The lessons of a film like Enemy Mine (1985) should be universal.

In a time of war, two mortal enemies grounded on an unforgiving planet -- Davidge (Dennis Quaid) and Drac (Louis Gossett Jr) -- find themselves at odds because of their shared past.  But being marooned in such an environment changes both the man and the alien in ways they never expect, forcing them to set aside their prejudices in order to collaborate and survive.  Eventually, mortality enters the equation, and Drac is forced to entrust the care of his young son to a man he once wanted to erase from existence.  Ultimately, Enemy Mine teaches us to get past whatever collectivism has taught us about those we don't really know to find instead what might unite us on a journey through life ... and that's something all of us should strive to do.

Though Gossett Jr didn't take home the 1986 Saturn Award in the category of 'Best Actor' for his work in the production, there are many who took note of the actor's work in the fondly remembered picture because it rose above the usual noise of filmdom.  Despite the difference of his appearance, Drac -- at Gossett's hands -- revealed an individual truly not very different from you and me.  He wanted many of the same things out of life, and he was willing to both live and learn about his enemy especially if it meant that, together, they were stronger and more resilient against the forces that would have both of them dead and gone.  It was the kind of smart work that introduced countless others to both the challenges and optimism once inherent in Science Fiction, and I think a great deal of its authenticity is owed to the actor himself.

Alas, none of us last forever ... and word reached the SciFiHistory.Net news desk this morning of the man's passing.

Our warmest prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Louis Gossett Jr.  May he forever rest in peace.

​-- EZ

Good morning, gentle readers, and Happy Friday!  Welcome to 'On This Day In Science Fiction History' for March 29, 2024!

You read that right, folks!  It's Friday!

Whoop!  Whoop Whoop!

Ahhh, it's great to know that Friday is here yet again, and we've been gifted with those magical two days -- better known as "the weekend" -- with which to refresh and reinvigorate ourselves once more.  I know, I know, I know ... these are the days we live for, and they're here yet again for your delight and merriment.  Welcome to them, you noble warriors, you!
​

If there can be only one, then please please please ... let it be Christopher Lambert!

The man's career definitely caught fire in genre circles when he roared onto silver screens in 1986 in Highlander -- another genre film that launched a franchise -- and he re-upped for a handful of subsequent follow-ups.  For what it's worth, I enjoyed the flick; I recently rewatched it, and -- for the most part -- it holds up reasonably well for the Action/BMovie that it is.  Lambert's work in the project is particularly good, impressive that he can hold his own while up against the great Sean Connery and Clancy Brown, as well.  While I'm no big fan of the sequels that I've seen (two? three?), the first picture retains a soft spot in my heart, even though I question the logic of a few sequences and plot turns which might inevitably be a bit too convenient.

And ... isn't this one currently getting a reboot?  Why, that's kinda/sorta a shame that we can't just let bygones be bygones any more.  An actor like Lambert who isn't exactly a marquee name these days deserves whatever spotlight shone on him for his contributions to film history, and I'd hate to see some contemporary reinvention strip that franchise of its fantastic nostalgia quality.  I know you young'uns might disagree, but sometimes it's better just leaving things alone.  You'll understand those sentiments when you get older.

Whatever the case, Happy Birthday to Mr. Lambert, wherever he is.  And, yes, there can be only one.
​

Those of us who grew up on a steady diet of misplaced blockbusters might very well remember the charms of a flick rarely -- if ever -- heard of these days but at one time from a reasonably respected video store rental: Arena (1989) emerged from the final days of Charles Band's Empire Pictures, and -- if I remember correctly -- its journey to discovery was a bit rocky.

Again, I'm going from memory -- and it's early in the morning, peeps, keep that in mind -- but I believe that the studio was in some dire financial straits.  Things were being shutdown and/or seized, and this tiny little gem of a big idea was just finishing up production.  I'm fairly certain it never made it to the big screen -- I'm pretty assured that it was finished up and ceremoniously dumped onto home video the way a lot of kinda/sorta forgotten films of yesteryear were -- and that's where it created a bit of a stir.  The idea of an alien fight club captivated home audiences who discovered its charms, and the talented cast and crew brought the flick to reasonable life in a way that elevated the 'Rocky Balboa in Space' story above what could've been a real crash-and-burn.

And about that cast?  Again, these may not be heavy hitters, but -- for their time and place -- its players are not without some name recognition.  Babylon 5's Claudia Christian is in there (would like for her part to have been a bit bigger) as a kinda/sorta love/not-love interest.  Star Trek: Deep Space Nine castmembers Armin Shimerman and Marc Alaimo fill out some villainous secondary roles quite nicely.  So I'd strongly encourage Trekkies, Trekkers, and general Trek enthusiasts as well as Babylon Fivers to check the film out as it definitely has something to offer.

I had the good fortune of receiving a promotional release of the film (via a distributor) not all that long ago.  It was part of a collector's set celebrating some of the best that emerged from Empire Pictures; and, yes, that one gets a solid thumbs up from yours truly as well.  Empire didn't always lead the way in big ideas, but their releases were made with the kind of love for the filmmaking process that we don't see all that much any longer.
​

Ah, the immortal spin-off.

Sigh.

