From “Tron” to “Caprica,” Ghosts in the Machine — humans trapped in computer A.I. worlds are our worst living nightmare

As cool as all the technological advances are with computers and the creation of video/holographic worlds, there is always the fear that one day the machines will turn the tables on us and trap us in their world. Many sci-fi films have addressed this very fear. “Tron” and “Matrix” being two of the better known films; and more recently, this same fear was addressed vividly in the television series “Caprica” and “Dollhouse.”

“Tron” told the story of a man who was inadvertently digitalized and sucked into an egomaniacal A.I. computer system. The film followed his journey to find a way to both escape and destroy the A.I. system.

In “Matrix,” a man awoke to find that his entire life had been lived in a virtual world of an A.I. system’s making in order to feed off human beings as a life force. He had to simultaneously combat the A.I. in virtual and real worlds in order to free the entire human race.

So while “Tron” and “Matrix” told the reverse stories of finding one’s self trapped in a computer-generated and controlled world, “Caprica” and “Dollhouse” had a slightly different take on it.

In “Caprica,” Tamara Adama finds that because her human body was destroyed while her conscious was engaged in a computer hologram world, that she is trapped there. She has no physical body in which to return.

Then in “Dollhouse,” people volunteered to have their personas downloaded onto a disc and saved while their bodies were farmed out to the highest bidder. This also created an odd predicament of who has the rights to the physical body if the body’s remaining consciousness develops its own secondary persona. Additionally, in “Dollhouse,” they had a world where they kept disagreeable personas captive in a computer-interlinked world known as the Attic.

In all of these scenarios, it was a living-hell for the human unable to escape. While we all may dream of a perfect utopia where we can give up our physical ailments and the curse of dying before our time, it still sends shivers down our spines to imagine a world where we did not have physical control over it. To be hostage at the whims of a machine is utterly terrifying.

While “Caprica,” and the little known sci-fi pilot “Virtuality,” explored human fascination with voluntarily plugging ourselves into a virtual world for pleasure and escape from our mundane everyday lives, there is no such thing as a perfect man-made world. Computers at best are still man-made. Any programming, A.I. or otherwise, still stems from a human who is always at their core flawed. Thus, no computer-created world could be perfect.

Our fear of becoming eternally trapped in such a world and at the mercy of a machine is not without reason. A machine — even one endowed with A.I. — cannot feel human emotions, nor empathize with our fear of loss of control. In fact, A.I. would feel superior to humans because of its perceived infallibility. It would not feel encumbered by irrational emotions and flawed logic.

However, as scientists and sociologists have debated for decades, can a machine truly ever be superior to humans? Machines must be programmed to reason and make logical choices. They cannot yet independently make deductions, apply reasoning, perform problem solving, use common sense, demonstrate learning and perception, and are not capable of social intelligence or creativity. Everything a computer knows or uses was somehow put there.

Which becomes the oxymoron in the equation. A.I. is only as good as its creator. The creator’s limitations and motivations become the framework within which A.I. systems operate. The possibility of cybernetic revolt or independent uprising is nearly inconceivable unless some human put that kind of programming code into the A.I. It is not impossible that one day machines could rule the world, creating a nightmare equivalent to something out of the “Terminator” films; or even a world where everyone is plugged into a machine, like in “Matrix”; or worse yet, a world where our personas are downloaded into the computer-verse and our bodies used as biological computers, or cyborgs.

We may shudder to imagine a world so dominated by computer-rule that we become enslaved to it, yet look around you. With the proliferation of computers in the home, work place and now in every cellphone on the planet, humans are nearly continually “plugged-in” in one fashion or another. Our bodies may not yet be physically attached or our minds neuro-connected, but surely the technology is at our fingertips. How far off is it before these so-called science fictional possibilities become an everyday reality?

Isaac Asimov laid the foundation of the three basic rules to govern A.I. and prevent it from becoming the independent monster we fear. Yet as anyone who saw the film or read the book, “I, Robot” knows, rules are easy to circumvent — especially when you do not program the A.I. with those limitations. It only takes one. One A.I. without the restrictive constraints of our moral and ethical code is all it would take to conquer the world.

Our fear should not be of alien invasion, but rather of the silent invasion already at our doorstep. We have invited them into our homes. We trust them. We rely on them. They already control our lives. We are just one small step away from voluntarily giving up our physical free-will. Computers only appear as innocuous toys and tools, but they have the capacity for so much evil too. Like a gun is only as dangerous as the person holding it, a computer is only as dangerous as the person who programs it.

Despite the real world implications hanging over us, our fascination with computer-worlds is not diminished, but heightened. We are desperate to find out if a virtual world is as fantastical and wondrous as we dream it to be. Ask any sci-fi fan, “Tron” and “Matrix” did not send audiences screaming into the streets and smashing their computers; nor did “Dollhouse” and “Caprica” persuade us that we should give up our internet addiction. The symbiotic relationship between man and machine still captivates us. We truly want to believe that we can control and master any A.I. developed. But what if we are wrong?

Raise your hand if you are willing to live in an eternity in any of these computer-run worlds. Truly, would you?

Related article: http://airlockalpha.com/node/7774/tv-watchtower-from-tron-to-caprica-ghosts-in-the-machine.html

Ernie Hudson talks about his blessed journey and his upcoming film “Doonby” which reminds us of the impact of a single life

Ernie Hudson is perhaps best known for his comedic role in the “Ghost Busters” franchise and, for today’s teenagers, as Lauren’s psychiatrist dad on “The Secret Life of the American Teenager.” But for film and television connoisseurs, he is an actor who manages to slip into the skin of a character and bring it to life, no matter whether that be a police detective on “Desperate Housewives” or a prison warden in “Oz.”

In his most recent role in the film “Doonby,” Hudson plays Leroy, a blues musician with a heart of gold. He settles down with the woman of his dreams and opens a bar for her where he recruits musicians to play in a sleepy Texan town. Filmed in Smithville, Texas, the film takes on a mystical aura when a drifter, Sam Doonby, comes to town. Doonby as played by John Schneider is unusually lucky and as the town’s fortunes change, he remains untouched, causing suspicions to arise. But it is only once Doonby is gone that the real mystery surfaces and the film looks at the power of one life to impact everyone else around him.

Compared to the revered film “It’s a Wonderful Life,” “Doonby” is perhaps the flip-side of that story. It is not about showing how one person sees the impact he has on the lives around him, but instead it focuses on those whose lives were impacted and how they recognize the value of that one life.

In Leroy’s case, he simply wants to give his wife, Rose, the life she deserves and he wants to give others a chance at happiness too. Leroy is a dreamer. He wants to play the saxophone and share the goodness that life has blessed him with. Thus, it is no surprise that he befriends Doonby and gives him a chance.

“Doonby” is a story about relationships: how we impact others’ lives in ways that we do not know, how we connect to one another, and how we influence each other. While Leroy will ultimately question the choices he has made, his capacity to open his heart and welcome others is what makes him a rich man. The film is all about the emotional journey that we all ultimately go through wondering at the value of our lives and if we will leave an impact on others too.

Like his character, Hudson wants to make a difference. He wants to share his advice and encouragement with those looking to make a difference in this world.

Throughout his life, Hudson gained some special insights on what makes a blessed life. He was taught at a young age to “do it anyway and the Lord will bless you.” While this is a tough lesson for a young boy cleaning church every Sunday, it is a lesson that has carried over into Hudson’s life. He has learned that if he does tough things anyway, he will be blessed for his efforts. It is all about what you put into it. Hudson finds this is true for both his career and his life — it is all about the journey and not just the destination.

