A Tsunami of Science Fiction Shows

== A multitude of new shows ==

Turning from the (almost always) ridiculous to the (very often) sublime, CBS plans to release a new Star Trek television series  in 2017. 

The new television series is not related to the upcoming feature film “Star Trek Beyond,” which is scheduled to be distributed by Paramount Pictures in summer 2016.  Which is fine. I don’t mind the reboot started by J.J. Abrams as much as some do -- it's fun-fluff that offers little depth -- but it should be clearly demarcated (I know how) as an offshoot parallel world from the main line of this spectacularly successful mythic universe. 

J.J. Abrams will also produce Westworld, an HBO series based on Michael Crichton's 1973 movie about a futuristic Old West amusement park (with robotic cowboys), starring Yul Brynner. 

But that’s just one drop in a veritable tidal wave of new, televised science fiction coming up.  

From Jonathan Nolan’s planned epic version of Isaac Asimov's Foundation to the vivid Expanse series, based on the James S. Corey series of novels.  From Fred Pohl’s Gateway all the way to three different productions of John Scalzi tales, including (possibly) an adaptation of Redshirts. 

As a fellow at UCSD's Arthur C. Clarke Center for Human Imagination, I am thrilled to see plans for Arthur C. Clarke's  concluding tale 3001 to reach the screen… 

…along with optioned stories by China Mieville, Kim Stanley Robinson, Octavia Butler, Anne Leckie, Dan Simmons and Ian McDonald and a timely remake of Brave New World, plus a TV series based on H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds.

See this site for a full listing of twenty-three SF projects in the works.  And no, not all of them will make it. Still, we had better hope that some of them (at least) are big hits, so that this trend will be more than a mere flash in the pan.  

Philip K. Dick’s “The Man in the High Castle” is already out on Amazon. Released in December was a miniseries based on Arthur C. Clarke's "Childhood's End" -- (an earnest and sincere effort, if bloated and ultimately kind of tedious. I know exactly how it could have been much better, alas.)  See more below...

Then there is the panoply of already running shows, like the under-rated “Extant” and “Humans,” “Minority Report,” “Limitless,” “Defiance,” the amazing “Person of Interest,” and the new dystopian "Colony," (And possibly a dozen more.)

Sometime fellow at the Clarke Center and by revered bro Kim Stanley Robinson has signed for Red Mars to be a miniseries. Ten episodes, with Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczynski in charge.

Yipe, who is funding all of this… aliens? Is our explosion of dramas evidence that we’ve been secretly contacted – subsidized to broadcast amazing-lurid-naïve dreams about what’s going on, out there? 

If so… then what am I, chopped liver? ;-)

== And finally... ==

Oh, one last note. Did you actually join in the like-frenzy for Mad Max: Fury Road?  Really?  I found it awful. Some of the fight scenes were okay, but fairly routine and... endless. The first three Mad Max flicks were notable for punctuating the action with some very interesting and provocative musings on what it takes to maintain a semblance of civilization. And the meaning of being a hero. When Beyond Thunderdome was not infuriating me, it was dazzling me with sharply-pangful poignancy or things I had not contemplated before.  I wanted to argue with Thunderdome. 

Look, I am willing to try to enjoy films that appeal to only part of me... e.g. the ten year old who loves cool visual fight scenes and gutsy women punching mean guys. And that part of me liked this flick... though the fight scenes palled as they stretched on and on and on...

But when a flick gives nothing to the rest of me?  Not an instant of thoughtfulness or interesting dialogue or attention to the Mad Mad tradition of discussing the meaning of civilization? Just Sauron-like demonics complete with red, glowing eyes and not a clue how all these people got either food or the gasoline they spent in tanker-loads. Seriously, another masked-hissing villain behaving in ways that would get any feudal lord swiftly killed by his own men, in any real world?  And you liked that? Feh.

Yes, yes, I am told it is significant in having "strong female characters." Say what? Sure, that's kind of true -- amid a giant, misogynist rape fantasy, wherein the spunky women still need a male hero when the chips are down. But okay, points for that. Still, might I ask, where the folks saying this have been for the last 30 years, since Sigourney's Ripley and Xena and all the Kick-Ass Ladies (KAL) who followed? Science fiction is the genre that embraced KALs first and most thoroughly, from Underworld to Stargate and Sanctuary and Serenity to Trek's Captain Kathryn Janeway to Storm and Mystique and Buffy! From Sarah Conner to Katniss to Lara Croft to Trinity and... oh please.  Make your own list and if you cannot reach fifty within 5 minutes then you've been a hermit.  

