So Sulu is Gay Now: A Critical Look at the Star Trek Reboots

I know that I’m not yet known for doing these sort of issue driven articles, and usually I like to stay out of discussions that seem to me to be too full of drama, or politics. However, I couldn’t help getting wind of the recent announcement about John Cho’s Sulu, and his sexual preferences. I also found the discussion associated with this development interesting. However, I felt like there were a few facets of the issue that everyone was conveniently avoiding so here I am attempting to plug some gaps. I would like to say that I was going to wait until the new film released to post this, but I also want to weigh in while it’s still reasonable fresh in people’s minds.As such, I reserve the right to amend aspects of this article following a viewing of Beyond. It’s safe to say that you should just expect an update in a couple of weeks.

Recently, John Cho made the ‘groundbreaking’ announcement that his character Sulu in the Star Trek ‘Kelvin timeline’ was going to be openly homosexual in the most recent film Star Trek Beyond. Surprisingly, George Takei, a long time champion of LGBT rights, came out and shared his disappointment over the move stating that the decision was too fundamental a change and that it didn’t work with Gene Roddenberry’s original vision, which is what should be celebrated this year. Takei also suggested that the issue had been previously discussed and that he had suggested that Pegg write a new character to fill the role of the openly homosexual character.Simon Pegg then respectfully came back as said that while he kind of understood Takei’s point of view, writing in a new character simply to fill the role of the LGBT character would have lacked the weight of using Sulu for that purpose and would not have made the kind of impact that the writers were hoping to achieve. He also huffed that an alternate reality had been created for exactly this purpose and George Takei can STFU. Actually, I may have embellished that last part, but I can imagine that going on behind closed doors, and let me tell you, the ensuing imaginary cat fight that would result is beyond entertaining. But, I digress.

Ever the critical mind, let me tell you why this action does exactly the opposite of what Pegg was trying to do, and further, how this may well be an incredible representation of all that is wrong with the Star Trek reboots. Pegg stated that using a new character as the LGBT character would lack the kind of impact that he had wanted, and that using Sulu as the LGBT character would bring more weight. He goes out of his way, probably because he’s not quite as dumb as he looks, to avoid explaining exactly how he feels like these two assertions are true. But here’s the thing, the JJ verse has taken characters that were multidimensional, and thoughtfully developed over decades and boiled them down to the their lowest common denominator traits. They have turned rich, and well-seasoned characters into caricatures. Don’t get me wrong, I saw the 2009 film five times in theaters, and a really felt like the universe and the franchise held some promise at that point, but the follow up film just did nothing to build upon that foundation in a positive and meaningful way. Hence, the lack of weight argument over this decision really doesn’t hold, for lack of a better way to say it, a lot of weight. The assertion might have held up if adequate time had been taken to thoughtfully develop Sulu into a character with depth, but in two previous films, he’s had maybe a dozen lines total, and we saw him wield a sword. Ergo, the character already lacks the weight to offer the type of impact that Pegg was hoping to get because the only ‘traits’ we’ve been made aware of are ‘I drive the ship and I play with swords’. Sulu essentially became exactly what Pegg said he was trying to avoid, a character who is openly homosexual and whose homosexuality now defines his character because there’s nothing else offered to help further define the character anywhere in the films. He’s been made into the very token character that Pegg didn’t want any of the characters to be. If anything, LGBT supporters should feel a little disappointed that a viable opportunity was lost in the Star Trek mythos to actually do something that would have an impact on society.

Now, Pegg also asserts that the JJ verse was created specifically so that these types of changes could be made. That seems like a fair assertion until you look a little bit closer at what Pegg was saying. He was saying that he didn’t want fans to equate Cho’s Sulu with Takei’s Sulu because they’re two separate characters in two separate realities, but he’s also saying that he didn’t want to create a new homosexual character because that would lessen the weight of the commentary. He said that he wanted to use an established character that fans already knew and loved. There’s just one problem with his reasoning. First, reread the previous paragraph. The Sulu that John Cho plays has no development over time. Thus, we’ve already established that Cho’s Sulu essentially became the thing that Pegg claims he had wanted to avoid. But, he wanted to use a beloved character? One has to ask why the Sulu character is beloved in the first place. Based solely on cinematic merit alone, it’s probably not going to be because John Cho wowed audiences with his amazing performance, or because reboot Sulu had so many touching moments of meaningful character development in his previous two outings that people could latch onto. People love Sulu because of Takei’s performance, again, over decades. Thanks to brilliant writers, directors, and Takei, people got to know a man who was passionate about life, hungry to learn all that he could about the universe, competitive, and family centered. None of these qualities have even been hinted at in Cho’s portrayal. Thus this call for separation really doesn’t hold up because Pegg is essentially asking that we forget the Prime mythology, but only when it doesn’t serve his needs. He and everyone involved want us to love their creation based on the merits of everything that came before, but when that becomes inconvenient and contrary to their agenda, they want us to disregard anything that might contradict. Sorry, but you can’t really have it both ways.

