Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows: Part One
Four Stars
In the penultimate film of one of the most successful movie franchises in history, the viewer is treated to a spectacular feast. There are delightful action sequences, moving visuals, intelligent writing and strong acting performances. But what really sets it apart from the previous Harry Potter films is the decision to split the final book into two parts.
The number one limitation for the last few Harry Potter films was that the story was constrained by having to encapsulate everything into two-and-a-half hours. There were periods when sequences felt rushed and the story felt as if it were flying by, as if one were skimming the pages and chapters of the books rather than reading thoroughly. Entire characters and major sequences were cut from the films, and because of this the previous couple films have lacked the completeness that this one has.
By being able to splice the seventh book into two movies, the first part could adhere to a better narrative structure that did not feel rushed. Pacing is one of the key components of a movie, and the filmmakers did not waste the opportunity given to them in this case. No sequence feels forced, rushed or dragged out. Another challenge that the filmmakers conquered was the question of where to end the movie. Without wanting to spoil anything, all I will say is that not only does the movie end at a good point, it sets up a good starting point for Part Two.
What really pulls this movie together are the themes of friendship and self-sacrifice. There is an early scene where Ron confronts Harry, who is trying to sneak off after hearing about the death of Mad-Eye. This one scene encapsulates what the movie is about, and it does not try to win you over with snazzy visuals or the allure of being in 3D. It relies simply on the heartfelt idea of friendship, and that is nice to see in an age of movies like Transformers.
* * *
The Human Centipede: First Sequence
Negative Infinity-Bajillion Stars
Yes, I actually watched this movie. Why did I decide to pair it with Harry Potter? Because I can do what I want. In case you do not know what this movie is about, a mad German scientist has the brilliant idea of connecting three people together, mouth to butt to mouth to butt. You read that correctly. The dude connects three people together in the worst possible way.
The beginning is quite terrible: two American girls get lost on their way to a party and then do not stop complaining for about 10 minutes. At that point I could not care less what happened to them, even though I knew what they were in for. One of the keys of a good horror movie is a hero or heroine that the audience can root for. This movie definitely missed.
Then they get run into the creepy doctor's house and get drugged. Eventually he connects the two women to a stranger while a pair of cops prove to be terrible detectives. The rest of the movie is fairly boring and could not wait for it to end. I spent an hour-and-a-half of my life watching that movie. I since regret that decision.
Nor was this movie particularly scary. There was an unimpressive surgery scene but the movie seemed less to try and scare people and more to try and gross them out. Scat is not scary. It is just disgusting. But apparently the filmmaker disagrees, because he is going ahead and developing a sequel. Yes, they are making a sequel. Somehow.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Monday, November 29, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
A Trip To The Creation Museum
When you first come up to the gates of the Creation Museum in Kentucky, one of the first things you notice is a pair of dinosaur statues positioned on each side of the gate. When you first walk into the Creation Museum, one of the first things you see is a giant hanging model of a dinosaur hanging in the air, posing as if in mid flight. As you being to walk through the exhibits, something begins to stick out at you: these people like dinosaurs. They really like dinosaurs. The gift shop is filled with dinosaur toys and merchandise. There are even animatronic dinosaurs, capable of moving around and making noises.
Yet for all this focus on dinosaurs, they cannot manage to keep their own deluded facts straight about these creatures. One graphic states that dinosaurs were created on the sixth day, but a video presentation suggests they came into being over the course of the fourth and fifth days when God created Earth. They also stated that there were only about 50 species of dinosaurs, and thus it was easy to fit them all on Noah's Ark. While the exact number of species is not known, paleontologists have found hundreds of species of dinosaurs, with many more likely to be discovered. But it is rather pointless to argue about facts with these people, this being a small sampling of their information.
The real reason for having such a strong focus on dinosaurs is obvious: it is designed especially with kids in mind. Dinosaurs, being something that almost all kids are fascinated in at one point or another during their youth, are a prime way for the people behind this museum to connect with children. I loved dinosaurs as a kid, and were I still young and easily impressionable, I might be swayed by all the focus put on these prehistoric beasts.
Another thing you notice as you walk through the museum and glance at the various exhibits is how these people seem to have an answer for everything. Why was incest ok back during the time of Adam and Eve but not ok now? They have an answer for that. How have places like the Grand Canyon been formed in only a few thousand years? They have an answer for that. How is carbon dating ineffective? They have an answer for that too.
But how do they get these answers? By ignoring “human reason” and quoting bible passages. It's hard to find a graphic or display that does not have biblical verses somewhere on it. They selectively choose what to answer and what not to as well. Nowhere could I find anything about such things as cavemen or genetics (there was an exhibit about evolution and natural selection, but nothing on DNA and its implications). My guess would be that there's not enough of God’s word to help explain why there are human remains more than 6,000 years old or how there was conclusive evidence to link species together (they did have their own genealogical trees, but it lacked an argument fortified with DNA evidence, and instead was tied together through scripture).
But ironically, the biggest thing I am going to take away from the trip was something that reinforced my atheism. I watched a planetarium-like show the museum put on, and rather than convincing me of the glory of God and creation, it did the opposite. I felt more secure in my atheism, and gained a new perspective about religion and the universe that I did not have before.
