Rob's Blog

NickM has had a go. Commenter Robert E. Phelan sums it up on a Bishop Hill post like this:

We’ve already had the movie. It’s called “Avatar”, one of the all-time success stories of the movie industry. It’s got a great plot, loveable heroes, subtle villians and graphics that made me cringe (I’ve got a THING about heights, you need to understand)… but it is also an evil work of propaganda catering to the Green agenda. It depicts a world that may actually be sentient (Gaia, anyone? James Lovelock?) with an indigeneous, sentient species that not only lives in harmony with nature but regards their prey as brothers who should be prayed for and thanked after killing them (the noble American Indian… see Dances with Wolves or Last of the Mohicans) and who are being dispossesed by evil capitalist, technologically advanced, militaristict humans who are destroying their own world and the Pandora Garden of Eden as well. The hero receives redemption by discarding his humanity.

All that is true enough. But I went to see the film anyway. Yes, it’s an appalling allegory in which we’re expected to believe that evil capitalists will kill nice aliens to make a quick buck. There are too many films in which the capitalists are bad guys; not enough in which the government are. Yes, the aliens are in harmony with nature and energy and hug trees.

But it’s science fiction, and plenty of this stuff makes science fiction sense. The aliens are not religiously making up nonsense about spirits and vague energy, the trees really do form a neural network, the planet really is sentient and really can store the memories of ancestors. That’s quite a good science fiction idea for a blockbuster movie. And there are some more, such as the avatars themselves, the aliens’ ability to connect their brains to flying dragon-like creatures and go for a ride, and the transfer of minds between bodies — something I’d quite like people to get used to the idea of in my lifetime…

It’s great to see an alien world brought to life in high definition 3D. The 3D is more than a gimmick, here. In one scene near the start our hero wakes up in a long chamber in freefall. We are treated to the disorienting way that there is no fixed up and down in zero gravity — it depends on your perspective. The aliens are 12 feet tall. In scenes from their perspective, humans look like dwarfs. In scenes from the humans’ perspective, aliens look like giants. The spaceships and giant earth-moving vehicles look cool. The mech suits look even better than they did in Aliens. All the machinery has a believable logic to it.

I did struggle with the floating mountains. Low density coral with pockets of helium inside, perhaps?

If you can supress the urge to make everything into a metaphor, there is a lot of enjoyment to be had from this film. Go and see it in 3D while you can.

Update: Michael Jennings sends me a link to an even better defense of Avatar. David R. Henderson argues that it is a defense of capitalism and property rights, and an attack on eminent domain.

In the movie Surrogates, everyone stays at home and connects their brain to a computer. The computer connects to a lifelike android, and the effect is that everyone can live through their androids, called surrogates, and do whatever they want with perfect, beautiful, superhuman bodies without fear of injury.

It’s an intriguing concept, great science fiction, and a pretty slick movie with Bruce Willis and explosions and stunts.

There are a few things wrong with it. The first thing that struck me was that if you had the technology to connect your brain up with a surrogate android, you don’t really need the android. You could connect your brain to a simulation instead. Much less messy and more possibilities that way. But it would have been a different movie.

The next thing that bothered me was that the surrogates themselves were somewhat boring. Sure, they looked like eternally youthful beautiful people, and one ugly fat guy went around using a pretty female surrogate, but where were the fantastical creatures and surrogates with four arms or wheels or wings? Why the restriction on one surrogate per person? I suppose you can only fit so many ideas into one movie.

The real problem with the movie was the conciet that either *everyone* has to use surrogates or *no-one*. So we have the Bruce Willis character who yearns to spend time in his real body but can’t because it’s not really socially acceptable. And we have the anti-surrogate movement who might well be sympathetic if it weren’t for the fact that they want to force everyone else into their way of life, too.

Which brings me to the final heroic act by the Bruce Willis character — and this is a bit of a spoiler — who when presented with the opportunity to destroy all the surrogates at the push of a button selfishly pushes the button because he thinks it would help his wife. It’s an act of gross vandalism, but afterwards is a heart-warming scene in which all the people disconnect from their computers, go outside and see the light. The underlying message is: using too much technology makes us inhuman. Never mind the fact that it might be mostly useful, or fun. Never mind that Bruce Willis has destroyed the surrogates of infirm and disabled people who really need them, along with destroying the toys of people who want them and bought and paid for them.

I think this kind of technology would be great. Sign me up.

Just got back from seeing the movie G-Force, which is about talking guinea pigs who are trained to be spies. No time to write in complete sentences:

• The most convincing CGI mixed with live-action I’ve seen; the lighting and textures looked just right.
• For a kids’ film, not too much cringeworthy slapstick. The visual gags tended to be physics jokes, like what happens when two guinea pigs are running inside a tyre and the fat one trips.
• The inevitable sappy moral lesson is at least: “you can achieve things through learning and don’t need to be genetically superior”. This is better than “animals are people too”, “profit is evil” or “save the planet”.
• There are some pretty cool and believable gadgets and gizmos. the motorised hamster wheel vehicle has heads up displays including a live feed from a camera mounted on a fly, all used to good effect.
• There is a very funny line in homage to Die Hard, just for the grown-ups.
• The heroes solve problems with ingenuity rather than luck. In fact there were surprisingly few “I can’t believe that” moments, given the subject matter. An example is the use of a radio controlled car and its controller as transport.
• The plot is quite intelligent and there is a nice twist.
• I saw it in 3D, which I’d recommend as it’s quite subtly done. There are some very cool tracking shots.

