What Keeps us Alive: STAR TREK BEYOND

Kirk fidgets nervously in his seat as Captain Harriman of the Enterprise B responds to a distress call from two convoy ships trapped in the nexus. He's having a hard time with the Captain's orders, to the annoyance of Scotty and Chekov next to him. Scotty leans over and says, "Captain, is there something wrong with your chair?" It's hard watching someone else pilot something you love, to steer it in a certain direction you might disagree with. You know better. You are Kirk. For 50 years, Star Trek has had several different production teams at the wheel of the franchise, to either the delight or chagrin of the ever-growing backseat fandom.  Many fans watched Into Darkness with eyebrow raised; they were not amused by this flight plan.  I say "they" because, like Nero with the Romulan Empire, we stand apart. STID was labelled a "lazy rehash" by the masses, to which I couldn't disagree more.  The movie I saw had an original story and great character arcs, but the mob of pitchforks and hyperbole ("worst thing ever!!!") had spoken and a new captain, Justin Lin, along with his writing team of Simon Pegg and Doug Jung, was brought on board to guide Trekdom. I will always be on the bridge supporting whoever has command. I am Scotty. I'm in this just as much as you are (I bleed red...matter.) and yes, I'll admit having to sometimes squint to make it all work (50 years of continuity to keep straight), but I'm usually able to sit back and enjoy the ride.  I have no problem with NuTrek, nor its intentional parallels and nods to the previous continuity. I just care that it's still flying. Rewind the clock 25 years and you have the release of the last original series cast film, The Undiscovered Country.  This title, originally meant for The Wrath of Khan, was supposed to be about death, referencing Hamlet. However, director Nicholas Meyer couldn't get the TUC title until the sixth movie. The meaning thus changed to be about the future. Though Star Trek still flies 25 years later, its future is a bit uncertain...

There was a time before geek culture was such a huge part of pop culture, when Comic-Con didn't make any headlines and Doctor Who wasn't a big thing in the US. For me growing up in the 90s, Star Trek was the main thing for us geeks. Kids at my school were quick to put down ST, or any sci-fi. It was all so uncool back then. I couldn't care less; I was a proud Trekkie. I have the uniforms and props to prove it. Star Trek (or Star TRACK as the haters mispronounced it) was my escape from the world. I wanted so badly to live in the 24th century. But people, including myself, were tiring of the franchise by the early aughts thanks to Paramount's insistence on churning out continuous spin-offs. Even though the last show, Enterprise, actually ended up quite good, the timing was wrong for it to thrive.  And so, Star Trek died a quiet death in 2005.  A few years later, J.J. Abrams came to take the helm with writers Kurtzman and Orci, but unlike Captain Harriman, he was confident and well-equipped for the challenge. Pleasing the old guard of trekkies, trekkers and the newer generation of filmgoers is, as Scotty would say, "like trying to hit a bullet with a smaller bullet whilst wearing a blindfold, riding a horse." For the most part I'd say they hit the bullet...on the first try anyways.  It also didn't hurt that people were finally ready for some new Trek again.  2016, by contrast, is an odd year for sequels and remakes as almost every single one not named Civil War has finished well below expectations. Despite it being the 50th anniversary of Trek, the timing is slightly off again. This time, though, it's not because of this franchise, but rather some broader "name-brand" fatigue.  Too many bad movies trying build cinematic universes I suppose. Sadly, not even glowing reviews and positive word of mouth are helping this already under-performing movie. Trekkers will always be around, especially now in the more accepting geek culture world of today, but trying to make Star Trek trendy and mainstream might be too tall an order, especially when it comes to that stubborn international market. Paramount may be finally learning that these films will never make that Marvel money. The feature films might be in trouble, but perhaps the upcoming TV show will "restore the father's faith" so to speak. Is the timing right for TV Trek to make a comeback or will brand fatigue affect the new show as well? Hopefully, Star Trek hasn't outlived its usefulness quite yet...

WHAT I LIKED:
This movie is a well-constructed and original tale that has big scope, but feels small and intimate. The most important thing this film does is give you time to catch up with the characters. How exactly does one deal with being isolated in deep space for years? How do you handle coming to terms with your mortality? The way our main characters deal with these issues of fear and loneliness is nicely paralleled with the big bad Krall, played by the always great Idris Elba.  The more I think about Krall and his background, the more I like this character.  Some criticisms about NuTrek is that the villains are weak sauce.  I think they finally have a strong one here with depth.  Not a lot of time is spent on him, sadly, but all the pieces of his story are here and it's good stuff.

Starbase Yorktown is the coolest thing that this current iteration of ST has added to cannon. It is brilliant and beautiful. It also represents what this universe is all about; a future full of possibility and hope. The base is filled with aliens and different cultures all coming together to chill. The reveal of Yorktown I'm sure is similar to how audiences felt first seeing the original Starbase design in STIII. Consider my breath taken away.

Sofia Boutella's Jaylah rocks. A nice addition that really needs to stick around. Again, this is what ST is about: new life and new civilizations.  I hope we get to know more about her species.

I like that all of the reboot movies so far have referenced Star Trek Enterprise (MACOs and the Xindi conflict here), the most derided of the TV shows. This is the only show that has continuity in both realities so it's nice they get shout outs. Like I said previously, ENT doesn't deserve its bad reputation anyway.

Commodore Paris. Any relation to Tom perhaps?

WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE:
I respect Justin Lin as an action director, but he dropped the ball a little bit here. The action scenes are a bit too jerky and disorienting. During the big attack on Enterprise by the swarm, it's important to know where all the characters are on the ship, but I honestly couldn't tell what was going on. It was only after the action scene had ended that I pieced together what happened. Maybe this will get better in repeat viewings, but I already miss Abrams.

