Hello, and welcome back to Weekly Cinemeh! This week's theme was sci-fi/things where they do not belong. In this case dinosaurs, alternate realities, and shitty CGI.
1: Jurassic Park
I loved this movie when I was a kid (in 1993 I was 7), because really what kid wasn't in love with dinosaurs at least a little bit. It is a movie about a theme park owner who wants some scientists to sign off on his newest theme park, where he has genetically resurrected dinosaurs wandering around in pens. A tropical storm plus sabotage leads to some violent dinosaur antics, it's great. I was a little more into it than other kids (I wanted to be a paleontologist for as far back as I can remember) and this movie just added to that. It also started my love of Michael Crichton's fiction. The movie still holds up pretty well, the practical effects are fantastic. The biggest disappointment to me isn't really it's fault. CGI has come super far since then so when you go back to a movie that is using CGI for the first time it's kind of shocking to see the difference. The acting is also a little off, though I loved Jeff Goldblum. Its a fun movie, with some great dinosaur action and some pretty good use of practical effects. Watch it.
Eshi: We got to talking about how nervous we are for Jurassic World and it inspired us to watch the only good film in the series. Jurassic Park is fun, well cast, and the practical effects were revolutionary. Seriously, you haven't seen this yet you are bad at movies. It's like five bucks to rent, so... uhhh. Find a way.
2: A Sound of Thunder
I love Ray Bradbury's work, though I have never read this story, but this movie was terrible. The story is about a time travel safari company who fuck up and ruin earth, because time travel is a fucking bad idea. The green screen and CGI are so horrid, it was offensive. I have a feeling that they spent all of their money getting Ben Kingsly and just used whatever was left (not a lot) and patched together cheapo effects with no real effort. The acting was also very bad. Multiple characters die in front of the main character and he doesn't react at all. His friend from childhood gets eaten in front of him and he doesn't bat a fucking eye. This movie is bad, straight up. Watch Jurassic Park instead.
Eshi: I suggested this one and I was wrong. I feel bad about it. Do not waste your fucking time. This movie was a ham-fisted, cliche, and the actors spent so much time alternately chewing the scenery and staring dead-eyed at each other that I can't help but feel that whatever money they didn't spend apologizing to Ben Kingsly was blown on cheap drugs. It would have been cheaper to just go to Bradbury's house and shit in his mouth.
3: The One
This is another movie that I saw when I was younger, though its not as old as Jurassic Park. Its a movie about a killer that is jumping around alternate realities and killing other versions of himself so that he can become stronger by their energy being redistributed to their alternate selves or whatever. Unfortunately, his last victim is just as strong as he is, and the two fight for supremacy to become "the one" version of themself? Himself? Himselves? The movie kind of holds up, the action scenes are fun, but it was nowhere as good as I remember it being when I was a youth. The music seems out of place. I get that they are trying to be hardcore and reach out to the young people, but I don't think that Let The Bodies Hit The Floor and kung fu really mesh well together. The CGI is also a little bad in this movie. All in all a bad week for CGI.
Eshi: I like The One, mostly because I love to watch Jet Li hit things, and this movie is a whole lot of Jet Li hitting shit. He kicks the shit out of a couple cops with their own motorcycles. The premise is kinda laughable and the way they go about trying to describe all their hand-waving unscience is almost threatening. Like they're daring you to call them on how absurd it is. The whole story seems kind like someone had two ideas for a pen and paper game and was like, "Fuck it, I'll just make a movie". That said, I enjoy The One, have a couple drinks and give it a shot.
Showing posts with label Science Fiction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Science Fiction. Show all posts
Friday, June 12, 2015
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
I Am Not Mad At J.J. Abrams, Just Disappointed.
