Lucid Dreams and Saturn Skies The Life and Writing of Andrew Kincaid

Tag Archives: Science Fiction

Twenty Years Later, and Jurassic Park STILL Holds Up!

Jurassic_Park_posterMany of us saw Jurassic Park as kids. Myself, I saw it on VHS probably five or six times, and several more times on television. I was fascinated by dinosaurs (so, a pretty typical little boy in that way) and it was amazing to see them live and kicking on my TV screen. Unfortunately, I never got a chance to see it in the theaters when I was younger, and I don’t own a copy on DVD. Needless to say, it’s been years since I last watched it, probably ten or fifteen at least.

So, when I heard Jurassic Park was going back to the big screen in 3D, I got excited. Not about the 3D — I could take it or leave it, and I’ll personally be glad when the fad is over, mainly because theaters will no longer be able to tack on an extra $2 or so for a gimmick that makes little or no difference in the viewing experience. Yeah, Avatar looked pretty good in full 3D glory, but most  movies shot in 3D are pretty ‘meh’, if I may use the term.

…but I digress. Sort of. The fact is that the 3D treatment didn’t add much to Jurassic Park, in my opinion. But it also didn’t take anything away, which is what is really important. The movie looked as good today as it looked twenty years ago. It isn’t often you can say that about a film, especially with all the advances in visual technology over the last ten years or so. But Jurassic Park‘s unique mix of animatronics and CGI (yes, they had CGI in 1993) has stood the test of time. The dinosaurs, particularly the raptors, looked fluid and life-like. If anything, I found JP preferable to many modern movies, who rely too heavily on CGI effects in my humble opinion.

I almost feel like it’s silly to do a review of Jurassic Park, since it’s widely considered a classic. However, some folks were skeptical about it being in 3D, so I feel the urge to explain that it doesn’t really harm the movie at all. Except for a couple of moments where it is a little distracting, you barely notice. So, if you’re a fan of the movie, or have never seen it, go out and give it a watch on the big screen. You won’t regret it.

A Prometheus Inspired Ramble on the Origins of Life (Oh, and There’s a Movie Review in There Too)

Prometheus, a prequel to Alien directed by Ridley Scott

“They went looking for our beginning. What they found could be our end”

Normally I don’t do reviews of new movies.  And, strictly speaking, this isn’t going to be a review.  The first part will be, but the second part will be me rambling about science stuff brought to mind by said movie.  Prometheus was billed as a psuedo-sequel to Alien.  Being a fan of Alien, I knew that when Prometheus came into theaters I would go to see it.  I wasn’t particularly optimistic as to how good it would be, and so I was pleasantly surprised when the movie sucked me in and didn’t let me go until the end of its run time.  Prometheus is a hauntingly beautiful and deeply engrossing film, showing off stark awe-inspiring visuals of a dead world.  The characters are fully realized and come to life on screen…

I could go on, but I won’t belabor the point.  My friend Amanda Rudd did an in depth review of the movie over on her blog, and she did a better job of it than I could.  No, instead I want to focus on the one quibble I had with the film.  Prometheus raises a lot of profound questions about life, religion, and the origins of humanity.  When the movie begins, we see a freakishly muscled humanoid alone on a barren, rocky world.  He watches a ship take off in the distance before taking a sip of some nasty tar-looking substance that starts to break him apart on a molecular level.  The nameless alien tumbles into the river where even his DNA breaks into pieces.  It’s never said with any certainty, but presumably this is the moment Earth is seeded with life.

You read that right.  Prometheus rewrites human history by introducing the concept that life was seeded by a species of alien beings called The Engineers.  The action of the movie centers around the crew of the ship Prometheus, who have been dispatched to an alien moon whose coordinates were found in ancient cave paintings and carvings the world over in order to ascertain whether The Engineers in fact exist and to see if any still live.  Those among other things–you’ll have to see the movie to find out the rest.

There is a scene near the beginning when the crew of Prometheus are brought out of hibernation and briefed on their mission.  And here comes the point when I got annoyed.  You see, there was a biologist among the crew.  It’s a smart thing to bring a biologist along to an alien world where you suspect there to be life since, after all, life is their forte.  However, this biologist was not a particularly good one.  When Dr. Elizabeth Shaw, played by the lovely Noomi Rapace, mentions the idea that The Engineers seeded the Earth with life, the biologist exclaims that such an idea would “overturn 300 years of Darwinism”.

In retrospect, that statement surprises me because of the intelligent manner in which Prometheus handles the many questions it raises (but never answers).  The biologist’s exclamation shows a very fundamental misunderstanding of both evolutionary theory and how scientific theories in general work, things any decent biologist should understand (but maybe not a script writer, although they should have done better research).

Charles Darwin, author of “On the Origin of Species”. His theory of evolution by natural selection revolutionized the science of biology and changed how people saw themselves in relation to the natural world.

The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life on Earth.  It’s a fairly complex theory, but on a basic level it’s pretty simple.  One of my favorite ways to define it is as follows: “the change in the frequency of alleles [expressed genes] over time”.  Basically, in a given population certain members of the species carry an array of genes that enhance their chances of survival.  Those more likely to survive can pass their favorable genes on to the next generation, and so on and so forth.  That’s a gross oversimplification, but for our purposes it will suffice because it points out the point I want to make.  Namely, evolutionary theory doesn’t comment at all on the origins of life!  It explains how the diversity we see in the biological world came to be, but it doesn’t explain how it started.

On the surface that may seem odd, but a quick look at the scientific use of the word theory should clear any confusion.  I did an entire post on this topic before, so I’ll be brief.  A scientific theory, in a basic sense, explains how something in nature works.  This is different from a fact, which is something that is consistently observed and held to be true.  Evolution has been observed in nature, established from fossil, morphological, and genetic evidence among other things.  It is a fact.  The theory of evolution explains how evolution works.  That is the nature of a scientific theory.