In the original script by Orci (deemed "too Star Treky" by Paramount), there was more connection with the events of Into Darkness. The loss of these connective elements hurts the film a little. Being a stand alone effort is fine, but it would have been nice to have a few lines of dialogue devoted to the augments or even Carol Marcus.

No Klingons.

Finally: Stardates aren't years.

Whether you like it or not, the team of Abrams, Kurtzman and Orci captained Star Trek out of the dark. They kept the plasma conduits flowing. They weathered the stormy nebulas.  Okay, I'll stop now.  We can argue till we're Andorians about what "proper" Star Trek is, but it gets us nowhere.  Bottom line is that movie Trek is just a different ride than TV Trek. Yes, things go boom, but that doesn't mean the films sacrifice heart and character, especially in the case of Beyond.  Pegg and Jung have ironically put together the most "Star Treky" film of this series, but the studio didn't get the billion it wanted. They will no doubt continue to tinker. I'm sensing "Trek-nado" or in-movie Pokemon to catch in the future. It certainly won't be the same without Anton Yelchin, who tragically died right before the release. I hope he was proud of his work. He really took ownership of that role and made it fresh for a new audience. He IS Chekov.  And he is immortalized.  I'm glad they won't be recasting. And even if Paramount doesn't green light a Thor-infused fourth film, at least they went out being true to Star Trek. Like any good Trek, Beyond is about the human condition; how people can be very frightened of change. Will Star Trek change after this? We can only look now to the USS Discovery and its captains Bryan Fuller and the returning Nicholas Meyer. To them and their posterity will we commit the future of Trekdom. They will keep it alive. For the Undiscovered Country, for Anton, here's to another 50 years.  I'm on the edge of my seat.

- Starbase 133

Posted with Blogsy

Everything has changed: TERMINATOR GENISYS

I remember seeing Super Mario Bros. in the theater with a couple of my friends. At the end of the movie, Daisy implores Mario and Luigi to return to the parallel world, saying, "You're not gonna believe this!" My friend turned to me and said, "I smell a sequel," but as we got up to leave I couldn't help but notice that we were in an empty theater. I smelled something else. And so it goes with franchise fail-building. This happens all the time of course, movies try to set up big sequels only to crash and burn. Nowadays, instead of just having a tag at the end, studios attempt to structure an entire trilogy (at least) worth of mythos and basically make the first film a sneak peak. If you want the big moments and shocking revelations of the sequels, the first movie needs to make some serious bank. When this fails, the lone film feels very incomplete and as a result replay value suffers. Watching the behind the scenes for 2008's Jumper, I learned about what they had planned to do for the sequels. It was pretty interesting stuff and some of it should have been included in the first, and now only, movie. There are plenty of other (mostly book-based) examples, like The Golden Compass, Eragon, I Am Number Four, Push, where a movie failed to garner interest while setting up a large mythology for the future. What's most annoying is when the movie is actually pretty good or intriguing enough that you want to see more. But that's the consequence for not starting with your best foot forward, audiences haven't seen enough to care about the characters and story yet. If you want to have an Empire Strikes Back-level sequel, you need to make sure that your first movie is a Star Wars. Ironically, the best franchises happened accidentally. That is to say, they weren't trying to do anything more, they were just trying to make the best possible movie at that time. All this brings us to Terminator...

"Tell my mother: There is no fate but what headache-inducing mythology we make for ourselves."

The first movie still stands the test of time. It has, over the years, become my favorite Terminator.  It's a simple, straightforward (and ultra-low budget) sci-fi film that works perfectly. The second movie is a fun, action-oriented behemoth, but still with plenty of heart. Timeless is a good word for these two.  I saw T2 for the first time at a friend's house when I was about 10. I did not have my parents' permission.  It completely blew my face off then. I wanted more, though I wasn't sure what they could do next.  Apparently the studios felt the same way, even though Cameron had told them his story had finished with T2. Enter franchise fail-building mode. Terminator 3 finally came about in 2003 and was originally to be immediately followed up on with a fourth movie the next year. Even though it was a decent hit and got surprisingly good reviews, it missed the mark for most people. At least there are a few moments (that car chase!) where it truly feels like a proper, Terminator-level spectacle. Terminator Salvation became the second attempt to franchise build, trying to set up a new trilogy of movies. Another fail. It's definitely a good looking production and it does have some interesting things to say about finding hope and restoring faith through, of all things, a machine. However, audiences were mostly disappointed because the war wasn't quite the same, happening way too early in the timeline. Also the movie focused too much on the new Marcus Wright character. The complete re-cast seemed pointless as well, but I did like Anton Yelchin as Kyle Reese. I felt like he really tried to channel the character. In hindsight, it would have at least been interesting to see how this plan would have turned out. But none of that matters anymore because one day, while watching 2009's Star Trek, some nervous producer somewhere suddenly had a revelation: "We can do that with Terminator!" And now we have Genisys. Arnie is the Spock character, passing the torch to a new, fresh-faced cast in another attempt for an all new trilogy. So, does Genisys stand on its own two metal feet or does it fall apart into a million pieces like a frozen-fractalled T-1000 that's just been shot in the face? New cast, new fate, new confusion. Let's finally go into that parallel world, Mario, and see what awaits...

GENISYS?!?!

WHAT I LIKED:
Matt Smith. Because Matt Smith. The Doctor does something quite Whovian which I won't give away here. Also, dare I say it, but Jason Clarke might just be my favorite adult John Connor yet. Though, granted, his role is quite unique in this one compared to the other movies, but Clarke really has fun with it. He has good screen presence. Emilia Clarke is also pretty good as the new Sarah. Not perfect mind you, but I see potential here. She needs another movie to really make it her own, but it's a good start. The script has her go through a lot in this one and it's a pretty tall order, but the dragon queen is Game. J.K. Simmons is, of course, a riot. I would have loved more of him. Lastly, kudos to Schwarzenegger for his nifty take on the older T-800. He actually feels like a wise old sage. He may not understand how to smile appropriately, but he does understand companionship and what it is to care. His Guardian (or 'pops') character has spent decades with humans and he really shows what he's capable of learning, while also acting enough like a machine for it to work.  Nice job, I say.

