Star Trek (2009) by J. J. Abrams

[cinemabon]

Star Trek (2009) – directed and Produced by J. J. Abrams

Where no fan has gone before, J. J. Abrams and company have set out to recreate a tale that references all the goodies Star Trek fans love without the predictability of many past ventures. This is just good old fashion story telling with that Star Trek flourish. If you’ve never seen a Star Trek film or television show, you will have a very good time. If you are a Star Trek fan, you’re in for one hell of a ride! If I reveal too much of the story or discuss the film in too much detail, I would give away some of the films great surprises. Know that you find this film is full of them, even for fans.

This story has everything a fan would expect from a Star Trek movie. My one regret is seeing the film with a “normal” crowd and not with my fellow fans. I can just imagine the parts that would bring applause and laughter or even cheers from that crowd (i.e. the opening). Of course in our town… silence with the occasional guffaw. Still, I would add that I did not detect disappointment when the audience left the theater. Smiles all around.

For those unfamiliar with the origins of the Star Trek Universe, this film attempts to explain what started it all. This story takes us back to the period of time just before the birth of Captain Kirk, the most famous starship captain in moviedom history. The film begins in the midst of battle with a flourish of activity that not only reveals the course of the film but its major players. We find them not only at birth, but why precocious would seem an underestimated label in their youth. Rebellious, yes. Commonplace, no. One by one the inevitable happens. We find each person’s character as the show progresses. They show up unexpected at times. These are the people that Trekkers have long recognized as family.

The villain is no less notorious, although he does resemble the same guy they dragged out in “Nemesis.” Much to Abrams credit, it is explained he is Vulcan, and hence the pointy ears. I found this part to be the film’s only weakness. Otherwise the script and its characters perform flawlessly. I would say in terms of surprise and excitement, this film is the equal to that golden standard, “Wrath of Khan.” In many ways, it surpasses it. For the ship’s crew are the same, are they not? Granted they appear younger here. But the cast nailed their personalities, right down to their cadence.

While the subject matter of the film is overall a serious one, Abrams and company left in all the humor we’ve come to expect from a Star Trek show. Gone are the pretentious pious actors spouting poorly written dialogue as we saw only recently. Those versions of Star Trek nearly spelled the end of the series. Instead we have those same snappy lines that made the original characters so lovable, as if Scotty and Bones were back in younger bodies. Many kudos go to an ensemble cast of this size. It is difficult to stand out when the camera is focused in so many directions at once. Leave it to the editors and the writers to come up with moments of brilliance when Scotty or Bones (the true comic relief of the old show) blurt out a great line not thrown away by their actors. I must also commend director Abrams for bringing so many complex elements together in a pace and rhythm that is not too rushed, a mistake of many modern directors. Making a special effects film of this magnitude must seem like delivering eight babies at once. (Didn’t someone do that recently?) The only other film to Abrams’ credit is “Mission Impossible III” a forgettable experience. Based on the work I saw in this film, I hope we can look forward to similar efforts and that Abrams has redeemed his film career.

“Star Trek (2009)” comes highly recommended for anyone who wants to have a great time at the movies. The tribute at the end I found very moving. The end credits rise and the original theme, withheld through the film, blares out its familiar tune with shots of some great 3-D scenes imposing the names of the principle cast and crew against celestial backdrops.

[Johann]

A friend who works for a local newspaper in New Brunswick got to see an advance screening and said he loved it.

But he said there are flaws in the script, that the time travel crap was used to cover up weak writing. I don't know anything about that because I haven't seen it yet. Jus thought I'd throw that up there. And I've talked to 2 others who saw it last night and they say it's amazing but doesn't really seem like Star Trek.

I'll definitely be seeing it. Just not anytime soon during these sold-out screenings. I'm becoming less and less fond of being in packed movie theatres. (It feels like it's ganging up on my nervous system). I'm a matinee guy, and yes, I love to go to movies alone. Why? Not because I'm anti-social or anti-dating or anything like that, it's just that when I go to a movie, I go to see the movie, not chat, cuddle, gossip, be seen, text or any other juvenile crap.
And at screenings like the new Star Trek, you can bet your cloaking shield that the audience is chock full of those types.
You only pray that the sound system drowns out their tweets and twits and twerps and chirps...

[oscar jubis]

Boy do I have stuff in common with J...
I won't be missing this but I'll wait until next weekend to watch it.
It will be, as usual, a $6 noon show.

[tabuno]

For a purist, the new STAR TREK update or "earlier" date has an amazing cast who almost to a person succeed to transforming themselves into younger counterparts of their older selves in the original series. The glaring exception is Kirk. For some reason his new younger persona doesn't seem to reflect William Shatner's Kirk.

I found the beginning sequence both exhilirating but negatively manipulative and forced until the emotional climax. I wasn't impressed with the special effects. The storyline was decent enough and there was plenty to commend in this new version in the little tributes to the original television version. Yet there were some weaknesses, I felt with the weaponry used (that came across more like actual guns with bullets), there is one scene in which the word "gun" was used. The script and plot could have had one more go around to tighter up the technical flaws, especially with presenting more advanced space craft with a better electronic surveillance system and weaponry system - earlier Star Trek versions had much superior fire power along with dazzling special effects.

I am not so enanmored with this effort as most everyone else, but I did enjoy seeing the movie and experiencing a truly fantastic rebirth of the franchise even with the distracting weaknesses in this movie.

Can anyone help with with what's up with Uhura in this movie?

As time goes on, this new Kirk will make his own Star Trek and the issue of casting will fade dramatically, probably like Tom Cruise and MISSION IMPOSSIBLE.

[cinemabon]

My fascination with the film definitely stems from exposure to the original series while I was in high school. This was the first time we had anything that approached credible in terms of science fiction. Granted, the current film contains many "technical" flaws, especially when it comes to time travel. I hate the entire concept. It's over used.

However, I must disagree on Chris Pine's/Shatner's/ Kirk. The original series often portrayed him as a womanizer, a bit of a cad and outspoken. The biggest laugh came during his liaison reveal and the Andorian woman (a joke from the very first episode of Star Trek). As a anvid fan from day one, the "in" jokes often came fast and furious. I did not want to mention too many lest we spoil things for those who have not seen it.

[tabuno]

While I believe that Chris Pine will do fine as the new Kirk, I just can't see him as replacing William Shatner's persona. Perhaps it was the poor development and sparse backstory regarding Kirk as a youngster. There wasn't any explanation until much later in the film about the possibility of his character, particularly growing up without a father. I found that SUPERMAN and even SPIDERMAN did a better job of capturing the development of a young boy into manhood than this STAR TREK movie. Even though at a little over hours running time, I would have hoped for more exciting and emotional scenes that allowed the younger audience to gain some further insight into Kirk's youth, it would have even have been fascinating for the older generation. Then we could have even more strongly identified emotionally and experientially with this character. Personally, my first impression (likely because I'm getting older) of Kirk as a boy was I didn't like him at all - he was a rebellous, way too young punk, narcissistic in fact, and unlikely to really almost kill himself. I wished I could have understood the origins of Kirk, the boys, anger and defiance, much like what was missing in X-MAN ORIGINS - WOLVERINE - so many questions unanswered.

[Chris Knipp]

J.J. Abrams: STAR TREK (2009)


Spunk meets Spock

Review by Chris Knipp

What do you do with a franchise that has been milked dry? You stage a prequel, or, in other words, a childhood-and-youth-of-the-hero movie. J.J. Abrams' aim in this simply-titled entry is to show how James Kirk and Mr. Spock got to be running the spaceship Enterprise. The non-Trekkie must approach with trepidation this dramatic effort to freshen up the hallowed TV series and its not-so-successful movie avatars. Is it enough to say it's beautiful and entertaining, but lacks something?

