Star Trek Discovery Episode Review: Lethe

Since experiencing Star Wars fandom firsthand with the audience disappointment in the prequels, I’ve always felt a strange sense of sympathy for George Lucas whose rabid fan base jump on his later mistakes without seeming to appreciate that their whole obsession would never exist without George Lucas in the first place.

Who knows what would have happened to Gene Roddenberry if he lived past 1991?

Perhaps, it takes an outsider to the phenomenon to admit that his original vision seems outdated, naïve, and somewhat thin. Like any pop culture phenomenon that’s had a few reinventions, the Star Trek brand has gone in several directions at once, yet even a quality stand-alone film like Star Trek (and for the record, I like both sequels) can be derided by fans of the original simply because it’s different from the (perhaps unrealistically optimistic) version they’re attached to. What those fans might take for granted (let’s assume there’s some heavy overlap between the JJ Abrams series haters and Discovery cynics) is that Star Trek was dying before 2009. Enterprise was a massive flop, Voyager massively overstayed its welcome, and not all reboots were sure things. The series was dying for a new angle.

Discovery does have the same ambition behind it, but perhaps it aims a bit too much for the dark side and although I haven’t seen BSG, it does seem derivative of something else which cheapens the reinvention. An analogy is that some people felt Daniel Craig’s James Bond, while a solid reinvention, was too much a flavor of the moment by borrowing from Jason Bourne. Personally, I’m not sure how much of a need I have for Star Trek in comparison to the version of me in the 1990’s that gobbled up DS9 and gave Voyager a solid chance. For now, I’m taking it episode by episode rather than committing to a full season.

It’s possible that “Lethe” was the one that will hook me. It’s the first time a cliffhanger occurred that made me want to know what’s next. For a long time, Star Trek was a show that relied on the same molds (the curious outsider, the family man or woman, the by-the-book officers, the Captain who wrestles with morality the most) and there’s a lot of new here.

The lower deck angle with Sylvia is getting progressively better but the senior staff isn’t particularly present outside of Saru and Stamentz, considering Burnham is sort of a highly trusted temp at this point. There is a guy in sick bay who Stamentz was sort of hate-flirting with, but I’m not sure if he’s THE doctor or just a doctor. Because of that, it’s nice that we have a new crew member in Ash Tyler (either the actor or the character’s name, I’m too lazy to look it up now) join.
There’s also a sexy sex scene which hit me completely by surprise: I didn’t get a sexual vibe from those two (won’t spoil it) at all. There’s still a disconnect between how interesting the show thinks Lorca is and how interesting he actually is but provided the right story arc, it’s possible he could carry the show. What’s interesting to note is that Lorca might be pretty low on the anti-hero scale because his redeeming qualities are mostly about how he might win the war in a Machiavellian way and viewers at home might not care that much about winning a war as it seems hostilities with other alien races are fairly constant in the Star Trek universe. Why didn't Picard or Sisko compromise their principles completely if it was an option for Lorca?

Every 2015 Film I've seen Ranked 1-30, Part I

Here is the ranking of the first 30 films I have seen in 2015 (Bottom Half can be found here):

1. Spotlight, dir. Thomas McCarthy, starring Michael Keaton, Mark Ruffalo, Liev Schreiber, Rachel McAdams, Brian D’Arcy James, John Slattery, Stanley Tucci- The critical consensus is that this film is the shit and I won’t disagree. It’s kinetic, does a great job of deepening its characters with little or no exposition, has a solid amount of world-building and has all that profound social significance you expect from an Oscar front-runner without being preachy. Did I mention it’s about journalism and I’m a journalist? I love that its best picture win is raising at least some degree of awareness that high-quality journalism adds up to something.

2. The Martian, dir. Ridley Scott, starring Matt Damon, Jessica Chastain, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Jeff Daniels, Sean Bean, Kate Mara, Kristen Wiig-A fun science-fiction film that doesn’t skimp on the science or the action. Matt Damon got his third Oscar nomination for this film but it’s more the way the character is written that deserves the credit. Damon’s character exists in a haunting isolation that he faces with a thin veneer of optimistic plunk and the fact that his struggle can hold your attention so well is a testament to the writing. The action is smartly divided between Mars’ sole resident, his ship mates in space, and mission control on Earth and the latter two settings are populated with all sorts of gems including Kristen Wiig, Donald Glover, Jeff Daniels, Sean Bean, Jessica Chastain, and Chiwetel Ejiofor. 