Geronimo this!

WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE:
This is another case of an aspiring franchise holding it's audience ransom, intentionally holding back all the answers for the sequels. Certain things aren't explained, but the writers say they have a plan. Boo. The movie hasn't exactly been lighting it up at the box office, so we may never get to see this full plan. Also, when you have an action scene, one needs to believe it. Not just the CGI, but the physics of how things should move and react to their surroundings. There's an action scene with two helicopters chasing each other, but I had a hard time buying it with the way they were zipping about like X-wing fighters, getting within inches of buildings and cars. Earlier, when the Terminator/Guardian falls out of the back of a bus, he bounces on the road and into another car. Cybernetic organisms shouldn't bounce. In regards to casting, Jai Courtney is a bit too meaty for Reese. Good thing he had time to hit the gym during the war with the machines. He doesn't really feel like the same Reese that Michael Biehn played so well.  And even though it wouldn't make any sense, I wish that the photo Reese looks at in the beginning of the film was still the same photo of Linda Hamilton's Sarah.  Seeing Emilia Clarke's face instead of hers in that iconic picture just felt...wrong.

Dude.  Chill.

Sometimes with these movies I feel like I'm watching the season finale of a TV show that's uncertain of its future, trying to make itself work as both a season finale and a series finale just in case (Which reminds me: no, I haven't seen the TV show yet). Genisys feels more like a mid-season finale, because it's really just beginning. As it stands now, it's quite the timey-wimey paradoxical mess. But to be fair, the other movies had plot and paradox issues as well. For example: how could John Connor have sent Reese back in the first movie if he hadn't technically been conceived yet? Or did the timeline start with a different John from a different father? T2 is set in 1995, but it is said that Cyberdyne Systems will take three years to become the lead supplier in military computers. And by changing the future, Kyle Reese would never get sent back in time in the first place. There's more, but you get the point. The science and techno-babble was never this franchise's strong suit, though. These movies are about character and the human condition. Genisys attempts to deal with the science and paradox issues, but other than "pops", there isn't much character or heart yet. Since I don't know what they're planning to do with this timeline, I'm not sure how to call this one. Is it one-third of a good movie? Will the logic work out when all is revealed? I need to know the full plan, but the princess is in another castle. I actually hope we get to see the sequels. Because I want to know. Because Matt Smith. It's only fair in my mind. And what happens if we don't move forward? Another reboot? What will Cameron do when he gets the rights back in 2019? Certainly it isn't over yet, one way or another. And that's the thing about studios when they have their mind set on building, or rebuilding, a franchise. Look at Fantastic Four or Spider-man. Franchise fail-build, rinse and repeat. In essence, being in this state is not so different than the war with the machines. Studios can't be bargained with, they can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity or remorse or fear. And they absolutely will not stop EVER until they have another hit. I just want a complete story again. This is a good franchise, let's get back to making films that matter, like Cameron used to do. Can it be done? To quote Mario's final words, "I believe."

I mean...you just can't top this. 

Nuking the entire site from orbit: The loss of Alien 3

When Alien 4 was first announced, I remember the pleas from fans to turn Alien 3 into a dream.  There was still time to undo the damage. Personally, I was never a fan of the dream idea back then, because I like movies to follow each other and have good continuity.  It seemed weird to me.  Alien Resurrection turned out weirder.  Not only did it not do the dream idea, it went in an entirely different direction which most people disliked even more, in spite of the talent involved.  The problem with the franchise was that the first sequel, Aliens, set the bar too high for any follow up.  James Cameron had an ability to do that back then.  With him gone, the producers seemed lost on what to do next.  Good ideas were rejected or deemed too hard to film.  The pre-production on Alien 3 went through ten writers and five directors until they finally managed to cobble something together based on several different ideas.  The end result is widely regarded as a mess, but really it's the first ten minutes that do all the damage.  Then Resurrection continued to send the franchise downward.  Now, finally, people can rejoice because these last two movies no longer count.  At least that's what it sounds like now that Neill Blomkamp has announced a new Alien project with Sigourney Weaver that reportedly will only be tied to the first two movies.  So is this a good thing?

Part of me is happy about this.  Now, everything that Hicks, Newt, Ripley, and Bishop fought for and accomplished won't be tossed aside so carelessly.  Maybe Blomkamp can get the whole band back together.  The possibilities are exciting to think about.  But, there is a part of me that is slightly bummed out.  It took me a long time, but I've come to really like Alien 3.  I see now the hard work that went into it.  The production design is fantastic.  I believe Roger Ebert called it "The best looking bad film" he'd ever seen.  But it's not just the look of the film; the actors do an excellent job creating memorable characters, from Charles Dance's physician with a dark past, Paul McGann's pre-Who Xenomorph worshiper, and Charles S. Dutton as the inspiring leader of the rag tag group of prisoners. The assembly cut brings out even more good character bits, but mainly this is a story about Ripley and her connection with the Xenomorph.  It will never allow her to have a happy ending. And so, she takes control of this connection in a decisive and dramatic final moment.  Sure, the movie is a downer.  It's all sorts of Kobayashi Maru and not just for Ripley. But it's also an intriguing, gorgeous film with strong characters.  And now it's meaningless, because those characters and Ripley's sacrifice never happened.  Is there a point to watching movies that don't matter anymore?

