Jacob Foxx's Blog, page 62

Will We Ever Fight with Battle Mechs?

When I was a kid, I loved two robot cartoons: Battletech and Transformers. The idea of giant fighting robots has fascinated me for so long, it became an obsession. As I got older and learned more about warfare, it was becoming more and more evident that I would probably never see giant mechs fighting it out in any conflict. More recently, I’ve come to wonder if a battle mech is a practical weapon system in any era. Unfortunately, I haven’t really found an answer.

The idea of a mech or powered suit, is almost a nostalgic reach to the past when warfare was more of a melee, more individualistic, and less dominated by machines, technologies, and long-distance weaponry. There is something almost romantic about two warriors staring each other face to face rather than a drone pilot pushing buttons on a controller in some trailer in Florida.

Advances in robotics make such weapons feasible, even if we are perhaps a few decades away from making them an effective weapon. For now, the dominant weapon systems are the tank, attack helicopter, and fighter. To become a real weapon, the battle mech would need to be comparable or superior to these.

To build a battle mech today, probably wouldn’t be worth the investment. It would be extremely expensive. Most of the technologies needed to make it function have not been developed yet. Current robots are very slow, awkward, and would therefore need serious upgrades, requiring heavy investment.

Second, a mech would be very vulnerable to attack. A tank is survivable because of heavy armor and a small silhouette. It is not easy to hit at a long range and can hide behind obstacles. A tall robot won’t be able to hide and won’t have the same armor protection. Even if such armor protection were available, it would make the machine extremely heavy, requiring a incredibly powerful motor. Mechs also have several vulnerable spots, particularly their legs and knees. Knock one out, and the mech will be on its ass and have a hard time getting back up.

Walking is not easy operation. Powering a wheeled or tracked vehicle is easy. Powering a walker requires a sophistication in movement, motion, and balance that is almost impossible today. Sure its easy for humans, but try and program a machine to do it.

Finally, firepower. The battle mech would need to offer incredible firepower to equal or surpass the tank. A robot holding two 120mm cannons would be very heavy and liable to fall over from the recoil.

Okay J, we are decades away from an operable battle mech. No duh. So what would it take to make the battle mech feasible?

In the future, I think it begins and ends with propulsion. A mech needs power to execute all the various movements of its legs, arms, torso, and anything else we put on it. A new propulsion system is needed that can fit in a robot and put out more power than any diesel or gas turbine engine. Overcome the propulsion issue, and the mech becomes a little more realistic.

Mobility is the second challenge. A mech would need to be faster and more maneuverable than its chief rival, the tank. If it could climb steep hills or mountains, that would be a serious advantage. Another advantage would be the ability to swim or traverse water without being knocked over by the current. A tank can drive through several feet of water but most bodies of water on the battlefield will likely have depths exceeding twenty feet.

A mech must be able to balance itself with little trouble, walk, run, jump, and perhaps roll and push itself off the ground relatively quickly and easily. Otherwise, a simple knockdown would render it ineffective. It must be the most mobile land weapon on the battlefield.

To be superior to the attack helicopter or fighter jet, a mech needs to carry heavier firepower. The drawback of aircraft today are that it has limited firepower in terms of ammunition. It needs to return to base to reload and refuel. The more ammunition and fuel it carries, the heavier and slower it is, and thus more vulnerable. Aircraft are lightweight and incredibly nasty, but can’t hold territory or a ground position. That is what tanks and infantry are for.

More firepower/ammo means a mech can hold territory. In terms of weaponry, direct energy weapons are very practical because they don’t have the recoil and don’t need to carry heavy ammunition. Whatever the weapon, a mech can carry bigger ones and more of them.

Armor protection is the final challenge. What is to stop someone firing a missile right at its knee, taking it down? The mech would have to have superior armor that can withstand small and medium arms. If an infantryman can fire a rocket and take down a mech, no one will bother investing in the development and construction of a fighting robot.

This brings us to the cost challenge. If anyone is going to fork out the cash, a mech as to have a high return on investment. It has to be durable, easy to maintain, and extremely difficult to kill, to be worth the investment.

If its possible, the mech is superior to the tank in speed, mobility, firepower, and survivability. It is superior to fighter aircraft in terms of firepower and the ability to defend territory. When there is combat on an alien planet with extreme terrain, a tank is nearly useless. A tank needs roads or relatively flat terrain to move at adequate speeds. A mech can also carry more armor since it is bigger, with a larger propulsion system.

Cities, fortifications, bunkers, and other hardened targets would not be able to withstand an assault. It must a combination of weapon systems, putting armor, cavalry, reconnaissance, and artillery in one machine.

Is it possible? Who knows. It requires a new form of energy, a new armor material strong than any in existence today, and new direct energy weapons not yet in existence. These things may not be possible. If not, it is possible the attack helicopter combined with tanks and infantry will remain the preferred means of conventional warfare. In space, aircraft and spacecraft become of vital importance.

Still, it is fun to imagine enormous battles with hundreds of mechs smashing away at one another with lasers, rockets, maybe even giant melee weapons.

J

The post Will We Ever Fight with Battle Mechs? appeared first on Jacob Foxx.

The Tesla Model S, a Glimpse of the Future

For almost three decades, people have been waiting for the electric car. And, for three decades, we’ve driven gas-guzzling, air polluting cars. Why hasn’t science been able to make this highly sought after breakthrough? With the millions in research and development spending and government subsidies, it is a wonder why we aren’t all zooming around in these things. However, this year I think the breakthrough has finally happened. It is the Tesla Model S. From a pure car-lover’s perspective, the Model S is simply bad ass.