The show talked about how small the Earth was compared the rest of the known universe, and it mentioned just how far away our planet is from other stars, planets and galaxies. The program made mention of star clusters, the sizes of different stars and the number of stars and galaxies that we know to exist. Thinking about the universe on a cosmic scale moved me, and I began to develop a new viewpoint about our universe and religion here on Earth.
The first major thought that struck me as I watched was how Earth-centric religion is. When I think about how minute and insignificant our planet is relative to the massive size of the cosmos, I have to question how conceivable it is that God made the entire, ever-expanding universe only for us. I find that view rather selfish, that God chose this planet over all others, that we somehow won a lottery whose odds were infinity to one.
I do understand that, when people were first trying to explain what they were seeing up in the sky, they had no idea of the boundless nature of what was up there. The bible explains space via one little verse in Genesis (1:16) but it seems to me that the vastness of the universe deserves more respect and acknowledgment than five words.
The second major thought that struck me was that there is nothing in the bible about what is up there. Beyond the mention of stars and astrological concepts of the time, there is nothing about what we are supposed to make of it. Now, in an age where we are capable of space flight, there is nothing in the Bible about how to approach the new information we have concerning our universe and the possibilities that lay before us when it comes to space travel and exploration.
When I look at my place in existence in relation to the universe, I get the sense that I am just a speck on a grain of sand that makes up an endless beach. And I am ok with that. To assume we have some greater or higher purpose than merely to exist at all is a rather selfish view. I think some people cannot come to terms with that concept, that we are insignificant. I still feel that I am a part of something, as small as that part is, that I have left a footprint on that beach. I feel that my existence alone has contributed and fulfilled something, and that is good enough for me.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Sarah Palin Has A New Book
Sarah Palin has "written" a new book, America By Heart. It is scheduled to be released November 23rd, but there have already been excerpts leaked (which you can find here: http://gawker.com/5692353/sarah-palins-new-book-leaked-excerpts UPDATE: gawker has taken the page down). Having read through these excerpts, there are several things that caught my eye as red flags that I feel I should address (like any responsible random blogger would).
Where to begin? How about the dedication (to her son Trig), which includes a quote from Thomas Paine. Palin labels Thomas Paine as a "founding father," obviously trying to play with the Tea Party sentiment of restoring America back to the way the founders intended it. Paine is an interesting choice, given that he despised Christianity and has been considered by some to be a socialist. Looks like that Sarah Palin is pallin' around with radicals.
The first line of the introduction is Palin asking the question "do you love your freedom?" at a Tea Party rally. As if anyone would answer "no, of course not! I hate my freedom. In fact I am going to move to North Korea! That is where I want to be!" Can we please get over the ridiculous idea that if you are not a gun-toting, bible-thumping, tax-hating conservative you must hate freedom? Or that you are un-American? I understand there are arguments about specific freedoms that may or may not be guaranteed in the Constitution but that question implies that it is referring to the idea freedom as a whole, not just particular, unresolved freedoms. Yes, Palin admits that the question is rhetorical, but the implication is still there (and some people take it seriously).
She then goes on to talk about and describe the various signs that members of the rally carry with them. She mentions a few of her favorites, and the focuses on attacking the signs of protesters. Unlike the hand-painted signs that had "humor, color and variety" the protesters' signs were uniform and professionally printed, which is apparently bad (professionally done = spending money = stimulating the economy = very very bad). What is so wrong about promoting a contrarian point of view? Palin also seems to have forgotten about all the anti-Obama signs comparing him to Hitler, Stalin and/or Mao.
In another excerpt, she goes on a weird rant about American Idol. You read that correctly. American Idol. Not only did she miss the fact that the point of the show (like all television) is to entertain, but she admitted her favorite judge is Simon! But back to the former. Palin does not seem to understand that American Idol is not about the competitors who go on the show and willingly embarrass themselves, but the viewing audience.
I watch the first few audition episodes of American Idol because it is entertaining. There is a reason why the producers show some of the worst singers and not just the best voices at this stage. By the time it becomes an actual competition, I tune out and let people who like heavily-overplayed pop music watch and vote week after week. That is how American Idol works.
And then somehow Palin turns it into a metaphor for America:
"Unfortunately, Cowell is almost alone in his willingness to tell hard truths. Instead, a growing chorus of voices is trying to convince our kids that hard work isn't necessary anymore, that they're entitled to a lengthening list of benefits paid for by others, and that they don't have to accept the consequences of their actions when those consequences are bad. Those voices seem to think that the purpose of government -- the purpose of America -- isn't to promise equal opportunity but to produce equal outcomes."
But it is ok for Bristol Palin to be on Dancing With The Stars, which is an "uplifting, family-oriented show." So family-oriented, in fact, that Bristol Palin made a promise to dress more modestly than other contestants (which she later broke by making another promise to dress "sexy" for the show). How exactly is there any difference between American Idol and Dancing With The Stars?
It seems like half of the book is devoted entirely to paint Bristol Palin in a positive light. Yes, I understand Sarah Palin is a proud mother, but to say she was overly-positive is an understatement. Bristol works full time, Bristol goes to college, Bristol is a devoted mother, Bristol is a role model, Bristol faced the music, Bristol more than paid the price, Bristol, Bristol, Bristol, Bristol. How did Sarah Palin describe her daughter's pregnancy?
