Star Trek 2009 - John Cho interview

In the lead up to the premiere of 'Star Trek Into Darkness' I'll be posting a number of interviews conducted with the cast & crew of the film from the 2009 'Star Trek' World Premiere in Sydney, Australia.

 

That's me on the far left of the photo waiting for John to sign my cast shot! Luck O'Loughlan gets his photo taken with John Cho at the World Premier of 'Star Trek' on April 7, 2009.

 

The following interview was done by myself and fellow Trekker Michael O'Loughlan. At the time, we were both involved in Austrek, which is Australia's Number One Star Trek club; as well as being the second oldest Trek club in the world. Depending on preference, there's the original audio recording of the interview or the cleaned-up transcript which appeared in Austrek's 'The Captain's Log'.

 

 

We start be telling John that ‘Austrek’ is the second oldest club in the world, and giving him some background about the group. With introductions done, it was time to ask the questions ...

How did you feel about taking on the role?

I was really excited about it. When I was a kid, I immigrated to the States when I was six in 1978. Turning on the television, at the time, I didn’t see very many great representations of Asians. It was all very stereotypical stuff and, then, I see George (Takei). He’s doing something that’s not about his race. He’s playing the helmsman of a spacecraft. I was very impressionable, and it meant a lot for me to see George on the television at that time, doing that role. It made a great impression on me. When I heard this project was happening, it was very important for me to be connected to it.

How was it to meet George (Takei)?

It was great! He’s very well read, well spoken, charming individual. I’d known him a little bit because he’s on the Board of East-West Players Theatre Company that I’ve done some plays at; but we hadn’t sat down and got to know one another. This (movie) gave me the opportunity to do it, and it was fantastic.

George Takei - Star Trek's original Sulu

Star Trek’s a long way from your other roles in films like American Pie and Harold Kumar ...

Yes, I’ve sullied the good ‘Star Trek’ name with my dirty past!

Locky jumps in: “We were actually thinking you’d cleaned it up a bit!”

John bursts out laughing at this comment.

Depends on where you’re coming from!

I can’t help but add that John’s presence in the film has made it credible for 17 and 18 year olds to like Star Trek.

John says that he doesn’t think that this movie needs that kind of help.

Locky gets things back on track by asking John about the huge difference between what’s he’s done in the past compared to ‘Star Trek’.

It sure is! What can I tell you ... I’m really happy to have variety in my career, and I’ve been lucky to not get penned in too much. You know, it’s funny, I’ve been asked if I’m afraid of being typecast after having done ‘Star Trek’. I’m like, if I haven’t been typecast after ‘American Pie’ and ‘Harold & Kumar’, I’m made of Teflon!

Variety is always something you like. You do a serious thing for a while, so it can be nice to work on a comedy for a little bit and vice versa.

 Are you now at the point in career where roles come to you or do you still have to go through the casting process?

It depends. I had to audition for this role, but steadily things come across the table where they ask ‘would you do this?’ But, I’m not a big player. You know, the way the universe works, the stuff you really want you have to go out and get. A lot of stuff you don’t want is offered to you.

You’re observation is correct. I’ve never really had a breakthrough role where my whole life and career has changed because of it. I’m the exception in Hollywood because my career has gone ahead one step at a time. I’m actually very happy with that. It’s provided a kind of steadiness and stability in a very unstable industry. I’m happy with the roles I’ve done.

It must be a comforting thought for someone who’s a family man with a child?

When I came to LA, to give it a shot, I really just thought of myself as a working actor. My goal was when I was 40, I didn’t want to be waiting tables. I really wanted to pay the bills with acting, and fortunately I reached that goal a long time ago. Thank goodness. Having said that, I try not to take anything for granted. I’m not head-lining movies, for the most part, so I consider myself a character actor. When something comes along that’s an interesting role, I look at it and see whether or not I can do anything with it. Can I make it funny? Can I make it dark? I do whatever I can do to help out the project. If I can find a way ‘in’, I want to do it.

How much of ‘yourself’ did you try to bring to ‘Sulu’?

I tried to bring a good deal. I’m older than George than when George started doing the role. My disposition is a little bit more youthful and George has always seemed ‘older’ than his age. So, I kind of figured the reason why I was cast was to bring the youthful part of me to Sulu. The whole project seemed to be straddling a line; to honour the original and to also make it a little bit more athletic, and a little bit more muscular. I wanted to bring that part of myself to Sulu.

What where the physical demands of the role on you?

It’s not like real work, but we trained for three months before. I didn’t have any background in martial arts, but I had learned a little bit of fencing years ago. I did ‘Hamlet’. Aside from that, I had to start from scratch. It was great because Zach, Chris and I trained together with the stunt guys. Chris learned his boxing, and it was all individualised, but we trained together and I felt like we went through Starfleet Academy together. It was a way of us bonding and going through something together and graduating. As much as we could, we did the stunts. There were a few we couldn’t do, but Chris and I were hanging off the wires, we were fighting and doing the moves, so it was pretty physically taxing.

 

Chris Pine & John Cho talk about the drill fight scene highlighting the physicality of the role John talks about in his answer to our question about the physical demands of the role.

 

Watching the cast together at the Premiere, you all seem to have developed a sense of camaraderie. Is that an accurate assessment?

It’s very accurate. I was thinking at the beginning of this journey, the guys who did the original series didn’t know what was in store for them. We’re new actors walking into a very established franchise, so, in a way, we’re blessed that we know we’re ‘blessed’. We’re walking into something special, and something very memorable. There was always a sense of everyone looking around at each other and saying let’s not take this for granted – let’s have a great time! We’re participating in something so special. It’s a situation where you know it right off the bat.

Secondly – and this is my own theory – there’s was so much secrecy surrounding this project. They didn’t want photos of us on the internet. We had to wear ponchos. Normally, in between set-ups, the cast might disperse back to their trailers and make phone calls and catch a nap, and what have you. It was such a pain to do all that stuff, we ended up sticking around on the stage, and we all ended up just talking a lot more than is normal, and we got very close. Those of us on the Bridge, we spent a lot of concentrated time together. It was great.

How did you go with Star Trek’s techno-babble?

I just tried to memorise it, and say it when it was my turn, as best I could.

Are you comfortable with idea of ‘Trek’ fandom?

You know, I haven’t given it much thought. I don’t know what it’s like. I’ve been to Comic-Con with ‘Harold & Kumar’. I figure those are people who like us, and are there to see our movie. Right now, my attitude has been ‘let’s go out there and enjoy ourselves’, and don’t have any preconceived notions of what it’s like.

