Quite Quotable

"Ignorance and apathy, entwined inseperably around each other, form a wall that is nearly insurmountable."

Peter David, The Long Night of Centauri Prime

What'd You Know? Somebody Else Liked Branagh's Frankenstein Too!

I saw Kenneth Branagh’s Frankenstein on the big screen back in 1994.  I liked it.  I felt bad, however, when Roger Ebert gave it a bad review because we generally agreed on most movies.   (No, I’ve never actually met the guy, but he was always the one I cheered for in the heated debates on Siskel and Ebert!)  I thought that Branagh brought a whole new Shakespeareanesque-tragi-brooding thing to the good (?) Doctor.  And De Niro definitely brought the Monster to life.  (If I remember correctly, De Niro’s performance was the one thing Ebert liked about the movie.)  Seriously, I felt this version delved more into the moral ambiguities that make Shelley’s novel what it is.  It was never a monster story; it was a story about what makes one a monster.  For that reason alone, I prefer Branagh’s vision to all the others I’ve seen. 

FINALLY, someone agrees with me!  What makes me happier still is that I found this article on Roger Ebert’s website.  You can read it here.      

Who knows?  Maybe Ebert will even change his mind about it.                       

British sci-fi author Richard Morgan to pen Crysis 2

EA announced this week that it had enlisted British Science Fiction writer Richard Morgan to pen the story for Crysis 2, the sequel to its "successful" and beautiful PC first-person shooter.  Successful is in quotation marks there because Crysis didn't actually sell that many copies and a lot of those sold were never played because of the extreme hardware requirements needed to get even decent frame rates on the game.  That won't be a problem with Crysis 2 as it will be released on the Xbox 360 and PS3 and be optimized to run on  less than stellar PCs.  Despite needing to run on consoles, the new engine is looking great (as these screenshots--courtesy of EA---show).

Click to view full-size image

 

The move to an urban setting really makes this look like a whole new property, and EA likely saw te need for stronger writing given the more recognizable setting.  Richard Morgan stormed onto the sci-fi scene in 2002 with the publication of his well-received Altered Carbon, a cyberpunkish thriller with a voice lifted from noir detective fiction.  He has continued to publish regularly and seems to have continued with the idea of blending different genres.  His latest, The Steel Remains is basically a sword-and-sorcery novel that feels like it takes place on a different planet and with sorcery that really seems more science-based than supernatural.

Crysis 2 is Morgan's first foray into the video game world, but his first novel has been optioned by Hollywood, so his work will soon be exposed to two, much larger than the sci-fi base, audiences.  

The history of genre authors teaming up with video game developers isn't exactly great, but Morgan can certainly do nothing to lessen the quality of first-person shooter writing.   

What Makes a True Science Fiction Fan?

I sponsor a science fiction and fantasy club at the local high school, but to be quite honest, I’ve done a pretty poor job the past few years.  About ten years ago, the club was one of the most active at school.  We held meetings twice a month, hosted movies after school, held contests so students could win signed books and memorabilia.  Last year, I think I called meetings maybe four or five times and probably the same for the year. 

I always have a big turn out for the initial meeting and sign up, but after that attendance drops off drastically.  I think I had thirty people sign up; five came to the last meeting.  I really believe it’s the survey I have them fill out during the first gathering that scares them off.  I mostly use the survey to get a feel for what the members like and want to do with the club.  I ask them to list their 5 favorite books, movies, and games.  Truth be told, it’s the survey that keeps me from committing to the club the way I used to.

The game column fills up first anymore.  Of course, the names of games changes every year as members want to list the newest games as their favorites.  This column generates the most fervor and excitement.  I created the games list thinking they might put down Dungeons and Dragons or some other paper and pencil rpg.  Nope, not in the last ten years or so anyway.  The only rpgs my members no are computer or console games.  Collectible card games haven’t even made the list in five years. I’ve been playing for over twenty years now so it’s always exciting to discuss things with the next generation.  Even when the 3^rd and 4^th editions came out, I expected to see a lot of interest generated, but what was there didn’t last very long.  When members started listing nothing but video games, I realized that paper and pencil games were becoming a thing, maybe not of the past, but of a very select audience. 

