Why I'm NOT rating STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS And Why It Reminds Me Of THE CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER

In a nutshell, if you've been a fan of Star Trek from the beginning or have extensive knowledge of the canon, then I will tell you right now I was disappointed. However, if you haven't followed Star Trek from the beginning then you are in for a treat.

I'm not going to rate the movie. I've seen it twice; I really tried to like it. I can see many, many people really loving the movie and justifiably so. But I can also see many hating the movie and justifiably so. Me? I'm in the middle.

Speaking as a loyal fan since The Original Series, I did not like most of it. The visual effects? Stunning. Really. The 3D? Not so good. The story? Here we go...

**HEAVY SPOILER ALERT! **

Obviously spoilers here. I'm just going to talk as if you've seen the movie already.

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS crosses the line from paying homage to downright copying with many twists. I can't stand knowing the lines before they are spoken and I don't care who is saying them. Swapping out Kirk for Spock in the radiation death scene is inexcusable. Lame, lame writing. Not clever at all. I also felt as though that whole scene was added on - it wasn't needed in the story. It could have been edited out entirely and have no bearing on the outcome of the movie.

Furthermore, other than now having no need for medicine whatsoever (Bones, you're out of a job) the device of using Khan's blood (Yes Khan Noonien Singh; copying yet again) to bring Kirk back from the dead is such lazy writing it's unbelievable. And now the franchise is stuck with the results. Why even wait to get Khan's blood? Thaw out one of his 72 cronies and use theirs!

And that's evading the fact that the Federation has had 300 years to distill this technology from what they knew when they froze them! Think about that. 300 YEARS!!! At least with the Genesis project from THE WRATH OF KHAN, a new technology accidentally brought Spock back and he wasn't quite the same afterward. Do you have any idea how much knowledge can be attained in 300 years, that far into the future? Computers have long become sentient and capable of independent thought *and invention*. Heck even today when we look back 300 years to our horse riding, leeching medicine ancestors - are we not amazed at what we have done to this point?

Khan blood. Why not just grant wishes? Seriously. Why not allow everyone in the Star Trek universe to grant each other wishes. What's next for the writers? Hey let's destroy Vulcan! Hey, get this, a main character dies from radiation while trying to save the Enterprise but we're gonna switch it to Kirk this time! AND let's reuse those lines again. Hey let's kill Pike!! No need for him to be a mute quadriplegic, and weave him into future films - just get rid of him. Moreover, instead of killing him for the development of something truly meaningful, let's kill him off so that Spock will learn something from his last moments mind-meld - so he can improve his understanding of his relationship with Uhura (which shouldn't be happening in the first place!). No, no - don't kill Pike so that Kirk can lose yet another father figure and we'll see how that affects his character (which might have been actually interesting). Killing Pike was horrendous. Just like Vulcan in the first movie. I was so looking forward to seeing him in a motorized transport unit and somehow contributing to the development of Kirk down the road. *Sigh* They spent all that time developing Pike as such a great moral compass for Kirk and then just whack him. Bruce Greenwood too! One of the greatest character actors we have today.

The writers also spat on the Admiral (Peter Weller), who announces that he brought in Pike to the Academy in the same fashion that Pike brought in Kirk. See the very cool connections here? Admiral Marcus is a father figure to Pike who is a father figure to Kirk. These connections could have been amazing story material, **ORIGINAL STORY MATERIAL**, if these "writers" could have fathomed it. But no. Let's kill 'em all. All of 'em. Kill Marcus as a traitor (the ADMIRAL as a TRAITOR no less!). Kill Pike to help Spock's love life. And kill Kirk, but bring him back with Khan blood. Don't worry, it's science fiction - we can get away with it.

Sorry, this story is a complete failure for me. The only saving grace is the performance of Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan in as much as I hated seeing Khan brought back. Abrams missed the chance to actually use Cumberbatch as an original villain - something new and exciting, rather than trying to have him live up to Ricardo Montalban's Khan - which by the way, both Montalban's performance and the movie THE WRATH OF KHAN are still tops in my books.

Yes, I get that this is an alternate universe. Congratulations. What's next on the Xerox guys, whales? Unfortunately I have the feeling it's going to be The Next Generation's Borg. While the idea excites me, I'm sure all they're going to do is just regurgitate Kirk being assimilated into the collective. LaKirkus? Yeah, I can see those guys dreaming it up already. *Sigh*.

