I do not believe in God. I do not believe in any supernatural powers. Sometimes, I wish I did. A long time ago I looked inside myself and discovered that I do not have a God-shaped hole begging to be filled. That is just part of my personality; I consider it to be unchangeable.
Which is why I have a very mild annoyance at some of the conclusions raised in this article. To be sure, I am long out of the academy, and am wistfully remembering those days, mostly for all the things I should have done and done better. I've softened and mellowed my views since those days, but I have not dramatically changed them.
You know what was the most damaging thing ever done to my faith? Animaniacs. For reals.
See, one episode was set in part in h-e-double hockey sticks. I remember as a nine year old walking home from school, my mind abuzz. How can we be so certain that the Judeo-Christian religion is definitively the only one, the best one? After all, the Greeks and Romans thought theirs was the only certain religion, and now we know it to be false. Why are we so sure that we have it right and they have it wrong? Boom. Instant damage.
I always was interested in science. That itself damaged my religious beliefs: we have evidence for evolution, the universe, all those things. God? Ambiguous at best. No rocks I have ever turned over in my life have had "Made by God" stamped on them. Maybe I'm asking too much from God. I'm not asking for the blinding light of revelation, just a tiny bit more than what the religious folk are offering, okay?
I do recall going to Sunday school when I was very, very little. Whoever taught me said it was okay if I said "This is bad" to the creation of the universe. Guess I was always destined to be an iconoclast! I was never exposed to religious traditions to the same depth as some of my childhood peers, and (to my disgruntlement) Christians would bemoan the fact that if I only went to church weekly I'd have impregnable faith in God. I find that to be very condescending. I always had episodes of disbelief in my childhood---I had episodes of faith, to be sure, even devotion, but they were never strong enough to stick.
To agree with the article, ages 14-17 were decisive for me, though not in the way they would think. That was when my weak faith was slowly stripped away from me in degrees. Okay, I've conceded to a very milquetoast deist philosophy, I thought. Thing is, I was stripping the usefulness of God away in parts. God was reduced to simply flicking the on switch and going away to let humans figure things out. In other words, God was horribly redundant. By the time I was seventeen or eighteen I had abandoned the concept of God, not out of spite, but simple pragmatism. I didn't stop being a believer; I was just honest in my disbelief. There was no purpose for God, and therefore no need for me to believe in Him/Her/It.
This is the whole point to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, if you were ever confused why: it's a deliberately nonsensical concept to highlight how, when examined closely, they break down under the weight of their own implausibility. Yes, if I had a stronger sense of faith I suppose I could counter that somehow, but once you start looking into the mythologies and folklore of the world, you begin to have a harder time accepting the existence of such entities.
I probably identify as a 'skeptic' as opposed to atheist. Not that I am totally immune to the concept of God, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I don't think this fact is sinking in with believers, who assume if I'm in a meadow overflowing with daisies after a good rainstorm and a rainbow has come out I'll fall to my knees in wonder and dedicate my soul to Christ, or whatever. Rapturous wonder is wonderful, but it is not evidence in and of itself. If I do nothing else, I want to make it clear: a lot of people do not believe in God because they see no reason to believe in God, no hard or tangible reason as opposed to an inadequate supply of faith. I seriously resent the idea that all I need is a good session at a church to turn my into a believer. Really, I do.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. I have difficulty believing in a soul when there is unmistakable evidence that our minds are linked physically to our brains. I could be wrong. Thing is, it is up to the believer to prove their point beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm not saying that to be difficult. Back up what you are saying with little more than weak arguments and Bible verses---I'm not going to accept anything less, as I would not accept anything less over any other thing I believe in. Sorry if I come across as a militant atheist, but I have trouble accepting the existence of things beyond this world, and I'm sorry if having such doctrines pounded into my skull does not count as evidence.
(At this point the believers smugly whisper "String Theory" and "Hard Problem of Consciousness" to put the screws to any feelings of superiority of my materialist beliefs).
Okay, okay, I never said that strict empiricism is infallible. It is, however, considerably more useful that faith, since faith is pretty much, "Just believe down in your heart!" I'm sorry, but that just isn't good enough.
Empiricism and materialism have their own problems. That does not mean we approach them by piling on hypothetical, supernatural nonsense, usually because when we do find more information that changes our understanding of how things work we have to bend over backwards to accommodate our preconceptions, rather than the other way around.
This world is the only world we definitely know exist; this life is the only one we definitely know we have. We need to concentrate on that and not appeasing Gods that we may loose faith in after a couple of centuries. We need to place humanity and it's welfare as a doctrine above all other doctrines and dogmas. This may ruffle some Christian's feathers. Sorry if that upsets you, but I'm not apologetic for saying that. I'm more interested in the survival of humanity than the survival of Christianity. That's just how I roll.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Ready for the Last War: Starship Troopers and Modern YA Literature
Robert A. Heinlein's novel Starship Troopers is one of the most popular and influential science fiction novels written. It serves as a bridge between his juvenile novels and his adult work. At the time, the audience he wrote for would have been too young to have experienced the Second World War or Korea and too early to have experienced Vietnam.
