Tag Archives: Movies

Welcome to Sci-Fi and Fantasy Wednesdays

As I wrote on Monday, one of my commitments for this year to is to start writing on here on a more frequent, regular basis. Given that I literally write fantasy (in the form of my ongoing series, The Redemption of Erâth), and I have a deep love for all things science-fiction, I thought it might be an idea to start a section on this blog dedicated to discussions of all things sci-fi and fantasy-related! I’ll be putting up a new post each Wednesday with something related to these topics, and we’ll see if it catches on!

To start with some background, I owe my love of sci-fi almost wholly to Gene Roddenberry, growing up as I did on a full-fat diet of Star Trek: The Next Generation (I’m not quite old enough to have experienced the original series as it aired, though I certainly watched plenty of re-runs). I absolutely adored the adventures of Captain Jean-Luc Picard and co. as they traveled the galaxy, exploring new worlds and fighting off Romulans and the Borg. I would re-enact episodes constantly in our back yard, and my very first ever original story was actually Star Trek fan fiction!

As I grew older, I had an uncle who also loved science fiction, and introduced me to some of the harder sci-fi stories out there, including Dune (to this day, remaining one of my favorite science-fiction franchises), and countless other books about aliens, spaceships and intergalactic travel. Oddly enough, Star Wars never really took over too much for me – although I remember the old VHS tapes of Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader fondly, Star Trek was always my go-to – perhaps because it handled the ‘science’ portion of sci-fi somewhat more accurately.

I was never as much into fantasy, oddly, as a child; I don’t know if this is because there wasn’t any good fantasy on TV, or if it’s because fantasy tends to deal with the past (or fictional past, anyway) whilst I was always dreaming of the future, but it wasn’t really until Peter Jackson’s magnificent rendition of The Lord of the Rings that fantasy truly came to cross my radar as something not only enjoyable, but absolutely worth my time. I hadn’t even read the books by the time I saw the films, although I have since and enjoyed them immensely (dense as they are).

I think that, in some ways, sci-fi and fantasy are two sides of the same coin, which is perhaps why they are so often thrown together on the bookshelves. I don’t think that they necessarily mix terribly well (I suppose there are some examples, such as A Wrinkle in Time), but both – at their best – deal with human conflict in unimaginable settings. For me, the key distinction is really that sci-fi deals with what might one day be possible, whereas fantasy deals more with what might once have been. Whether it’s stories such as The Chronicles of Narnia, set in entirely alternate universes, or Harry Potter, set in an alternate version of modern-day society, fantasy often uses magic as a way of explaining things that are, to our current understanding, impossible; science fiction uses science to do exactly the same thing. And to many, magic is simply a way of describing that which we don’t yet understand – leaving science fiction to simply be rationalized magic.

Of course, the world in which the stories take place – be it galaxies far, far away or the house next door – must serve as the setting for human-driven tales. In Star Wars, despite the often-unrealistic portrayals of space travel and what essentially amounts to magic in the explanations of ‘the force’, we are really seeing a very human story of emotional manipulation, love, death, triumph and tragedy. In Harry Potter, we see … well, almost exactly the same thing.

For me, the best stories are human ones, and the removal of reality from the setting – whether by setting it in space or in Middle-Earth – in some ways simply allows us to focus more strongly on those human traits, characteristics and conflicts, detaching it from reality and giving us an opportunity to wonder – what would I do, in a similar situation?

What are your favorite sci-fi and fantasy stories, books and films? What makes them so great to you? Is it the setting, or is it the human connection? Let me know in the comments!

The Not-So-Subtle Genius of WW84

I have to admit, there’s something kind of neat about getting to see a major theatrical release at home in the comfort of your own living room, even if you’re forgoing the experience of a 40-foot screen and cinematic surround sound; it sort of feels like cheating – as though you’re getting something for free that ought to have cost you $50 without concessions.

Such is the case with Wonder Woman 84, and perhaps the treat of not paying to see it (outside of the HBO Max Subscription I was paying for anyway) made the whole thing a little more palatable to my eyes, because – unlike apparently the majority of the world – I really, really liked it. Not in the way I expected, and certainly not in the way it was sold to me through endless marketing and trailers, but I liked it, and I think for good reason.

The DC Extended Universe has largely been plagued with mediocre to terrible movies, ever since the disastrous Batman v. Superman and the equally unlikable Justice League, and despite Aquaman getting reasonable reviews and people generally favoring the first Wonder Woman, most of the films that take place in this shared universe of characters come off as a cheap attempt to replicate the success of Marvel’s seemingly endless series of Avengers movies. In fact, everything about the DCEU seems as though they are trying to copy Marvel, whilst still attempting to be original – even the setting of the first Wonder Woman film during World War I to differentiate it from Captain America (set during World War II) cheapens an otherwise decent movie.