Folks, I'm not a big fan of the whole idea of spin-offs.  Don't get me wrong: I think that, generally speaking, there have been some good sidetracks that have emerged from some great intellectual properties, but they are so few and far between that I've just never quite seen the value.  If an idea is good enough to have its own cast and show, then -- well -- so be it, but often times I've seen spin-offs feel more like a watered down incarnation of the original ... then why bother?  

Such was the case on this day all the way back in 1968 when no less than the Great Bird of the Galaxy himself -- Gene Roddenberry -- gave TV audiences "Assignment: Earth," an hour of Star Trek that kinda/sorta flirted with the idea of our world being in the custody of a kinda/sorta 'timelord' watching over it and the related events from time.  (Actually, the truth is that "Assignment: Earth" started as an idea for its own series, but when that never happened it was incorporated into Trek as a possible open door to continuing Trek if the show was axed by NBC, but that's too much inside baseball for some!)  The show introduced Gary Seven (played by the late Robert Lansing) to Trek canon, and -- from what I recall -- he came from a planet that was monitoring events from history, putting things into motion to cement a particular outcome.  While the installment was interesting, I guess interest never rose to the level sufficient to take such developments a step further.

However, it's interested to note that Gary Seven has popped up in the wider Trek universe in books and comic installments ... so storytellers have seen the addition one of significant value to the point of playing with it a bit further.  Who knows?  Perhaps the current crop of creators within Paramount might consider dusting the concept off and giving it a go for Paramount+?

What could it hurt?
​

Though I find most comedies more clever than I do actually funny, I still retain a soft spot for genre comedies that actually 'get it right.'

I say that because that simple task isn't always easy to do.  A script has to have a measure of respect for whatever is being mocked or lampooned about the genre particulars, otherwise the whole shebang winds up disappointing both the core fans as well as the general audience in the process.  But there are times when the stars align and we're delivered an effort worthy of celebration, and I think 2004's Shaun Of The Dead rather deftly balances what makes zombies both funny and serious at the same time.

Granted, much of the film's charm could be chalked up to a great and effective cast, but there remains no number of Simon Peggs or Nick Frosts that can make a flawed concept into a big hit.  Edgar Wright's contributions to the script and direction pushes everything toward a cohesive whole, one that audiences embraced then and continue to celebrate to this day.  The film turns an incredible 20 years young today, and I've no doubt that it remains a favorite amongst those who've found its deadly delights in measured doses.  While I might not find it peak comedy, I think it came along at the right time and the right place -- zombie films were really just making an authentic comeback -- and, thusly, viewers embraced it for all the right reasons.

Pop in your DVD copy and give it a watch today (or stream it, if that's your thang).  I think it'll resonate just as strongly now as it did 20 years ago ... and, my friends, that's saying something.
​

Regular readers of SciFiHistory.Net know that -- despite by best efforts -- even I am not above the occasional political jab.

I do try very, very, very hard to keep politics out of these pages (seriously, folks, you have no idea how many actors and actresses I take issue with for any number of reasons); and, sadly, it ain't always easy.  That fact is owed to the reality that actors and actresses -- for whatever their reasons -- do get coopted often into speaking out on their pet causes.  While I respect everyone's right to choose and pontificate, I just don't appreciate platforms built for entertainment purposes being employed as gateways to (cough cough) social justice.  Sorry, peeps, that's just how I'm wired.  Keep your politics to yourself because -- if you want to go there -- you become as much part of the problem as you could possibly be the solution.

So ...

Happy Birthday to the lovely Lucy Lawless!

While she and I might disagree on affairs of the mind, I just thoroughly love her work in genre projects near and far.  Her Xena: Warrior Princess definitely brought a whole new contingent of fans to Fantasy, and it was neato-keen to see her as well crafting a whole new level of mythology to Syfy's recooked Battlestar Galactica.  (I wasn't as much a fan of that show as many.)  Then ... Starz Network's incredible Spartacus adaptation isn't exactly SciFi or Fantasy, but -- man oh man -- was that appointment television of what for those of us who watched it?!  Plus, she made a lovely addition to the Evil Dead TV series while that filled up the Boob Tube as well.
​

But ... is that all?

Is there nothing more?

Oh, come on, man!  You already know the answer to that!  There's not only more but there's a great deal more.  I never leave you hanging -- especially not when there's a mind-blowing 70 different genre trivia citations I've found -- and I challenge each and every one of you to head on over to the Daily Citation Page for March 29 to see for yourself just what goodness there is to genre entertainment.  Dare I say there's something for everyone ... and I hope in those words you find at least one item to tickle your fancy on this Friday.  You deserve to have your fancy tickled.
​

As always, thank you for reading ... thank you for sharing ... thank you for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!

​-- EZ

Good morning, gentle readers, and welcome to 'On This Day In Science Fiction History' for March 28, 2024.

How's your Thursday shaping up for you?

Aaaaaaah.  Mine.  Well, I had a rough night.  Not difficult, per se, just ... rough.  Have you ever had one of those nights where you just couldn't sleep?  That was mine.  I'd fall asleep for maybe about an hour at a clip; and then I'd wake up and be entirely unable to go back to slumberland for about two hours.  Happened all damn night.  Geesh.  I'm kinda dragging this morning -- I did sleep in a bit in order to try to preserve a bit of strength -- but you know how that goes.  Like I said, I'm dragging, but I give you my word that I'll make do.

