Scott Seldon's Blog, page 9
August 24, 2013
The Theory vs. The Supporter
My surfing online has yielded many interesting articles and has led me to form a theory of my own. There are a great many crackpots out there, but not everything they come up with is pure idiocy. Yes, if you read their work you come away with a deep understanding of how unhinged they are, but once in a while they come up with a theory that has more merit than we give them credit for.
Take, for instance, one article that purported to explain why our planet was much younger that it appears by arguing against the slow, gradual speed of plate tectonics. The theory went that there had been giant asteroid impacts that had pushed the plates at great speed and then the plates had slowed down. At face value that theory is rubbish. However, look closer at it. Throw out his improbable idea that the plates have so radically change speed and just look at the idea of how giant asteroid impacts might affect plate tectonics. It makes sense. We know there have been some fairly large impacts, but what if there had been a few larger ones, ones that pushed plates in new directions and at faster speeds. It would explain India.
Another of the crackpot ideas is intelligent design. I have yet to find anyone of a serious scientific bent who give it any credence. It's supporters are all striving to prove their religion rather than seeking out theories to explain scientific findings. Yet the core of the idea, that there is a greater intelligence out there, has found a cadre of supporters to solve a problem with certain scientifically derived findings. The two theories of a greater intelligence are not even remotely the same, but the core idea, that there is something greater out there, lie at the heart of both. The issue with intelligent design as a theory is that it was not derived with the scientific method in mind, but rather just to give people of religion a quasi-scientific theory to bolster their claims that God exists and created the universe like their holy book claims.
That is why I have come up with the theory that you must separate the idea behind a theory from the person who created it. Crackpots have their own agenda and their arguments are usually discounted as completely worthless. However, An examination of the ideas they come up with can lead to some gems hidden in the dung. If we look at those ideas in the more sane light of mainstream science, they often have merit once divorced from the crackpot who created them.
In the end, it is the idea that matters, not who came up with it or what they were trying to prove using it. Each individual idea should be taken on its own merit and considered independently. We might find some overlooked ideas if we start looking past the agenda of the person who came up with it.
Take, for instance, one article that purported to explain why our planet was much younger that it appears by arguing against the slow, gradual speed of plate tectonics. The theory went that there had been giant asteroid impacts that had pushed the plates at great speed and then the plates had slowed down. At face value that theory is rubbish. However, look closer at it. Throw out his improbable idea that the plates have so radically change speed and just look at the idea of how giant asteroid impacts might affect plate tectonics. It makes sense. We know there have been some fairly large impacts, but what if there had been a few larger ones, ones that pushed plates in new directions and at faster speeds. It would explain India.
Another of the crackpot ideas is intelligent design. I have yet to find anyone of a serious scientific bent who give it any credence. It's supporters are all striving to prove their religion rather than seeking out theories to explain scientific findings. Yet the core of the idea, that there is a greater intelligence out there, has found a cadre of supporters to solve a problem with certain scientifically derived findings. The two theories of a greater intelligence are not even remotely the same, but the core idea, that there is something greater out there, lie at the heart of both. The issue with intelligent design as a theory is that it was not derived with the scientific method in mind, but rather just to give people of religion a quasi-scientific theory to bolster their claims that God exists and created the universe like their holy book claims.
That is why I have come up with the theory that you must separate the idea behind a theory from the person who created it. Crackpots have their own agenda and their arguments are usually discounted as completely worthless. However, An examination of the ideas they come up with can lead to some gems hidden in the dung. If we look at those ideas in the more sane light of mainstream science, they often have merit once divorced from the crackpot who created them.
In the end, it is the idea that matters, not who came up with it or what they were trying to prove using it. Each individual idea should be taken on its own merit and considered independently. We might find some overlooked ideas if we start looking past the agenda of the person who came up with it.
August 5, 2013
Doctor Who 50th Anniversary and John Hurt
My mind keeps wondering over what we know about John Hurt's character. Out there are some interesting theories, but theories that don't seem to fit the facts. What we will find out in the 50th Anniversary Special in November remains to be seen, but here are my guesses.