And in a way, Wonder Woman 84 is another example of this, to the extreme of paralleling – ironically – Marvel’s weakest series of films: the Thor standalone films. When Thor was first released, it did well enough, particularly considering that it was a character few people were familiar with, and a concept that was overly serious in nature. Thor: The Dark World, however, is widely considered to be one of the weakest moments in the Avengers series, and it took Taika Waititi to reinvent Thor in humorous bright neon for Thor: Ragnarok for the character to become as well-loved as he is today.

Whilst the first Wonder Woman was, as I mentioned before, a good film, it was a very serious movie, full of plight and peril, and very little humor. (I mean come on – Diana fights the literal god of war at the end.) And whilst this grit might have worked for WW84, it could also have come off as trying to Batman-ify the character, and would likely have set the franchise back even further than it already is (if that were even possible).

Instead, the writers, directors and cast of WW84 took a page out of Waititi’s book, and turned to vivid, bright colors and humor to carry the weight of their sequel. However, rather than coming off as a clone of Thor: Ragnarok, they managed to pull off a delightful, if sometimes irrelevant (more on this later), take on 80s nostalgia.

You see, WW84 isn’t just set in the 80s; the entire film, from its set design to its costumes, from the language to the plot itself, absolutely reeks – in all the best ways – of action movies made in the 1980s. It’s almost as if director Patty Jenkins decided to see if she could make a movie that would be right at home alongside Lethal Weapon and The Goonies and Rambo. Everything that would have been in an 80s movie – from cheesy villains to props that look like costume jewelry to clothing-try-on montages – is present, and the movie simply bathes in the campiness of it all.

Herein lies the true genius of WW84: not that it replicates the 80s accurately (because it doesn’t), but because it delicately toes the line between an homage and a parody of 80s film. If you go into this movie expecting accurate depictions of the 1980s à la Stranger Things, you’re going to be sorely disappointed. If, however, you expect it to come off more like Last Action Hero, you might just be pleasantly surprised.

And the movie is self-aware enough to pull this off. Take, for example, an exchange between Gal Gadot’s Diana Prince and Kristen Wiig’s Barbara Minerva early on in the film in which they call something lame almost 10 times in fifteen seconds. Yes – lame was an 80s word; but even the most diehard 80s enthusiast, entrenched in nostalgia, wouldn’t use the word that much. The thing about this is that it doesn’t try to be accurate, but it isn’t quite parody, either – just enough humor to chuckle, without detracting from the overall story, and a tongue firmly embedded in the cheek.

I believe this movie was never intended to be taken seriously – neither for its plot, its setting, nor even its visual effects, which are certainly – at times – subpar. It was DC’s attempt to recreate the smash hit that was Thor: Ragnarok, and the only reason it didn’t land well is because it does it perhaps too heavy-handedly at times. It isn’t outright humor, as Waititi might have done; it ironically doesn’t patronize the viewer, but actually asks you to pay attention in order to find the humor. And if you do, there’s plenty of it.

The only thing that, to me, detracts from the overall experience is that fact that 80s nostalgia is very 2000-and-late; Stranger Things did it to death, and there’s not much room left in the world for retro mohawks and mullets. That being said, they couldn’t have set it in the 90s – Captain Marvel bagged that cat – and the 70s wouldn’t have quite worked for the not-so-subtle commentary about selfishness and materialism, given the 80s’ notoriety for being the decade of decadence, so really it did the best it could with what it had.

If you’ve seen Wonder Woman 84 already and didn’t like it, I urge you to watch it through this lens. If you haven’t seen it yet, I encourage you to keep an open mind; it’s one of the funniest and most light-hearted DC movies I’ve seen since Shazam, and works very well for what it is. It’s no Endgame, but it’s a welcome change of pace from Man of Steel and its ilk, and an enjoyable way to spend a couple of hours if you have nothing better to do.

Revisiting The Lord of the Rings

It’s hard to think that The Fellowship of the Ring first came out in theaters nearly nineteen years ago. It’s even harder to think of a world in which these masterpieces of cinema didn’t exist, and nobody knew what they were in for before their first-ever watch. It’s particularly difficult to imagine that Peter Jackson et al had the most immense difficulty getting these films green lit, filmed, produced, and realized, in an era where CGI was only just starting to take hold of blockbusters and our only experience of motion capture was Jar Jar Binks.