Ross Kemp is hunting pirates in Somalia on Sky 1. He’s with a Royal Navy frigate. They’ve spotted a suspicious looking dhow towing a skiff. Boats are sent out with marines to investigate. There are a lot of people on the dhow. A man holds up a fish to say he’s just a fisherman, but the marines think it’s a boat “smuggling” people out of Somalia.

The frigate doesn’t have much autonomy. It has to radio naval command in London to get permission to board. That permission isn’t granted so the dhow is sent on its way.

If I was out in my boat and guys turned up with machine guns and started asking me questions I wouldn’t be too impressed. The marines say if they find weapons that means they’ve found pirates. Maybe, but what about weapons for self defence?

I like the way Ross Kemp talks. He’s no-nonsense and doesn’t over dramatise things.

One sailor says, “I’ve got a family to feed but I don’t go around pointing guns at people… Well… I do.”

A merchant ship has radioed the frigate complaing that speed boats are chasing it. This is more like it. A helicopter is sent out to investigate. It’s a Merlin with two marines on board who can shoot out the doors. An American ship in the area has also dispatched a
helicopter. Who will get there first? The merchant ship has reported that the speedboats have run away. The American helicopter gets there first and says there is no more threat.

Ross Kemp laments that the gulf is large, making pirates hard to get to in time. At a briefing, an officer explains that pirates have started operating from motherships, allowing them to loiter at sea and operate farther from shore. It’s believed that they are supported by clans on shore who provide logistical support: they seem more organised than just bands of opportunists.

News comes in that a ship called Saldhana has been pirated. There has been no distress call but it has suddenly changed course. On the radio, the Soldhana captain says he and his 22 crew are being held hostage. Out goes the helicopter, but the pirates say to stay away, and the Frigate captain says he can’t just go and board out of fear for the safety of the crew.

The helicopter is sent back. The helicopter crew is “fucking pissed off”. Saldhana sails right past the frigate, which can do nothing.

It seems as if the Navy can only act if they catch the pirates red handed. No wonder they have to go out hassling fishing boats. I’m not sure a Navy frigate can be very effective.

Private armed security boats to escort merchant ships would be a better solution. I wonder why this does not happen more than it does.

A skiff is found floating nearby with a snapped rope – it must have belonged to the pirates and broken away from the Saldhana. It contains lots of fuel, an RPG, cash, clothes, food and some Arsenal merchandise. The Navy uses it for target practice. The minigun is pretty impressive.

Next week, Ross goes to interview pirates in Nigeria.

Chrissie Hynde was on Jools Holland being interviewed. He asked her why her new album was called “Break Up the Concrete”. She mumbled something about encouraging people to go out and smash up the roads. Jools joked, “oh, you’re not complaining about the terrible state of repair, then?” No, quite the opposite, I think they’re in far too good a state of repair.

I think if you get to your 50s and you still haven’t figured out that roads improve people’s lives, well, there’s something a little pathetic about it.

She went on to complain that people should be less ambitious; there’s far too much emphasis on success, that it was okay to just be and do nothing. Fair enough, if that’s what you want. Then she added, “I’m not talking about benefit cheats, god bless them, we need you.” So not really making much sense then. Trying too hard to be cool, perhaps.

I went to see the new Star Trek movie on Wednesday, and rather enjoyed it. I tried not to find out too much about it beforehand, so I was mainly worried about whether the technology would look more advanced than in TNG despite the film being set before it, and about whether Spock would look too much like Sylar.

On the first count, the look was about right, although TNG is indeed looking a bit dated. And the actor who played spock must be very good because although in Heroes Sylar is terrifying, I did not have any problem seeing Spock as Spock.

There were only a few problems, and while I enjoyed the movie, listing its problems is part of the fun. Scotty didn’t work well for me because he just seemed like Simon Pegg with a funny accent. The plot gets sillier the more you think about it, so it’s best not to. The astronomy is all wrong, or at least distances and travel times aren’t conveyed properly. Space should be made to seem ****HUUUGE****, and yet the Enterprise and even shuttles zip around from planet to planet no problem. Black holes and supernovae don’t seem quite right, either.

I came away feeling like the way in which the franchise was “rebooted” was a bit of a cheap cheat, but having read Eric Raymond’s review I can see why it was done and that it was necessary. So hopefully we will get a whole new series of movies. A TV series would be best but I don’t expect one.

By the way, some more discussion of Star Trek economics and politics over at Counting Cats and in the Samizdata comments, including one by pa annoyed which says a lot of what I was trying (badly) to say last time I wrote about it. I think I have a good post about economics of high technology in me and it might appear here soon…

Last night I found myself in a private box at the Albert Hall watching Richard Hawley. What a sound! He brought on special guest Jarvis Cocker who sang one song, then later Tony Christie joined him and sang a song called Danger is a Woman in Love. All I knew about Tony Christie before was Amarillo, but last night he revealed an incredibly powerful old time voice.

Hawley himself has an amazing, smooth voice. His songs are old fashioned, miserable and uplifting.

Oh well, I am not cut out for writing music reviews. Just read the NME one, or better yet buy the album.