Animatrix

The DVD collector's edition of the Matrix trilogy includes a bonus DVD called the Animatrix. The Wachowski brothers wanted to explore aspects of the matrix concept that they did not have a chance to in the films, and what better way than to give the project to some of the animators that had influenced them. It's no coincidence that most of the animators and directors were Japanese. If anyone can be said to have pioneered the adaptation of comic serials to film, it is the anime masters of Japan. Names included (with Wikipedia links) Yoshiaki Kawajiri, Kazuto Nakazawa, Mahiro Maeda, Koji Morimoto, and Korean animator Peter Chung of the original Aeon Flux series.

The brothers picked eight concepts and gave them to different animators to adapt into animated shorts. They fully scripted only four of them and directed none. The result was a really diverse collection of storytelling styles with a thread of connectivity running through. The first short was the only one connected directly to the Matrix film narrative and depicted a critical aspect of the story that was not explicitly shown, but was referred to in one small line at the start of the Matrix Reloaded. For anyone who hasn't seen them, here's a pretty cool official site, and here's a list of titles with a teaser question related to each story:

Final Flight of the Osiris - How did Zion receive word that the machines were launching a subterranean attack?

The Second Renaissance - What is the history of how the Matrix came to be?

Beyond - If the Matrix program had some bugs that created some odd happenings, how long would it take the monitor programs to identify and fix the problem?

A Detective Story - If a P.I. was hired to find one of the liberated humans without knowing about the Matrix, would he be smart enough to figure out what was going on?

Kid's Story - If someone told you about the Matrix, could you free yourself simply by believing them completely enough?

Matriculated - Could the humans reprogram some of the machines to fight for their side? Or better, could they "reform" them to understand the goodness of humanity and have them choose to fight for them?

Program - The human rebels used simulation programs to test new recruits, but could they also use them to test their loyalty?

World Record - Could you wake up from the Matrix by sheer physical exertion in your mind?

AI Video Version Link

What is the Matrix?

Such was the question posed by the early trailers for the imaginitive and sole creation of Larry and Andy Wachowski now known as The Matrix. You have to admire these guys. They wrote, directed, and produced the entire Trilogy, with top quality skills on all fronts, without having any prior experience in big time movie making. Actually, they were comic book story writers for many years when they brought the Matrix concept to the big studios and of course were turned down initially. So they decided to do a test project to prove they could make a movie. It was called Bound, an odd yet entertaining crime comedy-drama, which they also wrote, directed, and produced. I would recommend giving it a watch not just because it is funny and contains some original camera work and plot twists, but also to appreciate the talent of these guys given it was their first go at it, and it was so markedly different from their usual comic book subject matter, which is what they really wanted to put on screen. Needless to say, it worked, and Warner Brothers funded their project along with an Australian company.

The Wachowski brothers can also be credited with the creation of a new special effects technique called bullet time filming. Instead of moving the camera on a track, they could achieve much faster panning rates by setting up multiple cameras along the path of the shot and using the precision of computer control to fire single photos in sequence as the actors moved against a green screen background.
By slowing the film down later they could create the effect of extreme slow motion while simultaneously whizzing around the subject at high speed without so much as a blur. After all, every frame was snapped as a still photo. If the cameras went off simultaneously, you could freeze the frame and then pan around the frozen scene as was done for the famous cat like jump kick by Trinity in the first film. It was pure genius, but rendered obsolete several years later when human actors could be realistically modeled inside the computer and directors now had complete camera control in virtual space. The latter method was used on the sequels.

But enough on the originators, let's talk about the movie. It still amazes me when an original concept hits the sci-fi world this late in the game. Although wars between man and machine is a old theme (Terminator, I Robot, etc.), ending up using and harvesting man as a physical power source was a little more original. Of course, it's a dubious premise because you'd think the machines would get a better yield from hydro, geothermal, or even wind power (humans are rather inefficient energy conduits). But that was all just an excuse to create the real new concept after which the title was dubbed - the matrix. Perhaps the timing was right because, given the then current popularity of massive online virtual reality games like WOW, it was easy to envision a massive program into which thousands of people could plug in and interact inside at the same time. Then by making this virtual world a place where most people spent their entire lives thinking it to be reality, and a reality modeled after 20th century life and times, it teases you with the possibility that you might be living in the matrix right now. This is the kind of thing that makes science fiction so fun.

A lot of elements came together in this series. Let's face it, it's a good action film in its own right. And if you're going to have a lot of fight scenes, you may as well make them interesting. Coming off the graphic novel genre, the brothers certainly understood that idea. Most fight scenes were choreographed in detail by a then unknown (in America) martial arts film expert, and each one had some new element thrown into the mix. To be honest, I usually just sit through fight scenes waiting for the plot to continue, but these were fun to watch because they just looked so good. Speaking of looking good, even my wife, who is a fashion expert, commented on the cool wardrobes - something you don't often see in sci-fi but find a lot of in the comics world. And regarding the concept, they did a good job of exploring all the angles of the interaction between consciousness, avatars, and intelligent programs. However, I could never convince myself that those falling green symbols could even begin to represent a program as complex as reality - but it still looked cool.