This is where we can really get into what’s really wrong with the JJ verse, and the ironies abound. Star Trek has always been on the forefront of society. It’s always been looking at where we are as a species and where we could be headed that would make us better for the universe that we inhabit. I would argue that the JJ verse does this, but it does it in a way that merely shows how we’ve started to break down as a society. The JJ verse wants us to love it because it’s Star Trek, but then it wants us to take it seriously based on its own merits. But, it doesn’t want to put in the effort to build its own credentials. It simply wants to take the name Star Trek and benefit from that history. In much the same way, we as humans often get in this cycle. We want the thing, be it wealth, health, or any number of other things, but we don’t want to put in the effort necessary to gain these things. We look for shortcuts, or we try to live the lifestyle absent of the firm foundation we would have if we’d put in our dues, which usually leads to the collapse of that false sense of security and/or accomplishment. JJ Star Trek is knee deep in this cycle right now. Sure the films are making a lot of money, but fifty years from now, will people talk about Into Darkness with the same nostalgic fondness and reverence that they use in talking about Wrath of Khan? I doubt it. The people behind the ‘Kelvin timeline’ have sacrificed long term endearment for the temporary monetary gains associated with the glitz and the glam. They’ve made the message of Star Trek ring hollow in a way that it never has before and in context of this latest development, they’ve made light of one of the core principles of Star Trek at the expense of bringing lasting positive attention to a social issue just so they could get a little media attention and free advertising.

Please don’t get me wrong here, I am absolutely okay with having an openly homosexual character in the Star Trek mythology. However, I’m also a firm believer that if you’re going to do something positive for someone, it needs to come from the right place, and the right motivation, and also, it need to be handled with the right kind of tact. I don’t feel that this has happened in this case. I feel like this particular series of events has made light of the issue at hand a marginalized and entire community. And I think if people think about it for a few moments, they might come to the same conclusion. Like I said, I look forward to seeing exactly how this talking point is handled in Beyond, but as far as the lead up is concerned, I think this whole situation has been handle pretty poorly. Here’s hoping that opinion is swayed somewhat by the time I write my inevitable update to this piece.

Armageddon: Stark Prediction of Things to Come

We’re finishing up disaster movie month and I thought it only fitting that we go out with a bang. Thus, we’re taking a look at the 1998 blockbuster Armageddon.Unlike some of the previous films in this series, I was actually pretty old when this movie came out. There are a number of things that I personally remember about that summer, not the least of which was the unending debate over whether one would be seeing Armageddon, or Deep Impact. They both had basically the same premise, they just approached that premise from vastly different angles. Nevertheless, I remember my science teacher proclaiming that seeing Deep Impact would result in bonus points towards final grades, while seeing Armageddon would result in penalties. It was a pretty heated ordeal and before the Internet was running the same scope of interference that it does today. We’re not going to compare and contrast today because that’s been done to death, and I’m more of a competent story guy anyway. This has left me in quite the quagmire as I couldn’t really think of a fresh way to review this movie. I could go on about all of the scientific inaccuracies, or how said inaccuracies are so abundant that actual college astrophysics courses exist that focus just on examining them. However, that too has been done way too many times. Hence, I struggle with how to do this, but we’ll soldier on because I care about the brief moments of entertainment that my articles bring to your life each week.

Luckily, we have the formula to fall back on. If you aren’t familiar with it, take a look at my review of Towering Inferno. You’ll get the play by play there. I can confidently say that this movie checks off every item on the disaster movie formula list. There’s the huge ensemble cast, there’s the over the top situation and special effects, there’s the love story, and there’s even the pop song written specifically for the film. If you were alive in 1998, then you know that you couldn’t blink without running into Aerosmith’s I Don’t Want to Miss a Thing. It was all over the radio, and all over the music channels since those things actually still played music back then. So there’s no debate that this movie fits squarely in the genre in question. The question is, does it do its thing well?

Taking a critical look at this movie, as I am wont to do, I can say overall that it does what it does pretty well. The story remains coherent throughout, despite sometimes making zero sense, the characters are about as well developed as one can expect from a Michael Bay movie, and the visuals, much like Independence Day, are pretty spectacular. Thus, I don’t even want to focus too much on that aspect. There’s something that I find far more interesting that I’d like to look at, and that’s the Michael Bay formula. You have to remember that this movie was only Bay’s second major film He had done Bad Boys previously, which was a pretty successful film. It was also a straightforward action movie. This is the first time that Bay tried his hand at something approaching Sci-fi. That makes this movie particularly interesting to me on a larger scale because Michael Bay has done so much Sci-fi/Fantasy since that it’s pretty hard to dissociate him from the genre. That all began here, and just like his SF/F career began here, a lot of the gimmicks that he’s employed over the years that have turned him into a walking punchline also began here, we just hadn’t gotten enough exposure to care. So let’s have some fun and do a good old fashioned roast!

