Written by Emilio D’alise (SoSF Staff Journalist)

I wish I had been one of the twelve, but I was born too late. I wish I could have stood contemplating in awe the wonder and majesty of the vision . . . and never wanting the moment to end. But that time is past, and I am not likely to be around when the time comes again.

I’m somewhat bitter because of it. The promise was there, and it was a promise to all. But it was a promise not kept. Oh sure, humanity may yet hope to relive those times some day in the future; we need only raise our eyes into the dark sky to be reminded of it. For it hangs there, seemingly within arm’s reach, the place where only twelve men have walked; the moon.

(Read more…)

Written by: Mike McCafferty (SoSF Regular Contributor)

I am Finally Prepared to Review “Planet of the Apes”

I just re-watched the 2001 edition of “Planet of the Apes” (slow night for Scifi) , starring every incredible actor on the Planet of the Humans (Helen Bonham Carter, Tim Roth, Paul Giamatti and Michael Clarke Duncan…or maybe Ving Rhames), as apes. Mark Wahlberg somehow fell into the lead role as the human pilot who crash lands on a planet where apes rule and humans are slaves or renegades with great teeth.

Man, what a bad movie.

Seriously, this is just a DUMB movie. The script can’t decide whether this is a serious social commentary or a slightly goofy action film (It accomplishes neither). The apes leap all over the place in that ‘Whee, I’m on wires!’ look. Mark Wahlberg is unconvincing as a scientist/pilot in the future and his ’stirring’ call to arms speech against the apes sounds like he’s reading the tags on the back of his shirt (those who are wondering what went wrong with his performance in “The Happening” should review this film for background). The ending makes zero sense (Wahlberg returns to Earth to find that the main bad ape somehow also returned to Earth to become the literal Abe Lincoln of ape emancipation…complete with a Lincoln Ape Memorial).

And yet there is one piece of brilliance in this film that I must commend right now.

Somebody snookered all those talented actors to dress up like apes.

(Read more…)

Written by: R.A. Porter (Used by written permission - PopCritics)

Yesterday morning we heard that The Sci Fi Channel is moving Charlie Jade to a new day and time. Starting next week, it’ll be taking over the coveted Monday 3am slot.

I can’t be too upset by this. Clearly the show was underperforming on Friday nights and the programming wizards at SciFi needed to move it. What impresses me is the depth of analysis they performed to figure out its new home. Who knew Charlie Jade did so well with insomniacs and people who buy Flowbies?

Taking its place on Fridays will be a repeat of the prior week’s episode of Doctor Who. I can’t say anything bad about the great British import other than asking how he keeps his neck warm without a proper muffler.

SciFi made several errors with Charlie Jade, some of them specific to this show and some of them indicative of systemic flaws. I figured I’d use this opportunity not just to look at the ways they went wrong, but also to discuss the future of science fiction television.

(Read more…)

Written by: Mike McCafferty (SoSF Regular Contributor)

Dear Ron Moore,

Hi! It’s me Mike! You probably don’t remember me because, well, we’ve never met. But I have to say, I’m a big fan of all your work. I’ve watched every episode of BSG (and I watch the episode “Exodus” on youTube every once in a while to see the badass ‘Adama Maneuver’ and Pegasus destruction. Bad. Ass.). Hey, I even wrote an essay on a scifi website site proclaiming my love of this series. I had forever sworn off the SCI FI Channel, only to renege that promise. All because of you.

Having said that, I do have a quick question:

Who was the final Cylon?

SPOILER ALERT: If you haven’t yet seen the mid-season finale of “Battlestar Galactica,” you may want to stop here.

(Read more…)

Written by: Emilio D’alise

I like action movies, and shoot ‘em ups are some of my favorites. Improbable, yes, but it’s the idea that counts. The illusion. The fantasy. We identify with the hero facing insurmountable odds, and surmounting them. Never mind you can plainly see the hero’s weapon-handling skills in the real world would result in the bad guys, sporting similar skills, never being hit at all. That’s probably why Hollywood guns come with 300 round magazines, making up in volume for the lack of shooting skills.

But lately I’ve become more critical of some of these movies. No, I don’t mean the 300-round magazines, although that is another pet peeve. I mean the movies themselves. I still like them, but I’ve become more sensitive to certain aspects of these movies, especially in some of the newer batch of movies.

