Michael Offutt's Blog, page 114

Spinosaurus aegyptiacus and megalodon locked in battle would have been something to see

Spinosaurus size comparison with an average human. Click to EMBIGGEN.Yesterday, the New York Times published an article about the Spinosaurus aegyptiacus and how Nizar Ibrahim, a paleontologist, went on a five year odyssey of diligence and serendipity that led to the unveiling on Thursday of a new skeleton for this huge and very real animal that once walked the earth.

Just to be clear, it would seem that Spinosaurus is nothing like how it was represented in Jurassic Park III (aside from it being just absolutely terrifying). It still ranks as the largest known predatory dinosaur growing to at least 50 feet in length. Ahem, please pay attention to that "at least" meaning "its minimum adult size." Holy crap. And that isn't the only surprise. Spinosaurus was apparently a very strong swimmer that spent a great deal of its life in the water.

To give you a little history, the original fossils belonging to Spinosaurus were discovered over a century ago in Egypt. In an article published online by the journal Science, Dr. Ibrahim describes a monster that had a crocodilian snout and nostrils halfway up the skull so it could stick its nose/jaw into the water and still breathe. It would have paddled like a duck and used its long flexible tail for propulsion (like a hybrid of duck and lizard).

So immediately, I started to think, what kinds of things would Spinosaurus eat? Well it'd need large fish and then I thought...omg...did this thing fight megalodon?

Just think about the kind of real life kaiju battle that would have been. Seriously. Spinosaurus vs. Megalodon. Other than the title of a great movie made for the SyFy channel, this battle may have actually happened at some point in history. Below is my favorite artist vision of megalodon eating elephants that have been swept away by a flood. The prehistoric Earth was an incredible place.
"Devourer of Giants" by Robert Nicholls. 

If Anita Blake is ever adapted for the screen I hope they hire these actors

The other day, I had this conversation with three ladies about author Laurell K. Hamilton, and it basically devolved into us "fans" discussing who would be our choice to play the various characters in her books should they ever make it to film. Today, there's even more options than standard television or movie. Netflix, for example, could grab this Marvel property and invest money in it ala House of Cards and probably attract even more viewers than those who flock to Hemlock Grove. Anyway, it's probably a safe prediction that these stories are getting a second look. If not, it needs to happen. Seriously, but not before I get my say :).

So first, an admission: I have this guilty pleasure, and it's reading Anita Blake books. Admittedly, I haven't read one in a while. The character stopped growing for me after about Skin Trade, however, maybe I was just in a mood for something else. Who knows, I may go back to them or just reread the entire series from start to finish.

Anita (like Pam on True Blood) has ONLY the best lines. Or I could give credit to author Laurell K. Hamilton, and just say that the woman has a way with dialogue. Try this tidbit on for size:

   “He laughed, and it raised goose-bumps on my arms. "Oh, ma petite, ma petite, you are precious."
   Just what I wanted to hear. "So how are you getting here?"
   "My private jet."
   Of course, he had a private jet. "When can you be here?"
   "I will be there as soon as I can, my impatient flower."
   "I prefer ma petite to flower.”

The character calling Anita, ma petite, is Jean-Claude. He's the master of the Circus of the Damned and an all around nice guy if not a bit over-sexed. But then again if you look like Jean-Claude, sex is what you do because only the blind don't see you as beautiful.

Reeve CarneyMy choice to play Jean-Claude is actor Reeve Carney (pictured at right). I first noticed him in the role of Dorian Grey in Showtime's Penny Dreadful (which was pretty darn amazing) series. I think he'd be perfect to play the seductive French vampire. That, and he's obviously an awesome performer, having come from Bono's Spiderman (the Broadway musical) in which he starred as Peter Parker (and he also looked really good in the suit). Plus Reeve Carney plays the guitar, and that right there should nail him for the role.

