"Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?"

Tychus Findlay:  I just wish the damn thing came with an instruction manual.  For all we know we could be upsettin' the entire time-space continuum!!

Jim Raynor:  Easy, Tychus, this ain't science fiction...

- Starcraft 2

After what can only be described as an unnecessarily extended gap of 12 years, the good people at Blizzard Entertainment have finally released the sequel to Starcraft, their 1998 science fiction themed real-time strategy game.  Starcraft 2 continues the story of the Terran colonists in the Koprulu Sector after the conclusion of their civil war, their rebellion against Earth, and their struggles with the enigmatic alien Protoss and the hive-mind insectoid Zerg.

In the sequel, ex-marshal Jim Raynor continues his battle against the tyrannical Arcturus Mengsk, self-proclaimed Emperor of the Sector.  However, the situation is complicated by the return of the Zerg, still under the leadership of the vengeful Queen of Blades, who was a human telepath named Sarah Kerrigan until she was betrayed by Mengsk and subsequently captured and infested by the Zerg.  And what of the grim omens of the future as perceived by Zeratul, Protoss warrior and mystic?  Will Kerrigan save or doom the universe...?

Although it may not have a high profile in the eyes of the general public, the Starcraft franchise is one of the most popular games ever developed.  More than 11 million copies of the original version and its expansion modules have been purchased to date, and Starcraft 2 sold over one million copies on its first day.

It's interesting to note how many of the really big game franchises are based on fantasy or science fiction themes.  Admittedly, not all - you Grand Theft Auto fans can sit down now  - but the majority of games that have really made a mark, like the Doom and Half-Life franchises, Halo, Quake, Diablo, Dark Age of Camelot, and of course World of Warcraft, are set in futuristic or mythical worlds.

Obviously there are good reasons for this.  Games are not just exercises in eye-hand coordination and strategy, they present the same escapist opportunities as their relatives in the literary and visual genres.  Science fiction and fantasy gaming offers a rich creative palette in terms of world-building - it's one thing to accurately duplicate the western United States during the time of the cowboy, but an entirely different challenge to believably create the various environments and technologies of the far-flung planets of the Terran Confederacy circa 2504 or the verdant glades and exotic wildlife of Elwynn Forest.

The other appeal of SF and fantasy gaming is in the range of virtual abilities that they allow the player to experience.  If you're seeking an opportunity to wield mystical god-like powers in the struggle between Order and Chaos, guide massive war machines through smoking urban rubble, or just leap tall buildings in a single bound, there are lots of games that can easily indulge your particular daydreams.

The flip side of that coin is that I sometimes play historical games like Battlefield 1942 or Call of Duty simply because they lack the exaggerated powers bestowed upon the player by games like World of Warcraft.  In BF1942, there are no magical spells, no mystical armour, no energy shields, no BFGs - there's just a rifle, three clips, and a couple of grenades, which presents an entirely different gaming challenge.

However, Battlefield 1942 offers an unexpected explanation for the prevalence of science fiction and fantasy gaming.  I sometimes play BF1942 online with my friend Alan in Toronto.  Alan, whose father flew in Mitchells during WWII, steadfastly refuses to play as the Axis forces.  For me, the difference between the Allied and Axis sides is solely one of uniforms and equipment, rather than a moral position, but Alan is unable to ignore the implications of seeking victory for Hitler's forces.  Changing the setting to 2142 in the newest version of the Battlefield franchise certainly removed any stigma associated with a particular historical setting, although that change probably had nothing to do with the reaction of players like Alan.

Even so, that change to a futuristic venue may not have been a bad decision on the part of the game designers.  Imagine what it would be like to discover a hidden level in a game like Battlefield 1942, one in which the player is offered a horrifying opportunity to command the German forces that are operating Dachau... 

- Sid

Okay, I could do without all the doors making that "WHOOSH" sound.

Based on what I've already said about the size of my library, you wouldn't think that I would be going out of my way to add to it.  Nonetheless, when my friend Colin announced that he was going to get rid of some large hardcovers, I eagerly paid for the shipping in order to get a box full of new material.

One of the books was Films of Science Fiction and Fantasy, by Baird Searles.  As you might guess from its uninspired title*, it's an analysis of science fictions and fantasy films, and Searles offers some clever insights in the development of the motion picture aspect of the genre.

I was flipping through the pages this morning, and it occurred to me that there are damn few movie versions of the future in which I'd actually want to live.  Blade Runner is a good film, but would you want to live in that perpetual drizzle?  Mad Max speaks for itself, none of the zombie futures have any interest to me, and Soylent Green?  Thank you, but no.

