Into Box Office Darkness

Star Trek did a wonderful and horrible thing in 2009...


It made it to the big leagues.


From 1982 to 2002, Trek movies were given very little in the way of money...and respect. Though Paramount could always depend on the films to make X amount of dollars, they knew it was only a niche thing. As art thrives on restriction, however, the best work can be done on the smallest of scale. STAR TREK II wisely reused footage from THE MOTION PICTURE to save on money, but it also focused more on character and emotion. Basically, you cared. The movies continued to get cranked out and, over time, the wallet would slowly open up more and more, but really these were terrible budgets. To give you an idea of how pathetic they were, let's look at the film that was considered by many to kill the franchise, 2002's STAR TREK NEMESIS.


                                     

"Remember: stardates are years."

During the run of the previous regime, you felt that only one failure would lead to feature film death and NEMESIS was definitely the one. With a budget of $60 million, it only pulled $43 million domestic. On its opening weekend, it was beat out by the romantic comedy Maid in Manhattan. MiM had a budget of, get this: $55 million. That's right, Trek movies, which were supposed to be big sci-fi action/adventure movies, were given budgets comparable to romantic comedies. It sorta gives you more respect for what Berman's team was able to accomplish. Several ideas were suggested about why this was the worst money maker, but I think the most logical ones are that: 1) it had been four years since the last film (INSURRECTION) and 2) it was released during a very competitive season. The Two Towers opened the next week, and several other movies, like Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, were still making top ten box office. You could talk about the quality of the film itself, but even bad Trek would always make respectable bank. This was clearly an outlier.

Can your rom-com do this?

STAR TREK's main competition in 2009 was the already dying down X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Terminator Salvation a few weeks later. It was smart positioning. As a result, combined with a great marketing campaign, the movie shot up the charts and made over $250 mil domestic. The Trek phenomena hit the big time. But now, there's no turning back. The sequel was given a crazy $190 million. If you put together the budgets of all four TNG movies, you would get about that much!  Now, of course, the burden to be successful is that much greater.  Simply put, this one HAS to be the biggest Trek ever. Well...it isn't. At least not yet. But this isn't the first time Trek has been to the big show and under-performed...


In 1979, THE MOTION PICTURE was made to capitalize on the new sci fi craze and to compete with Star Wars. It was given a big (at the time) $35 million (some reports say $47 mil) to make Roddenberry's vision come alive on the big screen. And though it did make decent money, it wasn't the hit that paramount was hoping. This is what began the 20 years of budget constraints. A Trek movie wouldn't even get a $35 million budget again until 1994's GENERATIONS!

 

"Imagine what we could have done with $190 million!"

In 2013, STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS was finally released after being held back a year for 3D conversion and also so it wouldn't have to compete with The Avengers (which was wise). Even though the film has made good money to this point, it has not met paramount's goals. Will it make it to $300 million? Possibly. (UPDATE: it did!)  So what happened? How come with all the hype and good word of mouth, DARKNESS is under-performing? A couple things come to mind: 1) it's been four years since the previous film came out and 2) it was released during a very competitive season. Wait...didn't I just say that about NEMESIS??? Paramount have you learned nothing? Trek may be more popular then ever, but if you put it up against a billion-dollar-guaranteed Iron Man 3 and a well-advertised and hyped Fast 6, you can't expect it to match 2009's breakout performance. But wait, there's more...

Hopefully this isn't symbolic...

Star Trek's biggest Nemesis is the foreign box office. They always do horrible overseas (comparatively). It's the reason Trek movies will never make a billion dollars. Seriously, what gives? I guess not being exposed to over 700 hrs of Trek on TV makes it harder for one to be a believer. Even with all the bells and whistles, they still can't compete with an iron suit (among other things). This is a franchise with limits...


So what's next? When the dust settles and paramount sees this as a disappointment (but not a failure), how will they proceed? Will they cut back the budgets to what they used to be? Will new writers be hired on to revitalize the movies? Maybe going back to the time and budget constraints will force a new team to focus again more on story and character than big (albeit very good) spectacle.  Also, is having a big budget even worth the pressure? Why are we asking these questions when the movies were JUST rebooted? Because that's life in the big leagues...


Just ask Superman.

Yep.

