WARNING: SPOILERS UP TO THE LAST 2 episodes of the SHOW!
BATTLESTAR GALACTICA
A SHOW GONE TERRIBLY WRONG
By Jason F. Smith
Hello there. Doesn't take much after reading the above title to see that I think Battlestar Galactica has gone horribly wrong. And I'm not talking about the characters per se. What do I mean by that? Let me take Felix Geata as an example of something I didn't LIKE, but I respect, as far as the writing goes:
Felix was one of the good guys. There is something likable about him as and actor and character. And they set up his motivations very well. I believed he could fall. But the thing they did that I didn't LIKE was that as he was conducting the mutiny, you could see that he was trying to find his good side. Trying to find the good inside himself to go against Zarek. And while the story was well done, and it was believable, after losing his leg, and all the crap that happened, what I didn't LIKE was that he didn't stand up and try and stop it. He took it to the end, and ignored the warnings of his own conscience. That was a very sad ending of a great character. I didn't like it. Not saying it was badly written, because it wasn't, just that I didn't enjoy seeing a good man fall and damn himself. But I respect it.
So where has the shown gone wrong? Let me tell you. And before I tell you, let me note to you that I don't think I've ever seen a show tank this badly in my life. And... hey... I realize there are still two episodes left. But I predict there is almost nothing they can do to salvage this show in the next two episodes.
Why? Because they have fundamentally broken the show, by, interestingly enough, simply breaking from the structure of the show. Is it really that simple? Yep. The show is a mythic archetype of a quest. The characters are called, often unwillingly, on a quest, to do something. They have a clear goal. The story can take twists and turns along the way, (and heck, interesting stories do this), but the structure stays true. In this case, they are searching for a home. Earth. (Which is so damn archetypal, and tickles the spirit bones of every one watching the show because earth is... us!)
Battlestar Galactica has been brilliant in executing this very simple quest. They do it with GREAT CHARACTERS. They do it with tons of mystery. There is lots and lots to like about the show.
Then things started to go wrong at the end of season 4. You might think it was the decision to scorch earth that was wrong. I don't necessarily think so. This falls into one of those areas that I don't LIKE, but I can still respect. I don't like it for many reasons, but mostly because it's kind of a crap in the face to all those who watched and hoped. The characters were searching for EARTH. WE are earth. And they are telling us we are all dead. That in effect, the archetypal EARTH, isn't real. Or that we are all dead. Doomed. Hm... that just rankles the old spirit bone if you ask me. I don't like the decision. But I'm sticking with them, right? I can respect a different take.
But what I can't respect is the breaking of the structure. It's a nifty little pocket I sit in as I watch. My characters, the friends I've made over these years watching the show, they are searching for a home. Earth isn't it, but that's okay, I still want them to find a good home. The quest lives. Adama, rousing a depressed and sad Roselyn says get up! We're going to find a home! And the Cylon refugees can come along if they want! GREAT! Quest is still ON!
Structure is intact.
Only it wasn't. There was the mutiny. An understandable detour. Had to happen. The logical outcome of all the disappointment, the heartache, and of course the ultimate ambition of Zarek.
But it was AFTER the Mutiny where they went wrong. They broke the STRUCTURE. Since Adama's little speech, the show has floundered because... there is no more quest. The structure and theme of the show changed! It changed to being more about the cylons than it did about humans. And it changed to the story of the death of the Galactica.
Woah. What?
How many of you have watched someone die over the long haul? I have. It is not a pleasant experience. It's a difficult thing to face. And while it has some value in storytelling as an element, it never becomes the THEME and STRUCTURE of a story.
Who enjoys watching the Battlestar Galactica die? For many of us this great ship goes back to our CHILDHOODS!!! From the FIRST version. She's our friend. We love that ship. And... we are watching her die. And who the hell wants to do that? The structure of the show has changed from that of the humans finding a new home to watching the ship die. AND to watching Roselyn die.
Oh joy.
Are there some other problems? Sure! A focus on cylons instead of humans. A sense that the writers are kind of making stuff up as the end nears. A neglecting of once interesting characters (Baltar and Six in his head). A changing of once stalwart characters (Galen). Yeah, it's gotten loose. It's not tight anymore. But that's all secondary to the inherent structural problem.
When was the last time they talked about FINDING A NEW HOME?
So WHY have they gone off the structure? I have an insight into that. A theory. I listened to the commentaries of a lot of the shows, and I think the writers really get off on the idea of twisting the story and expectations of the audience. So much so... that it leads them to abandon true and good story telling in order to deliver on the expectation of shock and awe and change. They are courageous as writers in the sense that they are willing to really take risks. But I believe they have lost their purpose by becoming too addicted to shocking us.
The scorched earth is a great example. It was a shock. And it took courage as writers to do that. But was it the RIGHT decision? Ah... that's the question. That's the question. And are they being different by totally breaking with the structure here in the last season? Yep! That is totally different. But is it the RIGHT decision?
Let me offer you a simple quest story as an example. Two hobbits, Sam and Frodo, take the ring to Mordor to destroy it. That's the quest. Very simple. There are tons of obstacles. And a great twist at the end. What is the twist? That Frodo can't do it. He can't throw the ring in, but... Bilbo's ancient pity in allowing Gollum to live, and Frodo's own pity in also allowing him to live, proves the wise decision. Because Gollum takes the ring from Frodo, and falls. The quest is complete. Good survives! Evil is thrown down. There was a twist, but it was within the story structure!