Be proud! Our genre is the leader. And MM:FR added nothing much.

Look, I am willing to try to enjoy films that appeal to only part of me... e.g. the ten year old who loves cool visual fight scenes and gutsy women punching mean guys. And that part of me liked this flick... though the fight scenes palled as they stretched on and on and on...

But when a flick gives NOTHING to the rest of me?  Not an instant of thoughtfulness or interesting dialogue or attention to the Mad Mad tradition of discussing the meaning of civilization?  Just idiots who have endless supplies of gasoline to burn?

Sorry,  This is a roadrunner cartoon.

In contrast, we rather enjoyed - despite ourselves - the amusing and very stylish - The Man From Uncle. A minor action flick, but with good/clever dialogue and real sensitivity to all the cliches in the genre, it tried (often successfully) to offer a different riff on those cliches.  Kinda cute.  Mostly harmless.

== addendum re: Childhood's End ==

Because some of you asked me to elaborate, let me explain how the Childhood's End miniseries -- while pretty good in many ways and faithful to the text -- could have been far, far better. 

Why, oh why, not have one of the kids actually TALK to an adult human? Offering a little solace and kindness? If they are incapable of any nostalgia or affection for their parents and birth-civilization, then they are not "graduating" to a higher level. In that case they are a blank slate, being absorbed by aliens whose aim is anything but to grow larger and wiser from human experience.

This kid - and by proxy representing all of them - could easily say:

"We still love you but we have to move on to things you won't understand. Though in a sense, isn't that the old story of parents bewildered by their brilliant kids? We're just moving faster and farther. Be happy for us! We'll take Beethoven and Van Gogh and all human arts and literature and stories with us! And we take with us your affection, which will warm us for challenges ahead. You prepared us for a great adventure! And we are grateful. HERE is how much you are loved..."

And the children touch nearby adults and all the adults in the world experience a moment of utter joy.

Then: "Goodbye." And they are gone.

That would have been faithful to Clarke... but also a deeper, better moment.

Perils of Pandora IV: An unofficial, speculative addendum

Okay, I am almost finished here.

It is a tribute to James Cameron that he provokes careful, even critical, appraisals of his work, which I tried to do in my riffs on Avatar. In Part III, I offered one proposal for a three-minute tweak -- possibly in a director's cut  -- that might repair the core, moral heart of this great-but-flawed film. 

Will that happen? When it snows on Pandora! ;-)

                  

I also alluded to some other, even more far-out-meddlesome ideas. Just for fun, in this unofficial addendum... one writer having fun, playing in another fellow's sand box... why don't we look at a concept that isn't even my own! It is yet another, larger tweak that could both surprise audiences and really make them think, suggested by one of my readers -- Matthew Bell:

  "All the amazing aspects of Pandora, all the magical exaggerations, along with its strangely un-biological biology and the behavior of its natives can be explained if you assume that the planet is a post-singularity world."

                  

Now, some of you may be unfamiliar with the "singularity" as it was first laid out by the great science fiction author Vernor Vinge, later now pushed hard by Ray Kurzweil, author of The Singularity is Near. This notion -- much discussed among the world's nerds -- is both simple yet profoundly intricate.  It takes the fact that human skill and knowledge are accumulating at not just an accelerating rate -- but the rate of acceleration is itself accelerating.

                  

The most familiar sign of this acceleration is Moore's Law, under which computing power doubles every 18 months or so. At this pace, it should be possible to emulate human intelligence in a box, within 20 years or so. Then that artificially intelligent (AI) box can design a new, improved one, which designs the next and so on, in a sequence that rapidly takes off. In mathematical terms, a "singularity" is what happens when such trends accelerate beyond any ability to predict outcomes. All bets are off, when everything you took for granted has changed.