I’m referring, of course, to the treatment of innocent victims. Movies like No Country for Old Men, while certainly technically excellent and engrossing, leave a lot to be desired as far as entertainment value. They remind us a psycho could target us for no apparent reason other than for self-amusement and entertainment. At least the body count of innocent victims in that movie is low.

(Read more…)

Written by: Emilio D’alise (SoSF Staff Journalist)

Sam looked around the room. They were all there, looking back at him, for he was one of two people in the room who knew the identity of the murderer. The murderer was the other; the murderer who in cold blood had killed Sam’s wife, best friend, and dog. He had even killed Sam’s pet hamster . . . Sam was really going to miss that hamster.

“You are probably wondering why I asked everyone to meet me here.” Sam paused, as he had seen all the great detectives do in various movies. For a moment his mind wandered, thinking he should get himself a gorgeous secretary who would forever be at the verge of having a relationship with him. Then he snapped back into focus; he remembered he was a plumber, not a detective.

“I’ve asked all of you here to expose the killer who ruined my life by cruelly taking everything I ever loved away from me.” One more pause, for effect.

“The killer is . . .” just as Sam was about to point to the doctor, the piano tuner jumped up with a gun in his hand.

“No one moves, and maybe you’ll all live through this.” said the piano tuner as he backed toward the door.

“The piano tuner! Well I’ll be!” Sam thought as he eyed the man waving his gun from person to person. Good thing the guy jumped up when he did, or Sam would have looked pretty foolish.

“How did you find out?” the piano tuner asked as he reached the door, “ I was very careful to cover my tracks.”

Just then, the door opened behind him, and two big policemen grabbed him and pinned him to the ground. The long nightmare was over.

The End
(Copyright – E. J. D’Alise, 200?)

(Read more…)

Written by: Mike McCafferty (SoSF Guest Contributor)

I need a little clarity on this.

Have you heard the one about Keanu Reeves? You know the one where he’s in a remake of a classic Sci-fi film - one of the best of all time? The one where he plays a super intelligent alien?

Oh, wait…that’s not a joke. Nor is it that funny.

To sum up: Keanu Reeves has been cast and is currently filming a remake of the 1951 classic sci-fi movie “The Day the Earth Stood Still”. In it, Keanu plays Klaatu, an incredibly intelligent alien sent to Earth with a message for humanity.

Read that sentence again, it’s real.

Now, if you haven’t seen The Day the Earth Stood Still, then the sci-fi community has failed you. This is one of those films that you really have to see to call yourself a sci-fi fan. It’s one of these Rosetta stones for geeks, a commonality that allows Star Trek, Star Wars or even robot tech fans to get along without falling in to endless “Borg v. Death Star v. Robot tech Masters arguments (besides: Borg>). True science fiction fans are historians – guardians of earlier generation’s visions of the future and this is one that everyone can agree is a classic.

But the primary reason to see TDTEST is that’s it’s a damn fine movie. Good science fiction is always a reflection of that generation’s hopes and fears and in 1951 the world was just starting to figure out that the atom bomb, while winning the war, was also really, really scary. It was science fiction in the here and now - a device that was literally of the doomsday variety – thrust into a world that was still dealing with the aftermath of WW II racial tensions and television (we still haven’t work out the last problem).

The Day the Earth Stood Still confronted that fear by bringing something even scarier in: the Unknown. With A-bombs and Commies everywhere, only something from another world could really get our attention. Director Robert Wise and company did just that by landing the alien craft in Washington DC and revealing it held a spaceman and a giant metal monster, Gort that could basically obliterate the entire planet with a wink of it’s single eye. A-Bombs are scary, but Gort’s are scarier.

And yet, while the obvious move would be to have the alien demand our surrender or just level the Capitol with lasers (not that terrifying an idea) the movie gave us something else: a savior. The spaceman, Klaatu, was not here to menace us, but rather to deliver a message. Acting like a superior being should, he looked upon humanity as a father sees children: aware of their faults but fascinated by their potential. Despite being shot, captured, chased and shot again, Klatuu does not get angry, for he knows that we simply cannot help ourselves. His final message: a warning not to play with our atomic matches, but to grow up and join the rest of the universe, still resonates today as we try desperately how to get along.