What happens is a big battle to trounce an evil guy who's destroying whole planets, and some background on the young Spock and Kirk. The substance is simple: Spock's logical, alright, but he's also deeply emotional. Kirk's a testosterone-soaked bad boy, but he's got just the balance of smarts and derring-do to be a great leader.

Beyond that, this Star Trek reboot is a dazzlingly pretty audio-visual experience, maybe the closest a lot of moviegoers will ever come to abstract art. It's geometric abstraction: though we're whirling around the galaxies, mostly what we see is space ships with their angles and curves. The early sequences are well balanced and fun, despite an opening that follows the typical but inexplicable blockbuster theory that you should hit 'em with all you've got in the first ten minutes. This 25-years-older flashback showing how daddy Kirk was captain of the Enterprise for a few minutes and saved 800 people while his wife was giving birth on board to the future James Kirk, is ridiculously loud and impulsive and confusing, and when it is clear, it seems corny as all heck. Anyway, mile-a-minute openings' may grab the viewer, but you can never keep up to that level. The only reliable result is that you've numbed the audience.

The next scene, a nice contrast because it's back down on the flattest of earth surfaces, shows a pre-teen Jim junior--miraculously, since it's the 23rd century: where'd he get the fossil fuel?--racing a stolen Corvette across the desert a few lengths in front of a motorcycle cop, jumping out just before the 'vette pitches over a cliff and hanging there--a time-worn dramatic device that will be repeated again more than once. This tow-head smart-aleck is an annoying little cuss, but he's certainly got balls far beyond his years. He's ready to "boldly go."

I have never watched a whole Star Trek original episode, and if I've glimpsed any of the ten-odd movie spin-offs, I've forgotten. I can believe, however, that this is both one of the better ones--and missing certain essential elements in the interpretation of the original characters and in the way "issues" are brought up in the series as originally conceived. The only "issues" seemed to be to stop a bad guy bent on destroying the galaxy, and the conflict between the cold logic of Zachary Quinto's Spock and the obnoxious spunk (but creative initiative) of Chris Pine's Jim Kirk. The young Kirk, more or less the star, played by Chris Pine, is a bad-boy cutie. His pretty face is always bruised and scarred from a brawl, or maybe it's acne. Pine's Kirk bursts with boyish energy that's hard to resist. What's not so easy is to imagine how such an obstreperous twerp would be allowed on board the space ship, let alone be rapidly moved to a leadership position in the highly regimented, not to say repressive and fascistic, intergalactic system.

It's also not quite clear how a nerdy character like the half-Klingon Spock would be so highly regarded, if Kirk's kind of, well, enterprise, were deeply valued. Are they just two sides of one person, maybe?

But mostly there's so much action going on in Star Trek that it's not important to ponder such questions. It primarily just gorgeous special effects.

There are some appealing secondary characters (not as much multi-galactic social color as in Star Wars, though, by a long sight). Simon Pegg the English actor plays Scotty with a real Scottish brogue and a peppy comical manner. Anton Yelchin who is really a young Russian-born actor but grew up here and speaks perfect English, does a funny but accurate Russian accent as the 17-year-old navigator, Chekhov. John Cho, who plays the Asian crew member Hikaru Sulu, is the quite amusing guy who plays Harold in the Harold and Kumar comedies, but he's not very amusing here. I was surprised to see Winona Rider was in the cast. I thought she might have been the green floozy, but she turns out to have played Spock's human mother. I know nothing about the guy who plays the young Spock. He is not interesting. But Leonard Nimoy himself, the original Spock, is on hand to play the old Spock, who returns from the future to help out. That is a lovely touch, though the writers have to get tangled up in a time warp to stage it.

Eric Bana as the evil leader Nero is fine, if you don't mind that all his cohorts look pretty much identical to him--all swarthy, shaven-headed, tattooed leathermen. The contrast with the bright-eyed dazzlingly-lit world of the Enterprise reminds me of the Drapes and Squares of my high school, or the Greasers and Soscs of S.E. Hinton's The Outsiders. How is it that the proper good-boy spaceships are by NASA out of Mies van der Rohe, while Nero's are like rough-hewn medieval sculpted weapons? You kind of have to like the originality of the Nero vessels, but they don't look very aerodynamic.

It seems to be the rule now that when a blockbuster is half decent, the flacks rush in with raves when it's barely out of the can. I'd side more with Anthony Lane ("This new Star Trek is nonsense, no question. . .but at least it's not boggy nonsense" or Roger Ebert ("you want space opera, you got it").

[oscar jubis]

I really enjoyed Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986). I remember reading somewhere that it's the least dependent on special effects of all the Star Trek motion pictures. Does anyone have a favorite among them? Can't call myself a fan of the show or sci-fi in general. The last sci-fi film that totally won me over was A.I..

[tabuno]

I am pleased to read that someone else enjoyed A.I. which really didn't get the credit or reviews that pure sci fi deserved as a super sci fi fantasy fairy tale. I am also one of the few people who believes that the best Star Trek movie was the first movie version (1979) based on the storyline and how it was presented (as an exciting, mysterious, dangerous alien invasion - the elements of the best of sci fi movies), it had the creepy but beautiful elements of discovery and awesome strangeness. The beginning of STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE really had the intense powerful scary but slick build up that STAR TREK (2009) while it had some of the powerful punch came across as exciting, chaotic frantic, but also emotionally manipulative even though it did have its moments. But for the new generation (not the next generation), this most current STAR TREK likely has the elements that they like the most, unlike those older audience members who have some experience to contrast this movie with earlier efforts some of which we detested but some which we embraced and use as a standard by which to experience this newest of STAR TREK versions.

[Chris Knipp]

I also like A.I., very much. And of course 2001: A Space Odyssey. What about Solaris? I am going to rent Danny Boyle's Sunshine to re-watch it because I remember it as having some very beautiful moments, though it was a flop. I may have seen Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, after all. Don't remember it well though if I did.

Don't think one can really say one is "not a fan" of sci-fi, because it is too important and central an approach to "reality." How could one dismiss Alphaville, La Jetee, The Man Who Fell to Earth, Brazil, The Quiet Earth (Geoff Murphy), 28 Days Later, the even better and more pointedly political 28 Weeks Later; Soylant Green, Glade Runner, Gattaca, 1984; the list goes on and on. The quality varies but the significance is so often there. Significace is rarely reached through special effects of the explosion kind we find a lot of the new Star Trek, but production values like Kubrick's can greatly enhance the sense of another reality, which somebody really clever like Roeg can accomplish that with very simple means.

I am hoping JOHN HILLCOAT'S The Road from Cormac Mccarthy's novel will be good.

[tabuno]

I watched SOLARIS (1972) last year (which would have been for about the fourth time). I still feel that it is over-rated. It has the look and the attractive features of the classic, but somehow, it still is somewhat superficial in that it tries to be imitate a classic, but I've read the book a long time ago and well, something is missing in the original. It could actually have been better. I am also one of the few who enjoyed and really like the more focused and carefully crafted remake of SOLARIS (2002) which didn't try to make such overall generalized mysterious statement and focused on a love story angle. It was more crisp, mysterious as well, but in some ways more emotionally touching and rewarding than the original. The Originally tried to be a 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY Eastern European style - for me it was more of a vaguely disguised gimmick at the end. The remake had an ending that had a more fascinatingly human/alien twist.