Many critics seem to think the first movie of the trilogy was good, but the other two were horrible. I read some of the negative reviews and could see some patterns emerging. The Wachowski's always intended the trilogy to be a "serial" movie, that is, one story with three parts. Most of the reviewers find flaws that are based on judging each movie in isolation. This is as much of a mistake as watching, say, the last third of a movie and saying it lacked character development and had too much action. Well, the character stuff was done at the beginning and the big action comes at the end. Another recurring critique was about lame dialogue. Let's get one thing straight... this is not meant to be a great piece of drama. This was a serial comic book story set to film. The dialogue matched what you'd find in the pages of any "graphic novel". Good guys vs. bad guys, conflicted heroes, overdramatic visuals and dialogue, and lots of fighting. I've never been a comic book fan, but I do believe their draw is the same reason a lot of us go to the movies - to lose yourself in another world for a while. The fact that it was also good science fiction put it on the map in that genre.

Finally, if you get the collector's edition DVD set, you'll get a bonus DVD called the Animatrix, which is a project in its own right and deserves to be in its own entry next up.

AI Video Version Link

Dr. Who?

When I was a kid, Dr. Who ran on public television and I used to watch episodes from time to time with my father. The stories were quite engaging, although a little slow moving for my attention span at that time. These were serial type adventures where a single story line would last for 3-4 episodes. It was pretty much like a sci-fi comic book series on television. The time frame allowed for lots of complicated twists and turns and the subject matter provided lots of cool monsters and fairly regular time travel themes since Dr. Who was supposed to be an alien "time lord", taking human form, who could travel through time and space with a curious machine called a Tardis, which disguised itself as a British phone booth even when such a thing did not at all make sense in its environment. Of course, the whole thing was a magnificent creation of the Brits and I've heard one of the longest running series on the B.B.C. of all time. That's right, not just the longest sci-fi series, the longest series period. Wikipedia says it ran from 1963 to 1989 with a total of 151 story lines, each several episodes long.

For the short time it was syndicated in the states, the only person I saw acting as the good Doctor was John Pertwee. Many of the episodes were very well written and others were somewhat over the top, but Pertwee played the Doctor with such a fervent seriousness about him that he managed to maintain a certain dignity even in the midst of the most ridiculous backdrops. Dr. Who was an alien with extreme intelligence and Mr. Pertwee could not only spit out the heady sounding verbiage but do it in a manner that showed his constant frustration with the stupidity and bureaucracies of man, and do it with characteristic British wit. This was always a delight to watch. Of course, the Brits have a long tradition, beginning with Arthur Conan Doyle, of portraying the genius detective trying to solve a puzzle, or an alien mastermind trying to save the planet in this case. Dr. Who could almost be described as the Sherlock Holmes of science fiction.

I should also mention that I always loved the theme song. The original recording was an early example of heavy synthesizer composing. There was something mesmerizing about it, especially when you add in the visual which would today be described as one of those weird media player mixer skins. Here is a sample of the starting theme from the Pertwee era - Dr. Who Title Sequence. There's also a nice major key interlude in the full recording if you can find it in the U.S.

A few decades later, my first venture into the newly popularized world wide web was via the old hosting platform called Compuserve. This was kind of like an AOL for computer people that focused on professional resources, but it also had chat rooms of every sort which I spent a good deal of time in until the novelty wore off. In one of these, I met a lady in the Midwest who happened to be an avid Dr. Who fan. When she found out I actually knew who that was we began talking about the subject and I made the shocking discovery that there had been 7 different people who had played Dr. Who over the entire initial run (and some others in attempts to resurrect the series much later). John Pertwee was Doctor #3. My friend said her favorite was Doctor #4, played by Tom Baker. She had a whole video tape library of past episodes and she was so happy to be able to chat about the topic that she sent me a whole set of video taped episodes featuring several of the different Doctor's. Included were two episodes that had all the doctors appear together in some type of time warp story (the 3 doctors and the 5 doctors). The idea was that the Doctor changed his appearance from time to time via "regeneration" if he was injured in order to maintain his long life span. This made it easy to allow him to go back in time and meet himself without having to do any special effects. Watching my friend's tapes allowed me to bring back the memories and also add to them the new knowledge of the series.

After seeing some of the earlier and later episodes, I still consider John Pertwee to be the best. I may be biased, but the whole series takes on a different personality for each Doctor, including the production, directing, and script writing. For example, only Pertwee's doctor is banished to earth and works closely with a military operation called U.N.I.T., so most of the stories take place on earth and take on sort of a government operative feel to them. None of the other Doctors were as serious in manner as Pertwee, and he has some great stylistic additions like his black cloaks and vintage jalopy that he liked to drive around. I can understand the appeal of Tom Baker, who was supposed to be one of the most popular and the longest running. He gets some pretty good scripts (I've just found out some were written by the Douglas Adams), but also adds a more light-hearted approach. He even owns a robotic dog named K-9 that follows him around. But for my taste, I'll take the serious scientist over the eccentric wanderer.

AI Video Version Link

City

In the Pasadena, CA house in which I and my siblings grew up, my Father's book collection was on a shelf in the corner of the living room which made it easily accessible. Most of it consisted of old Caltech physics text books and other technical stuff, but there was also a smattering of science fiction novels. The only one that ever caught my eye was entitled, quite simply, "City", by Clifford Simak, and I was delighted to just now find the original paperback cover from the copy in my Dad's library on the left. The robot shown in the picture is named Jenkins, and he is the only character that remains throughout the entire 12000 year span over which the story takes place.