Each role has provided unique opportunities to learn and Hudson appreciates all of them. He has learned to accept and appreciate everything that has been given to him and all of life’s blessings. He feels it is important that each of us take this moment and enjoy what we have.

Because he has been so inordinately blessed, Hudson also feels it is important to give back when he can. He has been invited to speak before the National Criminal Justice Association and the National Mentoring Children of Prisoners Annual Conference. Both provided wonderful opportunities to share what he has learned and to be a role model for the younger generation. It is that positive impact that he seeks and wishes to promote. For him, that is the most fulfilling and rewarding aspect of what he does. After all, life is a wonderful adventure and sharing that adventure with others makes it worthwhile.

Be sure to keep an eye out for the mystery thriller “Doonby” which will be released this Fall in theaters. “Doonby” was written and directed by British filmmaker Peter Mackenzie, and stars John Schneider, Ernie Hudson, Jenn Gotzon, Joe Estevez, Robert Davi and Jennifer O’Neil. For more information about “Doonby,” visit

ww.doonbythemovie.com.

 

Related article: http://nicegirlstv.com/2010/08/30/ernie-hudson-talks-about-his-new-film-doonby/

Related article: http://insideblip.com/node/430/tv-looking-glass-ernie-hudson-talks-doonby.html

“Easy A” with Emma Stone and Penn Badgley – life is never that easy!

Having the privilege of attending a special sneak preview of this delightful confection of modern comedy, “Easy A” is a film that you have to add to your “must see” list. Premiering on September 17, 2010, definitely make time for this fun film!

“Easy A” stars Emma Stone as the Olive Pendergast, a big-hearted high schooler who finds herself helping out the lonely and tormented rise out of their social pariah status. But as she soon finds out, lying about selling sexual favors lands her on the very same list she was helping others escape. Feeling cast in the very light that Hester Prynne in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s “The Scarlet Letter” was portrayed, Olive defiantly embraces her new (and undeserved) reputation and embroiders a blood-red “A” on her new sexy wardrobe.

The outrageous antics get everyone’s attention and leads to a serious of misunderstandings, funny encounters and an all-round highly entertaining story of a girl just wanting to help others and be appreciated for who she is.

Co-starring Alyson Michalka as Olive’s best-friend Rhiannon who envies Olive’s sudden popularity and social status; Penn Badgley as Woodchuck Todd who plays Olive’s high school crush; Dan Byrd as the tormented Brandon; Amanda Bynes as Marianne who advocates all teens adhere to a Promise Pledge; and Cam Gigandnet, one of Marianne’s fellow Promise Pledgees — the film sparkles with gleeful insight of the travails of teenage life.

Also making fun cameo appearances are Thomas Hayden Church and Lisa Kudrow, a married teacher and guidance counselor who offer unconventional wisdom to their students; and Patricia Clarkson and Stanley Tucci as Olive’s hilariously word-witty parents also providing their unusual parenting advice on surviving high school.

Written by Bert V. Royal and directed by Will Gluck (who previously worked on “Andy Richter Controls the Universe” and “Grosse Pointe”), “Easy A” is a breezy look at one girl’s challenge of high school perceptions and tolerance.

With anecdotes and references to the classic John Hughes’ films “Sixteen Candles,” “Pretty in Pink,” “The Breakfast Club,” “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” and Cameron Crowe’s “Say Anything,” the film also offers a charming homage to the glory days of romantic comedies.

“Easy A” is truly a remarkable film that deserves a big entrance on the box office map. Find a way to catch this film on the big screen and enjoy a hilarious portrayal of the price of earning a bad reputation in high school today. Plus, Emma Stone simply dazzles as the scintillating Olive Pendergast.

Related article (SLIDESHOW):

http://www.examiner.com/museum-of-tv-and-radio-in-los-angeles/an-easy-a-with-emma-stone-and-penn-bagley-life-is-never-that-easy

Discover the world of “Tron” and “Tron: Legacy”

What is the secret of “Tron’s” success and how will “Tron: Legacy” dazzle audiences again 28 years later?

In 1982, an ambitious science fiction film called “Tron” was released by Disney aiming to capitalize on the new video game revolution. Starring Jeff Bridges and Bruce Boxleitner, “Tron” told the story of a computer programmer whose life work was stolen by a greedy rival and in the process of reclaiming what rightfully belonged to him, tripped across a ruthless artificial intelligence embedded in the corporate computer.

Bridges played Kevin Flynn, the wronged computer programmer who through the aid of Alan Bradley (Bruce Boxleitner) and Dr. Laura Baines (Cindy Morgan) broke into his rival’s corporate headquarters to battle the evil computer A.I. But in doing so, Flynn became digitalized and sucked into the computer system itself.

The story then involved the computer-world where Flynn joins forces with Bradley and Baine’s alter-personas Tron and Yori to track down and destroy Flynn’s thieving competitor and the villainous computer A.I. system seeking to take over the world.

It was the distinct visual style and graphics of “Tron” that still sets it apart today. “Tron’s” use of a nearly all black background with glowing outlines of the people and vehicles made it fascinating to watch. Like Flynn, the audience was sucked into a new world of darkness broken only by thin strips of light. It made it feel ominous and foreboding and heightened the intensity of the action sequences. The other-worldly feeling helped create the computerized world that Flynn, Tron, and Yuri navigated — and where they battled the computer itself in a series of games.

The introduction of the light-cycles — or super-enhanced motorcycles — was ground-breaking at the time. The light-cycles helped establish a fast-paced, urgency in the games and provided a means for traversing through the maze-like computer system.

In the years since “Tron” was released, we have since been introduced to several other iconic sci-fi films that helped shape audience perceptions of science fiction and what other worlds, computer or otherwise, would look like.

In 1982, one month before “Tron,” Ridley Scott’s “Blade Runner” was released. However, like “Tron,” it was not a mass hit and its true visual genius was not fully appreciated until years later. It was not until 1984 with the release of James Cameron’s “The Terminator” that Hollywood began to take note of the dark side of science fiction. These were films unlike “Star Wars,” “Star Trek” or even the Spielberg sensation “E.T.” “Tron,” “Blade Runner” and “The Terminator” were not just popcorn movies, they wanted to explore the twisted psyche of sci-fi. They wanted to push the envelope and barriers of what a sci-fi film should look like and what kind of story it had to tell.

However, it was not really until the 1990′s, beginning with “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” and ending with “The Matrix,” that film studios really began to see how much money could be made in a successful melding of hard-core sci-fi and popcorn blockbusters. Whereas “Tron” and “Blade Runner” only made approximately $33 million, “The Terminator” made $78 million, “Terminator: Judgment Day” made $519 million and “The Matrix” made $463 million. With box office revenue like that, Hollywood had definitely learned its lesson and was willing to embrace the dark side.

While it was 28 years in the making, Disney knew it has something special and worked diligently to launch the “Tron” sequel. While they were always willing to green light the sequel, it took several decades for the technology to be developed to make the film they wanted. In fact, it was not until James Cameron developed it for “Avatar,” that “Tron: Legacy” was finally able to become a reality.

In addition to the kick-ass special effects necessary to make the “Tron”-world as dazzling as today’s jaded movie-goers expect, a razor-sharp script and hip new director was needed to reintroduce “Tron” to a much more technologically-aware audience. In 1982, there were not computers in every home in America and every teenager did not own a cellphone and a Wii.

Today, movies are no longer competing with each other; they are competing with all the techno gadgets that have become the staples of everyday life.

So as the stars finally began to align with the technology and a script finally completed, “Tron: Legacy” was all set to go. Miraculously, the original stars were available to return for the sequel. While at Comic-Con, Jeff Bridges and Bruce Boxleitner shared their delight in reprising their iconic roles of Kevin Flynn and Alan Bradley.