Sigh.

What else have I got?

Well, I wandered into a bit of controversy overnight -- since I was up -- reading a good deal about the current state of affairs for the Star Trek franchise.  (My two cents: it's deep in the crapper, my friends, and it isn't likely to flush any time soon.)  Don't get me wrong: I'll always support anyone's right to like, say, Star Trek: Discovery, Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (which I occasionally find interesting), or Star Trek: Lower Decks ... but really?  Meh.  It just isn't Star Trek to me.  Again: if you like it?  That's all well and good.  More power to you.  I'm glad it tickles your fancy.  It's just so horribly written (from what I've seen) that I just can't get into it on any major level.  I've even tried dabbling in reviews for Strange New Worlds, but when I find myself reading some negative points after negative points over and over, I tend to pull out.  I just don't want to expend significant effort on inferior episodes, so it is VERY challenging for me.  I'll keep trying -- from time-to-time -- but don't look for much on that front any time soon.

I don't know that Gene Roddenberry would be rolling over in his grave.  The truth is Gene was a flawed person -- flawed at least as much as you and I -- but I do recall an article suggesting that as The Next Generation went further into its run he became more and more concerned with its themes and tone.  I've always thought Gene preferred stories that capitalized on 'the human experience,' but so much of what is Trek these days is closer to vanity messaging of its writing crew.  There's nothing wrong with approaching life and entertainment from the point of view of trumpeting whatever 'cause du jour' you like, but when it infects everything on screen?  Well, there's something to be said for nuance; and let's just leave it at "these writers couldn't find nuance if they fell out of a boat."
​
But again -- last time, even -- if you like it?  Fine by me.  Enjoy it until the cows come home.

Recently, there was a good deal of chitchat about Warner Bros. trying to purchase Paramount.  When that fell apart, there came a rumor about the studio suits then offering to simply purchase the Star Trek property for their own.  Yes, I watched some online blogs speculating how this could've been a grand development in the history of the franchise, but I don't know.  Someone did reach out and ask me my thoughts on it; and I pointed out that the WB hasn't exactly done great things with DC Studios, so ... ?  How am I to think they'd do any better than Paramount has done?  There was further speculation that the WB's intent was to kinda/sorta reset the Trek timeline back to what it was before JJ Abrams, Bad Robot, and Secret Hideout pretty much threw dynamite into the whole shebang; and while that might've been nice I can't what a firestorm they would've released from the LGBTQ+ crowd given that they've now claimed ownership over the Roddenberry kingdom.  It wouldn't have been pretty, and maybe things are -- cough cough -- better for the time being.

No.  I didn't think the WB was going to make that deal then, and I don't think they're going to get it done now.  I just don't see any real financial advantage to Paramount there: once the cash is paid, there's zero to be gained, and that's not typically how business moves forward.

Trek -- like Star Wars -- is largely dead, Jim.  I really don't see that changing any time soon.
​

Why ... I think it was just the other day that I was pontificating about the very best that Star Trek has had to offer in its nearly 60 years of existence.

I know, I know, I know.  Every reader knows that I avoid doing lists.  As I said then, I'll repeat it now: there's culturally very little gained from such an exercise.  It's completely arbitrary, and -- while some might think they're founded on logic -- I just don't see it that way.  What I do champion are installments of any television show that deserve a bit of extra attention -- ones that demonstrate what I personally believe it good storytelling -- and that's why I'm mentioning Star Trek: The Next Generation's 1992 outing, "The First Duty."  It premiered (in TV syndication) on this day back then.

Though I'm also on record stating that the character of Wesley Crusher is one of the least interesting creations in all of Trek, that doesn't mean writers didn't occasionally make solid use of him; and I think "The First Duty" qualifies here.  The premise is that a group of cadets exercised their own judgment in a Starfleet Academy celebration that, unfortunately, resulted in the death of one of their own.  The script goes back and forth with whether or not those involved are willing to acknowledge their own failures in the mishap or if they'll cover it all up when given the chance.  Naturally -- since Crusher was enrolled at the Academy at the time and was part of the incident -- the former shipmate gets a lot of screen time in the episode.

Unlike some adventures of The Next Generation, this one largely functions much like classic Trek in that it presents a dilemma that a closeknit group must come to terms with.  Of course, not everyone agrees with the final solution; but that's the stuff of good television drama.  This is a terrific hour of entertainment -- one that boasts solid performances within the context of the morality play -- and kudos to all involved for pulling it off.
​

Wow.  The truth of the matter for me is that I honestly don't think Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds -- which first released on this day all the way back in 1963 -- is a great film.  Mind you: I think it's a great Horror film, but as for the story?  Meh.  It's kinda/sorta middling.  I prefer stories that definitively provide answers -- not suggestions or possible theories -- as I don't like to have to come up with conclusions all of my own.  With its ending as is, I think viewers are encouraged to kinda/sorta "fill in the blanks" all on their own, and I'm just not a fan of that.