"Her adolescence had been prematurely halted and, in most unfortunate circumstances, she was going to have a baby,"
That is certainly one way of putting it. And then Sarah Palin goes the "do as I say, not as I do" route with her daughter.
"She has been accused of being a hypocrite. But to those critics I say this: Which is the more courageous course for a young, single mother: to sit down and shut up and avoid the critics, or to speak out in a painfully honest way about how tough single parenting is? I'm biased, of course, but given a choice of role models between Bristol and Murphy Brown, I choose Bristol."
Moving on, the last excerpts are Palin going on about how abortion is wrong, pro-choice people are hurting America, "new feminism" (her emphasis, not mine) and how God knew what he was doing when she found out Trig would be born with Down Syndrome. I would say that these excerpts are enough for me, and I will not waste my money on her new book if these few pages are any indication of what else is in store.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Where to begin? How about the dedication (to her son Trig), which includes a quote from Thomas Paine. Palin labels Thomas Paine as a "founding father," obviously trying to play with the Tea Party sentiment of restoring America back to the way the founders intended it. Paine is an interesting choice, given that he despised Christianity and has been considered by some to be a socialist. Looks like that Sarah Palin is pallin' around with radicals.
The first line of the introduction is Palin asking the question "do you love your freedom?" at a Tea Party rally. As if anyone would answer "no, of course not! I hate my freedom. In fact I am going to move to North Korea! That is where I want to be!" Can we please get over the ridiculous idea that if you are not a gun-toting, bible-thumping, tax-hating conservative you must hate freedom? Or that you are un-American? I understand there are arguments about specific freedoms that may or may not be guaranteed in the Constitution but that question implies that it is referring to the idea freedom as a whole, not just particular, unresolved freedoms. Yes, Palin admits that the question is rhetorical, but the implication is still there (and some people take it seriously).
She then goes on to talk about and describe the various signs that members of the rally carry with them. She mentions a few of her favorites, and the focuses on attacking the signs of protesters. Unlike the hand-painted signs that had "humor, color and variety" the protesters' signs were uniform and professionally printed, which is apparently bad (professionally done = spending money = stimulating the economy = very very bad). What is so wrong about promoting a contrarian point of view? Palin also seems to have forgotten about all the anti-Obama signs comparing him to Hitler, Stalin and/or Mao.
In another excerpt, she goes on a weird rant about American Idol. You read that correctly. American Idol. Not only did she miss the fact that the point of the show (like all television) is to entertain, but she admitted her favorite judge is Simon! But back to the former. Palin does not seem to understand that American Idol is not about the competitors who go on the show and willingly embarrass themselves, but the viewing audience.
I watch the first few audition episodes of American Idol because it is entertaining. There is a reason why the producers show some of the worst singers and not just the best voices at this stage. By the time it becomes an actual competition, I tune out and let people who like heavily-overplayed pop music watch and vote week after week. That is how American Idol works.
And then somehow Palin turns it into a metaphor for America:
"Unfortunately, Cowell is almost alone in his willingness to tell hard truths. Instead, a growing chorus of voices is trying to convince our kids that hard work isn't necessary anymore, that they're entitled to a lengthening list of benefits paid for by others, and that they don't have to accept the consequences of their actions when those consequences are bad. Those voices seem to think that the purpose of government -- the purpose of America -- isn't to promise equal opportunity but to produce equal outcomes."
But it is ok for Bristol Palin to be on Dancing With The Stars, which is an "uplifting, family-oriented show." So family-oriented, in fact, that Bristol Palin made a promise to dress more modestly than other contestants (which she later broke by making another promise to dress "sexy" for the show). How exactly is there any difference between American Idol and Dancing With The Stars?
It seems like half of the book is devoted entirely to paint Bristol Palin in a positive light. Yes, I understand Sarah Palin is a proud mother, but to say she was overly-positive is an understatement. Bristol works full time, Bristol goes to college, Bristol is a devoted mother, Bristol is a role model, Bristol faced the music, Bristol more than paid the price, Bristol, Bristol, Bristol, Bristol. How did Sarah Palin describe her daughter's pregnancy?
"Her adolescence had been prematurely halted and, in most unfortunate circumstances, she was going to have a baby,"
That is certainly one way of putting it. And then Sarah Palin goes the "do as I say, not as I do" route with her daughter.
"She has been accused of being a hypocrite. But to those critics I say this: Which is the more courageous course for a young, single mother: to sit down and shut up and avoid the critics, or to speak out in a painfully honest way about how tough single parenting is? I'm biased, of course, but given a choice of role models between Bristol and Murphy Brown, I choose Bristol."
Moving on, the last excerpts are Palin going on about how abortion is wrong, pro-choice people are hurting America, "new feminism" (her emphasis, not mine) and how God knew what he was doing when she found out Trig would be born with Down Syndrome. I would say that these excerpts are enough for me, and I will not waste my money on her new book if these few pages are any indication of what else is in store.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
College Basketball (Wake Me Up In March)
I do not care very much for college basketball and I will not apologize for it. I know some people think it is the greatest thing on earth, and that the first day of college basketball should be a national holiday. I do not, and I am not sorry. Just let me know when we get to March Madness, and unless there is a team I have a rooting interest for (only a handful), wake me up when we get to the Elite Eight.