Maybe they can do something creative to acknowledge these films somehow.  At the end of Aliens, Newt asks Ripley, "Can I dream?" To which Ripley replies, "Yes honey, I think we both can." Then I think about the opening lines of Alien Resurrection, which is something Newt says in Aliens, "My mommy always said there were no monsters. No real ones. But there are."  What I'm saying is, I think it would be neat if Alien 3 was Ripley's dream and Alien Resurrection was Newt's dream.  At least then, they could "exist" without existing.  The movies would still be strong character stories, since they get inside the thoughts and lingering fears of both Ripley and Newt, and thus still relevant.  All while they're on their way to some new adventure we haven't seen yet.  So, after a couple decades, I'm finally on board with the dream idea, but only because of how much Alien 3 has grown on me.  All that said, I'm ready for Alien 5. Let's hope they finally get it right this time. Otherwise, I guess they can always make the next film Hicks' dream...

Hints, Lamentations and Things Left Undead.

There was a time when we had Ninja Turtles without Michael Bay. Thee had only been dubbed Unforgiven twice. Star Trek was flying high and we were first learning the truth was out there. Yes, I'm talking about that glorious time called the 90s. Sometimes when I get nostalgic, I'll listen to some 90s tunes and let it transport me back in time. Ugh, I'm on the school bus. Ugh, I'm doing homework. Okay, maybe not so glorious, but there was definitely some good television back then, though the networks sure knew how to screw up good sci-fi. Even though The X-Files got a (too long) pass, many others wouldn't be so lucky.  Sliders, Earth 2, Space Above and Beyond, MillenniuM and many more were struck down too soon, many of which before they had a proper ending.  But some in the sci-fi graveyard have developed quite the fandom and demands for a proper conclusion/continuation. Enter 2015. There's a lot of revival talk happening this year and it's awesome. Twin Peaks is set to return. The X-Files isn't far behind. And now, MillenniuM is coming back in comic book form, written by The X-Files season 10 writer Joe Harris. There have been campaigns to get this show back for years. Spearheading the campaign is the Back to Frank Black website, which is a great resource full of podcast interviews (w/ Chris Carter, Morgan, Wong, Spotnitz, and more), news updates, and other cool stuff. This may not be the return everyone was hoping for, but for a show like this, it's still pretty incredible. I revisited MillenniuM last year and it was a revelation. In the 90s, I was a teen. I didn't analyze what a show had to say about the human condition. I just wanted to be entertained by stories about conspiracies or aliens. I wanted fun zombie shows. Now I see that I may have missed a lot of meaning and depth.  This was a show about something.  The only thing I remembered with any certainty, other than small snippets from every season, was my parents telling me that I couldn't watch it anymore, which I ignored (sorry). So, let's go back to the 90s and fully explore what this show was all about and understand why its fandom is still going strong today.

What Is MillenniuM about?

The show is about the study of evil in our world as we enter (well, entered) the new millennium. It's not just a procedural show. It goes much deeper than that. This is a show that asks the questions about where evil comes from. In the first season, the show mainly dealt with the psychological forces of evil, but with a little bit of supernatural thrown in. In the second episode, Frank Black (the brilliant Lance Henrikson) asks his wife Catherine if evil is just something in this world or if there's something behind the scenes that's moving it along. This opens the door for the spiritual forces of evil to begin to be explored. In fact, by the end of the first season, Frank has (perhaps) met the entire unholy trinity.

Season One: Into Darkness

In the pilot, Frank explains that his intuition has become so strong that he can see what a killer sees. It's not psychic, he literally "becomes evil" so he can understand a killer. In some of the episodes later on, you feel like the writers use his "gift" as more of a psychic thing, but in these first few episodes this is what it is. Chris Carter said he wanted to make a TV show like Se7en, but with a twist. I say that here and in most of the first season, he succeeded. Look, I love The X-Files just as much as the next person, but I really feel like Carter wrote some of his best scripts here, in particular the pilot and the second episode. It's here you meet Peter Watts (Terry O'Quinn), Frank's contact with the Millennium group, to which he is a consultant. Their relationship becomes much more complex in the years to come. As I said before, the show begins to set up an arc that begins to explore the supernatural dimensions of evil. In one episode you have the possible awakening of the Anti-Christ. Sadly, this is never followed up. Then there's an episode involving an evil woman who may or may not be Legion. Another episode you see an angel strike down a demon with a lightening bolt! Some of this is left ambiguous so as to not be too religion-specific, but the blue print for a biblical-based oncoming storm seems pretty clear. The season one finale puts all this aside, though, as we finally get to deal with an recurring nemesis/stalker. It's a brilliant and surprising close.

Season Two: The season of division

Fans either love it or hate it. Chris Carter had a full plate here, with season five of The X-Files and a movie in pre-production. The reigns were handed over to Glen Morgan and Garrett Wong (Space: Above and Beyond, Final Destination). Morgan and Wong sat down and made a clear plan for the whole season. Carter, for all his strengths, did not really plan out his shows' continuity in advance. Just look at how The X-Files changed and evolved. So Morgan/Wong took the beginnings of a supernatural evil that was presented in season one and ran with it. What you have now is a story not about serial killers and their psychology, but about greater powers that are waging war and the Millennium group being a factor in that war, having a special knowledge about things you didn't know about before. Those that wanted the show to be more grounded in the evil that people do hated this. But to say that this more cosmic battle of good and evil was unprecedented is wrong. I think what some people had more issues with is how the group changed. Lance himself hated it. Carter hated it. They based the Millennium group on The Academy Group, a real investigative agency comprised of former FBI Agents. Morgan/Wong changed them into a sort of secret society. Whether you like it or not, this is the most discussed and dissected season of the show...

The premiere episode, The Beginning and The End, kicks off the season in a rather surprising way.   After the show's resolution, Catherine has Frank move out! Some fans didn't understand why she made him leave, but I get it. Frank said in the pilot that he could become evil, or "the thing we fear most". Well, he became the thing Catherine feared most in this episode, even though it was to protect his family. It's also important to note that Frank was in a mental institution for a while (before season one) because the evil things that he saw drove him crazy. Catherine knows that he could snap again. In her mind, who's to say he doesn't start to put on that evil more often? And it's all because of his involvement with the group. So, until he can really sort this out and leave the group, he needs to go away. I don't think it was too quick. There had already been a murder in their house last year. The evil is a part of both their lives.  And she hates them for it.