I want to revisit these films in light of their imminent release in 4K, as I am (like many fans the world over) simply dying to see scenes such as wandering the halls of Moria, or the battle of the Pelanor Fields, in even higher quality than ever before. I’m even more excited for the news that remastered editions are coming next year, but 4K will have to do for now.

Like the best of cinema, The Lord of the Rings trilogy is an epic visual feast, from the bright and colorful renditions of the Shire to the overwhelming sight of ten thousand soldiers on horseback running down an even greater number of orcs, and every scene and shot is filled with visual magic – both practical and CGI.

Given that we’re discussing these films in the context of their technological improvement (upscaling, re-rendering, etc.), it’s worth noting that the timing of these films was perhaps a key to their visual success: the burgeoning rise of computer-assisted imagery was vital to Peter Jackson’s vision, yet an enormous number of shots were achieved through much simpler – and much cleverer – practical effects. When comparing these films to later blockbusters – including The Hobbit prequels – it really is the seamless blend of practical and digital effects that allowed this movie to achieve the visual successes that it did. When we see great panning shots around the stone city of Minas Tirith, or witness the breaking of the dam above Isengard, we’re actually watching 100% practical shots, achieved with excessively large miniatures (‘bigatures’, as Jackson’s team would come to call them), enhanced only by the subtle CGI addition of things such as people wandering the streets, or orcs being thrown into cascading rivers.

At the time, audiences were used to CGI being used for very obvious, impossible to visualize effects; think the liquid metal of Terminator 2, or the tracking shot of the bug in the opening to Men In Black. Most other blockbusters of the time – even huge visual-effects-laden hits such as Independence Day – relied primarily on practical effects, sometimes superimposing multiple practical shots with green screen. It was much less common – and at times disastrously obvious – when CGI was used to render entire landscapes, create inhuman characters, or add dazzle to otherwise normal shots.

This means that Jackson was, at the time, at a crossroads of technology; anything was possible with CGI, but it still wasn’t alway the best choice. To create creatures such as Gollum – which, as opposed to Jar Jar Binks, was necessitated by the original source material – Jackson had no choice but to rely on motion capture and an army of digital artists to create his vision. But to create many of the epic landscapes and cities, he relied on something much simpler: the majestic and wildly varied countryside of his native New Zealand. So much of the grandiosity of The Lord of the Rings comes not from CGI, but from the real-life locations in which he chose to film. When we watch Gandalf, on the back of an eagle, soaring high over snow-drenched peaks, we’re watching a small blip of CGI against a completely real world.

In some ways, these are the scenes I’m most looking forward to seeing in 4K: not the crazy, CGI-laden battles of ghosts and oliphants, but the sweeping, majestic landscapes that deserve to be seen in the highest possible quality.

Of course, style is nothing without substance, and whilst there are small moments that detract from the overall interpretation of Tolkien’s original vision (I’m looking at you, Legolas-surfing-down-a-staircase-on-a-shield), the faithfulness of the adaptation, and the clear love Jackson had for the source material, make for one of the most thrilling, and emotional, stories to be put to film. When The Lord of the Rings first came out, many people were concerned at its runtime, and what seemed to be incredibly slow pacing. And arguably, they are a long, slow set of movies; it’s nearly forty minutes into the film before we even leave the Shire, and there’s still half an hour of film to go after the destruction of the One Ring. But this pacing reflects the detail of the film, which in turn reflects the detail of the world-building that Tolkien put so much effort into.

Die-hard purists will complain that the reluctant king trope Aragorn plays in the films is contrary to the original story, or bemoan the loss of Tom Bombadil in the opening chapters, but the other thing Jackson had an uncanny knack for (which he has yet to replicate to such a degree) was knowing what worked well, and what wouldn’t work well, when translated to film. As slow as the films are, they are a masterpiece nonetheless in tension, character- and world-building, and even in the extended editions, nothing is present without reason. Sure, Aragorn doesn’t set out from Rivendell with Andúril in hand, knowing he is to be crowned king, as he does in the books, but this would have worked against the audience’s empathy for him had Jackson stuck hardcore to the text. Modern audiences expect character arcs, and arguably Tolkien was less a master of character-building than he was world-building.

Even when Sam (albeit temporarily) abandons Frodo in the passages above Cirith Ungol (a thing that never happens in the books), it works to the emotional tension of the film, serving as a breaking point, and moment of darkness before moving into the final climax of the film. These changes, I would argue, are for the better – at least in the telling of the story cinematically – and these three movies remain to this day my favorite works of art ever committed to film.

I can’t wait to see them in 4K, and when the remastered versions come out next year, I’ll be first in line!

What are your favorite moments from The Lord of the Rings trilogy? Do they stand the test of time, visually and content-wise? Let me know!