John Hurt did what he did "without choice - in the name of peace and sanity." He is the Doctor's secret and did not do what he did as the Doctor. Clara saw 11 faces, 11 Doctors. What could this all mean. She jumped into his time stream at his tomb. She should have seen all the Doctors, from the first to his death, but she did not see past the Eleventh or before the first. Now, the Doctor had a life before he became the Doctor. He had a family and a granddaughter, Susan. We know that there will be a twelfth Doctor (Peter Capaldi) and long ago, at the end of Trial of a Timelord, it was hinted there would be a thirteenth and something pulled from that regeneration that we knew of as the Valyard.
The two key points to my way of thinking are the timestream and the Twelfth incarnation. Clara saw 1-11, and if there was something buried in the middle, she would have seen it. But there was before and after as well. I do not think that John Hurt is playing a part that fits anywhere between An Unearthly Child and The Name of the Doctor. I strongly feel it must be before, after, or (a remote possibility) something to the side (like the Valyard). I think the 50th Anniversary is key to what the event is. I think that a celebration of 50 years is going to be key to the story. I'm strongly leaning to John Hurt being the Doctor before he took that name. A different incarnation? Possible, but doubtful.
Now, we have a couple of examples of side Doctors. The 10th nearly regenerated, but instead ended up with a clone from his severed hand. The Valyard, a mysterious amalgamation of the Doctor, also, was a separate being. Both are technically the Doctor, but not. Perhaps there is another and instead of the secret of why he took the name of Doctor and ran, it might be a mysterious amalgamation from between his Eighth and Ninth incarnations, a tool used in the Time War. That would also harken back to the Doctor's past.
The other possibility is that we are looking toward the future. Perhaps John Hurt is the last Doctor and the terrible thing he did was what we saw on Trenzalor.
Still, looking a the event and what might be possible in the Doctor Who universe, I still am leaning toward a pre-Doctor first Doctor and an event that made him run. But we need to wait until November to find out.
John Hurt did what he did "without choice - in the name of peace and sanity." He is the Doctor's secret and did not do what he did as the Doctor. Clara saw 11 faces, 11 Doctors. What could this all mean. She jumped into his time stream at his tomb. She should have seen all the Doctors, from the first to his death, but she did not see past the Eleventh or before the first. Now, the Doctor had a life before he became the Doctor. He had a family and a granddaughter, Susan. We know that there will be a twelfth Doctor (Peter Capaldi) and long ago, at the end of Trial of a Timelord, it was hinted there would be a thirteenth and something pulled from that regeneration that we knew of as the Valyard.
The two key points to my way of thinking are the timestream and the Twelfth incarnation. Clara saw 1-11, and if there was something buried in the middle, she would have seen it. But there was before and after as well. I do not think that John Hurt is playing a part that fits anywhere between An Unearthly Child and The Name of the Doctor. I strongly feel it must be before, after, or (a remote possibility) something to the side (like the Valyard). I think the 50th Anniversary is key to what the event is. I think that a celebration of 50 years is going to be key to the story. I'm strongly leaning to John Hurt being the Doctor before he took that name. A different incarnation? Possible, but doubtful.
Now, we have a couple of examples of side Doctors. The 10th nearly regenerated, but instead ended up with a clone from his severed hand. The Valyard, a mysterious amalgamation of the Doctor, also, was a separate being. Both are technically the Doctor, but not. Perhaps there is another and instead of the secret of why he took the name of Doctor and ran, it might be a mysterious amalgamation from between his Eighth and Ninth incarnations, a tool used in the Time War. That would also harken back to the Doctor's past.
The other possibility is that we are looking toward the future. Perhaps John Hurt is the last Doctor and the terrible thing he did was what we saw on Trenzalor.
Still, looking a the event and what might be possible in the Doctor Who universe, I still am leaning toward a pre-Doctor first Doctor and an event that made him run. But we need to wait until November to find out.
Introducing The Twelfth Doctor - Peter Capaldi
Doctor Who is a show filled with mysteries. The title is the first indication, but it doesn't stop there. There are many things we don't know. We don't know the Doctor's Name or very much about his life on Gallifrey before he stole a Type 40 time Capsule. We don't know how he knows half the stuff he does or how he has gotten his hands on some of the most important pieces of Gallifreyan technology. What we do know he can regenerate (at least) twelve times and we are about to see it happen for the 11th time.
William HartnellPatrick TroughtonJon PertweeTom BakerPeter DavidsonColin BakerSylvester McCoyPaul McGannChristopher EcclestonDavid TennantMatt Smith
and next...Peter Capaldi
Congrats, Peter. Can't wait to see where you take our favorite Timelord next.