My take on SUNSHINE from IMDb:

"There are echos of ALIEN (1979) from the mechanical corridors to the now famous kitchen scene. The are whispers of the eerie ALIEN sound effects. There is even a shot from FIRST SPACESHIP ON VENUS (1962) with the growth of a plant. This movie almost descends to the level of EVENT HORIZON (1997), a science fiction film that turns into a horror movie, however, SUNSHINE apparently has more integrity by the end. Still the title, SUNSHINE while apparently obvious in its reference to the sun, should have been re-titled to SUNBURST or something with more flash and action. SUNSHINE is more correctly a science fiction thriller and incorporates whether intentionally or not a nice Japanese culturally backdrop with some of the crew as well as their honor. Strangely, this movie is both stereotypical and devoid of stereotypes. While there are not the obvious nerds, the flamboyant playboy, the scared beautiful seductive girl, there is plenty of macho male hormones that aren't really well explained except for their outrageous antics. There are also the frantic, hysterical females who unlike in ALIEN don't seem to get equal coverage. By the end of the movie, the editing and continuity seemed strained as several strands of scenes seem to get lost and there is of course the extra passenger strangeness towards the end of the movie. The brilliance of this movie, however, is in its visual delivery and the sound effect and soundtrack that helps to carry this movie. Unfortunately, this movie could have been among the best science fiction films, but the flaws in it detract from its apparent beauty. Seven out of Ten Stars."

[Chris Knipp]

Good comment, I guess. I have to see it again.
The brilliance of this movie, however, is in its visual delivery and the sound effect and soundtrack that helps to carry this movie. That part is what I relate to. Isn't a big part of the power of Kubrick's 2001 the sheer mad intensity of the production values?

2001 is an ant-blockbuster. It totally avoids all the frantic noise and rush of stuff we see today, and the opening ten minutes of the new Star Trek, which declare it to be very middlebrow, but also quite well done. I can't get over the fact that in infinite space, all we see is spaceships. Kubrick gave us a real SPACE Odyssey. He gave us SPACE. Even his spaceship is full of vast empty space.

Blockbuster manufacturers are afraid of empty space and of silence, the way radio broadcasters are afraid of pauses. They're afraid the ADD viewer will zone out, switch channels, start texting.

Maybe the Russian Solaris is overrated, but the Soderbergh one isn't very successful either. It's a bore!

[Johann]

Good discussion, guys.

Re: 2001.
Kubrick asked Is there any intelligent life on earth? and we haven't had too many "affirmatives" in terms of movies set in space. There are precious few indeed that give us an idea of what it's actually like out there, or that give us overwhelming desires to "boldly go" into the vast, unknown expanse that is space.

Sunshine is great.
Star Wars is great, but it's fantasy.
Same with Flash Gordon.
Fantastic Four touched on it.
Event Horizon wasn't bad.
Alien and Blade Runner kick ass (but are fantasy as well)
Red Planet makes a good attempt.

2001 really tried to put the audience in outer space, and that's part of it's Legendary status. Before 1968, there was nothing that could touch Kubrick's vision. And to this day, I can't think of any sci-fi film (besides some sequences in Lynch's DUNE) that comes close to immersing the audience in an other-worldly context that inspires mute awe or primal desire for the mysterious, the celestial.

Kubrick really tried to give the audience an experience in space, a non-verbal one. That film will always stand the test of time. I've seen it zillions of times and it's still a monolith in and of itself, forget the 4 slabs we saw in the movie. Kubrick's 1968 film has been called his Masterpiece and I cannot disagree. That one was like the Big Bang for cinema history. Scorsese said it: anything was possible after 2001.

I am curious to see how this new Star Trek turned out.
"primarily special effects", Chris?
It's ILM at the helm of those, so it's gotta be great in the special effects department, right?
I don't get too worked up about Star Trek, but I don't hate it or consider it to be crap entertainment. You gotta have SOME kind of space operas on TV and in the movies, and the concept of the whole Star Trek universe intrigues me. Plus I really like the uniforms of the original 60's show, with the bloused black pants, boots and primary color schemed shirts.

[Chris Knipp]

I said "primarily glorious special effects." The effect of the "effects" is beautiful.

2001 is unique.

However I want to repeat myself, that often smaller budget sci-fi films can be extremely thought-provoking and original, such as Alphaville, La Jetee, The Man Who Fell to Earth, Brazil, The Quiet Earth (Geoff Murphy), 28 Days Later, t 28 Weeks Later; Soylant Green, Blade Runner, Gattaca, 1984, and more. I strongly feel that it is not our responsibility to congratulate Hollywood for making blockbusters. Nonetheless, the new Terminator looks pretty cool.

[Johann]

Glorious or "gorgeous"?

:)

[tabuno]

I've seen and appreciated a number of sci fi movies for the reasons that 2001: A SPACE ODYESSY held (which I finished watching again two days ago by coincidence).

Alphaville - Haven't seen, but I've put it on my list.

La Jetee - Haven't seen, don't know anything about it.

The Man Who Fell to Earth - saw it years ago. Considered a classic independent.

Brazil - A bizarre and creatively different movie, captivating.

The Quiet Earth (Geoff Murphy) - Haven't seen.

28 Days Later - More sci fi horror than alien fascinating adventure.

28 Weeks Later - Haven't seen. I may never see it.

Soylant Green - Classic dystopian future movie.

Blade Runner - Classic of course, though not much really in regards to aliens rather than replicants.

Gattaca - Under-rated, though not really alien in nature, more about our own furturistic society in regards to genetic discrimination.

1984 - There were two versions. Classic dystopian futurist vision basic on George Orwell's novel.


I would add:

Silent Running. Environmentalist sci fi film (non-alien).

Logan's Run. Age discrimination sci fi (non-alient).

Forbidden Planet. Advanced alien technology in hands of primitive humans.

Alien. About an alien (the real deal here).

THX-1138. Another dystopian future about ourselves. Considered a classic.

Wavelength (1983). Little seen and overlooked movie about aliens.

The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951). One of the true classics about aliens.

Slaughter House-Five (1972). A Kurt Vonnegut novel-based movie. It's as far out of there as any sci fi movie.

Rocky Horror Show. What else can I say.

[Johann]

The Fifth Element deserves a mention I think.

La Jetee is short, but it has similarities with Godard's Alphaville, an intellectual avant-garde film that ain't for everybody. Films buffs love those two..and la Jetee was the source for Terry Gilliam's bizarro 12 Monkeys.

Watch the Marker and Gilliam in one sitting tabuno.
Let us know what you think.
They're good movies to watch back to back in one night...

And good call on 1984. It's science fiction, but it's also disturbingly real as a possible outcome for the human race...

[Chris Knipp]

Touche'... I can't even quote myself accurately. Gorgeous was better. "Glorious" is going a bit overboard.

[cinemabon]

We had this debate over "AI" before this post. As you may recall, I loath that film. I won't go into the awful list of reason why during this post. I consider it one of Speilberg's failures.

As to Star Trek IV, that is usually mentioned as the second most likable Trek adventure after Star Trek II. That was Leonard Nimoy's directorial effort and he put lots of humor into the piece, where the characters often poked fun at their own personas. The worst Star Trek film is considered Star Trek V. William Shatner directed that film. He repeatedly drove his heavy handed style down our throats every chance he got. Needless to say, from the actors to the crew to the critics, most are thankful he never directed another feature film again.

I read the Ebert piece when I found out that he was one of the few critics on Cream of the Crop that did not give "Star Trek (2009)" a favorable review. However, I found his "techinical" objections strange. For example, if all the talk about singularities and time travel bothered him, then why did he give "Star Wars" such a favorable review. Rockets do not "blast" in space. To suddenly lurch into the speed of light would squash the occupants of a spaceship flat. Explosions in space would not have "fire" in them since oxygen does not exist. Yet, Ebert took those things for granted. I believe that as a critic, we must overlook these "technical" details at times and relate whether the story was good or not.

The only film that ever tried to realistically present outer space was "2001 - a space odyssey." Kubrick insisted that he made a film that represented a real depiction of outer space. You hear no sound. You see no explosions. Weightlessness is handled appropritately as well. His attention to details hold up today.

