Author: Jenny

Recently, one of my roommate’s family moved out of state. Not wanting to simply cancel their subscription to the Free Press, the delivery address got changed to our apartment here in Ann Arbor.

Personally, I’m not a big news reader.  I’ll pick up the Daily from time to time and I’m actually pretty good about reading though my RSS feed everyday.  Then again, I only have subscriptions to Ad Age and io9 (a sci-fi/comic junkie blog).  It’s a pretty good deal, I get the latest information on Toyota’s image, the most recent LOST theories, and updates on Earth’s coming up close call with an asteroid. Thus, I usually just toss out the paper with out looking at it.

There are two things I save, and they both arrive in the Sunday paper. 1) Coupons, because what college student doesn’t like to save money? and 2) Comics.

Every Sunday I now have three pages of color, filled with humor, sweet moments, and serious plots.  I usually not only send myself into giggles, but my roomie too because she finds it hilarious that I laugh out loud.  But how can I not? Comics are funny and remind me of when we used to get the paper when I was a child, a time when everyone one laughed out loud at the simplest of things.

I think that’s the beauty of comics; they speak to all ages.  You don’t have to be old or up to date on the political scene to understand most of the punch lines.  And you have to admire the cartoonists, they manage to fit an entire story into one to six panels, and very often only write a single line.  That takes a lot of talent, to be able to pack so much meaning into such little space.  On top of that, they are able to churn out a comic on at least a weekly basis.  I’m sure they have some wonderful ideas on how to overcome writer’s block.

As it is, I feel like the comic as an art form that is majorly overlooked. Those in the newspaper are barely read nowadays as subscription numbers drop, those for sale in Borders are viewed to be solely in the ‘geek’ category, and the couple of web comics that are on-line are typically discovered by those with a small, tight social circle that rarely extends past their own door.  Comics are a whole art scene to themselves, specializing in not only using the minimum amount of material to the greatest effects, but also in keeping readers interested and coming back for more.

Just think, if cartoonists led the world it would be a lot more efficient.

Your non-news-reading blogger,

Jenny

There is more to science fiction than a story taking place in battle cruisers fight out in the dark reaches of space.  In fact, not all science fiction actually takes place in the future.  Science fiction, like many genres is as varied as the authors who write for it. But the one thing tying it all together, is the effect of a science on the characters in the novel.

Hard Science Fiction

These types of stories are typically written by authors who have a strong background in science; think Isaac Asimov or Arthur C Clarke.  As such, most of the science if very detailed and realistic. It plays such a role in these stories that the technology is actually central to the plot, not just part of the environment.

Soft Science Fiction

The so called ‘soft sciences’, sociology, psychology, and philosophy, are the central aspects to this type of story.  They focus on the effects future technology could have on a society or individual characters.  Ray Bradbury and Frank Herbert are authors of this sub-genre.

Cyberpunk

Philip K. Dick and William Gibson are popular cyberpunk writers; Gibson even invented the word.  Cyberpunk is about the negative, almost dystopian like societies that are dominated by computer technology, typically involving hackers and AI (artificial intelligence).

Military

Military science fiction stories focus on interplanetary or interstellar war and usually stress traditional military attributes, aided by a soldier’s point of view.  On of the staples of this genre is Forever War by Joe Haldeman, in which a university student is drafted for an interplanetary war.  When he returns to Earth years later, it ends up that a few years for him were a few thousands for the planet.

Apocalypse/ post-apocalypse

If you’re thinking zombies, guess again. Setting instead are after a world altering disaster such as nuclear war or an alien invasion and how humans overcome the event.  If you’er interested, check out works by SM Stirling.

Alien Invasion/ Alien Contact
Aliens are common in science fiction and thus what most people think of when picturing the genre. Sometimes they try to destroy the earth, sometimes they are benevolent. The TV show Stargate SG-1 has a little bit of both, and if you want a more classic story read H.G.Wells’s War of the Worlds.

Alternate Universe

Shorted to AU, these stories revolve around the idea that something has happened in the past and the course of history changed or may involve an alternate reality, aka a parallel world, that exists next to the one we live in but is defined by some differences. John Cramer and some of Philip K. Dick’s work can be considered a part of this sub genre.