This was a shockingly adult movie in a climate of paper plates on strings and aliens with green skin from Mars (in 3-D no less!) populating the silver screen. The deliberate tempo of Wise, the incredible acting of Michael Rennie and the eerie score of Bernard Herrman all combine to make this one of the best science fiction films ever.

(Read more…)

Written by: Mike McCafferty (SoSF Guest Contributor)

Okay, let me be really clear about this: I just saw Iron Man and really, really liked it. It’s one of the best super hero movies in recent years and may well eventually gain entrance into the “Best Super Hero Films of All time” Pantheon, rarified company indeed. It is smart, it is nuanced and it is action-packed. Everything you crave in a Super Hero movie.

So now, let’s pick it apart!

Rather, let’s bring to light some of the inconsistencies, the logic gaps, weird moments and the poor plot choices. I come not to bury Iron Man, but to praise him (Take that, Shakespeare!). To find those few little nits, pull out our fine-toothed comb and pick them clean.

And you know what? Let’s not call it ‘nitpicking’ at all. Say nitpicking and everyone groans “nerd”. Rather, let’s do a computer metaphor in honor of our cyber man and call this a service update, a patch to the existing system. Just a few little odds and ends we’d like to correct that’ll make things run a little smoother next time.

Like…

(Read more…)

Written by: Samuel K. Sloan (FarPoint Media Executive News Director)

It now appears that all the talk about “Moonlight” getting a second try by CBS has turned out to be just that….all talk!

The network has made its decision for the 2008-2009 television season and sadly “Moonlight” will not be apart of it as the Net is going for more laughs over drama this upcoming season. CBS did, however, give a last minute thumbs up for “The Unit,” deciding it liked its failing numbers over those of “Moonlight,” making “The Unit” one of the few dramas to get renewal. Of course “C.S.I. Crime Scene Investigation” hangs on. Also biting the bullet is the James Woods drama “Shark.”

CBS waited until the very last minute to make its decision about whether or not to renew the vampire series because it was very aware of its passionate fan-base. However, execs simply couldn’t justify its numbers to advertisers and the show was finally axed.

Many critics, including yours truly, and fans alike saw this show starting to go somewhere unique with what was suppose to be its upcoming season finale. This final episode, now to be its last, was to start looking deeper into the unknown world of the 21st Century vampire community. Networks really need to give these shows a chance. If they would have done with “Seinfeld” or “All in the Family” what they do with many niche’ fan favorites these days, then Carroll O’Connor would have remained a B-movie actor and Jerry Seinfeld would just be another struggling standup comedian no one ever heard of. Both show languished for a full season at the bottom of the ratings pit, but CBS and NBC gave them a second shot and, the rest, as they say, is history. Advertisers need to grow a pair if they really want the television audience to sit up an take notice of their product and give networks allowance to give shows the time and space they need to grow wings.

Written by: Mike McCafferty (SoSF Guest Contributor)

Mother’s Day is here and so it’s time for me to give a shout out to my mom. Now even though it is Mother’s Day and it is a nice gesture, it would be a little off topic if I didn’t justify why I’m posting this on Slice of SciFi (And when did we lose the hyphen in “Sci-fi”? Are we all fans of ScienceFiction now, with no space but the one 62 miles above us?) and not www.IloveMyMommyInBlogForm.com. But fear not, for the reason, gentle reader is just: My mom is a nerd.

Yep, I said it, and by the four arms of the Kraken, I stand by it! My mom is a total sci-fi geek/nerd and I’m posting it for millions to see.

Of course, you don’t have a nerd mom, right? Are you sure?

To be honest, I don’t know how any mother could love anything Scifi or fantasy as it seems like the mother roles are the worst ones. Sure there’s father-son relations everywhere in Sci-fi (oops, hyphen) and if there’s not one, just wait for the older villain and the younger hero to square off. Within 15 seconds, you KNOW the bad guy is gonna play the “I am your father” card, whether real or not. We so want that Field of Dreams moment we find our dads any way we can get them: clones, alternate universe, robots, shapeshifters or time-travel stories where it’s revealed we fathered ourselves. Ugh.

But mom roles? Few and far between. The best you can usually hope for is some alien insect queen that descends from a mucous lined web strand and promises the hero that her children will consume him slowly. It’s either that or she becomes a part of the over used “Move out of your Mom’s basement, nerd” joke – you know the joke told by all the cool people years ago who now happen to work for computer companies founded by said basement dwellers. In short, the list of Mom’s in Scifi is short. Too short.