Keep in mind that I like professional basketball. I am an avid Chicago Bulls fan and thoroughly despise the Miami Heat. But closely following college hoops would be too much. There are 346 different schools in Division I college basketball. 346. 346. Take a moment and swallow that. 346. That is not a typo. The NBA only has 30 and I probably would forget at least one if asked to recite all of them at once. 346.
On top of that, each one of these 346 teams has to play around 30 games. What other sports are taking place during college basketball season? Professional football, professional basketball, hockey and college football. I only really pay close attention to professional football and basketball, while having rooting interests for only specific teams when it comes to hockey (Blackhawks) and college football (Hoosiers). This a fundamental reason why have trouble finding an interest in college basketball: the vastness of it all.
At any point, any of those 346 could rise to prominence and then be gone a second later. Think of how many players and coaches you would have to keep track of, just in case. With such a long schedule and so many teams, there is always a great deal of shifting among teams in the Top 25 to the point where I cannot keep any of them straight, except for the big names or top one or two.
I already commit enough pointless information about teams, players and coaches for several sports to memory as it is. Professional baseball and football are the guiltiest parties. Is this bad? Well I would say it is rather tedious and pointless to recall how good or bad a random player that most have never heard of is. Even outside of fantasy sports (much of the blame can be put there, but I love fantasy), my knowledge is unnecessarily extensive. I do not think I can handle adding 346 more teams-worth of information, nor do I desire to.
If you are a rabid college hoops fan, I can understand that. I am the same way about other sports, just not this one. It would just be too exhausting to add it on top of everything else. And I want to take a moment and quickly address an issue some have been raising (it concerns college football as well). Given the various recruiting scandals, NCAA violations and allegations of players getting payed/receiving improper benefits/etc. some people think that college athletes should be payed. Do these people know what a scholarship is?
Until next time, Orange Hat (and hair!) Guy
Keep in mind that I like professional basketball. I am an avid Chicago Bulls fan and thoroughly despise the Miami Heat. But closely following college hoops would be too much. There are 346 different schools in Division I college basketball. 346. 346. Take a moment and swallow that. 346. That is not a typo. The NBA only has 30 and I probably would forget at least one if asked to recite all of them at once. 346.
On top of that, each one of these 346 teams has to play around 30 games. What other sports are taking place during college basketball season? Professional football, professional basketball, hockey and college football. I only really pay close attention to professional football and basketball, while having rooting interests for only specific teams when it comes to hockey (Blackhawks) and college football (Hoosiers). This a fundamental reason why have trouble finding an interest in college basketball: the vastness of it all.
At any point, any of those 346 could rise to prominence and then be gone a second later. Think of how many players and coaches you would have to keep track of, just in case. With such a long schedule and so many teams, there is always a great deal of shifting among teams in the Top 25 to the point where I cannot keep any of them straight, except for the big names or top one or two.
I already commit enough pointless information about teams, players and coaches for several sports to memory as it is. Professional baseball and football are the guiltiest parties. Is this bad? Well I would say it is rather tedious and pointless to recall how good or bad a random player that most have never heard of is. Even outside of fantasy sports (much of the blame can be put there, but I love fantasy), my knowledge is unnecessarily extensive. I do not think I can handle adding 346 more teams-worth of information, nor do I desire to.
If you are a rabid college hoops fan, I can understand that. I am the same way about other sports, just not this one. It would just be too exhausting to add it on top of everything else. And I want to take a moment and quickly address an issue some have been raising (it concerns college football as well). Given the various recruiting scandals, NCAA violations and allegations of players getting payed/receiving improper benefits/etc. some people think that college athletes should be payed. Do these people know what a scholarship is?
Until next time, Orange Hat (and hair!) Guy
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Why I Love Battlestar Galactica
I have recently started watching the re-imagined version of the 1970s science fiction show Battlestar Galactica, and so far I really love it. I am only midway through the second season but up to this point the show has greatly impressed me. It is the perfect mix of science fiction, politics, philosophy and religion (coincidentally four things I love discussing).
The show's premise is mapped out extremely well: the human race's 12 home planets are attacked and massacred by a race of machines called Cylons that were originally created by the humans. With about 50,000 survivors left, the decimated remains of the human race must survive while being outnumbered by the enemy in an unforgiving part of the galaxy. While lacking political cohesion (the highest ranking politician is the Secretary of Education) and dealing with the new threat that Cylons can perfectly mimic human form, the crew of the warship Battlestar Galactica must rally behind the belief that the commander of the fleet can lead them to their mythical home planet of Earth.
Is it a little dense? Yes, of course it is. This is science fiction, what did you expect? But the beauty of it all lies in its execution. Compared to other space-based science fiction franchises such as Star Trek, there is a wonderful sense of realism. With the show's creators and writers (many of whom are Star Trek alums) producing the show through the lens of a post-9/11 world, the characters, events, setting and design, it is not afraid to get very dark and very real.