Okay, so who would I have star as Asher? That was the next question one of the ladies asked me (and for the record they totally agreed that Reeve Carney was perfect for Jean-Claude). Asher I think would best be played by actor Tom Hiddleston (with his hair dyed blond). To give you some background on Asher, he's fantastically handsome, having been selected because of his beauty by Belle Morte, the vampire that made him. Anita describes his hair as the color of metallic gold and his eyes as the pale blue of a Siberian Husky. He's also the lover of Jean-Claude (part-time because Anita is also both of these guy's lover) and it'd just be really hot to see that much beauty naked all on screen at the same time. Yeah, Anita and her partners are all polyamorous (it may have something to do with the fact that Laurell is polyamorous). If this menage ever happens, I'll probably say that "polyamory is a national treasure" in the same laughing bravado as I said, "Michael Bay is a national treasure" after I watched Transformers: Edge of Extinction and witnessed the "Daisy Dukes" that were so short you could see the pockets, the camera angles from between the thighs of the main female eye-candy, and the priceless dialogue: "My warrant is mah face!!!" Michael Bay film school never ceases to entertain.

Michelle RodriguezAnd then there's the case for Anita herself. Anita is the story here. She's a heroine that totes a coffee cup that says "Piss me off and face the consequences" and when she lived in her apartment, had a gun packed with glazer rounds so that when she shot at vampires, the bullets wouldn't go through the drywall to kill her neighbors. Who would be a perfect Anita Blake? I think Michelle Rodriguez would make a great Anita Blake. Most famous for action movies like the Fast and the Furious storyline, I think she'd be great as an ass-kicking necromancer that raises the dead and screws both vampires and werewolves.

So here's a question for you fans of Anita out there: Who would you cast as Jean-Claude, Anita Blake, and Asher? And what the hell...let's go ahead and cast the minor characters like Jason, Nathaniel, Edward, and Richard. Hopefully some of you have read Hamilton and can quid pro quo with me on this topic.

Lisa Bonet asks Is Eating Organic Food Actually Better for You?

Author Lisa Bonet got in touch with me about an article I wrote a little while ago that she read on my own personal corner of the internet here at my blog of all places! (squee...I have readers). The title of my piece was "Natural organic food is filled with chemicals you can't pronounce," and it can be found HERE if you really want to read it (please don't confuse it with my other healthy article entitled "A perfect rationale for eating cake on a Friday."). Well, Lisa came across my article in a random Google search, and asked me if I could share her article with my audience (and of course I immediately answered "Yes!") because it seeks to answer the question, "Is Eating Organic Food Actually Better for You?" And if you are a price conscious consumer, you've asked this question. I know you have.

Lisa's original article can be found HERE. Lisa's also given me permission to cut and paste it on my blog so that you can read it without changing websites. However, please keep in mind that the below article is not written by me. Personally, Lisa's information comes at a time in my own life when I weigh pro's and con's of taking extra money from my budget to apply to organic food. So without further ado, here is Lisa's article:
Is Eating Organic Food Actually Better for You? by Lisa Bonet

There are various reasons why you may choose organic produce, from protecting your health and the health of those who work in agriculture to preserving the environment. However, with organic food costing significantly more than standard produce, if you are most interested in its potential health benefits, you will want to know whether the extra cost is really worth it. It’s no surprise you may wonder this, as with conflicting reports on the nutritional value of organic crops, you want to make sure that your money is well spent, as on a tight budget organic produce is a luxury.

Higher Content of Key Nutrients

A piece of research by scientists at Stanford University, which reviewed the evidence for the health benefits of organic food, was widely publicized in 2012, though, unfortunately, their findings didn’t support the theory that organic produce is richer in micronutrients. However, what you may not have heard about was a similar research paper published the previous year by a team from the UK. While the researchers at Newcastle University acknowledged that organic fruit and vegetables are not nutritionally superior for many nutrients, they discovered this fresh produce offers significantly more vitamin C and polyphenols, in total offering a 12% higher intake of nutrients. Both have antioxidant activity and their consumptions may help to lower your risk of developing cancer, heart disease and other chronic health problems that impact on both quality of life and lifespan. Based on their findings, they estimated that for each day you eat organic fruit and vegetables rather than standard items, without increasing your overall intake women gain an extra 17 days and men an extra 25 days. So for some nutrients organic items are a better bet and this may in turn offer health benefits.

