South Park dudes, look out! 'Cause a couple of my students have produced an epic science fiction puppet fairy tale called Imagine on a shoestring budget. Check it out:
Showing posts with label science fiction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science fiction. Show all posts
Monday, May 16, 2011
Friday, February 4, 2011
Will This Course Idea Seem So Cool in the Light of Day?
All of a sudden, I've got the urge to teach another version of my Science Fiction course. But this time, instead of trying to sample a small number of novels on a small number of topoi, I've got this idea for teaching near-future sci fi that both gets us thinking globally and reveals something about the preoccupations of the time periods in which they were first written and read. So far, I've come up with works like William Gibson's Neuromancer, Masamune Shirow/Mamoru Oshii's Ghost in the Shell, Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash, Maureen McHugh's China Mountain Zhang, Cory Doctorow's For the Win, Paolo Bacigalupi's The Windup Girl. What am I not thinking of that would fit that kind of reading list? Particularly from pre-cyberpunk sci fi?
Friday, December 11, 2009
The Future of Science Fiction Movies
It seems like the new age of science fiction technology in movies is about to start. With the release of James Cameron's movie Avatar, if it is successful it will seriously raise the bar of the technical side of science fiction movies forever. And any movies that use any sort of cg effects. James Cameron spent the last couple years since he made Titanic doing deep sea diving and developing new camera's and computer software to help him realize his vision of Avatar.
The storyline of the movie is that planet Earth is dying and marines have been sent to the moon Pandora to retrieve resources to help save the planet. However the natives the Na'vi (9 foot tall blue humanoids) don't appreciate the marines "borrowing" resources British colonization era style and attempt to drive the marines off the moon. The Avatar part comes in when the marines are given control of "Avatars" bodies that are the result of the mixing of genes of the Na'vi and the marines, which the marines control to infiltrate the natives ranks.
While the storyline sounds like a pretty typical Hollywood action movie, it's actually the technology that interests me more. As i mentioned James Cameron spent years developing special camera's and software for this movie. A stereoscopic image is a picture that is made to look like it is three dimensional. (Look it up on google they are really cool and will give you a greater appreciation and understanding of what i am talking about.) This is accomplished by taking a picture, then moving the camera just a slight bit to one side or the other and taking another picture. The two pictures are then swapped back and forth repeatedly at a high speed making the image appear to have depth. Cameron has invented camera's that have the same effect but in video instead of a still picture. So instead of some shitty 3-D effect from spykids where only certain things look 3-D when the camera pans sharply and you need to wear those stupid glasses that make you nauseous. The whole movie looks like it has depth constantly.
Evidently he accomplished this by building a camera with two lenses that are placed right next to each other. And have special software to sort the video out properly. You still have to wear glasses but they are clear instead of tinted and have something special about each lense that allows you to see the "depth" in the movie.
While the cameras sound impressive, the software he developed is even more impressive. While usually for computer generated images in videos the scene would be filmed in front of a blue or green screen and then the computer generated images would be added later in the studio. He invented software that allows him to point the cameras at the actors in special suits which the camera and software automatically add the cgi to. He can literally point the camera and it will generate the scenery and characters as they will appear in the finished movie. I have no idea how it works not being a software engineer but it sounds complicated, and expensive. The cost of the movie is estimated at $500 million though Cameron and fox have yet to announce how much it cost. Regardless it sounds like a visual experience to be looked forward too, if for no other reason that because movies in the future will hopefully look as good as this.
The storyline of the movie is that planet Earth is dying and marines have been sent to the moon Pandora to retrieve resources to help save the planet. However the natives the Na'vi (9 foot tall blue humanoids) don't appreciate the marines "borrowing" resources British colonization era style and attempt to drive the marines off the moon. The Avatar part comes in when the marines are given control of "Avatars" bodies that are the result of the mixing of genes of the Na'vi and the marines, which the marines control to infiltrate the natives ranks.
