene, libelous information made it to print and was distributed throughout the small, conservative community of Gallatin, Tenn.

Many of us have put in joke headlines or copy before (I personally am not commenting), but this shows what could happen. The paper had to pay $950,000 to the young man who was libeled. The reporter never worked in journalism again, and the editor was suspended for three days.

Here is a great, detailed account of the parties involved, what happened in the newsroom that night, and the fallout from the incident. (language may be NSFW).


Health update: All good! It has been 5 months since my DX. The lump on my head has completely drained and is almost healed. Also, I am still fortunate to be walking, talking and volunteering with our church family.

Also, if anyone is interested in getting into a survivor pool (where you pick a winning team to move on, and the last one standing wins), go to this site. Entry fee is $5.

Crazy day at Pittsburgh

I will start with Saturday (7/30), which turned out to be a disaster. First of all, the power went out, so we couldn't watch TV and the boys couldn't use their electronics, so, of course, they got bored and fought with each other. Secondly, a bat visited our house that same morning, and was hanging on the lamp on the stairs. Luckily, Fred was able to come over and shoo the bat out a nearby window. Finally, I woke up with a lump on the top of my head near my incision. We went to the ER at Mount Nittany. After a head CT, the doctor wasn't too concerned and thought it was fluid. They still called the neuroseurgon at Forbes, and they recommended I come in, but on an outpatient basis. We set up an appointment for Tuesday (8/1) morning at 9:45.

Tuesday comes, and we take the 2 1/2 hour drive to Pittsburgh. I look at the GPS and the arrival time shifts from 9:45 to 10:00 to 10:15. It turns out one tractor trailer rear-ended another truck. There was a fatality and a fuel spill, and Route 22, the road we take to Pittsburgh, was completely closed. We kept trying to get back on the road, but it was closed at every intersection. We ended up on back roads. We were stressed because we got no cell signal, and weren't able to use the GPS or call the hospital. We finally get to Route 30, another major highway that goes to Pittsburgh, and we called and told them we would be a full hour late. They were nice enough to tell us that they knew we were driving a long distance, and they will see us when we get there. So, we finally get there.

The nurse and the doctor see us. Dr. Julian, the neurosurgeon who performed my brain resection, was fearful that the tumor expanded, causing the lump. He wanted me to get an MRI. Initially, they wanted me to come back next week. However, Dr. Julian and the staff sucessfully got a stat order on the MRI so I could get it done on the same day and not take the drive next week.

I got more and more nervous and stressed as I waited 2 hours for the MRI, got butchered by nurses who stuck me 4 times to get an IV in (I am needle-shy), and after the MRI, I had to wait another 30-plus minutes for Dr. Julian to get to the other hospital and call us with a recommendation.

Finally, the radiologist comes out and said Dr. Julian called, it was nothing urgent and we could go home. At that point, all of the stress went out of my body like a balloon. I was nearly hyperventilating and Jaci was crying. Jaci called Sandy, and she was crying. After a celebratory dinner, we returned home.

Dr. Julien was nice enough to call us on Wednesday, and told us that lumps like this can show up while recovering from radiation treatment, it is harmless, and it will go away on its own. He also said I am doing really well and should seek out trials and treatments while I am walking and talking.

Our next steps are for me to get fitted with the Optune device, which creates low-intensity electric fields through a device attached to my head. Also, later this month, we travel to Lancaster General Hospital, Jaci's former employer, to consult with a brain navigator, and an oncologist who specializes in brain cancer. As always, I will keep you updated.