It's Not Me, It's You: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

An initial and SPOILER-FREE review:


We showed up an hour early to the show...and it was already packed. Finally settling in the upper right section, I texted a gloat to all my friends while I waited. Then I put on my 3D glasses and enjoyed the show. This might have just been the best crowd I've ever seen a movie with, all laughing and clapping at appropriate and rousing times. I felt like I was hanging out with a bunch of Trekkie friends and that was okay with me. Talk about being miles away from that lonely theater for NEMESIS...

I'm going to avoid talking about the plot here, as I need time to process that anyway. Instead I'll focus on character threads and more general thoughts. Perhaps I'll do a follow-up review that includes story and spoiler info. That stuff will need to get tackled eventually. For now, though, here is my immediate, off-the-cuff response to the movie:

"I see 8 Stephen A. Smiths..."

WHAT I LIKED:
Kurtzman and Orci have once again shown that they know their Trek (why do I keep doubting them?). Right off the bat, there is talk of the Prime Directive and the moral implications of interference with a culture for the sake of saving a life. This sets up the character conflicts for the rest of the movie. It also sets up a path for our characters to grow. And grow they do. Some of the criticisms of the first movie (of this series) is that Kirk attained the rank of Captain too quickly, that he didn't earn it. I get that, but by the end of this movie I think everyone will agree that he has earned the chair. Just as everyone else has earned their respective positions. As I've said before, these are elite heroes, which they prove once again with their skill, intelligence, fortitude and a little dumb luck.

I mentioned in my review of STAR TREK NEMESIS that I enjoyed watching/thinking about a parallel Picard making different choices under different circumstances. Well, here we have a ripple effect from the altered timeline causing certain events to change. What happens is that you get to see how our new parallel characters react to a similar set of circumstances, but at a different time. Would they do or say the same thing? It's interesting in a FRINGE sort of way.

The production did right by keeping the identity of Benedict Cumberbatch a secret. However, there is another stand-out performance outside of him. Peter Weller is a powerhouse as Admiral Marcus, the father of Carol Marcus. Dang this guy is good. Weller is no stranger to Star Trek, playing a great baddie on the fourth season of Enterprise. Speaking of Enterprise, there's a neat little reference during the movie that connects to a plot thread (again, fourth season) from that show. Anyone who knows Star Trek will love it.

Also: Seatbelts!

Did I leave the Holodeck on?

WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE:
For all the talk about the Klingons, you hardly see any. And the one you do see is, well, odd. I'm not sure if there's some sort of plan in this, but it seems like the Abrams Universe is trying to avoid the Klingons or keep them intentionally vague. It's strange because the Klingons were such an important adversary in the original Trek-verse. Maybe it's a set-up for a big third movie. At any rate, I hope we do see more of them in future movies.

Also, for the 23rd Century, Earth still feels a lot like the 21st century. Just like the Nokia phones, old cars, and "Budweiser Classics" in the first movie, you have some old-fashioned alarm clocks (that look older than the ones I have) and hospital bedrooms that feel like they were taken right out of a soap opera. Would any of these things, as they're presented here, really be around in the 23rd century? Mixed in with more advanced tech, it's just a weird juxtaposition. I guess a bed is a bed in any century...it just didn't look right.

And Also: Stardates aren't years. (see: STAR TREK review)

Back to Iowa for repairs...

It's possible a couple of months from now, as I assimilate this further (it's futile after all), I may start seeing cracks in the proverbial hull plating. No doubt, I'm seeing this through 3D rose tinted glasses, and things always look fuzzy when you take those off. But for now, as it currently stands, INTO DARKNESS rises to the occasion. It's another big-stakes, big-consequences event movie, but since you're also watching these characters grow and become leaders, I would say this movie surpasses the previous one in heart, emotion and spectacle. Do yourself a favor and see this on the biggest screen you can. It's worth every penny and more. 

Abrams: just take all my money. I surrender.


-Starbase 133

What is Necessary is Never Unwise: STAR TREK

After many movie and TV ideas that never panned out, including an Earth-Romulan war trilogy (which sounded kind of cool actually), it was decided the franchise would go back to the beginning with fresh young faces. Of course, this was the original idea for Star Trek VI, but after V bombed, they decided to have the original crew go out with a better bang. Sadly, the TNG crew never got the same opportunity.  The franchise had died.  But now, Star Trek is back and this time, it's for everyone...