I've read commentary from other sites and critics that suggest it's the director's best film; and -- gasp -- I certainly wouldn't agree with that.  Yes, I think it's probably one of his most relatable and most effective crowd-pleasing features, but that doesn't necessarily make it a favorite much less better than Hitchcock's other works.  But because it's well-made and functions like a great carnival attraction (once it gets in gear), The Birds benefits from that audience goodwill over the years, so I'm comfy leaving the topic at that.  Plus, I think it made me fall in love with Tippi Hedren -- one of the screen's loveliest faces, so far as I'm concerned -- so that's a plus.
​

But ... did you see that headline?  66 genre trivia citations?  I mean ... 66 GENRE TRIVIA CITATIONS!  Wow.  That gives you plenty to consider as you head on over to the Daily Citation Page for March 28 and check out the good and gory details for your own pleasure.
​

As always, thank you for reading ... thank you for sharing ... thank you for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!

​-- EZ

Good morning, gentle readers, and welcome to 'On This Day In Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror History' for March 27, 2024!

Hey, kiddies ... it's ... HUMP DAY!

Whoop!  Whoop!  Whoop!

I know, I know, I know.  I'm so immature.  But that's why you come here each and every day, isn't it?  To celebrate a bit of the unrefined?  I'd like to think so.  It's a minor celebration, to be sure, but I'd still argue that it's the kind of thing each of us needs a wee bit of in our lives.  So even if you think me juvenile I do hope you can appreciate what it is I'm trying to accomplish in this space.  I do it as much for each of you as I do it for myself.

But ... how is your Hump Day shaping up?  Mine is pretty standard so far.  I got up.  Puttered a bit reading the news.  (Shame about that bridge thing in Maryland.)  Fed the cats.  Went to the club.  Sweated (a lot).  Had to stop on the way back to pick up some toothpaste.  Now here I am, looking at the Daily Citation Page for March 27th and figuring out what specifics to spotlight in the space below.  Let's hope I choose some good ones, right?
​

As I constantly point out, I don't read nearly as much these days as I used to.  What can I say?  Life turns busy, and each of us has to make sacrifices in order to stay focused on what's truly important.  But that won't stop me from saying 'Happy Birthday' to author Kevin J. Anderson (official website here) on this day.

For those of you who've never heard his name ... where've you been?  I realize not each and every author out there is each and every one of our favorites, but Anderson has been in the marketplace of ideas for years; and he's definitely had his hand in more than a few franchises that are near and dear to all of us in fandom.  Some of his wares have even been adapted in the graphic novel arena, and -- while perhaps his name might've escaped you -- I'm thinking his stuff has touched a great deal of my readership.  From Star Wars to Star Trek to Dune as well as his own original projects, Anderson has done it all; and he remains a force to be reckoned with in literature.

In fact, I think it was just the other day that -- on the Twittersphere -- I was involved in a Tweetstorm about Star Wars books, and Anderson's name came up more than a few times.  Someone suggested that his Jedi Academy Trilogy was an even more entertaining read than the original Thrawn books (I disagree, but I still loved the Jedi Academy stuff); so it goes without saying that his works are a bit legendary amongst those who've discovered and appreciated them.

If you're in the market for a new read, then you just might find something via his website.  You're highly encouraged to check it out.
​

Over the years, I've taken a lot of heat from readers over my personal preferences in the worlds of the Fantastic; and, yes, such heat extends to my love of the kinder, gentler times of genre television when the likes of something as plain as Buck Rogers In The 25th Century could serve up a little 'good vs. evil' stimulation.  No, no, and no: I'd never argue that this was anywhere near peak entertainment, but it was still wholesome fun ... the kind we just don't see that often any more.  That's sad to me; and as you folks get a bit older maybe you'll come to understand why.

In any event ... speaking of Buck ... it was on this day all the way back in 1980 when that singular first season came to its finale with the airing of its episode, "Flight Of The War Witch."  The story from David Chomsky was ultimately scripted for the small screen by Rob Gilmer and Bruce Lansbury; and the premise saw a brutal ruler from a different universe threatening the fabric of our own galaxy, requiring Buck to join forces with one of his biggest adversaries in a bid to deliver a smackdown in favor of universal peace.

See what I mean?  You just don't get tales like this any more!

The big two-parter even brought in the great Julie Newmar to sink her teeth into the role of Zarina -- the War Witch of the title -- and, yes, she made for a great villainess, decked out even in sparkles as she was.  Even Vera Miles and the late Sid Haig showed up in supporting roles, and that's what I mean when I say I'm forever thankful for small miracles.  Great guest stars made shows like Buck Rogers as much what they were; and you don't see that (as well) on the Boob Tube of today.  Sad how we've culturally lost our way, no?
​

But ... is there more?

C'mon, man!  You know me better than that!  There's not only more but there's a lot more!  There's a mind-blowing 76 different genre trivia citations just awaiting your very own deep dive -- including a few celebrity birthdays that make following fandom the experience that it is for so, so, so many of us.  Just head on over to the below link, and that's where the magic happens ...
​

As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!

​-- EZ

Occasionally, I have to remind regular readers -- and new ones, too -- that no, I haven't seen all of the projects I list on SciFiHistory.Net.  Though I'm very comfortable pointing out that I'm kinda/sorta long in the tooth (meaning "old"), I certainly haven't lived long enough to take in everything that's ever been conceived and released to the masses-at-large.  I will say that -- in the late 1980's -- I watched an incredible number of titles on home video; but, frankly, I couldn't even begin to tell you some of the schlock I've endured because -- as can happen with memory -- a good deal of it is just all a blur.