[Chris Knipp]

I was only endorsing Ebert's summary comment on the new Star Trek, not his whole review. He has been known to make mistakes. One has to respect his love of film and broad knowledge of it, however, and since he is notoriously over-favorable on the movies he reviews, it's worth noting when he is niggling in his praise of one. The movie and indeed the whole franchise seem so utterly remote from any kind of realism, it hardly even seems worth thinking about whether events in (the new) Star Trek could actually physically happen. But once again and from another angle, that of scientific accuracy, 2001 comes out on top. I was praising the silence on aesthetic and structural grounds. You point out that it is also appropriate to outer space. As for A.I., as is well known, anyone who condemns it is in the majority. I differ.

[cinemabon]

We had an extensive review of Kubrick's works on this site in the past. However, I agree that "2001" stands out as one of his crowning achievements in cinema. I believe it changed the face of science fiction. Prior to that, "Forbidden Planet" was the standard in filmmed (as a verb) science fiction. That movie seems silly by todays ridged standards (Rumors persist in a another remake of an old movie with James Cameron at the helm no less. But look at what they did with the remake of Bob Wise's "The day the Earth stood still" Ugg! An utter disaster!).

I knew Roger Ebert a very long time ago when he and Gene Siskel started out on public television with "At the movies" when they used to forego joining the crowd in orchestra seats and sneak off to the balcony. Each week they used their famous closing line, "...until next week, the balcony is closed." Gene Siskel offered a great counterpunch to Ebert's effete electic style of intellectualizing. While Ebert has continued successfully over the years, I miss Siskel's down-to-earth commentary sadly missing from the too-smart crowd. He was simply a journalist with an easy to understand manner. Sadly, our world has far too few Siskel's and far too many Pauline Kael wanna-be's.

[Chris Knipp]

The actual successors to Siskel have been unfortunate, and now that program no longer exists. Siskel was not only valuable for being direct or down to earth but for being less prone to like everything than Ebert. And then it was a bit of a surprise after Siskel died to learn how passionately he loved cinema. As for Kael, I liked her far more than either of them, but I don't think today what goes on can really be blamed on her. Her influence is dying out, though not entirely.

[Johann]

Thanks for bringing up James Cameron, cinemabon.

He decided to become a filmmaker because of Kubrick and Star Wars. He has said that when he saw 2001 he was fascinated with it and that he had to find out how Kubrick did it. You know, that old chestnut about a work of art and the mystery behind what created it...and Cameron also said he was jealous of Star Wars: A real neo-Myth. I wanted to be the one who made that movie!

He made something just as classic, though: The Terminator.
Why on God's green earth he didn't keep making sequels to his own epic series is beyond me. I thought Terminator was his baby.
You would think that he'd never let any other filmmaker touch that saga, that he'd be the one blowing people's minds with new installments, but no. I'm glad he made the excellent and Legendary Titanic and Ghosts of the Abyss, but man, he's one of the best directors out there (Canadian too, I feel compelled to add). His flagship franchise is being handled in a slightly sub-par fashion without him at the helm. Maybe he's not interested anymore? Maybe he's got other projects he wants to forge ahead on? Some moons ago he was attached to a live-action version of the classic anime Battle Angel: Alita, which really got my blood pumping, because James Cameron would really do it justice, and I'm sure would turn a lot of peeps into Battle Angel fans in the process...
But we'll just have to see what he does next, I guess.
Kubrick and Lucas got him into the director's chair.
I'm just wondering out loud what he'll do in the future.
He's got a degree of secrecy surrounding his career right now that's a little unsettling. But I'll wait patiently for his next feature.
He's worth it.

[Johann]

And I agree totally about Gene Siskel.
He was a good man and a passionate movie guy.
He did a great interview with Kubrick when Full Metal Jacket was being released in 1987.

[Chris Knipp]

You must also like that Cameron is a Canadian. I see that he actually wrote a lot of the spinoffs of Terminator, he just didn't direct them. Don't you think that somebody who is clever and original and energetic enough to originate a successful mega-franchise wants to go on to direct new things and not the sequels, which in some sense are hack work by comparison?

You probably don't care to mention it, but the film by Cameron that I personally like the best by far is Titanic. But I will be interested to see the newest Terminator because the producer is the relative of a friend.

[Johann]

Yes, I love the fact that the biggest box-office champ was made by a Canadian (born in my home province of Ontario too).
Between IMAX, Atom Egoyan, Cameron and many others, Canada rocks on the world cinema stage.

I know he has every right to do other projects and different things, I'm not saying he should stick to the Terminator series and nothing else, but I do lament that he's not the one directing the films.
I'd feel the same way if Christopher Nolan handed Batman to someone else.

James Cameron can do whatever the hell he wants.
He's definitely earned that right.
But I do wish he'd make a Terminator sequel himself.
That would be something to really get jazzed about.
Like I said, maybe he's had enough.
Maybe he's too interested in other projects.
That said, T-3 was great to my mind and "Salvation" looks pretty boss. At least Cameron is overseeing what the final product is.
Did anyone here hear anything about Cameron's reaction to "Rise of the Machines"? I haven't heard anything.

[Johann]

Just looked it up on wikipedia and Cameron said about Rise of the Machines: In one word?: GREAT.

So there you go. From the man himself.
"Salvation" looks even better than "Machines", so it's probably safe to say Mr. Cameron approves of it as well.

[Johann]

And why aren't we talking about Abrams' Star Trek?
Isn't this thread about Kirk and Spock?

[Chris Knipp]

There's a limit to how long we an talk about Abrams' Star Trek. I notice you have not mentioned Titanic. I imagine you would rather forget about it--not your kind of blockbuster, but I prefer it to comic book monster stuff like Terminator. "Between IMAX, Atom Egoyan, Cameron and many others, Canada rocks on the world cinema stage." Many others such as who?, I wondered, so I looked up "Canadian film directors" on the inevitable Wikipedia. Huge: David Cronenberg. Notable: Guy Maddin, whom I've finally leearned to appreciate. Me, I'm not such a fan of Paul Haggis, except for his writing for Clint. Some Qubecuois French directors of note exist, I was thinking, but I can find only two whose names i know, Claude Jutra and Denys Arcand. Im sure I'm missing lots. Can you help?

I'm thinking the Aussies make a really strong showing to with, the likes of Bruce Beresford, Graeme Clifford, John Hillcoat, Phillip Noyce, Peter Weir, Alex Proyas, and Fred Schepisi. And New Zealand's not too shabby with Jane Campion, Peter Jackson, and some others whose work i've found striking such as Lee Tamahori and Geoff Murphy. Can you add to those lists?

[Johann]

You didn't notice my first Cameron post in this thread?
Where I said Titanic is excellent and Legendary?
You can't talk about James Cameron without talking about Titanic.
It's impossible.

Other Canadian directors of note:

-Larry Kent (an underground legend who I met at the 24th VIFF)
-Mary Harron (I shot Andy Warhol/American Psycho/The Notorious Bettie Page)
-Bruce McDonald (Hard Core Logo)
-Norman Jewison (Jesus Christ Superstar)
-John Smith (the Boys of St. Vincent)
-Ted Kotcheff (First Blood)
- Arthur Hiller (Love Story)
-Ivan Reitman (Ghostbusters)
- George Dunning (The Beatles: Yelow Submarine)
- Patricia Rozema (Samuel Beckett's Happy Days)

and Mack Sennett is Canadian, as well as the founder of MGM: Louis B. Mayer (but he was born in the capital of Belrus. He was raised in St. John, N.B.)

We got pedigree...

[Chris Knipp]

Apologies for my two big omissions, not seeing your post acknowledging the importance of Titanic, and missing the name of Canadian director (and producer) Norman Jewison, a middlebrow powerhouse with some real accomplishments and movies everybody's heard of such as The Thomas Crown Affair(!)! In the Heat of the Night, The Russians are Coming the Russians Are Coming, Rollerball, A Soldier's Story, Agnes of God, and Moonstruck.