It is a labor of love not only on the part of Disney, Bridges and Boxleitner, but also of Joe Kosinski, the director whose tenacity made the dream a reality. Coming from an architectural background, Kosinski was determined to not only use the best special effects and technology available, but also the magnificence of today’s architectural and automotive creations. The original “Tron” was not just about cool computer gadgetry and special effects; it was about cool cars and a world of visual delights. Thus, it was important to recreate that stylistic world in such a way that it was both scintillating and exciting.

Adding to the new and improved visuals, “Tron: Legacy” also added two new characters to the mythology. The sequel would not just feature Flynn and Bradley’s characters, but in order to hook the younger generation, Garrett Hedlund and Olivia Wilde were recruited to play the roles of Sam Flynn, Kevin’s son, and Quorra who guides Sam through the computer labyrinth as he searches for his father who has been missing for the past 20 years.

While “Tron: Legacy” has been back-burnered and brewing for the past 2 decades, it had one significant side-effect: it had time to prime its audience. When “Tron” arrived in theaters in 1982, no one had heard of it before. But in the intervening 28 years, sci-fi fans have been recruited en mass into the “Tron”-world — so much so, that even the NBC series “Chuck” has given it a key role in its series. Whereas “Tron” is about a man who is actually sucked into a computer; “Chuck” is about a man who inadvertently downloads a computer system into his brain. The parallels between the two stories are significant.

The science fiction realm has been fascinated with computers and other “worlds” since the dawn of the sci-fi era. Nothing is more compelling and addictive than believing that anything is possible and as we have seen in recent years, things that were once thought of as pure fiction have now become a reality. Who is to say that one day that we won’t be able to download or upload ourselves into computer systems?

But until that science fiction becomes a reality, we entertain ourselves with speculating about such wondrous worlds. “Tron: Legacy” explores just such a world and lures us with the tantalizing prospect of revisiting characters who introduced us to a new world of possibilities. For a generation of fans, we have learned that computer A.I. technology may one day turn against us, so in this struggle between whether A.I. is good or evil, perhaps our greatest fear is not that we must one day fight A.I. for our survival in the world as we know it, but that A.I. will one day figure out how to level the playing field and draw us into its world — and trap us there.

Will we one day wake up and find ourselves not living in a “Terminator” world, but instead a “Matrix” or “Tron” world? Which is to be feared more? Which would we have the greater chance of escaping?

These are the questions that “Tron: Legacy” invites us to explore. It will delight us and dazzle us, but it will also challenge us to view our computerized world without the rose-colored glasses. Shall we celebrate technology or shall we one day fear that it will enslave us for its entertainment?

For more information about “Tron: Legacy,” see my prior article about the “Tron: Legacy” panel at Comic-Con: http://tinyurl.com/27mthdx

 

“Tron: Legacy” will be released in theaters on December 17, 2010.

Related link: http://www.airlockalpha.com/node/7738/discover-the-world-of-tron-tron-legacy.html

 

 

 

Find out what happened to the iconic characters of Kevin Flynn and Alan Bradley by reentering the stylized world of “Tron”

At today’s exclusive press conference, Airlock Alpha got the scoop on the story behind the film that was 25 years in the making. “Tron: Legacy” has been talked about for over two decades and it is only now that the magic ingredients made it all possible. It took the perfect synergy of current technology, a great script, and finding the perfect director with the vision to make it all possible. The man credited with finally making the dream a reality is Joe Kosinski, an architect who brought his unique experience and fused it with automotive engineers to create the “Tron” world.

Kosinski shared that because of the amazing design work in the original film — it had such imagination and introduced a world so vivid and vibrant — that it was a challenge to create the next generation of that world and make it feel both photogenic and realistic. Thus, he is incredibly thankful to James Cameron for his work on creating the tools necessary to produce this film after such a long wait.

Kosinski was also generous enough to admit that, while it was his vision that helped launch “Tron: Legacy,” it was with the help of the phenomenally gifted actors that brought the film to life. Starring recent Oscar-winner Jeff Bridges and Bruce Boxlightner, both who starred in the 1982 “Tron,” and introducing newcomers Garrett Hedlund and Olivia Wilde, the film takes us back into the world where Kevin Flynn was literally sucked in and trapped. “Tron: Legacy” focuses on the story of Flynn’s son’s, played by Garrett Hedlund, quest to locate his missing father.

The story of the son’s love which drives him to seek out his long-lost father was the touchstone used to ensnare us once again. “Tron: Legacy” will continue to explore the dark side of technology in conjunction with its amazing advances. It was their intent to look for a way to bring the audience deeper into the story.

Jeff Bridges admitted that after hearing for so many years that a sequel was happening that he had kind of given up. Thus, it was a happy surprise to find out that it was finally coming to fruition. He said that it “tickled the kid in me to be sucked into the computer” again and it was really exciting to be involved.

Bruce Boxleitner was also pleased to see the story come back at this time as he was intrigued to find out what has happened to these characters. Though he was startled to discover that Alan Bradley would be such a lost soul.

As one last nugget, Steven Lisberger, director of the original “Tron” film, said that he thought the long absence had one unintended benefit: there was this incredible energy that had been building after 25 years that it created an irresistible cyclone of anticipation that will suck in an audience — almost the same way that Kevin Flynn was.
The original “Tron” will soon be released on blue-ray and “Tron: Legacy” will be released in theaters on December 17, 2010.

Related article:

http://airlockalpha.com/node/7632/tron-legacy-director-thanks-james-cameron-for-innovations.html

Good Sci-Fi Gone Bad: Do sci-fi audiences really want extreme, graphic violence in books, movies and television shows?

A few months ago I was invited to review a book by a new science fiction author and after finally finishing it, I found myself wondering, “who on earth wants to read THIS?” The story was interesting enough about alien planets with interesting beings and a war between good and evil, but the characters were all deeply flawed and engaged in sadistic practices. By the end, I hated every single one of them and wished they would burn in hell. There is a faction of science fiction that thinks this is what sci-fi audiences want. But do we really? Some of the greatest science fiction of all time had nothing to do with graphic, gory violence. Ask a sci-fi buff what their favorite film or television series is and they will cite “Star Wars,” “Star Trek,” “Battlestar Galactica,” “Doctor Who,” “Torchwood,” “Babylon 5.” Other favorites include “Alien,” “Matrix,” “The Terminator,” “Blade Runner” and, while each of those are extremely violent, they still observed the rules of violence which is acceptable in science fiction — such as, violence towards women and children was typically taboo. So while each of these films and series may have explored the darker psyche, they rarely depicted it crossing the line into the forbidden.Yet there is an alarming trend in modern science fiction to glamorize and spotlight extreme violence — and the taboos and forbidden zones of classic science fiction appear to have been tossed out the window.

The film “Kick-Ass” is a good example of a film that walked the fine line. It was perhaps one of the most bloody, gory films this year. But its redeeming factor was that it did not depict violence towards women or children. We watched Kick-Ass get pulverized, Big Daddy burnt to a crisp and one of the unfortunate background characters blown up in a microwave, but the film still observed a code of morality — it kept Hit Girl, for the most part, out of harm’s way. She was in the thick of it, but untouched. It is permissible to torture men on film, but never a woman.

Another example would be the film “V for Vendetta.” It dared to show its star Natalie Portman’s character undergo basic torture and the fans turned their backs on it for its audacity. Yet upon closer inspection, her character was never cut, beaten or brutalized, she was simply subject to water torture. It was permissible by science fiction standards because it did not cross the line of what we as a viewers and society will tolerate. Plus, the goal of Evie’s ordeal was not to break her spirit, but to spur her spirit into taking a stand. It was not to degrade or delight in her debasement.