===============<<spoilers below>>=================

Even as a grade schooler I found that story completely fascinating. Each chapter describes huge sociological changes in mankind's history starting from some time in the near future where people begin abandoning the cities. The explanation, among other things, is that the population is being fed via hydroponics so farming the land was no longer necessary. Land becomes so cheap that people abandon their homes and move to the countryside (has some parallels to what's going on in housing today!). For continuity, the book follows several generations of the Webster family. Jenkins is their robot butler who is passed down through the ages. We see a group of smart "mutants" that take to the hills and start a society. They discover that the collective intelligence of ants has no limits save for their need to hibernate each year, and by removing that constraint for them, the ants eventually learn to build tiny robots that enter the brains of animals and turn them into slaves, building structures for them and rockets to travel into space. The mutants ultimately figure out how to create doorways to parallel universes into which they depart. That's just one of many side stories. Men learn to change their bodies so they can live on Jupiter, and when they discover that in the new body form, the planet is a paradise, they eventually abandon earth altogether for a life of bliss. I believe some stay behind in some sort of induced coma living a virtual reality life of their choice. Meanwhile, after having experimented with imparting vocalization skills to dogs, man's best friend soon learns to communicate with him, and then eventually takes over the planet after human kind has fled to Jupiter. Jenkins and the other robots stay behind to serve the dogs.

One other aspect of the book that I still find particularly amusing is that it pretends to be a series of legends, published by the dogs in the distant future, about their alleged mute past, and about this creature called "man" who they supposedly once served. Each chapter is preceded by a discussion of the prevailing views of contemporary scholars (dog scholars) about the authenticity of various parts of each tale. The satirical irony just oozes out of the pages.

Now I'm sure that all sounds quite ridiculous, but it was perfect for sparking a young boy's imagination. I even later used it for a book report in the 8th grade and the teacher was quite amused with the enthusiasm evident in my synopsis. Simak is an excellent storyteller and there are so many intriguing ideas and threads. It was this book that first introduced me to the concept of a parallel world existing, not along an extra spatial dimension, but a few seconds in time behind us - like the frames of a motion picture film, just slightly different, as it was well described. A consequence of that reality would be the impossibility of time travel as there would be no independently reachable past or future. Of course, that would probably conflict with relativity theory. Anyway, a more comprehensive synopsis is given here.

My admiration was tempered a bit when I found out that the story was not originally written as a novel in 1952 but as a series of articles in a sci-fi mag called "Astounding! Science Fiction" (first chapter appearing in the issue at right), which seemed to give it a less reputable origin in my mind. Later I learned that this periodical and others helped launch what is referred to as the Golden Age of science fiction, as well as the careers of many later to be famous authors, including Isaac Asimov. Those mags were where the action was back in the 30's and 40's. Click here for a more detailed treatment. But given the original City novel was penned that long ago, it is in fact astounding how well it still holds up today, and I would still heartily recommend it to anyone.

AI Video Version Link

Why Blade Runner?

I have heard critics rave about Blade Runner (1982), saying it's "a great achievement" and "one of the most visionary sci-fi films of all time". These folks must be looking for something very different than I. I can understand why I did not watch it in high school - I had not yet acquired a taste for dark or Dystopian art forms. My life was just too happy and simple. I tried to watch it some time during college but could not get past the first 15 minutes or so. First, it was inexorably slow and boring. I'm not an action junkie, but I could not seem to find anything to draw me into the story. Well, lo and behold, in order to blog about it, I viewed the theatrical cut in its entirety, which you can do online with a Netflix subscription. I still don't get it.

The film is an adaptation of a Philip K. Dicke novel done in film noir style in a futuristic setting. This style is difficult to pull off today since it has been caricatured for so many years. Yet Blade Runner does not really add anything new to it except the setting. Everything from the sleazy back street crime culture, to the lilting saxophone music, to the cheesy street-wise detective narration, the fatalistic love interest, except instead of a prostitute or struggling actress, the lady love is a misunderstood robot. Even the femme fatales are robots. Did Ridley Scott intend this to be comical? He did much better with Alien - oh wait, that was 3 years earlier. Harrison Ford was never a great actor, but I thought he was better cast as Han Solo in Star Wars and as Indiana Jones. The special effects were sufficient for their time, but after Star Wars set the bar 5 years prior, I don't think it deserves too much credit in that department either. And while we're on the big names, Vangelis wrote much better music for Chariots of Fire - oh wait, that was a year earlier. I am not saying that film noir can't be done effectively today. Just look at the narrative portions of the Watchmen as an example. But the key is that you need a real story to back it up. Watchmen starts with a murder mystery and leads up to a full fledged evil plot to conquer the world, etc. In Blade Runner, there's no real plot, no murder mystery, no twists of fate, just a cop trying to kill off the riff raff. The point seems to be to just revel in all things strange and grotesque.

Some people point to the exploration of how an android would deal with the prospect of its own immortality as a highlight. The first film that comes to my mind in that respect is 2001 with its treatment of HAL the super-computer, so the concept is not new. Since that theme is an important part of Dicke's novel, I'll bet it is treated more skillfully on paper. But let's face it, the credit in that respect goes to Dicke, not the film. I do, however, give credit to Rutger Hauer, who played the replicant leader. He really captured the strange juxtaposition of the rage of a man sentenced to death with the confusion and innocence of a 4 year old child.

Of course, Scott released a director's cut that eliminated the narration by Ford, which he had never wanted in the first place but the studios insisted upon. I imagine that would be a definite improvement.

AI Video Version Link

The Martian Chronicles

I have to admit, I never read Ray Bradbury's famous Martian Chronicles. I have heard that his writing style is quite good, which when coupled with sweeping philosophical themes about the future of worlds makes for some classic science fiction. I always do a little extra research for the blog and have just found out that this work was not originally written as a novel but as a series of short stories, penned over time, and set in the context of a larger framework. It was later compiled into book form and I've heard that it's the best selling sci-fi novel of all time. Science fiction novels inspire some of the coolest cover artwork, and both the longevity and popularity of this one has generated quite a few, so I uploaded some examples.








