October 2008

World in the Satin Bag

The Imagination Problem

It seems fiction has, for the most part, fallen to the wayside in favour of reality TV shows, biographies, ghost-written star stories and factional retellings of stories we’ve heard a million times before. The majority of TV and many of the books in the bestseller list have a compulsive fascination with the ‘real’, attempting a simulacrum of lived truth. But the problem is, these hyped-up, often trashy, lowest-common-denominator stories sap creativity rather than encouraging it. People aren’t encouraged to question, think or imagine, but rather to accept and receive. If it’s true, you don’t have to deliberate, right? Wrong! Who said it’s true? Why is it being presented as truth? Why are you so happy to sit there and take it, and why are producers so happy to dish it out at ten-a-penny? In response to this, however, I have seen a similar trend: a rise in speculative fiction. For a while SF/F was considered geeky and trashy. Much of it is, unfortunately, but not all of it. And it’s become popular again. Even horror is on the rise again. After the 90s when franchises like A Nightmare on Elm Street and Halloween were run into the ground, we’ve seen a spate of new horror films and reworkings of classics to thrill, shock and horrify bored audiences who’ve been numbed by years of processed, production-line ‘reality’. Now we have Harry Potter and the tricksy hobbits entertaining huge audiences. The White Witch and Aslan excite us. Audiences are crying out for imagination. Perhaps this also explains the rise of genres like bizarro, irrealism and avant pulp. People want to throw every semblance of reality to the wind and revel in chaos and pure flights of fancy. On the surface, the realists would argue this is pure escapism. Sure, it is. But so are The X Factor and American Idol. What reality TV doesn’t do that spec fic does, is make you think differently. Even if it’s only to ponder ‘What if . . .’, it’s better than thinking ‘Can I afford to ring that premium rate telephone number again?’ Thinking outside the box is what leads to cures for cancer and HIV. It’s what led to the lightbulb, the aeroplane and the special theory of relativity. Not thinking is leading us to accept a police state, whether in the US or the UK. It’s time to think again. So ditch the tabloid with its sensationalist ‘real’ stories, drop Heat Magazine, switch off Simon Cowell and get imagining again.

World in the Satin Bag

Show Review: Sanctuary (the pilot episode)

I decided on a whim today to watch the pilot episode of Sanctuary itself because I absolutely, positively hate commercials, and particularly hate the commercials on the Sci (online rather than on Sci FiFi channel). I’ve heard a little bit about the show and was curious, although I probably should have been reading instead. Regardless, I have some thoughts. My overall impression of the show is that it feels very much like the kind of show that shows up on a cable/satellite network station and then gets cancelled at the end of its first series. Perhaps that sounds harsh, but there are a lot of things that feel wrong about the pilot episode and particularly that cry of poorly devised genre. My issues with the pilot also stem from my issues with the Sci Fi channel in general. So, I guess I’ll just dig in. First, the premise reads like a TV version of Hellboy, which isn’t necessarily bad, but certainly will be noticeable to people who are fans of Hellboy. The problem with Sanctuary is that it lacks the funding that Hellboy received to make that film a much more visually appealing creation: meaning that Sanctuary lacks the visuals to make it an outstanding show. There are too many times when you are fully aware of the CGI, which immediately pulls me out of the show itself. One of the things I think has destroyed modern television and film is this reliance on CGI, but a complete lack of attention paid to the actual details behind it. My rule has always been the following: Unless you can make it look real, don’t use it. Sanctuary falls prey to many of the problems that exist within Sci Fi Channel’s original content: poor CGI. This is incredibly depressing when you look at shows like Battlestar Galactica found within the first Mortal issues. None whatsoever. They could have removed half the (the new incarnation) and see what Sci Fi is actually capable of for a limited budget. True, you are aware of the CGI in BSG, but because it’s done well overall you’re much more willing to let it go as being a limiting factor of TV. But Sanctuary relies on its CGI to even work, whereas BSG does not. All the creatures (well, almost all of them) either have to be puppets or CGed critters, and it is really obvious when those creatures are CG. There is a mermaid in the pilot and she looks so obviously fake that it bugged me every time I saw her. The CGI quality here is not that far from the CGIKombat movie, and if you remember the CGI in that film, you’ll know that that’s not good at all. Even when the CGI looks good it’s flawed by crappy green/blue screen techniques where the people don’t look like they are actually a part of the environment around them (this is particularly annoying when they’re inside of the mansion and it makes you wonder why it was so hard for the producers to hunt down a nice mansion where they could film). I realize that TV shows don’t have a lot of funding, but if you’re going to use CGI, make it look good, or don’t use it at all. There really is no reason for the entire pilot to be mired by CGICGI to make the stuff that had to be CGed look even better. And this is very consistent within the Sci Fi Channel’s attempt to reach their market. No wonder the station has issues being taken seriously even by fans (and I will make a claim here that any time Sci Fi wants to be taken with a grain of salt when it creates its own scifi/horror movies, then they should cast Bruce Campbell in every part, because only then will anyone watch and be willing to let all the issues in the production slide…because Bruce rules). Additionally there are issues with casting. The daughter, Ashley, comes off forced and cliche–oh no, yet another leather-clad blonde girl who runs around fighting people and shooting guns…yippee. The main character, Will, is okay, but it feels a little Soap Opera-ish, and Amanda Tapping as Dr. Magnus is perhaps the strongest role, although even her performance is a mixed bag. Even the bad guy, John, isn’t perfect, although he really creeped me out and felt like a British version of Rutger Hauer’s Roy Batty from Blade Runner. Did anyone else see that similarity? There ‘s a complete lack of atmosphere too, let alone conflict. True, there is conflict, but it’s poorly done within an hour an a half of actual show. The overall issue is getting Will to join up with Dr. Magnus to deal with all the nifty unknown tidbits of the world (the sort of hidden and unknown aspect of Hellboy’s world of monsters and demons and what not). And that part gets resolved, but at the same time we’re told a lot of things about Dr. Magnus, which should have been a feature drawn out over the first season rather than developed and answered all at once, and her relationship to her daughter and John. In fact, the whole pilot was trying to do so much all at once it just felt like a bad movie. The atmosphere tries to be dark and gritty, somewhat noir in approach, but it fails to do that because of its poor production quality and limited sets (which is probably due to it being a TV show instead of a movie). The sets that exist don’t feel very lived in, but more like temporary creations that lack the personal touch that we might have seen in Lord of the Rings–and before anyone goes off on me for making a comparison between a movie like LOTR and a TV show, you can still create character and atmosphere with cheap props on a TV show in the same manner as was done with expensive props in LOTR,