3. Joy, dir. David O Russell, starring Jennifer Lawrence, Robert DeNiro, Bradley Cooper, Isabella Rossellini, Edgar Ramirez, Virginia Madsen-I don’t know if my head would agree that this is the third best film of the year, but it just worked for me emotionally. Made in the same history-as-a-loose-guideline-for-my-actors-whims spirit as “American Hustle,” Joy caters to the strengths of its players (particularly, Bradley Cooper’s manic confidence) but is more grounded in a narrative of the struggle to make it in a dog-eat-dog world. As with Spotlight and journalism, the film does a good job of world-building with inventions and QVC. I also like that the film is unapologetic of showing how bad Joy’s family is and doesn’t treat it as something that needs to be resolved in a bow at the end. Edgar Ramirez has a breakout performance here.

4. Star Wars VII, dir. George Lucas, starring Daisey Ridley, John Boyega, Adam Driver, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Oscar Isaac, Donmhall Gleeson-For this viewer, Star Wars’s biggest achievement was convincing me that it had a reason to exist. Return of the Jedi wrapped things up in such an uber-happy ending that I couldn’t see a possible reason for continuing the story except more money. J.J. Abrams’s version was transformative on that front. Not only did it achieve the task of investing me in a story I considered closed but it was about as good as a film could be. 

5. Big Short, dir. Adam McKay, starring Steve Carell, Christian Bale, Ryan Gosling, Jeremy Strong, Melissa Leo, Marissa Tomei, Brad Pitt-The comic genius behind the immortal line “I love lamp” has an Oscar. What a year it’s been for Adam McKay: He used to be known primarily as a skilled comic writer who found his way to some studio money, and now he’s being courted by Democatic presidential candidates for an endorsement. Big Short contains a pretty sharp ensemble with at least two highly memorable characters and contains the kind of comic bounce that protégé Tina Fey (yep, Adam McKay technically recruited Fey to SNL) and others use on TV: Supercuts, cutaways, and flashbacks keep the story moving.

6. Inside Out, voices Amy Poehler, Phyllis Smith, Bill Hader, Lewis Black, Mindy Kaling, Diane Lane-One of Pixar’s best and most original film in years. Few films really explore an outside topic so well (Inception and dreams comes to mind) that they serve such a pedagogical purpose which is important for a kids’ movie. The comedy and adventure are pretty masterfully done here. It’s an example of Pixar in its groove.

7. Mustang, dir. Deniz Erguven-I actually reviewed this one and you can read it here. In short, I described it as a hellish version of Little House on the Prairie. Following five orphaned sisters under a house arrest imposed by their conservative uncle in small-town Turkey, the film’s technicality recalls Terrence Malick for the ethereal exploration of the present or Jonothan Demme’s more small-scale stuff with a focus on found moments of joy. At the same time, it’s a pretty scary look at restrictive societies.

8. Everest, starring Jason Clarke, Josh Brolin, John Hawkes, Emily Watson, Jake Gyllenhaal, Michael Kelly, Kiera Knightley, Robin Wright-Not a popular film but, hey, you can’t win them all. I had the added benefits of watching this film in 3D AND of not really knowing that it was a disaster film. Perhaps, that’s why the heartbreak of the climbers not making it down resonated so much with me. Some complained that the film was too ambitious with its large ensemble, but there was a lot in Jason Clarke, Josh Brolin, Jon Hawkes and Emily Watson’s characters to keep their fates engaging. Like Inside Out and child psychology or Love and Mercy and the Beach Boys, this is a film that had me rushing to the library (or the internet or whatever) to learn all I could and become an Everest-phile.

9. Man from Uncle, dir. Guy Ritchie, starring Henry Cavill, Armie Hammer, Alicia Vikander,  Hugh Grant, Elizabeth Debicki, Sylvester Groth -Whether it was awards juggernaut Mad Max: Fury Road,  Jurassic Park tearing up the box office, or Star Wars VII realizing the dreams of fanboys and fangirls, there was an aura of credibility to tentpole films this year. My pick for best action film is this slick spy homage from action auteur Guy Richie. Like his last masterwork, Sherlock Holmes, he creates a distinct time and place: The luxury and extravagance of mid-century Italy (scenery porn galore! Even the shots of meals alone will make your mouth water) with an undercurrent of Cold War paranoia. The film’s buddy chemistry between the two leads and the girl is playful (with the appropriate level of homoerotic satire) and Alicia Vikander is an odd mix of Aurdrey Hepburnesque cuteness and playfully lethal in a way that works.