William HartnellPatrick TroughtonJon PertweeTom BakerPeter DavidsonColin BakerSylvester McCoyPaul McGannChristopher EcclestonDavid TennantMatt Smith
and next...Peter Capaldi
Congrats, Peter. Can't wait to see where you take our favorite Timelord next.
July 29, 2013
The Big Mystery of Doctor Who's 50th Anniversary Special
As more information comes out and more theories surface, it has become clear that John Hurt's Doctor as revealed in the last episode, creates a deep mystery of who the Doctor really is. We have watched in the surety that we have seen all the incarnations, starting with the First Doctor who ran away from Gallifrey with his granddaughter (whose fate has never been revealed) up through the Eleventh Doctor who found himself facing his own grave on Trenzalore. We are given this partly because we have seen each incarnation morph before our eyes. Or have we? There is one break in the middle. We have not seen the regeneration of the Eighth Doctor into the Ninth.
That makes three different periods in our favorite Timelord's life where John Hurt could fit; he could be a later incarnation, between the Eighth and Ninth, or before the first. I am hoping for earlier, but in any case, if John Hurt's Doctor turns out to be another incarnation, it means that when we see the regeneration at the end of the Christmas Special, this is the last Doctor.
Or is it? I love to put on the old episodes and I am currently running through at least one story from each season and the first and last episode of each incarnation. There are some fun facts to be found, especially when you do some searches and find out the mind of the story writers and producers who created the stories. What I've found is that during the eras of the Fourth and Seventh Doctors, there were some ideas afoot. In The Brain of Morbius, Morbius and the Doctor engage in a mental wrestling match and the Doctor loses. We see all of his former selves and some others. While most people today think this is Morbius, it is indeed the Doctor and the writers and producers intended it to be the Doctor. The faces are those of several of the production staff at the time. Then a few episodes later in The Deadly Assassin, we are given the limit of twelve regenerations causing the idea of many previous Doctors to be lost. Then in the era of the Seventh Doctor, there was a substory being built to restore much of the mystery to the Doctor. He was more than he seemed and it was implied, but never stated, that he wasn't just a Timelord. Rumor has it that he was the third member of a trio of Timelords who founded Gallifrey, the others being Rassilon and Omega. And as was established in the 20th Anniversary Special, The Five Doctors, Rassilon was immortal (which makes his return during the Time War make sense).
So is the Doctor limited to 13 incarnations (which the 12 regeneration limit gives him)? We will have to wait and see. One hope is that John Hurt is not playing a new incarnation, but one of the previous ones. The most likely is an older Eighth Doctor or a younger First Doctor. I think a younger first Doctor makes more sense, especially considering some rumors about the 50th Anniversary Special and that inserting another incarnation will cut the show shorter or force them to deal with the question of the number of regenerations the Doctor ends up with. It would be an interesting question to find out why the Doctor ran away from Gallifrey. What did he do, who was he before. It can be answered in several ways that does not ruin the mystery of our favorite Timelord.
I've been happy with Steven Moffat's writing so far, so I have high hopes for the special and subsequent Christmas special and the introduction to a new Doctor. The story of the Doctor has been in many hands and it has changed a bit over the years. When dealing with the story of a time traveler who does so much, we can surmise he might have even changed his own past a few times, but it has been oddly consistent in certain aspects. A man on the run from his own people in a rackety old Tardis. As Clara said, "Run, you clever boy, Run!"
That makes three different periods in our favorite Timelord's life where John Hurt could fit; he could be a later incarnation, between the Eighth and Ninth, or before the first. I am hoping for earlier, but in any case, if John Hurt's Doctor turns out to be another incarnation, it means that when we see the regeneration at the end of the Christmas Special, this is the last Doctor.
Or is it? I love to put on the old episodes and I am currently running through at least one story from each season and the first and last episode of each incarnation. There are some fun facts to be found, especially when you do some searches and find out the mind of the story writers and producers who created the stories. What I've found is that during the eras of the Fourth and Seventh Doctors, there were some ideas afoot. In The Brain of Morbius, Morbius and the Doctor engage in a mental wrestling match and the Doctor loses. We see all of his former selves and some others. While most people today think this is Morbius, it is indeed the Doctor and the writers and producers intended it to be the Doctor. The faces are those of several of the production staff at the time. Then a few episodes later in The Deadly Assassin, we are given the limit of twelve regenerations causing the idea of many previous Doctors to be lost. Then in the era of the Seventh Doctor, there was a substory being built to restore much of the mystery to the Doctor. He was more than he seemed and it was implied, but never stated, that he wasn't just a Timelord. Rumor has it that he was the third member of a trio of Timelords who founded Gallifrey, the others being Rassilon and Omega. And as was established in the 20th Anniversary Special, The Five Doctors, Rassilon was immortal (which makes his return during the Time War make sense).