Are you happy you’ve taken this role?

You know what I’m really pleased about ... I think ‘Star Trek’ is a positive narrative. I’m happy to be leaving that for my son. ‘Star Trek’ is a bunch of people from different genders, races and species working towards a common, peaceful goal. It’s a little ‘hippieish’, but I think it’s a very admirable message to put forth in a story. I’m very proud to associated with the franchise; I really am. So, if we make more, I would be very happy to continue to be involved.

I saw it about a month ago. I was very happy with it, but you really do never know how it’s going to play. Last night I was pleased. It felt like people were very kind. It felt like people were enjoying themselves.

What JJ and the writers very good at was focussing on the original characters and their relationships. If you stay true to those, you can do a lot. You can take the story a bunch of different places. I really feel like those relationships were what made the series.

And, with that, our interview with John concludes. We did, however, manage to sneak a photo with John ...

Star Trek 2009 - Bryan Burk interview

Australia will, once again, host the premiere of JJ Abrams' second Star Trek film 'Into Darkness'. The premiere is scheduled for April 23, 2013, but unlike the 2009 Sydney Opera House event, 'Into Darkness' will be a little more low-key; opening up at the Village Cinemas in George Street.




Karl Urban, Chris Pine, Bryan Burk, Zachary Quinto, JJ Abrams, Eric Bana & John Cho at the Sydney World Premier of 'Star Trek' in April 2009.

In keeping with the first film's premiere, many of the actors and production team will be on hand for the Sydney premiere. It's been reported JJ Abrams, Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto and Karl Urban will be attending the Sydney premiere in 9 days time. All four came to Sydney last time, as well as John Cho, Eric Bana and JJ Abrams' right-hand man Bryan Burk. I was lucky enough to get along to one of the press days Paramount put on for the film because of my association with the Star Trek fan scene. Myself and fellow fan, Michael O'Louhglan, spent the day in one-on-one & round-table interviews with all the actors, as well as JJ Abrams.

Our last interview was scheduled to be Karl Urban, which was done as an on-camera interview. By the time Michael and I had finished with Karl, most of the other interviewers had finished and left for the day. We went back to the room that Paramount had set-up for all the interviewers and, on our way back, I noticed Bryan Burk talking to one of the Paramount team. It was at this moment I had an idea. I told Michael that I'd be back in a minute, but not to pack up just yet ...

I went and found Di Campisi, who was the head of publicity for Paramount here in Australia at that time. I asked her if she could swing an interview with Bryan Burk. I figured this guy is a serious film & television producer. If anyone can shed light on what goes on with making a movie, he's going to be the person to know. Di came back after a couple of minutes and told me to wait in one of the rooms. I went and got Michael and we headed into the room where Di had told us to wait.

A few minutes later, Bryan Burk appeared. The transcript below is a cleaned-up version of the audio file that I've attached to this piece. It's a broad-ranging discussion about Star Trek, movies and the reasons why no one talks to Bryan Burk!

 

Audio interview with 'Star Trek' 2009 Producer Bryan Burk

 

We started off by asking why it was no one else wanted to talk with Bryan Burk.

He jokes, telling us that it’s “anti-Semitism”...

He then gets into the swing of things by telling us that he’s “normally deep behind the scenes.” He admits that sometimes he has to ‘come out of the cave’ just to check on things.

He then continues with his jocularity be responding to my comment about being an important part of the film making process, by telling us that his mother thinks so!

I kick off the formal questions by asking Bryan to explain to fans (specifically Austrek members) about the roles he plays as a Producer. However, Bryan quickly turns the tables on us by asking if we’d seen the film the night before? We both answer yes, which leads him to ask us the question on everyone’s mind.

“Did we screw it up?”

Both of us tell him that they (being the entire cast & crew), got it right.

Bryan goes on to tell us that it was weird because the Sydney World Premiere was the first time the film had been shown to an audience who had no connection to the production.

Bryan was pleased to hear our feedback from the premiere, and we told him that we had spoken to long-time Original Series fans and they were very happy with the new film.

Bryan admits to us that out of the five key production staff of JJ Abrams, Damon Lindeloff, Robert Orci, Alex Kurtzman and himself; he knew the least about Star Trek.

“I didn’t watch the series at all, and didn’t really pay any attention to Star Trek until the films came out ... I didn’t really know who any of these people were, I just felt stupid, all these people were standing around a bridge, and they were talking gibberish.”

Bryan goes on to compare TOS to Star Wars.

“There was a beginning. There’s this kid Luke ... and his Aunt and Uncle, and they die ... and you really get pulled into it. So when the movie (Star Trek: The Motion Picture) came out a couple of years after Star Wars, I was like WOW! I remember sitting in the audience, loving the spectacle and it was enormous and it was big! Then, the (Jerry) Goldsmith music came on, and everything was like I was in heaven ... I remember the theatre I was at was in Westwood in Los Angeles, and the whole experience was a very seminal experience for me. Simultaneously, I remember every one in the audience cheering when these characters came on. That’s when I felt like, ‘Why are they cheering’, who are these people, and again you realise that there was never a beginning for Star Trek. There was never a way in.”

Bryan continues, with absolutely no prompting, and continues to relay his thoughts about successive films in the Star Trek movie franchise.

“By the time I saw Wrath of Khan, I sort of knew who these people were from the previous film, and I loved Wrath of Khan. It felt like I was surrounded by these people who I had discovered in the previous film, but I never really had a gateway into it.”

Bryan then shifts his remarks back to the new film, talking about the pre-production process, and how giving the audience a story that would ‘let them in’ to the story and the Star Trek franchise was critical for the new film.

“When we started talking about taking on the film, Damon & Alex, and Bob & JJ were like this is the best way in. In all the filmed entertainment they had never done Kirk and Spock’s (beginning story).”

Bryan then tells us that, prior to his involvement on the new film, he’d seen eight of the ten feature films, but had always found it hard to grasp all the details of each characters back story.

“If we do our job right, it (the film) will appeal to those 40 years of people who had all been fans of Star Trek.”

I then move away from the story, and ask Bryan about his role as a Producer and the mechanics of his role in the film making process.

“I’m involved in everything we do, everything we produce. I do different things on different projects. On the first season of Lost, I was responsible for all of our cuts and all of our mixes. Now, I just mainly focus on the mixes and the dubs. On Star Trek, I was involved in the conception of it, and when they were writing the script, the casting, the production, and then I vanished a little. I was in the middle of Fringe, and I would have to go off and do that pilot in Toronto.”

“When I came back (to Star Trek), I was involved in the editing process, the mixing, the post, and the sound and all the other stuff, as well as the marketing. It’s kind of everything ... Someone asked me this recently, and a good producer is someone who’s involved in everything and is helping their Director, or in the case of television, their show runner, to free them up to be able to do their jobs as best as they can ... To help free them up to clear the way for their creativity.”

Michael asks Bryan what it’s like to switch back and forth between television production and feature film production.

“It’s weird. It’s exhausting, and mind-numbingly exciting at the same time! They are exactly the same process, done completely differently. Economically they’re different. The speed of everything is different. Part of our success in features, has been a television education. We’re able to do everything so much faster, with significantly smaller amounts of money. The ability to problem solve on the fly, and I think we’ve had success in features, in the sense that we’ve been happy with, is that every challenge is addressable, but you have to roll up your sleeves and figure out how to do it.”

I ask Bryan what the biggest hurdles were in getting this new film made.

“To say we had the greatest crew is an understatement. It was amazing. The whole movie was shot in Los Angeles, and we had big conversation about going to Iceland, and it just starts getting really expensive. Then it all becomes, well, what do we do? That’s when you get ILM to do the visual effects, and to say they did an incredible job is the understatement of the year. They were incredible. The real challenge was, what we like to do in everything we do, is make it tangible and real, and not just visual effects. In a movie where it’s all in outer space, it’s all visual effects. So, while a good percentage of the movie is shot on sound stages, like the bridge of the Enterprise, or the Kelvin, or any of the spaceships, a lot of it was not shot on sound stages. We found practical locations.”

Bryan makes a surprising admission to us about one of the key Enterprise sets.

 “We shot in factories. In fact, the whole of the engine room of the Enterprise was shot in a Budweiser factory in Los Angeles. What we fell in love with was that when we went inside, it was working. It’s brand new. It’s perfect. It’s a fully functioning brewery, and it’s enormous and it’s spotless; which is what felt perfect for the Enterprise. The Enterprise is brand spanking new in our film. So, you see these scenes of them running around inside this space, and – suddenly – you have this scope and this feel of how big this ship really is ... The length of the Enterprise, in reality, is supposed to be as long as the Empire State Building on its side. It’s really big! So, to capture that kind of scope, we wanted to film in real locations, and mix our visual effects in, so they are as practical as can be. That’s the challenge with making science fiction real.”

In the 2009 film, a Budweiser beer factory became the setting for the Enterprise engineering section.

 

In terms of the production design, there are some departures, and the story allows for those departures, but when you were conceiving the film and imaging what it could look like, was there a conscious decision by the senior production team about how far you would veer away from what has been previously established, or did you allow the designers to go away and reimagine and then present their ideas?

“We really focussed on The Original Series, and that was the jumping off point, and we discovered things along the way. For example, the coloured outfits that had been so iconic in the series had never appeared in any of the films. Nobody had ever gone back to it, so this instantly made us excited, to be able to do something different. Michael Kaplan, who was our Costume Designer, whose first film he worked on as a costume designer was Blade Runner, so we were in good hands. His approach to doing Blade Runner was to go back to film noir, and his approach on this film was to go back and look at the 1960s. Not the costumes themselves, but the fashion of the 1960s, like Pierre Cardin and other people who were great fashion designers of the time. He applied that to making this film, and, if you look at the stuff, there’s kind of timelessness to it that makes it feel like retro without being retro.”

One of the key elements of the film is the design of the Enterprise. Bryan had this to say about it.

“Scott Chambliss, our Production Designer, went back and looked at the (original) Enterprise, and then would try and work out how the (new Enterprise) would feel familiar without reinventing the wheel, yet make it feel modern and rich, and full. It’s the same thing when you watch that original Enterprise. It’s still the same shape, everything’s there, but they didn’t have the same budget when doing the original television series. They didn’t have the ability to add all the lights and all the buttons. It was much simpler. So, the idea was to do whatever you can to make it feel familiar and be that place. The origins of that came from when JJ went to go and see Phantom Menace, there was a great experience of sitting in the audience, and we went as early as possible to go and see that movie, and how exciting it was. It was palpable. The movie starts and the Fox logo comes on, and everyone cheers, and the Lucasfilm logo comes on, and everyone cheers. All the right things are happening, and then the movie comes on and, then, they cut to a hallway and there was nothing there – it was just a hallway – but, it was so familiar, there was this eruptive applause. That was kind of the idea; bringing back that familiarity from something from 40 years ago, and making it your own, but still let it be something that fans can back to and say I remember that from so long ago. All these other incarnations of the series, which kept evolving, but they kept moving further away from the original one and creating their own. So we thought, let’s go back to the original one and see what we can do with that one.”

Getting the design balance right was vital to give fans a sense of familiarity while simultaneoulsy creating environments that would appeal to a broader audience expectations for excitement.

I asked Bryan about the pre-release hype surrounding the new film, referring to Gene Roddenberry’s success at capturing ‘lightning in a bottle’ with the success of both The Original Series and Next Generation.

“Hopefully people go and see it (the film), but you never know. We do know it’s a movie we’re excited and proud of. With all of our casting we have no one more to thank than April Webster and Elisa Wiesberg. They did all of our casting on the Lost pilot, where – talk about lightning in a bottle – that was a show that was put together so quickly and under the gun. If you were to listen to the experts at the time, they were like “you’re screwed!” All the good actors have been cast in other pilots, we’re behind the eight ball ... Our cast has always been spectacular on Lost, and we’ve been very lucky there. Again, it’s one of those situations, where JJ had said to me early on, when I started working with him, “you’re gonna know!” It always sounded like Hollywood gibberish to me, but sure enough! Like, when Evangeline Lily walked in, we knew. We had the same experience going through casting on Star Trek. We’re lucky enough to find Zach early on, because we knew him through mutual friends. We were fans of Heroes, so it was kind of a no-brainer. It took a while to find Kirk. Some great actors came in, and it was like, maybe it’ll be him, or maybe it’ll be him. Then, Chris Pine came in and, it was like, that’s our guy! So, we got very lucky, and April and Elissa are tirelessly finding actors who are ‘lightning in a bottle’ for us. I hope everyone goes to see the movie because this cast, a lot of whom will be fresh faces for everybody, will be very exciting.”

We agree with Bryan that it’s exciting to see fresh faces, but, then he mentions the one name that may have made the new film even better!

“It’s a weird thing, particularly with William Shatner, who could be held in higher regard than Shatner – he’s Kirk! The idea, unlike all these other films where there have been other James Bonds; there has not been other Kirks. There has been one Kirk and one Spock for 40 plus years. The idea of Chris playing ... with Zach you can see a similarity, but did not look like (Shatner). There are similarities, like he was good looking, but a young Shatner does not look like Chris. But, his personality is exactly what like Kirk is, and that was it. It was weird thing, where it exemplified the idea of not wanting him to imitate his predecessor, and make it his own. I think fans of the series will be pleasantly surprised, particularly as there was a lot of scepticism going in as to who this guy was playing Kirk. All I remember as a kid was watching Batman, and then the idea of Michael Keaton playing Batman was the worst idea of all time, until the day he came out as Batman and, suddenly, Batman was reborn. I think what people will discover is that he’s not what you had in mind for Kirk, but he is reborn as Kirk, and that’s very exciting. "

We’re conscious of Bryan’s time, and start to wrap things up at this point, but Bryan has other ideas! He asks us if we ever travel to the US, which leads into a conversation about sitting down to watch the film with an American audience. This leads to another discussion about the US premiere, and the fact that no US was planned until after Australia, New Zealand, Germany and England.

“Here’s the problem, when you’re under the gun, and you’ve got four weeks to go around the planet, and get everyone into it. I keep getting calls back from Paramount telling me that they need us back by a certain day to do all the junkets. We haven’t done one in the US yet!”

He does, however, make reference to a screening that happened in Austin, Texas on the same day as the Sydney premiere.

“Did you hear about our Austin screening? What was exciting was that we wanted Leonard to come down here (to Sydney), but it was a big flight and the whole thing. And then we said, what about if we go to Austin!”

Bryan then asks “How good was it to see him in the movie?”

Michael and I tell Bryan that most fans believe Leonard’s presence gives this film a legitimacy and connection to the 40 plus years of Star Trek.

Bryan tells us that he felt nervous about taking the project on initially, and then recounts a story about his experience with the expectation surrounding this film.

“At ABC, one of my executive’s assistants just emailed me to remind me to get her a ticket for the premiere. She’s very quiet, and mild-mannered. She’s in her 50s. The day it was announced that we were doing Star Trek she calls me up and says “I’m shaking.” I said “What?” She said, “I’m shaking! I’m a closet Star Trek fan.” I said “Hello...” She said, “I’m a Star Trek fan and I’m so excited!” What you realise is that it’s 40 years, there’s so many fans all over the place who have’ like you said, abandoned it after The Original Series. So, it was really the idea that if we could make it appeal to all of those people who have come before, and really bring it back. One person who saw it last night, Karl Urban’s agent coincidentally, is a huge Star Trek fan. We got on the plane top come over, and she was like I’ve seen every episode and she was referencing, and, you’ve got to remember, I don’t know anything. So, I’m just like nodding, like I know what the hell she’s talking about. She came out of the movie last night, and she said her kids are now going to see this movie and want to go back and watch everything that’s come before. All this makes her want to do is go back and watch all the other ones. That’s what’s happened to me. Now that I’ve worked on this one, I’ve started going back and watching the other ones. It’s a whole new appreciation.”

I make the point to Bryan that the new film does what Star Trek hasn’t, in my opinion, done for a number of years, is surprise me.

Bryan responded by talking about the support that JJ Abrams and his team received throughout the making of the film.

“It’s always about your finances, and whether or not your studio is behind you, and understands it. All the people who have come after Gene, who worked on incredible stories; I keep running into these people, because a lot of them are television writers. These people are geniuses. But, you’re always limited by how much money you can spend. There was always this feeling, from the studio’s point of view, that Star Trek was for “them”, whoever those people might be – Star Trek fans. Because they weren’t, the studio wasn’t. Even in this case, the studio appreciated Star Trek, but they didn’t know there’d been ten films before and this whole new team of people at Paramount came together and they said go and make it. We’re gonna spend more than we have before and we’re gonna give you those things, and we’re going to make it a real film.”

“I always used to point out that there were the same amount of Star Trek films as there were Friday the 13^th films. It always felt like one of those franchises that they would just do for “that” audience, whoever those people were who liked to watch those movies. Gene, and all those show runners  who came after him, created incredible characters and they were great worlds. Again, I discovered all of this just recently. You go back and you watch those stories and they were incredible. The best ones were as good as television gets; or nay medium for that matter. They’re ambiguous and they’re great and the characters are moving and tragic, and everything you want them to be; but they were always had limitations with technology or you don’t have the money to do it right. It’s just amazing how many great hours of television came out of that franchise. When we stepped in there was none of that. There was no television and there were no features. It felt like it was too good of a universe to let it just die.”

With that, our interview, and our day, came to an end.

 

 

THX 1138 - Retrospective Film Review

I decided that I should give myself a bit of time between my last post and this one, as I wanted to take more time to reflect on what I believe is science fiction. It's easy to fall into the trap of letting horror and fantasy genres creep into science fiction analysis because, in many cases, the three seem to exist simultaneously. I have been very tempted, for example, to share my thoughts on John Carpenter's 'The Thing'. I keep asking myself though, is Carpenter's 1982 film a horror film with science fiction threads? I think the answer is YES. 

I've come to the conclusion that 'Tomorrow Is Now' should look at works of fiction that are set at some time in the future. Unfortunately, this may rule out some of works that many would consider to be science fiction. For example, 'Back To The Future'. Is it science fiction? I don't think it is. It has scientific elements, but it operates much more as a fantasy than a work of science fiction. 

In my last post, I cited Robert Heinlein's definition of science fiction as one that I would recommend. Just to recap:

(Science Fiction is) realistic speculation about possible future events, based solidly on adequate knowledge of the real world, past and present, and on a thorough understanding of the nature and significance of scientific method.

That's where I'd like to keep heading and, using that definition, I will limit myself in terms of my scope of review. I think, however, based on the volume of material that exists, I shouldn't have too many difficulties in finding suitable review subjects.

Which brings me to my next point of clarification ...

I originally wanted this blog to be a forum for all manner of science fiction - film, television, literature, musical etc, etc, etc.

I have come to the firm conclusion that my main interests for review are film and television. These are the two mediums that introduced me to my love of science fiction and it is these two areas that I am most comfortable blogging about.

It's no surprise that, after several weeks of internal deliberation, that I sit down to review and find myself drawn to a film, albeit one that had an unusual development and has undergone one significant 'Director's Cut' in order for it to exist as it does today.

 

Before George Lucas became commercially successful with 'American Graffiti' and then 'Star Wars', he was simply one of a number of young aspiring film makers who had attended the University of Southern California School of Cinematic Arts. In 1967, while undertaking post-graduate studies, Lucas wrote & directed 'Electronic Labyrinth: THX 1138 4EB'. The film won first prize at the 1967-1968 National Student Film Festival and earned Lucas a scholarship at Warner Bros working under Francis Ford Coppola.

Coppola and Lucas went on to found the independent film company American Zoetrope, allowing Lucas to secure funding for his first feature film - a reimaging of 'Electronic Labyrith: THX 1138 4EB'. The film was released in 1971 as 'THX 1138'.

Now, lets jump forward to 2004.

The thirty-three years that passed between 1971 and 2004 saw George Lucas become the most successful independent film producer in history. His management of both the Star Wars and Indiana Jones franchises, along with the technical feats of his ILM effects company, gave him absolute film-making freedom.

One of the projects he was keen to revisit was 'THX 1138'. The original theatrical release in 1971 had not been successful. Nor had a subsequent re-release in 1977, which had tried to cash-in on the success of Star Wars. Undeterred, Lucas invested part of 2003 and 2004 in a Director's Cut of 'THX 1138'.

So, what do I think of the 2004 version of 'THX 1138'?

It's a seriously good piece of speculative storytelling. It's also a wildly inventive piece of film making; especially the sound track.

The story breaks into two parts, even though it conforms to the standard three act screenplay structure.

The first part of the story establishes the relationship between THX 1138, played by Robert Duvall, and LUH 3417, played by Maggie McOmie. The relationship develops against the backdrop of an oppressive future regime, where the citizenry is drugged to maintain peace and a Christ-like image is obeyed without question. LUH slowly but surely manages to wean THX off his drugs in an effort to have a truly meaningful, fulfilling relationship with genuine emotion. When SEN 5241, played by Donald Pleasance, changes one of LUH's work shifts in order to endear himself to THX, THX, who is longer drugged, becomes angry and reports SEN. This results in all three of the main characters being imprisoned for their various abhorrent behaviour.

The second part of the story sees THX, SEN and a hologram known as SRT, played by Don Pedro Colley, escape from their imprisonment and go on the run. Soon after their escape, SEN is separated from THX and SRT and THX learns that LUH has been "consumed". (This is a nice way of saying LUH has been murdered by the Government).SEN eventually surrenders and is lead away to an uncertain future. Meanwhile, THX and SRT steal two law enforcement vehicles, but SRT crashes his into a concrete pillar, leaving THX as the solo escapee. THX is pursued by two police androids on motor cycles and is forced to abandon his stolen car, turning the last minutes of the film into a foot race to freedom. With only metres between them, the police androids receive a message that they are to discontinue their pursuit as the budget for the recapture of THX 1138 has been exceeded. THX makes his way up a long ladder and exits into a new world knowing not what he will find.

Some viewers may find the characters dialogue a little difficult to comprehend, as Lucas has created a vocabulary that is unique to the world of THX. Reviewing this part of the film takes on a different approach in 2013, as our own society's language has changed in the last decade with the increased use of texting and tweeting. It is entirely conceivable that our language, as English speaking humans, will change to the point where future humans look at today's language and judge it as quaint and old-fashioned; much the same as we judge the language of prior centuries ourselves. This is an important acknowledgement in the judgement of 'THX 1138' as a genuine work of science fiction. The language the characters use is somewhat speculative, with all of the technical jargon littered throughout the film, but it is very much grounded in the language that you and I use every day.

The film's story is one that falls into the old cliche of "it's not the destination, but the journey that matters". It's also a story that relies as much on sound as it does on image. That's one of the reasons why I fell in love with this film when I saw the Director's Cut in 2004. The only basis for comparison that I have is 'Electronic Labyrinth: THX 1138 4EB', as I have watched the short film on YouTube a couple of times. I did not see the 1971 version, nor did I see the 1977 re-release. The short film is a "first attempt". Some of it works really well, other elements leave you scratching your head. I'm assuming the original feature length film falls somewhere between the short film and the 2004 version.

In addition to Lucas's efforts, there is no doubt in my mind that the success of 'THX 1138' can be attributed to Walter Murch, who collaborated with Lucas on the screenplay and provided the 'sound montage', as its referred to in the credits. The 2004 version of the film brings to the fore all the very best of his sound work on the film and makes for an incredibly dense soundtrack. Much of the background exposition about the society in which THX lives is provided by the background dialogue.

The 2004 version of THX 1138 is a wonderful piece of film making from a person who has had his fair share of critics for his subsequent work; especially the 1999 to 2005 Star Wars films. While some of its content may confound the casual viewer, THX 1138 is a genuine work of science fiction that genuinely postulates an alternative future for humanity, where our reliance on prescription drugs and automated technology has reduced our capacity to feel happiness, hope and love.

At the end of the day, it's a guy in a rubber suit ...

At some time in the early 1980s, I mustered up the courage to watch Ridley Scott's Alien. I'd known about the film since its release, but was too scared to watch it because I'd heard how frightening it was. Remember, I wasn't even 10 years old at this point, so the idea of deliberately putting myself into a situation where I'd be scared out of my wits was not really appealing. I finally mustered the courage after we'd been to a family friend's - the Broughtons - place for dinner. Their son, Andrew, was a few years older and he was into films and film making. To entertain my brother and me, Andrew gave us unrestricted access to his film magazine collection, which included the likes of Starlog, Cinefantastique, Fantastic Films plus a host of 'Making Of' books about heaps of different films.

One of these books was the Alien 'Movie Novel', which, in reality, is a photo novel of the film. I took the plunge and decided to see what was so frightening about Alien. I remember studying the images one page at a time, taking in the key moments from the film - albeit as still photographs! There's no doubt in my mind that studying this book so intently prepared me for the actual movie, so the "shocks" and the general sense of unease created by the film were diminished because, when I finally saw the film, I knew what was coming.

With the "fright & shock" element removed, Alien was not as daunting a film as what I had made it out to be in my head. I remember thinking that it was quite a slow-moving affair compared to Star Wars. ( Of course, at this time, everything was compared to Star Wars ...) Over the years, I have watched Alien a handful of times and I've come to appreciate the 1979 version of this film. Apart the the chest-burster scene, the film is restrained in its use of "horror" to uses suspense by way of reaction-shots so the story can be build to its conclusion.

The biggest question I always ask myself is whether Alien is science fiction blended with horror or whether its horror blended with science fiction?

Science fiction is a hard genre to define, but I do like Robert A. Heinlein's definition from his 1959 article 'Science Fiction: Its Nature, Faults and Virtues' ...

realistic specultion about possible future events, based solidly on adequate knowledge of the real world, past and present, and on a thorough understanding of the nature and significance of scientific method.

The story is set in the future aboard a space tug responsible for bringing cargo back to Earth. I believe this to be a plausible future event, so I'd give it a tick in favour of science fiction.

The story involves the discovery of an extra-terrestrial life-form, which current scientific method suggests is not a case of 'if', but 'when' humans discover they are not alone in the universe. So, it's a tick on that one.

The story concludes with the viewer safe in the knowledge that humanity's tenacity and adaptability helps us prevail in the face of adversity, so it makes for compelling drama; something that, I believe, good science fiction aspires to achieve. Horror, on the other hand, is about tapping into people's fears and playing on them. By the nature of its content, the horror genre's finishing point tends to end on a more downbeat note than science fiction.

Everytime I think about the pros and cons of Alien, I end up, in my own mind at least, concluding that it is science fiction with a terrifying protagonist.

So, when the opportunity presented itself to upgrade the 'Alien Quadroligy' from DVD to Blu-ray for a mere $35, I jumped at the chance. In retrospect, this may have been a mistake ...

With my new Blu-ray disc in hand, I decided to watch the 2003 Director's Cut of Alien. I had read about the insertion of scenes that had been excised from the original film, so I was curious to see whether this changed the story or any of the characters in any way.

So, what did I make of the 2003 Director's Cut of Alien?

The film and its story are the same as the 1979 version. Unlike Blade Runner The Final Cut, this Ridley Scott Director's Cut reinstates a couple of scenes that had been removed because they slowed the film's pace at important moments. All of things that made the 1979 version of the film an important piece of cinematic science fiction at that time are left in tact. As with all Scott film's, the design is incredibly detailed. Unlike many of Scott's films, however, the acting ensemble make the story believable.

Alien boasts a unique mix of American and British acting talent and was the film that introduced audiences to Sigourney Weaver. Tom Skerritt, Yaphet Kotto, Harry Dean Stanton, John Hurt, Ian Holm & Veronica Cartwright rounded out the crew of the Nostromo and the rapport that's established between them in the first 40 minutes of the film is what really makes you care what happens to them once the Alien is loose aboard the ship. While it was a landmark role for Weaver, I've always liked Ian Holm's Ash, Yaphet Kotto's Parker and Harry Dean Stanton's Brett. Holm, arguably, had the hardest job - acting as an android that is meant to act like a human. While Kotto and Stanton's characters provide a blue-collar element that makes you feel sorry for these two guys who just want to be paid for doing their job, only to wind-up being terrorised and killed by an 8ft Alien!

So, the film's intensity remains, but the Blu-ray format exposes flaws that aren't as obvious in other formats because of the 1080p resolution. The most obvious flaw is the Alien itself. Where the murky nature of 35mm film on the big screen and lower-resolution transfers to DVD provide the xenomorph with inadvertent camouflage, the restored 1080p high-resolution transfer exposes the creature as an actor in a rubber suit. This is most obvious towards the end of the film when the alien attacks Parker (Yaphet Kotto) and Lambert (Veronica Cartwright). The higher-resolution makes the alien look like a man in a suit who's struggling to get any forward momentum; kind of like the lumbering Frankenstein-monster of the 1931 Boris Karloff film.

 The insertion of previously deleted scenes don't really do much for the film either. The key scene to be re-inserted is where Ripley finds Dallas and Brett still alive but cocooned by the Alien; suggesting that they may be turned into alien larvae, face-huggers or maybe even just digested as food by the alien at some time in the future. It's not really clear why they've been cocooned and doesn't really add anything meaningful to the story. By this stage of the film, the viewer knows that Ripley is the only crew member left, not including Jones the cat, and it's a matter of how she escapes from the xenomorph.

The other scene to be re-inserted occurs earlier in the film, when Dallas (Tom Skerritt) and Lambert (Veronica Cartwright) arrive back at the Nostromo with the face-hugger attached to Kane (John Hurt). Ripley refuses to let them back on the ship, but is over-ridden by Ash (Ian Holm). Once back inside, both Dallas and Lambert give Ripley a serve of verbal and physical abuse at her determination to not let Kane back on the ship. The scene positions Ripley as central to the story much earlier than the theatrical version.

Would I recommend this version over the original? The short answer is: no. The 1979 version remains an excellent piece of film-making and there was no real need to alter it. The fact that footage that was originally excised from the film still existed was fortunate and a good opportunity to create a "Director's Cut" of the original film to compliment the "Director's Cuts" that had been included for the other three films in the "Quadroligy" Blu-ray release.

Alien is one science fiction film best viewed in its 1979 version on the big screen with all the murkiness of the original 35mm format. Otherwise, it really does just look like a guy in a rubber suit.

"I heard you were dead..."

As a kid growing up in Brisbane, there wasn't much science fiction to be found in the early 1980s. Fortunately for me, the local newsagent kept up with each new edition of Kerry O'Quinn's Starlog magazine. It was Issue 49 that caught my eye for a number of reasons. First was the striking pose of +Roger Moore as James Bond exclaiming 'Bond is back!' There was also a reference to +George Lucas and +George Takei, Star Trek's Mr.Sulu. So, for a 9 year old who loved Star Wars, Star Trek and James Bond, this issue seemed to have all the bases covered.

Issue Number 49 of Starlog.

The other thing that stood out on Issue 49 was a photo of a guy with an eye-patch and a machine gun. Underneath it read 'ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK Exclusive interview with Kurt Russell'. What the interview contained I can't remember, as I sold off my Starlog magazine collection several years ago. What I can say is that Escape From New York has stuck in my head ever since and it's one of those guilty pleasures that I indulge in every once in a while. I was travelling with my work recently and had stopped to have a cup of coffee. I noticed that the shopping mall's K-Mart had a sale on, so I went in to see if there were any cheap Blu-ray discs. Sure enough, I found a +John Carpenter Blu-ray triple pack featuring special editions of The Thing, The Fog and Escape From New York for $16!

 

I've always admired John Carpenter's films, especially his late 70s and early 80s work. Halloween, The Thing, Big Trouble In Little China and Escape From New York are all highly entertaining and, by comparison to today's films, were made with little money and a lot of film-making ingenuity.
 

So, what do I make of Escape From New York?
 

Escape From New York, like Blade Runner the following year, is set in the near future and is an action fiction that also makes some passing commentary on the the escalation of government in the United States. Set in 1997, the USA has become an authoritarian state embroiled in an ongoing war with China and the Soviet Union. New York has been turned into a maximum security prison with 50 feet walls surrounding the entire island. Any attempt by prisoners to leave is met with with lethal force.
 

The central character is Snake Plissken, a former soldier who has turned to crime, played by +Kurt Russell. A failed bank robbery has resulted in Plissken being sentenced to life imprisonment in New York. On the night Plissken is being processed into the prison, Air Force One is hijacked and the President of the USA, played by Donald Pleasance, is forced to use an escape pod to get off the plane before the terrorists crash it.
 

Unfortunately for the President, his escape pod lands in the prison and a rescue mission is sent in to recover the President and the retrieve a taped message that he intended to play to his Chinese and Soviet counterparts at a summit meeting. The initial rescue, led by Prison Warden Hauk, played by Lee Van Cleef, is unsuccessful. Hauk is told to get off the island by Romero, an underling of The Duke, played by Issac Hayes, who tells him that they have President and proves it by handing over his severed middle finger!
 

Returning from the island, Hauk, realising that time is running out, tells Snake that, if he rescues the President, he will receive a full pardon for his crimes and be a free man. To make sure he completes the mission, Hauk has Plissken injected with micro-charges that will blow a small hole in his arteries if he fails to complete the mission in time.
 

Once Snake is in New York he goes from one encounter to another, meeting an array of characters along the way; enlisting their help to get him closer to the President. This part of the film relies upon a number of coincidences to move the plot forward and it's at this point the viewer has to make a decision to suspend disbelief and go with the unfolding events.
 

Ernest Borgnine's Cabbie enters the story and becomes central to moving the story forward until close to the end of the film. Cabbie saves Snake from an encounter with the zombie-like Crazies who have taken over part of the city. He then takes Snake to see +Harry Dean Stanton's Brain, who he claims will know the location of the President because Brain works for The Duke.
 

I think the biggest challenge in this part of the story is to believe that Snake and Brain character have been partners-in-crime at some point in the past. Without the Brain character, the story goes nowhere, but the pairing of Snake and Brain is as an unlikely one as any. I am happy to suspend disbelief at this point because the preceding 40 minutes of the film has been setup so well that I want to see Snake get out alive.

 

Kurt Russell as Snake Plissken "asks" Harry Dean Statnton's Brain for some help ...

 

The action moves quickly once Snake, Brain and Brain's girlfriend Maggie, played by +Adrienne Barbeau, encounter The Duke and rescue the President. Their first rescue attempt ends up with the three of them being caught by The Duke's men, with Snake having the fight in gladiator-style tournament where the loser pays for his life. As The Duke watches on, Brain and Maggie manage to rescue the President again but leave Snake to fend for himself. Cabbie happens to be in the right place at the right time and gives Snake a ride as the two of them set off after Brain, Maggie and the President.
 

After a shoot-out on top of the World Trade Centre, Snake battles his way out of the building and heads to the 69th Street Bridge, with the President, Brain, Maggie and Cabbie all close behind. In pursuit is The Duke, who is determined to make sure the President doesn't make it over the 69th Street bridge to freedom. The finale on the bridge see the demise of Cabbie, Brain, Maggie and The Duke. One of the interesting story points is that Snake does not kill The Duke. That is left to the President, who uses an automatic rifle from atop the prison wall to take retribution for what The Duke has made him endure earlier in the film.
 

Once outside the prison, the President's attitude to what has happened seems glib and uncaring. This doesn't sit well with Snake, so instead of handing over the taped message for the summit meeting, he hands over a tape of Bandstand Boogie that had Cabbie had been playing in his taxi. After exchanging words with Hauk, Snake walks away a free man shredding the real tape in disgust and leaving the fate of the world in the balance.
 

John Carpenter has stated that Escape From New York was a reaction to what had happened with Richard Nixon and the Watergate Scandal. It's not allegorical, as this is not a thinly-veiled political film, but the theme of future government influence over the citizenry is a part of the back story. The film suggests that certain types of government emerge under certain types of conditions. In this example, escalating crime and world war have allowed an authoritarian government to emerge in the United States, allowing authorities to enforce the law with lethal brutality.
 

There's also the story point of the taped message for the summit. Richard Nixon's Presidential tapes were responsible for his resignation, so the emphasis on the tape throughout Escape From New York is a reminder to the audience of recent history for all the wrong reasons. Snake's unravelling of the tape at the end of the film demonstrates that in his opinion a lot is wrong with world he lives in and something has to change.
 

Snake's own back story suggests that Carpenter intended the film to raise the viewer's awareness of some social issues confronting the US at the time. Plissken is a decorated war hero, but at the start of the movie, he's being sent into prison for robbing a bank. Plissken is written as a mercenary, but there's a message in his back story relating to the treatment of war veterans. In 1981, Vietnam war veterans were still fighting for legitimacy, as public opinion was against what had happened and the war itself had only been over for 6 years. Perhaps I'm looking too hard, but I do feel that Carpenter is saying to the audience that the country needs to look after the men who fight for their country.
 

As far as the technical production goes, it's hard not to like the performances in Escape From New York. Kurt Russell embodies Plissken with minimalist-macho and does great justice to the term 'anit-hero'. Lee Van Cleef as Hauk is great. Van Cleef had experienced all the ups-and-downs an actor could have, but his work for Sergio Leone alongside Clint Eastwood had cemented his reputation for playing tough characters well. Ernest Borgnine, Harry Dean Stanton and Donald Pleasance all bring authenticity to their characters which, at the time, must have been difficult because the outrageous nature of the material. If there's one misstep, it's the casting of singer Isaac Hayes in the role of The Duke. The man has a distinctive voice but he doesn't have the physical presence of a real villain. Adrienne Barbeau is a breath of fresh air, as the tough but sympathetic girlfriend of Harry Dean Stanton's Brain. 

The question that I ask myself about Escape From New York is whether or not this is actually a science fiction film?

What makes me question the film's status as genuine science fiction is the time frame in which it is set. The film is set in 1997 and I'm writing this blog in 2013. The reality is that nothing like what is depicted in the film has taken place; not that I expected it to... As a piece of speculative near-future fiction, Escape From New York doesn't even come close to accurately predicting what was happening in 1997. It's an entertaining film; there's no doubt. It does have some social messages woven into its story; but nothing that's too 'on-the-nose'. Why then did Starlog, a magazine dedicated to science fiction & fantasy films, cover it so prominently in 1981? Despite it being more of an action film set in the future, Escape From New York does make the point that there will always be people who want to change for the better. Snake Plissken, for all his anti-hero machismo, turns out to be one of those people and, as much of the great science fiction that has come before and after it, it's Plissken's actions that make Escape From New York a worthy piece of near-future science fiction.



Blade Runner: The Final Cut - Retrospective Film Review

I just spent last weekend watching the Blu-Ray version of Blade Runner: The Final Cut, which was the 2007 version of Ridley Scott's film based on Philip K. Dick's novel Do Android's Dream of Electric Sheep. I must admit, Blade Runner did not influence me upon its original release at the cinema. I was only 10 when it came out, so the prospect of a 10 year old getting in to see an M-rated film wasn't great. I was familiar with it, as Starlog had been covering it for months prior to its release and Fantastic Films did a great issue that featured both Blade Runner and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. I had insisted that my mum purchase me that particular issue, as it had so many great images from both films.

The film's 1982 theatrical release one sheet poster.

I didn't see the film until the following year on video. I remember hiring it during the school holidays and watching it on my own. Unlike many science fiction films around that time, I don't recall whether or not I really liked it. That's why, in retrospect, I say it didn't really have an influence upon me. As an 11 year old, I think the film's story was beyond my understanding.

From the first time I saw it to May 1993, I must have watched Blade Runner on video or TV broadcast about a dozen times. Over that 9 year period, I came to understand how important a film it had become. In May 1993, I was in Sydney at a Star Trek convention and I took the opportunity to see the first 'revised' Director's Cut version of the film on a cinema screen. This version was notable for the removal of the Harrison Ford narration and the insertion on the Unicorn sequence - implying that Harrison Ford's Deckard character was himself a Replicant. This version also removed the "happy ending" where Deckard and Rachel are seen driving through the wilderness supposedly living happily ever after.

Since 1993, I have purchased each new DVD and Blu-Ray release of the film if, for no other reason, to keep up with whatever new remastering technique has been applied to heighten the visual and audio experience of the film. In 2007, my wife and I went and saw 'The Final Cut' on the big screen at The Astor Theatre in Melbourne, where the film played for a very limited time to packed out sessions every day.

So, what do I make of Blade Runner today?

Blade Runner, in all its different versions, is a beautiful looking film. Each scene makes me feel that what I'm seeing is a real world. The film runs just shy of 2 hours and, not once, do I feel as though I'm not part of what's happening.The credit for this goes to the film's Director Ridley Scott. During this early part of his film directing career, Scott was already renowned as a Director who took his production design very seriously. I have heard some people describe Blade Runner as "filmed art". Watching some of the behind-the-scenes content on 'The Final Cut' Blu-Ray release, it's clear that Scott was totally committed to setting his film in a "world"; not just on a film set. On this level, all the different versions of Blade Runner succeed.

Blade Runner's narrative is harder to assess because the story's meaning changed when the "unicorn" sequence was included in the Director's Cut. Scott filmed the sequence after principal photography had been completed and two of the film's financial backers were pushing to have the running time reduced. Upon seeing the "unicorn" sequence they had it removed from the film because they felt it didn't make sense. So, what exists is the 1982 to 1991 version with all of its "Hollywood" conceits such as the narration and happy ending. This is a very straight forward story where Deckard hunts down the Replicants, does the job and ends up escaping with Rachel, who has been revealed to be a Replicant earlier in the film.

From 1991, upon the release of the Director's Cut, Blade Runner's story became less straight forward. Certainly, Harrison Ford character of Rick Deckard is fundamentally changed by the inclusion of the unicorn sequence, but this is not revealed until the final moments of the film. With this change, Edward James Olmos as Gaff becomes much more important to the story. From 1982 to 1991, Gaff seemed like a junior partner who didn't add much value until the delivery of his last line of dialogue. From 1991, his presence means so much more and, if Deckard is indeed a Replicant, Gaff is a legitimate presence ensuring that Deckard does the job that Captain Bryant has told him to do.

The removal of Harrison Ford's narration helps to make the recent versions of the film more enjoyable as thought-provoking near-future science fiction. As a viewer, I feel like I have to work harder to make sense of what is happening; but that's not a bad thing. Good science fiction, in any form, should make the audience think about what they are seeing, hearing or reading. Harrison Ford himself has stated that he disliked the narration and, as far as vocal performances go, the monotone delivery may well have been his protest against it being included. The removal of the "happy ending" also challenges the audience to contemplate where Deckard and Rachel may end up. At one point in the 'The Final Cut', Rachel asks Deckard whether he would come after her if she went on the run. He tells her that he wouldn't, but someone would. It's natural to assume that,beyond the film's final scene, somewhere in our imagination, Deckard and Rachel were chased down by another Blade Runner. Since the 1991 version, I've thought that the term Blade Runner may have more meaning than simply a description of the job. Perhaps, it's a term used for Replicants whose job it is to hunt down other Replicants and 'retire' them. It's this type of thought-process that makes the post-1991 version of Blade Runner a much better piece of science fiction.

'The Final Cut' also makes Rutger Hauer's Roy Batty character more sympathetic than earlier versions of the film. Some the character's dialogue is changed to make him seem misguided in his quest for more life, as opposed to resentful for having his life prematurely ended. His death scene, however, remains the same poignant, beautiful recital on life & death it's always been. Hauer's performance is one of the great supporting performances and, in reality, he's the film's co-star, as he has a huge amount of screen time and carries the film's story forward in every scene he's in.

It would also be an injustice not to mention the film's effects. At a time when effects were being used to "dazzle" audiences, the effects on Blade Runner exist to reinforce the environment Ridley Scott had created at ground level. In the same way that the opening effects shot of Star Wars set the tone for that film, the opening Hades-sequence, depicting a polluted smog-filled mega-Los Angeles, sets the tone for Blade Runner. The Spinners, the 'Off World' Blimp and the Tyrell Towers all help to reinforce what is going on down at street level. As with so many films form the 1970s and 1980s, effects pioneer Douglas Trumbull played a significant role in creating the film's effects. Brothers Richard & Matthew Yuricich were also significant contributors to the film, with Richard as one of the senior effects supervisors and Matthew creating some incredible matte paintings.

As science fiction, I think Blade Runner: The Final Cut is the best version of the film. It's the version that makes me think the hardest about what's happening in the story. My belief, in this version, is that Deckard is a Replicant. Reading the web forums dedicated to Blade Runner, there are many people who feel that it's a topic still open for debate. When it comes to the film's production design and supporting effects, no debate exists. The film is universally admired and is now considered a benchmark in these areas.

Is 'The Final Cut' the deepest? I believe it is. It is certainly the version I would recommend to my family and friends. It is the version that I would recommend to anyone. Unlike Gaff's parting words to Deckard, Blade Runner will live forever and that is something that will always bring joy to science fiction fans and film enthusiasts alike.