So what do I like about the movie? How about LOVE about the movie - the effects!!!! Stunning, wondrous visual and practical effects that I needn't talk about too much. If you've seen it, I'm sure you will agree this is top flight stuff here.

The 3D? Not so great. Abrams style of shooting anamorphic and with lens flares just doesn't convert well at all to 3D. Some shots were amazing (mostly the effects as these were done in a computer through a native digital render), but other shots? Ugh. The Carol Marcus scene (that Tim spoke about) with the outrageous and totally ignorant lens flare mixed with distorted and stretched heads on the screen edge, all in converted 3D almost made me sick to my stomach. Ok maybe not, but I'm sure I LOOKED like I was going to be sick. Not from a headache, but from pure distaste. It literally looked like a film school dropout's work. I'm not kidding. Perhaps it was their idea of a joke. A homage to the Abrams' lens flare joke. If it was, I didn't laugh. The 3D conversion was just good. Not amazingly great like what Stereo D has done for Marvel (THE AVENGERS was the best conversion to date). STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS' 3D barely excited me - much like Stereo D's work in IRON MAN 3. Now a lot of this I know is derived from the creatives - mainly the director who give instructions to the conversion house, but c'mon - follow the Marvel 3D plan. It works big time. If you can't Abrams, then shoot natively for the love of Roddenberry.

Listen, if you haven't been following Star Trek, or if you haven't really been paying attention by all means see this movie. Much of it is eye candy and wondrous. But for all you stereoscopic 3D aficionados and Trekkies - be wary. For you may react similarly to me -and Kirk- from the ending of THE CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER: "Let's get the hell out of here." 

And I can't look anymore.

Must Watch: Spoiler Free PROMETHEUS Viral Clip Featuring Noomi Rapace Messaging Peter Weyland

Key phrase here is "spoiler free"! Finally we are getting another viral marketing piece from Ridley Scott's PROMETHEUS that uses material that is most likely NOT in the movie itself, similar to the Peter Weyland's TED speech. and DAVID's introduction.

So this is GREAT news for those of you who refuse to spoil their pristine viewing experience of PROMETHEUS in theaters when it comes out. Now there is some minor content about knowing where the answers to life are found, but you shouldn't feel that you can't watch this in my estimation. Still, always be careful. Keep you clicker over the pause button should you panic! :-)

Here's the storyline for the movie:
Ridley Scott, director of “Alien” and “Blade Runner,” returns to the genre he helped define. With PROMETHEUS, he creates a groundbreaking mythology, in which a team of explorers discover a clue to the origins of mankind on Earth, leading them on a thrilling journey to the darkest corners of the universe. There, they must fight a terrifying battle to save the future of the human race. 





PROMETHEUS is ready to scare the $#*% out of you on June 8. For ALL of our coverage on this most anticipated movie of the year for me, click here.

The Incredible PROMETHEUS Weekend Continues: International Trailer, Ridley Scott Talking 3D And Fassbender's Android Revealed!!

Oh man what a weekend for Ridley Scott and ALIEN fans! And it continues today with the release of the International Trailer for audiences worldwide.

Ridley Scott, director of "Alien" and "Blade Runner," returns to the genre he helped define. With PROMETHEUS, he creates a groundbreaking mythology, in which a team of explorers discover a clue to the origins of mankind on Earth, leading them on a thrilling journey to the darkest corners of the universe. There, they must fight a terrifying battle to save the future of the human race.

Have a look:




Secondly, take a look at Ridley Scott and Damon Lindelof taking questions from the online community as well as a local live audience yesterday. They are introduced by my good nuddy George Roush of AMC. Ridley specifically talks about why he used 3D (click ahead to 7:30 to see this portion) and that "it works like a son of a bitch"!



This is a heads up for all your filmmakers out there that are on the edge of joining the 3D revolution but haven't yet stepped up - it really isn't that challenging if you are passionate about what you are doing in life. It's just another tool in the box, but it just so happens it's a tool that will make your films BETTER. And I agree 100% with that statement. No matter what the genre is, we naturally see in 3D. And 3D movies is a reminder to that - it will bring your audiences into your transportive story.