So is the Doctor limited to 13 incarnations (which the 12 regeneration limit gives him)? We will have to wait and see. One hope is that John Hurt is not playing a new incarnation, but one of the previous ones. The most likely is an older Eighth Doctor or a younger First Doctor. I think a younger first Doctor makes more sense, especially considering some rumors about the 50th Anniversary Special and that inserting another incarnation will cut the show shorter or force them to deal with the question of the number of regenerations the Doctor ends up with. It would be an interesting question to find out why the Doctor ran away from Gallifrey. What did he do, who was he before. It can be answered in several ways that does not ruin the mystery of our favorite Timelord.
I've been happy with Steven Moffat's writing so far, so I have high hopes for the special and subsequent Christmas special and the introduction to a new Doctor. The story of the Doctor has been in many hands and it has changed a bit over the years. When dealing with the story of a time traveler who does so much, we can surmise he might have even changed his own past a few times, but it has been oddly consistent in certain aspects. A man on the run from his own people in a rackety old Tardis. As Clara said, "Run, you clever boy, Run!"
July 9, 2013
Ender's Game - Spoilers Of A Different Sort
Unless they have completely rewritten the story, it is pretty hard to spend much time on spoilers for Ender's Game. Read the book if you are interested. But this film is being spoiled in a different way. The writer of the story it is based on, Orson Scott Card, has become an outspoken opponent of marriage equality. It is a mistake that the studio should have picked up on before green lighting this film, but now that it is made and ready for release, there is a lot of backlash against the film for Card's bigoted political activism.
There are different opinions of how to handle this movie. Some are calling for a complete boycott on the chance that Card might earn some more money or that they might green light a sequel. I don't share that view. A movie is a group effort, even if it is an adaption of a written story. You have hundreds or thousands of people who got together to turn a writer's vision into a visual spectacle. In particular, the actors who have taken part in this production deserve our support. With this story being mainly about children, many of the best young stars in Hollywood are in it. I'm sure that everyone involved in the production is acutely aware of Card's homophobia.
David Gerrold today posted a very reasoned argument why we should not boycott the movie and I whole-heartedly agree with him. Yes, Card's views are reprehensible, but he rarely put that into his stories and this movie is a great vehicle for the Hollywood professionals who were involved. We just need to send the message that we want no more of Card's work brought to life by Hollywood. I think they have got that already. Though, if not for Card's views, this could have been a good series for a studio to invest in.
This brings me to authors and politics. Authors dabble in politics at their own risk. Card has dabbled and lost. sometimes, especially far out from the final outcome, it can be hard to know which side is safe. But in this case, Card became more active that closer this topic came to gaining national acceptance. That is always a recipe for disaster and Card is now a poster child for it.
I sometimes dabble in political discourse, but I do my best to not be extreme. It is the extreme views that more often get you in trouble. Card wasn't paying attention and is now paying the price. All authors should avoid being too extreme, but should have causes. The thing is that if you do a bit of research, it will be readily apparent which way our world has been heading for a very long time and to buck that trend is to ask for trouble. Sometimes opinions are best left in private. A person who engages in extreme politics risks cutting their audience in half. It is hard enough to be a writer without doing that to yourself.
There are different opinions of how to handle this movie. Some are calling for a complete boycott on the chance that Card might earn some more money or that they might green light a sequel. I don't share that view. A movie is a group effort, even if it is an adaption of a written story. You have hundreds or thousands of people who got together to turn a writer's vision into a visual spectacle. In particular, the actors who have taken part in this production deserve our support. With this story being mainly about children, many of the best young stars in Hollywood are in it. I'm sure that everyone involved in the production is acutely aware of Card's homophobia.
David Gerrold today posted a very reasoned argument why we should not boycott the movie and I whole-heartedly agree with him. Yes, Card's views are reprehensible, but he rarely put that into his stories and this movie is a great vehicle for the Hollywood professionals who were involved. We just need to send the message that we want no more of Card's work brought to life by Hollywood. I think they have got that already. Though, if not for Card's views, this could have been a good series for a studio to invest in.