What I do remember is watching the TV mini-series with my Dad at a young age (1979) and retaining lots of haunting images of what was at the time a "major television event". They were only images, for I found it very hard to follow the stories, which is understandable given the disconnected nature of the chapters. I do remember the rather comical setup, which was a shot of the first Mars satellite landing, the Viking Lander, taking pictures of a barren Mars landscape, and the camera panning over a hill to show some Martian homes just out of the satellite's visual range. The narrator likens it to someone sending a satellite to Earth which lands in the middle of the Sahara desert and concluding the Earth is completely barren and uninhabited. This cute little intro was obviously not in the original book as Viking landed in 1976 and the book was compiled in the 1950's. It was added to make the story more convincing to the later, more informed, audience.

I'd always sensed that the TV series was a very abridged version of the original work and of far lesser quality, but it was a treat to be able to rent it again in recent years and see how much I remembered. It still had that haunting quality to it. The opening sequences that show various initial attempts by man to visit Mars and how the Martians try to deal with it are quite powerful. And the Martian appearance (no hair, silver pupils), contrasted with their calm and docile demeanor, is still quite creepy and effective.

The story lines are too numerous to recount here, so I will limit myself to general commentary. I think the one thing that really struck me about the series was how different it was from most other sci-fi stories. Again, without being able to reference the novel itself, it seems that Bradbury chooses not to deal primarily in concepts relating to science and technology, philosophy, logic, and other themes that most science fiction adopts as its primary literary topic or tool. His primary focus is human nature. He creates two very different worlds and plays with the effects they have on each other, which can sometimes be beneficial and sometimes devastating. If there are moral implications in the stories, they are not about the use of science and technology, they are about how we should treat each other, including others that we may encounter "out there", but he does not take sides either. The Martians are not portrayed as innocent victims but simply as another culture with its own flaws, virtues, and means of survival. Many of the tales simply follow an episode in the life of one person or family, while others recount significant turning points in the Earth-Martian saga. I suppose it is these things that gives the Chronicles its timeless quality even though we know that Martians do not exist. You could transplant the tales to a more distant planet and lose not a thing.

Now, I think that this kind of writing is more common in the world of sci-fi literature than in film because it just doesn't easily lend itself to screen adaptation. I am admittedly not a sci-fi literature buff and perhaps the more "hard-core" types would laugh at my sense of novelty here. So be it. At least in this case, a real science fiction novel was adapted to the screen without turning it into an action flick like was done with Asimov's I, Robot a few years back. All I can say is I hope it will happen more often in the future.

AI Video Version Link

The Island

The Island is a film that came out relatively recently (2005) and is mostly a conglomeration of ideas from its predecessors, but it contributed one new concept that makes it worth mentioning. Unfortunately, this concept constitutes the main point of the story and is not revealed until the middle of the film, and since it's the only thing worth talking about here, I am going to put a big spoiler warning at this juncture for the sake of any one planning to see it. Read on at your own discretion...

===============<<spoilers below>>========================

Science fiction often involves stories that take a contemporary topic in science or engineering and explore what might happen if it were taken to extremes or used for ill purposes. In recent years, films have started to appear that explore the world of bio-technology, especially involving the manipulation of DNA. This is a natural response to the rapid progress that has been made and is still exploding in bio-tech. One of the more controversial aspects of the field is cloning. The fact that real cloning has been demonstrated and is now accepted as real science opens up all sorts of interesting, and sometimes scary, possibilities. A case in point is Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park, which explored the possibility of cloning animals that no longer exist today.

I remember seeing trailers for the The Island and wondering what they were up to. I've seen so many sci-fi plot lines that I was intrigued by the fact that I just could not guess "the secret" that they were holding back on. There was this controlled community of people in a laboratory-like evironment, who were all waiting to go to "The Island" once their name was drawn from some lottery. Romantic involvement, even physical contact, was forbidden and enforced by proximity meters. They are told they are being quarantined from a world-wide epidemic. The story, of course, involves a couple who fall for each other and eventually make the horrifying discovery that there is no Island. They are in fact being harvested for their organs. It turns out each person in the facility is the clone of someone out in the "real" world who has paid a great sum of money to have their clone grown to adulthood so they can have perfectly matched organs on hand when the time comes that they need them. There is no public outcry because the facility is kept secret by the parent corporation. I hardly remember anything about the story itself, but the concept seemed so amazingly plausible that it stuck with me. How many rich people would go for this if they could pay for it and tell themselves that everyone is doing it anyway? How many companies would not hesitate to capitalize on it and use customer demand to absolve their conscience as many do today?

Of course, our heroes escape into the world outside, pursued by hired mercenaries, and innocently amazed at the world they discover. They end up seeking out their clone owners with whom they have some interesting confrontations. This latter part of the film turns into a bona-fide action movie with several plot turns that actually make it rather enjoyable to watch. It's almost like getting two movies in one. So I'll put this one down as an honorable mention for its fresh ideas and for not completely botching the climactic conclusion which is what usually happens in Hollywood science fiction projects.

AI Video Version Link

Ode to Tron

I suppose I am embarrassed to admit it, but to this day, I still love watching Tron. Yes, it is a plot fit for a teenager, but unlike many films that fall along the wayside, this one I think deserves some ground breaking credit. First, it really was one of the first films to use computer animation extensively, and just that fact alone puts it on the map. What makes it still look so interesting even today is that the techniques used were a hodgepodge of several pioneering processes that were abandoned later for more flexible and less costly methods made possible by better computation speeds. Most of the animated sequences have a look and feel unlike anything seen before and after - a hybrid of live footage, hand drawn, and computer generated images and motion.

