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

MAN OF STEEL

"It's not an S.  On my world it means hope." -Superman

How exactly does one make a good Superman movie? It's a question that has perplexed Warner Brothers ever since they gave Richard Donner the pink slip (in the form of a memo) in the late 70's.  Superman in general has a great mythology, but it doesn't have the most interesting superhero (remember that scene from Kill Bill Vol. 2?).  For answers, they turned to David S. Goyer, a guy whose adapted more than a few comics to screen, slapped Christopher Nolan's name on the production and gave flamboyant visual stylist Zack Snyder the camera.  Surely this one would deliver the goods, right?  Thing is, Superman, the most popular comic book ever, has been running on empty for a long time now.  How did it get to this?  Are these problems fixable?  Does the world really need Superman?

Director Richard Donner was setting up a comic book franchise long before it became the norm. Him and his screenwriters had talked about doing a long series of Superman movies. To kick everything off, they started filming two movies simultaneously from one massive script by Mario Puzo (The Godfather), re-written by James Bond writer Tom Mankiewicz to take out the camp (irony?). 80% of this project was complete when they ran out of money and time, so they quickly finished the first film, moved the original climax planned for Superman II over to the first one and, in 1978, waited for box office receipts. It was a hit, but since the producers hated Donner, they fired him and replaced him with Richard Lester, a man who didn't know a thing about the comics. Lester re-shot many scenes contributing to the uneven tone of the film. He also began the slow process (sped up in Superman III) of putting lots of camp back into the script.  We'll never know what would have happened if Donner had continued on with these movies...

"My son, never trust The RZA."

In 1978, director Donner made you believe a man could fly.  So what did he do right that others did wrong? One thing he valued most of all was verisimilitude.  This was apparent in the hustle and bustle of Metropolis and the Daily Planet, the time spent on Superman's origins and childhood, etc.  He was able to bring this story to life and make it feel real.  Let's not forget too the way Christopher Reeve KILLED it in the dual role of Clark Kent and Superman. And though Mr. Reeve gave it his all in Superman III and IV, the series had become a parody of itself and the momentum was clearly lost.  But as Superman said to Lex Luthor "See you in twenty, Lex." at the end of IV, sure enough he returned about twenty years later...

"I can see Warners losing money from here."

There is a vast difference between Bryan Singer's approach to Superman than Goyer/Nolan/Snyder.  Singer chose to remain very close to Donner's original story.  Too close in fact.  He made sure it had the same rousing score from John Williams (good move IMO), the same basic villainous plot by Lex Luthor (not as good), and lots of callback dialogue and scenes.  Singer played it safe, trying to please everyone.  The reason the Star Trek reboot can get away with callback dialogue, especially in INTO DARKNESS, is that we are exploring alternate characters, but here we are treated with a movie that isn't quite a reboot and only partially a sequel.  Audiences wanted more.  It's too bad to, because the few things that were new, were actually very interesting.  What would the repercussions be of a "superkid" on Earth?  What would they have done with New Krypton?  Though it made some decent money, Reboot Part 1 (Super Donner) was considered an epic fail.  So now, with a smaller, but still massive budget, all the chips are once again on the table.  Reboot Part 2 (The Dark Steel Begins) is a true reboot of Superman, going back to the beginning and exploring (and massively expanding) the world of Krypton.  Goyer and his team did their homework and basically took everything that worked from the previous films and put it into Man of Steel, cranked up the action scenes to eleven (-ty billion), put the title card at the end (all the best movies do that) and called it a day.  So is the world ready to accept THIS superman, or will he be cast out once again, as his mom predicted?

"I WILL FIND THE 5 PEOPLE WHO SAW PREMIUM RUSH!"

WHAT I LIKED:

As previously stated, the mythology is the most interesting thing from the Superman universe.  Goyer knew this and spent a lot of time fleshing out the history of Krypton.  The movie opens on this lavish, dying world, full of mysterious tech, advanced weaponry and flying friends...it all makes for a great, epic opening.