For decades, many have declared it vitally important to kick our addiction to oil to reduce pollution and decrease the need to meddle in the complex and messy politics of the Middle East. To add further incentive, gas prices have been ridiculously high for the past few years.

They say necessity is he mother of invention. Why hasn’t she given birth to the electric car?

Electric cars have been around for a while, but have sold poorly. GM built and sold the EV1 back in 1997 but managed to sell only about one thousand of them. Today there are several electric car models available, yet none are among the top 10 best selling vehicles in the US or the world. The simple answer is these electric cars generally suck. Gas-powered cars perform better, have greater range, and are much cheaper.

American car buyers certainly support reducing air pollution. However, when presented a choice between a weak electric car, and a cheaper, more capable gas-powered car, the choice is easy. There is no noticeable improvement in the environment when you buy an electric car. In fact, most people don’t notice air pollution unless they live in the middle of a heavily industrialized city. This makes the appeal of the electric car less practical and more intangible.

Still, automakers have had a long time to build a competitive electric car. What’s been the problem? There are two reasons: the technology has not fully matured, and automakers have taken a backwards approach to designing and marketing them. The Tesla Model S is the first car to overcome both of these problems.

The Model S is the most advanced car on the market. Tesla owns over 250 patents related to the car, with many more pending. There are so many new innovations it is difficult to know where to start. The car is fast, agile, luxurious, and incredibly safe. It is actually among safest cars ever built. Not only that, it is beautiful. Check out the picture above!

It is a technological marvel.

The big question is whether it has a competitive price. The Model S has a hefty price tag at $70,000, but unlike other electric cars, like the Chevy Volt, the Model S isn’t competing in the compact or midsize class. It is a high-performance luxury sedan designed to compete with incredible machines like the BMW 7-Series, Mercedes S-Class, Lexus LS, and Jaguar XJ. Compared to these luxury sedans, the Model S is competitively priced.

It is all about competition. The Chevy Volt costs over $34,000 (around $27,000 with the federal tax credit). For that price you can get a bigger, faster, sportier looking car with better range (e.g. Ford Fusion, Ford Taurus, Chevy Malibu, Chevy Impala, Honda Accord, etc.). It’s also easy to find a gas station; try finding a recharging station.

The Model S has limited range (120-250 miles depending on battery package) and requires a recharge but this drawback may not be as problematic as it is with the Volt. Midsize, compacts, and trucks are utilitarian vehicles. Americans want as much capability as possible out of their cars because they intend to use them every day and for every purpose. A luxury sedan is different. Luxury car owners don’t use them as workhorses because they are just so damn beautiful. They aren’t for road trips or heavy driving. For this purpose, the Model S is perfect.

This is why I think the Tesla Model S is the breakthrough electric car enthusiasts have been waiting for. It is the first electric car that can truly compete with gas-powered cars.

New technological breakthroughs are rarely economical when they are first introduced into the market. Companies need to recoup the costs of research and development of products, which increases the cost dramatically. Trying to design and sell an electric Volkswagen (people’s car) just isn’t realistic.

The first personal computers and laptops were very expensive, only affordable to large corporations. The first cellphones were thousands of dollars and bought only by wealthy businessmen like Gordon Gecko.

Today, almost every home has a computer with access to the internet. Children as young as twelve now carry cellphones.

Unlike Chevrolet and many other automakers for them, Tesla Motors decided to develop a luxury class electric car, marketing it only to a select clientele. This makes its large price tag much less of a disadvantage. Most cars in the class exceed $70,000 in MSRP.

Environmentalists have never liked this approach. If only the super wealthy drive electric cars, there won’t be any noticeable decrease in carbon emissions. In order to make a difference, everyone needs to drive electric cars.

This shortsighted approach has led to numerous failures in electric car sales. Instead of building the car they wanted to sell, they should’ve focused on building a car they could sell.

The free market approach of Tesla, IBM, Apple, and other great innovators eventually delivers these advanced new products at an affordable price. The catch is it doesn’t happen overnight. Before the price comes down, they need to see some return on investment up front on their products.

Tesla is doing it the right way. Their success is allowing them to finance new models including an SUV and a more affordable sedan in the coming years. It is a demonstration of why the free market is absolutely greatest system for producing wealth and increasing standards of living. By following this model, Tesla will be able to develop and sell a midsize vehicle with superior performance and safety at a competitive price.

Check out the Model S at http://www.teslamotors.com. I think it is the first in a wave of new electric cars that are coming in the next ten years. It will be a while before gas-powered cars are fully replaced, but I think we’ll make some pretty serious progress in reducing oil consumption and air pollution from cars.

Jacob

The post The Tesla Model S, a Glimpse of the Future appeared first on Jacob Foxx.

Less Superheroes, More Firefly

I just finished watching Firefly this weekend (I don’t know why it took so long). Anyway, after getting my fill of the 14 episodes, I re-watched Serenity. The movie and the TV show are such high quality, while Hollywood treats us to the same buffet of superhero movies (The Wolverine, Iron Man 3), sequels, and reboots. I truly hope for the show to be resurrected or a sequel to Serenity (I know I just took a shot at sequels) in order to provide greater diversity from the unoriginal junk coming from Hollywood.

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy superhero movies. It is just that Hollywood is spending ridiculous amounts of money pumping out four or five a year, for the past few years. This year, all of them were either sequels or reboots. It’s time for something new.