10. Love and Mercy, starring John Cusack, Paul Dano, Elizabeth Banks, Paul Giamatti, Bill Camp, Erin Drake, written by Oren Moverman, Michael Lerner-Like Everest, this is a film that turned me onto something new. I’m embarrassed to say that I previously only knew of the Beach Boys as the group of famous musicians who would randomly pop in on the Tanner residence when Full House needed a ratings boost. The film’s split narrative device can be wobbly at times and there are more than a few awkward  moments (the Brian and Melinda courtship comes off as strange to say the least) but the film brings it on the emotional front. The four principals in the cast each carry very heavy material: Paul Giamatti channels some pretty epic villainy, Elizabeth Banks makes a very awkward courting process on paper work and unleashes a killer instinct in later scenes, John Cusack impresses with quiet moments, and Paul Dano steals the show by selling the genius and the emotional breakdown of a young Brian Wilson

11. Trumbo, dir. Jay Roach, starring Bryan Cranston, Elle Fanning, Louis CK, Diane Lane, Michael Stuhlbarg, John Goodman-As a sucker for Hollywood history, it’s hard to resist watching actors of today doing their best impressions of Hollywood royalty. It’s a solid story dragged down by Bryan Cranston’s slightly cartoonish take and half-hearted attempts to infuse the material with a comic tone (though Stephen Root and John Goodman pull off the funny quite well). It’s an important film that successfully avoids being overly preachy.

12. Our Brand is Crisis dir. David Gordon Greene, starring Sandra Bullock, Anthony Mackie, Joaquim de Almeida, Billy Bob Thornton, Zoe Kazan, Ann Dowd, Scoot McNairy- An underlooked political drama about the rivalry between two ace political strategists (Sandra Bullock channeling a slightly darker version of her frazzled but endearing rom-com persona and Billy Bob Thornton channeling James Carville) working different sides of a Bolivian election. With a supporting cast that includes Scoot McNairy (he with the name that’s extremely easy to misspell), Zoe Kazan and Ann Dowd, the film boasts an enjoyable camaraderie and this is easily one of Sandra Bullock’s best performances. Like Trumbo, it successfully threads the needle of thought-provoking without being overly preachy, even if the resolution is slightly less profound than it thinks it is. Bonus points if you’ve recently been to Bolivia (i.e. me!)

13. Mad Max: Fury Road dir. George Miller, starring Tom Hardy, Charlize Theron, Nicholas Hoult, Hugh Keays-Bryne, Rosie Huntington-Whitely-In light of the fact that putting such a popular film somewhere in the middle of the queue will draw complaints, it seems preferable here to pre-emptively answer the question “why isn’t this in your top five?’ and it would be even better if I had a good answer to that question. The things that are praised- the exploration of society’s male-female dichotomy and the can’t-be-faked special effects – are things I agree with on all counts but I don’t necessarily think the special effects or the gender explorations of other films are particularly lacking. I also think that Imortan Joe and his goons could have used just a tad more subtlety. Still, this certainly was something unique and different and the narrative worked whole-heartedly.

14. Sicario, dir. Denis Villeneuve, starring Emily Blunt, Josh Brolin, Benicio Del Toro, Dan Kaluuya-I’ve wanted to see a good Mexican border/drug cartel film for a while, but aside from a great performance by Emily Blunt, this isn’t that film. It felt slightly more like a slightly tired entry of the gangster genre than something profound and new.  I prefer the series “The Bridge” which is truly all that and a bag of chips and while I can’t personally recommend Stephen Soderberg’s “Traffic” (I’ve inexplicably never seen it),  it sounds like a great film. “Sicario” is still a pretty good film and I can’t say enough good things about Emily Blunt, but I just don’t think it’s THE film.

15. Hot Tub Time Machine 2, starring Rob Corddry, Craig Robinson, Clark Duke, Adam Scott, Gillian Jacobs, Kumail Nanjiani-I can’t imagine there are more than half a dozen people on the entire planet who bothered writing up a comprehensive ranking of their greatest films from 2015 and ranked Hot Tub Time Machine 2 ahead of Bridge of Spies. I realize this got negative reviews for crude and dumb characters, but there is a lot dumber and cruder stuff out there (Adam Sandler, Johnny Knoxville, Tyler Perry, Eddie Murphy, “Entourage the Movie”, the “Dumb and Dumber” Series, etc, etc., etc.). Yes, these characters are idiots but there’s a comic rhythm to their shared idiocy that hit the sweet spot for me and the naiveté of Adam Scott’s character made him a great straight man and contrast to the trio. I read this film as a trippier version of Back to the Future with a higher level of Murphy’s Law-infused stupidity.