                  

Now, a number of authors (including me) have tried to picture what life might be like on the other side of a singularity (see my novella Stones of Significance). If the huge brains we create turn out to be monstrous and unsympathetic, they may try to stomp us, as in the Teminator and Matrix flicks. Or they could become loyal assistants to human ambition, helping us span the starways, as in Luc Besson's Lucy or in Her, or in the Culture novels of Iain Banks. There are so many possible ways that this transition might work out – and I cover a number of them in my novel, Existence.

                  

But one is especially enticing when it comes to Avatar. The possibility -- suggested by Matthew Bell, but really kind of an obvious possible riff, and subsequently proposed by others -- is that we and our super-mind computer friends might use immense new "godlike" powers the way today's teenagers use the spectacular computers in their homes. 

                  To play.

Okay then, picture this…

                  

…the Na'vi are dashing about and flying through Pandora's vivid, colorful forests as kids -- young minds -- immersed in a game. Their true selves are rooted in the planetary mainframe, which manifests at the surface as a white tree. (How very Tolkien-esque!) This could explain why the biology and ethnography and all other features seem exaggerated for effect, including the internet-like rapid communion network that laces everything from the animals to the Tree of Life. Including the way Pandoran creatures can plug-in.

                  

If we play along with this post-singularity notion a bit, we realize that Avatar isn’t Dances with Wolves at all! It’s more like Star Trek’s “Errand of Mercy.” In this famous example of a frequent plot in SF, humans encounter a "primitive folk," and don’t understand them. Over time, it is revealed the primitives are actually vastly more advanced people who have decided to live in a rustic manner, either for their own reasons, or in order not to reveal the truth to young races out exploring. In that one memorable episode, the Organians are energy beings who get the Federation and Klingons to stop fighting. One of the recent Star Trek films had a similar theme.

                  

Let's go a bit with this notion that Pandora's biosphere (and "unobtainium") turn out to be the result of a post-singularity super-civilization. Then the story that we all got to watch in Avatar might conceal one of three sub-plots.

1) Visiting humans were the primitives, in technology as well as culture! The "war" was a test, which those who sided with the Na'vi passed on our behalf. It ends with the soldiers/scientists "going back to school." 

 2) The Na'vi -- helped by Jake -- win the war. They then hit pause and evaluate the terrific game they all just played… only to be horrified! To learn that humans who are killed stay dead!  (Their own dead just reboot.) "Why didn't you tell us you were mortal?" they cry out in angst. Though also impressed that human warriors would be willing to stake so much on the line, in battle.

3) The great simulation of Pandora, while beautiful, has a deeper purpose. A real foe is coming.  This is training. And humanity is now embroiled, like it or not.


 As Matthew Bell put it: "The Colonel’s bomb mission was never going to succeed. The only question was in what subtle way would it be averted. Eywa, or should I say AI-wa, had it worked out well in advance, and sent the seeds to tag Jake Sully so that he could play this role, and thus both find somebody who would be human enough to arrange expulsion of the humans, and also join the Na’vi and fight for their side. Indeed, you could say that Jake was AI-wa’s avatar, or at least instrument, as is clear from the very start."

Yipe! That may be drifting way too far, even for me. After all, despite the many elements that he borrowed, Avatar is James Cameron's story to tell. These are just fannish daydreams, then. My own readers send them to me all the time.  

If Mr. Cameron reacts as I do, then he feels flattered and pleased.  I am always a sucker to talk story, and then try to find some new story, that breaks with the cliches.

And on that final note, let us bid fond farewell to Planet Pandora and its very very very tall... Until we all great the great pleasure of visiting again, anon.

===

Return to Part I: Perils of Pandora: Why Avatar (Tragically) Fails to Make us Better

  Part II: How James Cameron Might Still Set Things Right

  Part III: Perils of Pandora: Can Avatar be 'Fixed'?

David Brin's Favorite Science Fiction Films

Science Fiction is multi-dimensional and no one criterion can be used to determine a best-of list. Hence, I must divide my favorites into categories. And yes, each choice would be worth many paragraphs of explanation, including the runners-up and tragic misfires. I'll be more concise.

1. Movies for grownups: I wish there were a lot more of these -- films in which the director and writer actually cared about the deep implications of their visual thought experiment -- their deliberate departure from reality. Works in which the creators paid close heed to logical what-if and (while delivering tasty action, plus biting social commentary) eschewed the lazy, "idiot plot"* assumption that civilization is automatically and entirely worthless. Some institutions actually function! Adversaries have plausible motives and no red, glowing eyes! Protagonists aren't chosen-ones but merely above-average people with difficult challenges to overcome, in part by using their heads.