Steampunk

These stories don’t actually take place in the future, but rather in the past with technology superior to what was actually available at the time. The stories are typically set in the Victorian era, and unlike cyberpunk don’t contain dystopian elements.  Think Jules Verne, the movie The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, or Lincoln with a machine gun arm. This is actually a relatively new genre, just coming about in the 1980s.

Time Travel
Time travel stories center, obviously, around the ability to travel through time and the effects it has on the traveler or sometimes the future. The Time Machine by H.G. Wells is a great example.

Space Opera

No signing is actually involved here.  Space opera is actually the sf equivalent of epic fantasy, meaning high adventure amongst the stars.  It’s this genre that used to be serialized in the movies and pulp fiction and it’s characterized by beautiful women and bug-eyed monsters.  Star Trek is actually a more sophisticated, contemporary space opera.

Many powerful things are said without the use of words, just simple images. Every year, the National Science Foundations (NSF) hosts a contest titled the International Science & Engineering Visualization Challenge to celebrate the connection art creates between scientists and the general population to generate an understanding of scientific ideas.

There are five categories: photography, illustrations, informational graphics, interactive media, and non-interactive media. Winners were selected based on the art’s visual impact, it’s communication of science, and the freshness of the entry.

Jellyfish Burger, pictured above was created by David Beck from Clarkson University and Jennifer Jacquet from the University of British Columbia,  tied for honorable mention in illustration.  It depicts future effects of over fishing –“as the numbers of larger fish dwindle and ocean temperatures rise, the sea becomes more and more ideal for the floating creatures,” Jacquet said.

If you want to see the other winners of this years contest, click here. There are some spectacular works of art,  including a 3.5 meter tall model of a lung.  Made out of zip ties.  I wonder how long that took.

Your friendly neighborhood anti-jellyfish burger blogger,

Jenny

Friday night millions of people witnessed an event that only happens every four years, the Opening Ceremony of the Winter Olympics.  This year the world wide sport event is being held in Vancouver, Canada and was kicked off by a 3.5 hour performance.  And despite the falling snow seen on the television screen, it all took place indoors.  This is the first time the an opening ceremony has done so.  I’m betting cuz of local weather.  Events on the first day of competing were actually postponed due to bad conditions.

The ceremony started with Canadian snowboarder Johnny Lyal flying through constructions of the Olympic rings that exploded outward with snow and ice.  This was then followed by the tamer display of the Canadian national anthem.  In both English and French, as much of the portion of the program was.

Following this was a large collection of Native Americans on the stage, well the Canadian version anyway, acting as the First Nations of Canada.  Together a large amount of tribesmen as well large statues,  officially welcomed the athletes and spectators to the area.

Next came the second most boring part, the parade of nations.  Led by Greece with Canada bringing up the rear all the competing nations walked across the stage grounds.  It would make things go a lot quicker if just flag bearers were down on the ground and it would be a nice equalizing agent.  Some countries have less than ten athletes competing, and that just looks awkward against the beastlyness of the United States.

The rest of the ceremony was essentially a giant tribute to the host country, but it was very entertaining to watch.  Except for the opening remarks which were so long I was actually able to watch a Simpsons and The Red Green Show episode without missing anything important.

Come the time to light the Olympic touch, the previously unflawed performance had a little hiccup. Of the four supports for the cauldron, only three were able to emerge.  It must have been tough for the torch bearers, having to just stand there and smile, all the while thinking Dang! This thing is heavy.  Hurry up!

But to be honest, I wasn’t that impressed with the entire thing, even with the snowboarders and skiers doing tricks from the ceiling.  Beijing was better.

Your Olympic watching blogger,

Jenny

PS.  Did you guys know we actually have two UofM students in the Olympics?  They’re figure skaters.

Hollywood and the entertainment industry in general are rather lazy.  They spew out the same things over and over, so much so that any little variation from the norm attracts big attention.  But why do they do it?

Simple.  If it worked in the past it’ll work again.

Take the blockbuster film for example.  It’s meant to be a giant hit, brought about by high publicity and high costs, meaning big stars and elaborate sets.  This started in the 50’s, when the film industry suddenly found it was being challenged by television.  Only big spectacular productions could lure people out of their living rooms and into the theater.

Come the 1980’s, blockbusters were still big productions, complete with a larger advertising budget, huge opening weekend and franchise-friendly characters to increase revenue.  They were also typically action-adventure films and special effects-oriented.  Hmm, doesn’t seem like anything has changed does it?

Blame Superman.