The characters are well-written, with all of them having their own problems. These deep flaws really help create drama that other science fiction shows lack by making the characters feel more human. They make wrong decisions sometimes, and these wrong decisions sometimes end up with disastrous consequences (an ill-advised military coup; mistreatment of Cylon prisoners). These are decisions that have lasting consequences as well. Unlike most shows, the problem is not fixed after 43 minutes. And there is no clean slate with which to start the next episode.
The setting is also expertly designed. When Secretary of Education Laura Roslin assumes the office of the president, there is no smooth transition. She must deal with dissent among citizens who feel she should not have assumed office, opposition from a former terrorist/freedom fighter (clearly influenced by people such as Bill Ayers or Timothy McVeigh) and a less-than-smooth relationship with Commander William Adama, the head of the military.
The fleet also has to deal with prisoner ships, fuel and water shortages, the discovery of another Battlestar (along with someone who has a higher rank than Adama) and concerns over loyalty for the president and the military. There are major conflicts between characters and story arcs that take place over multiple episodes, which helps stretch out tension.
The feel of the show is well-constructed: it is not outlandish or pretty. People communicate via phones (and not fancy ones; we are talking old-fashioned land-line designs). They still use paper. The sets are dark and gritty; there is no Apple Store feel like there was in the new Star Trek movie. Ships can travel faster than light, but it takes time and can only jump from one place to another, unable to maintain faster than light speeds. And when they jump, they do not know where they will end up. They still use nuclear weapons and projectile firearms (no phasers). The medicine is not much more advanced than it is today. People get angry, parts break down, things fall apart.
But there is more to the show than just plot. Like I said earlier, it has a great mix of politics, philosophy and religion. Politically, there is a great deal of turmoil surrounding President Roslin. She has to cope with dissidents such as terrorist/freedom fighter (depending on who you ask) Tom Zarek, rough relations with the military and has an upcoming election to deal with. Is she handling the apocalyptic situation well? Is she representative of the people? Are her actions helping or compromising the security of the fleet? How much should religion factor in her decision-making and image? Could Tom Zarek do a better job? These are the types of political issues the show raises and addresses well.
The religion of Battlestar Galactica is also significant. Humans are pan-theists, who believe in the 12 Lords of Kobol. The ancient texts talk of a dying leader (Roslin is dying of breast cancer) who will lead the people to Earth, and Roslin begins to accepty her role as a sort of emissary after having visions predicted in the ancient texts. Her faith also leads her to make an order that opens a huge can of worms when it challenges the orders of Commander Adama. Contrastingly, the Cylons are monotheists, believing in a single forgiving god unrelated to the Lords of Kobol. The religions presented highlight issues such as faith, the role of faith in making important decisions, debate over which theistic belief is right, and if any of the gods even exist.
But my favorite part of Battlestar Galactica is the philosophical questions it poses. Cylons are able to perfectly replicate human form all the way down the the DNA sequences. But are they human? Or are they still machines? They can still feel emotions such as love. They can feel pain, incur psychological distress (one Cylon prisoner is repeatedly beaten and raped) and even be impregnated by a human. What if a Cylon and a human have a baby? What is the child? Most simply see these Cylons as mindless killing machines, incapable of understanding what it means to be human.
But what does it mean to be human? This is the fascinating philosophical question that Battlestar Galactica throws at you, and I still have yet to come up with an answer in that context. But that is what I like about the show and about science fiction in general: it challenges me to think about such fundamental questions about human nature in a brand new light. This is the brilliance of Battlestar Galactica.
I hope that, as I continue watching, it maintains its quality and continues to come up with challenging questions and scenarios that I have come to love about the show. If you like intelligent television that really makes you think, this the show for you (or at least the first season and a half). If you do not like such television, enjoy the Jersey Shore.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
The show's premise is mapped out extremely well: the human race's 12 home planets are attacked and massacred by a race of machines called Cylons that were originally created by the humans. With about 50,000 survivors left, the decimated remains of the human race must survive while being outnumbered by the enemy in an unforgiving part of the galaxy. While lacking political cohesion (the highest ranking politician is the Secretary of Education) and dealing with the new threat that Cylons can perfectly mimic human form, the crew of the warship Battlestar Galactica must rally behind the belief that the commander of the fleet can lead them to their mythical home planet of Earth.
Is it a little dense? Yes, of course it is. This is science fiction, what did you expect? But the beauty of it all lies in its execution. Compared to other space-based science fiction franchises such as Star Trek, there is a wonderful sense of realism. With the show's creators and writers (many of whom are Star Trek alums) producing the show through the lens of a post-9/11 world, the characters, events, setting and design, it is not afraid to get very dark and very real.
The characters are well-written, with all of them having their own problems. These deep flaws really help create drama that other science fiction shows lack by making the characters feel more human. They make wrong decisions sometimes, and these wrong decisions sometimes end up with disastrous consequences (an ill-advised military coup; mistreatment of Cylon prisoners). These are decisions that have lasting consequences as well. Unlike most shows, the problem is not fixed after 43 minutes. And there is no clean slate with which to start the next episode.