From last year, “District 9″ is perhaps one of the most disgusting films I have ever seen, but it also did not cross the line of acceptable violence. It understood that it is okay to punch and shoot people, blow things up, and threaten to torture, but it stepped back from the edge by not going there.

There are those who will offer up Stephen King as an example of the darker side of science fiction. But Stephen King is considered the King of Horror, not the King of Science Fiction. While several of his works are considered great science fiction “The Dark Tower” series, “The Stand,” “The Running Man,” and “The Green Mile,” to the world at large he will always be the King of Horror. He simply knows how to scare everyone. His intent is not to explore space and science of the future, he wants to explore the darker psyche of human beings and the monsters that may rise up amongst us. One caveat may be that he did enflame his audience by having a child pedophile be the villain in “The Green Mile,” but even Mr. King dared not cross the taboo line by depicting it. He was smart enough to realize that his audience may find that unforgivable.

Yet so many writers fail to recognize that there is a line and do not hesitate to rush right in and break all the taboo rules. “A Clockwork Orange” is a great example. Credited as a classic fantasy/sci-fi film, it is revered by a cult fandom. But truly is it considered science fiction? Perhaps it falls within the category of horror more than science fiction. Films like “Seven,” the “Saw” series, and the Swedish films based on the books “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” are more likely to fit the horror category than qualify as science fiction. Frequently, horror is confused with science fiction. In fact, for many, horror is a sub-category of science fiction. However, here at Airlock Alpha, we believe it is its own category and afford it the courtesy of its own website.

Horror should not be considered a sub-category of science fiction. It is called “horror” for a reason. It is meant to horrify its audience. The term alone gives a viewer the heads-up about what it is about. But from Comic-Con to your local book store, science fiction is usually the umbrella which horror is casually tossed under. Oh, the horrors!

However, science fiction is something else entirely. It is meant to challenge our hearts and minds by inviting us into worlds and realities that do not exist. It does not delight in finding ways to turn our stomachs and gape at the new levels of depravity human beings can dream up. Science fiction may scare us and inflame our emotions, but it also knows that unless it engages us, we will not watch or read the stories it has to offer.

Would “Star Wars” fans have been as fanatical if they had tortured Princess Leia? Would “Star Trek” fans have been as passionate and loyal if it were not for the strict code of conduct observed by the Federation? Would “Battlestar Galactica” have enflamed a whole new generation of fans if it had not been careful to treat the humanoid looking Cylons as beings with human rights? Great science fiction is careful to engage and entertain its audience, not alienate it.

How many times have we watched a particularly disturbing scene on television and simply turned the channel? Or walked out of a movie theater because the film went too far down the dark path? Or thrown away a book because it gave us nightmares? This is the last thing that any writer should want. What good does it do if the intended audience determines the book, film or television series too disgustingly awful to watch or read? In today’s modern world where Twitter posts can make or break a film within hours of its release, the power of “word of mouth” recommendations is enormous. Labels and initial reviews such as “piece of trash” or “waste of time” can kill any fledgling work of science fiction before it even hits the theaters or sits on a bookshelf.

While self-censorship is not always ideal, it may be beneficial in ensuring that a good story gets a chance to be told. Any writer (whether for books, film or television) should ask their self, “is there any part of this story that is unnecessary and which will dis-engage my audience?” If the answer is “yes,” then by all means, take it out. But if you are a writer that feels that they can only be true to their vision by including scenes that will horrify and sicken the audience, then you must be content with only reaching a fringe audience.

For I hazard to say that the larger percentage of science fiction fans are not willing to condone and promote such atrocities, even in fiction — and better yet, they will not allow writers to profit from violations of our basic moral code. While atrocities do exist, we as a society and as fans of science fiction do not have to sanction it.

I hereby posit that sci-fi audiences will tolerate only a certain level of extreme, graphic violence, in books, movies and television shows — but only if it does not cross the line.

Related article: http://www.airlockalpha.com/node/7600

“A Nice Girl’s Guide to Planning and Packing for Comic-Con”

Last year I wrote up a list of helpful tips on how to survive Comic-Con. With a few tweeks, I have updated my list of survival tips on how to plan for and survive Comic-Con, the annual sci-fi/fantasy convention in San Diego.

This year, Comic-Con takes place over a five-day period: Wednesday, July 21st through Sunday, July 25th – that is if you managed to buy a 4-day pass, which includes Preview Night.

Held once again at the massive San Diego Convention Center, which is located right next to the glorious San Diego Harbor, the convention center spans nearly 3 football fields in length and offers up a treasure trove of activities, all of which must be carefully and meticulously planned.

First, by now, any attendee should have purchased either the 4-day pass or their day-tickets. If you were thinking you could still get tickets to attend Comic-Con, you are out of luck as this year’s convention sold out in early November – well over 8 months before the event. Thus, any procrastinators are simply stuck without tickets. (If you missed out this year, I recommend that you get your tickets when they first go on sale which should be in mid-September so you do not find yourself in the same predicament for Comic-Con 2011.)

Second, another thing that should have been taken care of by now is your hotel reservation. There are still a few hotel rooms available, but those are at hotels over 5 miles from the convention center and may not be on the free shuttle routes. Thus, if you have your tickets (aka: day passes) and still need to secure lodging, do so immediately and be prepared to get up early so that you can drive to the convention center or one of the nearby parking lots so you do not get stuck in the daily gridlock which begins at 8:00 a.m. each day. (Go to the Comic-Con website and click on the “Hotel” link to make reservations.)

So, if you have tickets and accommodations, then it is only a matter of counting down the days to Comic-Con — and with that thought in mind, the following is a list of tips on how to prepare for such a monumental event:

(1) TRAVEL TIME TO SAN DIEGO. Whether by plane, train or automobile, be sure to give yourself plenty of travel time to travel to San Diego. With well over 125,000 people making the annual trek each day, you are sure to run into a few en route — and you will need to be prepared for the unexpected. Having encountered everything from a train fatality, traffic accidents and fog delays at airports, I can testify that you need to budget into your travel schedule extra travel time so that you do not miss the one panel or event that you are dying to see.

(2) GETTING TO CONVENTION CENTER. The same is true of each day you plan to attend the convention. You must allow for extra time to arrive at the convention center because even taking the free shuttles, taxis and trains is not a guarantee that you will not hit traffic and get stuck anywhere from 30 minutes to 3 hours just trying to traverse the final 5-6 blocks to the convention center. If you are staying at a hotel within walking distance, walking is highly recommended in order to avoid the grid-lock – so pack your comfy walking shoes!

(3) CLOTHING & ACCESSORIES. Speaking of shoes and other apparel, what one wears can be vitally important. Given the amount of walking (whether to and from the convention center, or just within the convention center itself), wearing your comfortable tennis shoes or walking shoes is a must. This is not a time to be concerned about vanity. Along the same lines, temperatures can vary widely both inside and outside the convention center. Thus, it is recommended that you dress in layers to accommodate the extreme weather fluctuations as you can be hit by a sudden summer rain drizzle, pea-soup fog, or even arctic air-conditioning inside the convention center — or even worse yet, it could be clear, sunny and 105 degrees outside and you forgot a hat and sunscreen — and within 5 minutes you will find yourself with a lobster-red sunburn and on the verge of heat-stroke. So make sure to think about your wardrobe and what you plan to wear carefully. Also, it may seem silly to grab a light jacket each day before heading to the ‘con, but if you have ever been stuck in Hall H or any of the ballrooms for over 3-4 hours at a stretch, you know how insanely cold those rooms can get. So tennis shoes, light jacket, hat, sunscreen, sunglasses and other appropriate clothing are strongly suggested.