As season two progresses, you learn more about some of the group's goals, but they still remain a mystery. Frank, alongside new character Lara Means, are both considered candidates for official membership in the group. Lara believes that their early work with the group were 'tests'. The more Frank learns about them, however, the more he doesn't want any part of what they are now. Lara eventually becomes a member, but it drives her insane. The season climaxes in a two-part tour-de-force that sees a viral outbreak unleashed in the world, which Peter thinks is the fourth horseman of the apocalypse. These two episodes are the most tightly-paced, theatrical-quality episodes of the entire run of the show. Morgan and Wong should be proud of what they accomplished here. The season ends in one of the most chilling and dreadful shots you will ever see. You will never think of the song "In the Year 2525" the same way again. It's probably one of the best cliffhanger endings of all time (outside The Best of Both Worlds). Essentially, the world is doomed...which begs the question how on earth you resolve such a cliffhanger. Morgan and Wong have said in separate podcast interviews that they did indeed have several "outs" for this ending. But alas, it wasn't meant to be. Chris Carter took back the show and gave these guys the boot, not even bothering to ask what they intended to do...

Season Three: Back to Formula

Even though we no longer have Morgan and Wong, Chris Carter is back, as is Frank Sponitz. The very talented Chip Johenssen is promoted to show runner (after a brief stint by Michael Duggan) and some good writers from the last season are still around. On paper, this still looks great. The problem is that it looks like they chose to retcon a little with the season finale in order to accomplish their new goals for this year. It wasn't bad, but disrespecting the continuity of the show is disrespecting your loyal fans. Even when they had the opportunity to address certain things, to tie events together, they didn't. Most people debate whether season one is better than season two, but most agree that season three is the least of them. Which isn't to say it's no good. It, in fact, became very good. But when you stumble out of the gate after such a great finale, it's not surprising that viewership started to decline, though the ratings still were decent enough by season's end.

We begin with a bang. A plane crash. A bunch of people with freaky eyes. A house explodes. Are you not entertained? Yeah okay, but what about that dreadful final shot of season two?? Where's the payoff? Carter and the gang couldn't think of anything I guess, so they set this episode several months later. The world is apparently fine now. Nothing is totally reversed, it's just altered. Actually, I take that back, they do revert Frank's hair, but that was a decision by Fox because they didn't want a gray-haired lead. Genius. People had a problem when season two changed the Millennium group, but Morgan and Wong at least had enough respect for past episodes to acknowledge this and make a gradual change. In the season three premiere, they make the changes, but they don't acknowledge the past. They do it later, but not now. It feels like a different show. This writing team should know better...

It sounds like I'm going to bad-mouth the entire season, but that's not true. In fact, once Duggan departs (after penning the worst script of the show), the season gets quite good. I'd say just about every episode is essential viewing in the second half. In the midst of this solid run, the episode "The Sound of Snow" finally deals with the discrepancies between season two's mythology and season three. This episode, or segments of it, should have started the season. The other episodes in this run have a lot of emotional, thrilling and frightening moments, including the continuation of the Lucy Butler/Legion arc that's been going on since the first season. As for the ending itself, the show gets a huge two-part conclusion, but it's one of those Network-mandated "make it work as both a season and series finale" since renewal was up in the air. It always was for this show. Fortunately, the conclusion mostly works. There are still questions, yes, including some shocking implications about the group, but Frank and Jordan's final words about the battle of good and evil sum things up perfectly as they drive into the sunset. The X-Files crossover episode "Millennium" didn't do much to close any of these remaining threads. It seemed like just an excuse to have a zombie episode. A.D. Skinner says the group disbanded, but I don't believe that. Some say that Chip Johanssen's X-Files script "Orisin", which aired a few weeks later, is more of a proper MillenniuM episode than the crossover, which is actually very true.

Every season is different, but the one consistency in it all is Frank Black; a hero against dark forces both physical and incorporeal. He's always brilliantly written and perfectly performed. One thing is certain: the world could sure use Frank today. And now we get that chance finally. As a show, MillenniuM is probably one of the best. It's good, intelligent stuff that makes you think. It's surprisingly pro-faith at times (depending on how you interpret things) and was very bold for it's time. When I watch a show like Sleepy Hollow, I ask myself: What is this saying about evil or sin? Is it exploring the human condition or does it want to be just a fun zombie show? I mean, sure it's fast-paced, exciting stuff and it does the whole fish-out-of-water thing very well. It's simply a different show for a different time, whether it's better or worse is yet to be determined. All I know is that I enjoyed the heck out of re-watching this old show. It's fun to go back and see what you forgot and also to find new meaning in it. We may not have flying cars yet, but we do have the best of the 90s coming back. I'll take a new X-Files over Jaws 19 any day. And it's also nice to be blogging about sci-fi again. 

See you again in 25 years.  (Just kidding, hopefully sooner than that.)

EDIT: For some reason Blogsy published this on "March 2014"...which is wrong.  I posted this 01/26/2015.

Posted with Blogsy

ENDER'S GAME

The cover I remember...

