Anton Yelchin

Actor Anton Yelchin. I have really been disappointed with the last two movies I've seen him in - Fight Night and The Beaver - but for some reason I'm still writing a blog about the guy (and I only write blogs about people, shows, movies, etc. that I like - leave that negative stuff for other bloggers). The simple answer: While Yelchin often chooses bad movies, he is a fantastic enough actor that it doesn't seem to matter. Whenever you see Yelchin in a film, you know that Yelchin is going to be good in that film. While Yelchin is very much himself, looking comfortable in every role I've seen him in, he's also capable of transforming into other characters, sometimes highly established characters. Consider the fact that he's played two of the best known science fiction characters of all time, Kyle Reese in Terminator: Salvation and Pavel Chekov in Star Trek. This kid is really fantastic, and I imagine that in the near future we'll see him get more and more picky with his scripts. When that happens, we will live in an age of Anton Yelchin.

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989)

I have never really heard anyone say anything positive about Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, and that's really a sad fact. In many ways, it is one of the most significant of all the Star Trek installations. Whereas Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan featured one of the best film villains of all time, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier delves deeper into the character of the various members of the original crew than any movie until J.J. Abrams' Star Trek came out some twenty or so years later. I think one of the best moments in Star Trek history is when we find out about Dr. Bones's back story regarding the death of his father. And who could devise a better line than, "What does God need with a star ship?" When I originally loved this film and nobody else did, I thought it had something to do with the fact that I just love campy, bad movies. Now I know that it's a straight-up fantastic movie. That's what happens when you believe in yourself and trust your instincts.

Serious Sci Fi: Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home is the fourth installation of film adaptations of he original 1966 television show Star Trek. In this film, James T. Kirk (William Shatner) and his crew travel back in time to save two humpback whales in a sort of "save the whales, save the universe" plot. (Are lame Heroes jokes still vogue?) The crew must split up in order to abduct, store and transport the two whales efficiently, or else...

Many of you have difficulty suspending disbelief long enough to believe that one can time travel (accurately) by using a space vessel to "slingshot" around the sun. Perhaps, due to the fact that my dad raised us on Star Trek, it's easier for me to deal with this uncritically. Perhaps I fear the consequences of closing minds to, as Mulder would say, "extreme possibilities." I do have a problem with Star Trek IV, however. If you guessed that it involves Mr. Spock mind-melding with a whale then you've guessed wrong. My problem has to do with the actions of Scotty in the above divide and conquer situation, or what I call the Montgomery Scott Paradox.

Mr. Scott's job, in preparation for saving the whales, is to acquire panels of ultra-thick acrylic glass which will be used to construct water tanks in the ship's cargo bay strong enough to transport two humpback whales and tons of water. Since Mr. Scott does not have enough money - 23rd-century economics is apparently drastically different from 20th century economics - he gives Dr. Nichols of Plexicorp the chemical formula for transparent aluminum in exchange for several sheets of plexiglass. Dr. Leonard McCoy, always concerned with the ethical implications of peoples' actions, censures Mr. Scott for giving Nichols the formula and potentially changing the future with possibly dire consequences. Mr. Scott brushes off the accusation humorously, responding, "How do you know he didn't invent the thing?" According to the novelization of the film, Dr. Nichols did, in fact, invent transparent aluminum.

The Montgomery Scott Paradox is better known as the predestination paradox. (Apparently people talked about this paradox prior to Star Trek IV. All I know is that I sure as heck didn't...) If Montgomery Scott's knowledge ultimately originates in the knowledge of Dr. Nichols, and the knowledge of Dr. Nichols originally comes from Montgomery Scott (as depicted in the film), then the result is an infinite loop in which the knowledge doesn't have any true origin. There is no original idea, no inception, only the transmission of an idea that technically should not exist. Assuming that only one timeline / dimension / reality exists (which we technically can't do after the events of J.J. Abrams's Star Trek), this exchange of knowledge without origin cannot happen.

The only way out, according to my imagination, is through multiverse theory, though the intermingling of tangent universes and the propagation of knowledge across dimensions. Even with the help of multiverse theory, however, I have trouble coming up with a concise account of how one can solve this paradox. The Montgomery Scott paradox from Star Trek IV remains, to this interpreter at least, a serious difficulty.

(If anyone can provide an acocunt of how to resolve this paradox, please feel free to make me look like a fool. I would love to learn from your science / sci-fi expertise.)