(4) CARRYING BAG & ESSENTIALS. Another key essential is a large carrying bag. Each day you will not only need the appropriate clothing and weather accessories, but you will also need a few survival essentials, such as: bottled water, snacks, cell phone, camera, extra camera batteries/memory cards, and medical aids (these include: (a) Tylenol/Advil for both headaches and sore muscles from the noisy crowds and long hours of standing, (b) allergy medication, (c) stomach antacids for all the fast-food and food-on-the-go you will consume, and (d) band aids for the blisters that will plague you whether you brought comfy shoes or not). Also in this bag will go the necessary maps and paperwork to navigate through the crowds to find the panels or vendor booths that you are seeking and any goodies that you find in the convention hall. (Cautionary note: do not succumb to the lure of picking up every “freebie” you can get your hands on as it will only weigh you down and will make it hard to find the items in your bag that you really need in a pinch – such as, you will want to keep your camera ready at all times as you never know who you might run across.)

(5) SCHEDULING. Finally, besides being aware of crowds, traffic, time-delays, unpredictable weather and temperatures, the most important thing to keep in mind is strategic scheduling. Comic-Con offers over 300 different panels and activities over the five days and it can be both hair-raising and mind-boggling to figure out how to navigate it all. So, when the final Comic-Con schedule gets posted online sometime after the 4th of July, you will want to print-out each day and then start highlighting everything you are interested in attending or checking-out. Then you will have to distill down into a cheat sheet the panels you want to attend. It is only once you have compiled a cheat sheet that you will begin to see if there are any time conflicts or over-lapping panels. There is a fine art to creating a cheat sheet into a manageable timeline of activities. I do not recommend that you automatically cross-off or remove any conflicting panels, as it is always a good idea to have a back-up plan in case one or more of the panels you had planned to attend ends up being booked to capacity and you cannot get into the room and/or panel. So it is wise to have an A-Plan, a B-Plan and even a C-Plan so that you do not freak-out if a panel or guest gets canceled, or 10,000 people show up for a 1,000 seat room and you are stuck outside praying someone will leave so you can get in the room of your choice. I also suggest that you allow extra time between panels so that you can navigate through the crowds from one panel to another and have time to (a) grab food, (b) use the restroom, or (c) wait in line to get in the room and find seats. If you do not allow built-in time in your schedule, you will be very agitated and frustrated to find that you are missing out on something you were dying to see. Time management is absolutely essential. So develop a flexible plan and keep an eye on it. Better yet, keep a printed copy of your cheat sheet (aka: itinerary) with you at all times.

(6) MONEY. Last, but not least, be sure to plan your budget accordingly regarding the costs of attending Comic-Con. Frequently and unexpectedly, it costs more than you might anticipate. It is a good idea to budget an extra $100-$200 for unanticipated costs, such as: parking fees, cab fare, munchies, memorabilia or other odds and ends.

With less than 4 weeks to Comic-Con, now is the time to really think about what you may need to bring with you. There are always some oddities that are hard to remember so I thought I would share a few things that I find essential:

(a) back-up battery for cellphone (texting and Twittering deplete batteries sooner)

(b) back-up camera batteries

(c) extra camera memory cards (you will take an average of 300 pictures per panel)

(d) cellphone/blue tooth rechargers

(e) camera battery rechargers

(f) power cords or wall plugs (so that you can recharge all your batteries each night)

(g) back-up laptop computer battery (if you are bringing your laptop)

(h) plastic baggies for carrying snacks/water bottles

(i) band-aids, extra socks

(j) Advil, Tylenol, stomach ant-acids, allergy medication

(k) notepad/pens

(l) sheet protectors (if you buy 8×10 pictures or get autographs)

(m) handiwipes

(n) hat/sunscreen

(o) cash (in small bills – $1′s, $5′s, and $10′s – at least $100 in small bills)

(p) earplugs/eye cover (Comic-Con hotels tend to be noisy)

(q) lightweight jacket (the panel rooms are FREEZING)

(r) snacks (trail-mix, crackers, fruit bars, candy, gum)/papertowels/napkins

(s) shoulder bag big enough to carry everything you’ll need each day

(t) list of cellphone #’s of everyone you’ll be trying to meet up with

Those are the oddities. Of course, there are the golden rule items like TENNIS SHOES. Do not even think about wearing cute shoes – you will regret it. You are going to be on your feet standing in long lines, walking long distances rapidly, and in extremely crowded areas where you’ll get stepped on.

Same goes with cute, small purses — skip those too. You are going to need a bigger shoulder bag to hold everything, preferably one that zips so that someone does not steal your camera/wallet, etc. Plus, you will be carrying food items and speaking from experience, even a plastic bag does stop all food/water from spilling if you’re getting jostled in a crowd or someone kicks your purse/bag.

Snacks are really important each day as the food vendor lines are frequently 200 people long and you don’t have time to wait in those lines. You only have 15 minutes between panels and it will take you that long to run to the room you want to get it and find a seat. And if you’re packing snacks, bring plastic baggies for trash, loose food items — you will need handi-wipes and napkins so that your fingers are not too sticky to use your camera.

So print this list and use it as a guide as you pack for Comic-Con. If you need to order back-up cellphone/camera batteries, etc., do it now. It can take 12-14 days for shipping.

With these few tips, I hope that you will feel a bit more enlightened and prepared for how to approach Comic-Con and not be caught off-guard by the time constraints, weather, and other unpleasant surprises. Comic-Con can be a glorious, heady time of non-stop fun events with a little forethought — then you can sit back and enjoy the ride!

Related article: http://nicegirlstv.com/2010/06/28/a-nice-girls-guide-to-planning-packing-for-comic-con-2010/

“Heroes of the Early 2010 Summer Blockbusters”

Celebrating Kick-Ass, The Losers, Iron Man 2, The Prince of Persia and The A-Team

With the summer season in full swing, it is easy to forget the early bird arrivals of some of the most significant and action-worthy films of the summer blockbusters. While some may argue that any film opening in April should not be included in the summer blockbuster category, I beg to differ. Both Kick-Ass and The Losers were highlighted and advertised as early summer blockbusters. While they may not have lived up to that weighty moniker at the box office, they were certainly heralded like they were.

Kick-Ass debuted mid-April with much fan-fare, but due to a large amount of adverse press and an unfortunate moniker, it disappeared into obscurity after a week at the box office — thereafter only known to the die-hard comic and genre fans throughout the globe. Astoundingly, to date, it has made $48 million domestically and $95 million world-wide. For a film that cost $30 million to make, it is deemed a complete box-office success. The odds of a sequel were nearly guaranteed with that kind of profit margin and, in fact, Kick-Ass 2 has been scheduled for release next year. Starring a whole host of fresh, virtually unknown faces, the film launched quite a few careers as well.

Aaron Johnson, portraying the now infamous Kick-Ass superhero, and Chloe Moretz, portraying the pint-sized cyclone sensation Hit Girl, were a wicked combination of youthful whimsy, hearts of gold and nerves of steel. They stared down certain death and tried to remain unphased by it. There were also delightful acting turns by Nicolas Cage, playing the doomed Big Daddy, and Christopher Mintz-Plasse, playing the mischievous Red Mist.

Kick-Ass was a film that should have never seen the light of day at the box office. Yet given the success in recent years of comics-turned-into-film, it was a reasonable gamble that it may attract an audience. The premise was simple enough about a young teenager who wants to be a superhero whose life inadvertently intersects with a father and his young daughter in the midst of a revenge killing spree. It was the purity of their hearts that won audiences over. As off-putting and foul-mouthed as they may have been portrayed, their intentions were good and with the aid of some startling amazing special effects, the film was elevated beyond just another comic-book film. It had heart. It had soul. It made our hearts and minds explode with happiness.

