Hollywood Badass of the Day -- Michael Biehn

This guy has been a total BAMF in every film I've ever seen him in. Even when he's a bad guy. So here's to this veteran of James Cameron sci-fi, this quick-drawing mean-spirited sonofabitch, that one guy who was in that Command & Conquer game that one time... Michael Biehn. Here's three of my favorite roles he's played.

Kyle Reese, The Terminator

So here's a guy who, after spending most of his life scrabbling through the nuclear wasteland of what used to be Los Angeles, decides "Hey, I'm gonna test pilot this brand-spanking-new time travel equipment we jacked from SkyNet." Nevermind that he had no way of knowing whether it worked or if he wasn't going to be splattered into a million pieces all over the time-space continuum. He did it anyway. Then, using "stone knives and bearskins" (Spock's assessment of 20th century technology) he fends off a T800, escapes from the LAPD, and procreates the savior of humanity with Sarah Connor all in one day (er, that last one without the stone knives and bearskins, I think).

Also, near the end of the film, he goes melee with the Terminator using only a steel pipe, saying, "Come on, motherfucker." Whatever else you say about him, the guy's got balls.

Key quote: "Come with me if you want to live."

Corporal Dwayne Hicks, Aliens

Yeah, he might mostly be the same character as Kyle Reese, but he's still a badass, and he survives the constant shit-hitting-the-fan that is the movie Aliens. Only two other humans and half an android managed that. Hicks makes it through because he keeps his cool. When Hudson's all like "Game over man! Game over!" Hicks is like "...Are you finished?" And then when they find out Burke was going to murder them on the way home, he's like "All right, we waste him. No offense."

Key quote: [pulls out his pump-action shotgun] "I like to keep this handy. For close encounters."

Johnny Ringo, Tombstone

Only Biehn and Val Kilmer can master this mustache and not look totally ridiculous. Hell, Biehn even manages to look genuinely mean in it. He has this tense, brooding presence throughout the film that always provides the bite to Curly Bill's bark. He's a stone-cold killer who jokes about death and displays zero remorse for any of his rather shocking actions.

Key quote: As Wyatt and Virgil Earp drive their brother's casket to the cemetery, Ringo mutters, "You smell that, Bill? Smells like someone died."

He's also starred as Michael McNeil in Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun alongside James Earl Jones, and apparently it's rumored that he might show up in 2011's film version of Kane and Lynch. Food for thought, people. In the meantime, go watch one of these movies.

Deathmatch -- Aliens vs. The Terminator

Deathmatch #2 here at Sure as Shiretalk has come around, and this time we're featuring a pair of sci-fi favorites in contrast to last time's fantasy characters. This one came up between my roommates and I after I purchased the first three Alien films recently. So, here it is: Aliens vs. The Terminator. Let's meet the combatants.

Disclaimer: I have not read, nor do I intend to read, the comic titled "Aliens versus Predator versus The Terminator."

Cyberdyne Systems Model 101, The Terminator

"That Terminator is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop. Ever. Until you are dead."

Thus spake Sgt. Kyle Reese to Sarah Connor concerning her pursuer in 1984's The Terminator. The T800 is a highly intelligent sentient computer system housed inside a humanoid titanium alloy combat chassis. Virtually invulnerable to projectile weapons, this model Terminator basically needs to be decapitated before you can be sure it's done for -- or you at least need to make sure you smash that computer chip in its head.

Also, the Arnold version wears shades, rides a Harley, and wields a shotgun one-handed.

The Xenomorph, Alien

"You still don't understand what you're dealing with, do you? The perfect organism. Its structural perfection is matched only by its hostility... A survivor, unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality."

Ash was certainly right about that in 1979's Alien. An organism that can survive intense heat, cold, and the vacuum of space without showing any signs of discomfort is certainly more structurally perfect than most. Nevermind that it has molecular acid (<-- not real, btw) for blood, which can apparently eat through basically any substance in moments (but takes considerably longer with Michael Biehn's skin... what a badass). They're also great predators, meaning they're stealthy, strong, and quite a bit smarter than your average bear.

Well, let's assume a couple of things: the Terminator is armed, and there are multiple Aliens. I hope we can all agree that, should the Terminator gain a vantage point from which he is more or less inaccessible, he wins by pumping them all full of hot lead. The Aliens are apparently vulnerable to normal gunfire, and a few good shots generally takes them out, acid blood a-splashing every-goddamn-where. Up close and personal might be a different story, though.

Given that the Terminator is made of titanium, I'm going to go ahead and say that skull-bashing thing from the Aliens' jaws-inside-the-jaws is just going to break some teeth. They also probably won't be able to do a lot of damage with their claws or that spiky tail, again because Terminators are pretty much solid as a rock.

However, in order to kill any of them, the Terminator is probably going to have to start breaking some skin, and that could lead to some serious battle damage. Like, Arnold-at-the-end-of-T2 battle damage. If he gets mobbed, the Aliens might be able to use their combined strength to just yank him apart, which would of course render him immobile and therefore defeated. Whatever the case, it would be an epic battle worthy of multiple Aliens versus The Terminator films regardless of how increasingly bad they might get.