This brings me to authors and politics. Authors dabble in politics at their own risk. Card has dabbled and lost. sometimes, especially far out from the final outcome, it can be hard to know which side is safe. But in this case, Card became more active that closer this topic came to gaining national acceptance. That is always a recipe for disaster and Card is now a poster child for it.
I sometimes dabble in political discourse, but I do my best to not be extreme. It is the extreme views that more often get you in trouble. Card wasn't paying attention and is now paying the price. All authors should avoid being too extreme, but should have causes. The thing is that if you do a bit of research, it will be readily apparent which way our world has been heading for a very long time and to buck that trend is to ask for trouble. Sometimes opinions are best left in private. A person who engages in extreme politics risks cutting their audience in half. It is hard enough to be a writer without doing that to yourself.
Quiet Summers
Well, quiet at least here on my blog. I can't say the summer is quiet in general. The day job is busy, the home life is busy, and I'm trying to do some reading and editing at the same time. Plus I'm planning 3 writing projects. I can't say I set out to deliberately mirror Lucas' long promised 9 part saga, but it has turned into that. I have written the first three novels in Ven's journey. Now I'm working on the second three (1 written but not edited, 1 planned but not written, and 1 yet to be determined). The last three have always been a no-brainer. If you've picked up Edge of Hyperspace, the last story is a bit of a preview of what will come. War always makes for good stories. After that I haven't decided, but Ven will retire from the featured role in novels and it probably will descend on Chup. Plus there are other stories to tell. Plus I love short stories so I probably will come up with a few more collections.
So while I may be quiet in my social media output at the moment, I am far from quiet behind the scenes.
So while I may be quiet in my social media output at the moment, I am far from quiet behind the scenes.
June 10, 2013
Sexism In Speculative Fiction
Here we are, already a decade and a bit into the 21st century, and we again have to put up with holdover ideas from the 19th century. Let me be clear right up front. Sexism, either intentional or accidental, has no place. Especially not in any of the areas of Speculative Fiction. Women are just as capable of writing and serving as lead characters as men. Any thought to the contrary belongs to the 19th century.
I believe in full equally. In gender, sexual orientation, race, nationality, religion, etc. In all things. That said, I also believe in being historically accurate when writing a period piece. But there is a big difference between writing a sexist character from the 19th century (or even early 20th century) and being sexist in your writing.
This subject has only arisen because of a bit of a fiasco with the SFWA quarterly Bulletin. For their 200th issue, they featured a very classic painting of Red Sonja standing over the body of her enemy with a bloody sword. Problem is she is scantily clad. A great many people object to that type of image, and they have every right to. But rather than have respect for that opinion, Mike Resnick and Barry Malzberg ranted in the 202nd issue about censorship. While I personally do not have an issue with how Red Sonja was dressed (her in-world associate, Conan, is usually pictured in the male equivalent), it was inappropriate for the subject matter of that issue and I have a big issue with how Resnick and Malzberg handled it.
Rather than coming across as the wise older gentlemen of the field, they came across as angry teens caught doing something they shouldn't. Being a writer is not just about stringing words together, anyone can do that. It is about doing it skillfully. One part of that skill is knowing what to defend and what is outdated rubbish. Yes, a particular editor might have had incredible looks, but there is a way to say it that is sexist and a way that is neutral. You don't defend someone who flubbed it just on the grounds that the comment was innocent enough. And you really don't defend it in a manner that comes off as even more sexist than the original comment.
I read a scanned copy of the Resnick/Malzberg dialog in question and I found it so offensive I didn't even finish it. They need to come out of the 1960's (a la Mad Men) and join the 21st century. You have to change with the times. The SFWA is not a boys club. C.L. Moore, Andre Norton, C.J. Cherryh, Anne McCaffrey, Ann C. Crispin, and many others, already fought this battle and proved that girls are just as good as boys. We should be building a world of equals, not trying to climb back down the ladder to the ignorant beliefs of our forebearers.