Firefly is steampunk speculative fiction. The technology is a hybrid of 19th century wild west and near future tech. While it takes place five hundred years in the future, there wasn’t 500 years of scientific progress. Steampunk is often alternate history or actually utilizes steam technology, while Firefly does not. I don’t want to get into a debate about the definition of steampunk. Instead, let’s just say Firefly has a collision of past and future technology that is highly similar to steampunk fiction.

However, for me it is not this mashing of eras that makes the show great. I love Firefly/Serenity for three reasons: its frontier individualism theme, awesome characters, and brilliant dialogue.

The universe of Firefly lays out the classic struggle between social collectivism and individualism. The crew all seek to live away from the regimented, controlled, ordered societies of the inner planets, known as the alliance. They are individualists who have decided on exile rather than fight for their ideals. On the frontier, there is very little government, religious institutions, or anything else resembling modern society. The planets are sparsely populated, with limited resources, yet the people there work to make a life and don’t complain much. Some trade the modern technology and urban lifestyle for the more primitive but freer worlds. They certainly aren’t perfect, like many towns in the old wild west, but every person has a greater voice in their own destiny.

The people are forced to deal more closely with one another rather than with an impersonal government. This hits on the veneration of rural pastoralism and the critique of the urban industrial, and post-industrial eras. In the show, the cities are totalitarian, corrupt, and cold, while the villages are free, warm, and virtuous.

There is also the portrayal of self-reliance. Individuals defend their own lives, property, and rights through force rather than relying on the police, the courts, or the military.

Firefly is show about liberty. It is extraordinarily well done and avoids the common cliches you see in political discussions of libertarianism.

It is particularly powerful because the characters are so unforgettable. Malcolm Reynolds, in particular, is a fantastic leading character and hero. Nathan Fillion fills the role perfectly. He is a soldier, with an aura of command and authority at times. At other times he is a playful guy, preferring to be an equal to his crew. The war crushed his idealism, turning him into a cynic when it comes to politics and religion. He wants people to think he’s just a typical pirate/smuggler who cares only about profit. In reality, the idealistic soldier is still there just underneath the surface. Mal is a hero, whether he wants to be or not.

In many ways, he is similar to Logan/Wolverine. Both have a strong sense of right and wrong, and simply cannot stand idly by when wrongs are being committed. It is in their nature to protect the innocent and dispense justice.

Wash and Zoey are a great couple. Wash is the wise-cracking pilot, with great lines but gets serious when needed. His wife, Zoey, is the stoic second in command, but has a sarcastic side herself. Jayne, is a stereotypical redneck idiot who has few principles.  He is driven by greed, and lacks good sense. The show throws him plenty of curve balls but he is simply too dense to learn anything. Still, he can be very funny, especially when he struggles to keep up with the rest.

Kaylee is simply adorable. She’s attractive and smart with a childish innocence. She is an eternal optimist and loves being around people. Despite the rough setting, her line of work, and the horrible things she sees around her, she maintains her untouchable innocence.

What I love about these characters is that Whedon did not try to glorify them or make them superior to the alliance citizenry. They are very human, flawed in one way or another. None of them are particularly well-educated, aren’t good examples for others, tend to make several mistakes on their jobs, and aren’t terribly inspiring.

In a way that is hard to explain, they are truly glorious and beautiful people.

The Tams are different. They are the children of a wealthy, upper class family who lived within the collectivist system. Simon doesn’t have much interest in assimilating into the new individualist culture, and sees his time on Serenity as a means to an end, namely avoiding prison. His life is dedicated to his sister. In the show and the movie, Simon will sometimes become attached to the crew but quickly detaches. It is likely he doesn’t want to admit he genuinely likes them and admires them. His elitist upbringing makes it difficult for him to see them as anything more than a ship full of redneck criminals.

River is severely troubled, suffering from symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia. Her constant breakdowns and gibberish get annoying at times, but in the movie she rises out of insanity to become a semi-lucid member of the crew. The fact that she’s a 100 pound weapon certainly makes her character more interesting.

Inara and Shepherd are not as compelling. The pairing of an escort and a preacher on the same ship sounds like the premise of a comedy, but, in reality, the two rarely interact. Shepherd is barely a preacher anyway. Like many modern movies and TV shows, the story tends to bend away from constricting religious morals and ideals. This show makes a mockery of it, pushing the character Shepherd into committing acts against his beliefs. He does almost no “shepherding” during the show, but plays that role in the movie.

Finally, there is the dialogue: it is brilliant! They are so damn witty it makes me sick. The mixing of Mandarin and English is pretty original too. The southern/western redneck dialect plays well even as they throw in Mandarin and the occasional big word. It reminds me a lot of the dialogue in Pirates of the Caribbean.

It is like that old cliche “never judge a book by its cover.” You look at the crew of Serenity and hear the way they talk, you’d expect them to be uneducated idiots with nothing much to offer. Instead, they are quite wise, insightful, and are heroes in their own right.

Firefly/Serenity is smart, funny, creative, and at times emotionally intense. I think this is a recipe for success. If you look at Game of Thrones, Ender’s Game, True Blood, and Doctor Who you see shows with compelling characters, smart dialogue, and story elements that you don’t see very often.

Sometimes we all need to watch a summer action movie that is easy on the mind. The abundance of explosions, sexy female leads, cliche supporting cast, funny one-liners, and logically ambiguous plots can be a lot of fun, but there are also those times you want to see something with a little more substance. Firefly provided that for one season.

Despite the desperate attempts of their small cult following, the show has not been resurrected and no more movies are coming. That fact is neither the show nor the movie did well. The cult just isn’t big enough I guess.