You made them hate me.
So? What will you do about it?...There's only one thing that will make them stop hating you.  And that's being so good at what you do that they can't ignore you.  I told them you were the best.  Now you damn well better be. - Ender and Colonel Graff. (book version)

Having loyalty to a sci-fi franchise is sort of like owning a house. It's a place of refuge, but one that takes work. Sometimes you have new additions that don't match the previous construction (Star Trek), sometimes it's incomplete (Sliders, SGU), but, in your head, you always try to make it work. Why? Because you love being there. When I watch an episode of The Next Generation for example, my stress just melts away. What can I say, I grew up with this world. There is another home to my mind that is almost perfect, outside of some leaky faucets and such. This house, however, casts a Giant shadow as problems with the architect have been brought to light. Indeed, some may learn of the architect's issues and suddenly not like their house as much. And so, they leave what they thought was a good place: the world of Ender Wiggin. To me, this has always been a home that represents tolerance and understanding. There is no judgement or agenda within its walls, even if its shadow represents something different.  It's a shame that we still chose to hate, divide and condemn one another. Hatred is a shadow, the darkest one. If we are to truly progress, we must learn to understand and love one another, to draw strength from our differences. For as this house teaches, to understand someone completely is to love them.  I am admittedly a hopeless geek who is a sucker for good stories and mythologies, so believe me when I say that I choose to stay in this house, not because of who the architect is, but because of who I am. Don't stand against me because of this choice, stand against the shadows. After all, I've owned this place for a while. I want a reward for my investment. A big shiny movie will do nicely...

You might get pushed around.  In fact, you will get pushed around. -Dap. (book version)

In eighth grade or so (fuzzy memory) I picked up a book in the school library. ENDER'S GAME it read. I didn't know what this book was about, but it had a space station on the cover, so I was sold. Little did I know that by opening this book I would begin an amazing journey with a character that I could understand and root for, a kid named Ender. His character is set up as a smart, quiet outcast who gets bullied at school. For him it's because he's a "third". Though I was only a "second" myself, I was immediately drawn in to Ender's struggles, thoughts and emotions. He continues to get put through the wringer by other students and by his teachers and commanders. And though he is tested beyond his limits, he always managed to "win". And win brilliantly. Man, I wanted to be this kid. Or, if anything, I wanted to be friends with him, to jump into the pages and tell Ender how awesome he is (I believe there's an artifact in Warehouse 13 that can help with that). Of course, the book has so much more to say about the moral quandaries of war and politics, but back then all I focused on was Ender's struggle at battle school. His isolation. The cruelty of other kids. Finally, a book that GETS children. I quickly bought all the sequels available at the time and read through them all. They weren't as interesting to me because they dealt with his adult life and back then, I liked the stories about young people. Finally, Ender's Shadow was released and I was once again transported into the world of the battle school. Every free moment I got I'd sit and read it, including at my job at the movie theater. The weeknights were slow...

I've been following rumors of a movie for a long time. I remember when Wolfgang Peterson was a potential director and Haley Joel Osment and Jake Lloyd (Yippee..) were front runners for Ender. Finally after years of fancy script treatments and studios that didn't get it (read all about it here), Lionsgate/Summit Entertainment slapped a $110 million budget onto this one (with the help of Digital Domain and others) and made Ender the literal poster boy for their next great franchise. It's a story that deserves to told. It deserves to be seen. It deserves to make a billion worldwide. It's simply that good. But as I previously mentioned, due to Card's anti-gay-marriage views, Ender once again faces extreme scrutiny by the masses. And as usual: it isn't his fault. So the question remains: should the sins of the father forever doom the Children of the Mind? This isn't the first time I've been faced with an architect that had difficult or different views from mine, being a Christian sci-fi geek and all. Gene Rodenberry instructed his writers for Star Trek that everybody is an atheist in the future and "better for it." As Admiral Chamrajnagar would say: "I can see you find my mysticism distasteful." Joss Whedon's views are polar opposite to mine. But do I watch Trek and Firefly? All the time. Card is different, but it's also important to point out that he won't profit from this film's success. As The Wrap pointed out recently, he got paid years ago with no backend in his contract. So no matter what side you're on, you can see this movie without worry. But really, the only way out of this mess is to be amazing. If this movie is amazing, then that'll make forgetting all this craziness a little easier. And so, I thought to myself as I entered the theater, it damn well better be...

WHAT I LIKED:

The casting. Asa Butterfield nailed it. I mean he NAILED it. Nobody could have played Ender quite as well. He shows a vulnerability and intensity that is perfect. He also shows the balance of violence and compassion in Ender that is so vital to the role. As for the rest of the cast, Hailee Steinfeld provided some true grit as Petra. Even though they skimped on some of Ender's other friendships (which I'll get to later), I'm glad they allowed this one to shine a bit. Moises Arias was an intriguing choice for Bonzo. It's kind of funny how short Bonzo is compared to Ender, but it works. And because of his decent screen time, he's actually the most interesting character in the film outside of Ender. People complain about Ben Kingsley's accent in the film, but I didn't mind it at all. I thought he and Ford were both great choices. Kingsley's Mazer also has a line that alludes to the next book, Speaker for the Dead, which I don't think is in the EG book. It's clever.

A friend of mine says that when making a book into a film you either have to follow the book or, if you can't, don't be boring. I was impressed with how much of the book was put on screen exactly as it is. Much of the dialogue is left untouched and many scenes play out exactly the same. The battle room scenes are brilliantly and faithfully translated to screen. The two on one battle against Ender's Dragon Army is fantastic. I silently (unlike others in the theater) celebrated every time they got something right. Kudos to Gavin Hood and his production team for wanting this to be as close to the book as possible. Of course, changes needed to be made and things needed to be simplified, but I was prepared for this. Many of the changes work. One intriguing change was taking a scene at the battle school of Ender beating some kids at a video game and moving it to the very beginning. This way the film opens with Ender playing games, which actually is kinda neat. The conflict between him and Stilson is now motivated from how badly he beats him. After this somewhat surprising opening, the movie goes straight back to how the book opens, with Ender getting his monitor taken out. Other changes include the removal of Demosthenes and Locke and a reduced amount of time in the battle school. Most people complain about the number of years Ender spends at the school being reduced from six to one (the movie doesn't say how long exactly), but this is something that has always been with the book to screen adaptations over the years. I mean, what are they gonna do realistically, follow him for six years? Some things are too difficult to pull off, but to Hood's credit once again, he shot the film (mostly) chronologically, so you do see Butterfield age a little as the movie progresses.

WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE:
I felt like the movie was 30 minutes long. This is a good thing since it is NEVER boring, but it's also a bad thing because they could have spent so much more time in the battle school developing these characters. For a while I thought the pacing was pretty perfect. But as soon as Ender got to command his own toon, the movie jumps into hyperdrive until it finally slows down again near the end. Friendships are formed quickly, with little to no conflict. Bean's screen time is most disappointing, though he does get one the funniest lines in the movie. In the book, he and Ender start out at odds with each other and form a true bond over time. Here they meet right away and are always friends. Because this story moves so quickly and the time frame is compressed, you also miss Ender's exhaustion. You get everything else from him, his anger at Graff, his love for his sister Val, his fear of becoming like Peter, but you don't see how all this weighs him down over a period of years like you do the book. And I think for the movie, you needed to see just a little of this. You needed to feel Ender's fatigue from being put into constant simulations and battles. Instead of being too burned out to celebrate, he cheers with his toon after they win. Though I didn't mind this change as much. If you're not going to show his exhaustion, you might as well have him enjoy a victory with his friends.

This movie is like seeing one of your favorite TV shows turned into a major motion picture. You get all the essential parts that made the show special, but you don't get the extra character development and emotional beats that made these people come alive. This movie could have been an hour longer and it still would have felt too short. Perhaps Peter Jackson should have been handed the reigns instead. But in the end, what IS in here is gold. I just needed more gold.  I like gold.

 

WHAT ELSE I DIDN'T LIKE:
Freaking movie critics. I've been keeping close tabs on the critical reviews of this one, seeing if people remain fair and balanced in their reviews. I focused a lot on the negative reviews, to which there were a surprising amount. Some people who didn't like the film claimed that it "celebrates weaponizing children.." The Flick Filosopher called it "an endorsement of preemptive violence as a way of life." She also mentions that the film is very pro-war and its message supports our invasion of Iraq. Boy do these people not get it. Just because things are shown on screen, doesn't mean the movie is endorsing those things. Come on people, look deeper. As I said before, this is a story that studies the moral quandaries involved in war. Pre-emptive strikes, the indoctrination of children, the ends justifying the means no matter what...these are things that are meant to be discussed, they aren't lauded by the book or by the movie. What I've learned mostly from the critics is that liking this movie is mainly dependent on whether or not you get Ender. These and other critics call Ender cold, snot-nosed and an a-hole. One critic complained about he and Petra not kissing (which...no). If Ender doesn't work, the movie and all its themes doesn't work. Since I know Ender, I don't see these negative attributes. But I really must challenge myself here: can I understand Ender without my knowledge of the book? It's almost impossible to remove myself entirely, but in my heart of hearts, I believe I still can. All the elements that make his character complex, conflicted, tormented and tragic are present here, but to be fair, it's all very brief and subtle. The movie flies through Ender's story so quickly at times, it's hard for the small moments and emotional beats to sink in right away. Clearly this is a film that gets better with multiple viewings, since you'll be able to see these things better the more you watch. I plan on seeing it many more times. These critics should give it another chance. Maybe their opinions will change. Maybe not. The Flick Filosopher, commenting on the responses to her review, said, "if I have to read the book in order to understand the movie, the movie has failed." I agree with this, but I don't think it applies to THIS movie. Things aren't exactly overstated, but everything you need in order to understand the inner struggles of Ender and the themes of the story are indeed present in the film.

There are times when the world is in flux and the right voice in the right place can move the world. -Peter Wiggin. (book only)

The enemy gate is down and, sadly, so is the box office numbers. Summit entertainment unfairly opened this movie a week out from Thor: The Dark World and a few weeks out from its own Hunger Games sequel. Now it looks like this slick production won't see a follow-up. Thing is, you can study these box office numbers and boil it down to those negative movie reviews, or the boycott, but I just think the trailers weren't enticing enough for the uninitiated. And the book is much older than the other recent book-to-movie franchises to have the same hype. If I watch those trailers and I haven't read the book, it honestly wouldn't do much for me either. It would look like a Hunger Games and/or Harry Potter rip-off. I wouldn't know that Card's novel came way before either of these. I wouldn't know why I should care about Ender and his game. John Carter can relate. It's just too bad we live in a world where Twilight gets a ton of movies, Grown Ups 2 makes over 100 million, but Ender's Game will be a failure. It deserves better.

This isn't quite the house I'm used to being in. Rather, this is like moving into a one-bedroom apartment, but with all my belongings from my house crammed into it. Hard to see and enjoy everything, but at least it's mostly still here. In other words, this didn't turn out to be the greatest film ever made like I was hoping, but boy could it have been worse. Under another director or studio's hands, the book would have been thrown out the window in favor of big thrills and action. And though they do make this a big, shiny spectacle at times, the big moments are almost all true to the book. Could this have been better? Sure, but only by doing more of what they were already doing so well. (Please let there be a four-hour director's cut!) In the end, I'm happy this movie was finally made. It was a good time to make it.  The visual effects are fantastic, the production is first rate, the actors are perfect. It's a powerful movie that came from people who actually care about the source material. If only they could have gone duplex with Ender's Shadow. Oh well.  Can I make a home out of this small apartment? Absolutely. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm waiting for the final walls to get put up across the street (Warehouse 13) and I need to lobby for a new kitchen remodel (season 5 campaign for Enterprise)...

...Wow, I'm weird.

-Starbase 133

Reversing the polarity

Messin with Sasquatch.

