The Sci-Fi Christian – 5/25/13 “The Sci-Fi Christian: The SFC Time Loop – Comics Continuity” featuring Matt Anderson, Ben De Bono, and Dave Johnson

1:30
Matt: It’s been black forever
Ben: There’s music
Matt: So boring

2:00
Matt: Can you imagine if you’re in a theater? 2 minutes of nothing? That can’t be right!

2:30
Matt: If I was in a theater I’d seriously be worried, looking around at other people saying “should we call the manager?”

3:00
Matt: Are you for real? We’re three minutes in and they’re just getting started

4:00
Matt: The most interesting thing that’s happened so far is I found out what MGM stands for
Ben: What does it stand for?

5:30
Ben: Just so you know it’s like 40-45 minutes before anyone shows up
Matt: You are lying!
Ben: I’m not lying!
Matt: I am pissed
Matt: Merwin Goldwin… M… something

6:30
Matt: Are these real monkeys or planet of the apes monkeys?
Ben: They’re real monkeys
Matt: That’s totally an actor in a suit
Ben: It’s a real monkey
Matt: When did this come?
Ben: 1960s
Matt: I wondered if they used the same costumes as Planet of the Apes

8:30
Matt: We could honestly be watching this on mute

9:30
Ben: They’re forming society
Matt: What about screaming says society to you?
Ben: They’re gathering together
Matt: They’re just by the water hole. Everyone goes to the water hole

11:30
Matt: These monkeys are better actors than The Rock
Ben: That doesn’t take much

13:00
Ben: You were right. They’re actors
Matt: You can see it in their eyes

14:00
Matt: Oh my gosh. Aliens made humans. Just as I suspected
Ben: I don’t think that’s what the movie’s saying
Matt: They’re trying to turn these monkeys into humans!

15:00 (at the sight of another monkey digging in the dirt)
Matt: Not this again

16:00
Matt: He’s making a tool
Ben: He’s not making a tool. Oh he is making a tool!
Matt: Oh yeah!

17:30
Matt: This director sucks

18:30
Matt: This reminds me of something Jesus used to say. “Might makes right”
Ben: Amen

20:00
Ben: We made it! I guess the monkeys were only 20 minutes!

20:10
Matt: More classical music this composer didn’t write

21:00
Matt: Do you know what this is like? Fantasia
Ben: I don’t think it’s like Fantasia
Matt: Just add some music, have some pictures and bam: Space Fantasia

25:30
Matt: Five and a half minutes of random space shots

27:30
Matt: Did he say he’d meet him in the restroom?
Ben: Restaurant
Matt: You go ahead to the restroom. I’ll meet you there

29:20
Matt: The cameraphone follows her when she moves out of the shot. That’s because it’s not a cameraphone it’s a camera man
Ben: Maybe it’s a high tech cameraphone

29:45
Matt: I’m not buying this, Ben
Ben: What part?
Matt: All of it

33:45
Ben: More classical music
Matt: I know! This is a bad sign. They fade to black and come back with crap

35:00
Matt: Those grip shoes aren’t the most effective way of traveling
(as the actress walks upside down with them) Ben: But look what you can do them
Matt: Yeah, this is pointless. She’s literally going nowhere

36:30 (At the sight of the zero gravity toilet)
Matt: Oh boy
Ben: I like how there’s a whole page of instructions
Matt: 10 point by point steps on using a zero gravity toilet

43:00
Matt: I think this guy’s ok. I’m not sure why but I like him

45:30
Matt: Look at this guy! He stands up and doesn’t see the other chair coming
Ben: That’s awesome
Matt: “I just tripped in a real movie!”

46:40
Matt: Here are my favorite parts so far. I liked when the monkey made the weapon
Ben: You liked the monkeys?
Matt: Just the one who made a weapon
Ben: Ok
Matt: And I like this Floyd guy. He seems like a villain but I think I’m going to side with the villains in this one

47:50
Matt: I had some astronaut ice cream once
Ben: Did it look like that?
Matt: It was dry, it was in a square, it was good… It was kinda crunchy

48:30
Matt: I don’t know why, but this movie just got bumped up to a three for me. I’m interested in the conspiracy
Ben: I don’t know that there is a conspiracy

49:30
Ben: Oh that’s the conspiracy. Something was buried 4 million years ago
Matt: How is that possible if the earth is only 6,000 years old?

52:30
Matt: That’s not the same block
Ben: It could be
Matt: How did it get there?
Ben: How did it get to earth?
Matt: I bet aliens made a bunch and put them all over the place
Ben: Or they just have one and keep moving it
Matt: That’s inefficient

55:00
Matt: 18 months later
Ben: I’m surprised they didn’t show the entire 18 months set to classical music

56:10
Matt: Grip shoes!!!

One hour in: Ben would rate it 5 stars so far, Matt would rate it 3 stars

1:05:30 (as Frank’s parents sing him happy birthday”
Matt: It’s down to a 2 again

1:13:30
Matt: Will there be a kid sidekick in this movie?

1:15:00
Ben: That antenna is Frodoed
Matt: Way Frodoed

1:19:30
Matt: Do you think people weren’t bored because it was cool for back then?

1:20:00
Matt: Just kill them HAL

1:22:00
HAL: It can only be attributed to human error
Ben: Way to pass the buck HAL

1:24:00 (at the sight of red, yellow and blue space suits)
Ben: Hey, it’s the Power Rangers!

1:25:45
Ben: They better hope HAL can’t read lips. He’s right there!
Matt: He probably is reading lips. Oh no!

1:27:00 (when it is revealed HAL is reading lips)
Ben: Nailed it!
Matt: You were totally right
Ben: Ben is right

1:28:00 (Intermission)
Matt: At this point if I was in the theater I might think “I’m good”

1:28:00
Matt: Back to the monkeys?

1:30:00
Matt: It’s more like 2001: A Space Travesty

1:30:30
Matt: 2001 reasons not to watch a Stanley Kubrick movie

1:32:30
Ben: There goes the Yellow Ranger!

1:33:30 (after the fifth shot of the yellow space suit guy floating away)
Matt: We get it. He’s dead

1:34:30 (another long shot of space)
Matt: Oh good, I’d forgotten we were in space. Thanks, Stanley Kubrick

1:36:00
Matt: Maybe he is alive. I don’t think they’d keep showing him if he was dead
Ben: We’re talking about a movie started with 20 minutes of monkeys. I don’t think that argument applies here

1:43:00 (Dave is stranded outside the ship)
Matt: I don’t know where they’re going to go from here
Ben: It does seem as though they’ve written themselves into a narrative corner

1:46:00
Ben: Why the heck did he leave his helmet? Dumbest move ever!

1:47:30 (as Dave backs the ship up to the airlock)
Matt: Do you ever watch Autotune the News?
Ben: Yes
Matt: Have you seen Back it Up?
Ben: Yes
Matt (singing): Back it up, back it up, back it up! My daddy taught me good!

1:48:30
Ben: He finally got a space helmet
Matt: Where did he get that from?
Ben: The Green Ranger?

1:51:00
HAL: Take a stress pill
Matt: I wonder if that’s where “take a chill pill” came from

1:58:00
Matt: It would be funny if the yellow guy floated by again

2:01:00
Ben: Maybe Stanley Kubrick was just really empathetic toward people with small bladders so he worked in a bathroom break every five minutes
Matt: How was he able to do this? What studio saw this and said, “Perfect! Don’t change a thing!”

2:05:00
Matt: What’s happening now. Do we even know?
Ben: I think he’s on Jupiter
Matt: No, he just left the ship and all this stuff started shooting by. I think he’s in a wormhole

2:12:00
Matt: He seems to be parked. In a bedroom
Ben: It is an unexpected location

2:13:00
Ben: Whoa, he’s aged
Matt: That wormhole thing took time. 20 years. It felt like it too

2:13:30
Matt: I’m prepared to never know what happened at the end of this movie. There’s no way they could explain what just happen.
Ben: Yeah
Matt: You know what it could be: Space Zoo

2:15:00
Matt: How is this movie rated G?
Ben: There’s nothing offensive in it
Matt: I know but who would show this to their kid? Come here Junior, this seems like a good one

2:16:45
Ben: For the first time in this movie I’m very confused
Matt: Time, man. It’s about time

2:19:00 (first shot of the Star Child)
Matt: What the Frodo?

2:20:30
Matt: I don’t care if I don’t know what happened. I’m just glad it’s over

I’ve been waiting for that shape!

Wayne’s world! Party time, excellent!

Cute.

Cool! I mean…ewwww. (Found via thinkgeek.com)

Awesome Space Marine cosplay from Warhammer 40k!

Need a light while playing your video games? (Found at Technabob.com)

The best reenactment I’ve ever seen!

This girl knows more about Marvel than I do.

Director J.J. Abrams’ second trek to the final frontier is dividing fans… including Mike Poteet.

Star Trek Into Darkness is an exciting, suspenseful, action-packed film with outstanding special effects, engaging characters, healthy doses of humor and even some ethical and philosophical questions that harken to the franchise’s origin as a science fiction morality play. Director J.J. Abrams’ take on Trek is, quite simply, a lot of fun, and—

 Whoa, whoa, hold it right there, Poteet! You didn’t actually like this movie, did you?

 I’m sorry… who are you, and why are you interrupting my review?

 It’s me. By which I mean, you. Mike Poteet.

 You’re not Mike Poteet. I’m Mike Poteet.

 Well, that’s what I thought, too, until I heard you singing the praises of this new Star Wars movie.

 You mean Star Trek.

 I dunno, you heard Abrams on The Daily Show the other night; his lips say Trek but his heart says Wars.

 Is this some kind of joke?

 You tell me! Am I supposed to believe, that you—by which I mean, me—a die-hard Trekkie (that’s right, not afraid to say it!) since 1986, who’s spent who knows how much time (not to mention money) watching and re-watching and daydreaming about and writing about Gene Roddenberry’s landmark sci-fi series—for the Great Bird’s sake, man, you got your Star Trek short story professionally published!—

 Do you have a point?

 My point? Sure. Of all the fans I have encountered in my travels, you are the most… fickle.

 Fickle?

 Well, what do you call it? Giving a thumbs up to this pyrotechnic-peppered popcorn flick masquerading as a Star Trek movie?

That’s a pretty broad brush to paint Into Darkness with. Just because it’s different from other Trek doesn’t mean it’s not Trek. I thought we were clear on this back in 2009: Abrams’ Trek is an alternate timeline Trek. Alternate timelines are a tried-and-true Trek element—just think about the Mirror Universe—but the difference here is that we’re seeing the story from the alternate timeline’s point of view, like “Elseworlds” or “What If?” in DC and Marvel comics. So of course there will be differences.

 There’s being different and there’s being derivative. Don’t tell me most of the stuff in this movie would’ve been anywhere near as interesting to anyone if it hadn’t had counterparts in real Star Trek. Especially “John Harrison.” If I were making a movie and landed Benedict Cumberbatch as one of my leads, I’d give him more screen time than he got in this thing, and I’d certainly do him the courtesy of creating a new character for him. I thought the whole point of the 2009 movie was to give Abrams and his creative team a fresh start and a blank slate, but I guess I was wrong, because who is Cumberbatch playing? Khan.

 Ah, but Cumberbatch’s Khan isn’t the same characters as Ricardo Montalban’s.

 Well, they’re both non-Indian guys playing an Indian character. At least Montalban was dark-skinned. Casting Cumberbatch as a Sikh? Another win for racebending. But I interrupted you. You were saying?

The original Khan was a character who spoke to the 1960s’ fears about genetic manipulation and scientists “playing God.” While those fears are still with us, the new Khan speaks more directly to our post-9/11 fears about terrorism, and what our response to it says about who we are as a society. I think Into Darkness’ best moments come when the characters debate how to pursue Khan. When Scotty resigned rather than blindly follow Admiral Marcus’ hyper-militaristic orders—“Is that all we are now? I thought we were explorers!”—I felt like applauding.

Well, sure, because, until that point, you were worried the filmmakers expected us to cheer on Captain James “Let’s-go-get-this-S.O.B.” Kirk. Admit it.