The new gaming trend saddened me.  Oh, they saw it as great advancement in technology and entertainment, which I do not deny.  What they don’t see is what the new games are doing to them, or rather to their imaginations.  With D&D, we had to immerse ourselves in the game, visualize it, invent it with our thoughts and words.  Video games will not allow that.  Games have taken all the imagination out of play.  You just react to it, not create.

But I let that go.

Movies.  Well, again most members typically put what’s current.  It’s like they have no conception of “past” or “classic.”  I suppose classic is a relative term.  To me the classics mean The Forbidden Planet, The Thing from Another World, The Day the Earth Stood Still, and even Star Wars and Blade Runner.   Star Wars episodes I-III they’ve seen and enjoyed.  They don’t like the original trilogy because the special effects look fake, or even worse, they’ve not even bothered to watch it because it’s “old.”  How do you convince someone that a movie is good because of its story or characters when all she cares about is how the movie looks?  Again, today’s audience seem to focus on the look over substance.  There is no willing suspension of disbelief, only the will to be dazzled. 

Very frustrating, but I let it go.

The book column, however, was the straw that broke this fan’s back.  They don’t read!  Most of them haven’t read a book in their life.  And their proud of it!  The ones that do read, read mostly media tie-ins.  According to the recent crop, the first Halo book is the best book ever written.  What?  Now, I don’t have anything against media tie-ins.  I’ve read my fair share, but how do you even begin to justify that a Halo book is better than Foundation or Ringworld (both of which my current members have never heard of).  If I’m lucky, I have a few, and not just the girls, that think Twilight, or any of its recent trendy rip offs, is the best book ever.  (Probably the only time I’ve ever missed Anne Rice – but they don’t have a clue who she is either, so what difference does it make?)   When I do manage to convince one of them to check out a book, they don’t read it because it’s boring or it’s confusing or it’s not as good as the movie.  (I, Robot and Starship Troopers are the usual victims of the latter excuse.) 

Am I old fashioned in thinking that, to be a science fiction fan, one must be a fan of its literature?  Seems to me that the whole basis of being a fan began with the stories,   The Lensmen or Fahfrd and the Mouser – there’s too many to think of.  Sadly, all of them are fading from memory.  Of course, publishers aren’t helping.  Where is the Mouser on bookstore shelves?  Where is Doc Smith?  Where’s Burroughs?  We do have great talent putting out great stuff today, so no one can argue that there’s nothing worth reading.  You got McDevitt and Gaiman and Gibson and Card and Martin and Scalzi and on and on.  There’s a lot to love about genre fiction today. 

Am I too demanding?  I personally do not think so.  I refuse to give in on this point.  Fandom began with literature, and to me, to be a true fan you have to read, not necessarily older stuff but read quality to work, the successors to the greats, the ones who followed in the footsteps of the giants and the ones who have made their own. 

So, there’s the root of my club problem.  It’s not that I cannot connect with the new generation, it’s that I don’t consider them true fans.  Science fiction and fantasy literature is a celebration of the imagination.  True fans know that.      

Why I Strongly Dislike Hollywood 83.8% of the Time

I suppose I need to clarify a few of things first.  For one, hate is a very strong word and one I try to avoid using at work, at home, and on blog.  Not trying to be PC, just a personal quirk.  And two, by Hollywood, I mean the movie-making biz in general.  Don’t care if I’m being PC here or not.  And lastly, I’m generalizing when I shouldn’t be throughout the piece, I know, but . . . ah heck, I’m tired of explaining myself here, so I’m just going to blog a bit.

(Not that I’m trying to PC my way around anything, mind you.)