Me and Adam Spector Discuss TV vs Movies Part II

My friend Adam Spector keeps a column on film here and leads a film discussion group in DC every month. I've attended the group but I recently confessed to Adam that I like television a lot more these days which sparked the idea that we should settle the argument once and for all on my blog. This is part two of our no-holds-barred (True fact: I've never typed those words before on a screen, they look much funnier in this format) battle of wits between two intellectual giants with a lot of free time on their hands.

Part I was here and before presenting Part II, I will post the last few lines of Adam's post:

"But there’s still nothing like sitting in a movie theater, having the light go down, and being totally immersed in a film.  No cell phones and no distractions.  Just you and the movie. 

Orrin, you and I have both noted the talent that has worked in TV.  But many of them, including Scorsese, Fincher, McConaughey and Spacey also work in film.  They haven’t focused on one at the expense of the other, and neither should we. "

Round II

Orrin-- That's true that TV in the 1950's was a significant threat to the movies as box office receipts dropped. It's also a fitting parallel that just like JJ Abrams and Joss Wheedon ascending to the elite as movie directors rather quickly, so did John Frankenheimer, Delbert Mann and Sidney Lumet after cutting their teeth in television.

But I think there's a key difference. TV didn't threaten the movies by being a superior art form. They threatened movies simply by existing and being novel. TV was actually behind the times in terms of quality. While films were getting risque with "The Seven Year Itch" and "Pillow Talk" (and well over a decade after "Gilda" "The Big Sleep" and "Double Indemnity"), TV's most progressive show at the time, "I Love Lucy" shied away from even suggesting that a husband and wife could sleep in the same bed. In the interim "Leave it to Beaver" and "Andy Griffith Show" (which debuted in 1960) reinforced conservative American family values while Douglas Sirk was tearing the image of the American family apart in films like "Imitation of Life" and "Written on the Wind." And that's not to mention other 50's films like "Splendor in the Grass," "Searchers," "Three Faces of Eve," "Salt of the Earth," "Defiant Ones," and "Night of the Hunter" that deal with murder, racism, mental illness, the red scare and economic depression. As the code was being broken in the movies, it was being reinforced on TV.

Movies evolved by innovating. They tried some nutty ideas like smell-a-scope and 3-D but more to the point, cinema also evolved through delivering what TV couldn't: Epics. "Ben-Hur", "Ten Commandments" and "Lawrence of Arabia" were all highly successful films that came about in the decade after TV started to hit homes and couldn't be replicated on the small screen particularly easily. It also seems that talent always had something to do with the equation. I mentioned last time we met that I thought Blake Edwards defined the '60s as a director and was responsible for my favorite films of that decade. If we had one less Blake Edwards, film would have been changed.

While you mention that many talents navigate both film and television, I can't help but feel TV talent might be exerting a toll on film. If you check Kathy Bates' filmography, she's pretty exclusively in TV and Jane Fonda, who hasn't been very prolific as an actress since the '80s, has devoted her time to "The Newsroom" and her upcoming Netflix project. Similarly, another talented actress Maggie Gyllenhaal has nothing on her slate after acting in "The Honourable Woman." Actors have the freedom to navigate both mediums nowadays but they might choose TV over film when making a decision and become known as a TV actor like Ted Danson, Kelsey Grammer or Julia Louis-Dreyfus and that makes TV more glamorous.

You're right that moviedom isn't dead and I'm not suggesting good movies aren't out there. I think a smaller percentage of movies that are released are worth watching as opposed to a decade ago, but I'm not suggesting that movies as a medium are dead. I'm wondering though what's left in filmdom's bag of tricks. What's their 3-D/cinemascope grand plan? (I'm just remembering as I typed that last sentence that 3-D movies are back in style these days). In that sense, television might be a greater threat to movies today because TV is innovating faster than movies in everything from economics (With ITunes and TV on Demand, the pay models are evolving whereas movies are forced to ride demand out with increasing ticket prices and ridiculously priced concessions) to the actual content itself.