As I said before, on a general level, the movie works well. The plot is fairly coherent, the pacing is quick, which adds to the feeling of apprehension the viewer might experience as the movie marches toward the potential extinction of the all the life on Earth, and the visuals are pretty spectacular, although Bay has never really had a problem setting up amazing visuals. We all know Michael Bay, and we’re all familiar enough with his work to know that there are a few elements out of place there. First, Bay isn’t known for his plots working terribly well, and second, his characters are never very well developed where they were a little more so here. My theory as to why this happened is that Jerry Bruckheimer attached to the project as a producer. Bruckheimer has a pretty good track record for making good quality films. My theory is that most of those areas where Bay lacks, Bruckheimer swooped in to pick up the slack so that he wouldn’t tarnish his reputation. That’s kind of important because it shows that Bay had an opportunity to learn from a seasoned filmmaker. This could have been a transformative event in his life (pun intended), but it would seem that he got very little out of it. To the contrary, there are numerous anecdotal stories of members of the cast bringing up concerns and Bay essentially telling them to piss off. When pressed about all of the inaccuracies with the film’s science, Bay simply said that science had to take a backseat to exciting cinema. I can’t disagree with that 100%, but I can say that that particular logic may have gone to somewhat of an extreme in this instance. That’s one of a number of Bay tropes that crop up in this film. The rest read like a modern day cinema related version of the Book of Revelation.

Bay trope number one is the throwing out of logic in order to tell an exciting story. Bay trope number two, and one that he’s probably best known for, is using explosions as a working language. There are explosions everywhere in this movie. Bay weaves together strings of explosions like sailors weave together strings of profanities. Even when there doesn’t appear to be anything explosive on screen, something explodes. That’s less the case with this film as again, Bruckheimer was involved, but anywhere that Bay could rationally include an explosion, one got thrown in there. In this particular instance, they do add to the excitement of the film so we’ll give a pass, but we all know just how out of control this is going to get later…

Bay trope number three is the use of unnecessary, and offensive racial stereotypes. We live in the year 2016. The world is intimately familiar with the terror blight that is Michael Bay. It’s only been a few years ago that we were slinging mud at him for those super racist robots in Revenge of the Fallen. However, it starts right here in Armageddon. This is ground zero. There are two characters during a bit in New York City who serve no purpose whatsoever, except to presumably die in a meteor shower. One is a loud mouthed, entitled, and terribly annoying man who is more concerned with his dog than with the other human beings around him, and the other is a cantankerous taxi driver. Neither one of these characters gets a name. They’re just there for comedy purposes. However, both are black. Now you might be saying, what does race have to do with anything? I’m not making an attempt at racism here. What I’m saying is these two stereotypes could have been any race and worked fine so why did they have to be black? Why did they have to be in the movie at all? They’re annoying, they serve no purpose to the plot, and they might be kind of insulting to some folks. They were included for cheap laughs, and we all played a part in legitimizing their existence. While we’re on that particular scene, there’s also a really blatant nod to the 1998 Godzilla movie included here so yeah, that happened.

Bay trope number four is probably the one he is second most known for, and that is the awkward use of female skin. There are a number of scenes where Bay apparently attempts to push the envelope of how much skin he can get away with showing before the MPAA slaps an R rating on the movie. Poor Liv Tyler has to pretend to enjoy herself while Ben Affleck plays with animal crackers on her practically naked body. I don’t even want to know how many fetishes that created. The scene could almost be considered sweet if it weren’t so darn creepy. I enjoy shaking up foreplay as much as the next, but A) the world is about to end, and B) they’re in a field somewhere where poor innocent kids might accidently scar themselves for life. Also, the dialog is really awkward throughout the whole scene. It just doesn’t do anything for the film that something totally different might have done just as well.

Michael Bay trope number four is the use of static characters. This one is offset, again probably by Bruckheimer, but it still abounds. There are some really useless characters in this movie. Oven Wilson was in this movie. I bet you didn’t know that. He’s in the movie for about an hour and a half just so he can play the brunt of a joke about puberty, then he dies before the third act starts. Steve Buscemi is also in this movie. According to him, he signed on to play a noble and brave geologist. However, when he got cast in the role, the character was changed to a sleazy, lecherous creep. I could imagine being offended by the changes and had I been in Buscemi’s situation, I might have left the project. Most of the rest of the cast are relegated to your standard macho devil-may-care archetypes. They all have tiny little quirks so that the audience doesn’t mix them up, but none are developed too far beyond their starting point.

Bay trope number five is one that no one can really fault poor Micael over. He loves Murica, and he’s not afraid to show it in his films. I’ll admit that I haven’t seen all of his movies, but the ones that I have seen go out of their way to vomit patriotism from every frame. I’m definitely not saying that’s a bad thing. I’m only pointing out that it basically started with this movie. There are patriotic symbols everywhere. Be they flags, monuments, patches, or military paraphernalia, Bay takes every opportunity to slip them in. It’s his only signature that I can’t hold against him. Dude loves him some Murica. Whatever.