While the storyline sounds like a pretty typical Hollywood action movie, it's actually the technology that interests me more. As i mentioned James Cameron spent years developing special camera's and software for this movie. A stereoscopic image is a picture that is made to look like it is three dimensional. (Look it up on google they are really cool and will give you a greater appreciation and understanding of what i am talking about.) This is accomplished by taking a picture, then moving the camera just a slight bit to one side or the other and taking another picture. The two pictures are then swapped back and forth repeatedly at a high speed making the image appear to have depth. Cameron has invented camera's that have the same effect but in video instead of a still picture. So instead of some shitty 3-D effect from spykids where only certain things look 3-D when the camera pans sharply and you need to wear those stupid glasses that make you nauseous. The whole movie looks like it has depth constantly.
Evidently he accomplished this by building a camera with two lenses that are placed right next to each other. And have special software to sort the video out properly. You still have to wear glasses but they are clear instead of tinted and have something special about each lense that allows you to see the "depth" in the movie.
While the cameras sound impressive, the software he developed is even more impressive. While usually for computer generated images in videos the scene would be filmed in front of a blue or green screen and then the computer generated images would be added later in the studio. He invented software that allows him to point the cameras at the actors in special suits which the camera and software automatically add the cgi to. He can literally point the camera and it will generate the scenery and characters as they will appear in the finished movie. I have no idea how it works not being a software engineer but it sounds complicated, and expensive. The cost of the movie is estimated at $500 million though Cameron and fox have yet to announce how much it cost. Regardless it sounds like a visual experience to be looked forward too, if for no other reason that because movies in the future will hopefully look as good as this.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Science Fiction in Schools
First, to clear the air, I am neither for or against Science Fiction, as I have very little exposure to it, which is not necessarily intentional. I suppose I find Science fiction to be limiting to some readers as it often can be rather technical or scientific; yet, this does not mean it should be banned from curriculums. However, many people want to legitimize Science Fiction and wish that it was taught in schools. Proponents feel that Sci/fi gets blacklisted and unfairly left out of high school English canonization. I'm here to throw in my opinion as to why it remains largely ignored in English classrooms.
First of all we grow up in a society where people are not
necessarily proficient at their own language. One of the hardest subjects for students to pass, is their own language. Teachers struggle to get their students to read anything in classrooms. Need proof? How many of you have put on your facebook pages a joke about reading, or leave it blank? I see far too many. However, that is the very struggle teachers in high schools are faced with; what books do you teach that you hope to grab the most students attention with. Science Fiction fans need to realize their genre is competing against the best English writers in the history of the langauge; from Shakespeare to Orwell. That is hard for any genre to compete against. Teachers want to give the best representation of what the English language has to offer, and apparently, resondingly they feel Science Fiction is not a part of that. Don't be jaded, you're not the only genre to be left out. For what a High School teacher wa
nts to teach their students, Science Fiction doesn't fit the bill apparently. As I said, I hold no bias; in fact I think it would be great for teachers to implement many different genre's, covering a broader spectrum. In doing so you can unlock the imagination of a few students, changing their lives forever. I used to hate reading, until my 7th grade English teacher made us read the Hobbit by J.R.R Tolkien. His book taught me that books can actually be fun, and not have to be boring or homework-related. However, playing the numbers, teachers must choose very carefully, when selecting their book selections. It can't be left out that they were probably taught the same authors they teach.
First of all we grow up in a society where people are not
necessarily proficient at their own language. One of the hardest subjects for students to pass, is their own language. Teachers struggle to get their students to read anything in classrooms. Need proof? How many of you have put on your facebook pages a joke about reading, or leave it blank? I see far too many. However, that is the very struggle teachers in high schools are faced with; what books do you teach that you hope to grab the most students attention with. Science Fiction fans need to realize their genre is competing against the best English writers in the history of the langauge; from Shakespeare to Orwell. That is hard for any genre to compete against. Teachers want to give the best representation of what the English language has to offer, and apparently, resondingly they feel Science Fiction is not a part of that. Don't be jaded, you're not the only genre to be left out. For what a High School teacher wants to teach their students, Science Fiction doesn't fit the bill apparently. As I said, I hold no bias; in fact I think it would be great for teachers to implement many different genre's, covering a broader spectrum. In doing so you can unlock the imagination of a few students, changing their lives forever. I used to hate reading, until my 7th grade English teacher made us read the Hobbit by J.R.R Tolkien. His book taught me that books can actually be fun, and not have to be boring or homework-related. However, playing the numbers, teachers must choose very carefully, when selecting their book selections. It can't be left out that they were probably taught the same authors they teach.