Adam – You have caught me at a bad time Orrin.  It’s growing more difficult to defend cinema in the face of articles such as “How the Death of Mid-Budget Cinema Left a Generation of Iconic Filmmakers MIA” (http://flavorwire.com/492985/how-the-death-of-mid-budget-cinema-left-a-generation-of-iconic-filmmakers-mia) and “The Birdcage: How Hollywood’s Toxic (and Worsening) Addiction to Franchises Changed Movies Forever in 2014” (http://grantland.com/features/2014-hollywood-blockbusters-franchises-box-office).  In the latter article, Mark Harris writes that “In 2014, franchises are not a big part of the movie business. They are not the biggest part of the movie business. They are the movie business. Period.”  It’s probably not a coincidence that the late Mike Nichols did not direct a movie for the last seven years of his life.  It’s growing more and more difficult for filmmakers to make non-franchise character driven films unless they are able to do so with a very small budget.  Younger filmmakers just starting out can do this, but for older, more established, filmmakers sometimes it’s just not worth it.  That’s why, as you have noted and the Flavorwire article describes, more of the established filmmakers are turning to TV.    

We differ in that I often enjoy franchise films.  As I noted before, the last Captain America film was a smart thriller and Guardians of the Galaxy was a fun ride.  I can’t wait for the next Bond movie and eagerly gobbled up the trailer for the new Star Wars film.  But it’s frightening to realize that Hollywood’s reliance on these films can crowd out everything else. 

I have recently been studying some of the greatest film years in the '70s.  The first Star Wars film debuted in 1977 as did the Bond film The Spy Who Loved Me, but so did Annie Hall and Looking for Mr. Goodbar.  Two years later brought the start of the Alien and Mad Max franchises, but also Being There, Norma Rae, and The China Syndrome.   Let’s look at the best of the '90s.  In 1997 Titanic, the biggest blockbuster of all, came out along with Men in Black.  But so did L.A. Confidential, Boogie Nights and Eve’s Bayou.  The Matrix franchise launched in 1999, but it was joined by American Beauty, The Talented Mr. Ripley, and The Insider.  At Hollywood’s best, there was room for all.  Are those days gone?

You described the studios’ response to the TV threat in the 1950s.  It’s eerie how similar the response is today.  Back then, films eagerly embraced 3-D technology.   Today, most blockbusters are done in 3-D.  In the 50s it was Cinemascope, today it’s IMAX.   Plenty of biblical films then, and this year we had Noah and Exodus: Gods and Kings.  The other major response comes from the theaters, which are increasingly offering plush accommodations, a wider variety of concessions, and the ability to pick your seat.  

Innovation flourishes more easily on TV, with its greater array of platforms, than it does on TV.  But, even there, we need to specify matters a bit.  There’s no doubting that cable networks, Netflix and Amazon offer much greater freedom then Hollywood studios.  However, on network TV, sports events dominate the ratings leaders.  Mindless reality shows still abound.  Networks have also tried to go back to their past, with live specials such as “The Sound of Music” and “Peter Pan.”

Of course most TV networks and Hollywood studios are owned by the same huge multinational corporations.  They can spread franchises, such as the Avengers and Star Wars over both TV and movies.   You and I both talk about movies vs. TV, but every day there is less difference between the two mediums. 

With all of that, I try to remain hopeful.  Maybe it’s my lifelong love of cinema, or maybe it’s just naiveté, but I can still find reasons to go to the movies.  While TV takes more chances than most movies do, I already cited the exciting, groundbreaking work of Richard Linklater and the Alejandro González Iñárritu this year.  Another example is Alfonso Cuarón’s Gravity, which used 3-D not as a gimmick, but a method for a new kind of immersive storytelling.   Unfortunately, actresses “of a certain age” have always had problems getting good film roles.  But I’m encouraged that Meryl Streep, Helen Mirren, Julianne Moore, and Susan Sarandon still appear on the silver screen regularly.

In the end though, it’s up to us: The viewers.  Hollywood always follows the money.  If we only go to the big franchise films, studios will have every reason to continue down their current path.  If we want filmmakers to take chances, if we want thought-provoking films made for adults, then we need to support those films with our ticket-buying dollars.  So see Boyhood, Birdman, Selma, Wild and Foxcatcher and do not just wait for those films to come out on DVD or appear on TV.  If we do not support the films we say we want to see, then we can only blame ourselves if those films disappear from our theaters.      

Stock Stereotypes: The Elegant, Cultured and Well-Educated Villain

Good News: I'm very close to being published on cracked.com. 

Since discovering TVTropes.org, I've been very interested in various stock characters in fiction, and when someone on a message board I frequent recently asked me which of several examples was the best "Elegant, Cultured, and Well-Educated Villain," I thought I'd take on the trope in general:

When someone recently asked me for a good example of an elegant and sophisticated villain, he was missing a key point: Perhaps making a villain elegant and sophisticated is more stereotypical and cheap rather than something to be admired and emulated.

