- Sid
Comments and observations on science fiction and fantasy.
- Sid
Idris: Are all people like this?
The Doctor: Like what?
Idris: So much bigger on the inside.
The Doctor's Wife, Doctor Who
- Sid
Easter Sunday, and I honestly have to wonder how many people are spending any time at church today? When I was younger, Easter Sunday was a significant religious holiday which more or less closed down the country, but I see that a lot of stores and restaurants are open, and the Easter Bunny seems to be as much of an object of worship as Christ.Atraxi: YOU ARE NOT OF THIS WORLD.
The Doctor: No, but I've put a lot of work into it.Doctor Who, The Eleventh Hour.
As part of a recent income tax refund spending spree, I made an impulse purchase of the post-series Stargate SG-1 movie The Ark of Truth. I've followed Stargate SG-1 to a greater or lesser extent over the years, and although it's never been one of my favourites, for the most part I've been pleased with the show.
However, I found The Ark of Truth less than impressive, especially when compared with similar offerings from other science fiction series over the years.
As far as research reveals, science fiction originates the idea of the post-series movie. It's possible that Star Trek breaks ground on the concept, although my good friend Alan pointed out, the Peter Cushing Doctor Who movies from the 60's may have a better claim as the first TV-series-to-movie films. Regardless of which series gets the ball rolling, the genre has certainly taken to the idea, especially in cases where cancellation has prevented the completion of a major story arc, as in the cases of Farscape and Firefly.
The Peacekeeper Wars - a marvellous title - is Farscape's entry into the post-cancellation sweepstakes, and as such sets the standard in terms of quality. Massive fleets meet in apocalyptic combat, a major character dies, the two lead characters marry in a hail of mortar shells and gunfire, the existence of the galaxy itself is threatened, and the post-climax dénouement provides a touching and appropriate conclusion to the series. (I have to confess to a certain degree of bias here, I feel that Claudia Black, who plays Aeryn Sun, may be the most beautiful woman on the planet.)
Coincidentally, Serenity, the Firefly movie, has some of the same elements, including huge fleets of starships in battle and the death of a major character - or two - or three. However, Joss Whedon's unique style makes any sort of comparison irrelevant, and Serenity has the sort of ambiguous morality that he seems to build into all of his work.
And so to The Ark of Truth - how does it miss the mark compared to Serenity or The Peacekeeper Wars? I think that I was expecting something more dramatic and with less deus ex machina. The parallel story lines of Ori and Replicators are both resolved almost casually - admittedly at the last moment, but there was no real sense of tension and climax to either resolution. Yes, the characters are all in danger, yes, it comes down to the last moment, but in both cases the "last minute" solution comes and goes with no sense of drama, to the point where I found myself wondering thinking, "That was it? That's all?".
I'll be fair and say that The Ark of Truth isn't terrible, but it's not great, either, it's basically an average episode of the TV series. The only bright spot was an unexpectedly monologue by Teal'c which for the first time in the series offered some insight into his guilt about his actions as First Prime to Apophis.
The unfortunate thing is that in the Stargate SG-1 series finale, Unending, the writers came up with a brilliantly simple series send-off that really didn't require a followup, regardless of whether or not the menace of the Ori was ever dealt with. The idea of trapping the major characters in a bubble of time for sixty years sounds boring, but it offers an ideal opportunity for those characters to reveal their true natures when faced with a completely different kind of tension and pressure.
Michael Shanks delivers what may be his best speech in the entire ten years of the series during a poignant, vulnerable scene between his character Daniel and Vala, played by Claudia Black. Interestingly, the scene was rewritten entirely after the two actors found that the original version "didn't feel like the characters".
Apparently there's another Stargate SG-1 movie in the pipe, but I have to say that I'm going to be a bit leery about running right out and buying it at full price. After all, once bitten and all that, and unless it's substantially better than The Ark of Truth, it won't be difficult to find it in the 2 for $10 box at HMV.
Donna: "And I tried, I did try. I went to Egypt - I was going to go barefoot and everything. And then it's all bus trips and guide books and don't drink the water and two weeks later you're back home. It's nothing like being with you. I must have been mad turning down that offer."
The Doctor: "What offer?"