Reduces Exposure to Pesticides

Pesticides are used routinely in non-organic farming to control weeds, insects, fungi and other microbes, though use of pesticides is greatly limited when organic practices are used and even then these pesticides are produced from natural substances rather than chemicals. As the goal of pesticides is to destroy or repel other living things, pesticides have the potential to harm human health. The most common health problems associated with pesticides are irritation to the skin and eyes, damage to the nervous system, altered hormone levels and the development of cancer. Farm workers who come into contact with pesticides are at greatest risk, but the food we eat has traces of pesticide residues and these pose a particular risk to certain groups of the population. For instance, due to young children’s small body size and the fact their organ systems are still developing, it is essential to keep their pesticide exposure to a minimum. For similar reasons, pregnant women should avoid pesticides as much as possible to protect their developing baby’s brain and nervous system. Seniors also seem to be at increased risk of pesticide exposure, as the body becomes less efficient at processing chemicals with age.

The Stanford study confirmed that pesticide residue intake was lower when consuming organic foods, but if you can’t afford to buy all organic fruit and vegetables, how can you lower your intake of pesticide residues? Although washing and peeling fresh produce well helps to remove some traces of pesticides, another step is to focus on only buying organic versions of fruit and vegetables that otherwise contain most pesticide. To help you out with this, the Environmental Working Group publishes a list of items yearly that highlights the ‘clean fifteen’ which contain minimal levels of pesticides and the 'dirty dozen' that contain much higher levels of residues. It is especially important to use this list if you or your family belong to one of the at risk groups from pesticide exposure.

Avoids Growth Hormones

While there isn’t as yet any strong evidence to confirm a link between the use of growth hormones in non-organic cattle and adverse health effects from eating beef or dairy produce, there is a potential mechanism through which these artificial hormones may cause harm, which is why some people choose to buy organic milk and meat. For instance, use of recombinant bovine growth hormone may increase production of insulin-like growth factor, which is possibly linked to an increased risk of cancer. There is also a concern that these artificial hormones may lower sperm counts, as research indicates that women eating meat while pregnant have sons with reduced sperm counts. The FDA argues that hormone residues in meat and milk are tiny compared to those that occur naturally, but until there is more evidence for either side of the debate, some people would rather not take the risk.

Avoids Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria

Although antibiotics are commonly added to standard animal feed in the US, the use of antibiotics in this manner is not permitted in organic farming and even if antibiotics are used to treat disease, the meat then cannot be sold as organic. This is because antibiotics are an artificial way to enhance growth and organic producers recognize the risk that overuse of antibiotics poses to human health. Using antibiotics irresponsibly in farming fuels the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, as the bacteria that develop resistance are spread into the wider environment, increasing the likelihood that people will not respond to antibiotics for potentially dangerous infections. This is a particular issue, as most antibiotics used in farming are very similar to those used to treat our infections, including first-line treatment fluoroquinolones and cephalosporins that are used to manage hospital acquired infections. While the FDA is encouraging more cautious use of antibiotics in farming, if more people choose to buy organic this sends a message to other farmers to change their practices.

Thank you, Lisa, for sharing your article with us. So what do you think, folks? Organic or non-organic? Are you a buyer?

Today author Brandon Engel reminds you of why Arthur C. Clarke is considered one of the Deans of Science Fiction

"Fiction is more than non-fiction in some ways...you can stretch people's
minds, alerting them to the possibilities of the future, which is very important
in an age where things are changing rapidly."Please welcome Brandon Engel who is doing a guest post for me today regarding Arthur C. Clarke and his amazing ability to predict future technologies. to give just a little introduction to Clarke, he is considered one of the "Big Three" that forged the genre of science fiction (the other two being Isaac Asimov and Robert Heinlein). Heinlein is kind of my personal favorite of the three because he was such a colorful character (hanging out with L.Ron Hubbard masturbating on a manuscript in Aleister Crowley's mansion while plotting to steal the fortune of the guy that made jet fuel is one reason). Another is that Heinlein simply wrote interesting books like Stranger in a Strange Land. "Grok" anyone?