Another achievement for its time is the use of computer generated camera movement. This is completely the directors job which is ubiquitous in today's computer generated footage, but the camera work done in 1982 still stands on its own. Just check out the famous light bike sequence:

Another really significant point is the skill in which computer related concepts were translated into an analogous world in which a story could be weaved. Software is my profession and I can tell you that all the terms used in the 1982 film are still used today. Even in high school, I was able to suspend my credibility meter by simply telling myself that everything I was watching on the screen was a symbolic representation of what was actually happening within the bits and bytes of the computer system (ok, maybe not the "pet" bit that acted more like an intelligent program with binary output). If you do that, the story actually makes some sense. It's like watching a computer science allegory. I don't remember a better treatment of such concepts before The Matrix. I credit the writers with having the sense to know what computer concepts were fundamental enough to stand the test of time and the producers for not messing with it. There is not a single product reference (DOS, Windows, PC) or company reference (e.g. IBM, Apple, Microsoft, Maxtor, Intel) during the entire animated portion. Imagine the royalties Disney gave up! Then again, back in the 80's those companies were making money hand over foot so they probably weren't interested anyway.

Speaking of writers, I still can't believe this came out of the Magic Kingdom. The first attempt by Disney to put out a Sci-Fi offering was a huge flop called The Black Hole. This time they hired a guy named Steven Lisberger who both wrote and directed the film. Although they have done plenty of movies in space, I don't recall any serious sci-fi films from Disney since Tron. So I named this entry "Ode to Tron" because it was like a very unique thing that we may never see the likes of again.

After saying that, I just discovered that a sequel will be coming out this year called Tron: Legacy. After watching the trailers, I don't fear having to take back my statement. It looks like they took a dark angle a la Matrix. Part of the charm of Tron was its innocence so they are going to completely destroy that along with the unique look. The amazing thing is that it's not only being released again by Disney, but Lisberger is also coming back as producer and both Jeff Bridges and Bruce Boxleiter will be starring in it. I guess they will all go down with the ship. We'll see.

AI Video Version Link

The Time Machine

Time travel is one of my favorite sci-fi themes. It provides opportunities for some real clever story lines, but it is also one of the most difficult things to handle convincingly. I was a Physics major in college so the more a film or story can suspend my scientific disbelief, the more enjoyable it is for me. According to current physics, traveling forward in time is quite possible due to the laws of special and general relativity. Traveling backward in time is, so far, complete fiction. But it's the backward travel that makes the best stories because it involves the whole idea of re-visiting and even changing history. As long as the writer keeps the time lines consistent and provides a scenario that, once you think it through, makes some sense, I consider it worth suspending questions regarding violation of the conservation laws of the universe and the proliferation of time lines. I'll have to do a broader treatment of time travel elsewhere. For now, I'd like to put in a word for the first great time travel story - The Time Machine.

I think we could say that the science fiction genre was born during the industrial revolution with the works of authors like Jules Verne and H.G. Wells. The Time Machine, written by Wells in 1895, was one of those first great works. The original work is not very lengthy and you can read it online here. It's original intent was to be a satire that made a statement about class disparity in society. Wells witnessed the exploitation of the workforce in the factories of the turn of the century tycoons of industry. But I think Wells also intended to experiment with ideas about time travel in general, which he did quite ingeniously in a time before the advent of Einstein's relativity. Except for the eventual return of the hero, all the travel in the book is toward the future, removing any of the problems mentioned above regarding changing history and such.

In the story, the "time traveller" (he is never named) ultimately ends up many millenia in the future (try 800,000 years) where the human race has evolved, or rather de-volved, into two primitive species, one that lives underground, the Morlocks, and one on the surface, the Eloi. The Morlocks provide food and other needs to the Eloi, who don't even know who their providers are - they just accept it and enjoy a veritable paradise. On the one hand, the situation parallels the wealthy class being provided for by the worker classes down in the factories. On the other hand, it also looks a lot like herding sheep. The traveller, after investigating further, learns of the appalling state of the future of the human race, gets into some adventures with an Eloi named Weena while trying to retrieve his machine, and finally returns home.

It's first adaptation to the screen was directed by George Pal in 1960 and titled simply The Time Machine. Although it deviated quite far from the original work, and contained some cheesy Hollywood fare, on the whole it was a very good film, especially in the early set up. We're treated to initial explanations about time travel to a movie audience that was not accustomed to such ideas yet. The use of stop motion camera effects to speed up time throughout the film is still really great to watch even today. In order to give it some flare, the reflections of the traveller in the book are scrapped in favor of the beefed up action sequences in which the traveller must rescue his companion. Oh, and they gave him a name - H. George Wells!

In the book, both future races are small creatures. The idea is that the Morlocks don't have to physically overpower the Eloi because the Eloi have become so passive. In the film, the Eloi look the same as you and I and the Morlocks are human sized blue monsters (with a really bad makeup job). Wells' main point is lost, but it's worth watching for most of the film.

A modern remake came out in 2002, once again entitled The Time Machine, directed by H.G. Wells' own great grandson, Simon Wells. Although the basic elements are there, it's safe to say this is an entirely new movie. Rather than mere curiosity, the time traveller's motivation for his work is to change history by preventing his fiance's death. He actually succeeds in doing this by going back in time, but finds she ends up dying another way. He then wonders about the possibility of changing history at all and begins travelling into the future to find the answer. The Morlocks have been beefed up into pretty terrifying monster versions of future humanoids and the Eloi are no longer stupid. In the end, the traveller ends up staying in the future with Mara (the new Weena) after the machine is destroyed. It's disappointing, not just because of the re-write, but because the re-write is so bad.