Of course, part of the reason is that most guys are remiss to even mention their mom as far as influences in Scifi, let alone include them in their writing. Hell, we can’t even call and say “I love you Mom” so how could we credit them with anything as formative as our love of Scifi/fantasy worlds. It’s hard enough being cool with your 8th level elf/paladin character in a world of fighter/mages without having to credit your mom for color-coordinating his armor and tunic on your character drawings. To the Scifi guy, moms are sadly nonexistent.

I’m a great example of this fault. For most of my teen and adult life, I was convinced that my love of Science fiction was self-created, a spontaneously generated interest designed to be counter-culture against jocks and cool people. Science Fiction was my goth/emo time that was totally my own and allowed me to establish an identity and self-worth. It was all me because I was just that special, damnit!

And then something funny happened: I had kids of my own.

I sat there with my four year old recently, trying desperately showing him the difference between Star Trek and Star Wars, and more importantly which one was better. It was a difficult go, and in between explaining midi-chlorians and tribbles, I wondered if he’d even remember that I took the time to be there for him on this stuff. I desperately hoped the answer was yes, and quickly wondered if my mom had ever influenced me in anything…

And that’s when it hit me. It was the “Sixth Sense” moment, the moment where suddenly everything that was always right in front of my face was suddenly revealed to me for the first time:

She watched every episode and loved every moment of my screen time, even when I didn’t.

Like Bruce Willis, I almost fell to the floor as each moment of my past flashed in my present. I was stunned that I had willfully forgotten all of that to bolster my own self-perception but more importantly that my mom ROCKED! All those years of being there, being my Scifi Yoda, answering my questions and patiently watching me grow, and then leave without thanking her. The moment that this hit me like Thor’s hammer and the mix of surprise and embarrassment was too much not to write about.

So I throw the gauntlet to you, Scifi commando, on this holiest of maternal days. You could send flowers, a card or take her to dinner today, but I dare you to do more. I challenge you to think back and remember those moments when your passion for different worlds was at it’s lowest, when the real world threatened to crush your visions. Look around in that fuzzy memory of yours and see if you can find your mom somewhere nearby, rooting you on. She may not be the Scifi badass my mom turned out to be, but I bet you that she loved you for being passionate about something and always had a kind word or glass of Tang when you needed it. When you find that moment, I’ll bet you find more, as I did. String enough together and you too might have enough evidence of having a nerd/nerd sympathizing mom too.

And now, here’s the tough part: acknowledge her for it. Cards and cakes are fine gestures, but the real gold-pressed latinum for her heart is to tell her how she helped you become the full fledged, well rounded, scifi-lovin’ nerd that you always wanted to be. It’s the best payment for the years of selfless effort to bring you up and out into the world. Tell her how she was there at the critical times to help you along and how you’re now thanking her for it. I know it’s hard – hell, I’m hiding it in a Slice of Scifi post – but trust me, it is worth it.

Because she is.

Thanks Mom,
Mike

Written by: Emilio D’alise (SoSF Staff Journalist)

The sky looks different. The air “feels” different. Strange noises break the silence as a group of our ancestors gathered around the fire to listen to the elder. It’s a hundred thousand years in our past, and entertainment is as scarce as food and shelter, and sought out with as much enthusiasm. The people settle, the elder looks around, waiting for the murmurs to fade. In a soft voice he begins to speak of traditions, of fantastic places, of courageous and extraordinary men and women. Men and women like the people who killed the inventor of “work”. Suddenly, to make a point, he picks up his spear, and hurls it at the person across from him. All of the listeners duck, especially the intended target. A few inches from the hapless man, the spear stops, having reached the end of the attached makeshift rope. People pick themselves up, letting go of nervous laughter. Then, after a brief hesitation, they stone the elder to death. Forward to present day.

Suit No. 1: “Theater attendance is down! What shall we do?”
Suit No. 2: “We’ve tried everything but good writing. Don’t know what else to do!!”
Suit No. 1: “Should we try good writing?”
Suit No. 2: “Hahaha, that’s a good one!! . . . seriously, we’ve got to do something.”
Suit No. 1: “How about 3-D?”
Suit No. 2: “Treedee? What’s a treedee?”
Suit No. 1: “No, I mean 3-D, as in 3-Dimensional.”