There’s one more thing that I want to point out that is not specific to Michael Bay, but that you see a TON in the visual mediums, and you may not have even noticed it before. It’s been a trend since digital film started becoming a thing, and I’m sure once I say it, you’ll know what I’m talking about. It’s the contrast between orange and blue. About 20 years ago, someone decided that they wanted to be able to process digital footage quickly and easily and without losing their job. So they boiled each frame down to its lowest common denominator, or the things that we see most while watching movies. That as it turns out, is the actors, who are generally human. Human skin tones tend to fall within that orange spectrum. Blue is the complement to orange and if you took any art classes in school, you’ll know that complementary colors produce the most drastic contrast. So orange skin, blue everything else means that the picture on screen will pop out more to the viewer. Thus a trend was born. It’s a super lazy trend and if you’re involved in film, just stop.I bring this up because I paid particular attention to this throughout my viewing of Armageddon and it’s in nearly every frame. You can’t escape it. Even when it seems that you have, just wait a few more frames because the missing element is going to show up in just a few seconds. It definitely speaks to Bay’s lack of experience at this point in his career.

Now that we’ve railed on Bay a bit, let me get to a few good points before we tie things up. First, most of the performances in this movie were delightful to watch. The characters may not have been very deep, but you could tell that they were at least fun for the actors to play. It was especially refreshing to see Ben Affleck in a film he made before he sidled himself to Jennifer Gardner. She was a disastrous bomb to his career, but here we get to see him in his prime. Bruce Willis delivers a good performance despite misgivings on set. Even Steve Buscemi delivers a sterling performance in the role that he’ll play until he dies. Michael Clarke Duncan manages to give us a small preview of his character in The Green Mile, which is one of his best roles in my opinion. I also really liked Billy Bob Thornton’s performance. He gets to be snarky and authoritative, and you can tell he had a good time.

There are good character moments, and to be absolutely fair, these moments even do a little to further some small character development in some cases. Some may slow the pace of the film a little, but it could almost be argued that that’s not a bad thing. Also, by the end of the movie, much to my own surprise, I actually found that I had created a tenuous connection with some of the characters and that those connections actually elicited an emotional response. It was totally unexpected, but not entirely unwelcome. It speaks to the fact that from a general perspective, the film is actually pretty solid. Bay hadn’t gone completely insane yet, and the work benefited from that sanity. I’ll tie my last point to this one because I think they’re actually related. Trevor Rabin wrote an incredible score for this movie. It’s the score more than any other element that really got me emotionally invested in what was happening on screen. In fact, the licensed music also helped the film greatly. All of the music chosen for the scenes they were used in punctuate the scene well and add to experience in a positive way. It’s the music element that really bolsters up the rest of the film where it lacks.

Like Michael Bay, I think I’ve gotten more out of this article that I deserve, but thanks for sticking it out. Is this movie great? Not a chance, but nor is it terrible. It’s pretty competently done, and for all of its faults, it’s still an entertaining watch. It definitely earns its nostalgic fondness, and it’s one that I would suggest keeping alive in our collective consciousness simply for the fun that can be had while watching it, and also as a case study of one man’s descent into madness. Stick around for next week as we look at some mind bending, physics breaking films that defined a generation!

Virus: Day of Resurrection: Sweeping, Multinational, Bleak Disaster 'Epic'

We have just one more week of Disaster Month and thus far, we’ve looked at films that have managed to stay fairly well remembered in the collective consciousness of pop culture. However, I wouldn’t be doing my job if I didn’t at least try to push your viewing boundaries a little and as promised, we’re looking at a multinational effort on a grand and sweeping scale, the likes of which hadn’t really been done before.

Virus, or Day of Resurrection as the the Japanese title translates is an interesting movie to say the least. There was a lot going on with it both behind the scenes and in front of the camera. It came out in 1980, which I am officially and arbitrarily deeming the tail end of the disaster movie golden age. Sure we were going to get more over time, but a lot of the staple actors and actresses of the genre started leaving the acting business around this time, and starting with Day of Resurrection, they started focusing a little more globally. I’m not saying that that was a bad thing, but the shift to the grander scale did lend itself to more unbelievable plots, and more over-the-top action sequences.

Day of Resurrection is a quintessential disaster movie in my opinion. It uses a lot of the elements that we’ve discussed previously and it manages to handle its plot and story pretty darn well. Before we jump in, I’d like to point out that this movie has graduated into the echelons of public domain, so if you’d like to watch it, you can do so absolutely free right here. There are two versions available, a ‘director’s cut’, which is just the original cut of the film, and a US TV broadcast version. I have linked the original cut of the film, but a simple Google search will yield links to either version.

Okay, so what is this movie all about? Well, to start off, it might be a little off putting to some viewers as it was made by a Japanese film studio with a Japanese director, Kinji Fukasaku. If you’re not used to the Japanese method of storytelling in film, you’re going to be pretty lost and really bored. However, if you enjoy the Japanese cinema, then this might just scratch your itch. The film is meant to take place primarily in the year 1982. The premise is that both the US and the USSR have developed automatic retaliatory nuclear defense systems, which all but renders the arms race moot. Being as neither side wants to be at a tactical disadvantage, the US develops a virus that is capable of mutating, spreading, and infecting at astronomical rates.