Monday, November 30, 2009
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
One of my most favorite Science Fiction books is The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I've read it a couple times and watched the movie (which was actually pretty good!). One of the things that I thought of recently were the science fiction inventions and creations that are introduced in this book. I think that it's interesting how some authors can create these kind of ideas in their head, and then something very similar is invented.
For example in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Ford introduces Arthur (the main character) to a type of Electronic Book. This Electronic Book happens to be the guide that Arthur needs and is used by activating a touch screen and using the book almost like google. This reminds me most of an iphone or an ipod, where you can touch the screen to interact with the different applications, and you can search the internet. It's like having a massive electronic book.
Another thing that they mention in the book is "Gesture-Controlled Devices". Instead of pushing a button or even using a touch screen, you can simply gesture at the machine and hope that it will do what you want it to do. Of course, they didn't have this perfected in the book, so there were a still bugs to work out (i.e. the fact that you had to sit very still if you didn't want to change the channel on the television). I know that there are types of cellphones where you just shake it a certain way to make it do what you want. You can even control things on your cellphone by voice now, so whose to say that someone won't figure out in the future how to simply get a machine to do what you want by making a gesture at it? I think it could be plausible, the way people in general like things to be as easy as possible for them to use.
I just think it's interesting in general how you can go back and read old science fiction stories and see inventions now that authors had the general idea of when they wrote their work.
For example in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Ford introduces Arthur (the main character) to a type of Electronic Book. This Electronic Book happens to be the guide that Arthur needs and is used by activating a touch screen and using the book almost like google. This reminds me most of an iphone or an ipod, where you can touch the screen to interact with the different applications, and you can search the internet. It's like having a massive electronic book.
Another thing that they mention in the book is "Gesture-Controlled Devices". Instead of pushing a button or even using a touch screen, you can simply gesture at the machine and hope that it will do what you want it to do. Of course, they didn't have this perfected in the book, so there were a still bugs to work out (i.e. the fact that you had to sit very still if you didn't want to change the channel on the television). I know that there are types of cellphones where you just shake it a certain way to make it do what you want. You can even control things on your cellphone by voice now, so whose to say that someone won't figure out in the future how to simply get a machine to do what you want by making a gesture at it? I think it could be plausible, the way people in general like things to be as easy as possible for them to use.
I just think it's interesting in general how you can go back and read old science fiction stories and see inventions now that authors had the general idea of when they wrote their work.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Flash Forward a Science Fiction TV series?
While viewing the previous posts on the SF blogger, I saw that someone had mentioned Lost being a science fiction TV series. As I was reading that particular blog post, I began thinking about the new TV series called "Flash Forward". For those of you who have not seen this TV show or haven't heard anything about it, here is a little background information for you:
So basically, a mysterious event causes everyone on the planet to simultaneously lose consciousness for 137 seconds. During these 137 seconds, everyone on the planet sees what appears to be visions of their lives approximately six months in the future. After the loss of consciousness, LA FBI agents begin the process of determining what happened, why it happened, and whether it will happen again. The team investigates a number of events related to the flashforward, including "Suspect Zero", who did not lose consciousness during the event, the sinister "D. Gibbons", and a similar mass loss of consciousness in Somalia in 1991. This is a general summary of the TV series as to date, but I don't want to give too much information away because I RECOMMEND this show and you should all watch it!