I do admit it—but I was proven wrong, wasn’t I? And let’s not forget that William Shatner’s Kirk didn’t always perfectly represent Starfleet’s high ideals, either. The first few acts of “Arena” mirror that early portion of Into Darkness pretty closely; if you’ll recall, Kirk is all hot to blow up the Gorn ship, and it’s left to Spock to ask some hard questions—just as Zachary Quinto’s Spock does in this movie. And Shatner’s Kirk is the hero who advocates letting Klingons die at the beginning of Star Trek VI. Both his and Pine’s Kirks, however, ultimately do the right thing. Abrams also told Jon Stewart that he’d done his Trek homework. I think it shows.

If by “homework” you mean watching Star Trek II enough to know which parts to shamelessly grab for his own flick.

What shameless grabbing? Poteet, I’m telling you: Into Darkness is a Star Trek “Elseworlds.” Watching Pine’s Kirk sacrifice himself to save the ship, as Nimoy’s Spock had done, was riveting. Both Pine and Quinto turned in solid performances. Kirk’s admission of fear especially moved me. Rremember how Spock told him, in the 2009 film, that the purpose of the Kobayashi Maru test was to know fear? Kirk’s death scene managed to call back not only to Star Trek II, but also to Star Trek ’09.

 Solid performances aren’t sterling ones. This movie talks a lot about what good friends Kirk and Spock are, but it doesn’t show us much of that.

Are you kidding? Kirk breaks the Prime Directive to save Spock’s life, right in the first ten minutes!

And for most of the rest of the show, they’re at odds with each other. I’ll grant that I like Pine as this alternate Kirk, and I like Quinto as this alternate Spock; but they simply haven’t had (and likely won’t ever have) time to develop the fully realized characters Shatner and Nimoy developed. Putting Kirk in that radiation chamber instead of Spock may have been clever, but it wasn’t authentic. All of that scene’s impact derived from its evocation of Star Trek II, not from Into Darkness’ own merits. Abrams’ Trek can’t claim it’s making a fresh start for the franchise as long as it continues to rely on what “old Trek” accomplished. It’s dishonest and disrespectful.

Poteet, do you want Abrams’ Trek to pay respect to “old Trek” (I think it does), or to you personally? Why do you have to be on the defensive about this, as though you’re the sole arbiter of what is good and faithful Star Trek? As I said, I don’t deny that Abrams’ Trek is different. But haven’t you learned anything in all these years as a Trekkie about accepting, appreciating, even celebrating differences? Does IDIC ring any bells? Abrams’ Trek is a good old-fashioned space opera. As much as Star Trek owes to literary science fiction from the likes of Asimov, Bradbury, and Clarke, it also owes something to pulpy, swashbuckling fare like Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon. Abrams’ Trek embraces that part of the franchise’s genetic makeup with gusto.

The same way Vulcans embrace technicalities. I loved that line, by the way.

 Oh! So you admit you did like something about Into Darkness?

Several things, in fact. I liked Bruce Greenwood’s return as Admiral Pike (and am sad he won’t be back for any future installments—see, that’s another problem: why couldn’t they just pump Kahn’s super-blood into Pike’s corpse, and—)

 Excuse me—you were highlighting some positives. Remember?

 Oh, yeah. Well, I also liked the new Klingons, with their pirate-like pierced cranial ridges and their uber-ugly but ferocious birds-of-prey. And Michael Giacchino delivered another fantastic musical score; his theme for Khan is ominous and hauntingly beautiful. I also heartily approve of the opening sequence on Nabiru. From Kirk messing with the indigenous population’s religion to Spock’s logical near-sacrifice of himself for a “primitive” alien people, those opening minutes felt like a big-budget mini-episode of the original series.

I agree.

Of course, a quick-acting cold fusion bomb is about as preposterous as red matter… or hiding the Enterprise under the sea; I half expected to see Sebastian the crab scuttling across the main deflector dish…

Oh, would you stop that?

What, you have no complaints about Into Darkness, Mr. “Please, J.J., Give Me More” Poteet?

I never said that. I think the film does nothing to advance women in Star Trek, for instance. Zoe Saldana’s Uhura does get to exercise her communications expertise by speaking Klingon, but she spends most of the movie fretting about her relationship with Spock, to the point of initiating a heart-to-heart during a crucially important mission, something no Starfleet professional would do. And Alice Eve’s Carol Marcus could be any pretty blonde guest star of the week. At least Lindelof apologized for the needless underwear scene.

Hey, they’re just giving modern audiences want they want, right? Shouldn’t you be “celebrating that difference?”

 Now you’re just being difficult.

 No. Endorsing this movie with any integrity as a Star Trek fan—that’s being difficult.

Look, the bottom line is, they made an entertaining movie.

Right, and no one should expect anything more of a Star Trek production, because Gene Roddenberry was all about setting the bar low at “let’s just be entertaining.”

I don’t think we’re going to make any more progress right now. Maybe we can just agree to disagree, and talk again later?

 I suppose. It’s not as though we won’t have opportunities, since—astonishingly—you’ve already pre-ordered the blasted thing from Amazon. At least you took my advice and have stayed away from the monthly IDW comic book series.

Quatloos are tight.

Anybody who only knows Abrams’ Trek won’t get that reference.

Well, maybe some of those folk will be sufficiently intrigued to give the original series a chance.

As (the real) Mister Spock is fond of saying, there are always possibilities.

The Sci-Fi Christian – 5/21/13 “The Sci-Fi Christian: Superhero Spotlight On the Power Rangers” featuring Matt Anderson and Koby Radcliffe

The Sci-Fi Christian – 5/18/13 “The Sci-Fi Christian: Superhero Spotlight on The New 52” featuring Matt Anderson, Daniel Butcher, and Koby Radcliffe

Do you feel this story represent Supergirl well?

Dan:  I really think the Kara’s were both represented well.  They came off as very strong women, maybe a little bit quick to punch but strong.  And Power Girl definitely felt like an independent woman.  I would say if I want my son to be a Batman fan, I would be comfortable with my daughter reading Supergirl books. 

I thought the story was fast paced, had some mystery since I did not really have background on why Lex Luthor was attacking the Karas and left me feeling like one chapter has successfully closed while opening another.  But I defer to our local “Super” expert for his opinion. 

Mike:  No. How could it? She is “dead” for the first six pages. For the rest of the issue, she’s presented as just another hard-hitting female superhero. The issue contains very little about what makes Supergirl unique. To be fair, it does focus more on Power Girl, the “Earth 2” version of Kara; even with Power Girl, however, we only learn that she is another “last daughter of Krypton.” We get no insights into her personality, her motivations, her aspirations… If you come to this issue with little knowledge of Power Girl, as I do, you won’t leave it with much more. Supergirl #19 is basically one big fight scene, and while that’s fine as far as it goes—it is a superhero comic, after all, and super-action should be the norm—the previous, pre-“New 52” volume of the title showed readers how a Supergirl series could be, both issue by issue and overall, action-packed and substantive, developing character and theme without skimping on fast-paced entertainment.

Did this story conform to canon?

Dan:  Oh wow, it sounds like you had some concerns.  So I have only read the first Supergirl trade within the New 52.  And I have read some of the other initial super books, but I do not feel like a Super expert.  So the fact that Kara has her own Fortress of Solitude like sanctuary, uses the El family S symbol and is a hero all seemed to conform to canon.  Also this clearly is a direct sequel to the “H’el on Earth” storyline which I have not read yet.  So in general I believe it aligns to the long history of Supergirl and the forming New 52 canon. 

I guess my biggest question is how did Power Girl get here?  I know that she is a New 52 Earth Two hero, but how she is aware of Supergirl and how she got to Earth 1 is all a mystery to me at the moment.  But I do have to give the artist and writer a round of applause for finding an excuse to put Power Girl in her traditional, if not revealing, uniform.  

What’s up with Lex Luthor’s face?  Lex is bald as he should be.  Honestly, I think the have trimmed him down a little bit.  But the biggest difference in my mind is his face.  Of course this had led me to ask, how did this happen?  It is a disease?  Is it a Mike Tyson face tattoo?  I want to know, but I do not believe it breaks canon.         

Mike:  Yes, both the immediate past—Kara is “dead” at the start as a consequence of her actions at the end of the “H’El on Earth” crossover that’s occupied the Superman family of titles for the last several months—and the larger “New 52” picture. You wouldn’t really know it from this issue alone, but this Kara is much more the “alien visitor” than her cousin Kal. She is still coming to terms with life on Earth, among human beings; she generally speaks Kryptonian, for example, and is wrestling with a lot of anger about the destruction of her home planet. Since she arrived on Earth much later than Kal-El, she has not had a long time to cope with her grief. That grief and shock gave H’El his hooks into her in the crossover, in fact. While the mini-event was a generally strong story, I was disappointed that DC positioned Kara, so soon out of the “New 52” gate, as the “weak link” in the Super-family chain.

What did you like the most?

Dan:  I really do enjoy the pullout cover by Mahmud Asrar.  It is full of action and made me want to open the book and rip into the story, especially after I saw the addition of Supergirl.  And it did lead me to action.  I had planned to purchase the Mad Magazine variant cover for Aquaman #19.  But after seeing this Supergirl cover, I very much want the standard, and cheaper, gatefold cover instead.    

Mike:  What did you think of the Aquaman cover?

Daniel:  Honestly, I was disappointed since I felt like that cover really did not line up the action of the story.   I sense a trend, but I will have more to say about that later.  What did you like Mr. Super Family Fanboy? 

 Mike:  Kara’s underwater Sanctuary—her aquatic equivalent to Kal’s Fortress of Solitude—is one of the coolest superhero hideaways in comics today. As far as I know, Sanctuary is a “New 52” innovation, but I really like it. (It certainly beats Kara hiding out as Linda Lee in the Midvale Orphanage, as she did in Silver Age continuity.) Sanctuary is a bit like Stark Tower in Marvel’s Iron Man movies, run by a JARVIS-like AI ready to cater to its mistress’ needs—as in this issue, for example, when it provides Power Girl (whom it recognizes accurately as equally Kara) with a new costume. (I don’t care for the costume, but more on that in a moment.)

 I also enjoyed the cameo appearance by Lex Luthor and his retinue. Since the days of the Matrix Supergirl, this character and Luthor have had a complicated relationship. It seems the “New 52” Supergirl will be tangling with the world’s greatest criminal mind from time to time, as well.

What did you like the least?

Dan:  I told you I would get back to this, I disliked the expectation that the cover sets.  The cover shows Supergirl and Power Girl brawling, making it seem like Power Girl is bigger threat to the title character than Lex Luthor himself.  And despite Stan Lee’s dislike of heroes fighting heroes, let’s be honest the fans love it.  So I expected to see at least 3 to 5 pages of Kara battle royale.  And it would have been very interesting to see story wise and visually how the two would match up.  These two however, spoiler, never land a punch on each other!  Instead they combine forces. 

Originally this was part of DC’s “WTF” themed month.  I was going to rail against that concept, not the fact they were trying to shock us but using the WTF moniker for books that kids might be interested in.  This is DC and not Vertigo!  Kids read these books.  But Krutack (yeah, I’m still running with that) if it made me mad that I never had Supergirl on Power Girl fist of fury (something seems very wrong about that statement).   

Mike:  So the task of issue #19 seems to be this: Let’s get Power Girl back in the “boob window.” The Flashpoint event changed many things about the DC multiverse, but it did not, apparently, given Power Girl a reasonably proportioned, non-objectified body. Granted, the costume Power Girl is wearing when she crosses over into Kara’s reality isn’t exactly modest—it’s form-fitting, to say the least—but the “reveal” (in more than one sense) of the “new” (read: same old, same old) Power Girl costume feels like a disappointing step backward—a ready-made pin-up poster.

Power Girl’s New Old Costume

Dan:  I guess I did not put that much thought into the uniform.  I guess after seeing Starfire in the Red Hood book I guess I accepted the fact that anything goes. 

Mike:  Also,  I also disliked the generic nature of the big bad monster against whom Power Girl and Kara battle. “Consider me a test,” he tells them—as if writer Mike Johnson is admitting, “I couldn’t come up with an original threat this month, gang, so let’s just get through this, okay?” Again, strong but boring bruisers are part of the superhero territory; still, that doesn’t mean readers have to enjoy all of them.

Do you see spiritual applications in this story?

Mike: The bottom panel on page 6 references Michelangelo’s iconic painting in the Sistine Chapel of God reaching out to touch Adam’s similarly extended hand, granting humanity the spark of life. A nice (if somewhat predictable) moment in itself, it doesn’t seem to have implications for the rest of the issue.