That said, I'd still contend that I don't recall seeing Hands Of Steel.  It first premiered (in France) on this day back in 1986; and -- from what little I've seen of it online -- it kinda/sorta has the makings of a foreign knock-off of a popular American I.P. (i.e. James Cameron's The Terminator).  Is it?  Well, I couldn't say because I've seen so little of it; but between some footage, photographs, and packaging materials it definitely has that Terminator vibe.

Written (in part) and directed for the screen by Sergio Martino (who has made quite a bit of schlock), the Science Fiction/ Fantasy starred Daniel Greene, genre regular John Saxon, Janet Agren, George Eastman, and Claudio Cassinelli.  Though I'm not seeing any awards citations to pass along, I can give you the plot summary as provided by our friends at IMDB.com:

"A cyborg is programmed to kill a scientist who holds the fate of mankind in his hands. He fails and hides in a diner in a desert run by a woman who likes him. The people who sent him are after him and so is the local arm wrestling champ."

​Having done a quite bit of research over at Amazon.com, it's kinda/sorta unclear if this one has had a relatively recent U.S. release on home video.  I am seeing some that suggest they were foreign issues but might be region-free in case there are some interested in checking this one out.  I'm not seeing it available for streaming anywhere, and that doesn't bode well.

​-- EZ

Good morning, gentle readers, and welcome to 'On This Day In Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror History' for Tuesday, March 26, 2024.

How's your Tuesday shaping up for you?

Mine is ... okay.  I puttered a bit in the morning, and then I managed to squeeze in a workout at the health club.  Mostly weights, though I do work in a good deal of stretching because, frankly, it's really needed for my ripe old age.  Hopefully, I won't be too sore later today, but we all know how that goes.  No pain, no gain ... so bring the pain, body.  Bring the pain.

Otherwise, not a whole lot of casual information to report for the day.  Yes, I put up a commentary yesterday regarding the present state of affairs as it applies to the wider entertainment industry, the short skinny of which boils down to "It's dead, Jim."  Honestly, I'm not sure it can get any deader, but methinks we're likely to see things circling the drain with respect to how the cineplexes fare as this year goes along.  You can't keep making films that no one is interested in watching, and then go on some kinda of personal rampage about "Why isn't Hollywood making money?"  That's just not how a successful economy works, and apparently the powers that be just don't much seem to care.  They keep on chugging and chugging and chugging despite the fact that their pictures don't perform, and it's well past time that such mediocrity delivered them to such lowly, lowly straits.

Whuuuuut?!?!  You missed my commentary?  Well, here's a complimentary link:

When Words Attack: The End Of Entertainment As We Know It

Please, please, please: check it out.  I don't sound off on things like this all that often, and I could use both the feedback and the shares.  Much appreciated.
​

Longtime SciFiHistory.Net readers know full well that I don't make 'lists.'  They're arbitrary, frankly, and I don't think they mean all that much when all is said and done.  What I think?  Well, that's likely going to vary widely from what you think, so lists tend to divide folks more than it unites them.  I know, I know: I could be wrong -- I'm wrong plenty -- but that's my two cents.

However, I will say that I've always maintained that there are some intellectual properties that have both stood the test of time and have rightfully earned a place to get a bit of extra attention ... and one of the very biggest and best Science Fiction and Fantasy franchises ever first premiered on NBC on this day all the way back in 1989.  That was the fateful day when Dr. Sam Beckett first stepped into the quantum accelerator and vanished into the past, forcing his pal Al to travel back via holographic technology to try to bring his compatriot back ... or else.  In their journeys, they put things right that once went wrong, all with the hope that their efforts would somehow bring things into temporal unison and deliver Sam back into the proper timeline ... yet, alas, it just wasn't meant to be.

Like so many, I'm hugely disappointed that the new iteration of Quantum Leap -- not so much a reboot as it is a thematic continuation, though mightily flawed -- has essentially ignored Sam, leaving him stranded wherever he is in the universe when it could've and should've brought this singular journey to its end.  Instead, we're pretty much tagging along with another mission entirely, though this new version does follow a good deal of the original's formula but to limited to success.

Happy Birthday / Happy Anniversary, Quantum Leap!  You look fabulous at a young 35 years young ... oh boy!
​

When it comes to my favorite characters from all of Science Fiction and Fantasy, I rarely -- RARELY -- mince words.  As I said in a column yesterday, characters mean things to those who find them; and it's extremely difficult to put it into terms that either we can all agree upon or fully appreciate.  These fictional creations become our best friends, showing us the good, the bad, and the ugly of an existence and teaching us perhaps how to get through our own trials better.  This isn't so much 'hero worship' as some psychologists might call it; I prefer to see it simply giving each of us a glimpse at what might be a better way to living one's life.

This brings us to Spock.

​Half-human and half-Vulcan, Spock was a creation who struggled with his identity in ways that both evoked a measure of sympathy from audiences as well as showed them a layer of nobility in the way he dealt with such controversy.  Though originally hated by NBC executives who saw his presentation as a bit -- erm -- devil-like (those ears! those ears!), Spock persevered because creator Gene Roddenberry refused to quash a singular member of the Enterprise crew as brought to life by celebrated actor Leonard Nimoy.