Now, one facet of a theory is that it has a range of validity.  As I said above, the theory of evolution explains the diversity of life, not its origins.  Evolutionary theory’s range of validity begins only after life begins, when there is something there for natural selection and other selective pressures to act upon.  In order to explain the origins of life, another theory is needed.  Currently, the big contender for the theory to explain the origins of life on Earth is called abiogenesis, which is a big fancy word that means that life came from non-life.  For the moment though, nobody is quite sure specifically how this process occurred, but the evidence is gaining and I imagine in our lifetime we will see DNA created from raw molecular materials.

But Prometheus doesn’t touch on abiogenesis.  Instead, it touches on an alternate hypothetical scenario by which life came to be on Earth called panspermia, specifically directed panspermia.  Panspermia means essentially that life came to Earth from somewhere else, probably by hitching  a ride on a comet or meteorite.  Directed panspermia is the idea that an alien species seeded Earth with the rudiments of life and then let evolution take its course, which is the premise behind Prometheus.  However, such an idea does not overturn Darwinism (I don’t like that word but we’ll go with it), although it is a fascinating thing to think about.  Who knows?  Maybe Prometheus is prescient and we will come to discover that all of us are really the descendents of beings from the sky.

Did you get a chance to see Prometheus?  What did yo think of it if you did?  How would it impact you if it turned out that life on our planet was seeded by an alien species? 


The Allure of B-Movies

Poster art from the 1954 B-movie classic, THEM!

I also like the posters from the old days. They’re fun!

Ah…B-movies.  I enjoy cheesy old sci-fi/horror movies from the fifties and sixties, especially the black and white ones.  Those are my favorite types of B-movies, and I think the most iconic of the bunch although the genre is alive and well in the 21st century.  If you want proof, just flip to SyFy on Saturday nights at nine and you’ll see what I mean.

Even so, the B-movies from fifty or sixty years ago are in a league of their own.  They have an innocent charm that modern B-movies often lack.  There was no CGI back in those days, and often these movies were made on a shoestring budget, but the cheesy special effects were part of the fun.  Often B-movies followed a set formula.  Typically they involved an incident of science gone wrong–most often the culprit was radiation of some sort, but it could also be the work of a mad scientist–that resulted in some freakish monster (usually a guy in a rubber suit).  The protagonists turn to conservative forces such as the military and police, or toward science to find the solution to the problem.  I use the word “science” loosely here, because by today’s standards the science they played with was laughable.  Another subset of the genre involved an alien invasion, which would once again be thwarted by conservative forces or by science.

Writers and directors back in the day took the formula I just described above and had all sorts of fun with it.  THEM! is a perfect example of the genre; in fact, it’s often cited as the textbook example of the B-movie genre.  The movie is about ants that become enormous as a result of radioactive fallout from nuclear testing out in Nevada.  These giant ants spread all over the world and establish colonies, and (naturally) it’s up to the U.S. Army and some scientists to clear the matter up.  It sounds silly, but seriously give THEM! a watch sometime when you can–it’s actually a pretty good movie.

Night of the Living Dead is also a B-movie modeled on a formula similar to the one I outlined above, but it’s noticeably darker and really helped to give birth to the modern horror movie (for better or worse).  NOTLD featured ghouls–the word zombie was never used in the movie itself–who were raised from the dead ostensibly by strange radiation from a Venus probe.  These ghouls were shown on film eating people.  And it’s hard to spoil a fifty year old movie, but suffice it to say the ending was NOT in line with the typical B-movie up to that point.  George Romero turned the B-movie formula on its head while simultaneously remaining faithful to the tradition–no small feat, that.  Night of the Living Dead is another example of a B-movie that, when you get beyond the cheap special effects and bad acting, was in the end a pretty good movie (one of my all time favorites, actually).

And that right there is why I like B-movies.  When you get beyond the goofy premises and hokey special effects and look deeply at the movie, they often tell pretty good stories.  They couldn’t rely on special effects like today’s movies–don’t get me wrong though, modern B-movies are great fun but they often rely too heavily on gore and SFX for my taste–so instead they had to attempt to tell a decent story.  That, and the actors actually had to act, while no doubt biting back laughter at the goofy looking dude in the rubber suit.  Granted, many B-movies were lousy in the story and acting departments both, but they at least made up for it with unintentional hilarity (Plan 9 From Outer Space comes to mind).

Zombies from George Romero's B-movie classic, Night of the Living Dead

Zombies. This picture has gotten a lot of mileage on this blog, I’ve noticed =P.

Those aren’t the only reasons I like B-movies.  Sometimes I get tired of the cynicism of our age, an attitude that leaks into our cinematic culture, as it must.  In terms of horror, that translates into nihilistic plots, gore, and copious amounts of sex.  There’s nothing wrong with any of that, but sometimes I get sick of it.  I want to interrupt myself at this point to say that I was brought up in a socially conservative household and live in a conservative area and while I do not subscribe to all of those beliefs now, their influence is still there.  So for me, it is a breath of fresh air to watch an old time movie where the most gore you might see is a bit of chocolate sauce smeared on someone’s shirt, that ends on a note of optimism rather than cynicism (NOTLD is an exception to all of this, of course).

The saying goes that “they don’t make’em like they used to”.  True to some extent.  While horror and movies in general have become objectively better in many ways than their predecessors from the old days, nothing can replace the fun and charm of the old time B-movies.

What are your cinematic guilty pleasures?  Do you like the B monster movies from the fifties and sixties, or do they bore you to tears?


%d bloggers like this: