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.

Into Darkness ... A touch of Khan?

I thought it may be time to jump forward and have a look at one of the big release film's for 2013, Star Trek: Into Darkness.

As you can see by my profile photo, I've had the opportunity to interview JJ Abrams, as well as many of the cast & crew from 2009's re-booted Star Trek. While it may not be Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek, the 2009 film was a fast-paced adventure that took familiar characters and put them in an alternate timeline, allowing a different story to be told about how Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Uhura, Sulu & Chekov came to be the main crew of the Starship Enterprise.

I took the opportunity this week to have a look at the 9 minute preview attached to the front of the Imax version of Peter Jackson's new Hobbit film.

So, what do I make of this extended preview?

My understanding, from what I have read, is this is the first 7 or so minutes of the new film. The film opens with Noel Clarke & Nazneen Contractor travelling to the London Royal Children's Hospital to visit their terminally-ill daughter. Contemplating his daughter's illness, wracked with despair, Clarke's character is approached by Benedict Cumberbatch's John Harrison, who claims he can save the little girl's life. This first couple of minutes is fairly low-key to what comes next.

The story cuts to the planet Nibiru and a disguised figure being chased through a "red" jungle by the planet's native population. Mid-flight, the disguised figure runs into a clearing only to be confronted by a massive beast, which the figure, fearing for life, is forced to kill. The disguised figure is revealed to be Captain James T. Kirk. As the beast slumps, another disguised figure appears from behind the dead creature. As the figure rips off the disguise, we learn its 'Bones' McCoy, who is yelling at Kirk telling him that he's just shot their ride!

Kirk and McCoy start running as the unhappy locals and their spears start getting a bit too close for comfort. Kirk makes contact with Spock, Uhura and Sulu, who are in a shuttlecraft hovering above a volcano that is well and truly active. After an exchange between Kirk and Spock, via communicator, Spock is lowered from the shuttle into the volcano with a device intended to stop it from erupting and killing the very locals that have been chasing Kirk and McCoy.

The action then cuts back to Kirk and McCoy who jump from a cliff-top into the ocean below, where the Enterprise sits in waiting. Once inside the ship and back on the bridge, Kirk finds himself faced with a difficult decision, as Spock's connection with the shuttle has been severed. The Vulcan is now trapped inside the volcano with only a minute-and-a-half before the device designed to stop the eruption does its work. The problem for Kirk is that the device will kill Spock when it detonates.

The final part of the preview shows Spock inside the volcano closing his eyes and preparing himself for death ...

Like the opening of 2009's Star Trek and the crew of the USS Kelvin, this story does not waste any time in placing the crew of the  Enterprise in jeopardy. Kirk and McCoy's flight through the "red" jungle reminded me a lot of the opening to Raiders of the Lost Ark, where Indiana Jones is being chased by the Hovito natives after stealing their gold idol.

 There's also the direct nod to Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, with the apparent "death" of Spock in the opening minutes of the film. In 1981, during that film's production, news of Spock's death was leaked in the press. Fans were outraged. As a red-herring, the opening scenes of Star Trek II see the entire crew - except Kirk - "die" in a cadet simulation. This disarmed fans, as they believed that Spock's "death" was dealt with early in the story, so were unprepared when he sacrifices himself to save the Enterprise and its crew at the end of the film. In the 2013 extended preview, once again, we see Spock apparently sacrificing himself to save the Enterprise and its crew - albeit in different circumstances. The dilemma with the 2013 version is that this scene is immediately followed by the film's theatrical teaser, which shows Spock from scenes later in the film.



The opening moments of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan saw Kirstie Alley's Saavik character manage to sacrifice the entire bridge crew in attempting to save the Kobyashi Maru.



As with last year's Prometheus, I was impressed with the 3D format in Imax. I have not delved into the technical process used to create a 3D film, but my basic understanding is that two kinds of 3D film exist. There are those that are filmed in 3D and there are those that are filmed in 2D and then converted in the post-production process. Star Trek: Into Darkness was filmed in 2D and will be post-converted to 3D. Along with the 3D, elements of the film have also been shot with Imax film. These two elements combined provided a great, immersive feeling and I actually flinched at one point as a Nibiru spear came whizzing past McCoy's head!