So, Terminator wins, but with ever-decreasing odds the more Alien blood he spills. Sorry, Aliens, but you're just not quite as perfect against inorganic opponents. [insert xenomorph sadface here]

Btw, I love this picture, and I want to see the movie right now:

Science Fiction -- A Discussion of Defintion

It has frequently been brought to my attention in the past few months or so that our society at large is disturbingly unclear on what constitutes the genre of science fiction. For serious, people, this has got to stop.

There is no single way of saying it that highlights all of the aspects of the genre, but one thing I am certainly tired of is people assuming something is science fiction just because it involves spaceships or laser guns. A look over Wikipedia's article will tell you sci-fi is "realistic speculation about possible future events, based solidly on adequate knowledge of the real world, past and present, and on a thorough understanding of the nature and significance of the scientific method." That's a pretty good starting place regarding setting, but it's also extremely vague, and it doesn't really touch on what kind of themes we should be looking for, either.

I would complicate the above quote by adding the following: "Science fiction seeks to discuss the portent for humanity of these possible future events, including but not limited to the consideration of ethics, morality, longevity/survivability of the species/our native planet, and the implications thereof for modern humanity. The genre frequently chooses to remain morally ambivalent about said considerations; on the other hand, it also frequently uses the depiction of possible futures to warn or admonish the audiences of today."

In order to demonstrate the definition that I've laid out thus far, I think a comparison of two well-known and well-loved films is called for. One is a near-perfect example of science fiction at its best, and the other (while a great film in its own right) is often mistakenly judged as part of this genre.

In my experience, The Terminator (1984) is regarded either very well or very poorly (in the same categories respectively, you generally find people who have seen it and people who haven't). Judgments of quality notwithstanding (I happen to love this movie), it is a prime example of many different plot devices and themes often employed by the genre -- namely, time travel, artificial intelligence, nuclear holocaust, and the human ambitions that bring these situations about. The film elicits sympathy for Sarah Connor and Kyle Reese as they suffer the results of actions entirely beyond their control.

Two aspects of this movie in particular strike me as exhibiting the qualities of science fiction: it spends considerable time and effort on Sarah and Kyle's psychological reactions to their situation, and it wisely restrains itself from depicting the Terminator as "evil"; rather, it is a persistent, unfeeling antagonist that forces the intense humanity of Sarah and Kyle's interactions with each other into closer focus. As a result, the film is first and foremost a tense, frantic flight from our own realized fears, asking the audience to recognize its various story elements (nuclear weapons, AI, etc.) as valid concerns for the near future.

In short: The Terminator is thoughtful and realistic (within imaginative limits), a gripping account of how humanity's own ingenuity can have unforeseen consequences. This fits pretty much perfectly into the definition listed above.

In comparison, the movie frequently named the best science fiction film of all time is not, in fact, science fiction. 1977's Star Wars may feature such things as space travel, alien species and swords made of pure energy, but this is (in most cases) where its similarity to sci-fi ends. Whereas a primary goal of films like The Terminator is to consider how humanity deals with the unexpected or the unknown, Star Wars simply assumes the existence of said elements and then fails to comment on them in any way. By "fails" I only mean to say that the film simply does not address the societal or cultural effects of the sci-fi story elements it employs.

Star Wars places far more emphasis specifically on morality and conflict themselves rather than the issues that inform and cause them. This may seem like a relatively negligible difference, and yes, some titles blur the line in really cool ways, but consider this: What would Star Wars be without the intense division between good and evil? It is those two forces that shape the film's plot and create the galaxy-spanning civil war that culminates in Return of the Jedi. I would argue that one of the reasons we enjoy Han Solo so much is that we're able to see and identify with his progression from selfish mercenary to swashbuckling hero -- but how much would we like him if he had ended up on the other side? (Think about how you feel when Lando Calrissian cooperates with Vader.)

The myriad alien races, the dogfights in space, and the advanced technology of all kinds add an exoticism to the film that enhances its appeal and originality, but in its thematic focus, Star Wars is far more similar to The Lord of the Rings than other sci-fi titles involving space travel, such as 2001: A Space Odyssey or Battlestar Galactica. Star Wars is a morality play that emphasizes the dichotomy between good and evil as the defining conflict in the very fabric of the universe. Space fantasy, if you will. Science fiction (at its most interesting, in my opinion) tries to avoid such sweeping statements in favor of complexity of character and ambiguity regarding difficult and often undesirable situations.

None of this is to say, however, that certain titles do not significantly blur the lines between sci-fi and many other genres -- some of my favorites being Firefly, Serenity, and Back to the Future. On the contrary, it becomes easier to identify these blendings of genre when we have a clear notion of what we're talking about when we say "sci-fi" or "fantasy."

So, next time you hear someone say that Star Wars is the greatest sci-fi movie of all time, tell them they're wrong.