I am by no means perfect myself. I discovered after the fact that I had created a world that seemed like a boy's club and I have made the conscious decision that I must rectify that as I move forward. In doing so, maybe I can comment on this problem and help be a part of the change rather than a symptom of what is wrong. Contrary to the joking of a good friend (who says I'm an alien), I am only human. I abhor hypocrisy and stupidity, but I know I am occasionally guilty of both. The thing is that I strive to be better. What we need to take away from this fiasco with the SFWA Bulletin is that sexism has no place. We need to move forward and support our sisters as they fight this old problem. Yes, some of us may make mistakes, but we shouldn't defend them.
I believe in full equally. In gender, sexual orientation, race, nationality, religion, etc. In all things. That said, I also believe in being historically accurate when writing a period piece. But there is a big difference between writing a sexist character from the 19th century (or even early 20th century) and being sexist in your writing.
This subject has only arisen because of a bit of a fiasco with the SFWA quarterly Bulletin. For their 200th issue, they featured a very classic painting of Red Sonja standing over the body of her enemy with a bloody sword. Problem is she is scantily clad. A great many people object to that type of image, and they have every right to. But rather than have respect for that opinion, Mike Resnick and Barry Malzberg ranted in the 202nd issue about censorship. While I personally do not have an issue with how Red Sonja was dressed (her in-world associate, Conan, is usually pictured in the male equivalent), it was inappropriate for the subject matter of that issue and I have a big issue with how Resnick and Malzberg handled it.
Rather than coming across as the wise older gentlemen of the field, they came across as angry teens caught doing something they shouldn't. Being a writer is not just about stringing words together, anyone can do that. It is about doing it skillfully. One part of that skill is knowing what to defend and what is outdated rubbish. Yes, a particular editor might have had incredible looks, but there is a way to say it that is sexist and a way that is neutral. You don't defend someone who flubbed it just on the grounds that the comment was innocent enough. And you really don't defend it in a manner that comes off as even more sexist than the original comment.
I read a scanned copy of the Resnick/Malzberg dialog in question and I found it so offensive I didn't even finish it. They need to come out of the 1960's (a la Mad Men) and join the 21st century. You have to change with the times. The SFWA is not a boys club. C.L. Moore, Andre Norton, C.J. Cherryh, Anne McCaffrey, Ann C. Crispin, and many others, already fought this battle and proved that girls are just as good as boys. We should be building a world of equals, not trying to climb back down the ladder to the ignorant beliefs of our forebearers.
I am by no means perfect myself. I discovered after the fact that I had created a world that seemed like a boy's club and I have made the conscious decision that I must rectify that as I move forward. In doing so, maybe I can comment on this problem and help be a part of the change rather than a symptom of what is wrong. Contrary to the joking of a good friend (who says I'm an alien), I am only human. I abhor hypocrisy and stupidity, but I know I am occasionally guilty of both. The thing is that I strive to be better. What we need to take away from this fiasco with the SFWA Bulletin is that sexism has no place. We need to move forward and support our sisters as they fight this old problem. Yes, some of us may make mistakes, but we shouldn't defend them.
June 3, 2013
Coming Soon - The Twelfth Doctor
It seems that the news that Matt Smith would be returning for Series 8 of the new Doctor Who was premature. Although he was reported to state that he would in early may, the official word has come out from BBC, with quotes form Matt and Stephen Moffat, that Matt will depart after the Christmas Special. While that means the spoilers I previously mentioned about the 50th Anniversary Special are still correct, it means that we will soon have a new Doctor. The twelfth and next to last. While we know nothing of who might be cast or what direction they may take, we do know that we are soon to reach the time of the Valeyard, an amalgamation of the Doctor from between his twelfth and final incarnations.
Speculation is brewing as to who might be cast as the new Doctor. Some wonder if we will see some variation in race or gender. I doubt it, but I wouldn't bet against it. I would guess they will play it safe to avoid alienating fans. What we can expect without question is a fantastic actor who will do the role proud. While I am sorry to see Matt leave, I am excited at the prospects a new Doctor brings.
Speculation is brewing as to who might be cast as the new Doctor. Some wonder if we will see some variation in race or gender. I doubt it, but I wouldn't bet against it. I would guess they will play it safe to avoid alienating fans. What we can expect without question is a fantastic actor who will do the role proud. While I am sorry to see Matt leave, I am excited at the prospects a new Doctor brings.
May 23, 2013
Doctor Who 50th Anniversary Special Information
If you consider casting news to be spoilers, then you might want to avert you eyes. At this point the cast is about all we know, but it does provide some interesting information.