Along with Kirk and McCoy, Spock represented the very best in humanity, despite the fact that he was only half so; and the lion's share of that credit rests squarely on Nimoy's shoulders.  He took that role to heart, imbued it with the kind of nuance rarely seen in network television, and winded up making history for his efforts.

Though he's no longer with us, Nimoy was born on this day back in 1931.
​

Not all that long back, I remember seeing a snippet of an interview with James Caan.

Honestly, I don't recall where he was, but it was one of those sessions where the aging talent was having a sitdown with a host for the purpose of reflecting on a storied career.  After the host was finished with the prewritten questions, he opened it up to the floor, and the audience was given the chance to chitchat -- albeit briefly -- with Caan regarding his work, his process, and the past.  Well, a bit late in the affair, someone stood up and wanted to query the man on his thoughts regarding 1988's Alien Nation, a Science Fiction/Fantasy flick that wasn't so much a huge box office a hit -- perhaps a sleeper, at best -- but one strong enough to get a TV iteration that fleshed out some wider mythology.

Well ...

It was kinda/sorta clear from Caan's response that he thought the project a bit -- erm -- well, let's just call it a bit of an embarassment.  He really didn't want to talk about, and he even kinda/sorta softly pushed back on the viewer, suggesting that talking about such a project at an affair of this style wouldn't be appropriate for the forum.

So ...

I'm guessing Caan didn't think much of the production, and that's a shame, yes.  It's charming, and it's definitely relatable, especially for genre fans.  Thankfully, the actor has something else in Science Fiction -- an award-winning lead performance from 1975's Rollerball -- that allows us to celebrate his contributions.

Though he's no longer with us, Caan was born on this day in 1940.
​

Of course, there's more ... and with a solid 53 different genre trivia citations there's something there for everyone.  Here's the link, for those of you paying attention:
​

As always, thank you for reading ... thank you for sharing ... thank you for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!

​-- EZ

It's weird, folks.  Very weird.

In fact, I thought I'd penned a review of Shazam! (2019) -- which, incidentally, first premiered on this day back in 2019 in the Netherlands -- for readers of SciFiHistory.Net.  I just did a search this morning, and I see my review of the sequel ... but I'm not finding my thoughts on the original.  Perhaps I didn't do a full review, and I just posted some random thoughts (which I do from time-to-time with big screen theatrical releases if I see them during their original run) ... but whatever the case I don't have anything to refer you to from this space.  Doggone.

In any event, yes, I did see this one in theaters; and I do recall being particularly smitten with it.  If I recall correctly, I had some issues with the finale -- it turned into a largely CGI-driven super-festival, and I'm not a huge fan of that development, especially in superhero movies -- but, all-in-all, it was one of those rare occasions when DC actually got its act together and did something fun for the silver screen.  Yes, it's a shame that the sequel pretty much crashed and burned -- fatigue? too much of the same? -- but stranger things have happened in the world of entertainment that I can't explain.  Frankly, I do think bringing in another big name to share in the spotlight alongside Shazam might've been a better way to go -- I know there were rumors that such a development was on-track for a third flick if producers go around to a trilogy -- but that just wasn't in the cards, my friends.

Still ... as first pictures go, Shazam was great, theatrical fun, made with a lot of heart and a great sense of humor.

Here's the plot summary as provided by IMDB.com:

"A newly fostered young boy in search of his mother instead finds unexpected super powers and soon gains a powerful enemy."

Happy Anniversary / Happy Birthday to one of the better DC films to come along in decades.  Shazam, you deserved better than you got.

​-- EZ

Folks, good movies come and go.

What with there truly only being -- what? -- seven original stories in all of mankind, then it kinda/sorta goes without saying that we're going to endure an awful lot of good, bad, and ugly flicks over the course of our years in a single lifetime.

Now ... I'm not saying that 2003's The Core is any masterpiece, and I'm certainly not saying it's a piece of cinematic stinkery the likes of which we'll never see again.  That assessment I do try to leave up to each of you to decide all on your own: I merely sound off with my opinion from time-to-time because I think that's important for me to keep my street cred.

So ... that said ... I've seen The Core ... and I, frankly, don't much remember it.

It's the kind of sugary concoction that came in two ears and two eyes and went nowhere, really.  No big performances.  No grand ideas.  No stunning visual effects.  A great deal of middling, from what I can honestly recall.

Still, what I do in this space is try to meagerly honor that which came before; and that's about all I'm willing to mention about The Core.  According to the details provided by our friends at IMDB.com, the production enjoyed its big screen theatrical debut on this day all the way back in 2003.  It was directed by Jon Amiel; and it starred the likes of Aaron Eckhart, Stanley Tucci, Hilary Swank, Delroy Lindo, and Bruce Greenwood.

Here's the premise that's provided by IMDB.com:

"The Earth's core has stopped spinning. Disasters are happening around the globe, including; animals acting in bizarre ways, monstrous thunderstorms. Dr. Josh Keyes and his crew of 5 go down to the centre to set off a nuclear device, hoping to make the core start spinning again, or humanity will cease."

If that sounds like it might tickle your particular fancy, then feel free to sound off.  As I'm not much remembering it -- other than the fact that I believe it was heavily advertised as a Hilary Swank picture -- I'm just leaving it in this space for you to celebrate.

Happy Anniversary (Happy Birthday), The Core!  May we continue to see your likes forever!