Of course I was not there, but I’m thinking it went down something like that. By the way, that’s a new intro to this piece because Slice of Sci-Fi Show #159 stole my thunder. I had this piece half written. I had all these righteous rants and clever points I was going to make, but then I listened to the show; the guys went into their own major 3-D rant, covering the same points I made. I was left with the dregs of the argument.

I guess I’ll start with the sheer audacity required to believe what is missing from today’s theater experience is the implementation of more visual technology. It boggles my mind to read about the conversion of 10,000 theaters to the digital technology supporting 3-D at a cost of $70,000,000 . . . why, that’s more than what it would cost to make Serenity 2, which coincidentally would get me into a theater.

But . . . perhaps those suits know their business. Not that they are smart. Heck, not even close. But they do have a rudimentary understanding of numbers. They know “big-numbers-better-than-small-numbers”. So they look at Pirates of the Caribbean; $1B in receipts. They look at Spider Man; $1B in receipts. They look at Transformers; $1B in receipts. Must be what the people want. That is a 3x return on investment . . . or about half the return of investment of The Bourne Ultimatum (cost $25M, returned $150M, or 6x).

That’s called math. But everyone knows you can’t do coke and math at the same time. At least not past comparing two numbers, and to be fair, $1Billion is larger than $150 Millions. Also to be fair, there’s not much CGI in the Bourne movie. That’s because the computer refuses to duplicate the random shaking of the human hand.

All kidding aside here, I cannot understand the attraction of 3-D. I saw one 3-D movie in my life. Seen it, it was neat, it was boring, and never had the desire to see any since. I have no doubt the new technology is spectacular. I’ll venture a guess it will be one of the wonders of the vacuous world, far surpassing anything we’ve seen before. Might even be better that my own eyes, but I think the guys nailed it on the show. It means nothing unless the story is engrossing . . . and if the story is engrossing, the 3-D effect will hardly be noticed. It’s not the technology, it’s the story telling.

This is rooted in our ancient past. And it’s played out every day around the world, albeit in more comfortable surroundings. We tell tales of great hunts (shopping sprees), extraordinary people (celebrities who don’t wear panties), and fantastic places (the Mall of America). And we do all that without throwing stuff at each other, trying to make the other person duck. That simple formula, tales told without stuff flying at your head, has worked from ancient time all the way to today. Yes, it still works. I’ll sit and watch a piece of cardboard if it meant hearing a great tale. By the same token, I get quickly bored with special effects if they are done for no other reason than we have the technology.

But the suits, the suits know I am not the target audience. The target audience is a third my age, owns a number of game stations, a bunch of games, lives as much in the virtual world as the real one, and prefers dazzle to any kind of substance (the iPhone being their version of the Holy Grail). “Careful!” you say, “You’ll offend them if they happen to read this.” I’m not worried . . . the few who can read quit doing so at the paragraph where I did some math. Probably went scrambling for a calculator, and got sidetracked by some blinking lights. For those who made it this far, I meant the other guys. But, if the shoe fits . . .

Anyway, am I saying all 3-D movies will suck? No, I’m sure there will be good ones. But then, I would have gone to see those even without the 3-D.

Written by: Emilio D’alise (SoSF Staff Journalist)

Anyone reading my occasional contributions to this site might justifiably arrive at the conclusion I am less than pleased with the current state of cinematic entertainment (and maybe the world in general). Fair enough; I do tend to write about things that bother me more often than I write about what I like.

But I will now make the supreme effort to converse a bit about both what I like and don’t like. I do this fully aware my opinion has little bearing on anything, other than to maybe give a voice to the one or two other people unfortunate enough to be afflicted with the same level of curmudgeonsess (I just made that word up – hope it sticks) I revel in.

Most people would consider the first item no big deal . . . so naturally it’s a big gripe of mine. It has to do with cups, supposedly filled with liquids, carried by actors in movies and television scenes. Once again, I’ll state the body is a wonderful piece of machinery. In particular, very few people seem to realize (unless designing robots), just how difficult it is to have a machine pick up an object of undetermined mass, move it around, put it back down and do it as naturally as people do every day. Your hand, arm, shoulders, and indeed your whole body work in unison to make the action smooth, effortless, and something you don’t even think about. You automatically adjust to the weight and compensate for inertia when accelerating and decelerating any object you hold. Pick up a glass of water, and you can sip it, walk around with it, and put it down, all without giving it a second thought. Try programming a mechanical arm to do the same with anywhere near the fluidity we take for granted in our own movements.