If this extended preview is anything to go by, Star Trek: Into Darkness is going to be in a similar vein to the 2009 film, with action and drama that caters for an audience far exceeding the Star Trek fan base. I was genuinely excited to see the 2009 film and, based on what I saw this week,  I can't wait for May 16, 2013 to arrive!

The affirmation of a love ...

Star Wars was my first science fiction love. As I reflect upon it, I'm not certain whether it was 'true love', but it certainly had a lot of things that I've experienced in later life, when I thought I was 'in love'. Excitement, fascination and joy are just some of the descriptions I would use to describe how I felt about Star Wars and its two sequels. But like many 'loves' there was also disappointment and despair. After Return of the Jedi, Star Wars disappeared for 16 years.

When one love disappears invariably another one comes along ...

 

What happened between 1983 and 1999 was simple: Star Trek. 

 

My "interest" in Star Trek started in January 1980 when I saw Star Trek:The Motion Picture at the Forum Cinema in Brisbane, Australia. I had seen a few episodes of The Original Series. Channel Nine Brisbane used to play it at lunch-times on Sunday afternoons. I have an especially strong memory of seeing 'The Devil In The Dark' when Spock mind-melds with the Horta.

 

During the Summer school holidays my Aunt Maude used to look after my brother and me, as Dad and Mum were both working. I can't remember if it was suggested by someone else or it was me who did the suggesting, but my brother, Maude and I ended up heading in to Brisbane to see Star Trek:The Motion Picture. This was before suburban multiplex cinemas, so the only way you could see a new release film was to go to the Brisbane CBD.

 

The Forum Cinema, in Brisbane, as it was. The Cinema is no longer there, but my memory remains ...

My childhood recollections  about Star Trek:The Motion Picture were about how 'big' the film looked. Everything I saw in it made me feel as though what I was seeing could really be the the way the future existed. It's no surprise, the more I learnt about Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry, that this was entirely deliberate. Roddenberry, as Producer of the film, made sure that his humanist 'hope-for-the-future' ideas were included into as much of the film as possible. 

The British quad version of the wonderful Bob Peak poster for the film.

 

 

So, what do I make of Star Trek:The Motion Picture today?

 

The film has been much maligned by many who have criticised it for its slow-moving pace and lack of a distinct antagonist. As a fan of Gene Roddenberry's ideas about the future, I love what Star Trek:The Motion Picture represents. That is, a genuine attempt to show that human kind will advance to the point where the possibility of danger does not need to be resolved through violent conflict. But, does that make it a either a great film or great science fiction?

 

If the film had been made before Star Wars, I'm certain it would have been met by a more favourable response but therein lies its problem. By December 1979, when the film was released, films were already being designed as fast-moving, large-screen entertainment pieces that pushed audience expectation. Steven Spielberg's Jaws had started the trend in 1975, Rocky smashed the $100million US domestic gross in 1976, Star Wars swept all before it in 1977 and both Superman & Grease dominated 1978. In 1979, the James Bond adventure Moonraker, Rocky II and Alien had shared the spoils at the Box Office all around the world.

 

The film's protracted development period probably didn't help set the production off on the right foot either. Paramount had originally intended the new Star Trek to be a follow-up to The Original Series with more contemporary stories and updated production values to appeal to a broader audience. Between 1976 and 1978, the production oscillated and eventually became a feature film. It started filming with an unfinished script, a Director and a Producer who didn't see eye-to-eye and at least one principle cast member who was a reluctant participant.