What's even more of a shame is that it contained some top notch production. A lot of money must have gone into it - the sets, period costumes, special effects (Stan Winston!), cast, and the musical score were all impressive. The time machine device itself was constructed out of brass and glass and sported real working parts.

One final point of interest is the different ways each rendition of the story explains how the traveller ends up 800,000 years in the future. In the book, there is no explanation except scientific curiosity - that's the only time period the traveller targets. In the 1960 version, the traveller encounters a nuclear war that destroys most of the earth, including covering him over with a lava formation. He has to go far enough into the future to allow the lava to erode away and see if anyone survived. In the 2002 version, on one stop along the way, the moon is blowing up because of nuclear detonations on its surface to make way for new real estate construction. The traveller gets knocked unconscious with the machine running while trying to escape and wakes up far into the future. As you can see, science fiction often engages in social commentary, so the message can be tailored to the issues of the day, whether it be class disparity, nuclear war, or suburban sprawl.

AI Video Version Link

Avatar Review

It's good to be commenting on current events from time to time to keep it relevant. I don't go to the theaters very often since my son was born, but the last film I did see on the big screen was Avatar. The 3-D factor had something to do with that - a very clever technique to get people out to theaters rather than wait for the DVD, and to charge a dollar more. The box office lady said it was to cover the cost of making a 3-D film... yeah, right. How about 3 hours of CGI running time?

I haven't seen a sci-fi film generate such a wide buzz in quite a while. Unlike the original Star Wars, which gained its popular appeal after its release and based on its content, Avatar was anticipated mainly for the weight of its director, James Cameron, who gained official celebrity status with his Oscar sweeping Titanic movie, and who did a great job of marketing the film. That made for a record breaking opening weekend, but only technical awards at this year's Oscars.

And in that regard, it certainly deserved them. The integration of the actor's performances with the CGI motion capture was an amazing achievement and will set a new standard going forward. Have we finally crossed the threshold where the performance of an actor or actress behind a CGI character can garner an Oscar nomination? If so, I would have placed my bets on Zoe Saldana's performance as Neytiri (see the lovely graphic above), even though her real life face was never seen in the film. The entire Pandora planet is a feast for the eyes that never gets old during the entire 3 hour run.

The basic storyline is not very original, but it strikes a chord with many people. My own wife is from Africa, and although she's not really into sci-fi, she couldn't wait to see this film because it mirrors a story so often experienced on her continent. As a drama, it does manage to develop the characters and draw you in emotionally. Cameron spent plenty of time on character treatment before the final battle scene so you could easily feel for their plight. On the down side, some of the dialogue was so cliche it was painful to listen to.

Concept-wise, the world of Pandora was full of great stuff. You could see the influence of Ubisoft, the makers of the Myst game series, who were already master computer world creators. Some would argue the animals were too analogous to Earth creatures, fair enough. But the commonalities in their body plans, and nice balance between plant, insect, herbivore, and carnivore, gave it some realism. I especially liked the beautiful rendition of the floating mountains, even though I could not think of any way the laws of Physics could support it (magnetic fields? c'mon guys). While were on that, who thought of naming the coveted mineral "Unobtainium"? I thought it was just a joke at first. And what value did it have that any corporation would spend so much money to travel across the galaxy to mine it? At least in Dune, the spice actually enabled space travel itself, thus paying for its own transport cost. These examples show how the film fell short of the requisite explainability factor in favor of what would look good or further the story line.

In summary, Avatar won't go down in film history as an artistic achievement, but it will be remembered for its effects breakthroughs and stunning visuals. The whole avatar concept, and the sheer work put into creating a planet world, is sufficient to place it in the annals of science fiction.

AI Video Version Link

Dystopia

In literature, the term "Dystopia", in contrast to a "Utopia", refers to an environmental context in which a story is told that you would not wish to live in because there is something terribly wrong with it. This does NOT include situations where the world is simply oppressed by some evil empire. In that case, it's not the world itself that is messed up, just the entity currently in power. It also usually does not refer to bad places that are set apart from the rest of the world. No, in a dystopia, EVERYONE is screwed. It is the thing both the good guys and the bad guys have to deal with.

In science fiction, although a dystopia can be set on some other world altogether, the best ones are set in Earth's future, which has changed for the worse either by natural evolution or some great catstrophe. These have greater impact because they hit close to home. One of the first of these was a great silent film from the 1920's called Metropolis and directed by Fritz Lang. There is a beautifully restored release on DVD that I finally got a chance to view not too long ago and I think it is a must see for any fan. I recommend getting the commentary subtitles because it is difficult to follow in many parts due to the generational gap as well as missing footage. There are themes involving Greek mythology, Catholic tradition, and class disparities that floated in the common psyche at that time.

Recently, these types of movies have become more mainstream. A new wave of them broke in the 80's with big name stars on the billing like Blade Runner and Mad Max. The Matrix series is, in my opinion, one of the best in recent years. But there are so many, both good and bad, that I thought it would be interesting to try to list them, or at least the more widely acclaimed ones. So here goes, sci-fi only, with some added shuffling:

1984
Fahrenheit 451
Soylent Green
Logan's Run
Planet of the Apes
THX 1138
Blade Runner
Dark City
Matrix Trilogy
Terminator: Salvation
Aeon Flux

Borderline:
These are borderline, in my opinion, because they involve futures that are different, but not necessarily dysfunctional:
Gattaca
Minority Report
Serenity
A.I.