In a first season episode of Fringe, "The Transformation," a man transforms into a monster on a plane at the beginning of the episode.  In the fourth season episode "Nothing as it Seems," we get the exact same opening.  Same camera shots, same dialogue.  The only difference is that the transformation takes place after the plane has landed.  What lazy writing!  I mean, just rehashing a first season episode like that?  Copying the dialogue?  Like, that's so cheap!  Oh wait, this takes place in an alternate timeline.  So what they are doing is exploring how this plot point plays out differently in the fourth season timeline, which is quite different than the first season's.  It's interesting to see how the same event plays out differently when the circumstances around it have been altered.  Only in science fiction can you do cool storytelling like this.

In STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, a scene plays out toward the end between Kirk and Spock, who are separated by a sealed door.  It is heartfelt and touching.  However it has also become a lighting rod for people who are complaining endlessly that it's just a lazy rehash of TWOK and is cheap pandering.  I tend to look at this as I do the Fringe episodes: it's an exploration of a similar event played out around different circumstances.  The scene itself has completely different themes as the original scene did.   As TWOK was about the end of a friendship, this was about the beginning, about Spock realizing that Kirk IS a friend.  And for Kirk, it's about understanding what being a captain truly is.  It's about actually facing his own no-win scenario head on.  The true rip-off of TWOK will always and forever be STAR TREK: NEMESIS.  This movie is totally different in structure.  Re-exploring classic scenes (and villains) doesn't automatically make a rip-off if you add something new to it.  In the end, STID transforms into a whole different monster.

But not all fans see it that way.  Because of this and some other plot issues, this is quickly becoming the most debated movie in the franchise, to the chagrin of the writers.  Due to the hot debates and intense scrutiny STID is getting, Roberto Orci himself recently lashed out at a fan in the comment section of an article about how Star Trek is Broken.  

Orci wrote: "I think the article above is akin to a child acting out against his parents. Makes it tough for some to listen, but since I am a loving parent, I read these comments without anger or resentment, no matter how misguided."

Later he said to a specific person (perhaps a couple people) who was agitating him: "You lose credibility big time when you don't honestly engage with the F**KING WRITER OF THE MOVIE ASKING YOU AN HONEST QUESTION. You prove the cliche of s**tty fans. And rude in the process. So, as Simon Pegg would say: F**K OFF!"

Oh my.  No anger or resentment there.  He later calmed down and started engaging more rationally with other people on the thread.  You can find all his interactions if you are willing to scan through the 1300+ comments going on right now at the site!  Of course Orci will have to face some scrutiny himself now for that emotional outburst.  There may be consequences to this.  Perhaps there's an alternate reality somewhere where he chose to not hit send...

Let's break this down.  First of all, how crappy was this fan, or group of fans, being to set Orci off like that?  It looks like some comments had already been deleted, so I wonder if something particularly nasty was going on.  Secondly, on the other side of the coin, people are going to have their opinions.  This is Star Trek.  Maybe you shouldn't even try engaging with this intense fan base...or find another way to do it.  Obviously he and the other writers are very proud of their work and both of his/their movies were very successful.  It's hard to read people tear down something you, no doubt, worked on for a long period of time.  With Star Trek, there are usually things, as a fan, you have to work out in your head in order to make all the continuity work.  This is why I'm always willing to give something the immediate benefit of the doubt until I have time to think about it later.  Does it all make sense?  Am I getting all the themes?  Are the characters' actions logical?  With STID, I was able to work pretty much everything out in my head.  I have no problem with the revisiting of an old adversary, with the similar scenes and scenarios, even with the parallel dialogue.  This all worked for me, as I explained above, but it clearly didn't work for everyone.  And man are these people vocal!  Does that justify Orci going off on someone?  Probably not.  And I certainly hope this is a learning experience for him and his team if he or anyone else ever gets tempted to start engaging with the fans on the internet.  It's not worth it.  Keep the interactions at the conventions, where people are less likely to try to get under your skin.  

Though I'm always up for a friendly discussion if you have time, Mr. Orci!  

-Starbase 133

The Heart of DARKNESS

A Horcrux is a powerful object in which a Dark wizard or witch has hidden a fragment of his or her soul for the purpose of attaining immortality. In The Half-Blood Prince, you learn of it through Tom Riddle's discussion with Professor Slughorn. Taking a page from Tom's diary, er playbook, Paramount has seen fit to split up the bonus features for the upcoming Blu-Ray release of Star Trek Into Darkness several times for the sake of making every retailer feel special and attain financial immortality in the process. A supreme act of evil indeed. Of course, us fans (who cares about them after all) now need to make a choice as to what version we should own. You have the standard 2D and 3D Blu-Ray release available on amazon (which I pre-ordered long ago, getting a free digital comic out of it!), but they also have an exclusive phaser gift set. Best Buy has exclusive streaming content from CinemaNow. Walmart has a Steelbook edition (and a USS Vengeance toy). Target has an additional 30 minutes of BTS footage. And to top it all off, iTunes is the ONLY PLACE to get the audio commentary! From what I understand, the Blu-Rays should come with a digital download code which will include the exclusive commentary, but this still limits where you can view the commentary if you don't, for example, have Apple TV.

I know, Spock, I know...

Is this ridiculous to anyone else? There have been exclusive editions before, but I don't feel it has been done to this magnitude. Sorry, but I'm not buying every edition of this movie. Maybe I can convince my friends to go out and buy the different releases and then I can go to one house for the Target features, another house for the CinemaNow content, another to look at the toys...you get the idea. It's just unfortunate that this experiment had to be done to a Trek movie. I was really looking forward to learning much more about Into Darkness, instead I have to be okay with a horcrux with superb A/V quality. For those wanting me to say that this is the reason that the movie has no soul...sorry, I'm not in that camp! It is the soul within the movie, i.e. the looks inside the film, that is split up and incomplete! Now I will need to resort to witchcraft and wizardry (YouTube) to get the whole story...thanks Paramount for making me do it this way.


Read more here: http://www.thedigitalbits.com/columns/my-two-cents/082813_1415

Cool, but not...80 dollars cool.

-Starbase 133