Ask yourself this. Roselyn had visions leading her to Earth. So did Kara. The Cylons themselves did. So... what were those visions about if Earth turned out to be a scorched wasteland?
The Battlestar Galactica writers decided they wanted a twist, but they didn't realize they didn't need such a big one. Gollum biting Frodo's finger and then falling was very satisfactory twist to everyone.
Just like Luke Skywalker in the trench of the Death Star, about to die with Darth Vader shooting him from behind in Star Wars. But there is a twist. Han Solo returns, and saves the day, paving the way for Luke to destroy the Death Star! A twist. But a simple one.
Elegant.
Satisfying.
And that is why... the end of Battlestar Galactica will be a disappointment. Because the writers do not understand the concept of simplicity and elegance. They are going to try and shock us. And.... they WILL! I guarantee you, they will courageously do something so different we will all crap our pants.
But I also guarantee you... that we will not be satisfied. And that will be the great failure of Battlestar Galactica. We were shocked, but not satisfied. And that is a sad waste of a great great story.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
The Pigs are Walking
Itch. That inimitable feeling that starts so slowly. Hello frogs boiling in water. Are hard core Democrats beginning to get a bit... warm in these waters? Are they detecting a certain heat from below? Is their skin starting oh so subtly to itch, to crawl, to vibrate with a vicious hint of betrayal? What far right loon out there held on to George W. Bush no matter what he did? There were some, I assure you. There will also be those who watch that great ship in the ocean, the Ameritanic sink and start into the singing with their captain, ignoring the reality of the situation, until that fateful day they find themselves in a bunker with a glass vial in their hands.
Guys... Gals... let's be blunt shall we? Obama doesn't know what he's doing. And we are in trouble.
(What's that I hear? Rush Limbaugh calling? "Er, yes?" "Jason, Jason, Jason, Obama DOES know what he's doing! He's doing all this ON PURPOSE! Out of a sense of anger and rage against those he perceives have been evil wrong to America!."
You know if this were a fantasy novel Obama would remember his 'good' side at the last moment and turn back from this precipice.
Last night Bill O'Reilly had a lady on who was a democrat strategist. He asked her if all this spending was worrying her, if this was the change she wanted. Her reply? "Well, this isn't the change I wanted, but... it might be the change we need." Bill was agast. He asked her if she was worried all the spending would fail, and it would collapse. She admitted she WAS worried. He followed with, so if this doesn't work, you will admit it and vote Republican in two years. To which, this woman shook her head and laughed and said: NEVER. NEVER. NEVER. It doesn't matter WHAT happens, EVER, she is a Democrat NO MATTER WHAT.
NO MATTER WHAT.
Guys... Gals... let's be blunt shall we? Obama doesn't know what he's doing. And we are in trouble.
(What's that I hear? Rush Limbaugh calling? "Er, yes?" "Jason, Jason, Jason, Obama DOES know what he's doing! He's doing all this ON PURPOSE! Out of a sense of anger and rage against those he perceives have been evil wrong to America!."
You know if this were a fantasy novel Obama would remember his 'good' side at the last moment and turn back from this precipice.
Last night Bill O'Reilly had a lady on who was a democrat strategist. He asked her if all this spending was worrying her, if this was the change she wanted. Her reply? "Well, this isn't the change I wanted, but... it might be the change we need." Bill was agast. He asked her if she was worried all the spending would fail, and it would collapse. She admitted she WAS worried. He followed with, so if this doesn't work, you will admit it and vote Republican in two years. To which, this woman shook her head and laughed and said: NEVER. NEVER. NEVER. It doesn't matter WHAT happens, EVER, she is a Democrat NO MATTER WHAT.
NO MATTER WHAT.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Colosimo Bratwurst
Okay, so everyone had heard of Jonsonville Sausages and Bratwurst. At least that is the brand that is found in most grocery stores. I've been eating them for as long as I can remember, and until recently I didn't realize how bad they really are. In one fell swoop you will never go back and buy Johnsonville again after you have tasted the incredible flavor of the Colosimo Bratwurst. They are a company from Utah, and are clearly the best tasting bratwurst EVER. They have other types of meat as well, sausages, Italian Sausage, New York, Tuscan, etc. All are good, but the one you want is the plain Bratwurst. Not sure if you can get them out of Utah, but if you can, you owe to yourself to give these a try. I been eating them for about a year, because Jennie bought them one day. Well, the other day, I ended up wanting Bratwurst, and went to Smith's and they only had Johnsonville. I was like, okay, no big deal. We ate them that night, and it was like, eh.... So a few days later Smith's got some more Colosimo in, we bought it and brought it right home. After one bite, I vowed never to eat an Johnsonville Brat ever again! Give it a try!
Xenocide Review
And so I immediately read the next book in the series, right? Right? Nope. I have read a lot of Orson Scott Card books over the years, but I never read Xenocide. Why? Well it starts with this new character, and half way through the first chapter I always put it down. You don't know how many times I've started that book.
But this last month, I finally managed to get past that first chapter. It's ironic, because I am always saying I think the first chapter of Speaker for the Dead is one of the best there is. And this one? Well it's not bad, it's just so different that I couldn't get into it.
Okay, enough about why and when I read the book. Is it any good? It is. It is a GREAT book. It asks so many questions, and puts it's characters in such moral dilemmas that it has this unique edge to it. I guess you don't see most authors these days confront ethics like this. For that matter, most authors these days have loose morals and just assume a certain degree of villainy is common to the everday man and woman and isn't worth confronting.