[Johann]

Titanic is a wonderful film.
I'm not crazy about the love story, but what guy is?
But I admit that it is the glue that holds the whole thing together.
Without Kate and Leo's relationship, the movie wouldn't have been as nearly as compelling as it was.

The sinking of the ship is still one of the greatest sequences ever filmed. The scale of it was nailed by James Cameron.
He made us in awe of that hulk rising out of the water.
It was realistic in feel.

There's another ship that is only 6 meters shorter than the Titanic, the Super Battleship Yamato, of the Imperial Japanese navy, the largest battleship ever constructed, and a movie of it was made in 2005 and only released in Japan, and it gives Titanic a run for it's money in the epic scale department.
I've seen it online and I have a rip copy. A friend of mine who's a huge WWII naval warfare student has turned me into a student of the Yamato, Shinano and Musashi battleships. Their stories are fascinating. And so is the German battleship Bismarck. They need to do a kick-ass movie on the Bismarck. If you can track down the Yamato movie, you'll be in for a real treat. Only released in Japan, but you can find it on DVD if you look. (I located a pirated copy in Chinatown and the quality is actually really good).

But yes, Titanic is a landmark in cinema history.
I've never left the room or turned it off while watching.
It's a seriously great film which can be watched many times over.

[cinemabon]

Jewison's contributions to science fiction being "Rollerball" dealt with the evetual expansion of roller derby, a sport considered at one time so popular that it would eventually replace the NFL. Now where is it? When was the last time they held a roller derby match in your city? That demonstrates the danger of predicting the future (something I tried to avoid in my novel that takes place in 2016).

Look at "Escape from New York" another science fiction film that predicted New York City's crime rate would increase to the point that it would eventually turn into one big jail cell. So much for that prediction. The story is set in the terrible futuristic year of 1997! Who knew?

When we look at at what Roddenberry thought the future would look like in 1967 and compare that to 2009's Star Trek, the two futures look very different indeed. In one hilarious line, the current Bones (Karl Urban) makes a casual reference to his "boots." This reflects on the style of shoe they wore on the original show that was suppose to represent future shoes. I laughed.

"Prediction is at least two things: important and hard." Howard H Stevenson, Harvard University

[Johann]

Roller Derby is still very popular in Canada at least.
But it's not a huge money-making enterprise like the NFL or NHL.
And it's more popular with the ladies than the men.
We have leagues here with all-women teams.
Those chicks can really bang!

[cinemabon]

Yes, but does it beat hockey or draw the same crowds as a soccer/football match?

[Johann]

Not by a mile.
But the fans are pretty rowdy.
They really get into it up here.
I went to a roller derby near Belleville that was a really raucus night. And of note is the fact that they still wear those old clunker roller skates, exactly like the ones from the 70's: leather uppers and 4 wheels. (not like the much better roller blades we have now). Don't ask me why they still wear those old skates...

[oscar jubis]

I apologize for not having anything substantial or provocative to say about Star Trek. I just want to share that I enjoyed it and felt that my time and money was well-spent. I didn't go into it expecting anything ground-breaking or particularly "deep". I'm also not the biggest sci-fi fan. I absolutely love AI, La Jetee, 2001, Solaris (1972), Alphaville, Brazil, Blade Runner, and Stalker. But I never go to the movies expecting to add to that list.

[Chris Knipp]

I benefited from seeing TERMINATOR SALVATION after STR TREK. The latter was so evidently a great deal more fun even though I've seen better.

I just re-watched Danny Boyle's SUNSHINE on DVD.It has an excellent commentary too by the film's science consultant Professor Brian Cox, and it's even more exciting and beautiful than i thought when I saw the very last East Bay showing of it two years ago. To anybody who has not seen SUNSHINE, do. It's really one of those "Produced and Abandoned" movies (using Michael Sragow's phrase). A lost gem at the box office but available on Netflix.

[oscar jubis]

Boyle's Sunshine is much more ambitious than successful.
I will totally pass on Terminator: Salvation.

[Chris Knipp]

People are still enjoying and discussing Sunshine and it remains one of the most beautiful sci fi films ever. Terminator Salvation has no colon. You do well to avoid it.

[tabuno]

While I don't want to spent much time discussing SUNSHINE (1997) as this is a thread about STAR TREK (2008), but I did want to point out to some readers that underneath the visual beauty of SUNSHINE, the storyline and characters aren't as compellingly superlative as the look of the movie, its more image over substance - it's more like superior version of EVENT HORIZON (1997). While a good movie, it has its problems. For those who enjoy an eerie sci fi storyline with decent atmospherics, I recommend instead FIRST SPACESHIP ON VENUS (1962). At the time, this was one of the few serious efforts at hardcore sci fi, though it also tied in with the Cold War era of the times. For more of my opinion regarding SUNSHINE you can access it on this website at http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2088&highlight=Sunshine

[cinemabon]

Since we are discussing obscure science fiction films in reference to Star Trek (2009), then I suggest you rent "Silent Running" starring Bruce Dern. While many science fiction films show their age, this film holds up surprisingly well in storyline and special effects. When sci-fi fans who are well acquainted with the genre vote, they often chose this gem on their top ten lists.

Every cast member and many of the crew watched many if not all of the original 79 episodic "Star Trek" television series to prepare for their roles despite the admonishments in their interviews (according to producer J J Abrams).

[Johann]

A friend of mine swears that Forbidden Planet and Robinson Crusoe on Mars are the best sci-fi films ever made.

The latter has Adam West, and he swears by that movie as one of the greatest ever made. I haven't seen either one of them but I've decided to buy both DVD's sight unseen, his passion is so serious.

He says Forbidden Planet was the 2001 of it's day.

[Johann]

And I just found out the Crusoe is a Criterion release!
How's that!

[cinemabon]

"Forbidden Planet" is often touted as brilliant. However the strange animated film was the "Midnight Movie" at revival theaters across the country in the 1970's. It frequently played on a double bill with "2001" as a stoner's paradise, the reason being for the strangeness in both films. During the light show toward the end of "2001" was often referred to as the "light up" period of the film. Curls of marijuana smoke filled movie theaters then. "Forbidden Planet" had the same mystique about it. While the animation is very crude by today's standards (and even back then) the story holds some interest. However, I find that "Silent Running" is a much better science fiction film.

"Robinson Crusoe on Mars" is a very strange movie. Most of the film is dominated by the performance of Paul Mantee (name three of his films!) who struggles to keep our interest. I do not agree with many people that this is a science fiction classic. However, thinking of that film made me recall another really good movie about being stranded on a strange planet...

"Enemy Mine" is a brilliant little film about an astronaut stranded on a planet with his mortal enemy. The harshness of the world force the two beings to survive together. Brilliantly acted by Louis Gosset Jr and Dennis Quaid (some of his best work), I found this work is often overlooked and under appreciated by fans of the genre. The special effects are good but the score by Maurice Jarre (Dr. Zhivago) is outstanding. I cannot watch the very end without crying every time. This movie explores how war often reduces racism to "those people." After the final scene, listen to the score all the way through to the end of the credits. Jarre created one hell of a good suite for this film. If you love big orchestrations, this one is bigger than "Star Wars."

Between "Enemy Mine" and "Silent Running" science fiction fans can't go wrong.

[Johann]

Have you heard of "La Planete Sauvage"? From 1973?

I haven't seen it but that one was also recommended to me as a strange sci-fi movie.

I know about Silent Running because it's one of Ray Manzarek's favorite movies but also, I haven't seen that one either.

But I have seen Logan's Run, which I loved, but it is a little cheesy. I heard that some major studio was going to make a remake.

[Johann]

There's animation in Forbidden Planet?
Are we talking about the same movie?