Didn't Make the List:
I did not include dystopias based on populations wiped out by disease, like I Am Legend, or by global war, like Mad Max or Waterworld, where the only sci-fi aspect to them is the cause of the catastrophe itself. 12 Monkeys is like that, and it additionally involves time travel, but the main story happens BEFORE the catastrophe rather than after and focuses on it's prevention. A few bonafide dystopias were left out on the embarrassment factor, including Johnny Mnemonic.

A final category are the few films that are bold enough to create a future in which the entire earth has been destroyed, like Titan A.E. and Battlestar Galactica. I think I'd put them in the space opera category instead but they are certainly related.

Do you have a favorite sci-fi dystopia that's not listed?

AI Video Version Link

THX 1138

After my last entry, I feel a strong need to absolve myself by plugging a film of real quality. I place THX 1138 in that category. Most of us first heard the name George Lucas with the release of Star Wars. That established Lucas both as a master story teller, special effects wizard, and with his Indiana Jones series that followed, having a knack for pleasing wide audiences. Star Wars is probably one of the most broadly accepted science fiction films by the general public. But before all that, George Lucas released this marvelous, shall I say masterpiece? When I first saw it, which was not too long ago, my whole view of Lucas was turned upside down. He was, at least at one time, a bonafide independent film director with real vision. I don't knock his later foray into pop culture films at all, but it was quite a surprise to see the contrast - especially since it happened in the reverse order that you might normally expect. THX was George's FIRST major release.

Official Site (which used to be cool but is now located is Lucasfilm Ltd.)

The film is placed in a world where people are tagged with numbers and highly monitored and controlled via drugs and policing. Love, and sex, are prohibited, but the plot begins when a man (played superbly by Robert Duvall) and his female roommate go off their drugs, experience feelings, and do the deed. The rest of the movie involves their arrest and eventual escape. On the surface, it's not much of a plot. What makes the film great is the way it is directed. It has an artsy feel to it with lots of confusing and strange images and sparse dialog. Duvall's character seems almost in a constant daze as he struggles to make sense of his situation - and his own life. Another great aspect is the consistency of the theme, which although not a new one, is presented forcefully by showing crazy situations that the characters just take to be normal. Everything in the society is designed to keep people under control. At the risk of spoiling, one of my favorite scenes is an automated counselor (a backlit drawing of a messianic image in a booth) that spits out recorded phrases like "Yes, fine" and "Can you be a little more specific". It had me on the floor laughing, even though the film maintains a straight face. You can view it here (the first scene) if you don't mind the spoiler. The characters are put in real peril and maintain a sense of urgency throughout the film. In the end they make a discovery that makes for a nice, modest, finishing touch. I'm glad that George had a chance to get this film out there before becoming a celebrity.

AI Video Version Link

Screamers

I remember when I was younger seeing the trailer for the movie Screamers (1995) and writing it off as another mindless horror film. It was certainly billed that way (reference the poster at left - "The last scream you hear will be your own!"), which was unfortunate because in the end it was, in my opinion, a sci-fi thriller with a really cool story concept. It was thus not surprising to later discover it was based one of Philip K. Dick's writings. I finally watched it one night - maybe it was on cable - and the scenes just stuck with me for years until I finally got hold of it via Netflix a few years back and watched it again. I can understand why it flopped - the acting and dialogue are very B-level material, and parts of the ending border on ridiculous. Nonetheless, I think it is worth a watch for any sci-fi fan.

Here's a basic synopsis from memory (details may be off). It all takes place on a remote desert mining planet occupied by two earth factions at war over the precious energy saving resource found there. An outpost on one side gets word that the war back home is escalating and they will be stuck on the planet for something like 9 years. The leader (Peter Weller) takes a team across the desert on a mission to call a truce with the other side and figure out how to get home. The twist is that both sides had created underground factories that replicated mechanized weapons nicknamed "screamers" because of the sound they made when they would lock on a target. The only way to keep your own weapons from attacking you was by sticking some vibration device into the ground. The screamers started as mouse-like units that crept under the sand looking for targets. The underground factories were intelligent enough to make improvements to the outputs. Over the years they continued to replicate units which became more intelligent and deadly, until, rumor had it, they started looking like human beings so they could infiltrate the camps and strike at the right moment. Eventually the screamers become the main problem and the goal becomes simply getting off the planet alive.

Some noteworthy aspects of the film: First, it has a masterfully woven suspense profile. Lot's of "Oh my God, get out of there!" moments. The whole "One of us could be one of THEM" dynamic is played out for much of the movie. The fact that you don't know the nature of the next manifestation of screamer unit you will encounter, etc. Second, although I admit it was over the top, the raw emotion of the characters and their interactions with each other does a good job of drawing you into the story. Finally, the whole context and premise of the setup takes an age old theme - man's greed leads to war, which leads to arms race, which ultimately backfires on himself - and gives it a fresh new twist. It's a treat if you can kick back and look past the low budget.

AI Video Version Link

My Collection

Like many folks, for some time now I've had a collection of what used to be VCR's containing some of my favorite films. Several years ago, I began to notice a good proportion of them were science fiction films and so I created a special section just for those. The intent was to begin adding to that section some of the vintage sci-fi films that really make a great collection. Right now, there are few in the vintage category, which is great because it means there is a lot more yet to discover on that quest. For now, I am listing for posterity the films currently on the shelf and I suppose the only value to you the reader is to get a sense of some of the topics that might appear later in the blog.