Plus, Card does something in a lot of his stories I admire and always enjoy: He talks about GOOD people. I think common wisdom would say that GOOD people are boring, but that is the crux of Xenocide. A lot of good people together end up butting heads, and doing a lot of bad. Not because they are bad, but because they get misguided and because they are doing things they are so convinced ARE good. And indeed, each individual person's point of view CAN be seen as good! But when you throw it all in the mix, and you add in the dynamics of a very dysfunctional family, and you add in the ethical dilemma of three different races (or even four, actually) trying to coexist, and you get a really great story.
But... the story is loose. It's not as tight as Speaker for the Dead. I'm not entirely sure what I mean by that, except that it's expansive and big and lacks grounding. Card is never one for detailed descriptions of people, places or things, and this novel suffers because of it. Granted, I never skimmed a paragraph because he was describing the leaves and stems of the trees. But I think one of the reasons it doesn't feel as tight is because so little is devoted to description.
Plus, the story is just big. And the characters don't have the time to develop and grow and 'simmer' that they should. Too much happens. It's a big book as it is, but it should have been a bit bigger. The exploration of ethical dilemmas was incredible and exciting. But the characters and the setting came up a bit short.
Years ago, I was talking to Card about Ender's Game, and I told him one of the great things about the story was that more than all the science fiction, the buggers, and the battle school, I came to really care about Ender, and I wanted this little boy to have happiness. He responded by saying "Then I have succeeded. That is what really matters."
And as good as Xenocide is... it does not focus enough on any one character for me to have that bond with them, that rooting interest, that place in my heart where great characters reside and live with me.
In Xenocide, the story overwhelms the characters. Oh, but what a fine story it is!
Sarah Conner Chronicles
TV has just gotten better in the last decade. Without a doubt, some of that has to do with our big screen TVs, HDTV, DVRs, and great sound systems. DVDs anyone? Is there a better way to watch a long serialized TV show? And now BLU RAY!
Today I bought my first ever BLU RAY disk, and I choose Terminator: The Sarah Conner Chronicles. Instead of an actual movie, I choose a TV show. Of course. Being a fan of Lost and Battlestar Galactica, I love my serialized TV. Big stories, with twists and turns. Who here got LOST Season 1 on DVD and ended up watching the whole season in about 2-3 days? Who stayed up till 2-3 in the morning, watching... 'just one more episode?" Yeah! That is the way to watch TV.
Okay, so the visuals are better, the sound is better, and the story is BIGGER. But is it better? I think that's a great question. And I'm tempted to rattle of the top off my head a quick and surefire YES. It's just BETTER. But I have a tendency (and I bet you do too) to think the current thing we are into is the BEST we have ever seen. There was probably a day when I thought the ORIGINAL Battlestar Galactica was the best on TV. (Come on... I can't even watch an entire episode now, they are THAT bad.)
But... then I was younger, and far less picky. And I wasn't spending a great deal of my time WRITING stories, so I wasn't really thinking about what made a good one or a bad one.
Truth is poor visuals of old shows can really irritate me. But some stories I think stand the test of time. Though it is relatively new, The Sopranos is a character based story that I think will stand the test of time. But were they any really good TV shows from the 80s? The A Team anyone?
Here is another question for all of you: Does anything really stand up to the test of time? Did Lucas really need to go in an re-digitilize Star Wars A New Hope?
This has gone a long way from where we started, which was The Terminator, Sarah Conner Chronicles. Okay, does Terminator 2 stand up to the test of time? I think it does. It was a great STORY. (James Cameron, wizard of the special effects, was once a great STORYTELLER).
And so here we stand at Sarah Conner. Okay, I've watched ONE episode. But what about that ONE episode? First impressions mean a lot. And this is what I thought: Storytelling has gotten better on TV. This was a great and fun story. The visuals were great, but around the 20 minute mark, I was on the edge of my seat. It propelled me forward with some great characters. Sarah, who is trying to protect her son from 'the machines' and is thought to be crazy, and maybe... just maybe she IS! And then there is John himself, this messiah of the future who pretty much doesn't do anything but whine and bitch and run. He needs some work, but you get the sense that he'll become the star of the show. And Terminator wouldn't be terminator if you didn't have a bad robot, and... a good one. And this time around, why not go with an upgrade on the good robot, and make her a sexy teenager? The ensemble works, and has room to grow. You have the cop who is chasing them who will inevitably realize that there really ARE robots out there and that Sarah might be onto something! You have the jilted finance, who... might be more than he seems. But better than all that you have a pretty damn cool story.
It is the root of science fiction that robots, artificial intelligence, etc, turns bad. Hell Battlestar Galactica is entirely based on this concept. Most science fiction writers have a world invaded by aliens story, and along side that they also have the robots went mad and took over the world story. The Matrix wasn't original after all, was it?
And the genre has a lot of room in it. In this version, they throw in time travel. It's loosey goosey in the movies, and I'm hoping they expand it here and get some meat on it. But it's looking interesting. And it has built in tension. Being chased by a killer robot. It's relentless.
I like it.
I've only watched one episode. I'm sure it will twist, and it will turn. I'm sure it will have some dud moments, and I'm hoping it will have some great moments. But even if it's a dud, I think I will answer my original question with this answer: TV is better today. And not just because of the visuals.