While issue #19 doesn’t offer any particular spiritual or theological material, Kara’s story as a whole may speak to the tension Christians feel of living as strangers and aliens in this world. (Gee, that phrase would make a good name for a podcast…) Of course, Kara’s alienation is driven by her anger and grief at Krypton’s destruction. Our alienation is driven by our desire for a better country, the new home that God has promised us. It might be interesting to see if Kara can learn to be “in” but not “of” this world, as Christians must learn to be.

Dan:  I went a very different direction on this one.  I think this story is a good illustration of that the fact that two are better than one when struggling.  I know this lesson is often used around marriage, but I think it could easily also be applied to comradeship.  In this story, Supergirl and Power Girl need each other to both overcome the Kyrponite poison in their system and to defeat Luthor’s henchman Apex.  And being the same person, the ladies work really well together. 

This to me really is a wisdom teaching, and as we recklessly open up the big book we find in Ecclesiastes:

 Two are better than one,
    because they have a good return for their labor:
¹⁰ If either of them falls down,
    one can help the other up.
But pity anyone who falls
    and has no one to help them up.
¹¹ Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm.
    But how can one keep warm alone?
¹² Though one may be overpowered,
    two can defend themselves.
A cord of three strands is not quickly broken (Ecclesiastes 4:9-12, NIV).

This story really shows that even for a hero, two locked together against one foe is better than one serving alone. 

Do you plan to stick with the series?

Mike: I may look at some trades when they are released but, alas, no, I am dropping Supergirl from my monthly pull list. I was enjoying the previous, Igle-Gates incarnation so much; but Johnson and artist Mahmud Asrar, while they have introduced some rich characters into the mix—particularly the “New 52” version of the Silver Banshee—just aren’t telling all that compelling a story.

Dan:  What, that could be as big as me dropping Aquaman.  No, I won’t be here again next month.   And I am looking forward to future Supergirl trades for me to check out from the library since the first New 52 Supergirl trade was a real surprise to me.

I did hand my copy over to my daughter to see if she would have a interest in it.

Mike: Did she like it?

Dan:  No!  She did not understand why Kara was green in the opening scenes, how she was poisoned and most of all why were there two Karas.  I think I would have done better if I had given her a Supergirl trade with a full story arc than dropping her straight into issue 19. 

Supergirl #19 appears to have received a mixed review from Mike and Dan.  They expressed concerns over skimpy outfits and a lack of story context.  But both really enjoyed the use of Kara’s sanctuary and other pieces of the Super mythos.  And both are more than willing to read more from this franchise, but preferably in a collected trade format.

The Sci-Fi Christian – 5/17/13 “The Sci-Fi Christian: What’s In the Batcave?” featuring Matt Anderson and Ben De Bono

The Sci-Fi Christian – 5/16/13 “The Sci-Fi Christian: ABC Picks Up Marvel’s S.H.I.E.L.D. and Other News” featuring Matt Anderson and Ben De Bono

Below is the official synopsis of the show (from beta.abc.go.com)as well as the first trailer:

In Victorian England, the young and beautiful Alice (Sophie Lowe) tells a tale of a strange new land that exists on the other side of a rabbit hole. An invisible cat, a hookah smoking caterpillar and playing cards that talk are just some of the fantastic things she’s seen during this impossible adventure. Surely this troubled girl must be insane and her doctors aim to cure her with a treatment that will make her forget everything. Alice seems ready to put it all behind her, especially the painful memory of the genie she fell in love with and lost forever—the handsome and mysterious Cyrus (Peter Gadiot). But deep down Alice knows this world is real and just in the nick of time, the sardonic Knave of Hearts (Michael Socha) and the irrepressible White Rabbit (John Lithgow) arrive to save her from a doomed fate. Together, the trio will take a tumble down the rabbit hole to this Wonderland where nothing is impossible.

Once Upon A Time In Wonderland stars Sophie Lowe (Beautiful Kate) as Alice, Michael Socha (This Is England) as Knave of Hearts, Peter Gadiot (The Forbidden Girl) as Cyrus, Emma Rigby (Hollyoaks) as Queen of Hearts and John Lithgow (Third Rock From The Sun) as the voice of the White Rabbit.

Once Upon A Time In Wonderland was written by Edward Kitsis and Adam Horowitz (Once Upon A Time) who serve as executive producers. Steve Perlman and Zack Estrin also serve as executive producers and the pilot was directed by Ralph Hemecker. Once Upon A Time In Wonderland is produced by ABC Studios.

Personally, I think the trailer looks excellent. The idea of seeing Michael Socha (Being Human UK) again as well as topping the cast off with the voice of John Lithgow, seals the deal for me. Will you check this show out?

From abcallaccess.com:

Joss Whedon (MARVEL’S THE AVENGERS, Buffy the Vampire Slayer) shows us not all heroes are super with MARVEL’S AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D.

Fresh from his role in the summer’s box office smash, MARVEL’S THE AVENGERS, Agent Phil Coulson (Clark Gregg) returns to the worldwide law enforcement organization S.H.I.E.L.D. He puts together a small, highly trained, team of Agents to tackle the cases that haven’t been classified yet, the new, the strange and the unknown. That team consists of straight arrow Agent Grant Ward (Brett Dalton), an expert in combat and espionage; pilot and martial artist Agent Melinda May (Ming-Na Wen); and brilliant if socially awkward scientists Agent Leo Fitz (Iain De Caestecker) and Agent Jemma Simmons (Elizabeth Henstridge). They’ll be joined by civilian new recruit and computer hacker Skye (Chloe Bennet).

Prepare for an epic adventure that showcases the hope and wonder of the human spirit. This is a world of Super Heroes, aliens and the unusual – of action, spectacle and world spanning stories. The show will speak to the human condition through the lens of our very human, non-powered S.H.I.E.L.D agents – that together we are greater than we are apart, and that we can make a difference in the world.

Executive Produced and co-written by Joss Whedon, Jed Whedon & Maurissa Tancharoen (Dollhouse, Dr.Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog), Jeffrey Bell (Angel, Alias) and Jeph Loeb (Smallville, Lost, Heroes) comes Marvel’s first live-action TV series, MARVEL’S AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D.

I cannot wait for this show. Joss Whedon…ah, you can do no wrong.

Thoughts?

I can’t even really fault the corny tag line. Given the literary source material, have you got a better one? I think my favorite bit was Ichabod (who looks a lot more like a rugged hero here than he does in Irving’s original, or in the 1949 Disney cartoon) asks if there isn’t a law against ubiquitous Starbucks stores… The man may be new to our era, but he learns quickly!

There may even be some theological grist for sci-fi Christians’ mill when this series debuts. “The answers are in Washington’s Bible,” it seems. On the one hand, that’s a nice sentiment. We don’t look to the Bible for answers nearly enough–at least, I confess I don’t; your faithful mileage may vary.  But on the other hand, do we really need to encourage more people to view the Bible as a cryptic code just waiting to be broken? As a miscellany of mystic esoterica, a volume only those privileged few in the know can understand?

We look in the Bible for answers because the Bible is the inspired, unique, authoritative witness to The Answer, Jesus Christ. I hope General Washington knew that! I pray we do, as well.

(Incidentally, for all the supposed reverence the Bible gets in impending apocalyptic scenarios like these, why can’t anyone on TV or in the movies remember the final book is titled Revelation–singular, not plural?)

When Sleepy Hollow awakes this fall, will you be tuning in?

The Sci-Fi Christian – 5/12/13 “The Sci-Fi Christian: Death By Superheroes” featuring Matt Anderson and Ben De Bono

The Sci-Fi Christian – 5/9/13 “The Sci-Fi Christian: Marvel Gets Back Three Characters and Other News” featuring Matt Anderson and Ben De Bono

I have to say, it looks all action and no substance to me. As a huge fan of the novel written by Orson Scott Card, I will definitely see this movie; however, I am hoping that the philosophical and moral themes of the book haven’t all been lost in translation.

What do you think?

Its strength is due largely to the return of Madame Vastra, Jenny, and Strax. “The Crimson Horror” is practically proof of concept for a spin-off starring this trio. The Doctor doesn’t show up (at least, not clothed and in his right mind) until nearly seventeen minutes in, and I didn’t miss him. Nothing against Matt Smith, but Neve McIntosh, Catrin Stewart, and Dan Starkey prove more than capable of commanding audience attention—aided and abetted, of course, by Mark Gatiss’ sparkling script. As Strax, Starkey clearly relishes his lion’s share of the script’s snappiest lines, from counseling the use of “scissor grenades, limbo vapor, and triple-blast brain splitters… just generally” to threatening his horse with “summary execution.” I see validity in some long-time Who fans’ laments that the Sontarans have been “reduced” to comic relief; I’d probably feel the same were some future Star Trek series to turn the Romulans, say, into cosmic clowns. On the other hand, I can’t imagine tiring of this adamant and amusing warrior, nor of the Veiled Detective and everyone’s “favorite lock-picking” (and arse-kicking) “Victorian chamber maid.” Now that Torchwood has run its grim and joyless course, let’s see the Madame Vastra Adventures between future seasons of Who!

Taking the Measure of Mrs. Gillyflower

I wonder if Jenny’s moment as leather-clad action heroine (alongside a bowler-wearing leading man, no less) paid deliberate homage to Emma Peel? Certainly, Dame Diana Rigg plays a far different role here.

Mrs. Gillyflower is less a real character than a caricature—the embodiment of religion gone horribly wrong—but Rigg fully commits to the part, perfectly capturing the fevered and malicious self-righteousness of those whose misplaced eagerness for God’s judgment leads them to judge others. Only the brightest and the best for Sweetville!

If I thought sound theology would’ve swayed Mrs. Gillyflower, I might have pointed her toward Amos’ words of warning: “Alas for you who desire the day of the Lord! Why do you want the day of the Lord?… Is not the day of the Lord darkness, not light, and gloom with no brightness in it?” (5.18, 20). It’s one thing to pray, as Jesus taught us, “Thy kingdom come.” It’s quite another to believe ourselves divinely chosen agents of purification, responsible for separating the wheat from the tares (Matthew 13.24-30) as we build the New Jerusalem by force (or far-fetched schemes involving baths of “repulsive red leech,” bell jars—was this a two-step preservative process?—and ballistic missiles). Arguably no early Christian lived with a more fervent eschatological expectation than did the apostle Paul, but even he demanded to know, “Why do you pass judgment on your brother or sister? Or you, why do you despise your brother or sister? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God” (Romans 14.10-11). God save us from Mrs. Gillyflower’s smug, sinful arrogance!

How ironic that this episode aired in the weekend before Mother’s Day. The scene in which Mrs. Gillyflower renounces Ada (Rachael Stirling, in the most emotionally convincing performance of the night) with a mean-spirited misquotation of the Bard is heart-breaking. She also spitefully tells her daughter, “You know I cannot bear to look at sick people… There can be no place for people such as you. Only perfection is good enough…” In her mother’s eyes, Ada is nothing but a “clawing, slobbering” nobody who might as well share the crimson skin of the “rejects” washed down the canal.

Again, how different this sanctimoniously sermonizing, “Jerusalem”-singing moral crusader is from the God we know in Jesus Christ! Jesus looked at multitudes of sick people and “had compassion for them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd” (Mark 6.34). He restored health to the ill, sight to the blind, mobility to the lame. He chose those who are “weak in the world to shame the strong” (1 Corinthians 1.27). Our divine judge is also our divine physician, who came, as another old hymn says, “softly and tenderly” calling “those who are sick,” spiritually and physically (Mark 2.17).

Through Isaiah, God asks the Jewish exiles, “Can a woman forget her baby, or disown the child of her womb? Though she might forget, I never could forget you… As a mother comforts her son, so I will comfort you” (49.15; 66.13, NJPS). Rhetorically, God’s question presupposes a negative answer; yet even if the presumably strong bonds of human motherhood do break, God promises, the compassion binding God to Israel will not. We can trust God to be a better mother to us than the best mortal mother—let alone such a miserable mom as Mrs. Gillyflower!

Do We See What She Sees?

In Western storytelling, blindness is frequently a symbolic condition. Ancient prophets and poets like Tiresias and Homer were (according to Hans Biedermann’s Dictionary of Symbolism, 1989; New York: Meridian, 1994) “portrayed… with an indication that they had been struck blind upon penetrating secrets reserved for the gods” (p. 42); and ever since, blind characters can often “see” truths sighted characters can’t. Sci-fi and fantasy fans might think of Dr. Miranda Jones (“Is There In Truth No Beauty?,” Star Trek), Spider-Man’s mentor Madame Web, Destiny of the Endless from Neil Gaiman’s Sandman graphic novels, or even Mama Odie (Disney’s The Princess and the Frog). (Thanks to tvtropes.org for a crash course in genre examples!)