Superman - Henry Cavill definitely fits the part, but it's hard to give a full assessment on him just yet as we don't really see the dual Kent/Superman thing that much. The most interesting parts are the flashbacks to his childhood. These little bits really add something.  Sometimes you forget this guy is actually an alien from a different world, but here we really see how much Kal-El struggles with his different, vastly superior senses.  You see the bullies, the fights with his dad, and finally you see him don the cape and learn to fly for the first time.  Cool.

Lois Lane - No trouble with the curve here, Amy Adams kills it as Lois. The filmmakers took her character in a different direction than I expected, but it makes it all the better in my eyes.  I love how she gets in on the action!  The problem with Bosworth's Lois in 2006 is that she didn't come off as very smart or kind.  Is this really the woman that an alien would fall in love with and be willing to die for?  Really???  I didn't believe it.  Adams...yeah, I can see that better.

General Zod - The best bad guys are the ones that have real purpose, the ones who think they're good. You understand why Zod is doing what he's doing, just as you understand Jor-El's choices to stand against him.  Goyer really did a good job not making these guys bad just for the sake of being bad.  Kudos.

Other likes: Former Battlestar Galactica actors in supporting roles.

                  The little Easter eggs during the final fight with Zod.

"Our productivity might increase with a Happy Working Song."

WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE:

This is just too dang long. The final fight with Zod mostly doesn't need to happen. Or, it could have happened, but shortened down to just the conclusion of the fight (which is brilliant). Superman probably inadvertently kills another thousand people during their building-overturning battle.  Oops.  And that's the biggest thing for me: in a movie about a protector/savior figure, a lot of people die.  I could have gone without seeing so much desolation.  The deaths aren't graphically shown, but most of Smallville is flattened and many skyscrapers in Metropolis go down.  We get it Snyder, these guys are epic.  It's gonna take at least a decade to clean this mess up.  Obviously there needs to be some casualties when fighting against an evil like this, but this is overkill.  Keep the moral dilema for Kal-El, but ditch all the loud CGI.  It would have been far more effective (and cheaper).  LESS IS MORE.  You don't need to destroy half the planet to make the villains menacing.  You don't need to top The Avengers (see: impossible)...

Zach Snyder is very good at making pretty pictures (like Michael Bay), but sometimes the pictures are short on logic. I get that he's trying to convey certain feelings and symbolism, but it has to all make sense in a real world context.  Some parts just feel silly, like Superman's birth scene.  Was she giving birth to an elephant?  This is kind of explained...but it's still overdone.  Also Supes saves a lot of people from falling to their deaths...by catching them while flying at about a thousand miles per hour.  Surely, he would have snapped all their necks.  I was also starting to predict Snyder's documentary-style zooms (and occasional double zooms).  Style shouldn't distract from the substance and here, it does.

In the end, did Goyer (and team) succeed?  I'd say partially.  It's hard to make Superman as interesting as, say, Iron Man.  Kal-El generally has it together emotionally and earthlings aren't really a problem for him to defeat.  In a world with Superman, there (ideally) wouldn't be many problems.  What this movie succeeded to do was give him some pain.  Not just from his father, but from how they make Zod an understandable villain.  Would you really want to defeat the last of your kind, especially since he's just doing what he feels is best?  Goyer created a rich mythology with many avenues to explore and many more characters to develop.  This new take on Superman offers a lot of potential.  Now the question becomes: do you want to wait 7 years for another reboot, or do you want this series to continue on as is?  It may not be super, but Man of Steel gives the franchise hope.  And in that regard: it's an S (Well, it looks like one).

-Starbase 133

We all got a weak spot: FAST 6

There's really nothing quite like the Fast & Furious franchise. Since this series is not steeped in mythology and rules like the Marvel universe or Star Trek, it has freely and effectively transformed itself from a simple franchise about underground street racing into big event movies with heists, larger-than-life villains and ridiculous action set-pieces. Each movie has become bigger than the last and Fast 6 (or Furious 6, or whatever) is no exception.