Currently, the speculative fiction genre is experiencing a renaissance in young adult literature that has not been seen since Heinlein's time. Contemporary readers of young adult have been born into the post-9/11 world, with the recently "concluded" conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the pain of the great recession. The Second World War occurred seventy years ago, and is best known through the legions of first person shooters or movies it has inspired.
Contemporary writers are, whether they know it or not, whether they like it or not, playing in Heinlein's sandbox: writers such as John Scalzi write works inspired by Starship Troopers. It is a novel that celebrates the dedication and commitment towards service of one's country---in the form of cranky lectures in protagonist Johnny Rico's History and Moral Philosophy classes about how society would function better if there was the same dedication shown to participating in democracy that was displayed in military service (revealing the kernel of authoritarianism at the heart of libertarianism).
Contemporary readers are living in a turbulent world, where violence is common, particularly in the form of extra-state terrorism. Conflict shapes the world they live in. Is Robert A. Heinlein still relevant to contemporary readers of YA? Will younger readers have the same reverence for it that their predecessors once had? I am not entirely optimistic, myself, that Starship Troopers is going to age well.
The relationship between war and contemporary YA SF readers has changed. In Heinlein's time, even the most horrible atrocities of war may not have been hidden away, but they were not as explicit either. Photographs, perhaps movies, could be seen after a respectable period of time. Crucially, the government could and did intercept anything that could be construed as damaging to the public's morale. Today, any atrocity can (and frequently is) immediately uploaded to YouTube within seconds.
The relationship between war and media has changed. For example, much of Mockingjay concerns both the Capital of Panem and Katniss Everdeen's efforts to try and out-soapbox each other. As a result, contemporary readers are no longer passive, but can easily recognize propaganda and manipulation when they see it. Information control is a lot more difficult than it used to be. Also, it is recognized now that whoever frames the perception of the conflict best is destined to win. This is not a new revelation, but in a time when information passes freely, it becomes crucial.
The relationship between civilians and the military is also dissimilar: Starship Troopers was written in a time when armies might clash at a respectable distance from civilian population centers. Not that war was always conducted in this way, or that American forces never participated in fighting in urban environments, but increasingly the amount of fighting is, by necessity, going to occur in urban environments. The relationship between civilian and combatant is now gauze thin.
This is not to say that we have grown any more pacifistic. Far from it: look at the Hunger Games, Chaos Walking and Leviathan or Uglies series, all of which have war or at least violent conflict as a central aspect of their plots. However, compared to Heinlein's veneration of the central role conflict plays in the human experience, modern young adult science fiction has a more realistic and nuanced view of warfare than Heinlein. Isaac Asimov has a famous quote where he says that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Both Heinlein and modern readers agree: warfare's necessity forms a major part of Monsters of Men, the third book of the Chaos Walking series. Warfare involves violence, but it is a focused and deliberate kind of violence as opposed to mass murder or terrorism that often passes for it.
Still, modern readers realize that warfare has very serious consequences. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is involved in the aftermath of the Hunger Games in Catching Fire; and the rebellion against the capital involves false flag operations against civilians, among other things. Compare this with Heinlein's "Bugs" who are literally natural communists, incapable of distinguishing between civilian and soldier. There is nothing in warfare so horrible that you will not do it: you will make alliances with disreputable people who will make trying to live in peace after the war as difficult as possible; you will do things that you think only bad guys do, and you will do them willingly.
Ironically for an author that tried to tell it straight and as it is, Heinlein increasingly is coming across as a man with his head in the clouds. His perspective of warfare is not only dated, it is unrealistic. Because of the influence and prominence of Starship Troopers it will continue to shape military science fiction; however, readers of modern YA SF, while they may appreciate the novel for it's advocacy of commitment to one's country, are going to be better served by SF that acknowledges that war, while it may be justified, is often anything but glorious.
Currently, the speculative fiction genre is experiencing a renaissance in young adult literature that has not been seen since Heinlein's time. Contemporary readers of young adult have been born into the post-9/11 world, with the recently "concluded" conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the pain of the great recession. The Second World War occurred seventy years ago, and is best known through the legions of first person shooters or movies it has inspired.
Contemporary writers are, whether they know it or not, whether they like it or not, playing in Heinlein's sandbox: writers such as John Scalzi write works inspired by Starship Troopers. It is a novel that celebrates the dedication and commitment towards service of one's country---in the form of cranky lectures in protagonist Johnny Rico's History and Moral Philosophy classes about how society would function better if there was the same dedication shown to participating in democracy that was displayed in military service (revealing the kernel of authoritarianism at the heart of libertarianism).
Contemporary readers are living in a turbulent world, where violence is common, particularly in the form of extra-state terrorism. Conflict shapes the world they live in. Is Robert A. Heinlein still relevant to contemporary readers of YA? Will younger readers have the same reverence for it that their predecessors once had? I am not entirely optimistic, myself, that Starship Troopers is going to age well.