And that is the rub. We may take it for granted, but we know, just by looking at a person, if the object a person is holding is light or heavy. Very few people can fake the motions associated with lifting an object with some mass. Even more difficult is to fake the subtle adjustment one automatically makes while walking and carrying an open container of liquid. Adjustments we unconsciously make to keep liquid from spilling out of the cup. No matter how good the actor, they can’t keep me from noticing the cup they walk around with, the one they sip or drink from, is actually empty. Next time you see anyone handing a cup to their partner, friend, etc., notice the way they handle the cups. Once you see it, chances are you’ll say “What the . . . that cup is empty!! Why are they walking around with empty cups?!?!”

If they want me to believe the actor is portraying a serious FBI agent, don’t show him faking drinking from what is obviously an empty cup. It makes them look like idiots, and worse yet, it’s a small detail sharply reminding the viewer these are actors, and everything in the show is faked. Sure, I knew that; I know I’m watching a show, and not real life. I just don’t want to be reminded of it while I’m watching it.

My second peeve is closely related to the first; actors who break role, and address the audience. Often it is played for laughs; a raised eyebrow in response to some event, while looking at the camera, as if to indicate “Can you believe this!?”. Well, duh!!! I was trying to, until you screwed it up!!

Contrast the prior two things with what I actually like - subtle references, in-jokes, or little snippets paying homage to something only a few viewers might be familiar with – and you see a weird dichotomy at play.

Essentially all three instances remind the audience they are in fact watching a movie, play, or television show.

But while the first two slap you in the face with it, in the third instance the subtle references draw you in as an equal. It is a way of telling loyal and knowledgeable fans “Hey, we know you are out there, and here is something just for your enjoyment.” With no disrespect for the broader audience, the subtleties reward the die-hard fans of the sci-fi genre. Sort of like the secret handshake to a private club. It sounds exclusionary, but anyone can join.

Written by: Emilio D’alise (SoSF Staff Journalist)

In the olden days, when a camera had to follow an actor as he or she moved across a set, cinematographers relied on various techniques to ensure minimal camera shake. Until the advent of the steady-cam, complicated shots were very difficult to execute because of the limitation of the camera having to be mounted on a stable platform. Once the steady-cam was invented, it freed cinematographers to be very innovative in shooting action sequences. Long, continuous, and dynamic scenes could be shot despite varying terrain and changing elevation. The camera operator could literally be in the midst of the action, moving from one actor to the other, capturing various details, all without any telltale shaking. The audience got immersed in the action as if they themselves were in the middle of it all. Life was good; all was well; movies were great.

Then came someone obviously suffering from a vision disorder. “That is not how the world is. Things are not sharp and in focus; everything is blurry, the action too quick for anyone to follow!” And so came the invention of the hand-cam. That is the cinematographic equivalent of Uncle Ernie’s filming of the BBQ in the backyard. The audience is still immersed in the action, but now everyone is bumping into them. And this was deemed good, and everybody followed suit, striving for the mythical realism of an observer on crack.

I am here to set things straight. Or should I say “steady”. Most people’s brains have a fair amount of their capacity assigned to the sole task of interpreting the world as if viewed through a steady cam. Ask any athlete; ask any hunter; ask any person walking through a crowd . . . they don’t see the world as if they sported a bobblehead. Our bodies are geared to holding one’s head relatively steady as one walks or runs. This is to provide a stable platform for our eyes. Our brain filters out what little shake is imparted by our movements so as to give us a steady image of the world around us. It is what enables us to discern small movements, say those of a potential prey. It is what allows us to predict trajectories so we can throw a rock and have a reasonable chance of hitting something even if it’s moving in an erratic way. It allows us to plot an intercept course so we can tackle the idiot who is trying to get a pigskin ball past us. It allows us to swing a piece of wood at an oncoming projectile with the intent of knocking said projectile as far away as possible. You never see a batter hopping up and down in an attempt to get a better look at the ball that is being hurled at him. We don’t see a hunter shaking his head side to side in an attempt to get a better bead on his target. You get the idea.