What happened to originality in Hollywood?  Where are those films the just made you heart leap up and beat your brain silly with excitement?  I will never forget some of the movies I saw when I was young(er), not only for the thrilling stories, wondrous effects, and marvelous, bigger-than-life characters, but also for the sheer joy they brought me.  I’m talking Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and The Road Warrior.  (And from a not-necessarily-nerdish point of view, how about The Shootist, Jaws, or Rocky.)  Seems like now, I mostly see remakes or reboots or sequels or, CRINGE, the dreaded prequel.  Okay, I admit that every now and then a very good film comes out.  Sometimes, we even see a truly great film.  For, however, 72.8% of the stuff I see coming out is pure, unadulterated, unoriginal bantha pudu.  

Sometimes a sequel's a good thing.Sometimes, sequels can be a very good thing, when they are used to continue a story or develop character.  Who doesn’t think that The Road Warrior is better than Mad Max?  The Empire Strikes Back anyone?  Do I need to say The Godfather II?  Good stuff.  But when we get Hollywood wanting to suck the hard earned money out of the pockets of the people who support it willingly anyway, what do we get?  Jaws II-IV.  Rambo II-IV.  Rocky II-whatever.  Halloween gave us one of the creepiest villains ever. So, what does Hollywood do?  Parts II through whatever plus a reboot with a sequel?  Doesn’t make sense.  And, pardon me while I shudder, instead they give us some crappy prequels.  Stars Wars I-III is about as good example of wasted time and money as I can think of.  We had an enjoyable experience with the original.  If there’s no reasonable excuse to continue the story, before or after the fact, why waste our money.  Invest all that money you have on another, fine piece of film-making.

Lots of adaptations, too.  This one is tricky.  Done correctly, with passion and a love for the source material, it can be a wonderful experience.  The Lord of the Rings comes to mind.  Jackson loved the books and it showed.  What about changes, you ask.  Some have to be accommodated.  If The Fellowship of the Ring had been film verbatim, it would have taken three, three hour movies itself.  Changes were made to make it right for the medium of film.  I have only minor complaints with the results.  The Watchmen also comes to mind.  After watching The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, one can easily understand Alan Moore’s attitude toward Hollywood.  However, The Watchmen, I felt, was true to the comic.  Yes, no giant squid.  But Zack made changes appropriate for the medium.  He didn’t have 12 issues to delve into it.  The ending was different but true to the source material.

Reboots?  Why?  Did you think we forgot about everything so soon?  They’ve rebooted Star Trek.  They’re rebooting Freddy from the Nightmare movies (another great film ruined by sequels, btw).  Can’t wait for Spider-Man IV?  Sorry.  Reboot.  Think of something new for crying out loud. 

Speaking of which, the reason this particular blog came into existence was mainly because I saw someone had remade Clash of the Titans.  Why?  Harryhausen made an enjoyable film.  No, there’s not spectacular CGI, but it’s a prime example of the evolution of FX.  Let it stand.  What’s the reason?  To expose the story to a new audience?  Let ‘em watch the original.  Let them see storytelling, not CGI.  Then there were the rumors – I can barely even think of this one without puking my guts up . . .

Pardon me a moment . . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

Okay, I think I can continue . . .

Nothing on earth could kill Snake Plissken - nothing except Hollywood.An Escape from New York remake?  Why?  Yeah, I know the rumor's old, but how could anyone even consider it?  And with Gerard “tonight we dine in hell” Butler as Snake Plissken?  I’m sorry but some actors own certain roles.  Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones.  Mel Gibson is Max.  And Kurt Russell is and will always be Snake Plissken!  If you want a Plissken film, give John Carpenter and Kurt Russell the money to make the much-rumored Escape from Earth.  Your fans want to see that story, not something that’s already been done.  Sure, you might make it look better, but it will never, ever be better than the way Carpenter and Russell did it. 

Wow, that last paragraph depressed me to the point where I don’t think I can say anything else . . .

Sigh.

Anyway, that’s why I strongly dislike Hollywood 83.8% of the time.