The setting is also expertly designed. When Secretary of Education Laura Roslin assumes the office of the president, there is no smooth transition. She must deal with dissent among citizens who feel she should not have assumed office, opposition from a former terrorist/freedom fighter (clearly influenced by people such as Bill Ayers or Timothy McVeigh) and a less-than-smooth relationship with Commander William Adama, the head of the military.
The fleet also has to deal with prisoner ships, fuel and water shortages, the discovery of another Battlestar (along with someone who has a higher rank than Adama) and concerns over loyalty for the president and the military. There are major conflicts between characters and story arcs that take place over multiple episodes, which helps stretch out tension.
The feel of the show is well-constructed: it is not outlandish or pretty. People communicate via phones (and not fancy ones; we are talking old-fashioned land-line designs). They still use paper. The sets are dark and gritty; there is no Apple Store feel like there was in the new Star Trek movie. Ships can travel faster than light, but it takes time and can only jump from one place to another, unable to maintain faster than light speeds. And when they jump, they do not know where they will end up. They still use nuclear weapons and projectile firearms (no phasers). The medicine is not much more advanced than it is today. People get angry, parts break down, things fall apart.
But there is more to the show than just plot. Like I said earlier, it has a great mix of politics, philosophy and religion. Politically, there is a great deal of turmoil surrounding President Roslin. She has to cope with dissidents such as terrorist/freedom fighter (depending on who you ask) Tom Zarek, rough relations with the military and has an upcoming election to deal with. Is she handling the apocalyptic situation well? Is she representative of the people? Are her actions helping or compromising the security of the fleet? How much should religion factor in her decision-making and image? Could Tom Zarek do a better job? These are the types of political issues the show raises and addresses well.
The religion of Battlestar Galactica is also significant. Humans are pan-theists, who believe in the 12 Lords of Kobol. The ancient texts talk of a dying leader (Roslin is dying of breast cancer) who will lead the people to Earth, and Roslin begins to accepty her role as a sort of emissary after having visions predicted in the ancient texts. Her faith also leads her to make an order that opens a huge can of worms when it challenges the orders of Commander Adama. Contrastingly, the Cylons are monotheists, believing in a single forgiving god unrelated to the Lords of Kobol. The religions presented highlight issues such as faith, the role of faith in making important decisions, debate over which theistic belief is right, and if any of the gods even exist.
But my favorite part of Battlestar Galactica is the philosophical questions it poses. Cylons are able to perfectly replicate human form all the way down the the DNA sequences. But are they human? Or are they still machines? They can still feel emotions such as love. They can feel pain, incur psychological distress (one Cylon prisoner is repeatedly beaten and raped) and even be impregnated by a human. What if a Cylon and a human have a baby? What is the child? Most simply see these Cylons as mindless killing machines, incapable of understanding what it means to be human.
But what does it mean to be human? This is the fascinating philosophical question that Battlestar Galactica throws at you, and I still have yet to come up with an answer in that context. But that is what I like about the show and about science fiction in general: it challenges me to think about such fundamental questions about human nature in a brand new light. This is the brilliance of Battlestar Galactica.
I hope that, as I continue watching, it maintains its quality and continues to come up with challenging questions and scenarios that I have come to love about the show. If you like intelligent television that really makes you think, this the show for you (or at least the first season and a half). If you do not like such television, enjoy the Jersey Shore.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Election Madness!
As you are probably aware of, there was a relatively important election Tuesday night. Republicans took control of the House of Representatives and the Democrats' numbers in the Senate shrunk. And no pot for California. All in all, it was not a great night for a liberal-minded person like me. But what does it all mean? I will give you my opinion on Tuesday's results as best I can (because I know you are all dying to hear my opinion).
First off, let us focus on Proposition 19 in California. Prop 19 would have legalized the use of marijuana for those 21 and over as well as letting the state government regulate and tax its sales and distribution. Had it passed, California would have been renamed Amsterdam West. Being a liberal college student, I wish it would have passed. I believe it would hurt the drug cartels and also help raise revenue for a state that is in a very dire financial situation. But I will stop before I end up going on a lengthy drug rant.
Next up, the House. Once again the lower half of the legislative branch has a Republican majority, as the GOP gave the Democrats in the House a "shellacking," to quote President Obama. This can be a good thing, however. John Boehner will become Speaker of the House, which is a huge step forward for orange people. Jokes aside, this should bring about more compromise and bipartisanship that could help Obama get reelected in 2012.
This is a fine line to walk though. If Obama and the Democrats compromise with the Republicans and it works out well (i.e. job creation and resurrecting the economy), there is a danger that voters will credit the Republicans for the turnaround and subsequently vote Obama out of office. If the Democrats refuse to compromise, they come off looking bad as well because their refusal to engage in bipartisanship (which has already hurt them in this election) would likely drive voters away from them. They would appear as if they are putting politics ahead of getting things done. The key is then how well the Republicans' policies work if they are implemented.
Now for the Senate. The Democrats maintained their majority, but it shrunk considerably from a near filibuster-proof number of 59 to at least 52 (Washington's senate race is still too close to call; CNN has the Democrat leading by about 28,000 votes with 74% precincts reporting). So far the Democrats have lost six seats (ND, WI, IL, IN, AR, PA), with the losses in Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana being the most painful. The Democrats were able to reelect Harry Reid (though I would not have been real sad to see him go) and defeat Christine O'Donnell (a huge step backwards for witches wanting to run for political office).