I love Sci-Fi. This should come as no surprise to readers of my past posts. Sci-Fi TV shows in particular are on of my favorite things to watch. This is why I kind of hate and love J.J. Abrams. Both Lost and Fringe had amazing potential, but shit the bed around 2/3 of the way through. I know that he isn't the only person behind these shows, but he makes a nice surrogate for the show as a whole since his name is on the title cards as a creator.
Lost had some great ideas. It set up an intriguing mystery that made the characters and the viewers question the reality of the show. Existentialism is a very interesting subject and making a show that introduced the concept as a main theme is great. Whats not great is what happened around halfway through the series. Laziness.
It started setting up mysteries and never solving them. Fuck, they ended the series by copying a fan theory about what they show was all about. I am big on fans being included in the creation of something, but that is going a little to far. It was later revealed that the show was essentially ad-libed, they made all of it up as they went along. The creators came out and said that they had no intention of building a mythology in the first couple seasons. Most fans of the show assumed that they were, myself included, because the show was set up like a mystery, which tend to be a coherent thing, not shit made up on the spot. You can't have an immersive, engaging show without building some kind of mythology, its fucking irresponsible.
Fringe had a different problem at the start. I love sci-fi serials. The X-Files, The Twilight Zone, and Star Trek and the like are some of my favorite style of program. There is sometimes an overarching story line sure, but it plays second fiddle to a monster-of-the-week structure which each explores a new idea or concept with each episode. Fringe was great because the character that is supposed to be the scientific genius is a mad scientist who isn't a bad guy, something that rarely happens. The series explores a bunch of ideas and does so in an interesting way.
Unfortunately, it ended up in kind of a mess. Characters went evil for no reason, possibly because universe jumping made it so that there was no coherent character arcs. This same universe jumping was also used as a cheap way to retcon series mythology. I feel like I need to point out that alternate reality is a great thing to explore, but the base reality needs to remain fucking consistent, otherwise the whole thing starts to come off as a masturbation session for the writers. You can cram ideas into a story all day, but if there isn't some underlying method to the madness everything falls apart.
Both series have a common problem that I would like to make my own theory about. J. J. Abrams has a ton of cool ideas but he is impatient and/or lazy. He wanted to make a bunch of cool sci-fi ideas into a coherent show so he jammed as many ideas as he could into his scripts but after a while got bored with the execution and just ended both in ways that just kind of fell flat. I think that Abrams loves the idea behind a sci-fi mystery serial, a show that builds a massive story/world and seeks to explore it, but doesn't want to put in the effort to make the mythology mean something.
To be fair, it might not have been laziness. Maybe Abrams doesn't want to create a more structured series because he doesn't know what he might have to change later due to network interference. Or maybe he wants fans to have a say in the show. In any case, these series both started out as amazing works, but ended in way that at least felt lazy and disappointing. I feel like I can't explain how unfortunate it is to see something with a ton of potential just fall flat. I just felt like I needed to say this in hopes that any creative type people who read it will strive to do better when it comes to ending a show, or even just in building a mythology. Both your creation and your fans deserve it.
Lost had some great ideas. It set up an intriguing mystery that made the characters and the viewers question the reality of the show. Existentialism is a very interesting subject and making a show that introduced the concept as a main theme is great. Whats not great is what happened around halfway through the series. Laziness.
It started setting up mysteries and never solving them. Fuck, they ended the series by copying a fan theory about what they show was all about. I am big on fans being included in the creation of something, but that is going a little to far. It was later revealed that the show was essentially ad-libed, they made all of it up as they went along. The creators came out and said that they had no intention of building a mythology in the first couple seasons. Most fans of the show assumed that they were, myself included, because the show was set up like a mystery, which tend to be a coherent thing, not shit made up on the spot. You can't have an immersive, engaging show without building some kind of mythology, its fucking irresponsible.