[Johann]

And we can't forget Space:1999, with Martin Landau.
I've seen a few episodes and I liked it a lot.

And Enemy Mine is great. Thanks for bringing it up.
Saw that in a theatre when I was a kid. Good times.
And "THE ICE PIRATES" with Robert Urich.
So cheesy but so good...

And my favorite "space" movie is 1980's FLASH GORDON with Max von Sydow as Ming the Merciless. Blew my mind as a kid.

[Johann]

Don't forget THE BLACK HOLE!
Another great movie from my childhood.

[Johann]

Holy shit!

I just looked up Logan's Run on the imdb and there is news of Bryan Singer directing. He wants to do that project instead of the Superman sequel, which has been offered to James McTiegue and the Wachowski's, who are "looking at their options".

Here's a plug from me, Warner Brothers: Let those three do whatever the hell they want with Superman. Just give them the OK to go absolutely nuts on it.

They could bring some insano glory to the Superman mythos.
Bullet time?
CGI from heaven?
The Man of Steel?

Great God Almighty Make it So!

[tabuno]

I saw SILENT RUNNING when it first came out and the ending has a definite emotional kick to it! The question is why I haven't put the movie on my most favorite movie list. And I don't really have an answer to it so it's good that this movie has come up again. FORBIDDEN PLANET is a 50's classic sci fi movie, dated, but the last part of the movie is truly amazing and the special effects still hold up quite well. LA PLANETE SAUVAGE uses its animation is a fantastic vehicule to capture the very essence of strange and eerie sci fi in its purist form - one of the best examples of hard core sci fi - bringing the audience into a world beyond imagination. As for THE BLACK HOLE (1979) version, it wasn't my favorite, in fact, it was one of disappointment, being stereotypical and under-performed characterization, yet even as I attempt to recall it, the ending did have a special resonance to it.

[Chris Knipp]

SILENT RUNNING is a good one and worth mentioning on this thread. It also relates to SUNSHINE'S theme of life support. You all really know much more about obscure sci-fi movies than I do, but I've seen a few. Geof Murphy's THE QUIET EARTH for instance, which impressed me. Murphy's UTU (1983) was a little known but admirable Maori drama.

[oscar jubis]

Enemy Mine and Silent Running certainly more to my liking than Sunshine and Robinson Crusoe on Mars. But the last two have some gorgeous visuals.

[cinemabon]

I made a little faux pas. I was thinking of "Fantastic Planet." I always get those confused. "Forbidden Planet" is the silly thing with Robbie the robot and Walter Pidgeon - very dated and very uncomfortable for me to watch (being a writer of science fiction).

I actually met Earl Holliman in 1977 through a friend of mine who worked on the Hollywood Reporter, a local trade paper in Los Angeles. Holliman came to my house with my friend in attendance. I fixed dinner for us. We spoke for nearly two hours. He was gracious but seemed distracted, as if he had better things to do than discuss his film career with me (a non-person). I asked him about working with John Wayne when he did the "Sons of Katie Elder." Holliman is still alive though he has not worked in nearly a decade. He turned eighty last year. At the time we met, he had just started a co-starring role with Angie Dickinson on "Police Woman."

Funny, I was a fan of "Forbidden Planet" at the time. (I have since recanted those feelings.) I didn't think to ask him about his whiskey scene with the robot. He always played a kind of whiner. I thought of him as shallow as most actors I met in Hollywood. If you are not talking about them, they just as soon move on. He did have a few funny stories to tell about various actors he knew through the years. He was in a good mood after a few glasses of beer and dished the dirt on several people. My friend, being a reporter, looked the other way. When I asked him later why he didn't want to print any of the rumors or at least investigate them, he told me, "If you want to survive in this town, you have to learn when to keep your mouth shut."

My friend survived a lot longer in LA than I did. I moved away two years later and never looked back.

What is wrong with "Forbidden Planet?" I could state my case in several ways... the stiff acting style, the predictable plot, the silly dialogue ("Hey, get a load of the dame...") or the corny sometimes cheese special effects, such as the rocket sled in miniature pulled through the set by a visible wire... or the flying saucer also held up by visible wires, etc.

Instead, I would like to mention one more overlooked science fiction film, "The man who fell to Earth." While the plot is convoluted and difficult to follow at times, it has a wonderful soul to it. Also check out, "Solaris" (1972 Russia) and a very obscure film called, "Journey to the seventh planet" (1962).

If you go to my website, I have an entire list of science fiction novels that I highly recommend for reading starting with Ursula LeGuinn's "The left hand of darkness." I consider this novel to be the greatest work in science fiction. She is the only author to receive both the Nebula and Hugo awards for two novels back to back, the other being her incredible work, "The Dispossessed."

[Chris Knipp]

I mentioned THE MAN WHO FELL TO EARTH in an earlier post just after the reviews when we started talking about sci-fi movies in general:
Don't think one can really say one is "not a fan" of sci-fi, because it is too important and central an approach to "reality." How could one dismiss Alphaville, La Jetee, The Man Who Fell to Earth, Brazil, The Quiet Earth (Geoff Murphy), 28 Days Later, the even better and more pointedly political 28 Weeks Later; Soylant Green, Glade Runner, Gattaca, 1984; the list goes on and on. The quality varies but the significance is so often there. Significace is rarely reached through special effects of the explosion kind we find a lot of the new Star Trek, but production values like Kubrick's can greatly enhance the sense of another reality, which somebody really clever like Roeg can accomplish that with very simple means. THE MAN WHO FELL TO EARTH works both through the very personal style of Nicolas Roeg and because of the other-worldly quality and cool presence of David Bowie, who in his Ziggy Stardust phase seemed very much like an alien to begin with. This is a very interesting film because it dramatizes the exponential longing and loneliness a being from another planet would feel when separated at length from his (or its) whole species and galaxy.

Could we have a link to your website and the list, please?

[tabuno]

I agree with cinemabon's comments about FORBIDDEN PLANET but even with these problems, I continue to feel that it remains a 1950s sci fi classic because of its core sci fi storyline and its imaginative eerie horror genre and psychobabble climax along with a fantastic special effects drenched last third of the movie that rivals for me anything I've seen since.

I also believe that THE MAN WHO FELL TO EARTH was a much more serious and emotionally ripping sci fi classic. I recently watched SOLARIS (1972) again earlier this year and continue to feel that it doesn't hold up as well as a sci fi classic for me personally. I still enjoyed the narrowly crafted and relational focus of the remake starring George Clooney (2002) more than the original. Jeremy Davis had a great performance in the movie. I could never get over the long, long, long car ride towards the beginning of the original movie and Donatas Banionis as Kris Kelvin never seemed to be a compelling character...there was so much of the distant, overly layered foreign density to this movie that oozed and dripped of supposed artistic depth and superiority and heavy characterization and sophisticated dialogue but it just came across as pretentious to me.



Ursula LeGuinn is a heavy weight among science fiction writers.

[Chris Knipp]

I thought the Soderbergh remake suffered from boring stretches but maybe I didn't give it enough attention.

[tabuno]

I haven't see THE JOURNEY TO THE SEVENTH PLANET (1972), but the writer Ray Bradbury wrote THE MARTIAN CHRONICLES (1950) which contained a great scene regarding a eerie mental creation of reality that was later scripted into a movie version (1980).

[tabuno]

It would be a mistake to attempt to compare both Solaris movies to each other because they focus on different issues and Soderbergh's version is really more of a love story with a fantasy twist than a science fiction movie and to compare the remake to the novel would be really stretching it.