I think it's because writers are getting better. So many stories have been told out there, and there is little original left, so if you tell a time travel story, and you tell a robots gone mad story, you better do it BETTER than the guy/gal before you did it! And in a lot of instances, I think that writers are stretching and getting better. Not all of them! And they aren't perfect. But the DVD serialized concept of TV, longer biggger stories, with room to explore multiple characters, has some promise still left in it.
And it doesn't hurt that they have big budgets and we get to watch them on DVD with big screens and great sound! Nah... that doesn't hurt at all.
Today I bought my first ever BLU RAY disk, and I choose Terminator: The Sarah Conner Chronicles. Instead of an actual movie, I choose a TV show. Of course. Being a fan of Lost and Battlestar Galactica, I love my serialized TV. Big stories, with twists and turns. Who here got LOST Season 1 on DVD and ended up watching the whole season in about 2-3 days? Who stayed up till 2-3 in the morning, watching... 'just one more episode?" Yeah! That is the way to watch TV.
Okay, so the visuals are better, the sound is better, and the story is BIGGER. But is it better? I think that's a great question. And I'm tempted to rattle of the top off my head a quick and surefire YES. It's just BETTER. But I have a tendency (and I bet you do too) to think the current thing we are into is the BEST we have ever seen. There was probably a day when I thought the ORIGINAL Battlestar Galactica was the best on TV. (Come on... I can't even watch an entire episode now, they are THAT bad.)
But... then I was younger, and far less picky. And I wasn't spending a great deal of my time WRITING stories, so I wasn't really thinking about what made a good one or a bad one.
Truth is poor visuals of old shows can really irritate me. But some stories I think stand the test of time. Though it is relatively new, The Sopranos is a character based story that I think will stand the test of time. But were they any really good TV shows from the 80s? The A Team anyone?
Here is another question for all of you: Does anything really stand up to the test of time? Did Lucas really need to go in an re-digitilize Star Wars A New Hope?
This has gone a long way from where we started, which was The Terminator, Sarah Conner Chronicles. Okay, does Terminator 2 stand up to the test of time? I think it does. It was a great STORY. (James Cameron, wizard of the special effects, was once a great STORYTELLER).
And so here we stand at Sarah Conner. Okay, I've watched ONE episode. But what about that ONE episode? First impressions mean a lot. And this is what I thought: Storytelling has gotten better on TV. This was a great and fun story. The visuals were great, but around the 20 minute mark, I was on the edge of my seat. It propelled me forward with some great characters. Sarah, who is trying to protect her son from 'the machines' and is thought to be crazy, and maybe... just maybe she IS! And then there is John himself, this messiah of the future who pretty much doesn't do anything but whine and bitch and run. He needs some work, but you get the sense that he'll become the star of the show. And Terminator wouldn't be terminator if you didn't have a bad robot, and... a good one. And this time around, why not go with an upgrade on the good robot, and make her a sexy teenager? The ensemble works, and has room to grow. You have the cop who is chasing them who will inevitably realize that there really ARE robots out there and that Sarah might be onto something! You have the jilted finance, who... might be more than he seems. But better than all that you have a pretty damn cool story.
It is the root of science fiction that robots, artificial intelligence, etc, turns bad. Hell Battlestar Galactica is entirely based on this concept. Most science fiction writers have a world invaded by aliens story, and along side that they also have the robots went mad and took over the world story. The Matrix wasn't original after all, was it?
And the genre has a lot of room in it. In this version, they throw in time travel. It's loosey goosey in the movies, and I'm hoping they expand it here and get some meat on it. But it's looking interesting. And it has built in tension. Being chased by a killer robot. It's relentless.
I like it.
I've only watched one episode. I'm sure it will twist, and it will turn. I'm sure it will have some dud moments, and I'm hoping it will have some great moments. But even if it's a dud, I think I will answer my original question with this answer: TV is better today. And not just because of the visuals.
I think it's because writers are getting better. So many stories have been told out there, and there is little original left, so if you tell a time travel story, and you tell a robots gone mad story, you better do it BETTER than the guy/gal before you did it! And in a lot of instances, I think that writers are stretching and getting better. Not all of them! And they aren't perfect. But the DVD serialized concept of TV, longer biggger stories, with room to explore multiple characters, has some promise still left in it.