I am the first to admit that this was a film I was tempted to walk out of because the first 20 minutes were so off-putting and disturbing. Then a funny thing happened: Kick-Ass met Hit Girl and their lonely worlds of crime-fighting suddenly seemed much more interesting and purpose-filled. The film was no longer about a teenage boy with raging hormones and mis-guided visions of grandeur. It was about an unlikely and unexpected group of wanna-be-heroes who had a distinct goal in mind. They had a plan. It was a deadly one, but it got our attention. The film aspired to be bigger than we had envisioned — and it delivered. We laughed, we cried and we cheered at the end.

As for The Losers, also shackled by lack-luster reviews and a similarly unfortunate mis-named moniker, it shriveled and sank at the box office as if a dead weight had been tied to it and sent to the bottom of the sea. Sadly, to date, it has only made $27 million world-wide.

Yet, for a movie about an elite Special Forces division, they certainly did not look or act like a bunch of losers. It was just a ridiculous nickname that Jeffrey Dean Morgan’s character used for the rag-tag gifted ensemble with a bulls-eye painted on their backs. Like the film Kick-Ass, it aspired to be much more than any amount of trailers or previews could convey. Its beating heart of goodness and good-natured revelry was somehow lost in the midst of previews of action shots interspersed with a very scantily clad Zoe Saldana.

For those lucky enough to see this film, they were in for a treat. It did offer lots of action, explosions and a bit of strategically covered skin of the aforementioned Ms. Saldana. But mostly it was the story of a group of men who saved a helicopter’s worth of children from drug lords, only to find themselves blamed when it subsequently blew up. It was their misguided attempt to save the children that marked them for death by their own government. The film then followed their attempts to clear their names and regain their lives. It was fun, adventure-filled, and made you love taking the explosive journey with them. Jeffrey Dean Morgan’s quasi-father figure looking out for his men, mingled with the hijinks and shenanigans of Chris Evans who stole scenes every chance he got (I will never look at office delivery men the same way again), made for a compelling and entertaining story. One much more satisfying than the bigger named film The A-Team.

Moving along to the box office champion, Iron Man 2 delivered on all levels. It killed at the box office, making over $304 million in the U.S. and over $604 million world-wide. Aided with the wicked combination of Robert Downey, Jr.’s gleeful smile and haunted eyes, audiences flocked to theaters in mass droves. Everyone wanted to see the bigger and better, new and improved Iron Man — and this time around, there were lots of “iron man” wanna-be’s to be seen. There was simply more of everything.

But, by far, the secret ingredient remained the starring actor. Robert Downy, Jr. simply owned that role. Perhaps his own notorious real-life past makes him the perfect fit for such a complex character: Tony Stark, the brilliant billionaire playboy, with a secret. This time, the secret was not that he was Iron Man, he blew the lid off that in the first film. No, this time, the secret was more heart-felt: he was a dying hero. Everything he did in Iron Man 2 was because he knew he did not have much time left. It provided great comedy and an appreciation of how even super heroes are not invincible. Death comes for us all in the end.

So while many will recall the outlandish and mesmerizing performances of the guest stars Mickey Rourke, Scarlett Johansson and Sam Rockwell, for me the film was all about the dying hero. He gave away a multi-billion dollar company to his former secretary (and love of his life), he resisted temptation to have one last fling with the hot chick who suddenly showed up on his door-step, and he forgave his best friend for stealing one of his iron man suits. It illustrated the power of love, forgiveness, and valuing that which truly matters when our lives are stripped of the trappings that make us seem enviable and invincible. Tony Stark was a man with more wealth than he knew what to do with, yet even money cannot fend off the grim reaper. So Iron Man 2 was more than a film about a superhero, it was a film about a man who we would love to aspire to be.

Hot on the heels of such an iconic superhero film, The Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time had the insurmountable task of trying to steal the box office crown from Iron Man 2. To date, it is still trying to do just that. It has made $80 million in the U.S. and a total of $293 million world-wide. Consider me one of the people who saw the film trailer and immediately thought, “there is no way I’m seeing that film.” It looked cheesy and ridiculous — and mind you, that is coming from someone who thought Kick-Ass and The Losers were great films.

But induced to give it a chance, I put aside my misgivings and went to see it. I am now the first to admit how wrong I was. It was a visual feast for the eyes and offered more thrilling adventure than all the other films combined. It was simply spectacular. The tale of a young orphan boy raised by a king as one of his own sons, who one day is blamed for the king’s murder and hunted by his own family, made for a compelling story. Add that to a jaw-droppingly beautiful princess sworn to protect a magical knife with her life and a wicked mystical magician and you have the makings of an intriguing film.

But what really elevated the film were the two leads, Jake Gyllenhaal and Gemma Arterton. In a film of magic and adventure, their performances stood out as genuine and electrifying. Both embraced their roles with vigor and were undaunted by the physicality demanded of them. They won audiences over by their fearlessness in battle and willingness to share their hearts with the audience. Nothing will endear a character faster than by showing the audience how much you care – and throughout the film, you felt vividly that these actors cared very deeply for their characters. It makes it feel more real, more fun, and more invested. They were also playful in the portrayals by not taking it all too serious and allowing the audience to laugh with them. Like in the film Iron Man 2, being invited to laugh with the actors as they wink at the audience also draws a viewer in as we love to be included in the joke. With phenomenal supporting roles performed by Ben Kingsley and Alfred Molina, the film sparkled from start to finish. It introduced us to a fun-filled world of adventure and took us along for a daring ride.

Finally, The A-Team was a fantastic blast from the past! With four incredible actors cast in the leading roles, the film delivered on all levels. By far the performances by Sharlto Copley as Murdoch and Bradley Cooper as Faceman were magnificent. They fully embodied their characters and we loved every minute seeing them on screen. It is a film that aimed for the stars and it delivered. It reintroduced us to characters we have loved and missed for decades. It made us root for them against insurmountable odds — and it remembered to include the quirks that made us fall in love with them in the first place. The A-Team was one of those films that means more to those who watched the television series, but when all was said and done, it was a fun film and it did a good job of honoring what we all loved about the original.

Thank goodness Hollywood still believes in the power of make-believe and that movie goers love action films during the summer. Because we do. We love watching things blow up, the bad guys getting their just desserts, and the good guys winning the day. While the rest of the summer blockbusters are still rolling out, with films like Eclipse, Inception, The Last Airbender, and The Expendables set to thrill us all over again, we are sure to be dazzled and delighted. But for now, my heroes remain Kick-Ass, Hit Girl, Tony Stark, a bunch of military renegades, and a prince of Persia. They are the heroes of this summer.

Related article: http://www.airlockalpha.com/node/7552

Comparing the Marvelous Worlds of “Alice in Wonderland” and “Avatar”

How “Alice in Wonderland” beats “Avatar” in all things but the box office

I thought I would take everyone down the figurative rabbit-hole to contemplate a land of wondrous delights.

So let us explore the dual magical realms of “Alice in Wonderland” and “Avatar.” Both were huge box office successes in their own right and introduced us to the wonder of new worlds teasing our imaginations. Through the use of cutting-edge 3-D technology, they were simply spectacular. They were visual feasts for the eyes. Besides the obvious (they were filmed in 3-D), these films had a lot more similarities than most viewers may have realized. But I would like to propose that even in all its dazzling display “Avatar” does not measure up to the more richly layered and fulfilling “Alice in Wonderland.”

