Tag Archives: Sci-fi

Read this book: Cain’s Blood

by in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Sympathy for a devil? Sci-fi meets serial killers in an intriguing and fast-paced thriller.

There’s nothing good to say about Jeffrey Dahmer, who murdered, ate, and attempted to zombify 17 men from 1978-1991, except that he’s dead.

So imagine a novel where the reader identifies with the clone of this monster in the form of a “normal” 15-year-old boy. It’s here. It’s called Cain’s Blood, by Geoffrey Girard. And it works.

Image

The plot: a secret government-related outfit has been cloning the nation’s most notorious serial killers in order to determine their genetic underpinnings, and then create a biopharma weapon. Some of the teenage closes escape, along with their creator, and former Army Captain Shawn Castillo is called in to track down the renegades. He stumbles upon Jeff Jacobson, a teenage clone of Dahmer, and together they travel the country searching for the clones.

First, what I didn’t like. Too much gore. I’m not a fan. But how can you escape gore in a book about serial killers?

Also, the protagonist, Castillo, is a stock thriller hero: nearly superhuman, endlessly brave, though haunted by a dark past. I tend to avoid books featuring a CIA/FBI agent, police detectives, forensics, etc. I like people who seem more relatable. Just my own preference.

The character who is relatable turns out to be the young Dahmer clone. And that’s what I liked most about this book. Jeff Jacobson thinks he’s a normal kid, and for the most part, he is. How does he react when he finds out the truth? Can he rise above his genetic heritage?

Girard hooks the reader in 3 ways:

–A great premise: while clones have been used in movies (The Boys from Brazil, The Island) and in fiction (JA Konrath’s The List, Kazuo Ishiguro’s Never Let Me Go), Girard takes the concept in a dark and entertaining direction.

–Fast-paced storytelling skills. I burned through this book in a few days.

–Focusing on the plight of a normal kid in Jeff Jacobson, who must grapple with the whole nature/nurture issue.

About the science: this book takes on the nature/nurture debate. Is younger Jeff destined to become a serial killer, or would he be positively influenced by his upbringing? Girard hedges his bets here – some clones are murderous, others don’t seem to be.

But the reality is more complex. Technically, identical twins are clones of each other, yet they often do not turn out the same way. Some twins use different hands. Some twins are gay/gay, while others are gay/straight.

We know precious little about how genes work. For example, scientists are only beginning to learn about so-called junk DNA, the huge sections of our genetic code that seemingly have no function.

And then there’s epigenetics. Can life experiences actually affect the genetic code, not just for the self but for future offspring, several generations on? Scientists used to laugh this off. Now they’re not so sure.

Killer clones aside, truth is a lot more complex than fiction.

Related articles

Zombies on Mars?

by in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

(Hint: Doctor Who did it first, and possibly better)

I’ll hold judgment on a movie I haven’t seen, but if this report from io9.com is true, a new horror/sci-fi mash-up is a space disaster.

It’s called The Last Days on Mars — great title, btw — and it’s about a group of astronauts about to leave Mars who discover bacteria that turns them into zombies. Okay, interesting set-up. And it stars Liev Schreiber. Encouraging.

But if the io9.com write-up is to be believed, they fail on two big counts.

First, character. The article describes the crew as “eclectically unlikeable.” Uh oh.

Second, consistency. To quote:

“The space zombies can walk around Mars without a helmet on, but sometimes mild head-butting takes them out. The space zombies don’t seem to want anything but to kill everybody, although there is one lone space zombie who decides to try eating people, but maybe he was just feeling peckish.”

I’ll wait for it to come on Spike TV.

And for the record, Doctor Who already did something similar. It was a special called The Waters of Mars, and it was scary, smart, and had characters you actually liked (though the zombies looked just a little cheesy). Watch that instead if you have a craving for zombies and Mars.

Related articles

The Day of the Doctor: Character or plot?

by in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

I vote character.

Image

There once was a man, an alien, from a planet called Gallifrey. He was a time traveler–a Time Lord to be exact.

His name? No one knows, except his wife, River Song. He goes by the Doctor.

Fifty years ago, the BBC launched a television show called Doctor Who about this time traveling alien. Straightforward enough. Except, in a genius twist that has allowed this show to last so long, the character has the power to regenerate — the same man in a different form (ie, actor).

Last week, the 50th anniversary special, The Day of the Doctor, brought together 3 incarnations of the Doctor, and it proved one thing — the best writing is fueled by character.

Doctor Who has fantastical plots that zip along but threaten to dissolve into nonsense if examined too closely. What makes up for this? Character.

The Doctor is a complex man. When we met the 9th incarnation, played by Christopher Eccleston, he kept the childlike ingenuity but carried a dark PTSD shadow.