Is Ada another such blind character who “sees” what others don’t? Her scenes with the red-stained Doctor remind me of the blind hermit’s encounter with the Creature in Bride of Frankenstein (1935), and cover much the same theological ground. Ada affirms to the Doctor that it is not good to be alone (see Genesis 2.18) and shares with him her “vision” of a future in which she is redeemed, confident that her mother’s “New Eden” has room even for the outcast. (Matt Smith’s physical movements in these scenes borrow more than a little from Boris Karloff, underscoring the parallels.) But I’m especially fascinated by the name Ada bestows upon the Doctor: “dear monster.”

This episode itself gives no suggestion that the Doctor is a monster. “Monster” is not a dominant way of thinking about the character; as Steven Moffat said in an interview from 2010, the Doctor is “a man who fights monsters but never becomes one.”

And yet… River Song cautioned the Doctor that he was becoming something monstrous in “A Good Man Goes to War” (6.7). In “The Wedding of River Song” (6.13), the Doctor, realizing he’d gotten “too big,” declared his intention to retreat to the shadows—and, this week, he describes his enemy as “hanging around, lurking in the shadows.” And don’t forget the implicit comparison of the Doctor and the “Crooked Man” two weeks ago, in “Hide” (7.9). In that episode, too, another young woman with special sight issued a warning about the Doctor.

Perhaps the now tiresome obsession with Clara’s identity is the real “crimson horror” this season, a red herring distracting us from the more pressing question must never be asked, the first question awaiting us us at the end of our inexorable slouch toward Trenzalore: “Who is the Doctor? Doctor who?”

Might Moffat and company be hinting that our beloved Time Lord is more monstrous than we have guessed?

What did you think of “The Crimson Horror?”

Except as noted, Scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version. “NJPS” is the Jewish Publication Society TANAKH translation. 

The Sci-Fi Christian – 5/7/13 “The Sci-Fi Christian: Iron Man 3 Movie Review” featuring Matt Anderson and Ben De Bono

Now that the Geek Grab Bag has passed it’s 50th edition, it’s time to spice things up a bit. Aside from the usual video or two featured at the end of each article, the GGB will now feature a short film as well.

Hahahaha!

Even Captain Hammer loves photobombing! (Submitted by Matt Anderson)

You can never trust Deadpool. (Found at Textsfromsuperheroes.com)

The Dark Knight: Always protecting. (Found at technabob.com)

The cutest Dalek I’ve ever seen. (Submitted by Nathan Norman)

This has happened all before. (Submitted by our very own catholic scribe, Ben DeBono)

Batman wins.

GGB Short of the Week:

Hybrids was written and directed by Patrick Kalyn with cinematography by Cliff Hokanson and music by Sam Hulick, produced by Gabriel Paul Napora & Triton Films (Visit the film’s site here)

Despite some determined Googling, I can’t locate a certain interview I read around the time Moffat took the Doctor Who reins. I recall him making the point that the TARDIS is best understood as a device for getting characters quickly into an interesting story on the other side of its doors. I did turn up one quote to that effect, even though it’s not the quote I remember: Moffat told Under the Radar’s Mark Redfern in 2008, “Doctor Who is essentially about the Doctor walking out of the TARDIS’ doors and finding completely new stuff he doesn’t understand yet. That’s the paradigm Doctor Who story.”

If you happen to know the interview I’m thinking of, please steer me toward it. I’d like to make Moffat read it now. This week’s episode bolsters the argument that the best Doctor Who stories don’t take place inside the Doctor’s wonderful blue box.

And I do think the TARDIS is wonderful. Creative writing and convincing acting in the face of the BBC’s 1963 budgetary constraints yielded an enduring sci-fi icon. Even when I wasn’t a Who fan, I recognized the TARDIS as surely as I did the Millennium Falcon or the starship Enterprise. Now that I am a fan, I appreciate this bigger-on-the-inside (or “smaller on the outside”) imaginary achievement even more. I smile whenever I hear those groaning engines. I may have teared up (ahem) when that “something blue” materialized on the dance floor at Amy and Rory’s wedding in “The Big Bang.” And, of course, I can no longer think about the TARDIS apart from Neil Gaiman’s bizarre but beautiful episode, “The Doctor’s Wife.”

But even Gaiman’s script—which gave us the TARDIS temporarily made flesh, for heaven’s sake—exercised restraint instead of yielding to the temptation to take viewers on a bona fide TARDIS tour. Yes, we saw Amy and Rory running through a few of its corridors, but Gaiman (and, at the time, Moffat too) understood that no small part of the TARDIS’ appeal is that viewers furnish its fantastic interior for themselves.

A friend with whom I regularly watch Who has decided that the show is “a radio play for the eyes.” In his opinion, Who works best when it simply suggests something startling and surprising and then, like audio dramas of yesteryear, trusts the audience to fill in the rest. I don’t completely agree with his assessment, but I appreciate its wisdom.

I enjoyed the glimpses we got of the TARDIS’ observatory and storied swimming pool. I liked the small touches that harkened back to Who history both recent and not-so: the Doctor’s “cot,” the umbrella (no question mark-shaped handle, but surely a tip o’ the bumbershoot to Sylvester McCoy), and especially the snatches of dialogue from Susan, Ian, the Ninth Doctor, and Amy. I’ll even admit I liked the Doctor’s Jorge Luis Borges-worthy library. As a bibliophile who works with rare volumes, how could I not? I don’t know whether the bottled Encyclopedia Gallifrey hails from classic Who, but it’s an eccentric and enchanting detail.

As the episode wore on, however, dragging us ever deeper into the TARDIS, both the plot and my patience with it fell apart. Hearing that the TARDIS is powered by a perpetually exploding star on the verge of becoming a black hole, for example, could have been quite exciting; looking at it was not. Speculating about what the mysterious engine room of this marvelous, living machine must be like allows space for mystery and wonder; seeing the Doctor and Clara move through mechanical debris suspended against a sterile, white background crowded those reactions out. And while I know that Thompson’s script offered some attempt at an explanation as to why our heroes found themselves in a holodeck-like environment at one point, even after two viewings, I couldn’t tell you what that explanation was.

“Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS” falls flat, in part, for the same reason Steven Spielberg’s 1980 revision of Close Encounters of the Third Kind doesn’t quite work: no creative team can show an audience an alien ship’s interior that will be as incredibly, outrageously out-of-this world as the one it’s seeing in its imagination. After this episode, the TARDIS seems less real to me, not more. Keeping its secrets would have kept that illusion safe.

Continued Clara Confusion

I still feel sorry for Jenna-Louise Coleman. As a regular cast member she is stuck playing a character who is far less interesting than either of her previous roles on the show. The Doctor tells the Van Baalen brothers Clara is “the salvage of a lifetime” (a phrase which raises all kinds of red flags about how the Doctor views her relationship to her), and their hand-held sensors register her “sass,” but all we see for ourselves is, once more, a pretty face for the Doctor to rescue. (Well, in her burning-alive future state, not so pretty, but you know what I mean.) In previous weeks, Clara has shown a few moments of true agency, but here, her contribution is a completely passive one. She isn’t even allowed to read the message seared into her palm once it’s completely legible.

Since this episode fails Clara on the characterization front, does it at least advance the ongoing mystery of her identity? No. Instead, it retreads the movement seen in “The Rings of Akhaten” and “Hide”: the Doctor obsesses over Clara’s secret, is rebuked for it, and accepts (though not really) that she is simply herself. Coleman convincingly plays Clara’s bewilderment at the Doctor’s angry explosion (“What are you? A test, a trap?”), but the Big Friendly Reset Button at the episode’s end ensures that this emotionally strong moment she and the Doctor share will have no repercussions for Clara going forward.

Unless, of course, it will. As Gregor Van Baalen’s experience demonstrates (more on that in a moment), some chance remains that this episode’s events will stick with Clara to some degree. She may remember that the Doctor has seen her die twice, and that memory may finally push her into some engrossing character development. Would she continue to feel completely safe around someone in whose company she has already twice perished?

The most interesting “Clara moment” this week is, of course, not really about Clara at all, but about the Doctor. (Oh, well—it is his show, after all.) In one corner of that huge, leather-bound, clasp-fitted tome chronicling the Time War, Clara sees the Doctor’s name. “So that’s who,” she says, suggesting that his name holds some inherent significance for her. Is it a name we, too, would recognize if we saw it? Or is Clara’s understanding contingent upon her experiences to this point, in any of her various incarnations? Will her memory of knowing the Doctor’s name remain, despite the Big Friendly Reset Button? Will she recover it on her own—or (as I suspect) will it be forced from her on the fields of Trenzalore, “at the fall of the eleventh, when no living creature can speak falsely or fail to answer”?

Oh, Brother!

A final thought: I can’t shake the feeling that this episode began its life as being far more about the Van Baalen brothers than about either Clara or the Doctor. Ashley Walters as Gregor, Mark Oliver as Bram, and Jahvel Hall as Tricky deliver strong performances, leaving me wanting to know more about these characters’ past and future. Envy and rivalry are common enough among siblings, but the dynamics at work that allowed Gregor and Bram to convince Tricky that he wasn’t even human indicate some serious family conflict, familial strife that would rival any of the feuds found in the pages of Genesis, from Cain and Abel through Jacob and Esau to Joseph and his brothers. Joseph’s brothers sold their little brother into slavery, but Gregor and Bram steal Tricky’s very identity! That’s harsh.

UPDATE: I neglected to mention (after I went and promised I would) that I was pleased by the fact that, even though Gregor does not remember his time aboard the TARDIS, the experience has changed him. His assertion in the penultimate scene that he still has some shred of decency struck me as a lovely character moment (and, of course, suggests that Clara may experience a similar lasting affect from this week’s adventure, remembering, not that she has a shred of decency–she has already shown she has much more decency than that–but that she has learned the Doctor’s name).

“I just want a brother beside me!” Tricky laments at one point. I think everyone’s cried that lament, at some point. When we’re scared, in pain, lost, grieving, confused, alone—we want someone beside us, someone like us but also, perhaps, bigger, stronger, more capable; someone like a big brother in whom we can place our trust, someone who can promise us that we will be all right, even if we currently aren’t. No human brother can completely fill that bill, not all the time, but “Jesus is not ashamed to call [us] brothers and sisters” (Hebrews 2.11). Our “big brother” doesn’t give us false identities, but restores to us our true ones, declaring, “Here am I and the children whom God has given me” (2.13).

What did you think of “Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS”?

Scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version.

The Sci-Fi Christian – 5/1/13 “The Sci-Fi Christian: Top Ten All Time Favorite Sci-Fi Things” featuring Matt Anderson and Ben De Bono

The Sci-Fi Christian – 4/30/13 “The Sci-Fi Christian: The SFC Time Loop – Our First Episode” featuring Matt Anderson and Ben De Bono

The Sci-Fi Christian – 4/29/13 “The Sci-Fi Christian: Marvel Studios Acquires the Rights to Daredevil and Other News” featuring Matt Anderson and Ben De Bono

Here is Fandango’s official synopsis for Primer:

Primer is a psychological sci-fi thriller about a group of four tech entrepreneurs. Toiling away in a garage, the quartet have successfully created error-checking systems for their clients. But their recent work seems to have created an unexpected and seemingly impossible side-effect. Suddenly, two members of the group realize they are in possession of a device that can double, or perhaps even quadruple, the space-time continuum of anything that enters it. What at first seems like a windfall of astronomical proportions eventually proves to be much more than they bargained for, as the duo attempt to manipulate time to their financial — and emotional — benefit.

The Time Travel Mechanics of Primer:

Let’s move on to our review!

➢ What did you think of the acting?

Brandon: Shane Carruth, who plays Aaron does a great job. His acting benefits from being the one who wrote the screenplay. In cases like this the writer knows how the lines should be delivered. It has been said that Carruth decided to play the lead role of Aaron himself when actors auditioning for the role put too much drama into the lines. David Sullivan plays Abe. I do not know where they found this guy. He is a great co-lead. I would say his acting is on par with Carruth’s. The acting is quick and by that I mean everyone has a fast response to the point where the characters are almost talking over each other. It is more like how people talk in real life. I would not be surprised if I found out later that the acting was improvised. The pacing of the line delivery creates an energy needed to drive the plot for a movie with no action. The short cast list (most of which were Carruth’s friends and family) makes for a more intimate film, which I appreciate.