Once Upon A Time...

WHAT I LIKED:
Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman do something quite brilliant here by acknowledging the original cannon of Trek, while also creating a whole new timeline of possibilities. This is a shiny, top tier production that was made with care. Like I felt about First Contact, everything seemed to come together for this one.  Basically, all the right choices were made.  The casting was flawless. The script perfectly captures these iconic characters.  J.J. Abrams was the right director for the job.  It all culminated into a fun, box-office smashing ride that brought new life back into the franchise. Okay, good call Paramount.

I also must mention the score by Michael Giacchino. Trek films have pretty much all had great scores by talented composers such as James Horner and Jerry Goldsmith. Giacchino easily fits in with these masters by giving us a rousing composition. At first, I was disappointed that there was no Alexander Courage tribute at the opening, which I'd become accustomed to, but my initial worries were gone literally seconds later. Music has always been such a strong part of Star Trek and once again, the right choices were made.

WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE:
Let's be clear: Stardates aren't years. I repeat: STARDATES AREN'T YEARS. That's why they're called Stardates. Yet, for the sake of "the general audience" the original continuity was dumbed down. So let's imagine the following scenario: a person watches this movie and loves it. Then, they go out and buy, say, Star Trek First Contact. Captain Picard says, "Captain's Log: Stardate 50893.5"  WHOA! So the Next Gen crew must live in...the year 50,893 AD! Why so far in the future from the original crew? Whatever. Then they watch Star Trek Generations and see that the crews are only separated by 78 years. Huh, so maybe they just have REALLY long life spans in the future. By now, this new "fan" has become exhausted trying to figure out how this future timeline works and completely gives up. He then tells all his friends not to watch the new Star Trek movie because the whole franchise isn't worth getting sucked into. The End. Thanks guys, you just destroyed everything by making stardates years. AKA: It's STUPID!

Also, let's talk about the Delta Vega convenience. It's "impressionistic for (again) a general audience" per Orci. Caring more about being cinematic than accurate is a problem for me. And sometimes these writers (and J.J.) fall into this trap. Obviously, a planet can't be THAT close to Vulcan and be safe from a black hole. Please.  Another thing that bothered me: I didn't like how, in the old timeline, the Federation (not to mention the Enterprise E) worked very hard for peace with Romulus...only to have it blow up a few years later. Geez, the universe doesn't do anything small anymore does it?

The Enterprise was built in Iowa???  Who knew!

How do you revamp Star Trek and make it a massive hit? You make it Star Wars.  Not saying it's a bad thing, but still.  Maybe future installments will bring back the morality plays and conundrums of old, but what we have here is a pure entertainment thrill-ride that hits all the right notes (in every sense of the word). These are heroes that represent the cream of the crop and they all get their moment to show that they are truly elite. Kudos to everyone involved for bringing Trek back to life.


STAR TREK is about bringing these iconic characters together, so let's see how INTO DARKNESS takes them apart...


Have a great day, courtesy of Starbase 133.

A Bit Less Florid: STAR TREK NEMESIS

Sitting alone in a theater, I was expecting this to be the big important even-numbered picture it was supposed to be.  The Alexander Courage theme started and I was instantly in Trek mode.   Then...I was out of it.  Then I came back in.  By the end, I wasn't sure what to think.  It's an empty feeling watching a movie by yourself at a theater.  Maybe that contributed to it, but I wasn't really feelin this one at first.  Watching it later, it IS a pretty action-packed spectacle, perhaps not worthy of being the movie that killed the franchise (the only real failure at the box office).  It wasn't the movie's fault it opened around the time The Two Towers came out...that was Paramount's fault.  But it is what it is, and what we have is a movie that kind of feels like a farewell, but an incomplete one.  This is no Star Trek VI, but it is no Star Trek V either.

I have to admit, this ship is pretty cool.

What I Liked:
Finally, a movie about the Romulans.  Is it okay NOW Patrick (see: Insurrection Review)???  The Reman backstory is interesting, but they needed slightly more motivation I thought.  Perhaps a story about crying out to the Federation for help and receiving squat.  It would have made the revenge against Earth more interesting.  Anyway, The action is the real star of this one, even if the finale felt too close to Wrath of Khan.  The effects were good for the budget.  Tom Hardy is also fun to watch here, especially now after all he's done since.  The dual character study with Picard/Shinzon and Data/B-4 is something you'd expect from a Star Trek story and I'm glad this is given some decent screen time. 