The big difference for me between Star Trek:The Motion Picture and Star Wars is the story. In my first blog, I wrote that the simplicity of the Star Wars story allowed George Lucas to push the design elements of his settings; making them visually different to anything previously seen. Star Trek:The Motion Picture, however, is a about humans in the future, so a conscious familiarity exists between the film and its audience. There's also far more going on inside the character's heads, so the dialogue and overall story end up with a far higher level of exposition. V'Ger as the antagonist doesn't make it any easier, as it turns out to be less-of-a villain than a misunderstood entity searching for its "creator". It's a great 'Star Trek' idea, but it's was a hard-sell for what was supposed to be the triumphant return of the Enterprise crew in a big-budget science fiction adventure film.

 

What ended up on the screen was certainly visually stunning. The film's effects sequences were shot in 65mm film which reduced the amount of 'graininess' in the effects compositing process and created a much cleaner, sharper image. Even today, I can't help but marvel at the grandeur of Kirk and Scotty arriving at the Enterprise via shuttlepod in an extended tribute to the ship's new design. The interior scenes are less epic and are let- down by the very bland colour palette that was used for the new uniforms and various ship locations. I always remind myself it was 1978 when the movie was filmed and, I guess, pastel was the colour trend of the time!

And what of the characters? Like I said, there seems to be a lot more going on inside their heads, so their motivations are not always clear. That's not a bad thing, but I'm sure it made it hard for the non-Trek audience to understand what the crew were doing. Even Trek fans found it hard to relate to their favourite Starship crew. Kirk and Spock, in particular, were written very differently to anything from The Original Series and the addition of +Stephen Collins as Decker and Persis Khambatta as Ilia meant there was even less screen time for the seven principle cast members to recapture the spirit of the television series.

One of the highlights of the film is the score. Jerry Goldsmith was already at the top of his profession when he composed the score for Star Trek:The Motion Picture. Film scores such as Patton, Chinatown, The Omen and Alien had displayed his diversity as a Composer. For Star Trek:The Motion Picture he delivered a score that provided emotion where little existed and gave the film an epic quality, especially when matched to the complex effects sequences provided by +Douglas Trumbull.

Ultimately, Star Trek:The Motion Picture falls short of being a great film and, due to its slow pacing, at times, commits the ultimate crime - it allows the viewer to become bored. As much as I want to recommend Star Trek:The Motion Picture to someone who's not interested in Star Trek, I don't. Its flaws outweigh its entertainment value, which is a shame. A lot of talent was involved in making this film and the finished product should have been better than what was released.

To address some of the film's short-comings, there have been two subsequent revised versions of the film released. The first was the 1983 television release, which incorporated additional scenes between the characters, adding a small amount of humour and humanity missing from the theatrical release. The second is the heavily-revised 2001 DVD 'The Director 's Edition' release, which Director Robert Wise oversaw and, is arguably, much closer to what he intended in 1979. This version features a many revised effects shots that help improve the scope of the film, especially those involving V'Ger. Of the three versions, this is the one I would most recommend.

Star Trek:The Motion Picture may not have been love at first sight, but in the January of 1980, it was my first taste of something that has been with me every day since then. To paraphrase the last line from the film - my adventure was just beginning.



The first day of the last 35 years

As my twin soon-to-be five year old sons run about our house with their array of Star Wars, Avengers & Spiderman Christmas presents, I find myself reflecting on the enjoyment provided by my love of all things science fiction.

I must admit that first and foremost, I am primarily a visual person, so my first reaction has always been about the visual impression something has created. Whether it be a movie, a television show, a comic book or a poster. However, I have over the years, read and enjoyed a diverse range of written science fiction, fantasy and horror that has challenged my imagination to work harder than it may otherwise have.

I've found it hard to know exactly where to start the process of reviewing, but the most obvious is +George Lucas' Star Wars. I was 5 when Star Wars was released in Australia and, to this day, I remember why I was so engaged by it.

First, was my Mother's objection to my brother and me seeing it. Even at 5, I figured if my Mother didn't want me to see it - it must be good.We were initially forced to see a re-issue of Snow White but, upon my Father seeing the preview, we saw Star Wars soon after at the Greater Union theatre in Hunter Street, Newcastle.