If you make a villain elegant, cultured, and well-educated and nothing more, it ends up boring and familiar. Very weak movies such as Johnny English and The Avengers have introduced us to characters like these with little to no variation.

Portraying someone as overtly intellectual is just a screenwriter's prop to show us that they're smart or that they mirror qualities of the protagonist (presumably the protagonist is smart too) which makes them a more ruthless enemy.

Ironically, I think of these traits with regard to Hannibal Lechter's character as a weakness of the way the screenwriter(s) of Silence of the Lambs constructed him. Lechter is undoubtedly a great character but his penchant for listening to classical music before eating someone or entertaining people at a formal dinner party come off as over the top. Similarly, Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson) of Batman Begins Henri Ducard was never a very strong, memorable character and his somewhat philosophical soliloquies on why he should poison the city to expose humanity's underbelly was a case of telling more than showing.

Four of my favorites are Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas, Wall Street), Magneto (Ian McKellan, X-Men and Hans Landa (Christophe Waltz, Inglorious Basterds) and Cal (Billy Zane) from Titanic. The first three don't jump out at me as being elegant, well-educated and sophisticated for the sake of being well-elegant, educated and sophisticated and they show rather than tell. Landa speaks many languages and is occasionally poetic and from there we see that there's more to the villain. Other than that, the writers don't go out of their way to show he's sophisticated. Similarly, Magneto might have some sense of refinement and knowledge but it's just organic to the story. If Gekko is enjoying the high-life it's because that's what people in his profession do, and if he appears educated, it's because intelligence oozes out of everything he's saying.

As for Cal, that's just a classical example which is executed very, very well. There's usually only room for one or two iconic performances in the mold before everything else seems stale. It also helps that his villainous character is organic to the era of history and he represents an old-money/new-money dichotomy which is a legitimate fear.

As for an example that I find very odd, Chirstopher Lee as Count Dooku in Star Wars: Attack of the Clones. Even if Christopher Lee nailed the part, it would be hard for him to fit in at a place with some of the sillier and base characters with which George Lucas populated the Star Wars universe. If Hannibal Lecter was acting alongside the Muppets, it would be tonally awful. Same thing here. Another more nitpicky concern is that the cultural, elegant and well-educated are traits that are specific to an Earth-bound setting. Does it hold up in a fantasy world or galaxy far, far, far away? Cultural and elegant applies to perceptions of someone who has, for example, read Shakespeare and Charles Dickens. I don't doubt that people in the Star Wars universe are well-educated and cultured, but for all we know, someone who's cultured and well-educated on Tattoine might be someone who sounds by our standards as if he's speaking in a cockney accent

Another interesting example is Henry Blackwood from the 2019 Sherlock Holmes film  but this could apply to any villain from Victorian times and it reminds me of how we tend to assume people speaking with British accents are automatically more refined. I read Blackwood as disturbed. He might have sounded refined, but that's because he comes from Victorian times where everyone is refined. In order to fit this category, you have to be more refined than the protagonist or anyone else.

Artistic integrity can't interfere when tentpoles are at stake

Three is no longer the fitting number for movie sequels when it comes to maintaining artistic credibility. It's now a matter of how long the studios can keep making money from these sequels because Hollywood is just too addicted to tent poles and the instant stream of revenues they create to be able to maintain any artistic integrity anymore. What comes to mind when I say this is the fact that Shrek, Spiderman, and Pirates of the Carribean are all going to be releasing a fourth installment of their series in movie theaters, despite the fact that despite great starts and sophomore outings, most critics and viewers agree the franchises all sputtered out of gas by the time they hit the back-ends of their trilogies.

What most viewers don't know is that except for the two Star Wars trilogies (the prequels and the originals), Shrek, Pirates of the Carribean and Spiderman have been the three biggest trilogies ever to hit the box office, boasting a combined four films in the top 10 highest-grossing films of all time and 8 in the top 30, so far. Even when the quality of their films declined heavily in poorly reviewed third installments, they were still able to gross monstrous amounts based on name recognition alone, when viewers set massive opening weekend records in May of 2007 when all three film trilogies came out. Before anyone qeven had time to tell their coworkers when they got back to work on Monday, just how bad the films were, these films made their money back in three days, and that's likely what will happen when the franchises come back again in part IV, until people wisen up and break their moviegoing habits.