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)

The Star Trek movie franchise has been generally the object of jokes and disdain. There is a large group of individuals called Trekkers or Trekkies who un-ironically love these films as a unified corpus, and I belong, by birth, to this category. My dad took us to Star Trek conventions when we were children. I am used to music videos featuring Star Trek scene collages to the tune of "Sloop John B" or "Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic," to people walking around dressed as Klingons, and to fans asking unnecessarily detailed questions to actors who obviously don't know the answers.

It is because of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan that there is any degree of mainstream respect for Star Trek. Ricardo Montalban's genetically enhanced super-solidier from the 1990s called Khan is easily one of the best movie villains of all time. His rivalry with (and wrath towards) Admiral James T. Kirk is enticing enough that one forgets they are never even in the same room. Most importantly, the closing scenes are some of the most memorable in movie history, Kirk's closing speech bringing me to tears every time.

Star Trek II follows the laws of good literature better than any other Star Trek film. I'm specifically referring to the use of allusion, foreshadowing, and most importantly, characterization. It is the most epic and touching story in Star Trek history, and you should make time to see it. Soon.

NASA Finds Alien Life?

A couple of weeks ago, everyone on the Facebook community was posting one of these two articles, "NASA Finds New Life" or "Nasa Reportedly Discovers 'Completely Alien' Life on Earth." If you've read my article "Office For Outer Space Affairs," you know that I am something of a conspiracy theorist interested in the existence of extraterrestrial life. By extension, you know that I was pretty excited to stumble upon these articles.

Shortly after people began talking about NASA's discovery of aliens on Earth, a much smaller faction of Facebook researchers began to surface. While many had begun to act as if we were living in a momentous time in history, the time of first contact with extraterrestrial life, this faction was devoted to deriding these individuals for their ridiculous beliefs. They began talking about how this scientific discovery was a heck of a let down.

These particular articles talk about how NASA has discovered a new form of bacteria called GFAJ-1 in Mono Lake, California. Nearly all life forms on this planet are called carbon-based life forms, which means that the structures that support us are carbon compounds. These newly discovered bacteria do not fit this mold. Their DNA, RNA, proteins and cell membranes are instead constructed from arsenic compounds.

It has been hypothesized for years that non-carbon-based lifeforms may exist on Earth. When I was in grade school I remember hearing that people suspected that silicon-based organisms lived beneath the Earth's crust. Since silicon is a metal, it would be more useful as a building block of life where heat and pressure reach extremes beyond that which carbon-based life forms can handle. Furthermore, it is directly below carbon on the periodic table, which means that it would function like carbon in many ways. This theory was common enough by the 1960s that Star Trek: The Original Series featured a silicon-based alien life form called a Horta in the first season episode "The Devil in the Dark."

The 20th century has seen its fair share of upsets in the definition of how life forms are defined, most significantly with the discovery of archaea, microorganisms that were originally understood as bacteria but which are now understood as having a completely different evolutionary path. These organisms can thrive in the harshest of climates, in volcanic vents and toxic waste even, because of their ability to metabolize a variety of gases and metals that would kill nearly any other organism. Knowing about these variations on life, it never seemed like much of a leap to suggest that we would find a non-carbon-based life form on or in the Earth.

While the discovery of arsenic-based bacteria is certainly a momentous scientific discovery that can lead humankind down some interesting avenues of research, it has been marketed to the public as if scientists had just discovered intelligent extraterrestrial life capable of long-distance space travel. If the headlines referred to scientists discovering new life, few would find it very interesting. The nature specials I used to watch in the 90s told me that new species are being discovered on a daily basis in places like the Amazon rain forest. Instead, the headlines made use of the "NASA" keyword, which combined with the keywords "new" and "life," plants the false idea that we are dealing with ET here. Throw in the word "alien," meaning "other" or "different," and people automatically think you mean "extraterrestrial in origin."

I would love to fit this story into my greater theory regarding the possibility of extraterrestrial biological entities traveling lightyears to make contact with the civilization of Earth, but it just doesn't fit. This scientific advance is extraordinary but it is also a let down, and the crux of this distinction is the bait and switch that popular sources reporting on this issue have used. They promise Independence Day and X-Files, but instead they give us Nova.