A decent "green" movie.

What I Didn't Like:
Stuart Baird.  Oh sure, he can put together a lean, mean action picture, but it needed more soul.  In fact, I found the soul...it's in the deleted scenes.  All scenes about Crusher going to Starfleet Medical, gone from the final cut. Discussions about the family breaking up, gone.  Cleaning out Data's quarters and finding his emotion chip (!), gone.  Seriously Baird, if there was one scene you should have deleted, or cut a lot more, it was the scene between Beverly and Picard in his ready room.  Nothing about it made sense.  This is the moment where all continuity got thrown out the window just to show how similar Picard looked to Shinzon.  First off, there's Picard's academy picture, which smacks against all flashbacks we've had of him in the past (he used to have hair in TNG flashbacks). Then there's the conversation. "Remember him?" asks Picard to Crusher. Of course she doesn't, she never knew you at the academy!  Berman, are you asleep at the wheel?  B-4 is kind of stupid, but I don't mind the idea. What I do mind is no mention of Lore, Sela, or (to a lesser extent) Commander Tomalak.  I get it, all the newbies will be sooo confused, blah blah blah.  The thing is, making Sela the mastermind of the operation would actually help the credibility of this plot!  Who else would know that Picard would be a big deal when the plan was first hatched twelve years ago?  Ugh.  Also, is it me, or did the actors seem a bit tired? They don't look quite as spry as they did four years ago for Insurrection. Maybe they need to go back to the Ba'ku planet for a recharge. Because of the low energy from everyone, it all feels too little, too late; the wedding, the Romulan story, everything. But, there were moments when I was able to forget all this and enjoy the movie for what it was: a slick (sort of) action pic and not much more.

Also: Viewscreens shouldn't know know how to dramatically zoom in on someone.

Don't get between Worf and the Buffet line.

You hate to see the crew you love go out like this.  It only feels like the beginning of the end and not a proper farewell.  I hoped for more.  John Logan's original script apparently called for a much bigger finale, but those budget restrictions always get in the way...that is, until 2009.  Unfortunately, the franchise needed to die for a while before it could get the respect it deserved.  How do you do that?  You release it against The Two Towers.  Fracking brilliant.

Starbase out.

Nothing More Complicated than Perception... STAR TREK INSURRECTION

“...Our own civilization routinely kills legions of people in wars large and small for reasons of ideology, territory, religion, or geography. Would we contemplate removing 600 people from their native environment in order to grant immortality to everyone alive? In a flash. It would be difficult, indeed, to fashion
a philosophical objection to such a move, which would result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people..." Roger Ebert (RIP)


"...the point of the movie was exactly that. If we found the fountain of youth today, I have no doubt that we’d steal it from whomever it rightfully belonged and very likely destroy them if they fought back. But it might be nice to consider the moral implications of our actions." Michael Piller (RIP)


If you haven't, do yourself a favor and read Michael Piller's (still unpublished) Fade in: The Writing of Star Trek Insurrection. It is an exhaustive (260+ page) work explaining the process of getting the movie pitched, outlined, written and produced. It's the most fascinating thing you will ever read involving the evolution of a story. It's also a little heart-breaking when you read some the original outlines of what could have been. Epic space battles with Romulans, a bigger conspiracy within the Federation, Worf in some sweet hand-to-hand combat, flashbacks to the academy days, Boothby(!), a Buddhist (whoa, religion in Star Trek??) all originally tied to the fountain of youth story. It was changed because Rick Berman thought it was too political and that he couldn't pitch a story about "getting younger" to Patrick Stewart. So it was changed. And then Patrick hated it. So it was changed again. The fountain of youth came back (Patrick actually loved the idea). And then Brent Spiner didn't like it, so it was changed again. It was produced, and then chopped down for length and budget. Is it still good? Many people debate...

Keep note of the water level during this scene...