In terms of storyline, I am not sure a resurrection is possible. The movie killed off two main characters and closed a major part of the story line, mainly the government’s pursuit of River Tam. It also revealed the origin of the Reavers. I don’t think the show can function with that much trauma to its core. Like I said, the characters are the key. The movie also shifts the footing of the show from frontier individualism to outlaws fighting Big Brother. This takes away from the frontier individualism, and instead replaces it with a crusade of sorts.

The only way for the show can be resurrected, in my opinion, is to ignore the movie and start from the last episode of the TV show. Before, anyone can think about what the resurrected show would look like, the rights to Firefly must be wrestled away from FOX.

Here’s one idea: if the fans could organize a boycott of FOX, all of its shows and sister stations (FX), it might help lower the asking price for the rights. I could definitely get on board since there is nothing on FOX I watch any more. This could pose a problem for others because it would involve rejecting Family Guy, American Dad, The Simpsons, Bob’s Burgers, Bones, American Idol, The Cleveland Show, Glee, and X Factor. TV stations get most of their revenue from advertising, which has its costs calculated by ratings. If the fans could damage the ratings of FOX, by encouraging others to stop watching the channel and it’s affiliates (FX Channel), plus avoid watching episodes on NetFlix (probably another source of revenue), it is possible.

Even if the fans can’t help resurrect Firefly, there are other shows that help fill that void left behind. Doctor Who certainly has loyal followers. Warehouse 13, Alphas, Falling Skies, and Continuum are all trying fill that unusual niche of speculative fiction with thoughtful characters and story lines. None of these are as good as Firefly, but they deserve credit for trying. Also notice none of them are on the big four (CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX). If viewers want this kind of product, it will probably be on a cable channel.

I guess maybe I’m hoping the trend extends to movies as well. 2013 has not been a good year for the genre in terms of movies. Ender’s Game is on the horizon and there are a few that are intriguing for next year but I think overall Hollywood seems stuck in a rut.

Jacob

The post Less Superheroes, More Firefly appeared first on Jacob Foxx.

Movie Review: The Wolverine

I want to know what the writers and director of this movie were thinking when they finished this one. They had a great product for the first hour to ninety minutes. Then it all fell apart. With a ridiculous and nonsensical ending, they squandered what could’ve been an awesome movie.

In 1945, Logan saved a Japanese officer, Yashida, from the atomic blast at Nagasaki. Seventy years later, Yashida is a corporate tycoon who wants to thank him. He offers to end Logan’s immortality in exchange for furthering his life. Before he can make a final decision, the old man dies and chaos ensues. Logan is joined by Yukio, a samurai in a schoolgirl outfit kind of girl. She is likable from the start. There is also Mariko, the granddaughter of the tycoon and likely heir. She’s not as likable.

In the midst of the battle is Yashida’s doctor, a mutant by the name of Viper whose powers include the ability to produce poisons along and a knowledge of biochemistry. Unfortunately, she is a ridiculous villain, whose outfits become more skimpy as the movie progresses. By the end, she is in the traditional superhero leotard.

Hugh Jackman does an awesome job as expected. The cast, aside from Viper, is excellent actually. It wasn’t the actress really, her dialogue is just god awful.

Mariko is in grave danger throughout the movie but doesn’t really seem to fully grasp it. Her character was more of a pinball flying through the story. She doesn’t want to run her grandfather’s company. At one point she tries to end her life but Logan intervenes. This is a negative Japanese stereotype the movie should’ve avoided.

For a time, Logan’s healing ability is partially suppressed by Viper. This little obstacle slows him down but not for very long. At one point its a poison, then its a little machine inside Logan’s chest. The confusion here is another problem.

At the end, the movie gets absolutely ridiculous. There is wholesale violence, with family members slaughtering their own employees, then trying to kill one another. The Yakuza are also involved but then disappear. Why they care about what happens in a big tech company, I am not sure, other than they are enemies of the old man.

Logan’s powers are restored and he tries to save Mariko who is kidnapped by her own family TWICE. Then of course we see the giant adamantium samurai. Why they build a samurai robot, I’m not sure. It doesn’t fit in terms of the characters behind it or the story in general. The robot’s means of trying to extract Logan’s powers is also ridiculous and drops this into the teenage comic book fan demographic.

X-Men stretches science, that is expected, but it still has rules. This movie decides it doesn’t like the rules and abandons science fiction for fantasy. For the X-Men franchise, that just shouldn’t be done.

So, the good guys are all well done, the villains are ridiculous. The bad ending destroys this movie for me. It gets 2 stars and I do NOT recommend it unless you don’t care about X-Men and only want to see Hugh Jackman scream in pain, ninjas, samurais, martial arts, and plenty of blood.

Also, there is a mid-credit teaser with Magneto and Professor Xavier. Xavier is alive despite being vaporized by the Phoenix. I’ve heard rumors about X-Men: Days of Future Past. I am very worried it will kill the franchise. Time travel/alternate reality is very hard to do and can get very complicated. It also is a cheap trick to bring back dead characters.

As an X-Men fan, this movie and the teaser have me worried.

Jacob

The post Movie Review: The Wolverine appeared first on Jacob Foxx.

Power of Myth: Heroes, Antiheroes, and Fishermen

Most movies and fiction writing are essentially modern myths. Mythology doesn’t necessarily need to be about gods, supernatural creatures, or concern itself with the origins of all things. It can be as simple as Theseus returning home from defeating the Minotaur. It could also be Bruce Wayne’s transformation into the Batman or Indiana Jones’s escape from the Temple of Doom. All the great movie and book franchises of past couple decades could be described as new myths.