​-- EZ

Good morning, gentle readers, and welcome to On This Day In Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror History for March 25, 2024!

How was everyone's weekend?

I know, I know, I know.  It's Monday, and nobody really wants to talk about the weekend any longer because it's over.  You just want to crawl back in bed for a few more minutes instead of buckling back down to what we have to do during the week to make the weekends possible.  I'm sorry to each and every one of you for bringing it up, but it's kinda/sorta what I do every Monday, my friends.  I give you a recap, and then I do try to set the stage for what's up'n'coming in our collective existence.  It's the only way I know how to do what I do in this space, and I'm sorry if it's a slog in any measure for any of you.

So ... welcome back, whatever the case!

Quiet weekend for yours truly.  Very quiet.  The wifey had a few events she had to attend to all of her own, which left me with some open time on the schedule to putter, mostly.  I did manage to squeeze in a few classic films that I had stored up on my DVR -- I'll likely pen a review on one or the other, not entirely sure which just yet -- and some relaxation.  I also listened to a few podcasts for good measure, something I just don't do as much as I probably should.  But I'm back into the business of looking at the week this morning, and I thought I'd pop by with a few items worthy of note for us to champion.
​

Ay, carumba ...

Sometimes, you have to take the bad with the good, and -- for what it's worth -- one of Star Trek's all-time worst outings ever aired on this day all the way back in 1989 when a Season Two adventure better known as "The Royale" came to (cough cough) life.

This was one of those stories that honestly felt like it never quite had a chance with resonating, only because it was such a huge, huge, huge throwback to a time when Science Fiction and Fantasy was endlessly simplistic.  The script from Tracy Torme saw Riker, Data, and Worf beaming down to the surface of a planet ... well ... we thought they were beaming down to the surface of a planet, anyway.  In reality, what they were doing was beaming into a recreation of a very bad pulp novel; and they were trapped there basically while the events of the bad book have to play out so that they can leave.

I mean ... ouch.

Back in the days when Syfy was the SciFi Channel, they'd occasionally do these Star Trek TNG marathons of best and worst episodes, and The Royale almost always came in as one of the all-time low points in the Next Generation's history.  "There are stinkers, and then there's The Royale" is what I'd always say about the hour.  I think I've even read somewhere's that its writer -- Torme -- had completely disowned the installment ... and that's not a bad idea.

Why celebrate it?

Well, we don't often get chapters this obviously bad, and that's saying something.  Know where the low bar is, folks, so that way we never ever get close to it again.
​

There are a good number of readers who show up to the Daily Citation Pages solely to learn about obscure movies that have kinda/sorta been lost to history; and I occasionally get a charge out of highlighting a few of these for much the same reason.

That said, 1982's Turkey Shoot is a Dystopian/Thriller that comes up a good deal in my research into similar properties.  It's a flick I've yet to see -- a fairly recent DVD release is still a bit pricey for this semi-retired blogger -- but hopefully I'll have a chance to dive into its dark goodness one day so that I can speak more intelligently about it.  While I'll admit I've never read anything overly fond of the production, it still falls into a subject matter that interests me personally, so I do hope to see it.

Here's the film's plot summary as provided by IMDB.com:

"In a dystopian future where deviants are held in "re-education" camps, a freedom fighter and an innocent prisoner try to survive their decadent oppressors' game of kill-or-be-killed."

I want to say that, at one time, I'd read something about the film that suggested it was all actually based on a novel of some name that escapes me right now, but a quick look over at IMDB.com and Wikipedia.org doesn't support any such claim.  In fact, most mentions in those spaces about the film and its subject matter suggest this one is a bit undercooked with poor performances ... but, hey, who doesn't like a good 'kill 'em if you got 'em' thriller every now and then to cleanse the palate?

I could sure use one right about now!
​

Of course, there's more -- a good deal more -- and this is the point wherein I encourage you to head on over to the Daily Citation Page for March 25 to check it all out.  Do your own study.  Make up your own mind about what's worth celebrating.  This is why I bring you to this place -- so that you can now 'build your own adventure' -- and make something of it.  Here's the link:
​

As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!

​-- EZ

When 2012’s Skyfall first played theatrically, I was there with my butt in the seat, and – in all honesty – I didn’t much care for it.
 
I know, I know, I know: “why, it’s quintessential Bond – as are all the Daniel Craig flicks, right – so how could you possibly not love it?”
 
Characters matter.  They always have, and they always will.
 
When storytellers tinker with characters, they run the risk of corroding the foundation that made these creations “quintessential” in the beginning.  If not contextually corrected at some point in the course of the film or the franchise, then producers run the risk of not only alienating their core audience but also morphing the series into something it was perhaps never designed to be.  With the great Ian Fleming long gone, there’s no way for us to know with any degree of certainty whether or not he’d be smitten with the latest and (cough cough) greatest iteration; but – as I often do – I’m going on record to suggest that those claiming to be ‘in the know’ really haven’t a clue what they’re talking about.
 
How can I say that?  How can I suggest those studio executives paying themselves millions upon millions of dollars to (cough cough) twerk archetypal heroes and heroines into all-new thematic directions – imbuing them with contemporary social justice ideas, rainbow-colors, and pronoun choices – could possibly know better than you or I?
 
