The Flux Capacitor 11.16.07: Week 9 - DeLoreans, Primers and Denzel

Posted by Owain J. Brimfield on 11.16.2007

The past, present and future of science fiction - this week we look at time travel. Plus, all the latest from the world of SF, and reader feedback from each end of the "common sense" spectrum!

Welcome to "The Flux Capacitor", the column that examines the past, present and future of the science fiction genre. I'm your host, Owain J. Brimfield, and each week I'll be taking a look at films, TV shows and a whole lot more that exemplify a particular theme within SF. We'll see how the sci-fi of yesteryear influenced what we see on our screens today, and take a look ahead to see what may be in store in the months and years to come. Later on I'll also discuss some of the latest SF news and see how it impacts on the genre. For now though, let's get the DeLorean on the road - this week's theme is:

TIME TRAVEL

The Past

I know, I know. There's no escaping the fact that any discussion of yesteryear's cinematic time travel has to include Back to the Future, but first I have to pay lip service to one of the originators of the concept - namely H.G. Wells and his 1895 novel The Time Machine, first adapted for the screen in 1960 by George Pal, a Wells veteran having already committed The War of the Worlds to celluloid. It remains even today a compelling and feasible (relatively speaking) depiction of the idea of time travel, despite the story being over a century old and the implementation nearly fifty. The story of London scientist George and his travels to the year 802701 arguably presented the cinema-going masses with their first experience of this inherently science-fictional and, at the time, non-mainstream concept (although I know some people would like to suggest that A Christmas Carol counts as a predecessor in terms of showing time travel on the big screen - to those people I say "phooey"), and has - along with its source material, natch - been the progenitor of the vast majority of filmic time travel tales. The movie concludes with the legendary line "you see, he has all the time in the world", and it's a glorious notion that helped cement time travel as one of SF's most enduring concepts.

Alright, so let's get to it - Back to the Future was a hugely influential and extremely popular example of time travel-driven sci-fi from the 1980s blahblahblah… yeah, you all know it. Undoubtedly a great film, and undoubtedly a great time travel film. Many will argue that all the temporal paradoxes and floutings of the laws of quantum mechanics are to BotF's severe detriment, but those are probably the kind of people who iron their socks. Yes, time travel movies that present a genuinely viable view of the concept are certainly valuable additions to the genre, and we'll touch on them later. But BotF was more about exposing - and even more about having fun with - the potential of this grandiose premise. No, we were never expected to believe that a flying DeLorean was realistic, just as we were never expected to believe Seamus McFly's "Irish" accent was appropriate. What was expected of us was to marvel at the myriad of conceivable creative possibilities, and by golly Bob Zemeckis had fun toying with our expectations. It's interesting to compare the aforementioned line from The Time Machine with Doc Brown's famous proclamation: "Where we're going, we don't need roads". Both statements hint at an underlying sense of restricted freedom that can finally be alleviated by the ability of man to transcend the fourth dimension, and their speakers seem to quietly rejoice at the idea that, for now, anything is possible. And after BotF, anything waspossible. One of the seminal mainstream science fiction works, the film showed that fun and imagination didn't have to play second fiddle to scientific rigor, and that time travel as a conceit could be embraced by the majority without any qualms.

The Present

We should probably all ignore the 2002 Guy Pearce remake of The Time Machine and concentrate our gaze elsewhere. As one might expect courtesy of our increasingly technology-obsessed society, the issue of time travel has been addressed with progressively greater scientific concern in the world of movies. Obviously, given that time travel is far beyond the remit of contemporary science, few films have succeeded in giving a truly feasible portrayal. One of the most successful recent films, intellectually at least, dealing with time travel was Terry Gilliam's Twelve Monkeys - one of my favoritest films of all time as a matter of fact - but despite the relative ease with which it dispatches the usual philosophical conundrums associated with time travel, it is no more capable of providing an adequate scientific explanation of the time travel process than its ancestor, Chris Marker's 1962 short-film-cum-photographic-project, La Jetée. Not that this is a black mark for the film, of course - I'm just sayin'. However, this has not stopped the presentation of the idea becoming increasingly grounded in reality, rather than tied to a flight of pure fancy.