Fringe had a different problem at the start. I love sci-fi serials. The X-Files, The Twilight Zone, and Star Trek and the like are some of my favorite style of program. There is sometimes an overarching story line sure, but it plays second fiddle to a monster-of-the-week structure which each explores a new idea or concept with each episode. Fringe was great because the character that is supposed to be the scientific genius is a mad scientist who isn't a bad guy, something that rarely happens. The series explores a bunch of ideas and does so in an interesting way.
Unfortunately, it ended up in kind of a mess. Characters went evil for no reason, possibly because universe jumping made it so that there was no coherent character arcs. This same universe jumping was also used as a cheap way to retcon series mythology. I feel like I need to point out that alternate reality is a great thing to explore, but the base reality needs to remain fucking consistent, otherwise the whole thing starts to come off as a masturbation session for the writers. You can cram ideas into a story all day, but if there isn't some underlying method to the madness everything falls apart.
Both series have a common problem that I would like to make my own theory about. J. J. Abrams has a ton of cool ideas but he is impatient and/or lazy. He wanted to make a bunch of cool sci-fi ideas into a coherent show so he jammed as many ideas as he could into his scripts but after a while got bored with the execution and just ended both in ways that just kind of fell flat. I think that Abrams loves the idea behind a sci-fi mystery serial, a show that builds a massive story/world and seeks to explore it, but doesn't want to put in the effort to make the mythology mean something.
To be fair, it might not have been laziness. Maybe Abrams doesn't want to create a more structured series because he doesn't know what he might have to change later due to network interference. Or maybe he wants fans to have a say in the show. In any case, these series both started out as amazing works, but ended in way that at least felt lazy and disappointing. I feel like I can't explain how unfortunate it is to see something with a ton of potential just fall flat. I just felt like I needed to say this in hopes that any creative type people who read it will strive to do better when it comes to ending a show, or even just in building a mythology. Both your creation and your fans deserve it.
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Brian In A Vat!
Eshi pointed out a few posts ago that one of our favorite things is philosophy. One of my favorite things to do is thought experiments. A thought experiment is essentially a statement or set of statements that asks the reader/listener to consider certain theories or principals in a hypothetical situation in hopes of discovering more about the consequences of the situation. There are some very famous thought experiments such as the prisoner's dilemma and Schrodinger's Cat.
A lot of science fiction also deals with the principals of certain though experiments. One of my favorites is a variation on the experience machine thought experiment brought up in Philip K Dick's short story "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale". The basic premise is that psychologists have a machine that if you were to step into it you would be fed the sensory experience of your choice. This experience would be perfect. Every bit of, say a trip to Tahiti, would be implanted into your brain. It would be as if you were there. Would you enter the machine? The matrix also deals with this issue, or at least in part as a brain in a vat style scenario. Is a simulated experience as valuable as a real experience?
Given this, I would probably argue yes since you could do things that were seemingly impossible for a normal person, like traveling to Mars. That being said I also understand the reasons why you wouldn't want to. Since sensory experience is how humans interact with the world any machine that could replicate that and implant it would be basically the same, save for one thing. Real world impact doesn't happen with that. People wouldn't remember you going to Tahiti/ people in Tahiti wouldn't remember you being there. If you went on vacation and met someone who would become a lifelong friend that would be great. If you did that in the experience machine it couldn't be maintained outside of the machine, unless it somehow linked your experience with other peoples experiences. In the end the answer depends on where you place value. If you want to have had the experience and an impact on the world (no matter how small) real life is the best and only way to accomplish both. If the sensory data is all that matters to you, then the machine could work. Incidentally how cool would it be to use a machine like that to learn kung fu? Or shit, get a degree? I think I want to change my answer! It would be best if you could just use it to amplify the human experience further than what normal time/space restrictions put on you.