But if I were offered the option of hopping into a fictional future, I think that I would probably say, "Star Trek - The Next Generation, please". 

Why ST-TNG?  Out of all the fictional futures that you might see on a movie or TV screen, The Next Generation is one of the few that suggests that people might lead real lives in the 25th century.  Far too often the future is just a backdrop, usually drawn in bold but undefined terms, but I think that the Star Trek team did its best to create a world that was both plausible and consistent, and then added everyday life to it.

The crew of the Enterprise has poker nights, plays around on the holodeck, works out, goes on vacation, hangs out in Ten Forward, plays musical instruments, presents amateur plays (sorry, Data, but "amateur" is appropriate), cooks real food when they get tired of that replicator stuff, and has to find someone to feed the cat when they head out on extended away missions.  (Ironically, they never watch TV.)

Think about it for a minute:  tell me one thing about a character from Star Wars in terms of their social lives.  Other than Luke's youthful interest in shooting womp rats in Beggar's Canyon, what do any of these people do when they're not whirling a lightsaber?

- Sid

*I first discovered Baird Searles when he was the movie/TV columnist for The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, which was equally "nose on your face" in terms of its name.

Oh ye of little faith.

I was flipping through a movie magazine while doing cardio at the gym recently, and I discovered that Disney had abandoned the Narnia franchise after only two movies due to disappointing box office numbers for Prince Caspian.  The next film, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, is being released under the aegis of Fox instead - the curious among you may examine the first trailer on the Apple web site.

Narnia is one of the foundations of my childhood.  As I’ve mentioned before, my mother read the Narnia books to my siblings and myself long before we could really understand them as stories, so I learned about Narnia at the more or less the same time I was learning to talk. 

However, that's not the only thing that I (literally) learned at my mother's knee.  I was raised to believe that Walt Disney is an evil empire, a perverter of truths in the interests of marketing, so it was with some degree of trepidation that I originally discovered that Disney was going to be producing the screen version of Narnia.

Whatever your opinion of the House of Mouse, you can't argue that they know their business when it comes to capturing the hearts and minds of children. (And the wallets of their parents.) That being said, it's impressive that they were able to take C. S. Lewis' classic children's fantasy series, a series whose popularity has continued for over 60 years, and fail with it to the point that they dropped it like a hot potato.  It's even more impressive when you consider that the Lord of the Rings films had already taken the risks necessary to prove the existence of a movie marketplace for classic fantasy.

It’s not common knowledge, but Lewis and Tolkien were not only contemporaries but friends, and were in fact writing their respective fantasy masterpieces at about the same time.  C. S. Lewis’ fantasy world has always had a less prominent profile than The Lord of the Rings, perhaps due to its less aggressive content - Narnia has its share of wars and battles, but it lacks the epic sweep of Tolkien’s world.  Lewis was also writing for a younger audience than Tolkien, and it’s undeniable that the Narnia books virtually defined the genre of juvenile fantasy for a long time.

But there’s a much more fundamental difference between the material, and it’s that difference which so strongly affects the respective motion picture adaptations.  The Lord of the Rings portrays an epic struggle between Good and Evil, with the Ring itself acting as an ongoing test, a constant temptation for all the characters who are presented with the opportunity to possess it.  Some pass this test, some fail it – in fact, Frodo himself fails at the final moment in his quest.

On the other hand, it's generally accepted that the story of Narnia is an extended Christian metaphor, but what does that mean in practical terms?  The various journeys to Narnia by people from our world are journeys of belief, explorations of spirituality, of faith. The characters are constantly being required to take - or not take - action based on their belief in Aslan, and the spiritual nature of those decisions help to make them better people, both in Narnia and when they return here.

The temptations faced by the characters in the Narnia books are more subtle than the One Ring, but they are just as constant.  Those who succumb are punished, and those who resist are rewarded - but even those who succumb may achieve redemption.

It’s this aspect of Narnia which is least well realized in the movies, and that may well be the reason that they haven’t done better at the box office.  In the process of trying to turn them into conventional fantasy action adventures, Disney lost touch with the essence of the Narnia books, and in losing touch they cheapened the stories to the point where they lost their attraction.

Movies like The Chronicles of Narnia clearly demonstrate that special effects have advanced to the point where virtually any world of the imagination can be recreated for public consumption. But in that process, I think that filmmakers have to remain true to the underlying foundations of those worlds - you might even say that they need to have faith in them.

- Sid