The relationship between war and contemporary YA SF readers has changed. In Heinlein's time, even the most horrible atrocities of war may not have been hidden away, but they were not as explicit either. Photographs, perhaps movies, could be seen after a respectable period of time. Crucially, the government could and did intercept anything that could be construed as damaging to the public's morale. Today, any atrocity can (and frequently is) immediately uploaded to YouTube within seconds.
The relationship between war and media has changed. For example, much of Mockingjay concerns both the Capital of Panem and Katniss Everdeen's efforts to try and out-soapbox each other. As a result, contemporary readers are no longer passive, but can easily recognize propaganda and manipulation when they see it. Information control is a lot more difficult than it used to be. Also, it is recognized now that whoever frames the perception of the conflict best is destined to win. This is not a new revelation, but in a time when information passes freely, it becomes crucial.
The relationship between civilians and the military is also dissimilar: Starship Troopers was written in a time when armies might clash at a respectable distance from civilian population centers. Not that war was always conducted in this way, or that American forces never participated in fighting in urban environments, but increasingly the amount of fighting is, by necessity, going to occur in urban environments. The relationship between civilian and combatant is now gauze thin.
This is not to say that we have grown any more pacifistic. Far from it: look at the Hunger Games, Chaos Walking and Leviathan or Uglies series, all of which have war or at least violent conflict as a central aspect of their plots. However, compared to Heinlein's veneration of the central role conflict plays in the human experience, modern young adult science fiction has a more realistic and nuanced view of warfare than Heinlein. Isaac Asimov has a famous quote where he says that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Both Heinlein and modern readers agree: warfare's necessity forms a major part of Monsters of Men, the third book of the Chaos Walking series. Warfare involves violence, but it is a focused and deliberate kind of violence as opposed to mass murder or terrorism that often passes for it.
Still, modern readers realize that warfare has very serious consequences. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is involved in the aftermath of the Hunger Games in Catching Fire; and the rebellion against the capital involves false flag operations against civilians, among other things. Compare this with Heinlein's "Bugs" who are literally natural communists, incapable of distinguishing between civilian and soldier. There is nothing in warfare so horrible that you will not do it: you will make alliances with disreputable people who will make trying to live in peace after the war as difficult as possible; you will do things that you think only bad guys do, and you will do them willingly.
Ironically for an author that tried to tell it straight and as it is, Heinlein increasingly is coming across as a man with his head in the clouds. His perspective of warfare is not only dated, it is unrealistic. Because of the influence and prominence of Starship Troopers it will continue to shape military science fiction; however, readers of modern YA SF, while they may appreciate the novel for it's advocacy of commitment to one's country, are going to be better served by SF that acknowledges that war, while it may be justified, is often anything but glorious.
Saturday, June 1, 2013
Why it would not surprise me if there was a "Maple Spring" this year
While walking through the downtown today, I noticed the protest scheduled for today to demand the resignation of Rob Ford. The travails of Ford will, make my words, mark his imminent departure from politics, one way or another. The man, simply put, just doesn't have the brains to be mayor. He certainly is not displaying any aptitude in handling this crisis, when clearly everyone associate with his administration is jumping ship.
History is not going to vindicate Ford. Aside from the discontinuation of the vehicle registration tax and garbage privatization east of Yonge, name me any proposal or initiative Ford has brought to the table that has survived. I'll wait. World's largest Ferris wheel? The casino? Privately funded subway---hell, the friggin' monorail? He has not compromised, he has not proven to be reasonable; he has only gone on the offensive, charging headfirst into the windmills, and now is being lifted aloft for all to ridicule.
At the same time, Stephen Harper is weathering the Duffy/Wright scandal. Harper is deprived of a chief of staff in the PMO; and the economy, despite every attempt to convince Canadians of what their lying eyes is telling them, is not coming back as a roaring success. Combined with funding cuts, and attempt to muzzle, Canada's scientists has proven to be a huge disaster for the Conservative party. If the economy continues to soften, especially with regards to the housing sector, it will be difficult for the Tories to claim the high ground on the economy.
The 2010/2011 Conservative wave has broken and is beginning to recede. Harper now faces a feisty opposition in Trudeau, and any hope of mobilizing Ford nation in Toronto has fizzled. Things are not much better than two years ago, when the Occupy movement began, and it would not take much of a nudge for the protests to start all over. There are two years left in Harper's mandate, but he will have been in power for nine years, enough to exhaust voters, especially when he is burdened with scandal and stagnation.
Currently, Turkey is convulsed with protests denouncing the ruling party. Such a spirit may yet make it's way to Canada's shores.
History is not going to vindicate Ford. Aside from the discontinuation of the vehicle registration tax and garbage privatization east of Yonge, name me any proposal or initiative Ford has brought to the table that has survived. I'll wait. World's largest Ferris wheel? The casino? Privately funded subway---hell, the friggin' monorail? He has not compromised, he has not proven to be reasonable; he has only gone on the offensive, charging headfirst into the windmills, and now is being lifted aloft for all to ridicule.
