The Evolution of Movie Aliens

After watching the billionth-and-a-half movie about aliens, I've started to notice a sort of weird evolution in terms of how aliens in movies are represented. What do I mean? Look back at the aliens in Independence Day, The Day the Earth Stood Still, and (if you want to go back really far) the book of War of the Worlds. Those aliens were alien aliens, so unusual their morality, technology, and occasionally physiology. They were nigh-unstoppable, hellbent on eradicating or, more rarely, saving the Earth, and their technology was unthinkable in terms of modern science. Now look at aliens nowadays, such as in The Avengers, Transformers, Battleship, or Cowboys and Aliens. Especially look at their technology. They don't have ray guns or flying saucers, instead they have missile launchers or other practical weaponry, and ships that are highly-functional and maybe even probable in terms of science. In other words, they're no longer aliens, but more-advanced humans.

Why is this? What caused our view of aliens to change? Stick a standard UFO or a little green man in a modern movie and it'd look ridiculous. Give them alien ideologies or moralities and it'd seem out of place and might even break the suspension of disbelief, even if aliens themselves somehow didn't. Now every alien has to have a reason to invade the Earth that we can actually comprehend. Now their technology has to look like it could be ours in a few hundred years, rather than being so unusual or physics-defying that we can't ever hope to make something like it. But again, why is this?

Perhaps it is because that the idea of aliens isn't as far-fetched as it might have been back in the fifties and such. Now, with our super-powerful telescopes and our own small steps out into the void of space, we might actually be able to find them before they find us, something considered unthinkable decades ago. Maybe even we will be the ones to invade an alien planet, a concept movies like Avatar or Battle for Terra have explored. With this very real possibility, the idea of aliens doesn't seem so, well, alien anymore. We might be able to walk alongside them in a few centuries. This isn't something we could have ever anticipated back when H.G. Wells wrote War of the Worlds. Back then, another intelligence making its way across the cosmos to our little planet was something gods did, not mortals. But now we might be able to do it ourselves.

Now, we're taking the steps that aliens have taken in our movies, books, and video games for decades. And since we still have yet to fully confirm the existence of extraterrestrial life (unless the government is hiding it from the public to protect us or something) what we think aliens might be is much more something we could do ourselves. Thus, their technology and their ideologies are more like us as well. Aliens will always be in media, as the idea is still fascinating that we are not alone in the universe. But how they're represented will continue to change as we get closer and closer to doing what they do. And who knows? Maybe in a few centuries, we'll have flying saucers and ray guns.

The Major Problem With Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Now, before I begin, let it be known that I understand not many will agree with me. I'm not the biggest Star Wars fan, and thus my opinion might seem a bit unnecessary. However, I think my lack of bias towards Star Wars actually helps my argument rather than hurts it, as I'm saying this from an outsider's viewpoint, a casual fan looking into the cauldrons of arguably the biggest cinematic franchise of all time.

With that said, I'll dive right in: I'm not looking forward to the upcoming Star Wars movie, "The Force Awakens," for a number of reasons. Most of them are personal reasons: I don't like J.J. Abrams as a director, for instance, an opinion I recognize is purely subjective. However, the big reason I'm not looking forward to this new movie is something that a lot of other people seem to love about it: it's trying way too hard to pander to the older installments.

The Millennium Falcon. The stormtroopers. TIE-fighters. The Empire against the Jedi. All three of the original main characters. There are even rumors that Darth Vader himself might be returning. All this in an installment supposedly taking place 30 years after "Return of the Jedi," which is actually more time between the original Star Wars and the last of the prequels, "Revenge of the Sith." While many seem to be embracing this focus on elements from the original trilogy, I'm questioning it greatly. The Star Wars galaxy is a big one. There are many worlds to explore, many characters, many species, and many factions. The prequels, as reviled as they are, realize this and do what following installments are supposed to do: expand the material. Most of the planets, most of the characters, most of the species and all of the vehicles were brand new to the prequels, showing just how huge and diverse the galaxy far, far away truly is. The prequels may have had a lot of problems, but further exploring the Star Wars universe was not one of them.

Now, don't get me wrong: this new one does seem to have some new elements, but all two of them have been ridiculed as much as they have been celebrated. The new lightsaber with the light-crossguard has been questioned, criticized, and even mocked by quite a bit of the Internet; put me in with the criticizing group. The ball droid, the other new element, I think is quite ridiculous as well. Sure, it may be more practical than a droid with legs, but it looks silly, and looks nothing like any of the droids ever shown in Star Wars. I know I said expanding is good, but consistency with expansion is greatly preferred.

I understand people love the older installments, and they've certainly proven to be cinematic classics. But there's more to Star Wars than the Millennium Falcon, TIE-Fighters, Luke, Leia and Han Solo. A lot more. Just look at the massive and now sadly non-canon expanded universe. The galaxy far, far away has a lot of stories to be told, a lot of planets to explore, and a lot of ground to tread. Retreading the old ground shouldn't be the priority of these new movies. Be consistent, certainly, but don't be completely derivative. This is why I fear J.J. Abrams as the director. He has said time and time again that he's a huge fan of the original Star Wars trilogy, much more than he ever was of Star Trek, a franchise he also delivered to the big screen. But his undying love to the originals might be the new movie's undoing. 

If you still don't understand my worries, let me tell you a story: Ever heard of Bryan Singer? The guy who directed the first two X-Men movies as well as the latest one, "Days of Future Past?" He wasn't as huge of a fan of X-Men as he was of Superman, especially the original movie from the seventies. Thus, when Warner Bros. hired him to direct his own Superman movie, he loaded it with all sorts of homages, tributes, and references that it became a huge mishmash of continuity and an overall mess of a movie. What was this movie? "Superman Returns," which was enough of a failure to have Warner Bros. reboot the franchise seven years later with the much more successful "Man of Steel." This scenario is eerily similar to what we are facing with the new Star Wars movie. Just replaced Bryan Singer with J.J. Abrams, X-Men with Star Trek, and Superman with Star Wars. I only hope that the final outcome will not be another "Superman Returns" and instead focus on being its own movie in this massive continuity. However, based on the trailer and all of the news and hints given by the studio and the director, I really doubt it will. Prove me wrong, J.J. Abrams, this December 18th. Believe me, I'd love to be wrong.