I can completely understand how there could be long boring stretches in Soderbergh's movie for many people especially if one is used to more action and activity in the wonderful world of science fiction movie. But I didn't go into this remake expecting such an exciting experience and I became even more entranced by the whole love story angle as such type of movies touch me personally because of my life experiences (oh now I'm beginning to sound like a recently nominated U.S. Supreme Court appointee). I don't think that paying more attention to this movie would provide an answer to whether or not this movie was truly good or not, this movie would be boring for those who expects the excitement of the alien mysterious storyline plot, this isn't it. For some, this is just a sci fi movie with a number of boring scenes. It would be like me having to watch golf on television until later in life when I came to appreciate not the relatively slow action but what went into the action.

[Johann]

Correction to my post about Bryan Singer and Logan's Run.
Apparently that is really old news.

He turned down Logan's Run in order to make Valkyrie.
The Superman sequel is in limbo right now.
The Wachowski's have nothing on their imdb listing indicating anything about Superman.

Singer wanted Jude Law to play General Zod (which I think is an awesome idea- Law could really show us a side of himself that would prove he can act like a badass) but apparently that too went nowhere.

Warner Brothers could make Superman into a more sucessful franchise than Nolan's Batman. Genius and greatness is just waiting to be unleashed. I've said it before: Superman is a character tailor-made for the movies. TAILOR MADE.

It has the potential to be the greatest series of action/adventure films ever made. Why they aren't marshalling supreme talent to lift this mythology into the cinematic pantheon I have no idea.
Every single element is there. It's just a matter of assembling all the creative forces to bring it to life. Superman Returns was fantastic. But I know the potential is there to really go majestically nova with it. Superman is a GOD. He is an amazing super-hero. An amazing concept. That icon deserves a movie that just blows people's heads off with it's coolness. Warners did it for Batman, there's no reason and no excuse why they can't deliver something absolutely insane with the Superman character.
I'm following how they produce the next movie like a HAWK.

[cinemabon]

My last year in Hollywood turned out to be 1979. My buddy on the Hollywood Reporter knew of my penchant for science fiction. He called me one morning and invited me to the 70mm premiere of a new film at The Egyptian Theater on Hollywood Boulevard. When I got there, the place was a mob of people, press and movie stars. He held a place in line for me and we were the first to enter. The entrance to the Egyptian sits back from the road. We had to walk through this field of "eggs" that had dry ice fog running through it. We went through "mother" and emerged on the other side to a gigantic sculpture of something that looked pure alien. It had an enormous end that shot up at a 45 degree angle with some sort of alien resting in a chair. Its chest had a hole in it. I had no idea what the movie was about. I only knew would see the first showing of a 70mm print.

Instead of the thundering Fox opening, strange music emitted from the speakers. One word formed across the top that huge screen, "Alien." The movie started with a huge mother ship called the Nostromo moving over us. The whole thing delighted me since this was clearly a departure from "Star Wars" still playing up the street held over since 1977! About five minutes into the film, we watched with horror as the print jumped the sprockets and got stuck in the projector. Instantly the print began to burn before our eyes. People screamed. Panic broke out. A spokesperson for the theater asked everyone to be calm. Ridley Scott was there. He was furious.

My buddy pulled me to one side. "Let's go to Westwood," he suggested. "It's showing there in about an hour!"

"What about the 70mm print?" I asked.

"It's showing in 70mm in Westwood!" he told me.

We didn't even wait for a refund. Off we flew in someone's car and arrived to find we were at the back of the line. My friend went to the front of the line and then came back to find me.

"Just follow me and don't ask any questions, "he said.

I followed him to a side door and someone let us in. We had perfect in the middle of the middle seats. My friend asked me if I wanted to meet the person who let us in. I said yes. George Maharis (star of Route 66 and many other television shows) turned around.

"I'm that person," he said with a grin.

"Alien" turned out to be a classic from day one. I would say it is one of the finest science fiction films ever made. All cheers to Ridley Scott for that and the first sequel. The rest are/is crap.

[cinemabon]

Revealing my website then reveals my persona on this site. I have remained anonymous for so many years. This will also reveal my name to anyone else who reads this site. However, I would like you to read my novel... so here goes.

http://www.williamstolley.com/

link off the main page on my website to the synopsis. From there you can link to my list. If you ever consider reading a science fiction novel, you may not be interested in my work, but at least read something from that list. I am nothing without them. They speak with a far more profound voice that I ever could. I can only stand in their giant shadow.

[tabuno]

This thread has gone beyond STAR TREK literally, but what the heck!

Cinemabon's comment regarding ALIEN has stirred me to reflect on my fifth best movie of all time 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, a sci fi classic and my tenth best movie of all time ALIEN (BLADERUNNER incidently sits in twelve place on my list). Oops, Cinemabon's stated that ALIEN was "one of the finest science fiction films ever made" well nevertheless, Cinemabon's comment still made me wonder about why 2001 ranks higher than ALIEN for me. What was stellar with both movies was the realism and authenticity that both movies present to the audience, minus ALIEN'S engine sounds in space - the acting was spot on. 2001 incorporates a larger cosmic embrace of science fiction while ALIEN focuses on an intimate personal horror experiential experience, including a feminine/masculine quality in Ripley that denotes a balance between aggression and compassion. 2001 has the larger, universal message with greater impact while ALIEN, for me, went inwards into the human psyche of what is best in humanity.

However, it is this inner spirit from ALIEN as well as the fascinating alien/human fusion in a sequel that compels me to recognize the strengths and insights found in ALIEN RESURRECTION (1997) which I thought had solid merits as a quality sci fi movie, if not classic movie which I felt it didn't achieve.

[Chris Knipp]

In the age of Facebook have we any place to hide?

Good story. I wonder what happened at the Egpytian Theater after the film burned. When you said George Maharis I confused him with George Chakiris, of West Side Story. But Maharis sounds familiar too. He seems to have been in so many, many things, mainly on TV, that we've all heard of him. He was in Logan's Run, but only one episode. He was 50 when this happened.

[tabuno]

Cinemabon revealed his sci fi literature preferences on his website - while this is probably a topic better suited to a book forum, it still overlaps topic-wise with an alternative sci fi media format. I used to be a rapid sci fi reader, but later fizzled out when I became an adult having to work and struggling just to live in the real world. Nevertheless, Cinemabon's list brings back memories.


10. Fredrick Pohl's "Gateway" I probably read this book, but I can't remember it at all.

9. Ray Bradbury's "The Martian Chronicles" Instant classic with dazzling vignettes of personable intimate stories (like a sci fi twilight zone).

8. John Brunner's "Stand on Zanzibar" A classic that is considered one of the best immersion into an alien culture.

7. Larry Niven's "Ringworld" One of the best adventure sci fi novels in the traditional captivating journey/voyage mold.

6. Arthur C. Clark's "A Childhood's End" A wonderful almost epic novel, that if I recall correctly extends a lifetime.

5. Kurt Vonnegut's "Cat's Cradle" Missed this one.

4. Issac Asimov's "The Foundation Trilogy" Voted the best sci fi series of all time. It's possible, never to be overtaken.

3. Frank Herbert's "Dune" An epic novel with some of the most densely, richly alien dynastic vision in sci fi literature.

2. Robert Heinlein's "Stranger in a strange land." Considered the most enthralling alien perspective.

1. Ursula K. LeGuin's "The left hand of darkness" Oh, my. Read it, can't remember it - forgive me.


"The Lord of the Rings" by J R R Tolkien. This classic was bested later by Stephen R. Donaldson in his six novel series THE CHRONICLES OF THOMAS COVENANT

"Nine Princes in Amber" by Roger Zelazny. Never read.

"The Dispossessed" by LeGuin. Never read.

"War of the Worlds" by H G Wells. Never read.

"Ender's Game" by Orson Card. Read, but can't recall much, but it was my home state author's brilliant sci fi outing.

"Downbelow Station" by C J Cherryh. Never read, but the authori is considered among the serious sci fi authors.

"20,000 Leagues under the sea" by Jules Verne. Never read.