At the same time, Stephen Harper is weathering the Duffy/Wright scandal. Harper is deprived of a chief of staff in the PMO; and the economy, despite every attempt to convince Canadians of what their lying eyes is telling them, is not coming back as a roaring success. Combined with funding cuts, and attempt to muzzle, Canada's scientists has proven to be a huge disaster for the Conservative party. If the economy continues to soften, especially with regards to the housing sector, it will be difficult for the Tories to claim the high ground on the economy.
The 2010/2011 Conservative wave has broken and is beginning to recede. Harper now faces a feisty opposition in Trudeau, and any hope of mobilizing Ford nation in Toronto has fizzled. Things are not much better than two years ago, when the Occupy movement began, and it would not take much of a nudge for the protests to start all over. There are two years left in Harper's mandate, but he will have been in power for nine years, enough to exhaust voters, especially when he is burdened with scandal and stagnation.
Currently, Turkey is convulsed with protests denouncing the ruling party. Such a spirit may yet make it's way to Canada's shores.
Monday, May 27, 2013
The Last Act for Rob Ford
Rob Ford's administration is in his final days. I do not expect him to remain in office past Labour Day. As of today, his press secretary and deputy press secretary have quit, leaving him vulnerable to the media. He has never been able to handle the media by himself. What the Star has started, the Globe and Mail, with it's detailed account of the Ford family's involvement in the narcotics trade, has finished.
That is why I found this article by Joe Warmington of the Toronto Sun (ugh) to be...interesting.
"Doesn’t matter if the evidence is authentic? Impossible to survive? In football terms it’s bulletin board material. He got up from what he considers a blind-side hit and carefully tried to word his way out of what the Star reporters have alleged."
Let's see: dude has a DUI/marijuana possession, got kicked out of a Leafs game after getting drunk...not hard to see a pattern here. The man clearly has a history of getting drunk and high. And we have the Globe to thank for revealing just how prolonged and deep Ford's involvement with narcotics is.
"Ford Nation will fight on."
"They had him in check but not checkmate. In check good chess players still have moves."
This argument is pure drivel. Granted, things have changed (and not in Ford's favour) since Warmington wrote this. Ford's chief of staff and press secretaries have resigned: in the case of Towhey, he was fired after insisting Ford get treatment for his substance abuse issues. Not something to be proud of.
The clock is ticking in the hunt for the only thing that appears to have the power to crack this case.
The clock is ticking all right: for the final few minutes of the most bizarre mayorship Toronto has ever seen.
That is why I found this article by Joe Warmington of the Toronto Sun (ugh) to be...interesting.
"Doesn’t matter if the evidence is authentic? Impossible to survive? In football terms it’s bulletin board material. He got up from what he considers a blind-side hit and carefully tried to word his way out of what the Star reporters have alleged."
Let's see: dude has a DUI/marijuana possession, got kicked out of a Leafs game after getting drunk...not hard to see a pattern here. The man clearly has a history of getting drunk and high. And we have the Globe to thank for revealing just how prolonged and deep Ford's involvement with narcotics is.
"Ford Nation will fight on."
"They had him in check but not checkmate. In check good chess players still have moves."
This argument is pure drivel. Granted, things have changed (and not in Ford's favour) since Warmington wrote this. Ford's chief of staff and press secretaries have resigned: in the case of Towhey, he was fired after insisting Ford get treatment for his substance abuse issues. Not something to be proud of.
The clock is ticking in the hunt for the only thing that appears to have the power to crack this case.
The clock is ticking all right: for the final few minutes of the most bizarre mayorship Toronto has ever seen.
Sunday, May 19, 2013
A Scott Pilgrim movie reboot is probably inevitable (and hardly a bad thing)
Listening to Paul Chapman's "Greatest Movie Ever" Podcast a week ago introduced the idea that Scott Pilgrim is a fundamentally flawed movie that got a lot of praise for executing the style of the comics right, but failed to make Scott a fundamentally solid character. Chapman was under the impression that Scott was an idiot man-child whose quirkiness covered up for the complete lack of any sort of meaningful character growth. I don't fully agree, but neither is this a point worth dismissing.
Scott Pilgrim is a movie I like, but it comes with a very qualified like. While most critics fell over themselves with praise, I couldn't help notice that the movie had some real flaws. Specifically, the movie acts as a solid adaption of at least the first two books of the series, and goes wobbly when trying to cram in the rest. Adapting a six volume comic book series to one movie is going to be a challenge---specifically when two of the books have not been written yet. Timing the movie to be released at the same time of the conclusion of the comic series resulted in an experience confusing to fans of the book and underwhelming to newcomers.
The result is a movie that trips over itself. Confining the series to a single movie (while it may have made sense to do so, especially given the movie's dismal performance at the box office) resulted in a jammed, bloated epic that struggled to keep up with it's own frantic pace.