Anyway, Clarke's career and life are equally extraordinary. I'll let Brandon explain it to you though because he's just awesome at it. However, I'm going to pick out illustrations from series of books that Mr. Engel talks about below because they are done by my favorite cover artist, Michael Whelan. AND IF YOU FOLLOW MY BLOG, you know Michael Whelan is my "Picasso." Seriously. *bows down before Michael Whelan...
If memory serves correctly, this is a piece called
"Star Child." Artist Michael Whelan wanted to
capture the mysteriousness of the monolith,
what was going on with the Discovery
spaceship as it orbited Jupiter, and give a hint
that the monolith, the spaceship, and Jupiter
would become a new cradle of life to an
intelligent species. I think it's rather well done.
Whelan accomplished the effect using an
airbrush on masonite.
The Phenomenal Foresight of Arthur C. Clarke by Brandon Engel

Arthur C. Clarke was an author who predicted many future events dating back to the mid-1900's. One of the most popular pieces of literature written by Clarke includes the script from Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" film, and the novelization of the script that was written concurrent with the script. In addition to the popularity of his books and literature throughout his career, Arthur C. Clarke is also known for predicting future technologies with amazing accuracy.

Popular Writings by Arthur C. Clarke

Among his most popular works are the titles from the 2001 series: "2001: A Space Odyssey" (written concurrently with his screenplay for the film directed by Stanley Kubrick), along with "2010: Odyssey Two", "2061: Odyssey Three" and "3001: The Final Odyssey", released in 1997. The Odyssey books highlight evolution and change throughout society and humanity, specifically dating 50 years back and predicting the future as it is now. They deal with humanity’s propulsion to grow and develop technologically, and the ethical issues that arise as humans becomes increasingly powerful in shaping the world around them.

“The Fountains Of Paradise” is another novel by Arthur C. Clarke that explores the possibility of humans finally finding their path into space with ease. Disregard the typical rocket ships, and instead, build an elevator to space. Following the drama and character development in this novel makes it one of Clarke's most enjoyable reads.

As Mr. Engel talks about in his article,
this book takes place when our sun is
dying. This cover by Michael Whelan
is meant to evoke a feeling of forlorn
-ness as young people stare
 into the distance at the only sun
humanity has ever known,
and watch it die.After the sun has gone nova, “The Songs Of Distant Earth” follows humanity into its depths and basic emotions and survival tactics. Although this novel by Clarke also highlights and features plenty of tech and future-based material, it is also considered a romance sci-fi novel for those who are seeking a bit of a different genre from previous books.

Predictions Made by Clarke in the Past

Arthur C. Clarke has made numerous predictions involving science fiction and future technologies that are currently in use today. Clarke predicted everything from the very first human clone, sampling items from the planet Mars, launching space probes and even predicting nuclear weapon wars and destruction in the future years off from the debut of his writings. By 2003, Clarke predicted there would be a need for an alternative fuel source to help reduce the overall impact fuels were having on the planet's overall environment and atmosphere.

Clarke also had the wild idea that electronic tracking and monitoring would one day help to reduce and eliminate the amount of criminal activity in all areas of the world, regardless of country or region. Today, satellites, drones and intelligent computers have the ability to locate and access individuals within minutes and in some cases, within seconds of conducting a search. If not for the imagination of someone like Clarke, the world would not have satellites, or any of the modern luxuries which are a by-product of satellite technology like GPS, satellite tv broadcasts, internet plans, or cellular phones.

Towards the end of his life, Clarke made predictions about a myriad of other topics, including the first manned trip to Mars, and actual dinosaur clones. Clarke also mused about when artificial intelligence (AI) would likely meet the same level as humanity. Taking a deeper look into the world of Arthur C. Clarke, his writings and his predictions is a jaw-dropping experience, especially with the predictions involving technology include communication methods and abilities. With Arthur C. Clarke's predictions becoming more true each day, it begs the question: Is there another author out there trying to do the same for us now? We may never know, until 50 years into the future that is.

If you liked this article, please follow Brandon on his twitter: @BrandonEngel2

Struggling with insecurity is something we all have to do

I think this is at the root of why I dislike Facebook and why I dislike "humble bragging" so much.

This is my post for the Insecure Writer's Support Group. Please go here to learn more.

Attack on Titan has got me hooked and I really do like to root for the little guy.