Anyways, after beginning to watch this TV series, I started researching about whether or not the TV series can be considered Science Fiction. The TV series is originally based off the Science Fiction novel "Flash Forward" by Robert J. Sawyer. This novel is set in a fictionalized and overly futuristic year 2009. At CERN (The European Organization for Nuclear Research), the Large Hadron Collider accelerator (the ALICE experiment) is performing a run to search for the Higgs boson. The experiment takes a unique effect: the entire human race also loses consciousness for about two minutes. During this time, nearly everyone sees themselves in the future (by about 21 years). The flashforward that takes place in the book and the flashforward that takes place in the TV series do differ. However, they are fairly similar in regards to the massive loss of consciousness that resulted in deaths, accidents, and also the futuristic flashforwards that everyone on the planet sees (these occur in both the book and the TV series).
I think that there are a few reasons in which Flash Forward (the TV series) can be included in the science fiction genre. Although this particular show does differ from the science experiment taking place in Robert Sawyer's book, it does represent some of the conventions that shape the science fiction genre.
I think that when people see the future, either by traveling to it or even just viewing it in general, it can somehow be tied to science fiction. As technology becomes stronger and more determined, will it be possible for people to actually see into their future? Wouldn't that be interesting. But anyways, I think that another example of the show being science fiction is the idea of time travel. Although the characters are not traveling back into time or embarking on an actual travel to say- the moon, the characters and everyone on the planet experiences a time travel six months ahead of the current time in 2009.
I was most curious to write on this TV show because I was wondering if anyone had similar feelings. Does anyone else think that this show can be classified as science fiction? I think it can.
As I touched upon earlier, I think the one aspect of the TV show that really jumped out at me as being science fiction was the idea of time travel; the time travel that exists during the massive blackout that the entire planet undergoes. I think that show definitely sells the fiction part of the genre. Of course it is not probable that everyone on the planet is going to black out at the same time and see their future, but hey you never know. The science aspect of the show can be possible correlated to the ongoing investigation that the FBI has initiated. I guess a lot of the investigation is science driven-In example, fingerprinting, tapping phone lines, etc. All of these things would not be able to be done without the science that has been previously created and experimented on. Another example, technology. I think that technology has a lot to do with the science fiction genre. This show is filled with technological aspects of the 21st century.
Science fiction meets fantasy fiction?
The book The Journey to the Center of the Earth has seemed to stick out to me as merging science fiction with fantasy fiction. There are many scenarios and situations in the book that can be viewed in both lights to me. While some of it is a definite stretch of science and the laws and theories it has created, the rest is purely based out of the imagination.
For example, it is clear that Jules Verne has done his research in knowing the different rock layers of earth, as he uses them to portray the different time periods in his story. Also the story contains ideas such as translating old languages like Latin, which is completely possible within the realms of knowledge. In these aspects, the book is clearly a science fiction book, but there are also factors that throw a wrench into the gears.
As the travelers go through each geological layer, they encounter the living creatures of that time. This is about as possible as there being a middle-earth. To use a logical worldly explaination to justify seperate worlds at seperate rock layers is proposterous. This is where I believe that the book has a touch of fantasy.
We all know that science fiction is simply defined as a genre where the imaginary elements in the story are very much possible within scientific boundries. Fantasy fiction, on the other hand, is a genre where the plot is based on no factual information, in most cases creating its own laws and sciences, very loosly based on our own. This is why I find it strange that a book should merge these 2 ideas. Yet, it seems apparent that this novel has done so. This is just my thought though. What do you think? Is this story from 1864 one of the early mergers between science and fantasy?
For example, it is clear that Jules Verne has done his research in knowing the different rock layers of earth, as he uses them to portray the different time periods in his story. Also the story contains ideas such as translating old languages like Latin, which is completely possible within the realms of knowledge. In these aspects, the book is clearly a science fiction book, but there are also factors that throw a wrench into the gears.
As the travelers go through each geological layer, they encounter the living creatures of that time. This is about as possible as there being a middle-earth. To use a logical worldly explaination to justify seperate worlds at seperate rock layers is proposterous. This is where I believe that the book has a touch of fantasy.