The ending of the movie is completely unbalanced: it was written with the intention of Scott remaining with Knives, and when I saw the movie for the first time I was incredibly confused when it turned out that he was sticking with Ramona. Yes, it would have made sense for the movie to end in a way that was different to how the books turned out. If it would result in a more coherent movie, so be it. Bryan Lee O'Malley admitted that the (in progress) ending of the final volume was still up in the air when the script was being written.
The secondary characters remained criminally underdeveloped, especially given how talented the actors who portrayed them. I loved Alison Pill's Kim Pine, and her previous relationship with Scott was only lightly touched upon. This presented an opportunity to add depth to Scott's character as much as hers, to help show why Scott was such a dolt when it came to women. Kim herself is a fascinating character in the books who deserved more screen time. Similarly, Scott's relationship with Envy Adams deserves more attention, since it informed his relationship with Kim.
In hindsight, casting Michael Cera as Scott was a bad move. He didn't play the part wrong, don't misunderstand me, but at the time the movie was being made the public was tiring of Cera and his presence was more of a liability than a help. This is more of a marketing problem, one that neither aids nor harms the film as a whole. If audiences were uncertain before whether to give this movie a chance, Cera cemented opinions.
Edgar Wright is the only movie maker of his generation that can capture the style and the spirit of the books, but the depth of the story remained elusive. In twenty years, when we (for some reason) are nostalgic for this period in history, Scott Pilgrim is going to be reexamined. People who will complain about the reception about this movie, and it would not surprise me if someone made an attempt at a reboot. Purists will be up in arms, but let's face it: as good as Scott Pilgrim was, it had potential that it simply did not achieve. An attempt to improve upon what came before is anything but a horrible fate.
Scott Pilgrim is a movie I like, but it comes with a very qualified like. While most critics fell over themselves with praise, I couldn't help notice that the movie had some real flaws. Specifically, the movie acts as a solid adaption of at least the first two books of the series, and goes wobbly when trying to cram in the rest. Adapting a six volume comic book series to one movie is going to be a challenge---specifically when two of the books have not been written yet. Timing the movie to be released at the same time of the conclusion of the comic series resulted in an experience confusing to fans of the book and underwhelming to newcomers.
The result is a movie that trips over itself. Confining the series to a single movie (while it may have made sense to do so, especially given the movie's dismal performance at the box office) resulted in a jammed, bloated epic that struggled to keep up with it's own frantic pace.
The ending of the movie is completely unbalanced: it was written with the intention of Scott remaining with Knives, and when I saw the movie for the first time I was incredibly confused when it turned out that he was sticking with Ramona. Yes, it would have made sense for the movie to end in a way that was different to how the books turned out. If it would result in a more coherent movie, so be it. Bryan Lee O'Malley admitted that the (in progress) ending of the final volume was still up in the air when the script was being written.
The secondary characters remained criminally underdeveloped, especially given how talented the actors who portrayed them. I loved Alison Pill's Kim Pine, and her previous relationship with Scott was only lightly touched upon. This presented an opportunity to add depth to Scott's character as much as hers, to help show why Scott was such a dolt when it came to women. Kim herself is a fascinating character in the books who deserved more screen time. Similarly, Scott's relationship with Envy Adams deserves more attention, since it informed his relationship with Kim.
In hindsight, casting Michael Cera as Scott was a bad move. He didn't play the part wrong, don't misunderstand me, but at the time the movie was being made the public was tiring of Cera and his presence was more of a liability than a help. This is more of a marketing problem, one that neither aids nor harms the film as a whole. If audiences were uncertain before whether to give this movie a chance, Cera cemented opinions.
Edgar Wright is the only movie maker of his generation that can capture the style and the spirit of the books, but the depth of the story remained elusive. In twenty years, when we (for some reason) are nostalgic for this period in history, Scott Pilgrim is going to be reexamined. People who will complain about the reception about this movie, and it would not surprise me if someone made an attempt at a reboot. Purists will be up in arms, but let's face it: as good as Scott Pilgrim was, it had potential that it simply did not achieve. An attempt to improve upon what came before is anything but a horrible fate.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Star Trek Into Darkness: One of the Best, yet also one of the Worst
Leonard Nimoy has a fun cameo in the new Star Trek movie, wherein Spock calls him up asking for advice on how to deal with Khan. Spock the Elder confirms to Spock 2.0 that there is a way to kill Khan. But it comes "with a great cost."
Such is the new Star Trek movie. Technically speaking, it is an excellent action scifi movie...but it is also a Star Trek movie, which carries additional weight. Not that this movie was expected to be cerebral (go see Star Trek: TMP and Star Trek 5 as examples), or not fun (see Star Trek IV for an example of how Star Trek genuinely can be fun). It is not bad, certainly not horrendous, and immeasurably preferable to the sorry run of the TNG movies, and several of the TOS ones.
But it is not going to be in the top tier of Star Trek movies, along with Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home, Undiscovered Country and (to an extent) First Contact. It is not a terrible movie, let me stress that. I got my money's worth. It was an excellent space opera---but it did not live up to Star Trek's pedigree, not one bit.