"A Spell for Chameleon" by Piers Anthony. Read it, but there were a number of great novels he wrote, it's hard to choice among his many books.

"The Book of Skulls" by Robert Silverberg. Never read this novel, but definitely one of the classic sci fi authors.

"Contact" by Carl Sagan. Never read.

"A Canticle for Leibowitz" by Walter Miller Never read.

"Dragonflight" by Anne McCaffrey. Wonderful - fantasy world along with the rest of her books.

"The Sword of Shannara" by Terry Brooks. Never read, but came on the scene later than many of these authors.

What a trip down memory lane. Maybe when I retire. Reading books is so different from watching and experiencing films. Some of my best memories.

[Johann]

Dune is a work that is just stunning.
I only read the first book and was so weighed down by it that I just can't read the others. I'd become a totally immersed Dune-Nerd and I just can't have that!

It's like Lord of the Rings. In space.

[Johann]

I think I read somewhere that Ridley Scott was inspired by 2001 and the "dirtiness" of the ships in Star Wars. He thought that the ships looked "used" and thought that was great.
When I watched Alien for the first time (about 7 months ago! yikes) I noticed that it had really inspired shots. Shots that were trying to evoke Kubrick. I'll have to get myself a DVD copy. I think the first 2 Alien movies are outstanding. I've only seen each of them once. But the more I think about them the more I know they're classics.

[tabuno]

DUNE by Frank Herbert was the only book that I read that I couldn't read. It is the one book where I'd get reading it and then I'd get 25, 50 pages into and stop. It took me about five attempts when I was young to eventually get to a point where I just ended up reading the whole book. I never did get to the rest of the series.

[cinemabon]

As the storyteller, I have one for 2001....

It premiered at the Cinestage in Chicago in 70mm with "Reserved seating only!" So my cousin and I reserved some seats and made a date to see this film. It was August 1968 in Chicago... ring any bells yet?

We got off the "El" train (nicknamed for being elevated) from Oak Park to downtown (back then they bragged, "downtown is only nine minutes away!" Ha! More like ninety!) So we met some of my cousin's friends. They had tickets, too. We started up this street when this truck pulled up and about two dozen soldiers got out. Some had machine guns. They told us that the street was being blocked off. So we backtracked and made our way to the cinema from a different route. We noticed increased street traffic and pedestrians for a weekday.

The film in 70mm was just the most outstanding film experience I ever had... at least of what I can remember from the first showing. You see, we were all very stoned at the time. I did see it several times after that, but on this first occassion we were all very toasty. When the film ended, we went to the front of the theater to leave and they had the doors chained shut! Outside on the sidewalk we could see soldiers with guns that had bayonets on them. The street was packed with young people, long hair, blue jeans, they were marching up the street. They were also waving an enormous flag.

"What country is that?" I asked one of the people next to us.

"North Vietnam," someone commented.

They herded us out the back of the theater. I practically ran over Roger Mudd who was standing on a street corner shooting material for a report on CBS. We decided to stay downtown as what was happening around us seemed more interesting than the film.

Of course later that night...

"The whole world is watching... the whole world is watching... the world is watching..." in Grant Park.

I was there. My cousin and I barely escaped. We did not go to jail that night.... a night burned in my memory forever. Yes, I love 2001. I believe it is the greatest science fiction film of all time. But oh the baggage I carry with that day.

[Johann]

Star Trek


Finally saw Star Trek and it gets a big thumbs up from me.
What I liked:

- the costumes. Number 1 reason is the costumes. They went back to the original costumes, albeit with a slight tweaking.
I even like the cadet costumes from the Starfleet Academy.
They seem slightly military to me, formal.
Humanitarian explorers yes, but they have a code of conduct...
Those primary colors are eye-pleasing.
I noticed the insignias on some of the badges were different than others. Maybe cinemabon can explain that one.

- the special effects. They've obviously been mentioned and trumpeted here and everywhere else because of their really high quality. Amazing sfx wizards worked on this film. Of particular note for me was the camera (dolly? no way!) shot where the camera reverses from the Enterprise bridge window and the image just tilts and tilts until you see that *MONSTER* Romulan ship. That was pure cinema right there. Pure glorious spectacle.
The black hole was very awesome as well, not to mention the sequence where Kirk and Sulu and that other dumb dude skyrocket in their flightsuits. That was really really great CGI.
All around the special effects are just Oscar-worthy.
They make this movie. That's it, that's all.

-Spock. The actor playing this young Spock is spot-on. I had no trouble believing him as the great Vulcan. All of the others replacing the classic crew members irked me one way or another.
They *basically* got it right, but it's just not the same.
The guy playing McCoy had the perfect voice. Voice was dead-on.
But when you look at him it's like, "that's Bones?!"
Sulu doesn't look anything like George Takei and neither does the woman playing Uhura. I thought it was Jada Pinkett!!
Kirk is actually not bad. He's obviously no William Shatner, but if you're gonna get a guy to play James T., he's it.


Things that bugged me:

- the bridge.
It doesn't bother me in the sense that that is how a bridge of a high-tech Starship should look, but when I think of the old set from the TV show, WOWZA. The difference is staggering.
Those transparent techie screens, the sleekness, the chairs- man, this is quite an upgrade from that old TV show! It just shocked me how off-the-charts futuristic it was when the original set was so.....basic.

- the rapid-fire lines. Can't get a handle on all that jargon, man.
They rattle this shit off like a bat out of hell- especially during the space wars: "Influx decapitators at 56%!!" "Double up on your gamma liquidating molecules Mr. Sulu!!" "Eradicate First-Force-Thrust Dildoinators- shields down!!"
It's crazy, that dialogue.
I'd fail Starfleet Academy. No question.

-the villains. Eric Bana is great as a baddie, but these are your stock "enemies" in Star Trek. They brood, they make threats, they have disturbing visages, they utter ultimatums, they scuffle with the good guys... Man, why can't they get some villains who're more than one-dimensional?
I want Galactus!
I want Magneto!



Great movie overall.
I'm glad that Star Trek films now have some serious juice to them. Cinematically, it's suceeded in spades.
And that's all you can ask for.

[Chris Knipp]

Thanks for all the additional detail. Delivered like a true Trekkie, which I'm not. As I can say is that among summer blockbusters 2009, this stands out as well done and enjoyable.

[tabuno]

Of all the characters from STAR TREK (2009), Chris Pine's performance as Captain Kirk was the singular performance I had the most problem with. I don't know if it was the script, Pine's acting, the continuity with the original William Shatner character, but something just didn't feel right all the way through the movie almost. The other characters fit right in for me.

[Chris Knipp]

I on the other hand who am not a Trekkie and never watched the original shows all the way through ever, loved Chris Pine and thought he was a good character, and from what people have told me the character in mature form is full of spunk like Pine. But if you don't like Pine that would ruin the show. Too bad, because it's better than the other summer action blockbusters so far.

[Johann]

Yes, this Star Trek is the best summer blockbuster so far.
(I saw Transformers last night and while I personally loved it, after comparing the two in my head, Star Trek edges it out).

I bought my tix for Les Vampires yesterday.
$40 for the whole ten episodes. On the big screen, the way it was meant to be seen. It's the first film I'll see at the Ontario Cinematheque and it seems quite appropriate. Live musical accompaniment too...there is a God.
I'll post about it in the classic film section.

[Chris Knipp]

I was planning to see Transformers but I'm not encouraged by Manohla Dargis of the NYTimes calling it "cretinous." Variety predicts big Box Office bucks and says it has an "enhanced arsenal of special effects, which helmer Michael Bay deploys like a general launching his very own shock-and-awe campaign on the senses." Variety is much less condescending than Ms. Dargis but notes the new Transformers features"machines that are impressively more lifelike, and characters that are more and more like machines."