And it doesn't hurt that they have big budgets and we get to watch them on DVD with big screens and great sound! Nah... that doesn't hurt at all.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Weekend
So far this weekend it's been pretty easy going. Tonight (Saturday) I took Jennie to the Snake Creek Grill for our promised Christmas Dinner. I had the Fillet and she had the Mahi Mahi. We always have a great dinner there. A wonderful place to eat. Last night (Friday) we thought it would be a good idea to get the kids up so that they could take a turn taking the puppies out in the middle of the night for pee and poo time. Ame and Asher took a turn. We got up with them, but helped them, but it was a good experience for them. Churchill had explosive diarrhea, and we had to take him to the vet this morning, where they checked him for Parvo but he was fine, just had a stomach thing. Asher baked a Chocolate Pie tonight, and he and I moved furniture this week and weekend, rearranging the basement. Tonight we played Little Big Planet till 12:30. Pretty fun game. I need to tell Ben about it. Recalls the old days of playing Donkey Kong. I'm not one for games, but this is a cool little creative thing. Churchill seems to be doing better tonight. I have some good pictures to share with you but not tonight. I'm too tired. We were going to go to dinner with Jennie's Mom today and play Dominion, but Peggy wasn't feeling well so we stayed here. It was a nice evening. Oh, we watched Battlestar Galactica episodes today during the day, I took the kids to Sundance to get fitted for their ski school and the kids went skiing today for their first ski school of the year. My Dad called asking if I had the knives Rick gave us for Christmas. The kids had a great time skiing, and Riley trying Snow Boarding this year for the first time. Last night Jennie and I went out to eat but decided not to eat out, went to Smith's and got Frozen California Pizza Kitchen stuff. Jennie is liking Battlestar Galactica, which as she says, surprises her. I'm still reading Xenocide by Orson Scott Card. Hard to believe I never read this yet! It's good. Well, this was a bit of a scattershot post, wasn't it? Probably because it's late, I'm tired, and so forth and so on. All that jazz. Love to all, be in the moment, be peaceful, be in the flow, and let goodness reign upon you. Give it as well. Great Political talk tonight with Jennie. Ame at Natalie's for the night, and Riley at Conner's. Just me, Jennie and Asher, and she fell asleep early. Whew! Sunday we get to sleep in! Asher and I just took the puppies out to bathroom, and he came in saying: "Boo is getting smarter. She is learning, the quicker she pees and poos, the quicker she comes back into the warmth.
Jason
Jason
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
The Day the Earth Stood Still Movie Review
The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)*
By Jason F. Smith
January 6th, 2009
In 1951 Director Robert Wise made a movie based on a story by Harry Bates with a screenplay by Edmund H. North. It gets about 8 out 10 stars on an average of reviews. In 2008, Director Scott Derrickson with writer David Scarpa revised the movie with some nifty special effects, which gets a 6 out of 10 rating by current viewers. I give it 1 star out of four.
I've never seen the first movie, but I know the genre it comes from. It's a 'space aliens invade the earth' movie. As I sat in the theater watching the first half of the current movie, with my two sons, Asher age 14, Riley age 12, it occurred to me over and over again that this was a classic and basic form of Science Fiction. We have evidence of it everywhere. From the 1996's Independence Day, to HG Wells The War of the Worlds, to Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game. There is Arthur C. Clarke's take on it, not once, but three times at least: 2001, Rendezvous with Rama, and Childhood's End.
The basic premise is that our peaceful normal existence here on earth is interrupted by invading Aliens. In his forward to his shorts story 1408, Stephen King mentions that every horror writer has to tell a tale of a haunted house. It's just a basic requirement. And for him, what is more scary than a haunted hotel? Well I think a basic requirement of all Science Fiction writers is to tell a Aliens Invade Earth story. Coincidently enough, Stephen King has one of those too, in the book Dreamcatcher, which was subsequently made into the movie of the same name.
There are twists on the theme, from how the aliens act, whether they are good or bad, etc, etc, etc. As I was watching this movie my head was spinning with ideas of my OWN alien invasion story. What kind of twists on the subject can I come up with?
But that's beside the point. The point is that this is a classic alien invasion story, and I loved it. There was this mysterious ship that showed up. You had your scientists investigating it, and being all logical. You had your government trying to kill it, of course. It was fascinating stuff, a great mystery. Who were the aliens? What did they want? Could we stop them? Would they be friendly? Or would the eat us for dinner? This was a great movie. Right up until the point where Keanu Reeves (playing the Alien Klaatu) reveals why he's come to destroy the earth. Why? Because Humans are bad.
Yep. Were bad. Were simply bad people. There are only a few planets in the entire universe that can support life, and we are destroying ours. It doesn't explain HOW we are destroying earth. It's just that we are doing it. Of course.
And that kind of liberal left wing 'people are bad' and we are 'destroying the earth' kind of propaganda just makes me shake my head. Klaatu explains that in order to save the planet, he must MURDER ever single human being. Every woman... ever man... every child. FLAT OUT MURDER THEM ALL. Why? Because humans are bad. They are destroying the earth.
This guy comes off as the good guy trying to save the planet, when in fact he's an evil SOB. And he's decided the earth is doomed, unless he destroys it. So he sets in motion the swarm of robots to destroy the earth . And it begins to do so. But, along the way, he meets a woman and her son and sees that she... loves... her son. This love... makes him realize, hey, maybe humans aren't that bad.
The worst part of the movie is the INSIPID way the humans, the woman, and a scientist played by John Cleese keep saying: "Please, we'll CHANGE!" The way they whine the word CHANGE over and over again. "Give us a chance... we'll CHANGE!"
The movie would have been better had Klaatu simply been an evil bastard who wasn't buying any of that change crap, and was here just to eat baby children. That's what makes a good science fiction alien movie. Sure you can make your bad guys the good guys (Childhood's End) or you can make them misunderstood (The Buggers in Ender's Game), but more satisfying is a good old evil alien who wants to suck the marrow out of your bones.
In the end however, our Klaatu decides that the humans are worth saving. Evil, unrepentant, horrible creatures that they are, there is worth in them, and maybe... just maybe... they will change. However, in order to INSURE they will change... he fixes a price tag to his saving them. Just a little 'price to pay'.
All electrical functions on the planet cease. All electricity. All cars. Boats. Planes? Though it doesn't show it, they all fall out of the sky. But it's okay, it's WORTH IT. We will survive and CHANGE.
The movie ends as if humanity has been saved. Never mind that the 100% cessation of all electricity on this planet would cause immediate and full riots, starvations, war, genocide, and such a wave of suffering as has never been seen on the planet. All learning and advanced culture would cease to exist. We'd go back to being... animalistic hunters and gatherers.