I started watching Attack on Titan because of a review I read on David Power's King's website. I have to say, I'm very impressed with this anime. As you may know, I love kaiju films and things that are in the kaiju genre. Well, Attack on Titan delivers all the fun, the horror, and the awe I get from these films in spades. I'm about halfway through the first season, and for those of you who have never heard of Attack on Titan, the premise is pretty simple: mankind is facing an apocalypse brought on by the appearance of gargantuan sexless humanoids with huge mouths that roam the planes in search of people to eat. It's all that chomping, chewing, and blood spitting that brings out the real horror of Attack on Titan. And the resourcefulness of the people who came together in a time of great need to build three huge walls is also pretty cool. And when I say huge...I mean walls that are hundreds of feet high and half again as thick.
Walls in fiction have always kind of fascinated me. The first wall that captured my imagination revealed itself in King Kong. Why did the natives of this island build such a huge wall? What was out there that they feared so much? The second wall that drew me in came from George R.R. Martin. Again...why the hell is there an 800-foot wall dividing the North? Theories abound but my bet is that the wall wasn't constructed by humans but by the White Walkers, who forged an uneasy truce with the Night's King to keep people from out of the North. But I digress. In short, walls are interesting.

Attack on Titan is a smart anime. Its characters are fully developed, and it doesn't hold back its punches. Furthermore (just like The Walking Dead) no character is safe and that just serves to heighten the tension. Additionally, it's got all the bravado of Pacific Rim. In Guillermo del Toro's robot vs. kaiju fantasy, men piloted huge robots to great effect vs. huge beasts from another world. In Attack on Titan, a boy finds a way to mind meld with a titan by pressing his body into its spine, and therefore control it so he can destroy other titans. That's clever, and I wonder if Guillermo should take a page from the manga of Attack on Titan and have people mind-melding with kaiju in the follow-up to Pacific Rim (which has been greenlit).
But my admiration for the show doesn't stop there. I also like the smart trappings of Attack on Titan. The warrior characters use gas-propelled jet packs to launch themselves into the air, and each has a pair of cables that can be slung into the sides of buildings like spider-man swinging his way between the skyscrapers of New York City. And the titans aren't just run of the mill giant people. There's one that is especially colossal and he doesn't have any skin. There are big ones and small ones and ones with terrifying overbites. All that chomping and chewing really does strip away the humanity from these monsters (and I say humanity because they look like giant humans). In some ways, it makes me ask this question: is this what we look like when we're eating? Good lord I hope not.
But ya know, it's kind of interesting that the actual humans in the show spend so little time eating. Maybe this is a subliminal message from the producers of the show: that all of us need to be mindful of gluttony because when we eat too much we end up as a horrifying caricature of our former selves. But even if I'm wrong about that, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that Attack on Titan has got me hooked, and it's apparent to me that I really do like to root for the little guy.

Are any of you watching Attack on Titan? If so, what did you (or do you) think of it?

A rant about the ice bucket challenge and how it needs to just stop

ALS stands for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. It's a disease of the nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord that control voluntary muscle movement. It's also known as "Lou Gehrig's disease." Lately a challenge designed to raise awareness of ALS and to get people to donate money has gone viral. Everyone from Andrew Ross Sorkin on CNBC to George R.R. Martin has done their version of the challenge. The thing that disturbs me though, is that people are participating in the challenge for selfish reasons that are doing more harm than good.

We have Henry Cavill in his Superman outfit doing the Ice Bucket challenge. Hoo Rah! right? I mean it's Superman, but it's also free marketing for an upcoming movie. This really puts a distaste in my mouth...the fact that Hollywood would use a challenge to raise awareness on a disease that kills people to say "Hey we're filming Batman vs. Superman and this seems like a great way to get people talking early about the film." Why couldn't Henry Cavill just have done it outside his uniform?

And what about the Scottish teen that died because of the challenge? I think it would make everyone who has ALS very sad to know that a challenge designed to raise awareness of their disease has claimed the life of Cameron Lancaster who was only 18. How the f*ck do people die by just getting ice cold water poured over their head? Well that's just the thing: they don't. Cameron died because people are making more of the ice bucket challenge than it really is. They are making it harder, adding levels of difficulty, blowing it way out of proportion, all to get a few YouTube hits.

And let's not forget the platonic form of a failed ALS ice bucket challenge involving a guy in camo cargo pants and an American flag vest, waving an even bigger confederate flag, and he sets his own hair on fire. It seems clear to me that the ice bucket challenge has lost its way. It's no longer about charity as much as its about bragging on social networks. "Everything you can do, I can do better." So the result has been everything from dumping water on someone to having some person shoot another with a stun gun so that they fall backward into ice water.