 Inception (2010) works harder than any film I ever saw. It can be overbearing, especially with the aggressive musical score cranked up! But I have never seen a director strive to juggle as many edgy intricacies as Nolan does in this mostly-successful tour-de-force.

Gattaca (1997) and Primer (2004) are much simpler films that nevertheless aim to tease your mind into real thinking. Gattaca isn't as dystopian as some lazily take it to be and the protagonist is actually a self-centered jerk… but a true hero nonetheless, whose triumph is largely one of character and mind. Primer is a delight of logic and an example of what can be done when very smart people have a filming budget of about eighty-five cents.

James Cameron gets a couple of mentions here. But the one that was for grownups is The Abyss (1989). Yeah, sure, the ending was… well, I don't care.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) was epochal in its time -- it helped make me who I am, and remains a mind stretcher -- though it suffers a bit under close examination. So don't.

And Kubrick's other wonder…arguably the best motion picture ever made, though only marginally science fiction…Doctor Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964).

Honorable mentions in this category would include the recent films Limitless (2011) and Moon (2009). The grownup in me says thank you.

2. Joyful slumming: At the opposite end are films that I could only watch by tuning my "dials" before entering the theater. Cranking IQ and science and even logic down to"popcorn" levels, without sacrificing my standards when it came to deeper values, beauty, esthetics, ethics. Admit it, some of your brains must be left outside the theater, in order to enjoy most flicks, and that's fine. In other words, appreciating as-if-stoned a movie-movie that is simply way-successful at delivering fun.

Noteworthy: all the fantasies are here. Show me one fantasy for grownups.

Conan the Barbarian (the original 1982) is simply the most successful film ever at delivering what it promised, while never promising what it couldn't deliver. Every scene is filled with visual and musical beauty amid a tale that hearkens to the deeply non-western, non-modern and joyfully brainless part of you and me, going back to the Iliad and Gilgamesh and the caves.

 The Fifth Element (1997) is the single most joyful work of art I ever saw. Luc Besson's sheer pleasure leaps onto your lap like a great big, floppy-dumb retriever and licks your face for ninety minutes. I adore it. And it adores us.

Avatar (2009)… well, James Cameron would demand that we put Avatar in category number one or even number 3. Sorry. Nice try. It is beyond-brilliant in the popcorn category, but keep those neuron dials turned way down. And then murmur… "wow!"

In contrast, the Back to the Future (1985) trilogy comes that close to vaulting into category three. It's fantastic fun. bighearted, unabashedly logical and darn near perfect.

Honorable Mention in this category:

Lord of the Rings (2001)… all right, Peter Jackson delivered a superb work of art and it was definitely not "just popcorn." I have great respect for Tolkien's complex world building craft and Jackson's fealty to the original material. Still, neither the books nor the flicks bear adult scrutiny. So turn down the "adult" dials. Be a kid and enjoy. I know I did!

3. The whole package: Rarest of all -- films that take us beyond our familiar horizons on adventures that satisfy every age you contain within yourself, from awestruck kid to sober grownup to mystic dreamer.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) delivers from beginning to end. Not only a terrific motion picture but a love ode to the brash, Faustian, unbridled adolescent hopefulness that only Star Trek ever gave us, amid today's grotesque tsunami of grouchy-cliched dystopias.

Bladerunner (1982). Of course. Nothing need be said.

------

BEYOND THE TOP TEN … WE ALSO HAVE…

Runners-up: There are so many films that came close, or just missed. Dozens that were enjoyable and I'd have been proud to be associated with. Only nit-picking kept them off the top tier.

 Contact (1997) was well worthwhile and inspiring, if a bit preachy in spots.

Gravity (2013). I expect this one may challenge its way into the Top Ten, with time. Exquisitely done, even if Cuaron depicts Earthy Orbit as roughly the size of L.A. County.

Things to Come (1936). My kids were bored. I was moved almost to tears by its paean to the civilization we might (with difficulty) make, if we overcome the worse sides of human nature. Maybe its a generation thing.