The height of this trend was reached in 2004 courtesy of the ultra-low-budget Primer, made for a grand total of $7,000, putting it up there with El Mariachi as one of the cheapest movies ever to receive a cinematic release. Don't let that put you off though - this is one of the most unabashedly nerdy time travel flicks you'll ever see, courtesy of writer/director/producer/editor/composer/DP/star Shane Carruth. The plot centers around two physicists (and by golly does the dialogue let you know it) who inadvertently invent a time machine while trying to design a compact superconductor. No, they aren't exactly 'people' people. The device is far more limited than any previously seen in the movies, taking the form of a trunk-sized box in which one of the men must sit, and only travels in one direction, back in time to the point at which the machine was first powered on. Primer resolutely refuses to dumb down any of the concepts it offers, with multiple permutations of timelines and a whole bevy of paradoxes providing a backdrop for the quantum engineering prowess of the protagonists. It's one of the most confusing motion picture experiences outside of a David Lynch film and probably requires a doctorate in a number of different subjects to fully understand. Nevertheless, it's a powerful tale, quietly assured of its own ingenuity but never flaunting it. Carruth did something remarkable with this project, bringing time travel from the "never will" to the "possibly could".

The Future

And it looks to be a trend that will only continue, as evidenced by this year's Deja Vu starring cinema's most respectable action hero, Denzel (no, he really is - his John W. Creasy in Man on Fire was a complete bastard and you still absolutely rooted for him). Here the concept is taken even further into an intriguing new realm that offers a lot of potential for future science fiction tales, provided they don't just turn out to be copycats that we've seen before [yeah I know, but I couldn't resist making some form of wordplay out of the movie's title]. The film sees a time of scientists using a revolutionary system involving satellite photography and some other components of network infrastructure to build a complete, real-time visual representation of the past, starting a few days prior to their current position in space/time. The team can only view the "recording", for want of a better word, in real-time and can't pause, rewind or fast forward, and must use this tool to discover who blew up a big ol' boat. Regrettably, the necessary explosive climax dictates that Denzel will eventually find a way of actually transporting himself back a few days, but the film is a lot more successful, and a lot more intellectually pleasing, when it sticks to the premise that we can view the past, but not influence it directly, only use it to inform ourselves about the present (which of course is the future of the past-present we're looking back on).

The cinematic potential of this one germ of an idea is vast. For example, all one would have to do is postulate a slightly idealized version of the equipment in use, in which the ability to view a reconstruction of past events wasn't just confined to a localized area or a limited timeframe. We could, for example, imagine a rogue scientist and conspiracy theory nut, working on a government project by day utilizing such technology, and by night using the equipment to uncover who REALLY shot Kennedy, or how many votes Bush REALLY got. Of course, the government would need to protect this information at all costs and would need to track him down across ninety action-packed minutes, no doubt employing some sort of special enforcer... Nic Cage in the lead role, anyone? Well, it's a crappy little idea that took me about twelve seconds to think up (presumably then, longer than the majority of Hollywood scribes [zing!]), but it illustrates that the possibilities are endless - and that's just one variant of one particular branch of time travel theory. If only science fiction movie makers really did have all the time in the world.


Reactions and interactions

As you may recall from last week, I've been indulging in an ongoing saga of email exchanges with my favorite madman, Johnny Sorrow. Well, "tolerating" is probably a more appropriate word. I was hoping to publish all the correspondence in last week's column, but the guy just wouldn't quit with the emails, so I thought I'd pad them out over the course of two columns. You never know, maybe this could have turned into a journal for the ages. Anyway, for those who didn't read last week, the story so far is that Johnny accused me of not knowing the difference between Lon Chaney Sr. and Jr. Since I pointed out that this complete travesty of judgment was in fact a typo, he has variously accused me of having few readers, having bad dental hygiene, and recently advised me to be more like fellow writer J.D. Dunn, candid advice for which I thanked him. Let's pick it up in action, shall we, with the sixth email he sent me over the course of a few days:

From: Johnny Sorrow
Subject: Re - Idiot

"Don't bother. Try as hard as you can, you'll still never be American. You're just doomed to be inferior forever."

Ain't that the truth. Why have the gods cursed me with this futile existence in which I have to deal with a new email from you every time I open my inbox? I can only assume it is because I am not American, and therefore "inferior". Shame on me, sir, shame on me.

From: Johnny Sorrow
Subject: Re - Idiot

"I guess its not your fault you were born in the third world."