We all know that science fiction is simply defined as a genre where the imaginary elements in the story are very much possible within scientific boundries. Fantasy fiction, on the other hand, is a genre where the plot is based on no factual information, in most cases creating its own laws and sciences, very loosly based on our own. This is why I find it strange that a book should merge these 2 ideas. Yet, it seems apparent that this novel has done so. This is just my thought though. What do you think? Is this story from 1864 one of the early mergers between science and fantasy?
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Is Lost considered Science Fiction
Recently the Sci-Fi channel (which is now the SyFy channel, not a fan of the name change) started playing old episodes of Lost. This has got me thinking about whether or not Lost can really be considered Science Fiction. For anyone not familiar with the show, it is basically about a group of people with interconnected back stories whose plane crashes on a mysterious island where strange things happen. A crippled man is healed and can walk, people start seeing their dead relatives, and an unseen group of apparently indigenous people abduct some of the survivors. If you haven't seen it and are thinking about getting into it you should be careful. It's like the crack of TV shows.
What seems to happen frequently in Lost is that something fantastic and seemingly unexplainable will happen and characters have different views as to whether to try and interpret things rationally or believe that there is some sort of supernatural force at work. Consequently it is also largely up to the viewer to decide what they believe about what is going on. As the plot progresses, some of the fantastic things are explained rationally and scientifically while others are left up in the air and still other mysteries are introduced.
The author of another blog post I read ultimately decided that we will not be able to categorize Lost into a genre until the series is over and we know the true explanations of all of the mysteries that have been introduced. Check it out here. I can see how this conclusion makes sense. If all things are explained rationally then the series is science fiction but if it turns out that Locke was right all along and there is a supernatural/magical element then the series is fantasy.
As good as that sounds I have a problem with the idea that the genre of a work is contingent upon the ending. Suppose for some reason the producers of Lost decide not to air the last season and destroy all the evidence that it was ever produced. How would we categorize Lost then based only on what we have if we were never going to know the ending? I think that we need a better method for placing a work into a genre where we do not have to wait until the end in order to know what we are watching or reading.
I think in order to place a work in a genre we need to take a look at what is essential to the work itself. What ultimately drives the work and makes it interesting for readers or viewers? I think that in works of Science Fiction it is the explanations and ramifications of various non-existent but plausible technologies. In fantasy it is the creation of an alternate world or the introduction of a magical element to our own world. The more interesting, original, and imaginative the world or element is the better.
Though Lost does both of those things to some degree I think there are two things that are really essential to the series. One is the mysteries themselves. Regardless of the explanations and answers the introduction of fantastic and mysterious elements keeps people watching (makes it the crack of TV shows). Because of this I would classify Lost as a mystery.
The second thing essential to Lost is the intricate web of character's back stories. Each character seems to be on a kind of journey in life with the ultimate goal of redemption. The culminating point of all of these interlocking journeys is the island. Because the back stories follow this kind of pattern and also because of the grand scale of the series in general,I would classify Lost as an epic. So though Lost contains both elements of Fantasy and Science Fiction I ultimately think that the best genre classification I can give it would be Epic Mystery.
As far as where the series is going and what the answers are going to be...I have no idea but there will be hell to pay if I am disappointed.
What seems to happen frequently in Lost is that something fantastic and seemingly unexplainable will happen and characters have different views as to whether to try and interpret things rationally or believe that there is some sort of supernatural force at work. Consequently it is also largely up to the viewer to decide what they believe about what is going on. As the plot progresses, some of the fantastic things are explained rationally and scientifically while others are left up in the air and still other mysteries are introduced.
The author of another blog post I read ultimately decided that we will not be able to categorize Lost into a genre until the series is over and we know the true explanations of all of the mysteries that have been introduced. Check it out here. I can see how this conclusion makes sense. If all things are explained rationally then the series is science fiction but if it turns out that Locke was right all along and there is a supernatural/magical element then the series is fantasy.
As good as that sounds I have a problem with the idea that the genre of a work is contingent upon the ending. Suppose for some reason the producers of Lost decide not to air the last season and destroy all the evidence that it was ever produced. How would we categorize Lost then based only on what we have if we were never going to know the ending? I think that we need a better method for placing a work into a genre where we do not have to wait until the end in order to know what we are watching or reading.