James Cameron's Aliens (1986) is the best film about motherhood ever created. And Terminator II (1991) was even better than the first one.

(Note: All through the 80s and 90s there was a "third movie curse" in which the third flick in a franchise betrayed everything good about the wondrous second film. It happened to Star Trek, Star Wars, Terminator and especially the Aliens series. But not Back to the Future, somehow.)

I'm not done! And so let me roll off some of my favorites that fall just outside the top ten, each one funky and unique and different in its own way:

 Forbidden Planet (1956), Rollerball (1975), Soylent Green (1973), Men in Black (1997), Galaxy Quest (1999), Logan's Run (1976), Source Code (2011), The Truman Show (1998), The Time Machine (1960), District 9 (2009), Alien Nation (1988), Charly (1968), Serenity (2005)... plus weirdnesses like Brazil (1985), SteamBoy (2004) and Solaris (1972)… illustrating the fantastic range and breadth and wondrous opportunities for creativity that science fiction offers to those who think bold.

Special Category: Faustian SF. I especially like films that buck a cliche. And the worst cliche of all is hopeless gloom. A few… a bold few… express confidence in us, in our ability and righteous right to go beyond what we were, and in our children to be better than us… call these the anti-Crichton movies that declare the opposite of Michael's endless chiding: "don't touch that!"

Examples mentioned already are The Wrath of Khan and Inception.

Also expressing this rebel sense of belief-in-us: Ghostbusters (1984), Brainstorm (1983), Altered States (1980), Dark City (1998), Quatermass and the Pit (1958), and eXistentZ (1999). And may I be honest? Kevin Costner's The Postman (1997) was harmed by a nonsensical last 20 minutes - and was uneven throughout - and it might have benefited from even 5 minutes of talking to the original author. Still, large swathes of it were terrific. It features some of the most gorgeous cinematography in the history of film. Also, its heart was pure and brave and it belongs in this category. Still. Compare to the book.

Special Mention: Surprisingly, no single Steven Spielberg film made my top ten sci fi films. But almost all Spielberg films would make it into my top fifty, while Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) and War of the Worlds (2005) and Minority Report (2002) skate much closer. Spielberg and Zemeckis are the most consistent and skilled story tellers of our age. Nolan and Cameron, while much more uneven and less disciplined, did make it onto the list.  Vive les differences.

And finally….

Tragic misses: What might have been... if only…

 The Empire Strikes Back is a fine film in its own right, and it shows what a wonderful epic we might have had, if George Lucas had stuck to his strength, as one of the greatest of all visionary Hollywood producers, and simply hired great writers and directors for his films, the way he did in Empire… and the way he hired terrific artists for all the other Star Wars flicks. (Their one strong suit was then endlessly voluptuous visuals.) Alas, his choices became our tragedy.

The Day the Earth Stood Still… could have explored the immorality of the other side. It's smarmy and unhelpful preachiness prevented adding another layer of potentially really interesting counter-preachiness. How tasty if one human had stepped up and said: "I know, I know we are all that… but what are you?"

Total Recall… you're kidding me, right? You can be this creative -- in BOTH versions (1990 and 2012) -- yet still timidly shy away from getting all Philip K. Dick on us and persuading us to actually fret that it might all actually an actual bummer recall-trip? You couldn't do that? Why? I mean, why not? It would have been so easy and so cool.  Dang.

 Dune (1984)… actually, I have no major complaints. It's a pretty good movie and deLaurentis was utterly faithful to Herbert, accurately conveying the complex world and characters. Alas, lo and behold, the silver screen made clear what most readers of the novel - captivated and immersed - failed to notice. That every single character in the story is loathsome and ought to die. Yes, the "good" guys, too. Please. As quickly as possible.

E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982). Fun and all that. But. Um. And the real villain is…………?

And so it goes.  Let's all hope that there will be great new films in the next decade the outshine all of the above!

Hey, here's a pitch: "dolphins… in space!"

Eh? Who could possibly beat that?

=============================================

=============================================

* Followup links:

The "Idiot Plot Cliche" that civilization must always be portrayed as worthless.

Other science fiction riffs by David Brin:

Speculations on Science Fiction: collected articles.

Exploring Pop Culture: Star Wars to Tolkien: collected articles

A video rant: Name the Villain...