There is no reason to do this:
Or this very dangerous activity... I just don't get it. How could something so seemingly simple...small bucket of ice water poured gently on head...turn into something so disastrous that it actually claims lives? Are people really this stupid? /end rant

Deep Breath gave us a bi-racial lesbian couple in Victorian London, a dinosaur on the Thames, and screams this is how you kick off a new Dr. Who

The eighth season premiere of Dr. Who got underway on Saturday on BBC America with the episode "Deep Breath." On the surface, it reunited us with some clockwork/steampunk robots, and as I was watching, I remarked to my friend Adam that Dr. Who seems to revisit dinosaurs a lot. Because Dr. Who is so well-known, I won't recount any of the characters backgrounds and just assume you know who they are. What I want to talk about are the things that I liked about the episode, and (I suppose) what I liked about Peter Capaldi.
Married lesbians in Victorian London: Yes, please. Madame Vastra and Jenny were wonderful. They're a lesbian married couple (Madame Vastra being a lizard from the time of the dinosaurs who just happens to eat people, but only the really bad ones). She's also quite the warrior, and it got particularly cute in one scene when Madame Vastra looked like she was painting Jenny (so Jenny was holding perfectly still), but it turned out that Vastra was just working. Jenny seemed a bit pouty when she discovered that Vastra had been working the entire time and asked, "Why didn't you tell me?" and Vastra responded "Because you brighten up the room so much." That was a really nice thing to say. More Clara. I'm utterly fascinated with "The Impossible Girl." The conflict with Clara in "Deep Breath"all comes to a head when Clara gets a phone call from the dying Matt Smith Doctor, sent through time to his own future. He reveals how scared the Peter Capaldi Doctor is and basically begs her to help him. It's a rare turn to see Clara put in such egomaniacal light because she's been so self-sacrificing for the Doctor. Literally, she's the only person that exists in all times and in all places at once  because she dove into the Doctor's timeline in Trenzalor to save him. So here she is being asked to save him again and yet, the Twelfth Doctor has been basically accusing her of ignoring him because she was in love with the Eleventh Doctor. Mind = Blown.
The Doctor Sees Himself in the Half-Faced Man. This part was really good. The Twelfth Doctor is having a hard time with his new face (and his Scottish accent). As an aside...my friend Adam suggested that David Tennant must be pissed that Capaldi was allowed to speak with a Scottish accent as Tennant wanted to but was specifically forbidden to do so.
Sad David Tennant is sad. They made him hide his Scottish accent.But I digress. In an important conversation, the Doctor says to the Half-faced man that he has probably forgotten who he stole his current face from. "You are a broom," the Doctor says. "At some point you replaced the handle. At another you replaced the brush. You can still clean a room, but you are not the same being as when you began." The thing is, neither is the Doctor, and I guess that's the point. He is not the same person he was. The regeneration creates a whole new Doctor and by counseling the Half-Faced Man to give up on his dreams of reaching Paradise, I think he comes to the realization that he has a lot in common with the Half-Faced Man and should give up on reaching Gallifrey (the Doctor's Promised Land). The Half-Faced Man. "You are a broom!"A new Big Bad? At the very end, there's a scene where a somewhat governess-ish woman greets the Half-Faced Man when he arrives in the Promised Land (after his death). She tells him that he's reached Paradise and that he need strive no longer. One thing that's interesting here: the lady refers to the Doctor as "her boyfriend." There's only two individuals that can lay that claim: River Song and the Tardis. So is this woman the Tardis? If that's true, then perhaps the Half-Faced Man didn't die but was instead imprisoned somewhere within the Tardis? But if this is just a lie, then perhaps we're meeting a New Big Bad who has powers over life and death.
Peter Capaldi will do just fine. It took some getting used to because he's much older than the previous versions of the doctor. But I like the calmer, more thoughtful Dr. Who (in contrast with Matt Smith's zaniness which at times seemed like a ball bouncing off the wall). But I suppose I'll always miss the time that Matt Smith's Doctor kissed Rory. They should have revisited that more.
Thoughts on the season opener Whovians?