What I liked:
This is a movie that's about something. As Piller responded to Ebert's remarks, I think the morality play is slightly misunderstood. In some of the original outlines, the people were tied to the planet, so if they were moved, they would quickly age and die. Maybe this is still implied. If Piller would have put more emphasis on the Ba'ku connectedness to the planet, the morality play would have been clearer and stronger...and, well, Avatar. I mean, isn't it kind of the same? We're talking about taking the natural resources of a planet to help a vast number of people (engulfed in war), but at the expense of the planet and every living thing on it (including all the cute fuzzy animals). I think the morality play actually works even better here. And while Avatar made billions, this movie made not much over 100 million worldwide, which isn't bad considering the small budgets these films were given at the time. Also written in the original script was a "clutter-arc" for Picard. It is still kind of in the final version, but just barely. His life has become so full of clutter, the Ba'ku planet is the first time in a long time he is able to slow down and take a breath of fresh air. As far as the other characters go, I also like the Riker-Troi relationship rekindling. Love it or not, you could say it led to what happened next in Nemesis. Data is basically Data from the series, which was intentional by the production, since they didn't think newcomers to the movies have actually seen what our characters used to be like.

Also, let's talk about the song. Look, I thought this was okay. This isn't Row Row Row your Boat. There was purpose here. Data is, after all, still a machine. The point was to show Picard using alternative methods to reach Data outside of violence. If he could access something in Data, then he could distract him enough to deactivate him. It made me smile. As for the rest of the humor...

The late 90's: An awkward time for visual effects.

What I didn't like:
I know the point was to have a lighter movie here, but a lot of the humor didn't work (though some did). They also didn't give the other characters much to do. Poor Beverly. They should have given her some awesome martial arts scene or something. That would have been a shock. Also, in original drafts, Worf DID have an explanation for coming to the Enterprise (expert on Romulan strategies apparently). Not here though. Oh and speaking of him: Not one mention of Jadzia Dax. Berman didn't want it because those darn new viewers wouldn't get it. Bad call I think. I mean they mention DS9 in the movie, what do new viewers think of that? Though, you could tell Worf was still depressed slightly when he talked to Riker and Troi at the end of the movie. At least they allowed THAT. Back to DS9, I know they mention the Dominion war a lot, but....we have a movie budget here (sort of) and not one battle? I like big picture movies and they really could have given this one greater context by SEEING the Dominion war. Perhaps, Worf loses the Defiant at the beginning and, distraught, takes an assignment that crosses paths with the Enterprise. Boom, there's your explanation.

A decent "red" movie

In the end, I get it. These aren't villains we've seen before. How do you out-do the Borg? By introducing something new. After all, if the mission is to explore strange NEW worlds...well this is the only movie to do that! Interesting, no?

Also: I think that kid was a precursor to the play 60 movement!

Starbase out.

Something Called Tequila: STAR TREK FIRST CONTACT

What can I say about this one?  As a kid, I watched the TV spots showing starhips firing at a Borg cube for thirty seconds. There was nothing on this planet I could have been more excited about.  When I finally saw the movie I was slightly disappointed in the structure.  The big space battle should have been at the end, not the beginning!  All the space action was over in the first 30 minutes!  Grrrr!  Watching this film years later, I realized that this was about much more than space battles.

What I liked:
This movie had two killer ideas, making the Borg a villain, and putting Star Trek itself in jeopardy by endangering first contact.  They could have made fine movies separately, but together it ups the stakes considerably, even though it creates a big can-o-worms, but we'll get to that later.  It seems everything came together just right for this one.  The energetic direction by Jonathan Frakes, the snappy script by returning writers Moore and Braga, the acting, set design, visual effects, it's all top quality.  And this is a movie made for under 50 million dollars!  Is that even heard of anymore??  Throw in a great score by Trek veteran Jerry Goldsmith and a memorable guest cast and you have by far the best and most successful movie from the Next Gen crew.

What I didn't like:
Obviously, when you give the Borg the ability to time travel, it raises a whole host of questions.  Why don't they just keep going back in time until they assimilate everyone in the past?  Send more ships to make it easy.  And though the Borg Queen is a neat idea, trying to say she was with the collective the whole time is a stretch.  It would have made more sense if the need for a Queen arose naturally from the experiment with Locutus as well as the rogue Borg problem with Hugh.  The Queen goes on to be a recurring villain on Voyager, which is fine, but again it isn't explained well.  Of course, as a Star Trek fan, I eat continuity problems for breakfast.  You can work it all out in your head if you try. 