And remember guys, PROMETHEUS was shot and edited in S3D - so all these visuals we have been feasting our eyes on this weekend are going to be even better in 3D! We're going to BE THERE. I can't believe that this is in our near future but it is!!

And a special bonus! Check out the viral video from Weyland Industries revealing Michael Fassbender as an Android!! VERY cool:



Can't wait for June 8!

MUST WATCH: PROMETHEUS Trailer For A Trailer!!

Oh man you have got to love the visuals for this movie. I'm not even hesitating in saying that you will; I don't even have to account for individual taste for this thing!

Today we have the teaser for the trailer that Ridley Scott has promised us on March 17, the day he and Damon Lindelof personally will be addressing Q&As from the audience at Downtown Disney (4pm Pacific for 30 minutes, invite only). Both of them will also drop in on WonderCon earlier in the day.

The sound is so remarkable too. We are going to be in such suspense watching this movie - I am hoping for another ALIEN all over again! Too much to hope for? Will I be let down? Somehow I don't think so. :-)



You have to hand it to Fox - they know how to sell a sci-fi movie. AVATAR reaped the rewards too. More when I get it

Via /Film

MUST WATCH: Guy Pearce's Peter Weyland Of PROMETHEUS Gives Futuristic Speech!! **UPDATED**

**UPDATED with Speaker and Talk Info!

Whoa!! I love where this is going! Check out this new clip that Ridley Scott and Damon Lindelof dreamed up and shot for the TED conference today.

Note that this scene is NOT from the movie PROMETHEUS, but it does feature one heckuva speech made by Guy Pearce in the character of Peter Weyland! The video is supposed to take place in the future the TED 2023 conference to be precise.

For more information you can go to the new website www.WeylandIndustries.com to keep a watchful eye.



About the video:
Peter Weyland has been a magnet for controversy since he announced his intent to build the first convincingly humanoid robotic system by the end of the decade.

Whether challenging the ethical boundaries of medicine with nanotechnology or going toe to toe with the Vatican itself on the issue of gene-therapy sterilization, Sir Peter prides himself on his motto, “If we can, we must.” After a three year media blackout, Weyland has finally emerged to reveal where he’s heading next. Wherever that may be, we will most certainly want to follow.

Conceived and designed by Ridley Scott and Damon Lindelof and directed by Luke Scott.

About the speaker:
Sir Peter Weyland was born in Mumbai, India at the turn of the Millennium. The progeny of two brilliant parents; His mother, an Oxford Educated Professor of Comparative Mythology, his father, a self-taught software Engineer, it was clear from an early age that Sir Peter’s capabilities would only be eclipsed by his ambition to realize them. By the age of fourteen, he had already registered a dozen patents in a wide range of fields from biotech to robotics, but it would be his dynamic break-throughs in generating synthetic atmosphere above the polar ice cap that gained him worldwide recognition and spawned an empire.

In less than a decade, Weyland Corporation became a worldwide leader in emerging technologies and launched the first privatized industrial mission to leave the planet Earth. “There are other worlds than this one,” Sir Peter boldly declared, “And if there is no air to breathe, we will simply have to make it.”


Here's a Q&A with PROMETHEUS writer Damon Lindelof about this video:
How did you come to the idea of writing a TEDTalk connected to Prometheus?
In really, really good science fiction the line between the science and the fiction is blurry. When I started attending TED, that line got even blurrier — I started hearing about ideas that were, in my own imagination, more far out than some of the science fiction I was seeing.

Prometheus takes place in the future, but it’s a movie about ideas, and I just felt like it would be really cool to have one of the characters from the movie give a TEDTalk. Obviously, since the movie is set in the distant future, it would have to be a little more contemporary. But wouldn’t it be cool if it was a TED talk from a decade in the future? And what is a TEDTalk going to look like in 10 years? And what would this guy have to say?

Then I understand you contacted Tom Rielly at TED, and started working together. What was it like working with him to construct a fictional TEDTalk?

My first assumption was that TED was never going to go for it. At the end of the day, it was a cool viral piece. I never thought in my wildest dreams we would get the actual TED branding. I thought we have to end up calling it a NED talk. But Tom is every bit as much a geek as I am, and we sort of subscribe to the same sort of pop-culture influences, and he was already into what Ridley was doing. He just completely sparked the idea.