And that is what makes this movie so terribly BAD. The makers are telling us that humans are evil, and all they are good for, all they really should strive for, is to destroy our culture and our science and our learning, and get back to the forest, with our bows and arrows and our furs and a cabins. This kind of thinking disturbs me to no end. Always these liberals portray humans as evil nasty need to be exterminated bastards. Never do they celebrate the goodness of humanity, the love, the charity, the beauty we have created and the achievements we have reached. It's a metaphor for how modern liberalism looks at America, as somehow bad, hurting the environment, hurting the world through our prosperity.
I just don't buy it. And I just can't recommend this movie. At least the 2nd half of it. The first half was great aliens invade the earth fun!
www.disasternecessities.com
www.dogstargames.com
By Jason F. Smith
January 6th, 2009
In 1951 Director Robert Wise made a movie based on a story by Harry Bates with a screenplay by Edmund H. North. It gets about 8 out 10 stars on an average of reviews. In 2008, Director Scott Derrickson with writer David Scarpa revised the movie with some nifty special effects, which gets a 6 out of 10 rating by current viewers. I give it 1 star out of four.
I've never seen the first movie, but I know the genre it comes from. It's a 'space aliens invade the earth' movie. As I sat in the theater watching the first half of the current movie, with my two sons, Asher age 14, Riley age 12, it occurred to me over and over again that this was a classic and basic form of Science Fiction. We have evidence of it everywhere. From the 1996's Independence Day, to HG Wells The War of the Worlds, to Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game. There is Arthur C. Clarke's take on it, not once, but three times at least: 2001, Rendezvous with Rama, and Childhood's End.
The basic premise is that our peaceful normal existence here on earth is interrupted by invading Aliens. In his forward to his shorts story 1408, Stephen King mentions that every horror writer has to tell a tale of a haunted house. It's just a basic requirement. And for him, what is more scary than a haunted hotel? Well I think a basic requirement of all Science Fiction writers is to tell a Aliens Invade Earth story. Coincidently enough, Stephen King has one of those too, in the book Dreamcatcher, which was subsequently made into the movie of the same name.
There are twists on the theme, from how the aliens act, whether they are good or bad, etc, etc, etc. As I was watching this movie my head was spinning with ideas of my OWN alien invasion story. What kind of twists on the subject can I come up with?
But that's beside the point. The point is that this is a classic alien invasion story, and I loved it. There was this mysterious ship that showed up. You had your scientists investigating it, and being all logical. You had your government trying to kill it, of course. It was fascinating stuff, a great mystery. Who were the aliens? What did they want? Could we stop them? Would they be friendly? Or would the eat us for dinner? This was a great movie. Right up until the point where Keanu Reeves (playing the Alien Klaatu) reveals why he's come to destroy the earth. Why? Because Humans are bad.
Yep. Were bad. Were simply bad people. There are only a few planets in the entire universe that can support life, and we are destroying ours. It doesn't explain HOW we are destroying earth. It's just that we are doing it. Of course.
And that kind of liberal left wing 'people are bad' and we are 'destroying the earth' kind of propaganda just makes me shake my head. Klaatu explains that in order to save the planet, he must MURDER ever single human being. Every woman... ever man... every child. FLAT OUT MURDER THEM ALL. Why? Because humans are bad. They are destroying the earth.
This guy comes off as the good guy trying to save the planet, when in fact he's an evil SOB. And he's decided the earth is doomed, unless he destroys it. So he sets in motion the swarm of robots to destroy the earth . And it begins to do so. But, along the way, he meets a woman and her son and sees that she... loves... her son. This love... makes him realize, hey, maybe humans aren't that bad.
The worst part of the movie is the INSIPID way the humans, the woman, and a scientist played by John Cleese keep saying: "Please, we'll CHANGE!" The way they whine the word CHANGE over and over again. "Give us a chance... we'll CHANGE!"
The movie would have been better had Klaatu simply been an evil bastard who wasn't buying any of that change crap, and was here just to eat baby children. That's what makes a good science fiction alien movie. Sure you can make your bad guys the good guys (Childhood's End) or you can make them misunderstood (The Buggers in Ender's Game), but more satisfying is a good old evil alien who wants to suck the marrow out of your bones.
In the end however, our Klaatu decides that the humans are worth saving. Evil, unrepentant, horrible creatures that they are, there is worth in them, and maybe... just maybe... they will change. However, in order to INSURE they will change... he fixes a price tag to his saving them. Just a little 'price to pay'.
All electrical functions on the planet cease. All electricity. All cars. Boats. Planes? Though it doesn't show it, they all fall out of the sky. But it's okay, it's WORTH IT. We will survive and CHANGE.
The movie ends as if humanity has been saved. Never mind that the 100% cessation of all electricity on this planet would cause immediate and full riots, starvations, war, genocide, and such a wave of suffering as has never been seen on the planet. All learning and advanced culture would cease to exist. We'd go back to being... animalistic hunters and gatherers.
And that is what makes this movie so terribly BAD. The makers are telling us that humans are evil, and all they are good for, all they really should strive for, is to destroy our culture and our science and our learning, and get back to the forest, with our bows and arrows and our furs and a cabins. This kind of thinking disturbs me to no end. Always these liberals portray humans as evil nasty need to be exterminated bastards. Never do they celebrate the goodness of humanity, the love, the charity, the beauty we have created and the achievements we have reached. It's a metaphor for how modern liberalism looks at America, as somehow bad, hurting the environment, hurting the world through our prosperity.