The losses of Russ Feingold, Evan Bayh and Obama's old seat all hurt because they were winnable. Russ Feingold had been a three-term senator, and usually it is very hard to unseat an incumbent. Evan Bayh's decision to retire from the Senate also hurt because he did late in the primary season, leaving Indiana state Democrats rushing to find a replacement to nominate and run against former Indiana senator Dan Coats. And losing Obama's old seat is disappointing because the Democrats had an opportunity to avoid it being a close race. I do not mean to decry the choice of Alexi Giannoulias, but from what I understand there were better choices than him (state attorney general Lisa Madigan I believe was one because she is quite popular in Illinois).
As for the various races for governor, I only really payed attention to California and Illinois (I voted via absentee ballot for the state of Illinois). I was glad to see that Meg Whitman, Republican and former Ebay president and CEO, lost in the California race. California, arguably the most liberal state in the US, needs to stay liberal so that it can set the trends that other states can follow (such as, for a time, gay marriage). Meanwhile in Illinois, it looks like Pat Quinn (who took over as governor when Blago was impeached) will hold onto his slim lead and get reelected. Which does not mean much. Choosing between Quinn and Republican Bill Brady was like picking between either having your arm or leg broken. Neither one was a good option. But at least Quinn is not Blago, and that is an improvement.
Now I want to talk about a minor thing for a second. On the Illinois ballot, there was a amendment to change the Illinois state constitution to make it easier to kick a sitting governor out of office by allowing a petition for a recall election and then a special election to replace the ousted governor. I am not of the origins of this proposition but I have a feeling that the Blago incident had a powerful influence. The amendment easily passed with over 60% of the vote.
I voted against it, and I would like to explain why. My position is that this gives voters too much power to the point where I feel like they can abuse the amendment beyond its intended purpose. I understand why people would want such an amendment following Blago' adventure, but giving voters the power to recall a governor could hypothetically lead to voters ousting someone outside the bounds of what should be taken into account when wanting to remove an elected official. But I was in the minority. Oh well.
What does this election mean? This is the big question that is being asked and analyzed and analyzed and analyzed and analyzed. So how am I going to address that question? Analyze! I think there a couple things to take out of this election and what it means for the next two years. To begin with, 2011 is going to be a make-it-or-break-it year for Obama. Because of the Republican control of the House, he will need to navigate that thin line very carefully, as I said earlier. Can he do it? I think he can, but I am worried that will not be the perception of most people, as many do not understand how beneficial health care reform will be or how/why the stimulus has yet to rescue the economy.
I also think this is an opportunity for the Republicans to show they actually have legitimate policy ideas that will work and can garner voter support. They have spent the first two years of Obama's presidency focusing completely on obstructionism instead of attempting to develop serious legislation that had realistic chances of passing. The ball is in their court, and it is time to make something happen. If they can, they have a legitimate, if still challenging, chance of taking the White House in 2012. If they cannot, they will have helped keep Obama in office beyond 2012.
The main concern for both parties moving forward must be job creation and resurrecting the economy. That was the biggest issue for voters in this election according to exit polls, and it should be the main focus going forward. The stimulus, if it were actually implemented properly, could help. But thanks to resistance by Republican-led states and misinformation about how it has and has not worked, there exists a negative perception of how the economy is getting fixed.
What do I hope will happen over the next two years? I hope that the Republican-led House understands their place (they are still in the minority because Democrats still control two-thirds of the legislative process: the Senate and the presidency) and do not try to act as if they are the ones who will lead the effort on bipartisanship or expect Democrats to compromise on Republican issues more than Democratic issues. I also hope the Democrats realize this and show some guts by not caving to Republican demands.
But realistically, I do not expect much to happen. Obama will probably call on Democrats to make a greater effort for bipartisanship on lesser issues and call on Republicans to put politics aside on more important issues and make concessions on some Democrat demands. However, I do not expect there to be any major legislation that both sides can agree on. Relatively minor polices may get passed, but I believe that Obama has gotten all the major legislation he wanted to get passed (by taking advantage of the great congressional majorities he had in his first two years). I expect Obama will try and maneuver himself to appear as a negotiator rather than a legislator in an effort to appear less partisan than he has been. And I think he can pull it off because he is a master at understanding the public's perception of him and knowing how to turn it to his advantage.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
First off, let us focus on Proposition 19 in California. Prop 19 would have legalized the use of marijuana for those 21 and over as well as letting the state government regulate and tax its sales and distribution. Had it passed, California would have been renamed Amsterdam West. Being a liberal college student, I wish it would have passed. I believe it would hurt the drug cartels and also help raise revenue for a state that is in a very dire financial situation. But I will stop before I end up going on a lengthy drug rant.
Next up, the House. Once again the lower half of the legislative branch has a Republican majority, as the GOP gave the Democrats in the House a "shellacking," to quote President Obama. This can be a good thing, however. John Boehner will become Speaker of the House, which is a huge step forward for orange people. Jokes aside, this should bring about more compromise and bipartisanship that could help Obama get reelected in 2012.