[Says Tom Rielly: "Damon asked if we wanted to be involved in a Ridley Scott movie, and I thought, 'oh twist my arm'.]

I said, “l’ll write this thing, and we’ll put it in front of you guys, and if you think it’s cool, we would love to platform it at TED, and make it only viewable through TED.” Because I liked the idea of exposing a more general audience to, “Wait a minute, I’ve never heard of this thing. There’s more talks here.” I thought it could be mutually beneficial — as opposed to overtly cram-it-down-your-face viral marketing, which I don’t think anyone wanted to do.

The video has all these wonderful science fiction elements, floating cameras and such — was it different writing for an existing event than writing other scifi?

No, all scifi starts in some kind of grounded reality that seems familiar, and then the tornado comes and take you into Oz. I feel the same way about a TEDTalk. I know there was some discussion about what the scale of this was going to be. I think that it’s probably out there that TEDTalks are going to be happening in arenas and stadiums in 12 years, but we also thought that a guy like Peter Weyland — whose ego is just massive, and the ideas that he’s advancing are nothing short of hubris — that he’d basically say to TED, “If you want me to give a talk, I’m giving it in Wembley Stadium.” So, he could actually bend the idea of what a TEDTalk is to him. Could you get an arena-level crowd to show up and listen to someone talk about ideas? That to me was the cool step outside the realm that we’re all comfortable knowing.

As an aficionado of TED itself and what TED does, I feel the intimacy is very important. I hope that in 2023 it’s still happening in Long Beach on a fairly intimate level, but those talks are available on a widespread basis. But it wouldn’t have been as cool to say, “In 2023, TEDTalks are going to look the same exact way that they do in 2012.”

What’s your favorite TEDTalk?

Ken Robinson on the failure of creativity in education. That was my inaugural TEDTalk, and it completely and totally blew my mind, just in terms of how concise and easily and with humor his ideas were presented, and I was just thinking and thinking about it for days. It’s really impacted the way my wife and I decided to educate our kid.

Obviously JJ’s Mystery Box TEDTalk was a personal favorite. Then, Kevin Slavin who gave talk about algorithms, love that talk. Paul Nicklen, the photographer, showed all the pictures he took up in the Arctic — that was breathtaking. I remember a talk about vertical farming that was like, “What?”

Oh! And the one that was given by Elizabeth Gilbert was fantastic.

As a professional screenwriter, what do you think is it about TEDTalks that makes it work?

I look at myself more as a storyteller than a screenwriter, as pretentious as that may sound, but that’s what really attracts me to TEDTalks. For me the really effective ones are being presented by expert storytellers. I think that people think of a narrative story as something that has a beginning, middle and end — you know, it follows these conventional rules. But that’s not the way that I look at story at all. You can tell a story about the state of education and provide anecdotal evidence, or tell a story about algorithms. That’s what all these things have in common. What’s really great about them is that the person who’s telling the story is the hero of the story. They’re advancing sometimes a very small experience that might have big, far-reaching implications. Or they might have an idea that is nothing short of mythic — like having laptops at every single desk in a third-world country.

There’s the storytelling aspect of the format, and the limitations of having to fit it within this timeframe — that 18 minutes is not just about appealing to people with short attention spans. It’s really stating the same thing as Twitter does: “If you can’t say it within 140 characters, then it probably isn’t worth saying.”

You’re known for telling stories that are infused with really big ideas. Is there a special challenge in making a story that doesn’t have a tidy end, or doesn’t close in all the normal ways, but maybe does get at a much bigger idea?

Yeah. I believe that this idea of story or myth or this thing that Joseph Campbell writes about is sort of an inter-connective spiritual force — like The Force in Star Wars — where it doesn’t matter where you were raised, or what your background is, there are certain elements of story that totally appeal to you.

When the blanks aren’t filled in for you, your own imagination tends to fill them in. That’s the storytelling that I’ve always been interested in. I certainly have suffered the slings and arrows of criticism for being too vague at times, but I always give much more credit to this sort of collective consciousness and imagination of the audience watching my story than on my own imagination.