As kind of a addendum I also want to talk about a version of this thought experiment that takes it to the matrix level of interaction with the machine. In this version, first proposed by philosopher Robert Nozick, the premise is different in that it was something that would create an entire life for you in which you will only ever have favorable experiences, all of which would feel absolutely real. That sounds great right? Nothing but good things would happen to you for your entire life. Upon examination though, experiencing nothing but pleasure from an experience implanting machine eliminates any value you as a person have since you cannot have any effect on the real world. For all intents and purposes you are a just a lump of flesh in a machine. You also end up putting limits on yourself in that the machine can only be programmed to implant experiences that have already been experienced by man: you couldn't implant memories of things that have never happened to a person before. This means that you could never make/do anything new. This was originally designed to show the folly of hedonism by the way, and I think if you have the standard view of what human endeavor should be (people should try to have some impact on the world), it makes a very good argument.
The reason why I love thought experiments. I only scratched the surface here, there are tons more ways that you can take this, and you should! Thought experiments are great at making you think about what you place value in. For me, in the end, I think real experience eventually trumps anything simulated. For one, you can share it. Humans are naturally social creatures and therefore having other people also enjoy the experience makes it more valuable on a base level (at least it feels that way). Unless you are a solipsist. Then you should get in the machine. This is good for everyone, you get to feel good, and those of us outside of the machine don't have to deal with you.
A lot of science fiction also deals with the principals of certain though experiments. One of my favorites is a variation on the experience machine thought experiment brought up in Philip K Dick's short story "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale". The basic premise is that psychologists have a machine that if you were to step into it you would be fed the sensory experience of your choice. This experience would be perfect. Every bit of, say a trip to Tahiti, would be implanted into your brain. It would be as if you were there. Would you enter the machine? The matrix also deals with this issue, or at least in part as a brain in a vat style scenario. Is a simulated experience as valuable as a real experience?
Given this, I would probably argue yes since you could do things that were seemingly impossible for a normal person, like traveling to Mars. That being said I also understand the reasons why you wouldn't want to. Since sensory experience is how humans interact with the world any machine that could replicate that and implant it would be basically the same, save for one thing. Real world impact doesn't happen with that. People wouldn't remember you going to Tahiti/ people in Tahiti wouldn't remember you being there. If you went on vacation and met someone who would become a lifelong friend that would be great. If you did that in the experience machine it couldn't be maintained outside of the machine, unless it somehow linked your experience with other peoples experiences. In the end the answer depends on where you place value. If you want to have had the experience and an impact on the world (no matter how small) real life is the best and only way to accomplish both. If the sensory data is all that matters to you, then the machine could work. Incidentally how cool would it be to use a machine like that to learn kung fu? Or shit, get a degree? I think I want to change my answer! It would be best if you could just use it to amplify the human experience further than what normal time/space restrictions put on you.
As kind of a addendum I also want to talk about a version of this thought experiment that takes it to the matrix level of interaction with the machine. In this version, first proposed by philosopher Robert Nozick, the premise is different in that it was something that would create an entire life for you in which you will only ever have favorable experiences, all of which would feel absolutely real. That sounds great right? Nothing but good things would happen to you for your entire life. Upon examination though, experiencing nothing but pleasure from an experience implanting machine eliminates any value you as a person have since you cannot have any effect on the real world. For all intents and purposes you are a just a lump of flesh in a machine. You also end up putting limits on yourself in that the machine can only be programmed to implant experiences that have already been experienced by man: you couldn't implant memories of things that have never happened to a person before. This means that you could never make/do anything new. This was originally designed to show the folly of hedonism by the way, and I think if you have the standard view of what human endeavor should be (people should try to have some impact on the world), it makes a very good argument.
The reason why I love thought experiments. I only scratched the surface here, there are tons more ways that you can take this, and you should! Thought experiments are great at making you think about what you place value in. For me, in the end, I think real experience eventually trumps anything simulated. For one, you can share it. Humans are naturally social creatures and therefore having other people also enjoy the experience makes it more valuable on a base level (at least it feels that way). Unless you are a solipsist. Then you should get in the machine. This is good for everyone, you get to feel good, and those of us outside of the machine don't have to deal with you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)