Even worse in this trend is that studios can't afford to give their star properties much breathing room anymore. Look at The Incredible Hulk, Star Trek, James Bond, Batman and the previously mentioned Pirates of the Carribean in comparison to Star Wars and Indiana Jones.

Indiana Jones and Star Wars were films that essentially stopped after their stories were done being told. Due to fan demand and an appropriately long enough hiatus, these two franchises came back 16 years later in the case of Star Wars and 19 years later in the case of Indiana Jones. Part of the justification was that the stories could be introduced to a new generation. Although neither one of these franchises were particularly good when they were rebooted, one can't deny that the hype, anticipation, and ultimately, their opening weekend grosses, were far greater than that of any of the films in the first category.

In the first category of films, there was virtually no time to wait until a generation had passed. Hollywood tides move much faster than they used to and no one can afford to wait 15 or more years to not capitalize on a hot property of theirs. Thus we have:
-James Bond rebooted after a measly four years (Die Another Day 2002-Casino Royale 2006)
-Star Trek reappearing in theaters after only a 7 year break (Nemesis, 2002) and a 4-year break since the Star Trek franchise dissapeared on TV (Enterprise in 2005)
-Batman taking only a seven year break between Batman and Robin (1999) one of the decade's biggest failures and Batman Begins
-Hulk rebooting after only a five-year break without even pretending to be any sort of sequel or prequel. It was simply marketed as a "do over."
-Pirates of the Carribean set to appear only three or four years after Pirates of the Carribean III was lampooned by most critics

Predictions for the AFI's lists: Sci-Fi

This is definitely the fun part of the AFI releases their lists is trying to predict beforehand, what they will chose:

I'm well-aware that it's 44 minutes into the program as I'm typing this but I give you my guarantee I'm taping the program now and have yet to see anything.

The mystery genre isn't really much of a genre so I skipped that. Mystery is comprised of traditional whodunnit's in the tradition of Murder on the Orient Express or Sleuth; film noir and Hitchkokian thrillers which all follow their conventions. I would have loved to see a list of film noir but I just felt it was impossible to compare such disparate works.
I skipped the gangster genre out of lack of familiarity and I skipped the fantasy genre as well, because that's not really a genre.

So nonetheless, let's get on with our genres, shall we?
Sci-Fi
1. Star Wars, George Lucas- I think it will either be 2001: A Space Odyssey or Star Wars. There's some animosity towards Lucas for not doing anything original in the last 30 years and milking his franchises for every last drop, but I'm betting there are enough Star Wars geeks out there.
2. 2001: A Space Odyssey, Stanley Kubrick-Kubrick died early and made few films, a clear path to being recognized as genius. Furthermore, 2001: A Space Odyssey doesn't have much dialogue and it runs for several hours, winning over the film snobs in the process
3. Clockwork Orange, Stanley Kubrick-Another entry to make the top 100 both times, it's a work of art, cult film, and widely acclaimed classic. Also, it's Kubrick
4. Blade Runner, Ridley Scott-This one has picked up steam in the last 15 years or so since critic's lists have released their top 100s. It has made a number of publications' top 100 lists.
5. Alien, Ridley Scott-Let's go with two Scotts, two Kubricks, and a Lucas in the top 5. Ridley Scott's Alien has that famous scene that is part of pop culture in wich the alien bursts out of Sigourney Weaver's stomach, it has one of cinema's best heroines, especially at a time when the screen was about to be infused with testosterone-laced heroes (i.e. Rambo, etc). Lastly, Aliens isn't in the running, so less vote-splitting
6. Frankenstein, James Whale-It's regarded as a classic but it is also fun to watch, and has been parodied, sequeled, AND remade.
7. Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Stephen Spielberg-E.T. is probably going to get on the list because it's been on both of AFI's top 100 list, but this is far more sci-fi oriented, as I understand it (haven't seen the film start to finish, unfortunately), and it delves into the philosophical and somewhat hardcore issues that sci-fi fans love to go to
8. Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Don Siegel-One of the sci-fi films from the '50s era should really be included and it would either be Invasion or The Day the Earth Stood Still. My money's on Invasion, for some reason. Just a hunch.
9. The Matrix, Wachowski Brothers-I think one of the two bottom choices might be bumped out for E.T., even though E.T. is more about a broken family, than it is a sci-fi film, but I think the Matrix has a storyline that infused itself into pop culture and made many rabid fans. It was a great success in movie marketing and its special effects have influenced every film that came after it
10. Back to the Future, Rob Zemeckis-It spawned two equally profitable sequels, is a classic on DVD, it made Michael J Fox, and it has an absolutely brilliant script. Plus, it's just plain fun and one of the best sendups to the old sci-fi genre in existence
Other possibilities: The Day the Earth Stood Still, E.T., Terminator 2, Planet of the Apes (it got notoriety for being remade and Charlton Heston recently died), Children of Men

Star Wars Prequels and the DVD Revolution

I walked out of the theater from Star Wars III with my dad with whom I had a memorably different reaction than I did. "The movie wasn't fun like the old ones," my dad said. I couldn't argue that the dialogue was wooden and that is the general consensus. The lines have more gravity behind them than the innocent serial adventure that was the original Star Wars.