This virus strain is smuggled out of the US in order for the Soviets to obtain it, but during the drop, US special forces steal the vial back. However, their plane crashes, the vial is broken open and that’s what gets the whole ball rolling on this movie. Once the virus is introduced to the environment at large, it just starts doing what it was designed to do, which is kill everything. It’s not just a human killing machine. It’s designed to adapt to pretty much any mammalian species. There are a couple of different points of view used to tell the story along the way, and one of those is that of the POTUS. The prez is played by Glenn Ford. He’s one that once again, I don’t think any of my readers are quite old enough to remember off hand, but his performance is pretty spectacular. He has an advisor named Barkley, played by Robert Vaughn, who acts as a sort of counterbalance to General Garland, played by Henry Silva. Why is this important? Well, this group represents our ‘boots on the ground’ so to speak. They’re in Washington, DC when the virus becomes active and as such, they’re all infected and eventually die. But while they’re alive, they’re role is offering commentary and information necessary to the continuation of the plot, such as death tolls, extent of contamination, and moral talking points.

According to the story, the virus is dormant below a certain temperature. For this reason, the scientific posts in Antarctica are not affected by the plague. The characters situated there offer up an outside perspective of events as they try to ascertain what’s actually going on. I will say that in true disaster film fashion, this movie does tend to plod a little, and there are some redundant elements. For instance, we have the White House giving use physical updates on the spread of the virus, but then we also have a British submarine crew doing the same. The saving grace there is that the submarine crew also acts as a sort of lifeline to the outside world for the people in Antarctica as the sub can travel wherever it needs to go without risking exposure to the plague. Furthermore, a lot of time is given to getting up close and personal with the demise of the human race on a person-to-person level. This aspect is actually quite good because it increases the emotional impact of the film as it unfolds. As an example, one of our main characters in Antarctica is a seismologist by the name of Yoshizumi. He leaves a girlfriend behind and through her, we get a first person look at the carnage in Tokyo as she’s a nurse trying to help combat the virus. It’s little touches like this that bring the film to life a bit more. They can be tedious during a sit through, but once the experience is over, they all fit really well.

The virus eventually kills everything that’s not living in the Antarctic and that could have been the end of things, however, then Yoshizumi wouldn’t have been a necessary character, and considering the amount of time they spend developing that character during the film, that would just have been a waste. He’s out main character. Thus, to up the stakes and make that character relevant, the movie falls back on the automatic response arsenals that were built and activated by the warring giants. This aspect of the film is a little more difficult to buy because it’s our aforementioned General Garland that activates the American system. However, he doesn’t require a verification code, there isn’t a pair of keys that are necessary to arm it. He just goes to the White House basement, flips a few switches, turns a couple of knobs and there you go. I would like to have seen a little bit more realism there, but all things considered, I can give it a pass. In order to bring everything back to Yoshizumi, the big reveal is that offshore oil drilling around Baltimore has destabilized a fault line near DC and the resulting quake could set off the US nuclear arsenal, which in turn would set off the Soviet arsenal, which has a nuke aimed right for the outpost where everyone has take refuge. It really does sound convoluted on paper, but in the moment, it actually works pretty naturally.

As a result of all of this, Yoshizumi and one Major Carter, played by Bo Svenson, have to go to DC to disarm the system. They fail, because this is that type of movie and Carter dies in the process, leaving Yoshizumi to walk from Washington, DC down to the very tip of Chile where the Antarctic survivors have set up camp. I actually inferred this from conversation toward the end of the film and because I seriously doubt that anyone could swim from South America to Antarctica and survive. At this juncture, I feel the need to give props to whoever was left in charge of the numbers. I felt initially that the number of people remaining after armageddon just wasn’t viable. The movie actually states that the number of survivors amounts to 853, but upon doing a little research, I found that the human race could remain viable with as few as 160 people so well done. Anyway, that’s the plot in a nutshell, but I really didn’t do it very much justice. The film is two and a half hours long! There is a lot to take it and it’s put together really well.

There are a couple of surprise actors in this movie. George Kennedy, who was no stranger to disaster movies by this point is in the movie, as well as Edward James Olmos, and before you get your panties too bunched up, he also serenades the audience. I bring this up to demonstrate that we’ve got the ensemble cast covered. There is technically a youth involved, but not for very long. There’s a scene at the Japanese station where their radio operator picks up a five year old boy named Toby Anderson attempting to use his dad’s ham radio. The poor boy doesn’t realize that no one can answer until he releases the talk switch and so we get his verbal commentary interspersed with the Japanese radio guy telling the kid to release the switch. It could almost be comical if not for the fact that the whole scene culminates in the worst bait and switch ever committed to film. In a twist that may leave the faint of heart nauseated, we hear poor Toby grab his dad’s gun and shoot himself dead. It’s a really disturbing scene. There are a number of scenes involving the death of children specifically, but none hit quite as hard as that one. There’s also one scene that takes place in a disco where infected dancers are removing their clothing just before they die. There is some brief nudity shown here. So the moral of the story is that this movie probably would have gotten an R rating if such a thing existed at the time.

The movie does a fantastic job of grabbing the viewer emotionally, if you let it. It is easy to get caught up in some of the seemingly senseless shock moments, or more likely, the melodramatic acting. I’ll even admit that sometimes the acting seems a little too over-the-top to carry the story, but I promise that in context, it actually works okay. As far as glaring plot holes, which usually ruin films for me, I’m happy to say that there weren’t really any. Much care and time is devoted to making sure that all of the action unfolds logically and I really like that.