World in the Satin Bag

Research Project: The Final Idea

UC Santa Cruz is one of the cooler universities in America. Being a research university, it offers ample opportunity for science majors and similar majors to get some hands-on experience. And guess what? The humanities have no been forgotten either. The university offers a research grant to undergraduate students who are majoring in something within the humanities division: I’m a literature major.I’ve mentioned this before, but I figure a little fanfare was in order to make UCSC sound even cooler to those of you who don’t know much about it or are perhaps considering it for your own studies.Having spent the summer thinking about what to do, I’ve finally come up with what I think is a really interesting idea:I’m going to discuss how science fiction film and television works towards denying the existence of a human category. What I mean is that films/shows like Battlestar Galactica, Space Above and Beyond, Starship Troopers, Bicentennial Man, etc. actually challenge the notion that there is such a thing as a “human” outside of a biological context. Ultimately I’m aiming to discuss what “human” actually means, how science fiction challenges it, and how the human/inhuman dichotomy is a glorious contradiction and, in particular to the second part of that dichotomy, hypocritical. Yeah, pretty intense, eh? I might include actual literature sources and intend to do some research at a large film collection to find more obscure works. So, what do you think?

World in the Satin Bag

Ask the Bloggers Series: Question #7 (I’m in it!)

Note: Grasping for the Wind has renamed this segment to “Inside the Blogosphere.” So from now on I will call it that. So, I’m up on another of Grasping for the Wind’s little blogger Q&A. The question was: In SF&F, should sex be included in the narrative or not? Should there be different standards for its inclusion in young adult or adult literature? What should those standards be? What are your personal standards and why? You can find my answer, along with several others, here. What do you think on matters of sex in literature?

World in the Satin Bag

No to the Bailout

Alright, I have to say this. I know this isn’t a political blog, but I have to throw something out there for the sake of reason. Why is it that we’re trying to pay for all these bad mortgages out of tax payers’ pockets, when it’s not the tax payers who are at fault, but the stupid financial companies who made idiotic decisions and suffered as a consequence–not to mention that they preyed on an uneducated public to get them to take loans they couldn’t afford, etc.?Why should I pay for the bailout of all these companies? I know it’s to help the economy, but I don’t feel that I or anyone should be responsible for fixing their mistake. Why are we just going to hand over money to them, money the tax payers will have to pay out of their pockets? Couldn’t there be conditions? Say, perhaps, offering this money as a loan to those companies, with a reasonable interest rate? That seems logical to me. We give them money, they pay it back, and we use the extra to pay off some of the deficit or for healthcare or whatever.Everything about this whole bailout stinks of right-wing politics, greediness, and the same mentality that put us in this position in the first place–and you know what I’m talking about: it’s that mentality, that mindset where the average America, you and me and hundreds of millions of others, are completely unimportant, where money and power are all that matter. This has to stop. We don’t have the money to pay for this, dammit. We don’t. This is like forcing me to have to pay for my neighbor to get his roof fixed because he thought it was cool to shoot cannonballs through it. You see how stupid that sounds? Well that’s what our politicians are making us do. I don’t give a frak about the tax cuts they’re now offering. Why? Because most people won’t even notice it. It’s the rich who will see that cut and the rest of us (or at least those that are working) will see hardly anything change. I know that the rich pay more in taxes, but it seems unfair to the American people that the rich get all the benefit out of this. And then I have one more question: What is it going to take to get the lot of us off our asses to collectively throw a complete frakked-up fit and tell the government that enough is enough? Seriously. What is it going to take to get all of you off your lazy asses to fix what is wrong with this country? When it comes down to it, it is the American people who are directly responsible for all that is wrong about America. We are responsible, because we never got up as one and said, “No!” We took it all, right in the ass, over and over, serviced like cattle lined up at the milk farm (and I don’t mean the milking, but the other things they line cattle up for). Have we had enough now? Have we? Or are we going to let the politicians continue to walk over us? And congratulations to us for letting this all slip through. We’ve just taught anyone who has such a stranglehold on the American economy that they don’t have to be responsible for their business practices because we’ll just bail them out. Fantastic. This is like teaching your child that it’s okay to steal by not punishing them for stealing… (Don’t click the read more, there isn’t any more after this!)

Scroll to Top