But then again, the Star Wars prequels weren't exactly serial adventures and this might have also been the source of their undoing in terms of connecting to the large base of viewers that the original trilogy did*. The Star Wars prequels were enjoyable, more than anything else, for those moments where we go, "Oooohhhh, so that's how it happened." To the extent that Star Wars is a pseudo-real universe**, this is like going back into the history books and reliving those historic events in a way that we can never actually do with real history. I might even consider it to be a more authentic experience, considering you can never truly recreate the Wild West or the Civil War except for a documentary but you can create the story before Star Wars IV with absolute authenticity, considering it exists only within the mind of the filmmaker who creates it. As mentioned before, this appeal has to do with one having to have extreme familiarity and interest in wanting to explore the Star Wars experience to further depths. Now, I don't know the exact numbers but we all know there is a significant following of Star Wars devotees who are very, very into the Star Wars phenomenon and the fan base extends beyond those who dress up in costumes and go to conventions.

When thinking about it more, it struck me that these elements that are what drives the prequels, catering to a fan base who wants to know the story behind the story, are also becoming an ever-increasing part of the present-day film experience with the advent of DVDs. With the extra features that come with DVD's, people who weren't necessarily film buffs before might be converted into them simply because learning things about what went behind the making of the movie they are watching becomes so much more readily available to them and is presented as entertainment. Movies are no longer texts that are limited to their final cut that appears on the screen. They become more plastic and your knowledge of that text changes as you chose immerse yourself into it more. That choice also makes the relationship between the viewer and the text interactive and as film watchers and it adds to the other outlets with which we, as film watchers, can immerse ourselves in these stories. The previous outlets were books that were relegated to the sci-fi section of the bookstore and only appeal to the hard core Star Wars (or Star Trek, for that matter) fans, but we can immerse ourselves in a more accessible way.

So to conclude, DVDs have helped to create the appeal of prequels ranging from Star Wars I-III to Batman Begins, or even stories that might fill-in-the-gap between previous stories like Superman Returns.

*One might argue that because Star Wars III became the 7th highest grossing film of all time (now 8th, displaced by Pirates II) and Star Wars I became the 4th highest grossing film of all time (now 5th, displaced by Shrek 2), that these films were seen be everyone. By "connecting," I'm speaking of number of satisfied film goers, which I don't believe Star Wars was able to do on the whole.
** I place myself in the casual fan category

Top 10 Sci-Fi films and more

This is in response to an Entertainment Weekly article which identified the top 25 sci-fi TV and movie phenomenoms over the last 25 years.

I have a very detailed version of this I intend to expand upon as I improve on this, but here's what I would say are the ten most definitive sci-fi films of all time and when I get the time, I will expand upon this more. So consider this incomplete without explanations:
1. Star Wars, George Lucas, 1977
2. Metropolis, Fritz Lang, 1927
3. 2001: A Space Odyssey, Stanley Kubrick, 1968
4. A Clockwork Orange, Stanley Kubrick, 1971
5. Close Encounters of a Third Kind, Stephen Spielberg, 1977
6. Blade Runner, Ridley Scott, 1982
7. Brazil, Terry Gilliam, 1986
8. Matrix, Wolchowski Bros., 1999
9. Alien, Ridley Scott, 1979
10. Back to the Future, Rob Zemeckis, 1985

10 other films of note: The Day the Earth Stood Still, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, War of the Worlds (original), 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, The Day After Tomorrow, Independence Day, Aliens, Minority Report, X-Men, E.T.

10 great Sci-Fi TV Shows I recommend: Lost in Space, Star Trek, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Seaquest DSV, Futurama, Sliders, Quantum Leap, Firefly, Andromeda, Heroes

10 sci-fi books: Dune; I, Robot, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Ender's Game, The Time Machine, Journey to the Center of the Earth, 20000 Leagues Under the Sea, Farenheight 411, and hmmm, can't think of any other ones.