I am a big fan of the Bourne Identity series. I bought the first one, and have watched it many times; I bought the second one, and have watched it a couple of times; I’m not buying the third one, and it’s not likely I will watch it again. It is not because I get motion sickness. It’s because it annoys the crap out of me when I cannot see exactly what is happening in any given action shot. What is the point of setting up complicated stunts with extended action sequences, and then film them in such a way the audience can’t tell what’s really going on?

Now I know there are fans of this kind of filming, but since I don’t drink or do drugs I can’t really relate to them. After watching the Bourne Ultimatum I resolved not to watch any of the so-called “hand-cam” movies.

I’ve been told the invisible monster movie, you know the one that eats New York, is a good movie. I’ve seen the previews; I could not even tell who the actors are, and I am pretty good at recognizing faces (another evolutionary trait; much better, in my opinion, than the method employed by dogs). Perhaps if I jumped up and down, and shook all about, I could eventually hit upon a combination of movements counteracting the erratic movements on the screen, thus allowing me to see what the heck was going on.

That seems like too much of an effort just to watch a movie . . . I’ll wait instead for someone to invent the equivalent of the noise cancellation headphones; that is, I’m waiting for someone to invent the hand-cam cancellation glasses. I think ultimately that is more likely to happen than for Hollywood to abandon its infatuation with their “don’t let them see what’s happening” style of filming . . . unless someone goes over there and shakes the crap out of them.

Written by: Emilio D’alise (SoSF Staff Journalist)

As I’m listed as a contributing journalist, I was sitting around today thinking I should contribute something to this site. I was thinking I should do it more often than once every four to six weeks. The problem is, what do I write about?

Sure, I could follow the example given by some movies of late. That is, I could use catchy phrases, elaborate sentences, LOUD WRITING, and forego the use of a seamless narrative to make any kind of point.

Unfortunately, while I believe it works reasonably well to draw in a certain segment of the population when dealing with a visual medium, I doubt it would work as well for the written medium. Namely because I don’t think that particular segment of the population likes to read in the first place. If I sound a little bitter, it’s because I don’t understand how a whole industry literally swimming in money consistently comes up short in its attempts to provide quality entertainment.

OK, what I’m really frustrated about is this: the lack of quality movies is making my Netflix subscription less valuable than it originally appeared.

Sure, I have some movies in my queue, but they are second and third choices to movies I have already seen. Often I order movies out of desperation, but once in my home they sit on the coffee table as I opt instead to watch Blade Runner, The Mummy, Highlander, The Fifth Element, or Serenity. One might think this is a result of having too much leisure time on one’s hands, but it is quite the opposite; I have little leisure time to sit and enjoy a good movie, so I’m more discerning as to what I choose to spend a couple of hours watching.

That is not to say there have not been a few decent movies this past year . . . it is to say there have been no great movies this past year. Maybe it’s just me; maybe my standards for entertainment are too high. It is not enough for me to have great visual effects. I crave the interesting plot, the engaging characters, and a premise allowing me a few hours escape to a world different than the one I live in.

I could resort to watching some of the excellent series currently on television. But all those require a fair amount of time; an investment and commitment I’m unable to make at this particular point in time. It is a near certainty once the complete series are available on DVD my Netflix subscription will once again get a good workout. Old favorites will go back to sit, fondly remembered, on my shelf.

Meanwhile, as long as Hollywood can blow $150 million on a movie like Pirates of the Caribbean, or $260 million (!?!?!) on a movie like Spider Man 3, and then pull in nearly $1 billion in box office receipts for each, they will pass on movies like . . . like . . . well, dang it, I cannot think of any 2007 science fiction movies I really liked. Maybe The Golden Compass, although I thought they could have done a better job adapting the book. Some people are going to point to The Transformers as a good movie from 2007, but at best that can only be claimed in comparison to the rest of the crop, and not for actual merit.

A quick check of the website www.The-Numbers.com tells me there were 750 movies released in the calendar year 2007. Scanning the list I am reminded of some movies I watched and somewhat enjoyed, but none I’m interested in owning or watching again. Curiously, as my expectations for science fiction movies have risen, I am more apt to watch any old action or comedy since I don’t expect a whole lot from them other than mindless entertainment. And perhaps that is the problem; I like science fiction. I like it so much that I want more from it than mindless entertainment. There are a number of upcoming releases, and announced movies, which sound as if they have a shot at becoming classics in their own right. But then, the 2007 batch had that same chance. Based on past experience, I am hopeful, but less than optimistic.