The tenth Doctor, played by David Tennant, had more of a lust for life. But he also shouldered the full weight of his burden: it turns out that in a previous incarnation he’d ended the war between his own people, the Gallifreyans, and the evil Daleks, by killing ALL, his own species included.

Heavy stuff.

The eleventh Doctor, played by Matt Smith, seemed to suppress this knowledge. He could be whimsical, but he was prone to melancholy; he needed a companion. And he was the man who led cultures to translate the word Doctor not as healer but as warrior.

In last week’s special, we met the Doctor who ended the war, alongside the tenth and eleventh doctors. Played by John Hurt, he looked much older than Tennant and Smith, though the character was much, much younger, and the special focused on him as he grappled with how to end the ruinous war.

In the process, we saw three versions of the Doctor — three personas — three separate selves — three parts of the same person. Unique but the same.

What we got, besides a rollicking story, was a rich, multifaceted character in triplicate. Credit goes to not only the actors, but the writers.

So what exactly happened? Watch it and find out.

Related articles

Catching Fire stays true to the word

by in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Hey Hollywood, this is how you adapt a novel for film.

Image

For some reason, the movie industry has a hard time translating sci-fi/supernatural/speculative stories from the page to the screen. Exhibit A: Anne Rice‘s Interview With the Vampire and Queen of the Damned. Exhibit B: Anything by Stephen King (except maybe for Carrie).

They got it right with Catching Fire, the second novel in Suzanne Collins’ Hunger Games series. (The official movie title is The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. Too long.)

The books aren’t perfect, but they’re great. And the movie effectively conveys all that happens in the book at a quick pace.

First, a primer: The Hunger Games series is about 16-year-old Katniss Everdeen in a futuristic dystopic North America who is selected to compete in the annual Hunger Games, which pits 24 teens in a fight to the death (see the Japanese film Battle Royale). The 3 novels follow her battles against the oppressive government.

Katniss is my favorite type of hero: an every man/woman who is thrust into danger and is forced to rise to the occasion. She remains reluctant throughout the series, a central fact that Jennifer Lawrence has captured. In the books, Katniss develops PTSD (Collins stated in interviews that she wanted to write about the traumatic effects of war on children), and luckily the movie did not shy away from this topic.

As with the novel, the movie picks up right where the first novel/movie left off, and it churns through with a cliffhanger. Catching Fire has been compared to The Empire Strikes Back, and with good reason: it’s tough and sharp and has a tight narrative core. And it is often a downer.

But it works. It is a solid addition to the speculative film canon. The third book will be broken into two movies, which is good because there’s a whole lot of story to tell.

How much you want to bet we’ll be seeing spin-offs for years to come? After all, there have been 75 Hunger Games, and we’ve only seen two.

Related articles

Doctor Who: clip turns canon on its head?

by in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

A new webisode promoting the Doctor Who 50th Anniversary special teases an altered take on the Doctor.

Doctor Who, the classic BBC TV show about a time traveling alien with the power to regenerate, is set to air its 50th anniversary special, The Day of the Doctor, Saturday, November 23. Now, a newly leaked webisode sheds light onto a darker side of an iconic sci-fi hero.

Paul McGann played the eighth doctor in a 1996 TV movie. The hope was it would launch a re-boot of the TV series. It didn’t, and the re-boot occurred nearly a decade later, with Christopher Eccleston taking over as the ninth Doctor. We never saw the transition between the doctors. We never saw McGann again. Until now.

Paul McGann – the Eighth Doctor

Image

In the new webisode titled The Night of the Doctor, McGann makes a surprising return. In the space of 6:49 minutes, we get a burst of action, the Doctor’s wry take on eternal life (he calls it utter boredom), the hint that the Doctor could regenerate as a woman, and a huge clue that quite a lot happened between McGann’s Doctor and Eccleston’s.

Watch the clip here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U3jrS-uhuo

The clip packs a lot of plot in its short time frame, and it’s accessible for those who don’t know much about Doctor Who. Credit the writer, Steven Moffat for this feat.

As The Day of the Doctor approaches, we’re getting more info about the event. Click here to see stills from the show, including John Hurt as a mysterious incarnation of the Doctor, the return of Billie Piper as Rose Tyler, and the tenth and eleventh doctors, David Tennant and Matt Smith, side by side.

And click here for some cryptic words by Steven Moffat on how John Hurt’s character will–or won’t–fit in to canon.

I can’t wait.

Related articles

Will Star Wars be Lost?

by in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

JJ Abrams promises a grittier, more mysterious take on Star Wars. He’s got the tools – can he utilize all of them?

So JJ Abrams, of Lost and Star Trek fame, is taking over the next set of Star Wars movies. What will that mean for the franchise?