The dictionary definition of myth is: a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

Let’s just say it is a traditional or legendary story that typically explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature. Myths explain things about our world and our selves.

I recently read The Power of Myth, which is an edited transcript of a conversation between Joseph Campbell and Bill Moyers. Campbell is an expert in mythology, whose work influenced George Lucas and his Star Wars saga. The book itself is a big disappointment, but his thesis, I think, holds true. Myths are original stories that transcend time and speak to humanity on a very real and fundamental level.

The most common myths are hero myths.

Campbell calls the common hero characters archetypes. All stories that have a large and profound impact on a culture use an archetype. From Greece to X-Men, we admire individuals with incredible abilities and their journey towards accomplishing their great works. The comic book superhero genre is the modern manifestation of the demigod and god myths of ancient Greece (as one example). Every culture has it in some form. Campbell calls it the monomyth.

Look at today’s most successful movies and novels: James Cameron’s Avatar has Jake Sully and his journey to becoming leader of the alien Na’vi people. He becomes Turok Makto, a messianic figure in Na’Vi mythology. The Dark Knight, The Avengers, X-Men and others are all superhero/demigods in the mold of Hercules or Perseus. Katniss Everdeen is a modern Theseus, slayer of the minotaur in King Minos’s labyrinth.

Anakin Skywalker is an antihero, redeemed by his son Luke Skywalker. I think he could be Hercules, who murdered his family (course Anakin didn’t do the twelve labors, Luke did).

Star Trek, I think is similar to Jason and the Argonauts, or perhaps Jesus and his Disciples. It is a group of heroes with a legendary leader rather than a solitary hero.The Superman man in Man of Steel is clearly an extraterrestrial analogue to Jesus without the Disciples. Neo in The Matrix is also a Jesus figure as well. Some say the story of Jesus mirrors the story of the death and resurrection of Osiris in Egyptian mythology.

Even history provides heroes that come to be myths. George Washington is definitely an American hero, after the struggles early in the war he rose to overcome, defeating the British and becoming father to a new nation. Paul Revere, Abraham Lincoln, FDR, Martin Luther King, Jackie Robinson, Rosa Parks, the 1980 US Hockey Team, Henry Ford, and Steve Jobs are all heroes reaching special, almost mythical status. Whether it is in political leadership, in the face of oppression and prejudice, in sports, or in business they have accomplished incredible things that we admire.

Captain Jack Sparrow is the unlikely hero, similar to Han Solo. I think this story is more common in America than anywhere else. Most hero stories are of people with humble and lowly beginnings, not criminal beginnings. I think Wolverine of X-Men is this type as well.

Among non speculative fiction heroes there are John McClane, John Rambo, Rocky Balboa, James Bond, Indiana Jones, Jason Bourne, Jack Ryan, and Robert Langdon are all fairly similar action heroes who accomplish their deeds without supernatural power.

One counterexample of a popular franchise with no hero: Twilight. Neither Bella nor Edward are heroes. If they are, they are horrible heroes. I am ashamed to admit I’ve seen the first three movies and simply do not understand the appeal other than understanding how teenage girls relate to the somewhat awkward yet attractive Bella. In the books, I believe she is not supposed to be as attractive as Kristen Stewart. She is supposed to be very ordinary, but Hollywood is incapable of portraying ordinary women or girls. All of them must be extremely attractive, but pretend not to be.

Maybe she grows into a hero in the last few novels, I don’t know. I guess that means the complete series could be a hero’s journey. I know its a love story at its core, but there are so many better love stories. It doesn’t explain the franchise’s success.

Another counterexample: Lisbeth Salander.

Lisbeth rose from absolutely awful beginnings to be a somewhat functional person, but is far from a hero. Her great works are largely academic in nature, and she doesn’t do them for any greater good. She isn’t an example to follow at all; she’s an antihero who somehow comes out on the right side.

In writing The Fifth World novels, I wasn’t really trying to create mythic heroes. According to Campbell, I probably should have if I wanted the stories to resonate. Becca Newman is a hero to me but I think she doesn’t rise to that status until late in the second book and into the third. Alex Newman is a hero but you don’t get to see his rise. It occurs during the rebellion. I want to write a book from his perspective during the rebellion on Gaia that occurs in the middle of the first book.

I believe some stories are great because they are regular people doing heroic things. They aren’t gifted individuals or people with heroic gifts. They don’t have great power and therefore great responsibility. In the rest of their lives they could be unremarkable, even villainous.

The lesson being, you don’t have to rise or endure the hero’s journey to do heroic things.

I think this sentiment is common in Christian, Buddhist, and other cultures. It is in stressing the individual acts of kindness and compassion. You don’t do them for recognition or to become a legend. You do them because they are the right thing to do.

I think this clash is evident in the different portrayals of Jesus. One side of the mythology focuses on his divinity, his miracles, his status as King of the Jews, and his resurrection. The other side focuses on his small acts of compassion, such as for the tax collector. He is a fisherman, not a king. He has a following but wears no adornments or crown or anything of the sort.

I prefer stories that use the fisherman, not “the chosen one.”

In fact, I think there is an inherent danger in trying to live one’s life with the belief you are a “chosen one,” with the goal of accomplishing or becoming something spectacular, glorified, in an effort to become a myth. It has elements of pride and greed, which can lead to some horrible things. Don’t go looking for glory, you may do bad acts in pursuit of it.

That’s my two cents.

Jacob

The post Power of Myth: Heroes, Antiheroes, and Fishermen appeared first on Jacob Foxx.