What we do know leads us to a gathering of three doctors. Our current 11th Doctor, of course, his predecessor, the 10th Doctor (David Tennent is back), and a future Doctor. There is no indication whether John Hurt is playing and old 11th (doubtful), the 12th, or the 13th incarnation. Just that he is the Doctor. It is the first time they have looked into the future like that.
That, plus the casting news the Matt Smith and Jenna-Louise Coleman will be back for an 8th season, means that we won't be seeing a regeneration or anything happening to Clara.
We also know that Rose is back, as is Kate Stewart. IMDB gives a few more cast members in roles that either are yet known or that don't mean much.
There are no hints of the plot as of yet. While I am more than willing to divulge a great many spoilers, Doctor who is a show with a lot of mystery and maintaining that is a good thing. I won't be looking for or sharing the great secrets of the plot, only the initial setup.
One cool thing I found was the following video:
Most of the rest of what I have heard are rumors. Some say that John Hurt's Doctor isn't a future one, but a past one. The rumored antagonists include the Zygons and Omega. And Queen Elizabeth I may make an appearance. But I can't trace any of these back to a source of any repute. So I will wait and see. More will follow as I know more.
One of the more interesting setting tidbits is that we might be revisiting Coal Hill School and Totter's Lane. It remains to be seen if this is actually connected to the 50th Anniversary Special or if it is a false link from sets used for An Adventure in Space and Time. In any case, it looks like Moffet has a wild ride in store for us.
What we do know leads us to a gathering of three doctors. Our current 11th Doctor, of course, his predecessor, the 10th Doctor (David Tennent is back), and a future Doctor. There is no indication whether John Hurt is playing and old 11th (doubtful), the 12th, or the 13th incarnation. Just that he is the Doctor. It is the first time they have looked into the future like that.
That, plus the casting news the Matt Smith and Jenna-Louise Coleman will be back for an 8th season, means that we won't be seeing a regeneration or anything happening to Clara.
We also know that Rose is back, as is Kate Stewart. IMDB gives a few more cast members in roles that either are yet known or that don't mean much.
There are no hints of the plot as of yet. While I am more than willing to divulge a great many spoilers, Doctor who is a show with a lot of mystery and maintaining that is a good thing. I won't be looking for or sharing the great secrets of the plot, only the initial setup.
One cool thing I found was the following video:
Most of the rest of what I have heard are rumors. Some say that John Hurt's Doctor isn't a future one, but a past one. The rumored antagonists include the Zygons and Omega. And Queen Elizabeth I may make an appearance. But I can't trace any of these back to a source of any repute. So I will wait and see. More will follow as I know more.
One of the more interesting setting tidbits is that we might be revisiting Coal Hill School and Totter's Lane. It remains to be seen if this is actually connected to the 50th Anniversary Special or if it is a false link from sets used for An Adventure in Space and Time. In any case, it looks like Moffet has a wild ride in store for us.
May 20, 2013
Star Trek At The Movies
With this new film now out and through its opening weekend, I thought it might be fun to see how it stacked up to its predecessors. The numbers tell an interesting story.
First, any comparison over such a span of time cannot be done by just comparing the total dollars. The new movies always win so it is an unfair comparison. Fortunately the best site for finding a movie's stats, Box Office Mojo, tracks based on both actual dollars and adjusting for inflation. I found some startling information.
Some of what I'm about to delve into breaks down these movies in extreme detail. Hollywood and the theater business have changed immensely in the past 40 years. 40 years ago we had lots of single screen theaters and a growing number of multi-screen theaters. These days, there are few of those single screen theaters left and the number of screens in the muli-screen theaters had jumped. I've only lived in Colorado for about 30 years, but in that time we have gone from the largest being a 4 screen theater to the largest being a 16 screen theater. My point is that an opening weekend today does not compare to one from 30 years ago. A movie today can open on over 3,000 screens and the same type of movie 30 years ago might have opened with less than half that number.
The surprising thing is which Star Trek films come out on top. Star Trek (2009) wins in just about every category. Just about. When you start looking at the number of theaters and look at the average per theater, Star Trek: The Motion Picture did the best. While it played on under 900 screens, each theater took in the modern equivalent of $44,000. Whereas with the 2009 film, each theater only earned the equivalent of $20,800. Just using the numeral of the movie, they stand in a per theater ranking of, 1, 4, 2, 11, 3, 8, 6, 12, 7, 5, 9, 10.