Some Trek enthusiasts complain that there is an emerging difference between TV show Picard and movie "action hero" Picard.  And, yes, the guy is different here, but you know what?  There are certain things you can't do on television.  I, for one, liked how they were able to show how wounded Picard had become from his assimilation.  It's real.  It's interesting.  And Stewart delivered.  Just like this movie.

We want YOU!

Starbase out.

Pretty Big Margin for Error: STAR TREK GENERATIONS

"It is revolting!" -Data

"More?" -Guinan

"Please." -Data

Exactly.

When I first went to see this movie as a kid (7th grader I think), I was blown away by the big effects, developing character story lines and the outrageous humor. In fact, I saw it three times in the theater I loved it so much.  Of course back then I didn't care/notice about plot holes and stuff, I just took what they gave me.  I was an easy mark back then.  When I watch this movie now, the humor is a little much and the plot problems surface a little more in my mind.  However, despite all that is wrong with it, I keep coming back. There's something about the charm, the energy, whatever it is that I just can't ignore.

What I liked:
Much of what happens here derives from the series.  The movies haven't yet forgotten the rich universe from which they came (Nemesis, I'll get to you soon), that being seven seasons on the small screen.  Here we start (in the Next Gen universe) with a promotion of Worf to Lt. Commander.  Though others may not care, anyone who watched the show knows that this has been earned.  We also have Data and the emotion chip, which he got at the start of season seven. We have the Duras sisters. Everything gets a big payoff on the big screen.  As a kid, I couldn't get enough.  Even as an adult, I appreciate it.  The writers Ron Moore and Brannon Braga were still very connected to the show and had the difficult task of writing a passing-of-the-torch movie, all while writing and producing the last two years of the show.  Tall order.  And in their horror, they saw that the series finale they wrote, All Good Things..., was better than Generations!  But still, this was a thrill ride, Data laughs (and swears), the ship goes out with a bang, two legendary captains...this is big screen material for sure.

Also, I love how this movie is lit.  The lighting really takes the look of the ship, interiors and exterior, to another level.  Seeing the Enterprise D on the big screen is a sight to behold.  This ship was meant for widescreen.  

Just gorgeous...

And, of course: Biggest Focefield Ever.  What's not to like there?

What I didn't like:
Two legendary captains get together to...scramble eggs and beat up (blow up) an elderly gentlemen.  I was hoping the reason they needed Kirk would have been bigger.  Moore and Braga admit in the (fantastic) audio commentary they recorded that they missed an opportunity to have Kirk die on the Enterprise D, thus saving two Enterprises in one movie.  They also lament that they didn't have time to explain the nexus properly. I wish they would have too.  The easiest plot problem to spot here is the time when Picard decides to go back to.  He could have saved his ship, he could have saved his family.  Moore's explanation later was that Picard didn't want to change the timeline further than what was absolutely necessary.  Okay, I guess that works, but they still should have explained it better.  And who is this Antonia girl? What about Carol Marcus and David? Shouldn't they be in the Nexus?

Some people (see: Plinkett) really hate this movie.  And, sure, I get that, there are problems galore, but when a movie is this entertaining, I can forgive some problems.  I love these characters, I grew up with them after all.  Also, the nexus is quite interesting if you think about it.  Kirk is truly immortal because of it, since his echo will always be there.  A fitting end for a larger than life character.  

End Transmission.  Starbase 133.

Into Darkness with Bright Expectations...

The new Star Trek reboot successfully brought life and energy back into a what was a tired franchise.  The new film makes me nervous, but also hopeful.  I'm nervous because the returning writers can be quite good, but they also don't seem to care about massive plot problems (see: Transformers 1&2).  If the film is good enough, you can overcome these issues.  I'm hopeful because Orci and Kurtzman absolutely nailed the characters in 2009 and I'm quite confident they can rise to the occasion again.  They seem to actually care about getting things right too.  It's the little details that matter, whether it be a tribble lying around or a casual mention of Admiral Archer.  Sounds like there will be some good winks to Trek fans in Into Darkness as well. 

Just three more days until I see this in 3D IMAX format.  Am I excited?  Would I be writing this blog otherwise?

End transmission.

-Starbase 133