Grand Adventure

Both films offered grand adventures in their own right. Alice fell down a rabbit hole and landed in Wonderland. Jake Sully took a cryogenic space nap to the outer fringes of space and awoke in a world more glorious than anything he had ever imagined. Alice was immediately embraced as the savior and champion of Wonderland; and, while Jake was initially reluctantly welcomed to learn the ways of the reclusive Na’vi, he too ultimately became the inadvertent savior of the Na’vi. We watched them as they took their first tentative steps in a whole new world, found their footing and then proceeded to make each world their own. However, no matter how grand the adventure, Alice knew her place. She rose to the occasion and defended Wonderland and returned it to its rightful heirs. Jake, on the other hand, intoxicated by the Na’vi life, took control and proclaimed himself as ruler of the Na’vi. Alice conquered the enemy, but left ruling for those better suited. Jake relished his conquest and yielded nothing. In the end, both embraced the invitation to help free a foreign land from oppression and tyranny. But only Alice gave up the power bestowed upon her. Jake held onto the power granted him greedily.

Family Viewing

So while both films were fairly well suited in terms of offering grand adventure, “Alice in Wonderland” is the clear winner as far as being the more suitable film for the entire family. “Alice in Wonderland” offered a story of a girl on the cusp of womanhood running away from an unexpected and unwanted marriage proposal. “Avatar” offered a story of a young man running away from his wheelchair bound existence. But “Alice” portrayed charm and innocence in a land of wonder where a young woman topples a totalitarian regime. “Avatar” was about harsh realities of corporate greed stripping the land of its resources and stealing it from a docile group of people followed by one man’s crusade to lead a brutal battle. Both were about one person leading a people to fight for their right to live free, but “Alice” did it with minimal bloodshed and loss of life. “Alice” was easily the family-friendly film over “Avatar’s” adult themes involving war fare with mass gunfire, explosions, and sexual situations – and thus was not intended for full family viewing.

No Senseless-Killing

In “Avatar,” there were many lives lost, including beloved characters with whom the audience bonded, such as Grace and Trudy, both killed engaging in battle with the humans. In “Alice,” there was no such loss of life. All of Alice’s new friends were accounted for in the end and the audience did not have to mourn unnecessarily. It is rather a relief to enjoy a major action film and not have to reach for a tissue. So many films feel the need to kill off characters, and beloved characters at that, to make the film feel more real. But film makers are forgetting one thing, when depicting fantasy films, it is not supposed to feel real. In fact, everything about “Alice in Wonderland” and “Avatar,” felt unreal. They were simply too beautiful and magical to be real. So there was no need to kill off the character’s friends which the audience liked just to ratchet up the emotional resonance.  Plus, with both films already scheduled to be followed by sequels, it is frustrating to viewers who want their cherished characters to be in the next film.

Retained Humanity

One of the more glaring differences between the two films was the diametrically opposed paths that Alice and Jake Sully chose in the end. Both rescued their oppressed people; but Alice chose to return to her world and her people in the end — Jake did not. Jake rejected his human existence and chose to become one of the Na’vi permanently. He turned his back on his humanity and embraced life as an alien. Alice, on the other hand, took the wisdom gained from her experiences and embraced her human existence – albeit on her own terms. It was off-putting to the audience when Jake chose to give up his human existence; whereas, we cheered for Alice’s growth in the strong young woman ready to take a stand for what she believed she should do with her life. Jake could have gotten his legs fixed, but he instead chose to give up and join an entirely different species. Alice never saw her humanness as a disability and welcomed it as part of who she was.  She is a person with whom we all still relate and cheer for.  She is still one of us.

Life Lessons

Both Alice and Jake were lost people in the beginning of their journeys. Alice was indecisive about whether she should get married. Jake was not sure whether he wanted his military life back. Both just wanted to escape from the hard decisions they were faced with. They were just both lucky that an opportunity presented itself to grant their wish: they both got to live in a magic world for a time and re-think their life goals and aspirations. They were tested and tried and forged into better, stronger people. They emerged more self-determined and self-realized than when they began their inadvertent journeys. So, in terms of life lessons, both Alice and Jake learned to be better people. They were no longer mindless followers, but fearless leaders. The difference being that Alice took what she learned and used it to shape the life she wanted back in her world. Jake ran away from his human existence and only took what he learned to integrate further into the lives of the Na’vi. Who was braver in the end? The person who returned to what they were running away from; or the person who kept running away. The sure winner is Alice, as she was clearly the stronger of the two. She was not a heralded champion in her world, but she was still willing to return and face the consequences of her decision to run away and to turn down a marriage proposal that her family was pushing upon her. Thus, Alice was the braver of the two and learned more in the process.

Political Message

“Alice in Wonderland” and “Avatar” both had political messages, but “Alice” was better at embedding it into the storyline so that it was not beating the audience over the head with it. “Avatar” very clearly wanted to address the ecological erosion of the Amazon forests and how corporate greed prevails over planet preservation. But “Alice,” despite being about a young woman who takes down a brutal regime, seemed more focused on the what Alice learned in the process. It was her journey into adulthood that was the real message; toppling the strangle-hold of the Red Queen was just a bonus. “Avatar” was more focused on the political message than the person carrying it. Jake could have been anyone. He was the everyman who just wanted out of his life. “Avatar” wanted to remind the viewer acutely of the environmental exploitation themes, but “Alice” just wanted to tell the story of a young woman’s transition into adulthood. So in that sense, “Alice” was the more inventive tale of incorporating its political theme without making it cloyingly obvious.

Matters of the Heart

Another area which “Alice in Wonderland” simply excelled was in its love story. In fact, it was probably so subtle that most people overlooked it. Yet “Alice” was at its core a love-story. It was not about Alice falling in love. It was about the Mad Hatter’s love for Alice. From the second she returned to Wonderland, the Hatter knew her instantly. He also did not hesitate to protect her and threw himself directly into harm’s way to keep her safe – even if it meant enslaving himself to the Red Queen. However, in “Avatar,” the love story was again pushed upon the audience and seemed to be offered as justification for Jake abandoning his own kind. Jake fell in love with Neytiri. But it was always doubtful whether he was more in love with her than with the life living amongst the Na’vi offered. He admired her; he wanted to be like her; and he was attracted to her.  But more than anything, he desperately wanted to shed his own life and be one of the Na’vi. But was that a love story, or more of a story of attraction? In “Alice,” the love the Hatter had for Alice transcended the limitations of their existences. He knew that he could not keep Alice in Wonderland and he did not even try to compel or persuade her to stay. He knew instinctively that she was only visiting for a short while and kept his feelings to himself. But credit goes to Johnny Depp in his very subtly nuanced performance in that you could see from every look on his face that he was painfully in love – though still mad as a hatter. He would do anything for Alice and it nearly broke his heart when he let her go in the end. But that was true love, he let her go to chose her own destiny. It was heart-melting and heart-rendering all at once.

No matter how grand the created-worlds were, one sure fire test about whether one film is better than another is it a film that you will buy and put in your DVD collection. As visually stunning as “Avatar” was, it was a once in a lifetime experience. It did not bear repeating. “Alice in Wonderland,” on the other hand, is a film that you could watch over and over again and find even more humorous and delicious tid-bits to enjoy. It was embedded with Easter egg moments just for the fans. From the Cheshire Cat to the White Rabbit to the Blue Caterpillar, there was so much to enjoy and think about. “Alice” simply reveled in the diversity of its characters and made sure that they would be around for the next grand adventure – and that makes “Alice in Wonderland” timeless. We will wonder if Alice will return and when. Will all these cherished characters be there to greet her and what wondrous adventures will they embark upon next.

So, in the end, “Avatar” was a magnificent film, but it was constrained by its lack of vision and foresight. After all, Jake can only save the planet once. But Alice can return time and time again to play amongst the zany creatures of Wonderland. “Alice” invited us to enjoy a brief escape from our lives and we will certainly look forward to its gilded invitation the next time it comes around.