Just in case that might be a fluke, let's look at the total movie income. STID will be ranked where it currently falls, which is no indication of where it will finish up. I considered leaving it out, but it is still interesting where it falls after just the opening weekend. The movies rank as follows for total income; 11, 1, 4, 2, 3, 8, 7, 6, 9, 5, 12, 10. Yes, that is correct. STID, just in it's opening weekend beat Star Trek: Nemesis. And that is adjusted for inflation. The surprise, at least for most die-hard fans, is that of the older movies, Star Trek: The motion Picture raked in the most money (adjusted for inflation). Even not adjusted for inflation, it ranks fifth.
One of the things I'm attempting to point out is that box office income does not always equate to quality. Other factors are in play. At the time it came out, Star Trek: The Motion Picture was the first new Star Trek since the original series was cancelled. It rode the wave of the Star Wars driven science fiction mania. The story is weak and the film has too many special effects. It is a slow, cerebral piece, just the way Roddenberry wanted it. I think the 2009 film had a similar boost, being the first Star Trek since Enterprise was cancelled and done by J.J. Abrams. That leaves the two films that have taken their place at the top of the list of popular Star Trek movies, and the linking one. Films 4 and 2 are the fan favorites and 3 isn't far behind. With the number of people interested in a good action film, STID may rise in rank to knock some of them down (total income adjusted for inflation), but I doubt if it will beat its predecessor and it will have a hard time bumping Star Trek: The Motion Picture. In any case, it will be interesting to see where it finally falls.
First, any comparison over such a span of time cannot be done by just comparing the total dollars. The new movies always win so it is an unfair comparison. Fortunately the best site for finding a movie's stats, Box Office Mojo, tracks based on both actual dollars and adjusting for inflation. I found some startling information.
Some of what I'm about to delve into breaks down these movies in extreme detail. Hollywood and the theater business have changed immensely in the past 40 years. 40 years ago we had lots of single screen theaters and a growing number of multi-screen theaters. These days, there are few of those single screen theaters left and the number of screens in the muli-screen theaters had jumped. I've only lived in Colorado for about 30 years, but in that time we have gone from the largest being a 4 screen theater to the largest being a 16 screen theater. My point is that an opening weekend today does not compare to one from 30 years ago. A movie today can open on over 3,000 screens and the same type of movie 30 years ago might have opened with less than half that number.
The surprising thing is which Star Trek films come out on top. Star Trek (2009) wins in just about every category. Just about. When you start looking at the number of theaters and look at the average per theater, Star Trek: The Motion Picture did the best. While it played on under 900 screens, each theater took in the modern equivalent of $44,000. Whereas with the 2009 film, each theater only earned the equivalent of $20,800. Just using the numeral of the movie, they stand in a per theater ranking of, 1, 4, 2, 11, 3, 8, 6, 12, 7, 5, 9, 10.
Just in case that might be a fluke, let's look at the total movie income. STID will be ranked where it currently falls, which is no indication of where it will finish up. I considered leaving it out, but it is still interesting where it falls after just the opening weekend. The movies rank as follows for total income; 11, 1, 4, 2, 3, 8, 7, 6, 9, 5, 12, 10. Yes, that is correct. STID, just in it's opening weekend beat Star Trek: Nemesis. And that is adjusted for inflation. The surprise, at least for most die-hard fans, is that of the older movies, Star Trek: The motion Picture raked in the most money (adjusted for inflation). Even not adjusted for inflation, it ranks fifth.
One of the things I'm attempting to point out is that box office income does not always equate to quality. Other factors are in play. At the time it came out, Star Trek: The Motion Picture was the first new Star Trek since the original series was cancelled. It rode the wave of the Star Wars driven science fiction mania. The story is weak and the film has too many special effects. It is a slow, cerebral piece, just the way Roddenberry wanted it. I think the 2009 film had a similar boost, being the first Star Trek since Enterprise was cancelled and done by J.J. Abrams. That leaves the two films that have taken their place at the top of the list of popular Star Trek movies, and the linking one. Films 4 and 2 are the fan favorites and 3 isn't far behind. With the number of people interested in a good action film, STID may rise in rank to knock some of them down (total income adjusted for inflation), but I doubt if it will beat its predecessor and it will have a hard time bumping Star Trek: The Motion Picture. In any case, it will be interesting to see where it finally falls.