It achieved what it set out to do, but at the cost of having a weighty story to it. It is the proverbial step forward, and also two steps back.
What I Disliked
Shallow characters and motivation
We don't know what drives Admiral Marcus, aside from a belief that war is inevitable with the Klingons. Why? Has there been some recent event necessitating a harder line with the Klingons? If so, what? I found him to be a textbook bad guy, which is always a major disappointment.
Similarly, we only know Khan is a genetically superior human who aims to destroy all that is not as perfect as he is. Now, in the original series we knew him from the episode Space Speed; and in Wrath of Khan you did not need to know who he was in detail to enjoy the movie. Here he comes out of nowhere, and you know he's a bad guy, but I feel disappointed that we did not know more about him in tremendous detail, other than he is evil.
Lifting so much of the movie from The Wrath of Khan, and completely missing the point.
Wrath of Khan is deservedly regarded as the best of the Star Trek movies. It deals with themes of life, death and sacrifice, themes picked up by Into Darkness, carefully examined and ultimately discarded. The movie apes the actions and borrow the characters, but fails to build a meaningful story to really arrange the proceedings. Ripping everything off of this movie except the theme makes ripping off Khan abjectly pointless.
This movie is too derivative of The Dark Knight's post-9/11 plot system: bad guy does something bad, good guy goes after him, bad guy gets captured, bad guy escapes (although they were a tad more clever this time around by turning Khan's release into a necessary evil), final confrontation. Fini. That too precedence over the themes of the movie, which was a major mistake.
Khan now has Wolverine-esque healing powers, you see. The use of his blood to save Kirk's life was predictable (I saw it coming from a mile away), though it rendered the importance of Kirk's "sacrifice" meaningless. Spock's death in Khan had importance because it was permanent; it could not be turned back. Doing so would have cheapened the movie's principal theme of the no-win scenario, and "how we deal with death is as importance as how we deal with life." Into Darkness completely invalidates that theme so recklessly its actually jaw dropping for those who love and cherish Wrath of Khan.
The fact that Kirk was willing to go to great lengths to save his crew as much as possible was excellent, and him dying for good (hey, Khan killed off Spock, after all!) would have carried some major dramatic weight (the inversion of the ending of Khan, with Spock racing to meet Kirk in the radiation chamber, while derivative, was a nice touch, I thought). Kirk would truly have learned the importance of sacrifice, of saving so many lives...yet not being able to save himself. But hey! He's all better now!
Hey, I hope Spock didn't bogart Khan's blood, seeing as how now there's a city full of dead people following the crash of the Vengeance into San Francisco. Strange that it gets glossed over so quickly---perhaps that was why the ending had the recommissioning of the Enterprise rather than any indication of the human loss.
Random moments of illogic
Why was the very important captain's meeting held ontop of a skyscraper where they could be attacked instead of a secure underground location? Why was the Enterprise hiding underwater in the beginning of the movie instead of space (y'know, being a space ship and all)? Why were the rescue shuttles arranged in such a fashion that they keeled over when the gravity got all wonky?
What I Liked
Khan played by the Cumberbatch, natch.
Khan here is formidable: a deadly warrior, a canny intellect, someone who cannot be left off of his leash for a second (and yet Kirk is forced to). Cumberbatch even manages to elicit a moment of sympathy for him, since he is fundamentally caring about his people...who like him are genetically engineered super beings incapable of coexisting with what they consider to be inferior lifeforms. He is pretty much invincible you can't kill him, all you can do is buy yourself a few moments to think while he is down.
The culture of the future Earth.
Earth does not feature as prominently in Star Trek as it really should. We don't see alot of the world outside of the Federation and Starfleet. I nodded approvingly when I saw the British flag flutter next to the Federation banner, because it reminded me that there is a culture here (especially a pop culture) that Star Trek usually sanitizes to within an inch of it's life.
I liked seeing scenes of Earth of people driving, or walking underneath the towering structures that now dominate Earth's landscape. I also liked the look of the uniforms. The uniforms no longer had the baggy, cheap look of the original series, and carried the proper authority of command that Starfleet deserved.
The look and feel of the Enterprise.
Granted, the iPod-y look of the Enterprise did get excessive. But I liked the way the warp core looked, because it screamed, "This is a warp core!" It looked like it had purpose and a function, that if you took every piece of it apart, you could determine what each component did. It was functional, and I really give the movie credit for that instead of using some plastic prop.
What this means for Star Trek
Well, the franchise lived to see another day, which ain't a bad thing at all. If Star Trek is going to survive, butts need to get into seats, and this movie will certainly deliver that. The needs of the shareholders outweighs the needs of the fans.
What Star Trek needs desperately is a weighty story, which we cannot get right now, since the important thing is to show that the Star Trek brand has not gotten stale. That means necessary concessions to the needs of the mass-market movie consumer. I do not believe we are doomed to stupid Trek movies from here on out, but while Abrams is at the helm, we're going to get slick, enjoyable, albeit weightless, movies. This is not the worst possible fate Trek deserves, but it does deserve better, and I do hope that the movies Abrams makes are the foundation for a Trek renaissance.