I just don't buy it. And I just can't recommend this movie. At least the 2nd half of it. The first half was great aliens invade the earth fun!
www.disasternecessities.com
www.dogstargames.com
Friday, January 2, 2009
Axis & Allies 50th Anniversary Review
Review of Axis & Allies 50th Anniversary Edition
By Rick Pennington
Remember the original Axis & Allies folks? Remember how the Allies had a huge advantage? Remember how few sea battles there were? Remember how quickly the US or Japanese could cross the Pacific? Remember how easy Japan could cross China? Remember those huge troop chip pileups in Karelia? Remember heavy bombers making the game one of Nuke The Opponent and turning the game into a slaughter?
You won't have to remember any of those things in the newest and actually highly improved version of Axis & Allies. The game's original creator, Larry Harris, has made some mild reworkings before but this is THE definitive remodeling that takes all the old problems and creates few new ones.
Played with a 1941 (pre-Barbarossa) or 1942 (pre-Midway) setup, both setups offer roughly equal chances for both sides to win. Matter of fact the hardest thing is to knock the game out of balance early on and if you wind up going 5 turns and seeing a potential stalemate, you may even wish to hand out some weapons tech from the new chart to increase the lethality of the forces on the board to hurry the game along.
Lower costs for naval units, new rules for submarines and more IPC's in circulation make for more war at sea. The Italian fleet comes in with a battleship and a pair of cruisers, so it isn't going to go away any time soon. The German fleet is a bit better than the feeble submarine and transport in the Baltic and given the turn order in both of the games as well as the extra IPC's, Germany proves quite capable of continuing a naval presence. In the Pacific look for the massive American naval buildup to take place that eventually does catch Japan but the operative word is "eventually". Until that point in the game is reached, there are plenty of play opportunities for both sides. The British have units all over the place as in the original game and they will have to fight hard to survive the onslaught of German U-boats, surface ships and aircraft just as they did in the real war during the Battle Of The Atlantic. A small force in the Indian/Pacific theater can either tempt the Japanese to do what Nagumo did in his Indian Ocean campaign or else those forces can be left alone and provide a small but signifigant help to the Allied cause in holding the line. The Red Navy has very little and does very little as in the original game but that is how history went so there is no loss here of historical accuracy or playability.
A major change to the map shows many more spaces exist in areas where the land masses suggest they should exist. Siberia really is a long ways from Moscow. Tokyo and San Francisco are widely separated. China is a large country with lots of territories to deal with and the force levels balance out so well to show how Japan was bogged down in China. You don't cross the Sahara or the Himalayas with ground units in real life and you don't do so in this game either. Advancing on the Eastern Front is a long slog, not just a matter of capture one territory and you are in front of Moscow. New costs for territories and bonuses for taking certain territories lead the war to develop along historical lines as does the initial force setup. The simplistic map of the past has been well superceded.
The victory city concept to determine a winner sounds good but I do recommend playing at 13 cities instead of 15 or all 18 in order to make the game fit into a long afternoon/evening session. It takes a LOT of work to knock out the other side and one thing I noticed was how the game flow would set itself up to deliver the equivalent of a superpower on each side, an imperiled island nation on each side, Africa as a sideshow worth pursuing and the main area of conflict that all must aim for (the Eurasian land mass) being one that is not easily defended or easily attacked. You want lots of battles and you will have them in the new Axis & Allies 50th Anniversary edition.
The new weapons tech charts offer two columns and 12 capabilities. You buy tokens and you get to keep rolling the dice for each token you have at the start of a turn until you get a 6 and the payoff. Then you pick the column you want to roll on and see which tech you get. The heavy bombers only roll 2 dice now so they are not as overpowered as before. Jet fighters attack at 4 instead of defending at 5 so they are a bit more rounded a unit at 4/4 instead of the previous 3/5. Artillery support, which allows one artillery to attack at 2 and one infantry unit to attack at 2, can be improved so one artillery can support two infantry units. Mechanized infantry allows them to keep up with the tanks. These and other bonuses all play out well and give a side a boost that gets them but they do not overpower the game or come across as wasted tech so often.
The addition of Italy as a separate power and a US-controlled China that plays out it's actions on their own front and in their own way bring the Mediterranean and Chinese theaters into the war in a rich and satisfying way. For a relatively small amount of force, these two nations do have quite the impact on how the game is going to go. A bit of help from Italy can turn the tide in Russia. A Chinese army that is hard to kill ensures the Japanese cannot ignore that front. For being the most minor powers on the board, they play a solid role in the game.
The game itself comes in the neatest possible packaging, with a container with lid for each nation that lets the game itself be laid on it's side when not being played and no pieces escape. Two more boxes contain all the rest of the pieces like factories, AA guns, chips, money, tokens and such. The board comes in 3 separate pieces so no need to worry about the fold creases breaking. The only down note is that there are not enough playing chips, so adding some from other games will be needed. The rulebook is easy to understand other than the section on submarines and the gaming boards where combat is decided and IPC/tech is accounted for do their usual good job.
With a retail price of $100 and a discount price running around $80, people may think that this version is expensive for a game. Compared to new video console games that run $60 and quickly go obsolete, this game will hold it's play value for years and be a bargain for the amount of time it is around as the latest generation product as well as for the many years the game can be enjoyed. Being a limited edition game also means there is a good chance of it going up in value, so a person could buy a pair of these and set one aside to recuperate the expense to some degree. The production values are high and you do get what you pay for in full with Axis & Allies in it's latest and greatest incarnation.