Max: I thought that the acting, for such a low budget film, was excellent. Shane Carruth (Aaron) and David Sullivan (Abe) delivered wonderfully compelling performances. I felt as though I was watching real people react to an extraordinary situation—relaying fear, anxiety, uncertainty, and doing their best to remain level-headed. I did have a difficult time keeping up with their conversations, as the actors delivered their lines very quickly; however, I wasn’t bothered by this as I would presume that the intentionality was to create overlapping dialogue and rushed sentences in order to maintain the real-life relatability of the characters themselves.

➢ Did the low production value pan out?

Brandon: This film is truly the definition of an indie film. It was made for an estimated $7,000, most of which went to the use of Super 16mm film stock and with a crew of only six. Shane Carruth was the writer, director, producer, cinematographer, editor, and music composer as well as star of the film. The quality of the Super 16 film shows. There is grit to the quality of the actual celluloid; the saturated color palette of the movie makes it feel very vintage; occasional blips and scratches are noticeable. I feel all of this adds to the film’s indie style and theme of entrepreneurs doing what they do best. Carruth also set the story in unglamorous industrial parks and suburban tract homes in Dallas, TX. This is a creative decision that I think brings a sense of order to the film. With industrial parks and tract homes images of cubicles and straight lines especially in grid formation come to mind. A prime example of this order in Primer is the muffin and milk shot. This has to be a quality of Carruth’s that comes from being an engineer. My only gripe about the production value is that there is one instance that takes place outside where it may have been noisy during filming. You can tell that the actors did ADR in post. The audio quality shifts from the audio they picked up on location and the ADR audio.

Max: I don’t think that the low budget detracted from the movie at all. In fact, I am glad that it was created with such a low cost—adding to the realistic vibe of the film. I was transported into the film; I was spending time with these men; I was right alongside them creating, planning, and adjusting. I wasn’t watching a spectacle, I was participating in a learning experiment.

➢ What are your thoughts on Carruth’s time travel mechanics?

Brandon: Shane Carruth was a math major in college and an engineer before he became a filmmaker. This certainly helped him in the writing of the “technobabble” that comes with engineers talking to each other. With this engineering experience he makes the mechanics of time travel feel plausible, not impossible.

Max: I’ve heard all sorts of time travel theory before—fixed timelines, dynamic timelines, the multiverse, among others—but this seemed fresh and original. I was thinking the whole time that this film made it seem like a possibility rather than science fiction.

➢ Is the story compelling and engaging?

Brandon: Primer feels very original. Sure we have seen the engineer/scientist archetype who builds a time machine in their garage before. But I think the originality comes from the fact that this is one of the rare sci-fi films that have no special effects. The absence of effects and the mechanics of time travel truly ground the film in reality. I also liked the way the film handles subjects like causality (affecting the timeline when two versions of the same character exist) and time traveling for financial gain. From pretty early on in the time travel experiment I lost track of which versions of the characters the movie is following scene by scene; but that is okay. If you feel lost after the first viewing, just know that that is how you are supposed to feel. Carruth intentionally muddied the film’s plot to mirror how confusing time travel really is. This is a film you need to see three to six times before you can really comprehend all that is going on.

Max: I will say that for the first ten minutes of the film, I was bored. There wasn’t much going on, just a lot of conversation and arguments regarding the project the men were working on: what’s wrong this time? How should this be fixed? Can this be purchased with the current budget? I was literally dropped into the middle of a pre-existing story without any clue of what was going on (other than the synopsis) and expected to just move right along with the character. Well, after the first initial ten minutes, I was on board. I was enthralled by their progression, enticed by sudden developments, and immersed into their world.

HAND OVER THE SPOILS! (Spoilers)

➢ What are some of your favorite moments or things that stuck out to you?

Brandon: “Are you hungry? I haven’t eaten since later this afternoon.” I love that line. The line itself gives you a sense of non-linear storytelling. One of my favorite scenes was the montage of Aaron and Abe going through all the prep before time travelling. It was in moments like that that I felt the character’s anxiousness to time travel. I also enjoyed the concepts of handwriting deterioration, disposing of doubles, having to re-enact conversations that had already happened by listening to what was said through an ear bud and figuring how cell phones work.

Max: The moment that drew me into the film and had me thinking, “Okay, maybe I won’t fall asleep,” is when Aaron and Abe are working on their device in the garage. Aaron turns it on and Abe places some paper shavings over it and the paper begins to float. Simultaneously, Aaron, Abe, and I all realized that continuing on would not be a waste of time. I also loved this quote from Aaron:

“But the worst thing in the world is to know that the moment you’re experiencing has already been defined.”

To me, this encapsulates the hardships that can come from tinkering with “something” that doesn’t belong to you. In Primer’s case, its time.

➢ What do you make of the last scene of the film?

Brandon: I believe Aaron was in France based on the French translator standing next to him where he was supervising the construction of a room sized time machine box. I believe this version of Aaron is also the one who provides the voice over narration for the film.

Max: I am on the same page as Brandon. I also believe that with his last line, “And if you look, you will not find me,” the narrator, or Aaron, is counting on the fact that he is so engrossed in this new life of time travel, with an increasing understanding of how the whole journey works, that he will be untouchable (or at least the version of himself that is speaking at the moment).

➢ Final thoughts?

Brandon: I loved this film. This is not your regular summer popcorn blockbuster time travel movie. It is deep and should spur on discussion of theories. This film is a great example of a great director just starting out like Christopher Nolan with his film Following. While the look of the Primer does look like a first movie that is certainly not a bad thing. If Upstream Color, Carruth’s latest film that just made its way through the film festival circuit, is anything like Primer I just may have to follow his whole career as a filmmaker.

Brandon’s Rating: 5 Stars

Max: I really enjoyed Primer. It made me think and pause—literally I had to pause the movie multiple times to try and grasp what was taking place—and continue to think afterwards.

Max’s Rating: 5 Stars

*Fun fact: Shane Carruth was consulted on time travel mechanics for Rian Johnson’s Looper.*

Issues of the Day – 4/28/13 “Issues of the Day: The Oz/Wonderland Chronicles” featuring Daniel Butcher and Michael Poteet

The Sci-Fi Christian – 4/27/13 “The Sci-Fi Christian: Oblivion Movie Review” featuring Matt Anderson and Ben Avery

The Sci-Fi Christian – 4/25/13 “The Sci-Fi Christian: Virtual Ethics: Morality and MMOs” featuring Matt Anderson and Ben De Bono

I don’t count either of Neil Cross’ Doctor Who scripts among my favorites, but they make me think!

In his “Who Review” of Cross’ first episode, “The Rings of Akhaten,”  Ben Avery took issue with the Doctor’s speech about the Queen of Years’ unique value, a speech that was, for me, that episode’s highlight. Ben argued:

This is humanism at its richest and fullest… and saddest… Everything in the universe is special. Everything in the universe is unique. Everyone who has existed, does exist, or will exist can lay claim to the same level of value. But the question is: who does the valuing? Who appreciates the value? The Doctor? Perhaps. In the real world, though, the only hope that comes from the idea that “everyone is special and unique just like everyone else” is if you have someone (perhaps Someone?) who can appreciate the value… The empty universe of the atheist and the humanist, ultimately, is one in which human life has very little value compared to everything else…

While I agree with his theological conclusion—namely, that humanity’s value ultimately rests in the truth that God values us (Psalm 8)—something about how Ben put his point bothered me. I’m unsure what my reaction’s all about (and Ben was patient and let me litter his site’s comment field with attempts to articulate it), but it may be this question:

Are the Christian’s and the humanist/atheist’s claims about humanity’s worth mutually exclusive?

I affirm God created humanity in God’s own image (Gen. 1.27). I also accept the scientific hypotheses underpinning the Doctor’s “stardust speech.” Both narratives speak to the fact that something exists, that we live, when existence and life were not foregone conclusions. I think the “how” of the “stardust speech” and the “what” and “why” of Genesis go hand-in-hand. And while the “how” by itself is incomplete, I find myself appreciating it as beautiful, so far as it goes, and loathe to label it “sad” and “empty.” It doesn’t say all that needs to be said—but it says something that very much does need to be said, in a world where we seem all too quick to dismiss and devalue one another.

“The Only Mystery Worth Solving”

Cross returns to the theme of humanity’s value in “Hide.”

Most of this episode was über-Gothic parody—the lightning! the thunder! the candles! the mansion on the moors! the “ghast”!—and much of the rest was an extended trans-dimensional race against time that made little sense, even after repeated viewings (Emma opened the reality well for Clara and the TARDIS, is that it? And the TARDIS more or less just decided it could stand the entropic strain of the echo universe after all?). This week’s offering grabbed my attention when Cross revisited the question of what, if anything, makes human beings special.

“We all are ghosts to you,” Clara says to the Doctor, a blend of accusation and lament. “We must be nothing.” The Doctor reassures her that she has not reached the correct conclusion. “You,” he says—and I think he means “you” both singularly and plural—“are the only mystery worth solving.”

The moment reveals the heart of the Doctor’s obsession with Clara’s origins. In her admittedly unusual way (showing up, not unlike trapped time traveler Hila Tacorian, at various points throughout history), Clara personifies something true of all human beings. We are all, not ghosts, but mysteries to each other. I’m not saying we can’t ever really know another person… but even the people we know best in this world do remain other. We are not them. They are not us. Even with parents and children, spouses, best friends, there always remains a degree of distinctiveness that can’t be overcome.

Far from being bad news, our distinctiveness means there is always more to learn about each other, always more to discover, to appreciate. We do not live in relationship with someone and, after a certain point, decide that we’ve got that unique individual who really exists all figured out. Instead, we continue the relationship. We live and interact and love. We reveal more of ourselves to them; they reveal more of themselves to us. Maybe this is what the Doctor means when he advises Emma and Professor Palmer, “Hold hands… and don’t let go. That’s the secret.” It is not good that any of us should be alone (Gen. 2.18).

A Crooked Man?

The Doctor, of course, never really practices what he here preaches. Because he is so thoroughly alien and alone, he will never “solve” humanity. Of the creature in the pocket universe—identified, intriguingly, with the nursery rhyme sobriquet “Crooked Man” in the credits—the Doctor says, “Every lonely monster needs a companion,” apparently oblivious to how his words might apply to himself.

This episode reminded me that the Doctor is, in many ways, a tragic figure. He is a “crooked man”—not evil, but bent, malformed. Emma is right: that “sliver of ice in his heart” keeps him from being fully trustworthy, not because he is malicious, but because he refuses to “hold hands and not let go.” He isn’t honest with others—remember River Song’s first rule about the Doctor? Speaking of River, he didn’t really marry her—he was “a Doctor in a Doctor’s suit,” and he withheld his name from River at the moment it should have been demanded from him. He doesn’t keep in touch with past companions—except when he tried to, with Amy and Rory, and he’s not likely to want to put himself in so vulnerable and painful a position again. Yet “holding hands and not letting go” demands vulnerability, and the possibility of pain.

On the other hand… the Doctor delights in humanity. He still announces to any and all threats that the Earth and its people are under his protection. He may never “solve” the mystery of humanity, but for all that he doesn’t fully engage, he also never fully withdraws. For him, humanity is the only mystery worth trying to solve, even if that solution can never fully be reached.

So it is with us. We are mysteries to each other, and, often, to ourselves! The only person to whom we are not a mystery is our Creator. Only by God are we “fully known” (1 Cor. 13.12). Only God can ascribe value and worth to us on that basis.

For our part, until we no longer see as in a mirror, dimly, we must count each other valuable simply because we are here, with each other, in this world that didn’t have to exist but does. We must hold hands and not let go. We must live in the mystery. And that, I think, is not empty or sad, but deep and rich, and worth much.