 

Hey JJ…less of this

Image

…and more of this

Image

At the very least, it can’t get worse (right?). The first 3 films, episodes 4-6, were iconic (aside from the Ewoks). Episodes 1-3 (the second set), were forgettable. You had the annoying Jar Jar Binks, the ham-handed explanation of the Force (midi-chlorian – a word invented by George Lucas to totally f-up the mysticism surrounding the Force, as per Urban Dictionary), and the eternally mopey and never likable Anakin (AKA baby Darth Vader). George Lucas, it seemed, was trying to murder his franchise.

But nothing is truly dead if there’s money to be made.

Along comes JJ. He dazzled and frustrated us with six seasons of Lost, winner of several Emmys and endless Internet diatribes. He rejiggered Star Trek with a clever reboot. And his plans for Star Wars?

To quote from this report at The Verge, Abrams “says that he is set on returning the sense of mystery that so pervaded the original trilogy…. To pull that off, audiences can expect to see a dirtier aesthetic more akin to the frontiers of the Old West than the gleaming futurescapes of the prequels.”

Sounds like he’s on the right track.

In Lost, he gave us strong, complicated characters with rich stories. He also led us into plot labyrinths with no logical way out (time travel to the 1970s and an atom bomb that does–or does not–detonate??).

In Star Trek, he gave us stupendous effects and clever plotting, but his characterizations were flat. Captain Kirk, I’m looking at you. Then again, how could Chris Pine–or anyone–hope to fill William Shatner’s uniform? Only an actor like Shatner could pull off Captain Kirk’s cockiness without turning him into a supreme ass.

If he marries Lost‘s characterizations with Star Trek‘s crisp storytelling, then he might have a formula for success. He can do it. Will the studio allow him?

We’ll find out in 2015.

DON’T read this book: Under the Dome

by in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The ending is throw-the-book-across-the-room horrible, and it’s why I won’t waste my time on the TV show.

There’s nothing worse in the world of fandom when one of your favorites screws up epically (see Star Wars: Jar Jar Binks). I’ve been a fan of Stephen King since I was 15, and his Dark Tower series, aside from when he stuck himself in the books as a character, remains one of my favorite series of books (I’ll write a more comprehensive blog post on the Dark Tower books – the good, the bad and the weird – later).

Now I realize that sci-fi/horror/speculative fiction is a landmine for plot missteps. You begin with a fantastical premise and must go from there. It’s easy to paint yourself into a corner plot-wise, and there are plenty of well-known controversial creative choices (see the final seasons of Lost and Battlestar Galactica for two).

But none are as horrendous or unforgivable as Stephen King’s ending to Under the Dome.

The plot: a dome suddenly covers a small Maine (duh – it’s King) town. Nothing can get in or out. Lord of the Flies style chaos ensues.

The ending reads like a rejected Twilight Zone script. Maybe I’d be more generous if there was a single likable character. It’s bad enough that the villains were mustache-twirling caricatures; the heroes were either cardboard or they were jerks. The TV show Lost had some plot convolutions that required hefty suspensions of logic, but at least the writers had you invested in the characters – even the villains were multifaceted. By the end of Under the Dome I would have voted to keep them all trapped and smothered.

So how exactly did it end? You really want to know? Okay.

SPOILER BELOW…

….

….

It turns out the dome was set in place by a child alien on another planet. He was playing with the town as a human child would use a magnifying glass to torture ants. The alien parent calls, and the alien child lifts the dome. The End.

Eleven hundred words for that. Ugh.

King needed a good editor. He needed someone to say HELL NO, try again. All writers need at least one pair of non-starstruck eyes.

I’ve read that the TV show will deviate from the book. I’m not wasting my time.

Sci-fi is failing us

by in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Sc-fi is supposed to prepare us for the future, but no one gave the script to the robot creators.

The Terminator came out nearly 30 years ago. It lit the warning flare for a whole generation: artificial intelligence (machines, computers, robots, etc etc) will become self aware and will attempt to obliterate mankind. In the movie, this was done by Skynet, a high-powered war machine. Just as Star Trek has pushed us toward a more egalitarian society, the Terminator franchise has subconsciously tried to prepare us to battle human-hating robots.
 
And it’s been effective.
 
Take Japan’s repeated efforts to create companion robots, such as this nurse robot from Koroko robotics company:
 
Image
 
Creepy, right? Can’t you imagine her peeling off that fake skin and shooting you down with red glowing eyes? Something like this Arnold Schwarzenegger metallic monster:
 
Image
 
Now those “geniuses” at Boston Dynamics are fouling it all up. They’ve created a vicious robot that looks like… a galloping, headless goat/horse/metal hybrid, both fast and clumsy at the same time. Vicious. Silly. Unpredictable. Death bringers all the same.
 
Image
 
Watch this video and you will realize how confused and ill prepared you will be when this robot is hunting you down.
 
 
 
Nope. We only know how to fight humanoid, Schwarzeneggeresque robots. Not these crazy things.