Let's consider the pros and cons of Dwayne Johnson's choice between Shazam and Black Adam

In science fiction news this week, I read that action superstar (and real-life Hulk) Dwayne Johnson is trying to decide between playing either Shazam or Black Adam. So given that I have a special place in my heart for Shazam/Black Adam I thought I'd break this decision down pro/con style beginning with Shazam.

At left is an illustration of Shazam from the iconic "Kingdom Come" graphic novel (which I absolutely loved). Comic star Alex Ross painted the whole thing in glorious color--the book is literally a work of art in and of itself. But the tale revisits the DC universe with veteran superheroes like Wonder Woman, Batman, and Superman, who are all in their older years. However, "older" isn't the same as it applies to humans. These "gods" get stronger with time, so Superman, Wonder Woman, and Shazam/Captain Marvel are at the peak of their game. In this particular panel, Marvel has triumphed over Superman by speaking "Shazam" which summons the lightning magic that transforms him from a mere mortal into a magical being that's just as strong as Superman. In fact, Marvel says the command word multiple times, sidestepping the lightning which rains down on Superman essentially throwing him to the ground (Superman is as vulnerable to magic as he is to kryptonite).

Now, from time to time I get asked (usually by kids) to weigh in on who the most powerful superhero is in any given universe. My "go to" answer is usually "It's really hard to beat Superman..." which usually elicits a surprise because most kids don't get that Superman is so frickin' powerful that it's kind of on its own level of ridiculous. But he is. So when I say that another superhero is as powerful as Superman, that means that character is basically a god.

So yeah, Shazam is basically a god. And its easy to be confused with Shazam because he's also known as Captain Marvel. Captain Marvel is the alter ego of Billy Batson, a boy who by speaking the magic word "Shazam" can transform himself into the being with the combined powers of 1) Solomon 2) Hercules 3) Atlas 4) Zeus 5) Achilles and 6) Mercury. That's how you get the name "Shazam!" You take the first letters of all those gods and put them together as an acronym.

Legally, there have been lawsuits alleging that Shazam is a copy of Superman (there are similarities). Also DC comics renamed the character to Shazam to avoid long-standing trademark conflicts with another character named "Captain Marvel" owned by rival Marvel Comics. So I don't blame you for being confused.

The Pro's for playing this character are plentiful. 1) Shazam has never been portrayed in a movie, so the character would be ready for Dwayne to put his personal imprint on it. 2) The character has a long and storied history rich with great tales (Crisis on the Infinite Earths, Kingdom Come) and is a gateway to the most powerful villains in the DC pantheon, e.g., Darkseid. 3) Shazam is incredibly powerful which means the movie is going to be filled with all kinds of "eye candy" that boys and men love. And Dwayne has a strong loyal following among women so that'll pack the audiences with ladies who like to look at muscular men.

The only con I see for Dwayne in playing this character is that it'll just be him playing another protagonist, which doesn't stretch his acting talent at all. Well, and then there's the fact that DC Comics just don't have the popularity that Marvel has, and Warner Brothers may screw this adaptation up the same as they screwed up Green Lantern. So yeah, there's always that.

WHO IS BLACK ADAM? On the right is another Alex Ross painting of the super villain Black Adam (yes, Shazam and Black Adam could be the Dukes of Disgusting as far as power level goes). First off, you'll note there's a similarity and that's intentional, because Shazam and Black Adam are two sides of the same coin.

Now when Black Adam was originally depicted, he was a corrupted ancient Egyptian predecessor of Captain Marvel who fought his way to modern times to challenge Shazam. But DC redefined the origin to make him an antihero trying to "clear his name."

Black Adam (if memory serves) gets his powers from Shu (stamina), Hershef (strength), Amon (power), Thoth (wisdom), Anpu (speed), and Menthu (courage). I know, it sounds like he's very feng shui but in the DC universe, all of these things translate into "power" and "magic." Of course he has just as much super strength as Superman (able to hold a Boeing 747 aloft full of passengers like it was nothing), so much stamina he doesn't need to eat, sleep, or even breath (he can easily survive in space), he can move at sub-light speeds, fly, has instant access to all languages, has magic resistance against massive amounts of spells, and enough courage to render him resistant to telepathy and mind control of any kind. So yeah, he's basically another god (hence why I use the word "disgusting").