The Sci-Fi Christian – 4/23/13 “The Sci-Fi Christian: Star Wars Every Year?…and Other News” featuring Matt Anderson and Ben De Bono

What do you think of this trailer? Could “Phase 2″ be even better than “Phase 1″?

http://youtu.be/Ffwt0IKk51M

Given that this sequence is excerpted from the preview of the film’s first nine minutes released with IMAX prints of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey back in December, I assume Spock somehow survives–if, in fact, he is even in any real danger–Spock “dying” early on in the film is, of course, reminiscent of the opening sequence of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Given that Quinto’s Spock directly quotes a line from that film in this scene (rather clumsily, too, I say–the screenplay is trying too hard), I wonder “if we’re playing out that scenario now.” Perhaps Starfleet has decided that the newly-minted Captain Kirk really does need to face a no-win scenario? 

The environmental suits (?) Kirk, Uhura, and Sulu are wearing are kinda funny looking, but do evoke those used in “The Tholian Web.”

I like McCoy’s dead-on observation that, in this point in Kirk and Spock’s relationship, Spock would no doubt let Kirk perish. It would, apparently, be the logical course of action. I also like (assuming this is a real situation of jeopardy) that Kirk is ready to let the Prime Directive hang. Very true to established Trek form.

UPDATE: It just occurs to me… I wonder if that’s actually how things will pan out? Prompted by the final trailer, I speculated that Kirk might be meeting his maker (no, not Gene Roddenberry!) this time around… What if this is a bit of foreshadowing? It would be none too subtle, but it would work.

What do you think?

This “original” story by Joseph Kosinski (Tron:Legacy) is his love letter to every sci-fi film that came before it. You have 2001, Wall-e, The Matrix, and a dash of Mad Max just to name a few of them. Since this film is wanting to be all of those movies the story feels crowded and the plot becomes muddy trying to fit them all into two hours. The pacing of the film I felt was off balanced. The first half is very slow as we watch Jack do his day-to-day drone repairs with the last half very fast pasted with action set pieces and character revelations one right after another. I wish it was more a bit of both throughout. There is a major plot point that I called out a few minutes into the film. It is very similar to another movie that I will talk about in the spoiler section below. Kosinski says that he wrote the concept for Oblivion before this other movie came out but it still came out before. This plot point is so intwined with the rest of the film that there was no way that he could have changed it. He had to do with what he had. Other wise we would have gotten a totally different film from him today.

As for the writing goes I would say it is meh. Perhaps there were too many cooks in the kitchen. The story was developed by Kosinski as a graphic novel, and written by William Monahan and Karl Gajdusek. In a recent interview with Slashfilm, Kosinski said this about Michael Arndt (writer of Star Wars: Episode VII) being a screenwriter on the film, “He did a couple of weeks on it, more than a couple of weeks. He spent two or three weeks…He did a lot of work at every level from structure to story, character…we worked on every aspect of the film. So to kind of pull out and say, “That’s his,” you can’t do that on a film. It’s such a collaborative thing…” This sounds like all he did on it was a polish. So Ben De Bono, I do not think this would be a good example to judge him by on what we can expect from him on Star Wars.

This film is very good looking. It is very clean. Joseph Kosinski has a background in architecture and it really shows in this film. The architecture of the buildings, the ships, the drones, even the way the civilization of the past has decayed are all portrayed beautifully. I do have to commend Kosinski for using practical effects when he can. Sure there is a lot of CGI in this film but when the film can go with practical effects it does. That is very much appreciated.

Here we have Tom Cruise playing Tom Cruise. Is it just me or does it seem like all of his parts in the last decade have all blended together? Not to say that he is a bad actor but it would be nice to tell this character apart from his other parts. Morgan Freeman who plays Beech was a wasted opportunity. I love Morgan Freeman. If I could pay him to follow me around everywhere and narrate my whole life I would. He is not in this film enough. He is only there to tell Jack what the deal is when he discovers the truth. That is about it. Olga Kurylenko plays Jack’s partner Victoria. The way she delivered her lines way dry and cold. You could call her a robot. There was nothing about her character that made me want to like her, though I get the feeling that I was suppose to. Andrea Riseborough plays Julia, the stranger that Jack finds. She was the best of the two female leads but her character felt predictable and was not given much to do.

I give this movie a 3 out of 5 stars all of which go to the production design and special effects. Koninski is definitely a visual director. The general population will like this as the first summer action flick of the year. But for those of you like myself who like your sci-fi to be more deep go watch any of the films that inspired this film.

Spoilers:

As I said before there is a major plot point in the  film much like another film. I realize by telling you what it is I will be spoiling that film too. But hey what are you going to do? The film is Moon. If you have seen Moon you might have guessed the plot point is that Tom Cruise plays a clone. He even fights his clone somewhere just after the midpoint of the film. While in Moon Sam Bell has memories of life on Earth, Jack Haper from Oblivion has no memories prior to doing drone repairs. Only dreams depicting his past seep through. The thing that made me call it at the beginning of the film was that in both films both main characters have two more weeks of their mission before they can leave.

This is just a nit pick but, in Oblivion humanity has moved on to Titan, a moon of Saturn. Why go there? Would not Mars be warmer? It is closer to the sun and seems like it would be a better place to consider terraforming. Like I said, just a nit pick.

I’ll let this video speak for itself. You can check out more on this here.

Comic Book does not mean Stupid Book! 

Many disparage comic books as being low brow literature that plays to the lowest denominator.  Others look at comic books as a truly unique American art form.  I tend to be part of the later, and have used comic book stories to teach Biblical truth lifetimes ago as a youth pastor.

The Book of God: How We Got the Bible takes this a step forward sharing truth about the Bible in a very intelligent way.  The Book of God written by Ben Avery and illustrated by Javier Saltares provides readers with an overview of the Bible, a history of its development, and evidence to the accuracy and truth of the Bible.  The book is divided into four main parts:  the Production of the Bible, the Process of the Bible, the Preservation of the Bible, and the Proof the Bible.  The topics are discussed by the book’s narrator who stands in front of scenes that illustrate the topic he discusses.  In effect, readers are given both text and illustration to drive home the points of the story of the Bible. 

Ben Avery’s script for The Book of God is well researched, well written and highly enlightening.  Avery clearly deeply researched his topic, though he does not claim to be a scholar.  He provides accurate context to the books of the Bible and makes it clear where issues like authorship are in debate.  I had hoped to catch him falling into the trap of reporting that the Jewish historian Josephus claimed that Jesus was the Christ.  Instead he pointed out the issue and the inaccuracy of any Christian claims that Josephus would have made this statement.  Additionally, it is well written.  The text is concise but accurate and informative.  He weaves in terms from non-English languages seamlessly and educates his audience to their use.  I have read much longer volumes that have presented similar content, and I appreciated how much information Avery was able to convey with such few words. 

I enjoyed Saltares’ images, which mix a modern man, the narrator, into the historical images.  I was never distracted by this mixing of eras.  Additionally, he depicts multiple eras successfully from ancient history to our modern era.  I continually came back to the representation of the narrator.  The image of the African-American narrator added to the text for me.  He is dressed and represented in a balanced fashion where he both felt authoritative and “cool”.  The narrator is the younger professor that you probably wanted to hang out with during your college days.   I think that this depiction would have an impact on teens and young adults, who likely would not want to preached at by an older professor figure. 

The big question I asked myself is how would I use The Book of God?  Back in my youth pastor days I was often asked to provide youth centered studies as alterative programming.  One of those was a Bible Basics study.  If I had The Book of God available I would have selected this title, instead of whatever I actually used.  Additionally, I can think of adult friends who do not enjoy reading that this title could be a good suggestion for, since it is concise, has multiple means of communicating its message and is an intelligent read.

I really enjoyed The Book of God.  It is not my typical comic title, being Ninja free, but it is very successful of fulfilling its goal of providing truth about the Bible.  It is well written, well researched and well presented.  And it helps show how comic books can help intellectually stimulate readers.  Like me, you will probably forgive Ben Avery for a lack of ninjas and appreciate the message that it does present.                 

The Sci-Fi Christian – 4/18/13 “The Sci-Fi Christian: Aliens and Strangers Part 2: The Prometheus Paradox” featuring The Sci-Fi Christians & The Strangers and Aliens

I was going to do a regular edition of The Geek Grab Bag today, but then I remembered: It’s Superman’s birthday. Not only is it his birthday, but it’s his 75th! Wow. Love him or Hate him (Ben DeBono), Superman is the most iconic and, when written well and true to form, stand-up super-hero around. Let’s celebrate his birthday today with some awesome and awesomely funny Superman related internet goodies:

Superman is such a prankster. (Created by Augustinus)

It might be an interesting fight. But I think if they fight in space, Superman takes it.

Well, this is just ridiculously cute!

It’s not always easy, Doc.

Lounge like a real Superman.

The real Fortress of Solitude. (Found at Technabob.com)

Cool dress! (Created by BongChopShop)

hahahaha

The original Superman trailer 1978

And one more time: The Man of Steel trailer #3

Both Daniel and Mike had been intrigued, separately, by the project. Together, they offer SFC readers their take on the meeting of marvelous places and people that Avery and Heying have created.

Do you feel these stories represent Oz and Wonderland well?

Dan:  I honestly have not read any of the Oz books, though I have read both Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass. I have seen numerous depictions of both fantasy lands, from the classic MGM Wizard of Oz to Disney’s animated Alice in Wonderland. In many ways, Avery and Heying provide a more coherent Wonderland than Carroll’s originals; his books are such a chaotic jumble that an author has a lot of freedom when repackaging and extended the basic source content. With Oz, I really only have the MGM movie to base any strong opinions on. I applaud the authors for not just using the characters that everyone knows, but using this series as an opportunity to introduce us to unfamiliar Oz characters like Hungry Tiger and Jack Pumpkinhead. If anything, the authors introduced me to the world of Oz beyond Judy Garland.

Mike:  Well, as long as we’re confessing… I’ve never read any Lewis Carroll! My only knowledge of Wonderland comes from seeing bits and pieces of Disney’s animated Alice. I do now feel motivated to read the originals, having read Avery and Heying’s take on them. But I can attest that these creators’ Oz credentials are impeccable. They weave all the major literary denizens of Oz into their tale, plus quite a few minor ones. Only a reader of Baum’s books would think to include the Kalidahs, for example, or to summon the big blue dragon Quox. Avery and Heying also manage to sneak in subtle allusions to the MGM movie (for instance, I loved the Scarecrow’s mangled recitation of “E pluribus unum” as he is being re-stuffed with his brains!). After my disappointment with Disney’s new Oz movie, I was ready for a really good Oz story. Oz/Wonderland definitely delivers!

Do these stories conform to canon?

Mike: While I can’t speak to Wonderland’s continuity (or even if such a concept applies in the world of the Mad Hatter), Baum himself didn’t overly worry about “canon” in Oz, so Avery and Heying are in good company with their selective approach to the backstory of Oz. They are certainly more careful than many Oz authors and artists have been. The text pages involving Cap’n Bill and Dorothy, for example, mimic the look of a chapter from the actual Oz books, right down to the headpiece (though Heying’s line drawings are far more subtle than anything John R. Neill provided). Avery’s script sticks to the basic, overarching plot of Baum’s Oz tales—Princess Ozma assumed her rightful place on Oz’s throne; the Wizard returned, as did Dorothy, who eventually brought Aunt Em and Uncle Henry with her; and select other folk from our world continued to cross over—but then deviates from Baum by establishing a kind of mass exodus from the fairyland, beginning with the Wizard. It’s a necessary change, not only dramatically, but also thematically—but I know we’re going to talk about that in a bit.

Dan:   There have been so many versions of these stories that I question if I even know what canon is anymore. I do believe that Avery and Heying have researched the original stories, various adaptations of them (such as the MGM film), understand which elements are available to for them to use and which ones are legally barred from their world, and have introduced characters like Hungry Tiger that come from the source material but have not been in the public eye. I could easily see The Oz/Wonderland Chronicles as a sequel to the Judy Garland movie since we have all of the key characters from that film extended into the future.

I also appreciate that they have gone beyond Oz and Wonderland. The roommates are examples of characters mined from other literature, even if they cannot be called by their familiar names. Even Mae Mannering, the main character from volume 2, has a rich literary origin. Sadly, it took a conversation with Ben Avery to make her origin clear to me!

Mike: Interesting. I saw the blurb on the cover of the first trade—“Movie studios take note”—and I’d buy my ticket right now if such an adaptation were announced! Do you think it would also serve a mass audience well as a sequel to either of Disney’s Alice efforts?

Dan: I don’t think Disney would frame it as a sequel to the animated Alice in Wonderland, but I can see how elements could be incorporated into a program like Once Upon a Time. Or (cough, cough) maybe other studios could look to these tales as an alternative to Snow White’s adventures in Storybrooke.