Remember the original Axis & Allies folks? Remember how the Allies had a huge advantage? Remember how few sea battles there were? Remember how quickly the US or Japanese could cross the Pacific? Remember how easy Japan could cross China? Remember those huge troop chip pileups in Karelia? Remember heavy bombers making the game one of Nuke The Opponent and turning the game into a slaughter?
You won't have to remember any of those things in the newest and actually highly improved version of Axis & Allies. The game's original creator, Larry Harris, has made some mild reworkings before but this is THE definitive remodeling that takes all the old problems and creates few new ones.
Played with a 1941 (pre-Barbarossa) or 1942 (pre-Midway) setup, both setups offer roughly equal chances for both sides to win. Matter of fact the hardest thing is to knock the game out of balance early on and if you wind up going 5 turns and seeing a potential stalemate, you may even wish to hand out some weapons tech from the new chart to increase the lethality of the forces on the board to hurry the game along.
Lower costs for naval units, new rules for submarines and more IPC's in circulation make for more war at sea. The Italian fleet comes in with a battleship and a pair of cruisers, so it isn't going to go away any time soon. The German fleet is a bit better than the feeble submarine and transport in the Baltic and given the turn order in both of the games as well as the extra IPC's, Germany proves quite capable of continuing a naval presence. In the Pacific look for the massive American naval buildup to take place that eventually does catch Japan but the operative word is "eventually". Until that point in the game is reached, there are plenty of play opportunities for both sides. The British have units all over the place as in the original game and they will have to fight hard to survive the onslaught of German U-boats, surface ships and aircraft just as they did in the real war during the Battle Of The Atlantic. A small force in the Indian/Pacific theater can either tempt the Japanese to do what Nagumo did in his Indian Ocean campaign or else those forces can be left alone and provide a small but signifigant help to the Allied cause in holding the line. The Red Navy has very little and does very little as in the original game but that is how history went so there is no loss here of historical accuracy or playability.
A major change to the map shows many more spaces exist in areas where the land masses suggest they should exist. Siberia really is a long ways from Moscow. Tokyo and San Francisco are widely separated. China is a large country with lots of territories to deal with and the force levels balance out so well to show how Japan was bogged down in China. You don't cross the Sahara or the Himalayas with ground units in real life and you don't do so in this game either. Advancing on the Eastern Front is a long slog, not just a matter of capture one territory and you are in front of Moscow. New costs for territories and bonuses for taking certain territories lead the war to develop along historical lines as does the initial force setup. The simplistic map of the past has been well superceded.
The victory city concept to determine a winner sounds good but I do recommend playing at 13 cities instead of 15 or all 18 in order to make the game fit into a long afternoon/evening session. It takes a LOT of work to knock out the other side and one thing I noticed was how the game flow would set itself up to deliver the equivalent of a superpower on each side, an imperiled island nation on each side, Africa as a sideshow worth pursuing and the main area of conflict that all must aim for (the Eurasian land mass) being one that is not easily defended or easily attacked. You want lots of battles and you will have them in the new Axis & Allies 50th Anniversary edition.
The new weapons tech charts offer two columns and 12 capabilities. You buy tokens and you get to keep rolling the dice for each token you have at the start of a turn until you get a 6 and the payoff. Then you pick the column you want to roll on and see which tech you get. The heavy bombers only roll 2 dice now so they are not as overpowered as before. Jet fighters attack at 4 instead of defending at 5 so they are a bit more rounded a unit at 4/4 instead of the previous 3/5. Artillery support, which allows one artillery to attack at 2 and one infantry unit to attack at 2, can be improved so one artillery can support two infantry units. Mechanized infantry allows them to keep up with the tanks. These and other bonuses all play out well and give a side a boost that gets them but they do not overpower the game or come across as wasted tech so often.
The addition of Italy as a separate power and a US-controlled China that plays out it's actions on their own front and in their own way bring the Mediterranean and Chinese theaters into the war in a rich and satisfying way. For a relatively small amount of force, these two nations do have quite the impact on how the game is going to go. A bit of help from Italy can turn the tide in Russia. A Chinese army that is hard to kill ensures the Japanese cannot ignore that front. For being the most minor powers on the board, they play a solid role in the game.
The game itself comes in the neatest possible packaging, with a container with lid for each nation that lets the game itself be laid on it's side when not being played and no pieces escape. Two more boxes contain all the rest of the pieces like factories, AA guns, chips, money, tokens and such. The board comes in 3 separate pieces so no need to worry about the fold creases breaking. The only down note is that there are not enough playing chips, so adding some from other games will be needed. The rulebook is easy to understand other than the section on submarines and the gaming boards where combat is decided and IPC/tech is accounted for do their usual good job.
With a retail price of $100 and a discount price running around $80, people may think that this version is expensive for a game. Compared to new video console games that run $60 and quickly go obsolete, this game will hold it's play value for years and be a bargain for the amount of time it is around as the latest generation product as well as for the many years the game can be enjoyed. Being a limited edition game also means there is a good chance of it going up in value, so a person could buy a pair of these and set one aside to recuperate the expense to some degree. The production values are high and you do get what you pay for in full with Axis & Allies in it's latest and greatest incarnation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