And so there’s that idea of leaving some things up for grabs, so that you can personalize the story in your own way. There’s certainly a road that I want you to go down in my storytelling, but if you choose not to go down it, that’s very exciting for me. I feel like great TEDTalks are ones that are a little bit subject to interpretation, that do provoke further conversation — and potentially controversy. They’re the talks that, when you walk out of them, you need to instantly seek out somebody else who heard it to talk more about it, without the presence of the person who presented the idea. At that point, you’re now grafting the idea to your own psychological framework, and that’s what really great story does.

It looks like Prometheus is much more idea-driven than other movies in this genre, and that there are some enormous ideas coming. Was it a challenge to weave that into an existing mythos?

Look, Ridley Scott birthed this universe over two decades ago. My job was to sit and listen and to channel, in the same way that a medium does. This was about the ideas that he wanted to convey, and he did not want to come back and do science fiction again unless there was some kind of a philosophical construct to it. That’s why Blade Runner, which didn’t really enjoy commercial success when it first came out, is viewed as a classic, and is still being discussed and dissected: there are these fundamental ideas about humanity, our relationship with technology, the presence of a soul — those are all the things that drive Blade Runner. Ridley was reaching for the fruit on the tree of knowledge in the ideas that he was having about this movie.

At the same time, there is a line where a movie becomes overtly pretentious. We wanted to stay on the right side of it, because once you cross it, there’s no going back. There had to be a version of this movie that presented big ideas, but didn’t really wallow around and spend all it’s time basking in the glory of it’s own intelligence. We wanted to make an entertaining movie at the same time. Hopefully, it’s a hybrid in tone between the original Alien and Blade Runner. I mean, Inception is a wonderful movie and I love it, but I also love that people are shooting guns at each other and buildings are exploding.

You talked about how, when you listen to a good TEDTalk you want to go in another room and talk to someone about it, and I think a lot of that comes from the fact that you relate to the speaker and sympathize with them. Was it a challenge writing a talk for a speaker who is very unlikable in a lot of ways?

No. First off, Guy Pearce is a brilliant actor — you basically just write the words and let the actor do what they’re going to do with the words. And Peter Weyland’s role is still a toss-up for the audience. They don’t know what he’s going to be in the movie, or how this talk relates to the movie. I do think that, if someone is going to be saying the things that this guy is saying, then there is a god complex inherent in the speech. Guy Pearce took that and ran with it, and I feel like that gives it a certain degree of entertaining power.

What would your TEDTalk be about?

Ha! I couldn’t even begin to fathom it. I would think that the obvious route would be to talk about storytelling, but I wouldn’t be able to go where everybody would expect me to go. I would delve into a slightly more surprising terrain, although I have no idea what that means. If I were to do a TEDTalk, I would challenge myself to make people gasp.

As if I couldn't get any more amped about a movie - along comes a stellar piece of marketing focusing on one, just one character and blows it completely out of the water! Pearce NAILS this. The movie... will be AN EVENT like we haven't seen since AVATAR.

Source: TED | Weyland Industries Site | Thanks for the heads up Margaret!

Ridley Scott Will NEVER Work Without 3D Again!! Video Added!

Ahhhh. Music to my ears! I love it when more and more creative geniuses at the top of their game commit to 3D like Ridley Scott just did at Comic-Con. Here's the updates...

Says Scott: "3D has been a wonderful exercise but I was brought up as a camera operator so its really about lensing and all that kind of stuff. So with the help I’ve had from a wonderful cameraman and his technical team its been, for me, a pretty straight forward ride. That said I’ll never work without 3D again, even for small dialogue scenes. I love the whole process. 3D opens up the universe of even a small dialogue scene so I’ve been very impressed with that."

Says PROMETHEUS writer Damon Lindelof: "When Ridley decided to film in 3D, he understood [lighting] was going to be one of the profound challenges and I think one of the things that was important to him was, in terms of the constructions of the sets, that the movie was shot on sound stages in Pinewood. Just these humongous, expansive sets. Everything is built. If you’re building a ship, he just built the ship…..I’ve never been on the set of a movie that’s actually shooting 3D before. Anytime you walk into video village there are essentially five massive video screens. You walk in, get a pair of glasses and you can see the shot and suddenly you understood, even on the production design level – the movie was designed by this guy Arthur Max who did Fight Club – ‘Oh my god, they actually designed this movie for 3D.’ Ridley is a shot maker. He makes beautiful art. So the idea of going in post and putting things in there digitally is not going to happen in this movie. Therefore, I feel any movie that’s going to be in 3D has to answer the question, ‘Can you justify this being in 3D? Why should it be in 3D?’ I think the answer to that question for Prometheus is it creates a very immersive environment. The idea that you’re in sometimes very confined spaces, sometimes very wide open spaces. But the only way to trick your brain into feeling you’re in the movie, going through these experiences with these characters, is that the 3D helps bring you into that immersive environment and just based on what i've seen so far I think probably one the most visionary and visual directors in the world is finally using this medium, I think its going to be pretty special."