You maybe wondering how the term multinational describes the movie, other than the fact that several major locations worldwide are included. Well, there’s a multinational cast to begin with. For every semi-big American name on the bill, there’s at least one Japanese star. Also, during the filming, a submarine was donated for use by the Chilean military. The Canadians allowed interior submarine shots to be made on one of their subs, and finally, transportation of the cast and crew was initially provided by the Swedes,but when the ship ran into an underwater reef, the Chilean navy picked up the slack. Furthermore, filming locations included Tokyo, Halifax, Machu Picchu, Ottawa, and Alaska so the film was literally all over the map. With such a huge scale, it’s not wonder that the film cost $16 million. It was the most expensive Japanese production ever made at the time. The studio was trying for a worldwide market release, but unfortunately, the movie just didn’t perform well enough to warrant it.

Fortunately, the film has developed a sort of cult following over the years, and rightfully so. From a technical aspect, it’s pretty solid. The acting is good, by 80s Japanese film standards, the plot of the film is well conceived and well executed, and what few special effects are used are well done. There are a lot of really clever plot devices used to build the scope of the film up without breaking the bank. If you only watch the US version of the movie, it will seem to be a pretty depressing film. That’s mostly to do with the fact that nearly 30 minutes of footage was removed for the US version, and as such, a lot of the subplots that are used to keep hope alive in the original cut are removed. However, I will give kudos to whoever edited the US version for going all the way. If you’re looking for a film where man really does pay the ultimate price for his hubris, then that’s the way to go. However, if you like something a little more chipper, then watch the original cut. It ends on a much higher note and leaves the viewer with the hope that the human race will endure.

In case you missed me tying things up, this really is a movie that’s worth the watch. It’s not without its faults, as every film does, but it manages to connect with its audience on a human level that lends it a lot of emotional impact and makes for a very entertaining watch. It is a relic of days gone by perhaps, but at the same time, the themes are still relevant. We live in a world where forces with unknown agendas are developing weapons of mass destruction, and thus, the ‘bad guy’ is not well defined. For that reason a lot of the concerns brought up in this movie are still valid, especially when one considers lesser themes of clandestine government programs in the name of national security, and more generally, our tendency for hubris as human beings in overestimating our understanding of the universe around us at times. Yes the story is bleak up until the very end, but it is a pretty interesting thought exercise. I definitely recommend that should you find yourself with an extra three hours, give this one a watch. You won’t be disappointed, and being as it’s free and readily available, there aren’t too many reasons to pass it up.

Independence Day: Entertaining Disaster Classic

I want those of you who are old enough to close your eyes and think back to the summer of 1996. The summer Olympics were in full swing, grunge and alternative music were all the rage, extreme sports were gaining popularity, and everyone was sporting a collective hard on for Space Ghost Coast to Coast. Oh and advertisements for Independence Day were everywhere! They were simpler times, some may say better times. I could definitely continue my little jaunt down memory lane, but that’s not why you’re here, is it? You’re most likely here because I won’t stop pestering you to read my blog, but tangentially, you’ probably want to see what I have to say about the next piece in my review line up. Let me just preface with this: This is not the film that was alluded to last week. I mislead you and I’m sorry. I will get to that particular film, however, the timing on this one was pretty important and I figured if a bad Bond film could promise the wrong followup movie and get away with it, then so could I.

I mentioned that the timing on this review was important and it totally is. See, today in a lot of places Independence Day: Resurgence debuts in theaters. This is the first of two sequels to the original 1996 blockbuster that director Roland Emmerich has promised to shove down our throats, or in other orifices if that’s what does it for you. I won’t judge. The fact of the impending release got me wondering just how well the original film holds up against the nostalgia that we’ve all inevitably created around it, and from there I decided to infer as to whether or not we actually needed a sequel to a 20 year old film. Strap into your cockpit and light your cigar as we look at Independence Day.

Right off the bat, the film starts by showing the moon landing site and all of the paraphernalia that was left behind in the wake of that event. I realized at this point that this movie has probably been the driving creative inspiration behind about 90% of Michael Bay’s movies as he’s used that exact setup at least twice that I can remember off the top of my head. The very next frame, REM’s “It’s the End of the World...:” is playing in the background as we’re shown a SETI lab. Talk about some blatant foreshadowing. There’s some mysterious signal over some speakers and then a bunch of scientists are scrambling to process some data, which leads to the conclusion that said signal is coming from the moon. The say 175,000 km and I looked it up. That’s actually right in the neighborhood of the moon so kudos for doing a little homework. Some scenes are shown to get the audience in a confused and curious state of mind and then we jump into some main character development as we see the POTUS getting his every breath analyzed into oblivion via TV, newspaper and his PR person. In keeping with the tried and true disaster movie formula, this really is an ensemble effort. This movie does excel at establishing a few main characters to follow that drive the story and in that regards, I have to give it praise. There are a number of disaster movies that miss that mark.