The Pro's for playing this character are 1) anti-heroes are interesting. Vin Diesel proved that by helming the signature character of "Riddick" which was worth three fully funded Hollywood films. 2) Dwayne Johnson would get to tap into his known propensity for all things Egyptian (remember "The Rock" played to great effect the character of the Scorpion King). 3) Dwayne Johnson finally gets to expand his acting repertoire and play someone sinister.

The Cons? Well playing a villain is usually a one-shot deal. And as a bankable star with a following, that seems to be a waste of Dwayne Johnson's talent. But what is a good movie without a great villain? Arguably a mediocre movie. So by hiring talent like Dwayne to play the bad guy, the films bound to be a success.

I'm really not a fan of portal fiction but Starz's Outlander is a real surprise

A little over two weeks ago, Starz premiered a series called Outlander. It's adapted by Ronald D. Moore, a name you might recognize from Battlestar Galactica and Helix. I kind of fell out of love with Helix rather quickly as it just wasn't my speed. But I thought the Battlestar Galactica reboot was fabulous, and other fans of that show will be pleased to note that he tapped Bear McCreary to do the music for the intro and yes, there are lots of bagpipes playing (who doesn't love the mournful sound of bagpipes?). They did wonders to elevate the most emotionally riveting scenes in Battlestar Galactica and will no doubt serve the same purpose here. And final trivia on Ronald Moore, he's a Cornell alum, which in my geekiness makes me squee a little bit because the main character in the sci-fi series I'm writing plays hockey for Cornell. And if all that isn't enough of a geeky/nerdy connection for you, Ronald Moore did film a pilot for Dragonriders of Pern and sent it to the WB, but it got canceled before production began. Since it happened more than a decade ago, the Dragonriders will just have better special effects available to them when they get launched soon on a yet to be announced network, so Anne McCaffrey fans can rejoice!

So I saw Outlander and didn't know what to expect at all. I vaguely had this idea that it was about a time traveling woman who ends up in medieval Scotland, but I had not checked out the books or even bothered to read a synopsis. Instead, I just set it to record on my DVR and watched it.

Outlander takes some excellent risks. Borrowing a page from Carrie Bradshaw, there's voice over, and I kind of like it. Then again, I usually like voice over. I liked it in Dune, I liked it in Sex and the City, and I like it here. And Claire is a different kind of heroine. She's strong yet very feminine, and I found that instantly intriguing. She's unapologetic about her intelligence, and I can see that when she's put in dangerous situations, she is instantly analyzing her surroundings and realizing that she's in a dangerous situation. She doesn't react hysterically, she doesn't scream and whine...rather she reacts with a calculating mind despite the fact that her very life is in jeopardy and accepts her fate with acknowledgement that she will do everything in her power to get out of it as soon as possible. I don't know why, but I really like that about her.
The setting for Outlander is stunning. The post World War II environment is used quite effectively to not only serve as a jumping off point, but a source for flashbacks (flash futures?) in which Claire muses over what her husband (who in the 18th century is not even born) must be thinking about her disappearance (even though it hasn't happened yet). And having a series set in this time would be intriguing enough. But Outlander gives us a double treat by providing yet another world for us to explore in the 18th century. I think that's very ambitious for a television show.

In the post World War II setting, Claire is an accomplished nurse with vast medical knowledge. Mining this background gives her instant value in the 18th century when locals see her as a gifted healer. The show also doesn't shy away from sex with great chemistry (Claire gets cunnilingus from her husband right on a medieval table in a crumbling castle ruin they're exploring), gore (blood dripping on the floor during surgery), and the very "rated-R" nature of everyday life ("rape" pronounced as "rapine" sounds so very English).

One question you might ask: Is this show a romance? It certainly feels romantic but I don't think it is. For one, Claire and Frank (her husband in the future) are awesome together so there's really no reason for her to pine for someone else in the past (other than he's not available). But I do suppose that there's developing chemistry with her and the man that she's healing, a Scot with a great accent by the name of Jamie.

I guess fans of Outlander will probably belong to those who love portal fiction, those who love romantic fantasy, and those who love historical romance. What surprises me most is I'm not really a fan of any of these genres, yet I love the show. Will miracles never cease? So tell me, are you watching Outlander? If so, what do you think of it?