I remember back in 2001 when the original movie came out. I saw it on one of the biggest screens in Minnesota. The atmosphere was electric. After the movie, the parking lot cleared out faster than I've ever seen and not because everyone hated it, but rather everyone wanted to go out and drag race! Now I personally understand the dangers of racing movies...getting my one and only speeding ticket on the way to see Gone in 60 Seconds...but this was even more so. Odd then that only a couple years later, not only had I forgotten about this movie, but I had no desire to see 2 Fast 2 Harbors...um, 2 Furious (it's a Minnesota joke). I did end up seeing it with a friend in an almost empty theater. Talk about a total change in atmosphere. It was the last Fast movie i'd see in the theater until 6.

We Rock.

                                           
THE RIMS OF CHANGE...
I caught Tokyo Drift on TV eventually. Though it wasn't great, I remember liking the way director Justin Lin filmed the racing scenes. I felt like this guy had a future. Then in 2009, the ads for Fast & Furious came out. New Model, old parts...er, original parts I guess. With Lin back at the helm I had SOME expectations for this one. Maybe he could bring the magic back. I was wrong. This film was just meh for me. My expectations were at the absolute bottom when Fast Five was announced. To my amazement, however, this film was NOT meh. It was very not meh. Lin and screenwriter Chris Morgan (whose been writing these since TD) finally got their crap together for this one. It was a great story with a huge and exciting payoff. The best movies are the ones that take you by surprise. But this can also lead to very high expectations for the next movie from the fans and the studio, which can, in turn, result in a follow-up that is a rushed, crappy studio project with no heart. Can they really make two good movies in a row? Yep.

Old parts is funnier.

WHAT I LIKED:
I love when sequels manage to improve (or at least enhance the relevance of) the movies that came before it.  Fast 6 ties in events mostly from the fourth movie, but also a bit from the others as well. It makes you want to re-watch all of them in fact. The "Furious crew" is just as good as they were in five, but this time they meet someone who is truly their match. The villain in this movie is great. He is a true "big movie" villain who has the ability to defeat our team. And he has one the coolest cars ever.


The action? Well, let me tell you. You may ask: how do you top (from Fast Five) two cars pulling a safe attached to cables through the streets of Rio, smashing everything in its path? How about...people fighting on top of cars....hooked to a cargo plane...that's taking off...while it's exploding. And that's not even the half of it. The action is nuts. But it's a good kind of nuts. To me, the true "wow" moments didn't come from the big effects however, it came from the cool fight scenes. Walker is surprisingly game for his fights, as are the others, but this movie also adds two trained martial artists in Joe Taslim (THE RAID: REDEMPTION) and Gina Carano. Though Carano doesn't get to show off as much as she did in HAYWIRE, she still puts some sweet moves on display. Diesel and The Rock also do a pretty awesome finishing move in the climatic fight.

Yeah....this be crazy.

WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE:
This movie has essentially two action climaxes. Though they are both spectacular, sometimes less is more. For a moment, after the first big action sequence, I thought they were going to end on a huge (and awesome) cliffhanger for the next film, but then the movie kept going for another 20 minutes. It was almost too much. They should have just saved it all for the big finale.

The movie moved quickly in general, but certain things slowed it to a halt.  Lingering shots of scantily clad women (as is the standard of the Fast franchise I guess) are pointless.  And the action WAS overkill sometimes.  They could have tightened this up a little more, cut some things here and there, and it wold have been far better.  

Now THIS rocks!

This movie is out-grossing INTO DARKNESS worldwide by a good $200 million at least. The franchise has hit its stride. People weren't leaving the theater wanting to race, they were simply talking about the movie. How it tied in to the other movies and what we can expect in the future. When will the magic end? Not here, I know that much. For not long after the credits started, we do in fact have a set-up for Fast 7. And this brief moment is just as thrilling as an exploding cargo plane with 50 cars attached to it. Don't miss it. Well, don't miss the movie either. Though according to the box office, you already haven't.

-Starbase 133 (Hey, who said we have to stick to just Star Trek talk!)

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.