What did you like the most?

Mike:  I liked so much, it’s hard to choose just one aspect! Frankly, as much as I enjoyed both collected volumes, I was surprised at how much I enjoyed seeing Jack Pumpkinhead and Scraps the Patchwork Girl cross over into our world. This development appealed to me in part because Heying does a first-rate job of bringing these iconic Ozites to life (I’d swear I saw Scraps move before my eyes, right there on the printed page), but also because the concept is so wonderful: Jack wants to discover why everyone who comes to Oz from Earth eventually wants to go back, and is convinced that Earth, not Oz, is the “land of wonder.” It’s a delightful inversion, and the creators pull it off magnificently.

Dan:  I really enjoy the fact that Alice and the roommates are X-Men fans (confirmed with Ben Avery). And, going beyond the X-Men, I really did enjoy Jack Pumpkinhead and the Cheshire Cat exploring our world in volume 2. I love that Jack and I are both fans of James Bond and Star Wars. Unsolicited story pitch: I would love to see Jack channel Bond in Oz! Patchwork Girl could be his Bond girl!

Mike: Agent Pumpkinhead, Licensed to Spoil.

Dan: I like the Wizard. Where is the merchandise so I can buy his baseball cap?  This Wizard to me is an action hero with guns blazing. And honestly it is an interpretation of the Wizard that I would have never considered.

Mike: Yeah, me neither, and that’s one thing I’d take exception to—but, again, getting ahead of myself!

Dan: Krutack! (Does that ever get old?) After the dismal version of the Wizard that we saw in Oz the Great and Powerful I really enjoy this man of action who takes that con man’s place.

Mike: For what it’s worth, Oz redeems himself pretty quickly in the Baum books—and (if The Marvelous Land of Oz, the second book in the series, is taken as the “official” backstory) from a lot worse than just being a con man.

Dan: Wait your turn, Poteet! I also have to say, I liked the Wheelers. Their visual presentation was really well done because it seriously creeped me out as I read through the volume. I do not like scary, and they really scared me. I cannot think of anything else from a comic that gave me the creeps like the Wheelers did.  So please no one come at me with wheels as hands.  I will probably run away. And my scream may be high pitched!

What did you like the least?

Dan:  I occasionally found the art distracting and confusing in volume 1. For example, at times I had difficulty distinguishing the roommates.  They all looked very similar to me. Additionally, in one sequence with multiple frames on the page, Alice changes in my eyes from a blonde to a brunette who looks somewhat like her roommates or Dorothy, To be fair, in volume 2 I thought the roommates were more distinct. And as I write this I am reading a DC title in which an African-American character has turned Caucasian for a two-page spread.

Volume 1 left me wanting to know more about the roomates’ true origins. The bios at the back dropped some clues, and, in volume 2, we get even stronger hints from Avery and Heying that there is more to thse young ladies than meets the eye. Is Suzie really Susan from Narnia?

Mike: Yes.

Dan: Well, you don’t know that for a fact, do you?

Mike: I suspect legal issues prevented them from spilling the beans on Suzie. I can’t imagine she was intended as anyone else.

Dan: I am just saying that perhaps there is still more to come.

Mike: I hate to say it, but my major dislike was the art, as well. As you said, it is often quite inconsistent. I intensely dislike the way Heying draws Dorothy as a child—she is not supposed to be some spectacularly beautiful child in Baum’s books, but Heying has drawn her as really quite ugly.

Dan: Ouch!

Mike: Well, maybe this was a deliberate thematic choice, given the revelation at the end of the first volume, but I found most of the art featuring Dorothy quite unappealing. I also felt a little put off by the occasional “cheesecake” quality of adult Dorothy and Alice (although this quality showed up more in the pin-ups and variant covers by guest artists). Don’t get me wrong, it’s no Lost Girls—it’s quite mild, and it even plays into a subplot in the second volume.

Do you see spiritual applications in this story?

Dan:  Wow! Where to begin? I found tons of spiritual applications, intentional or unintentional, in this title (unlike, say, Guardians of the Galaxy #1, which was somewhat of a spiritual wasteland). Perhaps the real difference here is we are reviewing two full arcs instead of one issue; the authors have room to setup and tell their complete story.

A really evident theme to me is sacrifice, which numerous characters do.  For example, Glinda the Good Witch is never seen as the traditional happy, pretty blonde lady in a glittery dress. You will find that she has been transformed into a very different form, inconveniencing and sacrificing herself in order to provide protection to her friends. Jack Pumpkinhead sacrifices a symbol of his sentience to another character since this symbol was a luxury for himself but essential to the other. And, for me, the most striking example was the Wizard.  I mentioned earlier this Wizard was an action hero.  And a hero he is, putting himself into the midst of dangerous situations where a likely outcome would be his own death.  This is a stark contrast to the recent Disney Wizard.  That Wizard, at the moment of truth, is away from the most pressing action.  He allows others to physically stand against the evil threatening the land of Oz.  This Wizard puts himself into a position of physical danger where he could easily, and perhaps does, offer the ultimate sacrifice. And as we see more of the Wizard’s story in volume 2, we really come to see how much he has given up for those he cares about. These are just a few characters who put it all on the line for another.

Of course, as Christians we are familiar with this story, the story of one who took the burden of our problems (or sins) and paid the cost (died) in our place.  Sacrifice is a theme that should resonate with us as it is one we have a history with, a history in which sacrifice freed us to walk tall despite the fact we do not deserve that right.  As 2 Corinthians 5:21 states, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (ESV).  That is a big gift, a gift we did not deserve, and one we should not be shocked to find throughout literature, including graphic novels.

Mike: Your comments reminded me of one “dislike” I had with the story. I agree that Avery and Heying’s Wizard is infinitely preferable to James Franco’s, but I do not see Baum’s Oscar Diggs as someone who would come in, guns a-blazing, not even to save another. I may be forgetting some example of the Wizard’s gunplay from the texts, but, as I recall, Baum’s Wizard was a smart man who always sought a smart solution out of his various scrapes. In the first book, he used his intelligence to be a humbug; but in later volumes, he was equally as smart, only now he used his wits to help, rather than deceive. He becomes one of Glinda and Ozma’s most trusted associates and friends. In Oz/Wonderland, however, most of the time we see the Wizard, he is shooting off round after round of ammunition. I objected to this characterization, and for that reason found it appropriate that his upswept locks of hair (original to Neill’s illustrations) grew more and more to look like devil’s horns.

Dan: Still, Mike, you’d agree that sacrifice is a major spiritual theme in Oz/Wonderland?

Mike: Absolutely. I’m not saying it’s a major flaw with the work (and, since the Wizard’s gunplay is all directed at malevolent fantasy creatures, that’s probably mitigating circumstance enough), but I think it bears some closer reflection than it gets in these pages.

Dan: Another spiritual lesson is that there are some battles that cannot be won but they must not be lost.  I think as the church we often feel this tension.  As we look at issues like famine, poverty, and the environmental pollution, we probably feel like we cannot win these battles.  But even if we alone cannot beat these problems, as a church we cannot lose these battles and we must battle on.  We must also remember that we do not fight these battles alone. First, we fight them as the united church so we fight as group not individuals, strengthening our power in these battles.  Second, as ambassadors of God we battle with the Father’s power and authority. Yes, we may feel like we cannot win, but we also cannot lose.  We must remember, brothers and sisters, that we are instruments in the reclamation of this Earth, and our victory is already ensured. As confusing as Revelation can be at times, I often find strength in this verse, “Then I saw ‘a new heaven and a new earth,’ for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea” (Rev. 21:1). We may feel like we are losing, but the scoreboard already shows our victory.

Mike: I like where you’re going with that, Dan, and I think Oz/Wonderland also addresses God’s victory over death. The crisis driving the first volume is Dorothy’s inability to accept and move beyond Uncle Henry’s death. Her grief assumes an incredibly complicated form! The Wicked Witch taunts young Dorothy for even entertaining Aunt Em’s quotation of Ecclesiastes, that for everything “there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven,” including “a time to be born, and a time to die” (3:1-2, NRSV). But Aunt Em was right to turn to that Scripture for consolation, and Dorothy eventually learns that truth, too. I found it pretty powerful to be reading Oz/Wonderland in the Easter season, because Christians have not only the kind of stoic philosophy of Ecclesiastes to draw on when confronted with death, but also and more importantly the promise that we will share Jesus’ Resurrection: “For he must reign until he has put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death” (1 Cor. 15:25-26, NRSV).

Of course, the promise of eternal life doesn’t take away the pain we feel when our loved ones die. Dorothy wasn’t wrong to grieve Uncle Henry. But she was wrong to grieve as one without hope (see 1 Thess. 4:13). Christian faith offers a remarkable hope—and “a sure and certain hope,” as so many funeral rites put it—in the face of death.

I love what the Heidelberg Catechism, a sixteenth-century Reformed statement of faith, has to say about the hope the risen Christ gives:

Even as I already now experience in my heart the beginning of eternal joy, so after this life I will have perfect blessedness such as no eye has seen, no ear has heard, no human heart has ever imagined: a blessedness in which to praise God forever (Q/A 58).

Do you plan to stick with the series?

Dan:  I liked volume 1 but I loved volume 2. I would hold it up against anything I have read in the Fables universe. I love that volume (even with its excessive gun play, Mike!), a story that has a new lead allowing the authors to explore areas outside of the traditional Oz and Wonderland models.  I really enjoy that they brought Jack Pumpkinhead and Cheshire Cat back, but this time exploring our world.  And any graphical complaints I have about volume 1 do not exist in the follow-up.

Do yourself a favor, friends: read volume 1 so you can jump into volume 2! I have also read the Prelude volume, which features a new original lead character and the very interesting Mr. Raven. At this point, Ben Avery is probably saddened that I have his contact information since I have politely asked (demanded) volume 3. I really want to see where this story, especially the storyline involving the Wizard and Mae, goes from here.

Mike: I do, too. I plan to pick up the Prelude as soon as I can. I’m impressed to hear (but not surprised) that it, too, is both like and unlike all that has gone before. Oz/Wonderland is one of the most creative things I’ve read in comics in some time, and it deserves to be read by any fan of either fantasy land, or smart, strong, character-driven fantasy in general.

Dan: Please, Avery and Heying, give us more!

Ad men, the American West, zombies, detectives, and meth kingpins. These are some of what AMC has been come to be known for in their original programing. Now AMC has announced  their latest original series. Ballistic City is a hard sci-fi drama that has been described as a cross between Blade Runner and Battlestar Galactica (reboot). AMC is looking to pair the show up with The Walking Dead on Sunday nights this October.

The show follows, “a former cop thrust into the criminal underworld of a city housed in a generational space ship destined for an unknown world.” The show is being developed by Travis Beacham, writer of this summer’s Pacific Rim and Joseph Kosinski (Oblivion, Tron: Legacy). Kosinski will be directing the pilot after doing his rounds of promotions for Oblivion that comes out this Friday.

The concept of a generational space ship sounds interesting, especially one that houses a whole city. Just that right there sounds Blade Runneresque. I will definitely be expecting some robots too. I’m also interested to see how AMC handles sci-fi. I have actually been waiting for them to attack this genre for some time. AMC all ready has the geek audience from The Walking Dead which is why they are probably planning on showing both shows on the same night. Seeing that it is due to come out this October I have to assume that this has been in development for some time. It is currently pilot season for next season’s line up of television so the timing of the shooting of the pilot is nothing unusual.

What are your thoughts on AMC taking on an actual sci-fi show that takes place in space?

In the year 2046, it’s a new Earth – with new rules. Over thirty years after various alien races arrived on Earth, the landscape is completely altered, terraformed nearly beyond recognition. To the town of Defiance, on what used to be St. Louis, comes the mysterious Nolan (Grant Bowler) and his charge, Irisa (Stephanie Leonidas). As they settle into town – overseen by the mayor, Amanda Rosewater (Julie Benz) and filled with residents like the powerful Rafe McCawley (Graham Greene), enterprising lounge owner Kenya (Mia Kirshner) and the ambitious, alien Tarrs (Tony Curran and Jaime Murray) – events begin to unfold that threaten the fragile peace this border town has fought for.

