Is Science Fiction ready for Virtual Reality?

A week or so ago,  Facebook acquired Oculus  and potentially changed the direction of personal entertainment. Oculus, in case you didn’t know, is a small virtual reality company in California that has created an affordable  headset (rift) that actually works.  With Facebook’s billions backing them now, developers should take notice and begin banging out code for this new device. My hope is that gamers won’t be the only target. Surely, movie makers will see the potential.  Perhaps some sort of hybrid experience that incorporates elements of both will evolve; a primitive holodeck that allows the users to immerse themselves in the action. Think about what a rush that would be.

It has taken a long time for the technology to catch up with the concept of VR. Back in the mid-nineties I bought a VR headset from a now defunct computer chain. It was big and heavy; looked like Darth Vader’s helmet. I brought it home and took two days to set it up. The CPU in my computer was top of the line at the time. However, it was so under powered that the latency caused me to experience motion sickness after about five minutes of use, and the resolution was terrible. From everything I have read the people at Oculus have over come these obstacles.

Science fiction fans would gladly pay to become a part of the action. I know I would. Think about sitting on the deck of the Enterprise laying in coordinates to Altair five. Hell, it gives me goose bumps.

J.J.Abrams or Trekkers: Who Owns the Star Trek Franchise?

J.J.Abrams is a great Director, Producer, Screenwriter……..yada, yada, yada. OK, enough with the wikibullshit. He did a good job with his first Trek movie, not great, good. Lost was a great TV show in the beginning that lost (pun intended) its appeal as the years went by, culminating in a big disappointing finale. I felt like kicking in the screen when it turned out they were dead all along. What crap!………. OK, I’ve calmed down now.

I understand that Mr. Abrams wants to put his own brand on the Trek franchise. This is understandable; he is an artist, and that’s what they do. However, I think he is veering too far from the original Roddenberry concept.

For example, the Kirk character, in the first movie, is portrayed as  more of a reckless, seat of the pants, lucky idiot than the original thoughtful tactician like in Balance of Terror. Of course, the opening scene with Juvenal delinquent Kirk running from the law in his step fathers five hundred year old corvette, while listening to an equally old version of the Beastie Boys Sabotage is very (sarcasm) Trek worthy. Maybe you should have titled the movie Star Trek: Rebel without an Enterprise; your Jim Kirk is more like Jim Stark. By the way,  I like the Beasties, its just they have their place in my iPod, not in my Trek movie. Come on, I know you have to appeal to the 13-18 year old crowd. But, at the dignity of an institution that belongs to the fans.This brings me to the point of my rant.

Does Star Trek belong to people that put up big bucks and butcher a great piece of science fiction history or does Star Trek belong to the people that signed petitions, and fought to keep it on the air when network suits wanted to cancel it because it was too intellectual?  Their reasoning: viewers are too stupid to follow a story line more complicated than Lost in Space.  When Gene Roddenberry died it seems the Star Trek philosophy died with him. The Next Generation followed his vision because he was alive during most of production. Now you want to ignore the whole TNG timeline. Talk about arrogant!

Mr. Abrams, I know you will never see this. However, I am putting this in cyberspace hoping there are some people left that feel what you have done to a science fiction icon borders on criminal.