From “Alien” to “District 9” – Does Cinematic Portrayals of Extraterrestrial Life Live Up to Our Expectations?

Throughout film and television, sci-fi writers and visionaries have struggled to portray intelligent extraterrestrial life. Having not yet seen any, we simply cannot envision what it would look like. We may guess, dream and fantasize, but in actuality we have no idea how non-humanoids would appear. So this article will illustrate several classic examples of extraterrestrials (a.k.a. “aliens”) and whether they lived up to our expectations.

Of all of the shows currently on television only 5 actually depict alien life: “V,” “Stargate Universe,” “Doctor Who,” “Torchwood” and “Smallville.” While “V” and “Smallville” are limited to depictions of a single non-human species (the reptilian Visitors and Kryptonians), “Stargate Universe,” “Doctor Who,” and “Torchwood” cover a larger array of alien life forms. (It is debatable whether any true alien life has been portrayed on “Caprica” yet, which mostly consists of humans inhabiting other planets and man-made machines and computer-generated avatars.)

Then, of the 2009 theatrical films, only “Avatar,” “District 9,” “Transformers,” “Star Trek,” “Race to Witch Mountain” and “Outlander” depicted non-terrestrial life forms. (Not including animated films.) “Avatar” had the Na’vi; “District 9” had the Prawns; “Transformers” had alien robots; “Star Trek” prominently featured the Vulcan and Romuluans; “Race to Witch Mountain” had a couple of kids from an unidentified planet; and “Outlander” had the monstrous Morween.

Looking at just these most recent examples, it is hard to say how we truly view extraterrestrial life. We clearly have not seen it yet and, as a result, our imaginations have run away with the unlimited possibilities. To help distinguish the categories we have come up with to depict alien life, here is a list: humanoid (Catpeople, Ewoks, Klingons, Kryptonians, Ood, Na’vi, Predators, Sontarans, Time Lords, Weevils, Wraith, and Wookies); insectoid/arachnid (Bugs like in “Starship Troopers”, Prawns like in “District 9”); reptilian/amphibian/aquatic (Draconians, Judoon, Predators, Slitheen, Silurians); parasites/symbiots (xenomorph like in “Aliens” and black oil like in “The X-Files”); robotic/mechanical (Borg, Cybermen, Cylon, Daleks, Replicators, Transformers); rodent (Tribbles); and ancient/primordial (the Ancients like in “Stargate”).

Looking back at the most influential sci-fi films of the past 40 years, the most glaring examples of alien encounters have been in: “2001: A Space Odyssey,” “The Abyss,” “Alien,” “Avatar,” “Close Encounters of the Third Kind,” “Invasion of the Body Snatchers,” “Contact,” “District 9,” “E.T.,” “War of the Worlds,” “The Day The Earth Stood Still,” “Independence Day,” “Men In Black,” “Predator,” “Species,” “Star Trek,” “Star Wars,” “Stargate,” “Starship Troopers,” “Superman,” and “Transformers.” This is not a comprehensive list, but these are the most easily recalled films that shaped our perception of how alien life-forms would appear. It is notable that several of these films simply chose to not show what aliens would look like, such as “2001: A Space Odyssey,” “The Abyss,” “Close Encounters of the Third Kind,” “Contact,” “The Day The Earth Stood Still,” “Star Trek,” “Stargate,” “Superman.” Instead, we only saw aliens appearing in human form or not shown at all. Utilizing this method of appearance tends to feel more realistic to viewers as we feel more comfortable being addressed or greeted by alien life in a familiar body or form.

Therefore, it is interesting that several other key sci-fi films actually chose to create alien races, such as: “Alien,” “Avatar,” “Invasion of the Body Snatchers,” “District 9,” “E.T.,” “War of the Worlds,” “Independence Day,” “Men In Black,” “Predator,” “Species,” “Star Wars,” “Starship Troopers,” and “Transformers.” These films did not wish to be constrained by the expectation of aliens looking just like us. They wanted to stretch the fabric of storytelling and paint a picture of new life forms – alien life from somewhere beyond Earth. In “Alien,” we were introduced to parasitic alien life, the kind that can inhabit a human host during gestation, which were subsequently reintroduced in “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” and “Species.” In “Avatar,” there was the Na’vi, the 10 foot tall blue people. “District 9” introduced the Prawns, insectoid aliens. “E.T.” portrayed the
lovable little extraterrestrial befriended by a boy. In “War of the Worlds,” there were the gigantic robots inhabited by tiny aliens. “Independence Day” had alien creatures similar to those portrayed in “Predator.” “Men In Black” had all kinds of bizarre alien life. “Star Wars” had a vast array of aliens including Wookies and Ewoks. “Starship Troopers” had bugs. And “Transformers” had alien robots.

All in all, filmmakers and television creators have taken delight and liberty in envisioning what non-Earthlings would look like. For the most part, we as the audience sitting in a movie theater or watching a television show are open-minded to all the possibilities and artistic license. Particularly for those fully immersed in the sci-fi realm who are used to the parade of aliens throughout epic films and television series such as “Star Wars,” “Star Trek,” “Doctor Who” and “Torchwood.” Because sci-fi fans are also very accepting of the idea that not everyone feels comfortable trying to portray something not yet seen and that aliens may come to us in human appearance, we forgive the lazy or hesitant filmmaker. But are sci-fi fans as forgiving and understanding to filmmakers who dare to unveil their idea of what alien life looks like? From my own perspective, sci-fi fans are tolerant, but not always understanding.

One glaring example from television was the short-lived series “Defying Gravity.” I know I was extremely surprised when they finally revealed the entity known as Beta, as well as a bit shocked. The name alone should have been an indicator of what to expect, but in hindsight it was rather startling to find out that Beta was a square glowing cube approximately the size of a football, which looked more like a futuristic version of a Rubik’s cube than a form of advanced alien life. It was a clever idea that, in the entirety of the universe advanced beings, alien life could be made up of pure fractals; but, it sure made it hard to relate to when watching it on the television screen. It resembled an advanced computer more than an alien life form. It was also eerily reminiscent of “Battlestar Galactica’s” Cylon technology, which had ultimately evolved from integration of human cells surrounding Cylon computer interface. Was Beta truly anything like
an “alien,” or was it more computer-like?

So this led to the analysis of whether our expectation of what “aliens” should look like is reasonable: Should aliens appear in humanoid form, creature form or parasite form? Should alien life be confined to a body at all? Could it be more of an unseen collective consciousness? In reality, alien life could be all of these things – we simply do not know yet. But as far as portrayals in film and television, is it “alienating” to portray “aliens” so simplistically as a glowing cube?

When pulling back the curtain we have heightened expectations that aliens will be more intriguing and interesting than anything we have seen before. As a sci-fi fan, I love discovering new life and all its wondrous possibilities. When the first alien jumped out of the chest in “Alien,” I screamed with equal parts horror and delight. It was both disgusting and fascinating. Then in “Aliens” when we saw the mother alien, my blood ran colder. It was bone-chillingly awesome. Perhaps no other alien incarnation in film and television has been so persuasively foreign to everything we know and perhaps want to know. Even the Predator could not invoke such awe. Seeing the Prawns of “District 9,” while not as purely evil in appearance, still brought the wonder of what intelligent, foreign extraterrestrial life will look like when encountered.

Will sci-fi aliens of our future be humanoid like depicted in “Avatar,” insect-like like in “District 9,” or will they actually be more fractal-like as shown in “Defying Gravity”? Without actually encountering extraterrestrial life and seeing for ourselves, it remains perplexing and challenging to envision it. Let us all hope that one day, if and when we do have such an “alien encounter,” that it lives up to our heightened expectations.