Released in 1977 it pretty much set up the requirements for the  popcorn blockbuster. Special effects, action, and a large cast of relatively well known actors. It also made more money in non-U.S. box offices than it did here.  It essentially opened Hollywood’s eyes to the worldwide appeal of the superhero.

And since it worked once, what was to stop it from working a second time? Or a third?  Enter a long line of superhero movies that continue to persist even today.  They all hope to make money, and all follow the same recipe for instant blockbuster, but not all make it.

We all know about about Tim Burton’s Batman, but how many of you heard about the movie version of The Punisher (1989) or The Crow (1994)?  And we all can recall how great that 2003 version of the Hulk turned out.

And yet these movies continue to be made becuase when they do well, they do really well.  The turn around, if temporarily, of a stale box office in the mid 200o’s is credited to the release of the Fantastic Four in 2005 and X-Men 3 in 2006.

Anyone else getting tired of this formula?  I mean, it has produced some decent flicks, but I do like variety.  Apparently so does the Academy, since a superhero movie has never won Best Picture.  Times change and maybe the formula for making movies should reflect that.

And maybe we’ld get more variety of TV shows too. How many different crime solving shows are on the air now?  Never mind, I don’t want to know the exact number.

Your indie movie loving blogger,

Jenny

It’s commonly expected that when a book is made into a movie, the original is typically better. There simply are things that are better expressed in writing than in visuals.

Feelings for one.  Books allow readers access to the character’s thoughts and motivations. A lot of personal conflict is internal, something that is hard to transfer into movies because it is such a visual medium. And a lot of the beauty in writing is the arrangement of words on the pages, the metaphors and mental images that have no business in film.

At once she was looking right through her with a sharp inscrutable expression. Chihiro jolted as it felt like someone kicked open the back door to her soul, tromping through her insides with muddy feet, ripping open closets and overturning tables while anxiously searching for something.
~A Road to Somewhere

This image is very vivid;  how would it be able to be transferred on to film and still make the images on the screen coherent? It’s not possible.  And what about other times, where an experience is described in relation to a past one, such as using a story of getting kicked in the balls for the first time in the character’s life to talk about the now sudden and overwhelming feeling of helpless pain he feels? Some things just do not translate.

Others do so surprisingly well.  J.K. Rowling’s descriptions of Hogwarts are only solidified and made more real to the reader because of the movie, and I will never be able to view the Balrog in the Fellowship of the Ring in any other way except as rendered in the movie.

Though perhaps Peter Jackson was too good at imagery. I have been unable to match the fulfillment I got from reading Tolkien’s books since I have seen the movies–all my mental images are replaced by Elijah Wood and Viggo Mortinson. And then there are others like the The Seeker, based on Susan Cooper’s amazing book The Dark Is Rising that are just so completely wrong. Nothing is as I imagined it.

And that is another beauty of books over movies, they allow you to see things the way you want them to seen. They are a more active medium of entertainment than cinema and that is why there will always be a market for them. And that is why books are better than the movies based off of them.

But what about cases where it is the other way around? When the movie predates the book? Or at least the production of it; it’s not uncommon to release the book as a promotion for the movie.

Because  cinema is visually driven, there is usually a lot of action. And I don’t just mean car chases and explosions, but dance numbers in musicals and the day to day hustle in chick flicks. Dialog is important, but there are very few times where we actually know what the characters are thinking. It has to be said aloud and when it’s not we are just taking a guess.

This of course can be remedied through a narration, such as JD’s usual narration in Scrubs. But it’s a rather uncommon use of sound and sometimes seems like an old fashioned Dragnet episode. But then again, Dragnet typically was spewing a metaphor of some sort and not personal feelings.

Because of this, ideas and aspects of the characters are left out of the film. When a younger sister protects her older sibling, is she doing it to help her family member or simply to one-up them? When someone hesitated to pull a gun, was it because of the face of the person it was pointing at or an inner moral struggle? The production crew may know and you can make an educated guess, but things really only become more clear when it’s expressed verbally.

This can be done through guide books, interviews with cast and crew, or novelizations of the movie. The novels add a whole other layer to the story, answer so many different questions, and perhaps explain what went on behind the story followed on the screen. How did so-and-so know where to show up and how did he get the information he has?

The books can answer such queries and make a more rewarding and realistic integration into a world whose characters you enjoy.

Your bookworm blogger,

Jenny