If I were to reboot Star Trek…

For TOS:Considering the degree of gender inequality against the feminine still prevalent in our culture, male and female cast members should be inverted-- so the ensemble is female dominated. Kirk, Spock and McCoy would all be women, and Uhura would be the only man.
To be further socially relevant, the characters of Chekov and Uhura should have a contemporary equivalent: Instead of Russian, Chekov would be Arabic—and accordingly renamed (America’s so-called national enemy); Uhura would be Hispanic – and renamed (America’s racially disenfranchised).
Female Scotty would still be Scottish and female Sulu would still be Oriental Asian.
Female Spock would be someone with exotic appearance, and female McCoy would be older than other human command crew. Someone in the crew needs to be homosexual.
To depict the current status of equality black people have attained in our society, female Kirk would be Black; might be paradoxically small in bodily stature, but big and Shatner-esque in personality.
To accommodate new names for the Chekov and Uhura characters, everyone could be re-named, but keep the same character traits as originals.
AND every nationality played by an actor of that nationality; i.e.- Scottish woman playing Scotty.

For TNG:Again, gender reversal; i.e.- female Picard/ male Dr. Crusher/ female Wesley.
Riker would be the female version of a ladies man, commenting on the sexual double standard.
Nationalities are completely open for all human characters, except Caucasian would be in the minority.
Also, HUMANS must be minority. This, of course, would necessitate re-naming all characters, while maintaining original character traits. Instead of being blind, female Geordi should be a “little person”.
Male Troi would still be alien-human hybrid, but not necessarily Betazoid. Female Worf may be represented by different alien.
Data would be a robot instead of android, and less human looking.
At least one minor crew member needs to be homosexual. This and an Andorian character would well facilitate commentary on sexuality and gender identity. Given the generally mainstream status homosexuality has attained, hermaphrodite should be the new gay-- someone in the command crew.
AND every nationality would be played by an actor of that nationality. i.e.- a Frenchman played by a French actress.

DreamWalking

For fun, I set the challenge of developing a unique dice based narrative mechanism entitled Dreamwalker, curious if I could. Epic WIN has been achieved. As far as I know, this is the only such mechanism of its kind.
The story/ game play centers on the main character in my Arcanum fiction: Cassie O’Brien— a dreamwalker. Essentially, this is a device in which several distinct stories can be told by rolling custom dice according to a sequence of rules.
If anyone wants to fund the production, promotion and proliferation of this invention, send me an email. Then I’ll show you the rules.

Still more to see and do

Short film-

FUTURE PROOF from The DMCI on Vimeo.

short film=

Rêverie | a short film from Jaro Minne on Vimeo.

Chi of Shaolin: The Tale of the Dragon demo

Arian Noveir has an amazing collection of superhero paint splatter art

And That's Not All

Epic Artemis Eternal film project releases first official concept art ! Conceived by film maker Jessica Mae Stover; she and four Wingmen (including myself) commissioned the remarkable fantasy/ science fiction artist Christopher Shy…

Legion of Extraordinary Dancers web series (many of these episodes are astounding)… brilliantly transforming movement into music to develop narrative innovation=

http://www.hulu.com/the-lxd
CONTINUUM (sci-fi web-series)=

WATCH
Illustrator Mike Maihack draws charming superhero sketches on his blog

In response to Cory Doctorow: It’s Time to Stop Talking About Copyright

From the November 2011 issue of Locus Magazine
When someone attains the reputation and level of notoriety in fandom that Cory Doctorow has, they tend to inspire an assumption of credibility when they speak. Assuming that when such a person speaks, it is on a subject they are knowledgeable about. Such an assumption is innately dangerous, in that it could belay a critical evaluation of what they are saying. It baffles and annoys me when I see artists promoting audience or market convenience over and at the expense of artist compensation, ownership rights and the value of creation/creativity.
Here, I’m challenging a few statements (and their implications) Doctorow made in that article.
*And as we make the transition from a world where everything we do includes an online component to a world where everything we do requires an online component, it’s becoming the case that there’s no such thing as ‘‘Internet policy’’ – there’s just policy.
I resist and resent the general a priori assumption that “we must inevitably or necessarily live in a world where everything we do requires an online component” is a foregone conclusion. I oppose the common insistence of culturally or economically forcing/ expecting everyone to be online and live their lives through digital devices. Contrary to common assumption: not everyone lives, or wants to live, that way. Also, I propose that asserting no distinction between online and off-line life—inextricably linking digital and analog-- is detrimental folly and ignorance. The Internet is no more the real world than a book or screw driver.
*when we ‘‘solve’’ copyright problems at the expense of the Internet, we solve them at the expense of 21st-century society as a whole
Or maybe, when we “solve” Internet problems at the expense of copyright, we solve them at the expense of artistic creativity AND 21st-century society as a whole. I’m not against so-called piracy, because essentially there is no such thing—there is data sharing. I AM, however, mightily against not supporting artists and creators. What I oppose is an attitude that condones disregard and disrespect for the rights of artists to be properly compensated for their efforts. If you like what an artist makes, then you should have the decency to (want to) thank them by paying them. A point which often seems to get lost in the debate and defense of copyright against piracy. This is the same attitude that makes way too many employers think it is fair and reasonable to pay writers nearly nothing—and in many cases exactly nothing—for writing. There is much more to writing than putting words on a page, or merely the page itself.
*For so long as we go on focusing this debate on artists, creativity, and audiences – instead of free speech, privacy, and fairness – we’ll keep making the future of society as a whole subservient to the present-day business woes of one industry.
The concerns of free speech, privacy, and fairness AND concerns of artists, creativity, and audiences are not mutually exclusive, and are actually intricately connected. In a commercialized and Internet structured society which commonly mistakes or equates the worth of art and creativity with (devaluing) dollar value, we really shouldn’t be increasing or fostering ways to undermine and diminish artistic initiative in a commercial framework. By assuming artistic creativity should be given away, should cost nothing—that artists do not deserve to be compensated—says that you don’t really value artists or their art.
Instead, we need to be encouraging the mentality that art is more than its format. Audiences/ consumers are being conditioned to think they are just paying for a digital file— but they are paying for the content of a creation and artist labor.