Well, for starters, they’re paying themselves up front for their efforts, as I said, which means that they’re not willing to let their transformations stand for themselves, build an audience, and reap the appropriately earned rewards as did so many who came before.  Gone are the days when a George Lucas, a Steven Spielberg, a Gene Roddenberry, a David Lynch, a Martin Scorsese, a Rockne O’Bannon, or even a Charles Band emerged on the landscape and tried to do something authentically original; and in is the era of those who’d shamelessly steal Lucas’s, Spielberg’s, Roddenberry’s, Lynch’s, Scorsese’s, O’Bannon’s, or Band’s intellectual properties, deconstruct what made originally them tick, and realign the mechanisms to suit whatever ‘cause du jour’ needs some celebrity attention today.  Ratings are out, and award wins are in.  Profits are so ‘last century’ when you can, instead, be liked and retweeted by the Kardashian Generation.  Why get inducted into the National Film Registry when there’s instead an opening to sit in the first segment on Jimmy Kimmel Live?  Why earn anything when not even getting ratioed gives the powers that be a cause to rethink a bad strategy?
 
In an era when crowdfunding has seen an emergence of new authors and auteurs willing to risk their own reputations and the capital they might earn, studios remain committed to the Jurassic age, shelling out buckets and buckets and buckets of cash for cinematic stinkery the likes of which used to be relegated to bargain bin straight-to-home-video trash or the bottom shelf space at the corner Blockbuster Video.  In the final analysis, is there really all that much difference between 1989’s Cannibal Women In The Avocado Jungle Of Death and, say, 2023’s Indiana Jones And The Dial Of Destiny?  Both feel, look, and sound like flatulence captured on film, probably earning the same number of fans, so …?  I’m at a loss to see the difference any longer, nor is it worth pondering.
 
How, oh how, does any of this apply to Skyfall, you ask?
 
Indeed, Skyfall was an immensely successful film; and I’m not bringing any of this up to even suggest it or any of its companion pieces aren’t worth your time and effort.  So far as I care, the Craig series had its respective highs and lows, what with the actor playing the globe-trotting spy more like a petulant child who’d (finally) (and thankfully) grown into a fully-realized man by the last one; and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that … well, except for the fact that the films never felt like Bond movies in the eyes of this reviewer.  Instead, they were more like bloated Bourne adventures, where international intrigue really played second fiddle to Bond’s personal issues always getting in the way so that he could find his way around them to, ultimately, do what’s right for Queen and Country in the last reel.  He’d rise to the occasion in spite of his differences … and, sigh, that’s just not Bond in my book.
 
Bond – much like Captain James T. Kirk or Indiana Jones or Buck Roger or Flash Gordon or Luke Skywalker or any other prototypical hero that emerged onscreen before Hollywood sank its hooks into social justice – served a master, and that master usually took the shape of an organization that – at its core – was dedicated to making the world-at-large a better place for everyone.  Starfleet?  Yeah, Kirk broke a rule here and there, but Starfleet represented the very brightest and the very best that was available in the galaxy.  Same thing with the Rebel Alliance, which took a stand against the evil Galactic Empire.  Back in the Bond pictures of my youth, 007 was saving the planet for everyone and not just doing the right thing for the highly-personal goal of allowing his wife and daughter to live out their days unmolested.
 
So … at the beginning of Skyfall, Craig-Bond essentially quits his job because M had to make an uncomfortable decision – one tied to the stability of global alliances – and the agent thought he knew better.  Take note: Bond turned his back on his duty … the very essence for which he was created.  And, yes, he instead whiles away his time rather petulantly indulging in male fantasies that, quite frankly, Sean Connery and Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan were man enough to do ‘on the clock.’  That was their collective ‘screw you’ to the establishment: “you want me to risk my life, then I’m achieving this orgasm as a perk of the job.”  Yes, he eventually comes to his senses when duty calls, but gone are the days when selfless individuals committed themselves to selfless acts all because civilization and honor and duty expected it of them and that was the purpose of their existence.
 
Instead, modern audiences were given a ‘hero’ who’s happy to be one when it suits his schedule, not ours.
 
Take a look at the present condition of what used to be major motion entertainment series worth following.

• When did audiences last cheer for Marvel heroes to save the day?  Instead, box office returns suggest that these days will remain dark, indeed.
• When did viewers last clamor for a galaxy far, far away?  The Force is no longer strong with these ones; and, instead, The Acolyte’s showrunner Leslye Headland wants Jedis to get into the business of informing mankind about her lesbian upbringing.
• When was the human adventure of going boldly where no one had gone before worth taking?  Last I looked, Captain Pike and his learned crew were all dancing and singing, and Captain Burnham wanted to cry over just about everything.

 
Not one but all of these franchises – once powerful juggernauts thought too big to fail – have been inundated by brokers more interested in representation, deconstruction, and emasculation than they are theatrical celebration.  We’re all heroes, you know; and when we’re all heroes then no one is truly heroic any longer.  We don’t serve organizations with noble goals; and – instead – we’ve become a collective of narcissists all driven by our (cough cough) individual truths.  When everyone gets a trophy, then no one performs at the level of true distinctiveness; and we’ve sadly let such a flawed and fatal philosophy propagate into that magical space that once produced heroes worth our time, attention, study, and emulation.
 
Indeed, the sky has fallen … and – in its current state – it not only can’t get back up but, likely, never will.

​-- EZ