The next movie, hopefully, will boldly go where no man has gone before. Until then, we have the not enjoyable but not completely satisfactory either Into Darkness to tide us over.
Such is the new Star Trek movie. Technically speaking, it is an excellent action scifi movie...but it is also a Star Trek movie, which carries additional weight. Not that this movie was expected to be cerebral (go see Star Trek: TMP and Star Trek 5 as examples), or not fun (see Star Trek IV for an example of how Star Trek genuinely can be fun). It is not bad, certainly not horrendous, and immeasurably preferable to the sorry run of the TNG movies, and several of the TOS ones.
But it is not going to be in the top tier of Star Trek movies, along with Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home, Undiscovered Country and (to an extent) First Contact. It is not a terrible movie, let me stress that. I got my money's worth. It was an excellent space opera---but it did not live up to Star Trek's pedigree, not one bit.
It achieved what it set out to do, but at the cost of having a weighty story to it. It is the proverbial step forward, and also two steps back.
What I Disliked
Shallow characters and motivation
We don't know what drives Admiral Marcus, aside from a belief that war is inevitable with the Klingons. Why? Has there been some recent event necessitating a harder line with the Klingons? If so, what? I found him to be a textbook bad guy, which is always a major disappointment.
Similarly, we only know Khan is a genetically superior human who aims to destroy all that is not as perfect as he is. Now, in the original series we knew him from the episode Space Speed; and in Wrath of Khan you did not need to know who he was in detail to enjoy the movie. Here he comes out of nowhere, and you know he's a bad guy, but I feel disappointed that we did not know more about him in tremendous detail, other than he is evil.
Lifting so much of the movie from The Wrath of Khan, and completely missing the point.
Wrath of Khan is deservedly regarded as the best of the Star Trek movies. It deals with themes of life, death and sacrifice, themes picked up by Into Darkness, carefully examined and ultimately discarded. The movie apes the actions and borrow the characters, but fails to build a meaningful story to really arrange the proceedings. Ripping everything off of this movie except the theme makes ripping off Khan abjectly pointless.
This movie is too derivative of The Dark Knight's post-9/11 plot system: bad guy does something bad, good guy goes after him, bad guy gets captured, bad guy escapes (although they were a tad more clever this time around by turning Khan's release into a necessary evil), final confrontation. Fini. That too precedence over the themes of the movie, which was a major mistake.
Khan now has Wolverine-esque healing powers, you see. The use of his blood to save Kirk's life was predictable (I saw it coming from a mile away), though it rendered the importance of Kirk's "sacrifice" meaningless. Spock's death in Khan had importance because it was permanent; it could not be turned back. Doing so would have cheapened the movie's principal theme of the no-win scenario, and "how we deal with death is as importance as how we deal with life." Into Darkness completely invalidates that theme so recklessly its actually jaw dropping for those who love and cherish Wrath of Khan.
The fact that Kirk was willing to go to great lengths to save his crew as much as possible was excellent, and him dying for good (hey, Khan killed off Spock, after all!) would have carried some major dramatic weight (the inversion of the ending of Khan, with Spock racing to meet Kirk in the radiation chamber, while derivative, was a nice touch, I thought). Kirk would truly have learned the importance of sacrifice, of saving so many lives...yet not being able to save himself. But hey! He's all better now!
Hey, I hope Spock didn't bogart Khan's blood, seeing as how now there's a city full of dead people following the crash of the Vengeance into San Francisco. Strange that it gets glossed over so quickly---perhaps that was why the ending had the recommissioning of the Enterprise rather than any indication of the human loss.
Random moments of illogic
Why was the very important captain's meeting held ontop of a skyscraper where they could be attacked instead of a secure underground location? Why was the Enterprise hiding underwater in the beginning of the movie instead of space (y'know, being a space ship and all)? Why were the rescue shuttles arranged in such a fashion that they keeled over when the gravity got all wonky?
What I Liked
Khan played by the Cumberbatch, natch.
Khan here is formidable: a deadly warrior, a canny intellect, someone who cannot be left off of his leash for a second (and yet Kirk is forced to). Cumberbatch even manages to elicit a moment of sympathy for him, since he is fundamentally caring about his people...who like him are genetically engineered super beings incapable of coexisting with what they consider to be inferior lifeforms. He is pretty much invincible you can't kill him, all you can do is buy yourself a few moments to think while he is down.
The culture of the future Earth.
Earth does not feature as prominently in Star Trek as it really should. We don't see alot of the world outside of the Federation and Starfleet. I nodded approvingly when I saw the British flag flutter next to the Federation banner, because it reminded me that there is a culture here (especially a pop culture) that Star Trek usually sanitizes to within an inch of it's life.