The small island on which I live is actually more like the land that time forgot than it is the third world. I'm still getting the hang of this whole "intranet" thingamajig. Thank you though, oh great American benefactor, for displaying some semblance of mercy in your musings. Oh, and you missed an apostrophe out of "it's". Wait, are we still criticizing each other's typographic skills, or lack thereof? I can't really tell any more.


Thankfully, he lost interest at that point in the discussion, possibly distracted by a passing ice cream van.


Elsewhere, I received a much more reasonable and articulate email from Joe, responding to my comments last week about the WGA strike:

From: Joe
Subject: Flux

"Sorry OJB, but I completely disagree with you on your WGA Strike rant. I for one, am completely behind the WGA's decision to strike.

I currently work as an Plant Engineer at a corporation that makes money hand over fist. In fact, they pulled in several hundred million last year alone, while those of us who weren't in Administration or other "profile jobs" barely saw a 1-2% increase per check. Last year, we and our direct Supervisor made up a list of our requests for pay increases and a few other minor things (like adjusting our automatic docked lunch, even though we all worked through lunch about 75% of the time).

They saw our request and flat out denied it. We only wanted what we thought was fair, considering that our yearly training in Dallas had to come out of our own pocket (including travel and hotel expenses). Meanwhile, Administration approved a 10% for their own people because of the stellar year they had. Needless to say, we had no choice but to make a decision, and we went on strike for two weeks. That was the only way that they would not only take us and what we do seriously, but they also realized that without the backbone, the place would collapse in on itself. It's about checks and balances (pun sorta intended).

While I don't know all of the specifics of the WGA Strike, I do know the basics. They want a 4 cent pay increase per DVD sale, a cut of online and mobile feeds and probably some other stuff I'm not aware of. I don't see how these writers are being "pussies" because they're standing up for their own interests. I couldn't give two shits about a high profile writer who is making millions per year from his work. This strike is more about those who don't make much at all. There are writers who work in film and television who don't make jack shit.

A friend of mine, Brian, has written a few episodes of Arrest & Trial, one episode of Carpoolers, Earth: Final Conflict, and a few other shows here and there. Regardless of what you think of the shows, he makes around $46,000 per year give or take a few hundred (and sometimes he isn't paid right away, especially if there are re-writes, where he's paid even less). But the studios make even more off of his writing, not including the commercials that run constantly through that half hour of television. Plus, they offer their content on their website, for download on iTunes, and for other wireless media forms. All of which he gets nothing. Not a single penny.

But let's make it a little more personal. If you were getting paid $5 per column that you wrote for 411, and then found out later that Ashish was in turn selling them to Entertainment Weekly for $1000 each, wouldn't you be a bit pissed? Wouldn't you want to see even a little bit of that money that he was making off your work?

So on a different note, does this e-mail count me as Reader #5?"

Thanks for taking the time to write - I figured my comments would draw some contrary responses but I was expecting invective rather than a reasoned argument. And I guess I should state up front that some of the language I used in the column was deliberately provocative.

Just to emphasize, I completely agree that the writers deserve more. 100%. I would be attempting to write for a living myself if it weren't for the fact I have student debts to pay off - that's the problem, as a profession it is definitely the minority who are financially successful. I'm sure that is true for a lot of jobs, but in the creative sphere it's a lot more galling when you see true talent being cast aside in favor of cash-ins and sellouts with little discernible merit.

I'm not sure, though, that your own situation is quite analogous (although I do sympathize - I also happen to work for a company that can seemingly afford to reward the higher-ups exponentially more than us lower peons). I may be wrong in my analysis, but I would say that where a writer is concerned, the fruit of their labors is a lot more tangible. That's not meant in a derogatory sense, but I would imagine that a screenplay or some such is more quantifiable than an engineer's output, both financially (eg. I believe I could tell you with a much greater degree of certainty how much I sold my screenplay for, and how much money has been gathered through distribution, than I could evaluate the financial benefit of one engineer's contributions within a large corporation) and in terms of job satisfaction.

To expand on that second point, my loyalty as a [hypothetical] professional writer is entirely twofold - partly in terms of how I value my creative output on a personal level, and partly in terms of the fans/readers/viewers/other consumers of my output. I should point out that 411 is different, and more informal - the stuff I write here is done purely for my love of the subject matter, and Ashish and Leonard have been gracious enough to provide me with a forum to publish my musings for public consumption; in return I'd like to think I bring a few readers to the site, or at least help keep them here for a little longer.