This is a fine line to walk though. If Obama and the Democrats compromise with the Republicans and it works out well (i.e. job creation and resurrecting the economy), there is a danger that voters will credit the Republicans for the turnaround and subsequently vote Obama out of office. If the Democrats refuse to compromise, they come off looking bad as well because their refusal to engage in bipartisanship (which has already hurt them in this election) would likely drive voters away from them. They would appear as if they are putting politics ahead of getting things done. The key is then how well the Republicans' policies work if they are implemented.
Now for the Senate. The Democrats maintained their majority, but it shrunk considerably from a near filibuster-proof number of 59 to at least 52 (Washington's senate race is still too close to call; CNN has the Democrat leading by about 28,000 votes with 74% precincts reporting). So far the Democrats have lost six seats (ND, WI, IL, IN, AR, PA), with the losses in Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana being the most painful. The Democrats were able to reelect Harry Reid (though I would not have been real sad to see him go) and defeat Christine O'Donnell (a huge step backwards for witches wanting to run for political office).
The losses of Russ Feingold, Evan Bayh and Obama's old seat all hurt because they were winnable. Russ Feingold had been a three-term senator, and usually it is very hard to unseat an incumbent. Evan Bayh's decision to retire from the Senate also hurt because he did late in the primary season, leaving Indiana state Democrats rushing to find a replacement to nominate and run against former Indiana senator Dan Coats. And losing Obama's old seat is disappointing because the Democrats had an opportunity to avoid it being a close race. I do not mean to decry the choice of Alexi Giannoulias, but from what I understand there were better choices than him (state attorney general Lisa Madigan I believe was one because she is quite popular in Illinois).
As for the various races for governor, I only really payed attention to California and Illinois (I voted via absentee ballot for the state of Illinois). I was glad to see that Meg Whitman, Republican and former Ebay president and CEO, lost in the California race. California, arguably the most liberal state in the US, needs to stay liberal so that it can set the trends that other states can follow (such as, for a time, gay marriage). Meanwhile in Illinois, it looks like Pat Quinn (who took over as governor when Blago was impeached) will hold onto his slim lead and get reelected. Which does not mean much. Choosing between Quinn and Republican Bill Brady was like picking between either having your arm or leg broken. Neither one was a good option. But at least Quinn is not Blago, and that is an improvement.
Now I want to talk about a minor thing for a second. On the Illinois ballot, there was a amendment to change the Illinois state constitution to make it easier to kick a sitting governor out of office by allowing a petition for a recall election and then a special election to replace the ousted governor. I am not of the origins of this proposition but I have a feeling that the Blago incident had a powerful influence. The amendment easily passed with over 60% of the vote.
I voted against it, and I would like to explain why. My position is that this gives voters too much power to the point where I feel like they can abuse the amendment beyond its intended purpose. I understand why people would want such an amendment following Blago' adventure, but giving voters the power to recall a governor could hypothetically lead to voters ousting someone outside the bounds of what should be taken into account when wanting to remove an elected official. But I was in the minority. Oh well.
What does this election mean? This is the big question that is being asked and analyzed and analyzed and analyzed and analyzed. So how am I going to address that question? Analyze! I think there a couple things to take out of this election and what it means for the next two years. To begin with, 2011 is going to be a make-it-or-break-it year for Obama. Because of the Republican control of the House, he will need to navigate that thin line very carefully, as I said earlier. Can he do it? I think he can, but I am worried that will not be the perception of most people, as many do not understand how beneficial health care reform will be or how/why the stimulus has yet to rescue the economy.
I also think this is an opportunity for the Republicans to show they actually have legitimate policy ideas that will work and can garner voter support. They have spent the first two years of Obama's presidency focusing completely on obstructionism instead of attempting to develop serious legislation that had realistic chances of passing. The ball is in their court, and it is time to make something happen. If they can, they have a legitimate, if still challenging, chance of taking the White House in 2012. If they cannot, they will have helped keep Obama in office beyond 2012.
The main concern for both parties moving forward must be job creation and resurrecting the economy. That was the biggest issue for voters in this election according to exit polls, and it should be the main focus going forward. The stimulus, if it were actually implemented properly, could help. But thanks to resistance by Republican-led states and misinformation about how it has and has not worked, there exists a negative perception of how the economy is getting fixed.
What do I hope will happen over the next two years? I hope that the Republican-led House understands their place (they are still in the minority because Democrats still control two-thirds of the legislative process: the Senate and the presidency) and do not try to act as if they are the ones who will lead the effort on bipartisanship or expect Democrats to compromise on Republican issues more than Democratic issues. I also hope the Democrats realize this and show some guts by not caving to Republican demands.
But realistically, I do not expect much to happen. Obama will probably call on Democrats to make a greater effort for bipartisanship on lesser issues and call on Republicans to put politics aside on more important issues and make concessions on some Democrat demands. However, I do not expect there to be any major legislation that both sides can agree on. Relatively minor polices may get passed, but I believe that Obama has gotten all the major legislation he wanted to get passed (by taking advantage of the great congressional majorities he had in his first two years). I expect Obama will try and maneuver himself to appear as a negotiator rather than a legislator in an effort to appear less partisan than he has been. And I think he can pull it off because he is a master at understanding the public's perception of him and knowing how to turn it to his advantage.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)