I liked seeing scenes of Earth of people driving, or walking underneath the towering structures that now dominate Earth's landscape. I also liked the look of the uniforms. The uniforms no longer had the baggy, cheap look of the original series, and carried the proper authority of command that Starfleet deserved.
The look and feel of the Enterprise.
Granted, the iPod-y look of the Enterprise did get excessive. But I liked the way the warp core looked, because it screamed, "This is a warp core!" It looked like it had purpose and a function, that if you took every piece of it apart, you could determine what each component did. It was functional, and I really give the movie credit for that instead of using some plastic prop.
What this means for Star Trek
Well, the franchise lived to see another day, which ain't a bad thing at all. If Star Trek is going to survive, butts need to get into seats, and this movie will certainly deliver that. The needs of the shareholders outweighs the needs of the fans.
What Star Trek needs desperately is a weighty story, which we cannot get right now, since the important thing is to show that the Star Trek brand has not gotten stale. That means necessary concessions to the needs of the mass-market movie consumer. I do not believe we are doomed to stupid Trek movies from here on out, but while Abrams is at the helm, we're going to get slick, enjoyable, albeit weightless, movies. This is not the worst possible fate Trek deserves, but it does deserve better, and I do hope that the movies Abrams makes are the foundation for a Trek renaissance.
The next movie, hopefully, will boldly go where no man has gone before. Until then, we have the not enjoyable but not completely satisfactory either Into Darkness to tide us over.
Friday, May 10, 2013
Orson Scott Card is his own worst enemy (and the enemy is winning)
There is an Ender's Game movie coming out. Big revelation, I know. I'd like to address one Tweet from one of my favourite internet critics, MovieBob, when he pondered what kind of damage Orson Scott Card could do to that project between now and November.
I'd say it's a simple question to answer: he already has.
There are mountains of quotes, articles and posts he has made on the subject of homosexuality (in particular), climate change, Israel, the Iraq War, etc. Mountains. The dude doesn't have to breathe another word, in all complete seriousness. If you know where to look (and there are many, many people who will help point you in the right direction), you can get volumes of his screeds.
Timing is everything: as recently as five years ago Card could probably have skated by consequence free. Remember, the election that brought in Obama also struck down same sex marriage in California. Four years before the Republicans won the White House for a second term by exploiting fear of same sex marriage. Now, with Minnesota proudly joining the ranks of the 12 states that recognize same sex marriage; and New Zealand, Uruguay, and France now recognizing same sex marriage, its going to get harder to rationalize away Card's "traditionalist" beliefs.
I'm actually interested to see what will happen to Card's creative output in a decade when same sex marriage gains more traction. I don't believe its going to be legalized nationwide for another fifteen to twenty years at least, though perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised. I don't expect him to be completely forgotten, as Ender's Game is a seminal work within science fiction; but his luster will dim, that much is clear, with the consequence of the rest of his body of work being ignored. Within half a century all he will have left is one book and a handful of angry screeds. That will be tragic. But it will not be unearned.
Naturally, the producers will (when Card's nonsense inevitably get raised) distance themselves from him. Card will go on a tangent about being censored and the media distorting his words, the first reactions of someone who has espoused unpleasant beliefs and is now being held to task for it. He'll double down further on his beliefs; and as America changes he will continue to be more and more isolated to the point where people will wonder what was so magical about him to begin with.
That's the way he wants it. So long as he's happy, I suppose.
I'd say it's a simple question to answer: he already has.
There are mountains of quotes, articles and posts he has made on the subject of homosexuality (in particular), climate change, Israel, the Iraq War, etc. Mountains. The dude doesn't have to breathe another word, in all complete seriousness. If you know where to look (and there are many, many people who will help point you in the right direction), you can get volumes of his screeds.
Timing is everything: as recently as five years ago Card could probably have skated by consequence free. Remember, the election that brought in Obama also struck down same sex marriage in California. Four years before the Republicans won the White House for a second term by exploiting fear of same sex marriage. Now, with Minnesota proudly joining the ranks of the 12 states that recognize same sex marriage; and New Zealand, Uruguay, and France now recognizing same sex marriage, its going to get harder to rationalize away Card's "traditionalist" beliefs.
I'm actually interested to see what will happen to Card's creative output in a decade when same sex marriage gains more traction. I don't believe its going to be legalized nationwide for another fifteen to twenty years at least, though perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised. I don't expect him to be completely forgotten, as Ender's Game is a seminal work within science fiction; but his luster will dim, that much is clear, with the consequence of the rest of his body of work being ignored. Within half a century all he will have left is one book and a handful of angry screeds. That will be tragic. But it will not be unearned.
Naturally, the producers will (when Card's nonsense inevitably get raised) distance themselves from him. Card will go on a tangent about being censored and the media distorting his words, the first reactions of someone who has espoused unpleasant beliefs and is now being held to task for it. He'll double down further on his beliefs; and as America changes he will continue to be more and more isolated to the point where people will wonder what was so magical about him to begin with.
That's the way he wants it. So long as he's happy, I suppose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)