If it were a more formal business arrangement, though, that relationship would immediately change. If I felt I deserved more money than I was being paid, I'd of course first raise the matter in a rational discussion (as I believe you and 95% of other people would), and if those pleas fell on deaf ears, I'd have a simple evaluation to make. What is worth more to me, the material rewards, or the personal rewards of knowing that I get to display my creative output, and have a fanbase that enjoys said output? As a 'for instance', if I were a writer on Heroes right now, I am extremely confident that I would sacrifice a potential pay raise if it meant I could tell the story I wanted to the best of my capabilities, and tell it to the fans who deserve the best experience they can get. Of course, once whatever project I was working on ended, or a new one was about to start, I'd re-evaluate my relationship with my employer. Maybe this falls more to one's personal beliefs - I'm not going to deny I'm a materialistic person, but for me, I would rather create something worthy of my own talent, and worthy of the fans who wanted to see it.

Incidentally, how did you guys do out of your strike? Was it successful?

And yes, I believe I'm now halfway to double figures in the reader stakes. Take that, critics!


The Infosphere

Several new bits of Trekkie news this week:

Bruce Greenwood has been cast as Christopher Pike in JJ Abrams' upcoming Star Trek film. Pike is the Starship Enterprise's first captain and appeared in the original Star Trek series in a two-part episode.

Winona Ryder has been cast as Spock's mother, a young Vulcan! If true, this could upset many diehard fans as it goes against the established history in which Spock is the offspring of a Vulcan father, Sarek, and a human mother named Amanda Grayson.

Chris Hemsworth has been cast as Captain Kirk's father George while Clifton Collins Jr. has been cast as Ayel, sidekick to the villainous Romulan Nero.

The first image has been released of Zachary Quinto in the role of Spock, which can be found right here.

This all looks pretty good to me. Greenwood is a hugely underrated character actor, although he does seem a little old to be playing a younger Pike than appeared on TV. Ryder is simply gorgeous, and a pretty good actress to boot, so I don't really mind that decision (mind you, I'm not hardcore enough of a Trekkie for any ret-conning of the franchise to bother me). I'm not familiar with any of Hemsworth's or Collins' work, so I'll have to reserve judgment there. And Quinto looks as good as Spock as you'd expect, so let's hope he does a decent "young Nimoy".

Frank Darabont is considering a remake of Farenheit 451. (courtesy of Sci Fi Wire)

Yes, I know I usually rail against remakes, but this one at least seems like it might have some potential. Darabont has a strong reputation, and the old Truffaut film wasn't a great adaptation of the book (even if it was a decent film). Plus I think a 21st century spin on Bradbury's classic novel could be interesting.

Actor Andre Braugher has said that the upcoming miniseries of The Andromeda Strain will be a "complete re-working" of both the movie and the novel. (courtesy of Sci Fi Wire)

I didn't really discuss the merits of this revamp when I talked about the movie last week, but the premise is certainly strong and clever enough to sustain a good few hours worth of TV. Braugher is also right when he says the original is a little anti-climactic, so I'm curious to see how much (if any) of a "disaster" spin they're going to put on this.

Dragonball is coming to the big screen next year, starring Justin Chatwin and James Marsters, and produced by Stephen Chow.

Weird. Still, if anyone has the sensibility to pull this off it's Chow - a shame he has left directorial duties to James Wong, who doesn't seem as qualified. Not sure why they've cast a young American in the lead of an intrinsically Eastern story though (assuming he is playing Goku).

Actor Matt Frewer has landed the role of supervillain Moloch the Mystic in the upcoming big screen version of Watchmen.

Frewer at least has some experience in the realm of comic books, having been involved with various projects to do with the Incredible Hulk, Hercules and Iron Man. I'm sure Zack Snyder is aware of the importance of the casting on this one, so this should prove to be a decent decision.


And finally…

As always, reader feedback and suggestions are welcome, I respond to everything so just drop me a line. You can also check out my column "The Wonder Years" over at 411 Games. Next week in "The Flux Capacitor" - time for something a little different. Until then - keep watching the skies.