Donna: "To come with you."Doctor Who, Partners in Crime
"I never fully understood the label of "escapist" till my friend Professor Tolkien asked me the very simple question, 'What class of men would you expect to be most preoccupied with, and most hostile to, the idea of escape?' and gave the obvious answer: jailers."C. S. Lewis, On Science Fiction
Boxing Day in Vancouver - well, everywhere, I suppose, although I'm not certain of the internationality of the concept - and I'm sitting here at the computer watching BitTorrent struggle with three different downloads of the 2007 Doctor Who Christmas Special, guest starring Kylie Minogue. In theory, at least one of them will be finished by lunch...perhaps leftover turkey and David Tennant?
Postscript: Lunch was in fact spent watching the Christmas Special. Not a great episode when compared to some previous scripts, although Kylie did a reasonably good job and was an acceptable romantic interest for the episode. Considering that the entire episode took place on a ship called the Titanic, it was really more of an homage to The Poseidon Adventure.
There can be no reasonal doubt: the ancient mystery is solved at last. Yet, oh God, there were so many stars you could have used. What was the need to give these people to the fire, that the symbol of their passing might shine above Bethlehem?
Time travel stories, I love a good time travel story. Obviously this would make me a strong candidate to be a Doctor Who fan, although I freely admit to having been in and out over the years. Recently I've been downloading episodes of the current season that have been posted by English fans, and in spite of a couple of shaky concepts they're doing some quite nice stories. (Hopefully this blatant confession won't result in a lightning raid by BBC copyright commandos. Given that I'm in Vancouver, British Columbia, which is damn near the other side of the planet from England, I should be safe unless they have some kind of agreement with the CBC black ops teams. But I digress...)People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff.The Doctor, Blink
In short, the straw of a manufactured realism with which the sf writer makes his particular literary bricks must be entirely convincing to the reader in its own right, or the whole story will lose its power to convince.- Gordon R. Dickson
The future depicted in a good SF story ought to be in fact possible, or at least plausible.- Frederik Pohl
A lot of the definitions of science fiction that I've read tend to deal with what makes for good science fiction - not a bad thing to have definitions that concentrate on quality, although I think that some of the motivation for that sort of definition comes from a kind of defensiveness about the genre, as per Sturgeon's Law.
For a perfect example of the line that divides good SF from bad SF, let us turn to the popular media - okay, the BBC, but still - and take a look at the reborn Doctor Who.
In the first season, with the excellent Christopher Eccleston capably filling the Doctor's shoes, there was a two-part episode: The Empty Child and The Doctor Dances. Set in WWII London, the Doctor is presented with the odd phenomenon of an inhumanly powerful child, wandering the streets in a gas mask while looking for his mother. Even odder, the child's condition appears to be contagious - people are mysteriously changing into gas-mask faced entities requesting their mummy.
This is explained as being the work of military medical nanobots from a crashed spaceship, nanobots that have no idea that the model they are using to rebuild the population of London is in fact a flawed one (people not normally having gas masks for faces, even in London) and the boy's powers being the result of being brought up to alien military spec.
This would qualify as "good" SF by my standards: an apparently inexplicable situation which is logically explained within the context established by the plot.
Sadly, David Tennant, Mr. Eccleston's equally gifted replacement, is not always as ably supported by plotline. In The Idiot's Lantern, once again people are falling prey to a mysterious ailment, this time in 1953 London: after watching television, their faces vanish. (I've often thought that might happen.)
After seeing a sort of corral full of faceless victims, the Doctor finds a room full of TVs, each one containing a missing face. Apparently this is because an alien entity known as the Wire is stealing energy from people.
What? Why in the world would that cause their faces to vanish? How do these faceless, mouthless, noseless remnants breathe? Shouldn't they all be dead in about four minutes? Sadly, this episode rings the bell for bad SF, where the science fiction element is really just for show, intended to create an interesting visual effect but with nothing in the plot to explain why and how such a thing would happen.
And, as a postscript to the whole thing, it really does make me wonder if I'd feel safe living in London.
"Revolution is everywhere, in everything. It is infinite. There is no final revolution, no final number.
- Yevgeny Zamyatin