Movie Review: Pacific Rim

I had low expectations for Pacific Rim. It had a silly premise, a B-rate cast and inhabited the same space as Battleship, which failed miserably last year. Military sci-fi, especially low-brow military sci-fi, just doesn’t have the same appeal it used to. Pacific Rim was largely what I expected, with the exception of one area, the special effects were top notch, perhaps the best I’ve seen this year.

Pacific Rim is about an alien invasion not from above but below the sea. A dimensional portal allow them to invade from the Pacific Ocean and attack coastal cities. They are very large and very tough to kill. To fight back, the world united to develop new giant robots called jaegers. The war shifts direction for a while but the alien monsters, called kaiju, just keep coming. Soon jaegers are going down faster than they can be built. So the world in its wisdom decides to build sea walls.

From the plot synopsis, this a silly movie. Why build giant robots to fight monsters when we have aircraft, warships, etc. Making war machines larger doesn’t really make them better, just more expensive. The two-person piloting system didn’t make a lot of sense either. How we managed to advance so far in seven years (movie starts in year 2020) is also a mystery. The characters are all pretty sophomoric, the portrayal of the military and politicians is pretty low-brow.

This movie is for a younger crowd or low expectation crowd who wants to be entertained by explosions and battles with monsters, not good plot or excellent storytelling. For this group I think it does well. For every other demographic it is simply too silly.

What sets it apart is the 3D special effects. The battle scenes are not frantic. You can actually tell what is happening, which some exceptions. You aren’t overwhelmed with fast moving action, bright explosions, etc. The 3D is solid. Compared to the frenetic pace of Iron Man 3, Man of Steel, and others this is welcome relief.

I’d give it 3 stars. So far the movie has bombed, getting around $57 million in one week in the US which is nowhere near its $190 million budget. It has done okay outside the US but they will be lucky to break even.

Hollywood will have to take a look at its summer blockbuster approach. I’ve read a few articles on it arguing that throwing out $200 million movies every week probably isn’t the best financial strategy. It wears audiences out and tests their willingness to spend $12 to $15 to go to the theaters EVERY weekend. Many agree the release dates of these movies were clumped together forcing them to compete with one another.

The budgets on these movies were enormous. This raises expectations/need of box office returns. Studios probably need around $400 million plus just to break even.

Among action movies Iron Man 3, Man of Steel, Fast & Furious 6, Star Trek Into Darkness, World War Z all managed to break $400 million. Still, you hope for profit with these films and my guess is only a couple were actually profitable.

The bombs include Olympus has Fallen, White House Down (essentially same movie), Hansel and Gretel, After Earth, Jack the Giant Slayer, The Lone Ranger, Oblivion, G.I. Joe, and World War Z (although it probably broke even).

It looks like audience appetite for fantasy has retreated, or at least they weren’t too interested in the movies offered this year. Straight gunfights and traditional shoot’em up action also struggled this year.

Coming up is The Wolverine, which has me excited. 2Guns could be good as it combines two favorites of mine Denzel Washington and Mark Wahlberg. I’m suspicious of Elysium and have no interest in seeing the new Percy Jackson movie. I doubt Riddick will do well either.

The most anticipated movie for me this year is Ender’s Game. It might save the year for science fiction.

Jacob

The post Movie Review: Pacific Rim appeared first on Jacob Foxx.

Book Review: The Left Hand of Darkness

For the last month or two I’ve been reading mostly literary fiction or some non-fiction. About two weeks ago I finally moved back to sci-fi and finished Ursula Le Guin’s The Left Hand of Darkness. It is considered by many a masterpiece and classic work of social science fiction. It doesn’t rely on hard tech, cool gadgets, it is about humanity’s experience in the future.

The main character Genryl Ai is an Envoy from an intergalactic alliance sent to a discovered world with a pre-industrial age civilization of humanoids. They are smart, very human-like, except that they change gender periodically from male to female. The unique quality of their species makes them pretty fascinating, from their culture to their politics to their psychology. Ai’s goal is to sign a treaty of friendship and alliance, almost like trying to get a new country to join the UN. It is a challenge due to suspicion, mistrust, and disbelief in his true identity.

The planet is called Winter (Gethen in the alien language) because it is a frozen world. The people live like Eskimos or Vikings except they are fairly peaceful. War is extremely rare while individual acts of violence are common. It is also a world divided into countries, making it difficult to treat with for the envoy.

The Left Hand of Darkness is innovative for its gender theme. The Gethenian aliens are unique in that they have no sexual identity, they are all the same. They periodically go through kemmer, in which they are essentially in heat. How this impacts a semi-advanced society is what makes this book interesting.

For the most part, the Gethenians are human aside from the gender issue. In terms of politics, social organization, communication, and physiology they are human. Le Guin didn’t really paint a dramatically different alien world. It was more like a human world with a sexual twist.

The political aspect was well-done and very realistic. It played a significant role in the story but didn’t dominate it. The narration was very cool, combining the first person perspectives of Genryl and one of the aliens named Estraven. There were also interludes with Gethenian myths and creation stories. You learn a little of their religions as well, one of which is highly similar to Taoism.

Le Guin is a Taoist and an expert on the eastern faith. As a Taoist myself, this made me want to read this book and see a sci-fi take on the religion. Unfortunately, it didn’t really come to the forefront very often. The religions on Gethen were given general descriptions and some explanation but didn’t pierce into them much. By comparison, Dune was far more involved in diving into religious belief systems and experience.

The descriptions of Winter/Gethen were very well done and easy to follow. I didn’t have to work hard to picture what was going on. The dialogue was excellent as well, easy to follow and felt natural. The ending was abrupt and a little unsatisfying given the captivating narration in the middle and later half of the book. There are also tons of neologisms which make the first part of the book difficult to understand. By the middle it is clear though.