Submitted by: Mike McCafferty (SoSF Guest Contributor)

A list! An internet list! Ooooh, Shiny! Clickey-clickey!

Let’s face it, despite our brains being larger than that of the general populace, even Sci-fi fans are drawn to internet lists like Mynocks to Kessel running smuggler ships. It would be easy to cobble together another “Top 10 best Sci-Fi series EVAR” that get pushed out by lesser websites, slap it on the site for people to howl that I left off their favorite show and call it a solar day. But that’s not how I roll, peeps.

Instead, I present the worst moments of Sci-Fi. We’re still in a golden age of Sci-fi where every network carries at least one show and we even have a channel that shows only Science Fiction (and wrestling…um, wha?), but that was not always the case. The Cause stumbled for many years and still has missteps of judgment where we all grimace as the skeptics nod their heads and proclaim that Sci-fi is just for kids. So I have cobbled together the top 5 moments, the ones that slow us down or stopped us altogether. They are actually in chronological order, but we do love lists so…

7 . Lost in Space – When they lost their nerve.

Mention Lost in Space nowadays and you instantly think “Danger, Will Robinson”, Dr. Smith’s bumbling idiocy and if that chimp they strapped the phony ears to ever went on a rampage and ripped off a cameraman’s face.

But did you ever watch the first 10 episodes? They were compelling, thoughtful, dangerous stories of a family that’s trying desperately to survive in a hostile universe. Watch the pilot episode and Dr. Smith actually KILLS a guy, and then tries to kill the Robinson family using the reprogrammed robot. Now that’s good sci-fi.

So what happened? Well, for one, it’s hard to justify keeping a guy on your ship who wants to kill you every episode, so the writers had to soften Dr. Smith down. The comedy trio/uncomfortable sexual grouping of Dr. Smith, Will Robinson and The Robot instantly appealed to the youth market and the network seized upon it. From that point on, it became dumbed down, space pirate, camp that resembled the Adam West Batman more than a survival series. Nonetheless, the short-term effect was ratings gold, GOLD I say Will!

The long -term effect was to play into every skeptics hands that Science Fiction was silly, children’s fare. In this case they were right. Well, at least Star Trek was on the same years so it offset the…uh oh…

6. Star Trek – “Spock’s Brain”

Trek fans rejoice! Your long hours of letter writing (present day emailing), picketing NBC (present day sending nuts) and pamphlet circulating (er, blogs?) have done the impossible! You have actually saved your show in a first ever decision from a network! Huzzah, you’ve earned this! Here is the premiere episode of season three: A planet of intellectual morons, ruled by women (no jokes here!) steals Mr. Spock’s Brain and puts in a computer (huh?). Kirk and company beam down with the brainless body of Mr. Spock and are captured by the Sudoku challenged women (no jokes here!) and must free themselves and return Spock’s Brain to it’s body!!

Considered one of the worst of the 79 episodes, “Spock Brain” was the ridiculous, insulting episode served up to the fans following their tireless work to save the show. True, NBC did the series no favors by slashing the budget and shifting it to the Friday at 10pm time slot. Still, the sight of Spock, brainless but controlled by a hat like device, stumbling around put a bad taste in the fans mouths and guaranteed the show would be cancelled.

This of course left William Shatner time to…

5. Bill Shatner Performs Rocket Man.

In the pre-Star Wars 70’s, we almost lost the thread on Sci-Fi. SF Shows were few and far between and films were a joke. Even worse, someone let Shatner out of his cage and he went ahead and recorded his now famous album “The Transformed Man”.

He followed this up with a performance during the Science Fiction awards where he outdid his Star Trek episode “Two Kirks” bit with THREE SHATNERS. The universe shuddered that day as a sweaty Bill spoke his way through the song with two pretaped versions of himself (If they were real, then this becomes Sci-fi’s BEST moment.). The audience, shocked and disoriented mustered applause at the end, but were later found washing those same hands crying “dirty, dirty, dirty!”

I’m not sure many saw the broadcast, but you only need the disaster to happen once for the memories to linger. Speaking of that…

(Read more…)