As the events of Defiance unfold weekly on your TV screen, you can see how the residents’ struggles impact the game of Defiance, a high-octane, multi-platform experience from Trion Worlds! For the first time in history, a TV show and a game will exist concurrently in a shared universe, influencing and impacting the other!

In the game of Defiance, players take on the role of Ark Hunters, specialists in survival, combat and tracking who brave dangerous frontiers to retrieve lost relics of advanced or alien origin in return for great financial rewards (The Arks are the ships that brought the aliens to Earth). Players can search for Arks on their own, simultaneously join tens of thousands of other players for missions or just explore the fully realized, future world of Defiance (it’s really, really big). Custom character creation allows players to adopt a human or alien appearance for their Ark Hunter. With weapons, armor and special abilities that evolve with experience, Defiance is a gaming experience that must be played to be believed.

Without further adieu, let’s begin our review (hehehehe, that rhymed):

 What are your thoughts on the story?

Brandon: I do love the concept of the whole project. Having a show and game work in conjunction with each other to build a world all the more rich is an interesting idea. Even though I don’t plan on playing the game, I am a fan of world building. I like to see fictional histories play out as one big story and see how the different cultures clash or get along. Considering the show revolves around a host of characters in the city of Defiance, I almost feel that the city itself is the main character and the story of the show is the story of this rambunctious city; the characters are just the frosting. As with every show we have already seen these characters before. You have a reluctant hero, a pair of star-crossed lovers, a mob boss type, the young, independent and rebellious teen and the clueless mayor to name a few. Having these archetypes you can probably guess what they are going to do next. But like I said before, I am more interested in world building and alien cultures. The show definitely calls on the sci-fi western genre and because of this, it will forever live in Firefly’s shadow.

Max: As a whole, I thought the story was entertaining. Due to multiple alien races arriving on Earth, subsequent years of war and mass destruction, and an eventual world in which pockets of humanity and aliens attempt to peacefully coexist is surely an intriguing idea. Did the pilot for Defiance pull off this concept? In some ways, yes indeed; in other ways, not so much.

The overall story for the first episode about a father (Human) and daughter (Irathient)—whom he adopted through the early years of the turmoil—trying to catch a break and never quite able to succeed drew me in right away. I loved watching them enter the town of Defiance, having to abide by the rules of the local government, but also not shying away from speaking their minds and forcing the locals to adjust to their ideals as well. I enjoyed the political maneuvering—two families stuck in a bitter feud and the slight undertones of conspiracy within those family structures as well. I also thought the way in which all of the characters connected was portrayed in a superb way. The inclusion of various languages made the story feel real (rather than everyone solely speaking in English). What I did not care for was the classic Romeo and Juliet storyline: two young lovers from either side of the feuding families, forbidden to fall in love. There were also a few very predictable storylines, but I don’t want to spoil too much (or turn people off for that matter.

 Did the Special Effects live up to the $100 million budget set aside for the season and the MMO?

Brandon: Based on the division of funds for both projects, I would have to deduce that each episode would be produced for a little fewer than four million dollars. So, considering that the pilot probably cost 3.8 million I would say that yes, the CGI did live up to whatever the VFX department had to work with. The effects remind me of a very well rendered cut scene from a game like Halo or Mass Effect. There were a few shots that I felt were a little too cluttered, such as unnecessary flocks of birds. I did however enjoy looking at shots of the city—especially the cityscape shots at night. I also noticed a running visual theme of aerial photography that moved from one part of town to another. This is to set up the transition from scene to scene. My guess is that this Google-Earthesque visual cue will run throughout the whole series.

Max: Yes, it absolutely did. Sure, there were a few scenes in which it’s obviously clear that the visual effects team was running out of money and had to use whatever they could manage and afford, but overall, the graphics were fantastic. There were some truly beautiful landscape scenes as well as brilliantly designed battles and spaceships. If every episode looks like this first one, I will be highly impressed.

 How was the acting? Who did it for you and who needs to pick up the slack?

Brandon: For the most part, I thought the acting was pretty solid. I did like the acting better than shows like Eureka and Warehouse 13 but less than the acting in Battlestar Galactica. There were a few one-liners that felt a bit clunky to me and caused me to roll my eyes. Mostly minor supporting characters delivered these lines. Julie Benz needs to step it up next week if she wants to be taken seriously not only as an actress, but also as the town’s mayor. There were also a few scenes that I felt were stock scenes that we’ve already seen throughout the history of film and TV. For example: A scene when a leader tries to drum up spirit of the troops to give them the drive to defeat the enemy. These types of scenes are predictable and corny.

Max: For the most part, I thought the acting was great. Grant Bowler plays the character of Nolan very well. He reminds me of a cross between Ben Browder’s John Crichton (Farscape) and Nathan Fillion’s Captain Malcolm Reynolds (Firefly)—which to me is a good thing. He is confident (at times crossing the line of arrogance), sarcastic, and witty, but it’s obvious that he has a story to tell and it’s more than likely a bit darker than your average person’s. I really enjoyed watching the chemistry between him and Stephanie Leonidas, who plays Irisa, his daughter. I felt like he was her father from the very beginning. It didn’t seem forced to me at all.

I was pleased to hear that Julie Benz would be playing the mayor of Defiance, Amanda Rosewater. I loved Benz in both Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, and have been waiting to see her again in a much bigger role. She did a good job at playing the reluctant town official forced to rise to the prestige of her position; however, I think that she’ll need to be a bit more convincing now that she’s supposedly a strong leader.

The other actors did an excellent job as well; aside from the doctor, played by Trenna Keating. Her speech was completely deadpan and monotone. Her acting surely needs help.

 What did you think of the music?
Brandon: Bear McCreary is still doing his thing. He sure likes drums and crunchy electrical guitar. I definitely heard some tracks inspired by the BSG score in there. I’m a fan of Bear, so no complaints from me on this aspect of the show.

Max: I’ll leave it to Brandon’s answer for this one. Unfortunately, when it comes to music, I don’t hear things like I used to. But considering its Bear McCreary, I’m sure it was phenomenal.

 What would you like to see as the season plays out?

Brandon: For this season I would like to get more of the backstory of what happens between 2013 and 2046 when the show takes place. I know that there is a nice timeline of events on the show’s website that fleshes those events out, but it would be nice to see them depicted on film. I would also love for the characters to explore Old St. Louis, which are most definitely in ruins under Defiance. Maybe even stop by SFC’s own Brady Hardin’s place for a cup of tea. ;P

Max: I know this form of storytelling has been used in many shows in the recent past (Lost, Stargate Universe), but I think a show like this could really benefit from flashbacks. How did Nolan find and take in Irisa? How did the Tarr family and the McCawley family rise to power? How and when was Defiance built? There are plenty of storylines to be told from the past that could easily link to the present (or should I say the future?).

I’d also like to see a new twist on the Romeo and Juliet story. It’s overdone. If it’s going to play out, freshen it up a bit.

Aside from outside threats to Defiance, I’d like to explore the tensions between the Tarr’s and the McCawley’s some more. Perhaps, even making their issues the real threat to Defiance.

 Last thoughts and comments?

Brandon: I love the world building of this project. I want to see more of it and look forward to see how the game influences the show each week. I like the show for what it is. I’m not going to pretend that this is the best sci-fi in the world, but I am glad that Syfy is back to living up to its name and giving us actual science fiction with aliens and spaceships. It is by far the best thing Syfy has produced in a long time. I would recommend this show to Matt, but not to Ben because I know he would only hate on it.

Max: I really enjoyed the pilot. Was it a perfect show? Absolutely not. Does it have promise? Yes. I think the fact that Defiance is true science fiction television—in many ways resembling the best of Farscape, Battlestar Galactica, and even The Walking Dead—this show could prove to be a big hit. It needs some help in certain storytelling areas, but the potential is there for great, meaningful drama. At the end of the episode (without revealing the full-circle twist of the story), we hear a monologue from Irisa as she’s writing in her journal and this is what she says:

“My people have a god called Urzu. He has a path for each of us. Where it takes us is not always as we imagined. There is a reason…”

That one line blew me away. It’s an idea that we all need to remember at times. Everyone has a story and journey and I believe science fiction can be a perfect vessel to explore these facets of life. I look forward to following Nolan and Irisa’s path for the time being, and seeing where “Urzu” leads them.

In this third and final trailer for Man of Steel we get a look at some scenic landscape shots of Krypton and a better look at Russel Crowe as Jor-El and Michael Shannon as General Zod.

Man Of Steel opens June 14th.

Clark Kent/Kal-El (Cavill) is a young twentysomething journalist who feels alienated by powers beyond anyone’s imagination. Transported to Earth years ago from Krypton, an advanced alien planet, Clark struggles with the ultimate question – Why am I here? Shaped by the values of his adoptive parents Martha (Lane) and Jonathan Kent (Costner), Clark soon discovers that having super abilities means making very difficult decisions. But when the world needs stability the most, it comes under attack. Will his abilities be used to maintain peace or ultimately used to divide and conquer? Clark must become the hero known as “Superman,” not only to shine as the world’s last beacon of hope but to protect the ones he loves.

The Sci-Fi Christian – 4/16/13 “The Sci-Fi Christian: Summer Movie Preview 2013” featuring Matt Anderson and Ben De Bono

“Let’s Go Get This S.O.B.”

As I write this post, no one knows who is responsible for the Boston Marathon bombings. Ignorance, however, never stops immediate calls for vengeance, as even casual scans of social media today reveal. Fortunately, I’ve also seen plenty of calls to prayer for the victims, as well as praise for the first responders, physicians, and good Samaritans who were on the scene or in nearby hospitals, from Christians and other people of goodwill alike. Please do pray for the people of Boston, as well as those in any city anywhere in the world who face violence.

When this new Star Trek bows at the box office, I suspect our nation’s latest encounter with terror will inform how viewers receive such moments as Kirk exhorting his crew to “go get this [s.o.b.]” Out of context, it’s impossible to know whether Kirk is, as it seems, issuing a heated call for payback–which have seldom found a place (on heroes’ lips, anyway) in previous Trek–or a fervent call for true justice, which would be much more in line with the Federation’s ideals (let alone biblical morality). I suspect the former, but we shall see.

“I Believe in You, Jim”

This trailer twice features Admiral Pike’s line, “I believe in you, Jim.” We haven’t heard this bit of dialogue before. Again, context will be key; but here, it serves to soften the rebuke of Kirk that precedes it, featured in previous publicity. Bruce Greenwood’s Pike was a highlight of the 2009 film, and I’m glad he’s returning for this second adventure. He seems to be serving as Kirk’s mentor, offering not only the wisdom of experience but a hope for Kirk’s future. He is the apostle Paul to Kirk’s Timothy, confident his protégé will live up to his (God-given) potential. Have you been fortunate enough to have a “Captain Pike” in your life? If so, who? 

Who’s Who?

If Benedict Cumberbatch’s John Harrison is the new continuity’s version of Khan (and not only his physical prowess but also the starship stand-offs we witness here, more than a little evocative of Star Trek II, make me think this likely), then we are obviously still in for an exciting and visually spectacular ride. I still contend the filmmakers should be taking advantage of the “Abramsverse” to really and truly go where no Trek has gone before, but I accept that they may see the realities of the marketplace demanding a more cautious approach.

Finally, the trailer makes me think that the much-speculated-about character death, should it come to pass, will be, not Spock (as a Trek II template would seemingly demand), but Kirk himself. The text cards read, “Beyond darkness comes greatness.” Kirk’s increasing isolation throughout 

this trailer, considered alongside Pike’s repeated statement of belief in him, as well as Harrison’s haunting question from previous trailers–”Is there anything you wouldn’t do for your family?”–leads me to wonder if Kirk’s apparent character arc will take him from the free-wheeling, devil-may-care, Kobayashi Maru-beating swashbuckler of the ’09 film to a man whose “solution” to a no-win scenario involves him demonstrating for his crew, his friends, that great love about which Jesus spoke–and which, of course, he himself demonstrated for us.

Again, we shall see! What do you think of the trailer? Are you excited for Star Trek Into Darkness?

Helix is an intense thriller about a team of scientists from the Centers for Disease Control who travel to a high-tech research facility in the Arctic to investigate a possible disease outbreak, only to find themselves pulled into a terrifying life-and-death struggle that holds the key to mankind’s salvation or total annihilation.

Today, the first trailer for Moore’s show was released. Check it out:

What do you think? Not a lot to go on by the trailer, but the concept does sound interesting. Will you give it a shot?