Our president is played by Bill Pullman. The character is young, idealistic, and critically panned. It’s established that he’s got a strong marital relationship and that he’s a Gulf War veteran. Okay, I can get behind this type of character. And at the very least, it’s not being played by Kevin James. I’m looking at you Pixels. He’s experiencing the same kind of BS drama that anyone who’s been elected to lead a large body of childish politicians might experience. I’ve never been president before, but as far as presidents go, I like the way this one is used for the most part, especially since it’s established that he’s extremely new to the job. They give the character a lot of leeway in that fashion.

Next we get introduced to the second of our main characters, a TV cable guy played by *ah* Jeff *um* *ah* Goldblum. Now don’t get me wrong, I like Jeff Goldblum as an actor. I’d even be willing to say he’s actually got some decent acting range, but here, he’s mostly recycling his Dr. Malcolm character from Jurassic Park. Everyone knew it then and no one will really dispute it now. It does make some sense. That character was wildly popular when that movie came out, and it was only three years removed from the release of Independence Day so it actually makes an odd kind of sense to capitalize on that quirky and eccentric intellectual archetype again. Also, if we’re being absolutely fair, Emmerich knew when enough was enough. He didn’t overuse the character to the point where he got terribly annoying, except when he blatantly reuses the, “Must go faster,” dialog from Jurassic Park. That’s a pretty big SNAFU in my opinion. But it was the 90s and we forgave so much more back then.

After that we get a pretty lengthy introduction to a less major character, who serves more as a major supporting character, maybe. Russell Case, played by Randy Quaid is simultaneously one of the most and least entertaining things about this film. On the one hand, it seems like they just pumped him full of whiskey each day and then let him bumble through his scenes, but on the other hand, because of that, a lot of his scenes are way over played and he gets some absolutely dismal one liners. He’s also portraying a pretty insensitive stereotype of drunken, damaged war veterans, but take it or leave it. He’s in the film Fortunately, he’s not in it more than what he is, but unfortunately, when he is on screen, he’s saying some pretty cringe worthy stuff. I will say that if time had been taken to develop the character more, it might have actually made him more interesting. His family dynamics could have been cool to glimpse, but that wasn’t the goal of the movie.

Next we’re given a recap of the current situation: Unknown object is on intelligent approach to Earth. And in the follow up scene we’re told about a foreign signal that recycling into non-existence. Then we get another ‘character building’ moment with Randy Quaid, and THEN we finally get introduced to our final main character, Steven Hiller who is played by Will Smith. Smith had gotten his big-ihs break in the late 80s with his rap career, which he was able to parlay into The Fresh Prince TV show. He’d also been in a big budget Hollywood film the previous year with Bad Boys. However, Independence Day really solidified his status as a hot ticket item in Hollywood. We’re about 20 minutes in before the character and actor are actually introduced, but I can give a little bit of a pass here because at least we’re not having all of this information awkwardly thrown at us in just a few minutes. It’s established that Hiller is in a nonmarital relationship with Vivica A. Fox and there’s a kid involved, but that’s alright because Hiller is actually a pretty cool dude and I mean that quite sincerely. I’m kind of impressed with how down-to-Earth this character, and indeed, most of the characters in this movie are. Randy Quaid’s abducted by aliens character is the most out there and it really makes him stand out, but when you’re dealing with an alien invasion film, that’s definitely one approach to the storytelling, maybe not the one that I would use, but one nevertheless.

I’ll not bore you further with a blow-by-blow. Let’s break down the formula a little and see just how well it was implemented here. We’ve got the ensemble cast, although it reads kind of like a list of 90s has beens, but they were popular then so that works. Included in the roster are names like Margaret Colin, Robert Loggia, Judd Hirsch James Rebhorn, Adam Baldwin, and Brent Spiner, to name a few. I do want to say a few words about James Rebhorn. Even if you don’t recognize the name, you know the actor. Every time I see him on screen I reflexively yell, “Hey it’s needledick!” The man plays the perfect snivelling, weaselling, conniving butthole every time he’s cast in that sort of role. It’s the type of role he was born to play. Along that line, pretty much all of the cast in this film were cast brilliantly. Even the minor supporting characters are utilized well.

We cover the several romantic subplots point well here. There’s the president and his wife, Hiller and his girlfriend, and Jeff Goldblum’s character even has a rekindling of love subplot so that base get great coverage. We’ve got a vast array of character types being used to cover that whole old-and-young characters criteria. The president has a young daughter, Vivica A. Fox has a young son, and Randy Quaid has three children just for good measure. Our plot is pretty implausible so that’s covered. And the sacrifice of self is covered as well, when at the end, Randy Quaid rams his F-18(?) into the alien ship’s main weapon in order to destroy it. There isn’t a pop song written exclusively for the movie, but as I stated previously, that’s a negotiable thing.