Another Commander Chris Article

Mark Mattison is a child of the Star Wars era, a watcher of Star Trek reruns and a reader of science fiction from childhood. He can now call himself a writer of science fiction, thanks to his first book, “Commander Chris and the Mystical Orb” (Gollehon Books, $9.95)

Chris Morinas, a teenage skateboarder and popularity contest loser, is mysteriously transformed in a lab accident and finds himself warped into another galaxy where he becomes commander of a space ship and its strange crew. They embark on a rescue mission but end up embroiled in a fight to save their world and defeat evil.

“This is a novel broader than its sci-fi genre,” Mattison said. “It’s the story of a young man who doesn’t have much going for him but who is thrust into a world where he calls upon skills to become stronger and better. It’s a great opportunity to explore the limits of the imagination and the confines of science.”

The full article was published in The Grand Rapids Press and on-line at MLive. You can read the full text here.

Worst Fight Scene Ever

And The Nominees Should Have Been...

My ten favorite films of 2009 in alphabetical order.

1. Avatar

Captivating from beginning to end. James Cameron may have done more for the film industry than any person who has ever lived, and I do not believe this to be hyperbole. I think way too many of you decided you were going to hate this movie before you ever saw it, and then you stuck to your guns because you didn't want to be proven wrong.

2. Away We Go

Most of the critics did not seem to understand this film. I suppose I can empathize. With understandable, realistic characters and a brilliant literary writing style I find it hard to believe that any film critic would understand this movie.

3. The Box

I can think of just as many reasons as you can why this film shouldn't be good. It starts out slow. It goes a little long. Cameron Diaz can't act. And yet this film is easily better than Hurt Locker and Blindside. As a matter of fact, I saw absolutely no difference between Cameron Diaz and Sandra Bullock's portrayal of strong southern women, except of course from the fact that Sandra Bullock walked home with an Oscar that all of the other nominees deserved over her.

4. Inglourious Basterds

I get that you wanted to see the Basterds more. I get that you want to undermine Quentin Tarantino's cinematic vision. As long as he keeps delivering brilliant dialogue and amazing movies, however, I'm going to keep loving them. Inglourious Basterds is not only among the years best, but possibly Tarantino's best.

5. Moon

"And the winner for Best Picture goes to Moon." This is what you would have heard if you watched the Academy Awards ceremony in the alternate reality where the best film of the year is based on merit rather than making a political point. Moon was easily the best film of 2009. EASILY!

6. The Road

Throughout 2009, this was the film that critics were talking about as a surefire Oscar win, but come February 2010 and it wasn't even nominated. I finally saw the film and it really impressed me. I'm still thinking about it. Daily.

7. Star Trek

Is it my fault the year's best films were almost entirely science fiction, fantasy and speculative fiction? No. I wish I could take responsibility for this trend. It means that people are interested in feeling a sense of wonder, and wonder is the most significant thing a film offers us. This movie was good enough that I wanted to watch the sequel immediately afterward. Then I realized that a sequel didn't exist yet and felt sad.

8. Up in the Air

Well, at least the Academy got three out of ten correct. I'm sure you can go far in this world if you are performing at 30% of what you should be performing. I, however, care about the best, and you'll find that Justin Tiemeyer agrees with the Academy: Up in the Air was one of the best.

9. Watchmen

Yes, I read the graphic novel, and probably a long time before you did. My immediate thought was that Watchmen couldn't be more impossible to make. Alan Moore's vision is perfectly exemplified in graphic novel form. Well, guess what? The visionary director of 300 did the impossible. Watchmen was amazing.

10. Where the Wild Things Are

As of 2009, Spike Jonze is the man to beat when it comes to capturing childhood wonder and the psychological complexities of the pre-adolescent struggle. In Where the Wild Things Are, the collective visions of Maurice Sendak, Spike Jonze and Dave Eggers came together in a stunning masterpiece. This movie made me feel happy to be alive.

Zoe Saldana

Actress Zoe Saldana. You may recognize her as Uhura from Star Trek. You may not recognize her as Neyteri from Avatar, a role that might have earned her an Academy Award nod if her character weren't digitally rendered. Saldana is beautiful and has an apparent affinity for science fiction, the perfect combination for establishing a loyal fan-base.

Koenig: A Royal Family

Actor Andrew Koenig was found dead by friends in Vancouver Park on February 25. He is best remembered as Boner from TV's Growing Pains. He is survived by father Walter Koenig, best known as Chekov from TV's Star Trek: The Original Series.