Lindelof continues: "And by calling it Prometheus were certainly not doing anybody any favors by just saying like ‘This thing is called Batman. It’s gonna be about Batman.’ It’s a slightly headier, we sort of joke about it, pretentious title. So we understand that the bar is very high. But I think that for Ridley to be coming back to this genre, for him to be directing a movie in 3D for the first time – he’s shooting it in 3D, it’s not a conversion – just the way that it’s gonna look and the way it’s gonna feel has to be special and part of the game is being a little bit secretive about it. And I like to keep secrets."



I think PROMETHEUS and the native 3D footage begin shot is in pretty safe hands, don't you? Looking forward to seeing what Scott does AFTER this little SciFi adventure is released - 'cause we now know it will be in stereoscopic 3D!

Alien Prequel Pre Pro Spawns Entire New Universe! Ridley Scott To Proceed With PROMETHEUS!!!

Ok there's a lot of alliteration in that title, but why not have a little fun with this? After all, Ridley Scott and Damon Lindelof have just created an entirely new mythology and universe to play in for us!

PROMETHEUS is the title of the new science fiction thriller Scott has up his sleeve and it all evolved from his working with Lindelof to flesh out the ALIEN PREQUEL.

Apparently there are some elements inherited from ALIEN but we can expect to be immersed into a brand new place. Exciting or what?

Fox has announced that Noomi Rapace (THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO) will star as "Elizabeth Shaw" and Angelina Jolie and Charlize Theron are interested in yet another major female role ("Vickers")!

Says Scott: "While Alien was indeed the jumping off point for this project, out of the creative process evolved a new, grand mythology and universe in which this original story takes place. The keen fan will recognize strands of Alien’s DNA, so to speak, but the ideas tackled in this film are unique, large and provocative. I couldn’t be more pleased to have found the singular tale I’d been searching for, and finally return to this genre that’s so close to my heart."

Added Lindelof: "In a world flooded with prequels, sequels and reboots, I was incredibly struck by just how original Ridley’s vision was for this movie. It’s daring, visceral and hopefully, the last thing anyone expects."

If it was even possible, I am even more amped about this new direction! I am dying to see what sort of universe Scott could take us to - his last Sci-Fi was BLADE RUNNER. All those ideas in his head for so long, mixed with the creativeness of Lindelof... well let's just say anticipation is high.

Movie is set for release on March 9, 2012.

Source: Deadline

Ridley Scott Talks ALIEN Prequel: What To Expect!!

When Ridley Scott talks, most moviegoers will stop what they are doing and listen, and rightly so. So when he was recently speaking with The Independent about his ALIEN prequels (there will be two of them), the implications will be spreading far and wide.

The interview starts off talking about his illustrious filmmaking career and winds up where we all wanted it to go: More info on the ALIEN universe!

What does Ridley think of AVATAR and 3D? "Jim's (Cameron) raised the bar and I've got to jump to it," he says, in a friendly jibe at Cameron. "He's not going to get away with it."

So what can we expect from the ALIEN prequels?
Set 30 years before the 1979 original, so with no room for Sigourney Weaver's Ripley, the prequels will explore the origins of the deadly aliens. "The film will be really tough, really nasty," he notes. "It's the dark side of the moon. We are talking about gods and engineers. Engineers of space. And were the aliens designed as a form of biological warfare? Or biology that would go in and clean up a planet?"

I am liking what I am hearing! Combine that foundation with the inclusion of the "space jockey" origins story arc (that alien being in a chair pictured top left) from the original ALIEN movie, the script massaging by Damon Lindelof (LOST) and the fact that Scott will be shooting this in native 3D, I think we will be getting another generational instant sci-fi classic!