Okay so all the elements are there. Then what more is there to say about this movie? Well, at the time, it was a pretty harmless romp in the disaster genre sandbox and if you just watch it for its action elements, then you’ll get a good film experience out of it. I however, am obligated to look past the slick exterior and into the cold alien eyes of the plot below the plot. It’s not a huge secret that Roland Emmerich has kind of a hard on for environmental issues. This movie was rife with it. Jeff Goldblum’s character was an active environmentalist, but there’s more brewing below the surface it you look at things just right. First, let’s look at a couple of other disaster movies that Roland Emmerich made. He did The Day After Tomorrow in 2004, 2012 in 2009, and oh yeah, who could 1998’s super stinker, Godzilla. They were all overtly pro-environmentalism and they were all pretty terribly executed. Now, I’m not saying that caring about our home is bad, but I am saying that getting super fanatical about it can be, and I really feel like Emmerich drank a bit more Kool Aid than he probably should have with these other films. By comparison, Independence Day seems pretty innocuous. Not so! Next item, let’s take a look at some of the themes. It’s obvious that Emmerich wants us to be eco conscious, but it really doesn’t end there. With the lead up to the reveal that the object approaching Earth is an advanced alien species, Emmerich is pointing out the arrogance and the hubris of our belief as a species that we’re the most advanced thing in the galaxy. Second, if you swap humans in for the aliens, he’s pretty much calling our entire race a parasite, locusts if you will. He’s saying that all we do is strip our environment of all the usable resources and then move on to the next locale in order to repeat the process. I’m not sure that anyone else has looked at this movie in quite this way in the last 20 years, but it’s a pretty harsh review of the human condition. That’s not to say that it’s wrong, or even bad. Sometimes we need a social slap to the face in order to get on a less malevolent course.

So the environmental themes abound on multiple levels. That’s actually a good thing. It shows a great deal of competence on the director’s part. I did also notice that there were a few jabs at Russia thrown in the film that seemed a little out of place until I looked at where Emmerich grew up. He was born in West Germany so he’s naturally going to have a bit of an anti-Russia bend to this point of view. I can actually forgive that since it’s impossible to not be biased in one way or another. Anyway, these are just really random things that I noticed this go round. There was also a blatant ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ joke in there, and I got a few chuckles out of the technology being implemented, but I digress.

If you look at the movie overall, I think it holds up well. The structure and pacing are solid. The premise is totally outlandish, but in the right kind of way. The characters, although not always interesting, are well presented. The special effects! Boy, I’m not usually one to get too excited over special effects, but I have to mention them here because this is one of those movies where the special effects aspect of it actually had a big influence on me. I remember watching a behind-the-scenes show on TV and the type of problem solving that went into creating some of the sequences in this film got me really interested not only in film, but things like models, and computers. It had a huge impact on my life and rightfully so. The effects in this movie are larger than life! For using minimal computer graphics, they present these situations extremely well. Along those lines, I’m not sure the exact harmonic frequency, or decibel level that’s necessary in order to make concrete vibrate, but the explosions do just that in my house so props to the sound guys for making a soundtrack that you can really feel.

I could give more praise to this movie, but I think you get the point. The question now it, does it really need a sequel? It’s a question that’s been on a lot of minds with the ‘lead up’ to Resurgence. First, I’d like to point out that Bill Pullman explicitly says that their whole civilization moves planet to planet stripping said planets of resources. This implies that when they kill all of the aliens at the end of the movie, they kill all of the aliens. As in they commit an act of genocide and wipe out an entire civilization. So unless this is a new race of aliens, there’s not really an opening for further story development in my mind. You may try to argue that perhaps the aliens don’t commit their whole population to just one planet, but the use of the exact phrase “whole civilization” makes that argument pretty flimsy. Second, look at the face that Adam Baldwin makes when he takes Brent Spiner’s pulse. I’ve been a Trekkie for about 30 years and I know the “He’s dead, Jim” look and that is totally that look. Third, go back to 1996. The marketing blitz for the first movie was insane. You couldn’t turn 90 degrees without bumping into something advertising the film. There were commercials all over the TV, promotional sweepstakes, food product tie-ins, a book, a line of toys… It was everywhere. I don’t have cable, but I live pretty much exclusively connected to the Internet and all I’ve actually seen as far as advertising goes for Resurgence is maybe a dozen instances where my friends on Facebook have shared that one trailer. What I’m saying is that there really hasn’t been nearly as much advertising thrown at this movie, and why should there be? It’s a sequel to a twenty year old film that was entirely self-contained in its story. Some of the main characters are back, but the bulk have moved on and distanced themselves from this entry. It just seems really blatant. Fox and Emmerich want to cash in on nostalgia in order to make a buck at our expense and they’re willing to tarnish the reputation of another good film in order to do so. I sincerely hope that the movie isn’t outright terrible, but it’s been developed on extremely shaky ground and I don’t think it’s going to perform very well, at least in the US. It will probably recoup costs in Asia, though, which means we all might as well brace ourselves for the third movie anyway.

In all, the original was a standout movie viewing experience that I think will continue to dazzle people for a long time to come. The sequel can kiss my behind because I have zero hope for it. Tell me what you think once you’ve seen it, or speculate blindly with me! Either way, we’ll have a lot to talk about! Next week, we’ll actually get to that uber depressing disaster movie that was a joint effort by several countries as disaster month rounds the halfway mark!