Who (will watch) the Watchmen?

io9 has a piece up, bluntly titled, "Watchmen Shouldn't Be A Movie." More cohesive and researched than anything I'd put together on the subject, I agree whole heartedly with its thesis: that a Watchmen film will be, at the very least, misguided, and at the very most, boring. Specifically, I agree with their statements that "Watchmen is of its time," that "It's about the history of comics," and "It's about experimenting with comic format."

The last of these is the easiest to dismiss -- many books adapted into films have experimented with a straightforward narrative and worked wonderfully. But ignoring that, the fact that it's a comic about the history of comics, and true to a very specific period in time could help contribute to a misguided attempt at a literal translation.

I got my grubby robomitts on a copy of the earlier David Hayter draft, that appropriately updated the background conflict that drives the main narrative of the story. It still missed the boat on commenting on comics as a medium, but it was a very well done adaptation, keeping key moments, while jettisoning all the non-essential chunks. Hayter's draft was an adaptation of a graphic novel to film, trying to retain the more universal of its themes. 

Current director Snyder has said many times it will be a literal translation of the graphic novel, going so far as to produce an animated The Black Freighter piece to be put on the DVD. The Black Freighter comic-within-the-comic is meta-comicdom, and its whole point of existence is extremely questionable in film format, as it attempts to conduct a comic experiment in a completely different medium, literally. That he's willing to do this shows me that he might not have the necessary perspective -- any non-literal perspective -- that might be necessary to adapt such a dense piece of contemporary fiction.

But, anyway, that's just me... go read the piece over at io9.

-RoboNixon

Women and Sci-Fi

io9 has a great editorial up about the strange interactions between women and sci-fi. There is a popular public perception that sci-fi is exclusively the realm of nerdy (typically young) men, and that women sci-fi fans are not only few and far between -- but weird! Ewwww... GIRLS! 

Now, I don't mean to say that this problem is, you know, like a major WORLD EVENT that needs changing. But it is a bummer. Here's some of what io9 has to say:

If there's something keeping women away from enjoying science fiction, it's not spaceships. It's not "aliens on some far-off planet." It's the fact that people on our very own planet keep telling us that women aren't supposed to like science fiction. It's a self-confirming prophesy, because the more that scifi creators are told this, the more they imagine that their audience is all boys. So they write rich, believable male characters and boring, cookie-cutter lady characters. They organize conventions with panels devoted to shit like "the hottest women of science fiction" and nothing devoted to female heroes — or the kinds of hotties that straight women might want to see (i.e., men).

I totally agree that it is a self-fulfilling problem. But it gets better: 

Women who do love science fiction see all this going down, and they are ashamed to admit that they like science fiction. I'm not saying this happens to all of us, but many women wind up assuming that there's something wrong with them for liking SF. After all, everybody keeps telling them that SF is for boys, and the only reason why women would like it is if the definition of SF is "expanded" to include magic and romance. (Nothing against magic and romance, mind you — it's just not typical of SF.)

I agree again. It's like the only "sci-fi" that women are "supposed" to like is fantasy and magic. RoboGirlfriend is an example -- she loves fantasy stuff, but I had to drag her kicking and screaming over to Battlestar Galactica -- a show she's just as into at this stage as I am. It's a cultural stereotype, like girls must like pink, and guys must dig football, that each gender reinforces on their own to fulfill some sort of social norm. But guess what? Not all dudes love football. Not all women like pink. A lot of women like football, and a lot of dudes (RoboNixon included) wear pink. Just because it's the standard doesn't mean it has to be the norm. It doesn't mean that the pattern can't be broken. But here's the kicker: 

Women love tons of science fiction, regardless of how many boys are main characters, because they like good stories as much as the next guy.

And that's what it comes down to. Battlestar Galactica works for men and women because it's a dynamic, well told story. And it doesn't hurt that it's filled with a dynamic range of intriguing, well drawn females. Star Wars' Princess Leia is more badass than Luke (I would argue), and while she certainly gets her fair share of "being saved" she also fucking kills Jabba the Hutt. On her own. In a golden bikini.

LOST is a great example of the mainstreamification of sci-fi for everyone. Strong characters are both male and female without skimping on the traits of either gender. Jack is the masculine leader, but Juliet and Kate are also bad ass and driven. Sawyer's typically whining, and Rousseau (RIP) was crazy-jungle person. Not only that, but it uses sci-fi in a non-conventional way. It's like saying you're taking your date to the "theater" only to bring them to a cabaret -- yeah, you know, it's theater, but it's not exactly what you were expecting. LOST is an adventure show... that, like the cabaret, is something different, simultaneously.

Hell, dudes who like sci-fi like chicks who like sci-fi, because it's one more thing to have in common, to share together. RoboGirlfriend and I watch BSG together, as well as LOST. And we jointly nerd out over them (though I'm sure she'd protest that we never "nerd-out" about anything). Sci-Fi, like any genre, should be the realm of men and women. 

Otherwise, we're all missing out.

Check out the original editorial. It says it much better than I ever could.

-RoboNixon

BSG Goodness

io9 has a good little piece on who Baltar actually is. Here's a hint: it's not Jesus, and rhymes with "Broseph Thmith." 

I have to say, they bring up some good points. It also ties into one of my theories -- that, possibly, the original Battlestar Galactica series exists in the same universe as the revamp. That's right, you heard me.

You see, the original series is loosely based on Mormon mythology/ideology. Which would make sense, then, that Baltar is Broseph Thmith.

Key in this belief is the repetition of the idea that "this has happened before and will happen again." 

So, my thinking, especially in light of this information, is that the original Battlestar Galactica series happened thousands upon thousands of years earlier in the same universe. They got to Earth, lived there (either in our past or future), then when they went off into space again, the cycle repeated. This also might help explain the "origin" of the Final Five... as well as possible hints as to what to expect for the rest of the season.

But then again, I could be wrong. I'm just waiting for them to explain "All Along the Watchtower."

Discuss.

-RoboNixon