I think in order to place a work in a genre we need to take a look at what is essential to the work itself. What ultimately drives the work and makes it interesting for readers or viewers? I think that in works of Science Fiction it is the explanations and ramifications of various non-existent but plausible technologies. In fantasy it is the creation of an alternate world or the introduction of a magical element to our own world. The more interesting, original, and imaginative the world or element is the better.
Though Lost does both of those things to some degree I think there are two things that are really essential to the series. One is the mysteries themselves. Regardless of the explanations and answers the introduction of fantastic and mysterious elements keeps people watching (makes it the crack of TV shows). Because of this I would classify Lost as a mystery.
The second thing essential to Lost is the intricate web of character's back stories. Each character seems to be on a kind of journey in life with the ultimate goal of redemption. The culminating point of all of these interlocking journeys is the island. Because the back stories follow this kind of pattern and also because of the grand scale of the series in general,I would classify Lost as an epic. So though Lost contains both elements of Fantasy and Science Fiction I ultimately think that the best genre classification I can give it would be Epic Mystery.
As far as where the series is going and what the answers are going to be...I have no idea but there will be hell to pay if I am disappointed.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Fantasy and science fiction
I don't read much fantasy books, unless like the Twilight Saga count. Which could be debatable in that vampires are not real and that they are mythical creatures, same as the wolves that are in the book. Fantasy even though is not as popular as other genres it is defiantly on the rise with the popularity of "Harry Potter" and "Twilight". The making of these movies is also very helpful, fantasy movies are on the rise.
Fantasy i have found after reading "Lord of the Rings" is a great way to use the imagination because fantasy isn't always something one can relate to in everyday life. Reading it one must really keep an open mind to new thoughts and idea's. I think that maybe the rise of fantasy is a reflection of how American culture is becoming more open to new idea's, especially with the fall of the economy more people are being open to what could help, and at the same time seeking a place to get away from reality which is what fantasy allows.
With Fantasy also comes science fiction there is a very fine line i believe between fantasy and science fiction and the only differences i find that science fiction has more of a possibility to happen. Realistically vampires and wolves are not going to eventually live among us, same with elves and hobbits, categorizes that as fantasy but with science fiction their could be life on other planets, it is possible to make up a language and have all these cures of illnesses, i categorize that as science fiction. Both are not as popular but on the rise in popular american culture.
Fantasy i have found after reading "Lord of the Rings" is a great way to use the imagination because fantasy isn't always something one can relate to in everyday life. Reading it one must really keep an open mind to new thoughts and idea's. I think that maybe the rise of fantasy is a reflection of how American culture is becoming more open to new idea's, especially with the fall of the economy more people are being open to what could help, and at the same time seeking a place to get away from reality which is what fantasy allows.
With Fantasy also comes science fiction there is a very fine line i believe between fantasy and science fiction and the only differences i find that science fiction has more of a possibility to happen. Realistically vampires and wolves are not going to eventually live among us, same with elves and hobbits, categorizes that as fantasy but with science fiction their could be life on other planets, it is possible to make up a language and have all these cures of illnesses, i categorize that as science fiction. Both are not as popular but on the rise in popular american culture.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Lost and SyFy
My experience with Science Fiction literature is very sparse. My knowledge pretty much ends with some novels read in high school. I enjoy reading, but reading a science fiction novel isn't as appealing to me as watching a SF movie or TV show.
As someone stated in an earlier blog the SyFy channel is mostly low budget (and let's face it) crappy made for TV movies, such as Mosquito Man and The Gingerdead Man. While these movies are painful to watch and predictable, there are many interesting SF movies and shows out there.
The SyFy channel airs re-runs of the TV show Lost. Lost is one of my favorite shows of all-time, so I'm mostly biased, but this show does a great job at entertaining and intriguing it's audience, while making you think at the same time. Yes, the show can become very confusing, frustrating, and complex, but isn't that what SF is supposed to be? If Lost was a book series instead of a television show I don't think it would be as big as it is today because it would be even harder to follow. Visually watching something commits it to memory better. It's much easier to misinterpret something you read than something you watch.
Lost has brought back an interest in SF TV shows that we haven't seen since the Twilight Zone. More shows like Lost are popping up, such as Flash Forward and V. Finally, taking the spotlight and audiences away from all the endless (and pointless) Crime/FBI shows and reality TV that are turning our brains into mush. Of course, much of the plot is far-fetched and impossible to believe, but it intellectually challenges the audience and stimulates our mind and I feel that its about time.
As someone stated in an earlier blog the SyFy channel is mostly low budget (and let's face it) crappy made for TV movies, such as Mosquito Man and The Gingerdead Man. While these movies are painful to watch and predictable, there are many interesting SF movies and shows out there.
The SyFy channel airs re-runs of the TV show Lost. Lost is one of my favorite shows of all-time, so I'm mostly biased, but this show does a great job at entertaining and intriguing it's audience, while making you think at the same time. Yes, the show can become very confusing, frustrating, and complex, but isn't that what SF is supposed to be? If Lost was a book series instead of a television show I don't think it would be as big as it is today because it would be even harder to follow. Visually watching something commits it to memory better. It's much easier to misinterpret something you read than something you watch.
Lost has brought back an interest in SF TV shows that we haven't seen since the Twilight Zone. More shows like Lost are popping up, such as Flash Forward and V. Finally, taking the spotlight and audiences away from all the endless (and pointless) Crime/FBI shows and reality TV that are turning our brains into mush. Of course, much of the plot is far-fetched and impossible to believe, but it intellectually challenges the audience and stimulates our mind and I feel that its about time.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
My experiences with Science Fiction
After reading the James Gunn book, "Reading Science Fiction," I found myself thinking about my experiences with science fiction in my life during the past 15 years. I will discuss my fascination with time travel in science fiction films and television, during 1994-98, and also what has happened since that time.
In 1994, when I was 10 years old, I started to watch fictional time travel films. I still do not know how I became interested in this particular sub-genre of SF, but it may have had to do with my love of ancient history that I was learning about on my own. The first film I ever watched that dealt specifically with time travel was "Back to the Future," and it was soon after that I started to watch more and more time travel films. I mostly watched them on videotapes either I had rented, or bought. Some of the names bring back memories: "Time Sliders" (a television show), "Time Bandits," "Bill and Ted," and "The Time Machine" (the 1960 film). The last film is the most memorable in my life, as when I first watched it in 1997, I couldn't believe what I had watched. Rod Taylor, the actor who played the time traveler, had a time machine with a big wheel at the rear, and travelled through time at lightning speed, from 1900 to 1966 (an atomic bomb destroys most of everything) and thousands of years into the future, all without leaving London. After watching this movie over and over again for about a year, I grew tired of the time travel films, and until about 2002, did not return to watching them at all.
In 2002, almost 5 years after watching "The Time Machine," a new film version of "The Time Machine" came out. I was so anxious to watch this one and compare it with the 1960 version. After I watched it, I was very disappointed. Some of the reasons for my disappointment was the time traveler did too much hopping around through time to save his girlfriend who would be killed anyway (you can't change time), and also, the moon being destroyed in 2037. This was an awful remake, and it wasn't for almost a year I watched the last time travel movie I have seen to date, "Clockstoppers." Although "Clockstoppers" wasn't technically a time travel movie, I found it neat that three teenagers were able to stop time with a wrist-watch. This film was on the same par as the 1960 Time Machine movie.
After 2003, I did not and still haven't watched any time travel films since that time. I agreed with one of the essay writers in the James Gunn book that time travel in television and films was a fad, and was soon exhausted. Maybe I became exhausted by "too much time travel" in science fiction television and films after a while.
In 1994, when I was 10 years old, I started to watch fictional time travel films. I still do not know how I became interested in this particular sub-genre of SF, but it may have had to do with my love of ancient history that I was learning about on my own. The first film I ever watched that dealt specifically with time travel was "Back to the Future," and it was soon after that I started to watch more and more time travel films. I mostly watched them on videotapes either I had rented, or bought. Some of the names bring back memories: "Time Sliders" (a television show), "Time Bandits," "Bill and Ted," and "The Time Machine" (the 1960 film). The last film is the most memorable in my life, as when I first watched it in 1997, I couldn't believe what I had watched. Rod Taylor, the actor who played the time traveler, had a time machine with a big wheel at the rear, and travelled through time at lightning speed, from 1900 to 1966 (an atomic bomb destroys most of everything) and thousands of years into the future, all without leaving London. After watching this movie over and over again for about a year, I grew tired of the time travel films, and until about 2002, did not return to watching them at all.
In 2002, almost 5 years after watching "The Time Machine," a new film version of "The Time Machine" came out. I was so anxious to watch this one and compare it with the 1960 version. After I watched it, I was very disappointed. Some of the reasons for my disappointment was the time traveler did too much hopping around through time to save his girlfriend who would be killed anyway (you can't change time), and also, the moon being destroyed in 2037. This was an awful remake, and it wasn't for almost a year I watched the last time travel movie I have seen to date, "Clockstoppers." Although "Clockstoppers" wasn't technically a time travel movie, I found it neat that three teenagers were able to stop time with a wrist-watch. This film was on the same par as the 1960 Time Machine movie.
After 2003, I did not and still haven't watched any time travel films since that time. I agreed with one of the essay writers in the James Gunn book that time travel in television and films was a fad, and was soon exhausted. Maybe I became exhausted by "too much time travel" in science fiction television and films after a while.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
syfy channel
In our recent discussions of science fiction I feel that it is imparative that I talk about the science fiction channel. They have recently changed their name to syfy. This however does not make me believe that they are doing any better in the action of making movies.
The movies shown on the syfy channel were never really great but at least they were movies that most people would watch. Lately however I feel that the movies have been lacking greatly in thier appeal. They keep getting worse in their production and have become extremely predictable in their plot. The movies obviously are low budget but that doesnt mean they have to lack completely in the movies. There are things that happen in these new movies that I am just like what the heck is that?!? They show these creatures that are supposed to be scary and to me look like my dog dressed up for halloween.
Now dont get me wrong some of the movies are good and I do watch. The movies that are traditional such as any good vampire movie or movies about what bumps in the night. Even some of thier alien movies are decent. It is the recent rise to movies that have creatures taking over the earth that I find most lacking. These movies have creatures that seem to be scary then once you see them it is just a complete let down.
I also find that movies of these sorts are also very predictable in thier plot. They show different movies that have the same outcome. I am not surprised because it is hard to come up with things that are new. There are many different things that could happen but it ushally turns out that everyone except are select few die. This leaves little for me to imagine. For once it wouldnt be half bad if they either all lived or all died. I know there are some movies that this happens but after the recent trend I refuse to watch anymore.
The movies shown on the syfy channel were never really great but at least they were movies that most people would watch. Lately however I feel that the movies have been lacking greatly in thier appeal. They keep getting worse in their production and have become extremely predictable in their plot. The movies obviously are low budget but that doesnt mean they have to lack completely in the movies. There are things that happen in these new movies that I am just like what the heck is that?!? They show these creatures that are supposed to be scary and to me look like my dog dressed up for halloween.
Now dont get me wrong some of the movies are good and I do watch. The movies that are traditional such as any good vampire movie or movies about what bumps in the night. Even some of thier alien movies are decent. It is the recent rise to movies that have creatures taking over the earth that I find most lacking. These movies have creatures that seem to be scary then once you see them it is just a complete let down.
I also find that movies of these sorts are also very predictable in thier plot. They show different movies that have the same outcome. I am not surprised because it is hard to come up with things that are new. There are many different things that could happen but it ushally turns out that everyone except are select few die. This leaves little for me to imagine. For once it wouldnt be half bad if they either all lived or all died. I know there are some movies that this happens but after the recent trend I refuse to watch anymore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)