A little explanation first. This is a very short list. There is a definite special something in my head that makes me deem a film worthy of purchasing and keeping on the shelf, but I can't quite put a finger on it. There is some sort of uniqueness, integrity, "cool"-ness, who knows? One additional factor is the prospect of passing the collection on to my kids, so I do exclude some films purely for being not so family friendly. For example, I consider the original Alien to be one of the best sci-fi horror films ever, but it's not in the collection. I was torn in both directions on the Riddick Chronicles, and Pitch Black especially, but eventually let it go. So I admit this list has some agenda attached. And there are just tons of great films to discuss on the blog not in this short list. No one really needs to read this, but I nonetheless feel the need to have an official record - so here goes...

NOTE: Listed alphabetically, regardless of time period:

12 Monkeys
2001: A Space Odyssey
2010
Aeon Flux
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Contact
Flash Gordon (1980)
Jurassic Park (no sequels)
Logan's Run
Matrix Trilogy (including Anamatrix)
Phase IV
Star Trek I, II, and III
Star Wars Trilogy (Original Episodes IV, V, and VI)
Terminator I and II(2)
The Andromeda Strain
The Last StarFighter ;)
Titan A.E. (just barely)
Tron

One super-hero film in the collection, the original Superman: The Movie, almost plays like a sci-fi thanks to the opening sequences, so it's included too. But purist that I am, the treasured LOTR trilogy and others like it remain squarely in the fantasy section.

AI Video Version Link

"Re-Mastered" Classics

The advent of home video has made it economically feasible for studios to release "director's cut" versions of many films. This is a good thing. It allows one of the original film creators to show what was originally intended without marketing restrictions like running time, strong content that might affect the rating, and studio edits meant to target particular audiences.

Director's cuts normally don't mess with the original film frames - just the editing. A wholly different story is the practice of editing the original frames to make it look nicer or more interesting. I'm not talking about film restoration - which attempts to bring the film back to its original state. I'm talking about what is now often called "re-mastering". The first example of re-mastering that I can recall is when they started colorizing black and white films. This is a difficult thing to do, and the first attempts looked horrible enough to be distracting. Later attempts began to look more realistic, but that is beside the point I want to make here, which is that the original director shot the film in black and white and tailored his art and interpretation to accommodate that medium. One of the characteristic stengths of black and white film is what it does to the lighting - how the sharp contrasts affect the mood of the scene, etc.. In any artistic endeavor, I will always defend the integrity of the original form, mainly because an outsider will inevitably deviate from the original artist's vision.

In the digital age, re-mastering has taken a whole new turn. Now someone, including the director himself, can modify the actual content of the original film. This introduces the possibility of even greater transgression than simple colorization. When George Lucas released his re-mastered versions of the original Star Wars trilogy (billed as "enhanced"), I had to at least check it out. I found the additions of digital characters and scenes to be nothing more than a distraction from the story - complete gratuosity timed to generate new interest in the films prior to the release of the Phantom Menace. When you know the original scenes after many years, it's hard to remember the impact of seeing it for the first time, and the temptation to "spice it up" can even draw in the director - or maybe just George Lucas. The end result will most surely take away from it. Even the sound re-mastering they claimed they improved just drowned out the superb original music score and added more noise. The only redeeming aspect was the inclusion of previously deleted material - like the meeting betweeen Jabba the Hut and Han Solo in episode IV, which falls in line with the comments on editing changes above. I fully back the digital fixing of Jabba's appearance to match the scenes in ROTJ for the sake of continuity. But when I bought the DVD set for my library, I made SURE it was not the re-mastered version.

This brings me to what prompted this entry in the first place. A re-mastered version of the entire original Star Trek series has now been released by Paramount and is currently being shown on late night public television. I first heard of it on Youtube where you can watch previews of side-by-side comparison of the original and re-mastered scenes. They are almost exclusively a re-work of the exterior model shots of the ship and space phenomenon. What to make of this? Some of the planetary background shots are absolutely stunning and remind me of the CGI simulations of the solar system created by NASA for its satellite expeditions. It really makes you feel like you're traveling in deep space. Although the ship looks very cool and they kept it true to the original, there was a certain realism to the fuzzy appearance of the original model shots (they were actually quite good for their time). Digital just looks too clean - even though movie-goers have gotten used to seeing it that way now. There are significant deviations from the original rendering of the planets and space creatures. It's hard not to like both versions in this case. It's often the cheesey-ness of vintage sci-fi that makes it memorable, so you can't just throw them out. On the other hand, it's the stories and the characters that made Star Trek what it is, not the effects, so bringing them up to date isn't all that bad. Remember, no one is changing the basic content of the scenes, just the appearance, and I think Mr. Roddenberry would have been pleased with the results. Have I compromised here - or just made an exception? Who knows. It would be interesting to see what other fans think of the new, re-mastered, Star Trek.

If you decide to watch the comparisons on Youtube, I must warn you that the resolution and color of the youtube video is much poorer than the actual footage which you can watch on DVD or TV. In many scenes, you can't even make out the stars. Such comparisons are good for getting a feel of what was done, but the quality of the new footage will not match up to the originals even when shown next to them online.

I want to leave you with a really wonderful documentary short on the Star Trek remastering effort. Below is the first of the two part episode. In addition to the new CGI, it also shows you the original film restoration and the incredibly accurate live recording of the original thematic score - complete with soprano voice! You can hardly tell the difference.

AI Video Version Link