Second, was the corridor scene in the Rebel Blockade Runner. The opening scene with the Blockade Runner and the Star Destroyer was beyond me at the time, as I had no comprehension of what I was seeing. Once the action moved to the inside of the ship, with people, it all of a sudden became something real. I remember loving the outfits that the Rebel soldiers wore, the shoot-out with the Stormtroopers and, ultimately, Darth Vader's appearance!

Third, the toys!  The ongoing presence of the toys in shops, even after the movie had finished its theatrical run, was a reminder of what was so great about Star Wars. One of the big issues older fans had with Episodes I, II & III is that they were toy advertisements masquerading as movies. Perhaps the endless stream of merchandise over three decades has made older Star Wars fans a little cynical, but, as a kid, I never thought you could have too many Star Wars toys. in 1977, the action figures let you re-create the lightsabre duel between Ben and Vader in your own bedroom!

So, what do I make of Star Wars today?

To be fair, all entertainment should be reviewed as a specific thing produced at a particular time. The 1977 version of Star Wars should not be reviewed in comparison to other films. Times change, and production techniques for film and television have allowed for story-telling to take place against a much-broader technical canvas.

The 1977 version of Star Wars is a strong piece of film-making. It starts with a great opening sequence that concludes with Luke leaving Tatooine behind as he embarks on his quest to find Princess Leia with Ben, Han, Chewbacca and the droids. The Second Act sees Luke accomplish his mission to find Leia, only to be told that they must escape the Death Star and deliver its technical read-outs to a waiting Rebel attack force. The Final Act sees Luke, Han & Chewbacca deliver the knock-out blow to the Death Star and provide the Rebels with a much-needed victory against the oppressive Empire. The through-line of the story is Luke's journey from boy to man who discovers, through Ben Kenobi, that he is endowed with Jedi powers just like his late Father - Anakin Skywalker.

This is the great accomplishment of Star Wars - the simplicity of its story. In keeping the story simple and the characters motivations clear, George Lucas was able to create visually creative environments that had never before been put on film. The Mos Eisley Cantina scene is an example of this creativity at work. The scene itself functions as a means for Ben and Luke to hire Han and Chewbacca to get them off Tatooine, but what really makes it unique is the sights and sounds taking place all around these five characters. There's no need to go into the details, as anyone who has seen the film knows the scene well.

Another great accomplishment of Star Wars are the visual effects created for the film. George Lucas created Industrial Light & Magic specifically to handle the effects for Star Wars and his decision turned out to be a good one. While the tortured process of creating these effects has been well documented, the final product proved to be beyond anyones expectations. Unlike many films today, where the effects are used for the sake of an effect, Star Wars' effects are used in the first two acts as bridging tools to help link scenes. It's not until the Third Act that the effects take centre stage with the Death Star dogfight between the Rebel and Imperial ships. The film was recognised with a number of awards for its effects work, including the Academy Award for Best Visual Effects.

One of the less talked about accomplishments of Star Wars is the acting. While Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher work well as a trio, their performances are enthusiastic as opposed to nuanced. The real acting credit in the film goes to Alec Guiness, Peter Cushing and the vocal talents of James Earl Jones. These three performances provide a theatrical tone to their three respective characters, who may otherwise have come off as one-note supporting cast members. James Earl Jones' Darth Vader voice has gone on to become a cultural icon on its very own; these days even inhabiting such things as the Tom Tom GPS unit!

Finally, I can't finish this piece without reference to the John Williams' score. I remember seeing George Lucas interviewed about how John Williams was going to score The Phantom Menace. Lucas sat down to listen to what Williams had prepared for the opening story crawl and was surprised to hear the Main Title track from Star Wars. The music Williams produced for Star Wars has, like so many things from this film, become iconic.

There's been so much written about Star Wars and its success as both a piece of entertainment and a cultural phenomenon. Like so many people, it became the starting point for my love of science fiction. It's probably more important to me today than it was as a child. As a middle-aged man watching his kids recreate their favourite scenes with their new toy lightsabres it makes me believe that there's always the possibility for me to make a trip to 'A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away ...'