It is a 4 star book, good but not great. I think the gender theme is what catapulted it to award-winning, classic status. In 1969, it was groundbreaking. Today, in the age of same-sex marriage, it is not quite as provocative.

Jacob

The post Book Review: The Left Hand of Darkness appeared first on Jacob Foxx.

The Cover has Arrived

The cover has arrived. The Fifth World: The Times That Try Men’s Souls is a month away. Here is a quick description:

 

Gaia’s struggle for freedom continues in the sequel to The Fifth World.

Their secret is out. Earth has learned the truth about the rebellion, about the Oraibi Brotherhood, and Gaia’s treason. A powerful army is sent to destroy the Oraibi and restore Gaia to Earth domination. Gaian Prime Minister Alex Newman faces an impossible choice of surrender or a war they are sure to lose. For his sister Becca, survivor of the Prophet and witness to the ruthless brutality of Terra, the choice is simple. Gaia must find a way to resist and repulse the oppressors.

The Times That Try Men’s Souls is the story of a small band of rebels desperately fighting to remain free of the oppressors they escaped twenty years before. The struggle is a testament to the adage freedom isn’t free.

 

The post The Cover has Arrived appeared first on Jacob Foxx.

Foreign Policy Approaches in Game of Thrones

I saw an interesting little article on RealClearWorld.com about the different worldviews of the princes of Westeros and Essos. It is a little oversimplified but it is sort of what I’ve been doing with the previews of upcoming episodes. I love looking at Game of Thrones as a ongoing story of power politics, similar to the epic histories of Greece and China.

Obviously Americans can’t really make a comparison of the Game of Thrones conflict with what happens in Washington. There are no liberals or conservatives in Westeros. We’d consider them monarchists or fascists. The only faction with democratic notions is the Brotherhood without Banners, a fringe separatist group. The overwhelming majority of princes are authoritarians believing in the legitimacy of monarchy and blood right.

We can’t look at this as a battle of governing ideologies but we can look at their approach to foreign policy. That kind of politics is applicable throughout the ages.

The best prince so far in the show (and the first three novels) is Tywin Lannister. He controls King’s Landing and leads the strongest faction with five of the major houses behind him. His approach is clearly a classical realist approach. Realism is the perspective that sees politics governed by objective laws rooted in human nature. On that basis, all states or state actors act to further their own national interests, with no moral or ideological ends.

One’s interest can be anything from wealth, to military power, to geography – whatever will give them security. Each actor defines their own national interests. But no matter what, the ability to obtain one’s interest is through power.

Tywin’s power comes from his material wealth and his army. He is an adept politician using his power very effectively. Prior to the series he married his daughter to King Robert solidifying a connection to the throne. When King Robert died, his daughter Cersei became queen regent and his grandson Joffrey the king-to-be. His influence on Cersei and Joffrey makes him the most powerful man in Westeros.

Tywin doesn’t care about honor or morality. His primary concern is power. His objective is to take throne of Westeros and further the interests of his house. He is a classical realist and a very effective one.

Cersei Lannister is also a classical realist but far less effective. She had no influence on Robert and lost influence over Joffrey once he got older. Her intense self-loathing and lack of insight seriously undermine her ability to exert her power effectively. Rather than be a dominant regent, she is being cast aside.

Joffrey Lannister seems to be a realist but his psychological defects make him extremely ineffective as a king. His best hope is to follow Tywin’s lead.

The most successful realists in recent history are Richard Nixon/Henry Kissinger, Josef Stalin and Otto Von Bismarck. Franklin D. Roosevelt was also a classical realist in many respects.

Tyrion is a different breed. He has serious security concerns but they are from within his own house. For that reason he defines his interests different than Tywin and Cersei. He doesn’t care about the crown, only his personal security.

Tyrion also applies certain moral values that conflict with the normal realpolitik concepts of national interest and power. For example, he expressed genuine sympathy for Sansa Stark and respect for the Starks as a house, seeing virtue in the way they rule the north. He befriends John Snow, to some extent, even though there is no real benefit for him. He resists the idea of marriage to Sansa even though it is the perfect arrangement for him and his family from a strategic standpoint. He antagonizes Tywin and Joffrey as well, when being closely aligned with them would be in his interest.

RCW labels Tyrion a defensive realist, believing his house’s interests are secured and hence little need for offensive war. He’d seek accommodation to rebuild the kingdom. I’d say he has some idealist tendencies, placing some value in morality in politics.

Renly Baratheon had some idealist/liberal tendencies as well. The liberal worldview holds that politics is not a zero-sum game and that mutual benefit could further the interests of many states at once. Social progress is the ultimate objective, with the fundamental belief in the inherent goodness of human nature. Renly believed in progress but more so in his own ability to deliver it.

When Robert died he quickly sought out Eddard Stark to seize the throne regardless of of his lack of a claim or Eddard’s. He chose Eddard over his own brother! He believed they would be better rulers, rather than the more brutal Lannisters or his brother Stannis. Renly failed to ally himself with the Starks and so sought out the Tyrells. He wanted the throne and perhaps was acting to further himself but his choice in allies suggests some moral calculations. He is a weak classical realist with some idealist tendencies similar to Tyrion.

Stannis Baratheon is an irrational idealist, what experts might call an institutional liberal. His idealism centers around his belief in the Red Priestess and her God of Light. Holding to divinity as a method of making strategic choices is clearly contrary to reality and on the fringe of idealism. He values tremendously that he has the lone legitimate claim to the throne, making him a strong believer in institutions, namely the feudal monarchy. At no point does he consider a possible alliance with Robb Stark or any kind of political solution. The integrity of the royal bloodline is more important than what is most practical. Woodrow Wilson falls under the category of institutional liberal as well, believing in his League of Nations despite the practical problems with it.

Eddard Stark was an idealist, and could probably be considered a traditional liberal. His belief in honor and the laws of succession, nobility, and blood right make him a bit naive and old fashioned, even for Westeros. None of his decisions were based on calculation of his house’s interest or exertion of power. What sets Ned Stark apart from other foolish idealists was his choice in allies during the rebellion over the Mad King and his superior tactical skills as a military leader. As warden of the north he ruled with a set of rigid principles that he held himself and others accountable to.

Unlike Stannis Baratheon or Woodrow Wilson, Eddard had little interest in promoting or imposing his ideals on others outside his house, which is why he hated being the Hand of the King, preferring to remain in Winterfell.

Robb Stark carried on his father’s tradition of idealism. Robb inherited his strict adherence to a code and his tactical genius. Robb chose his allies well early then made a series of terrible choices later on, including betraying Walder Frey and executing Rikard Karstark.

That brings us to Daenerys Targaryen. She is a strong liberal, in the sense that she believes in self-determination and autonomy, not necessarily democracy. She is also a crusader, setting aside her own interests to further the cause of freedom. Although she lacks military skills, her political skills are exemplary. She employs several talented captains to overcome her lack of skill in warfare. She also believes in destiny and has a level of mystical power, and of course three dragons.

Daenerys is similar to Stannis and Wilson. The difference being her political talents. Today, Daenerys would be called a neoconservative, like George W. Bush. Some people may not like that comparison but it is accurate.

As far as the Tyrells, Olenna Tyrell is definitely a classical realist. Margaery’s worldview is unclear. At some points she seems like an institutional liberal, at other points a very shrewd realist. I do think she wants everyone to love her, which puts her more in the liberal camp.

The other players include Jaime Lannister, Balon Greyjoy, Walder Frey, and Mance Raydor. From what little of them I know, they are all realists with varying interests.

In world history, realists come out on top with some exceptions. Victory requires intelligence, patience, and a bit of luck. Thus far, Tywin has been the most effective leader in Game of Thrones. Olenna Tyrell is also strong. The most flawed have been Stannis Baratheon, Ned Stark, and Robb Stark. Daenerys has a weakness in her willingness to put her interests in danger to free slaves, righting the wrongs of the world as she sees it. This can distract from strategic objectives. Tyrion has a similar weakness due to his bias towards peace and his tendency to damage useful relationships in his family over personal grudges.

I can’t wait to see how it plays out.

Jacob

The post Foreign Policy Approaches in Game of Thrones appeared first on Jacob Foxx.

Movie Review: World War Z

This movie was doomed from the start. Max Brook’s novel was so brilliant and rich there is simply no way Hollywood could capture it in a 2 hour film starring Brad Pitt. Well they gave it a shot and while they managed to pick up some of the elements of the book, the movie misses. As a regular zombie movie, it’s actually pretty good though. If you go in with the right expectations you can enjoy it. For me, that was impossible.

Brad Pitt is a former UN official who specialized in going into tough war zones and getting things done. At the beginning of the movie there are hints that there is something going on the world. As he drives his family to school, there are explosions and chaos follows. Fast moving zombies roam the city biting others and transforming them within 10 seconds. He flees and eventually finds the UN deputy secretary on an aircraft carrier somewhere. His mission now is to find the origin of the disease to help develop a vaccine. He travels across the world finding that some managed to protect themselves from the outbreak with certain extreme measures.

First the zombies. The movie utilizes a fast zombie with great speed and strength. They also have some other unique qualities diverging it further from the book. All of it is done to allow the plot to unfold quicker and fit the 2 hour film length. Also fast zombies are more dangerous. It is unfortunate and a fatal flaw in the whole idea of a WWZ movie.

The movie tries to capture some of the human suffering but fails. AMC’s The Walking Dead captures the human aspect of World War Z far better than this movie. It also utilizes the traditional zombie concept rather than trying to reinvent it. In reality the movie simply takes the zombie from 28 Days Later.

World War Z is about an unprecedented disease outbreak that the world simply fails to respond. It spreads quickly and nearly every part of the world is brought to the brink. The book itself is a series of correspondence and first-hand accounts of people’s experiences. The movie captures 2 or 3 of the stories and does create a rapidly unfolding global epidemic. However, it completely misses the despair, agony, and utter destruction the outbreak wreaks on humanity, collectively and individually. It also fails to show any of the genius tactics used to fight back the zombies.

The movie suffers from several summer action movie moments. Bad things seem to happen around Brad Pitt everywhere he goes. Extras are dying everywhere with the exception of the main characters, not unlike the redshirts of Star Trek. While many scenes are very cool it just isn’t enough.

SPOILER ALERT

How is the audience supposed to ignore the fact that two people survive a plane crash and they just so happen to be two of the main characters???

There are no victories in World War Z. It is simply survival or destruction. Billions dies in the movie, which is accurate to the book. The threat is extinguished in the book from survival and endurance, not some convenient medical breakthrough. This was clever for Hollywood but separates it from the book far too much.

The movie gets 2 stars from me. World War Z fans should avoid the movie, regular movie goers might like it but for me there have been several better summer movies this year.

Jacob

The post Movie Review: World War Z appeared first on Jacob Foxx.