Centerfield

Well, it's possible (if, perhaps, not common -- at least in the public commenters) to be on the right and still see the flaws in the film. A little more historical accuracy might have been a nice touch.

Of course, since Pournelle was involved, one really shouldn't expect anything like accuracy. Not to mention taste. (And having had the misfortune to know the man personally, I'd have a lot of trouble thinking much of anything good about him or any of his works. As may be obvious.)

The men of Sparta have too high a place in western myth. My alma mater wasn't nicknamed the Michigan State Persians.

Military buffs will often overlook the totalitarian aspect of Spartan polity in order to look at them as the ancient world's ultimate tough customers.

Since our western history is Greek-centred in that era, the outsider Persians are the bad guys, even if you'd rather live in Persia than Sparta.

Speaking as a historian, and a conservative, the Spartans were nothing to idolize. Their only good moment was at the Battle of Thermopolye. There's a reason why we look back on Athenian democracy and not Spartan oligarchy for our inspiration.

A great book on the topic is The Greco-Persian Wars by Peter Green.

Jon, at what point do you imagine your grumbling about the historical accuracy of such movies will move you to routine acceptance of it as a simple given? :-)

IMO, the best anyone knowledgeable in history can do with a historically "based" movie is to consider it as an opportunity to give an account of what really happened while interest is higher than usual due to the PR.

Let's face it, accuracy isn't on the radar screen unless any given accurate fact happens to be especially entertaining.

BK:

I'm not talking about the movie specifically, here. But the Spartans themselves, as they were.

As for the movie, I don't really expect historical accuracy. It's mostly mythologized. I sat in Barnes & Noble and read the graphic novel the other day, so I don't really feel a need to see the movie.

It's a symbolic struggle between good and evil. You're welcome to fill in whatever "good" and "evil" make the film meaningful and inspirational to you.

It really seems to me that a lot of "lefties" are interpreting the "Spartans" as "good" and the "Persians" as "evil", simply so that they can then complain about how inaccurate such an interpretation this is, and how the movie is right-wing propaganda brainwashing.

Why not interpret the film as an inspirational and uplifting symbol of "leftie" good against "righty" evil?

Or as a powerful, personally significant depiction of one's own brave struggle against the crippling drug addiction that has (metaphorically) enslaved you?

Or as an inspirational re-interpretation of a community leader's hard, thankless work to drive a bad gang element out of their neighborhood?

Or as any of the other uplifting, motivational stories that the tale could just as easily represent, to anyone who had a positive attitude?

Sorry, I misspoke in my previous post. The second paragraph should read:

It really seems to me that a lot of "lefties" are interpreting the "Spartans" as "Americans" and the "Persians" as "Arabs", simply so that they can then complain about how inaccurate such an interpretation this is, and how the movie is right-wing propaganda brainwashing.

What stutefish said.

wj, Pournelle wasn't involved in the movie at all. Nor should anyone expect anything remotely resembling historical accuracy from a movie made from a freakin' comic book dramatization of an historic event, one that is itself known only third-hand.

The Spartan culture was not something that would appeal today, but it wasn't much better or worse than anything else at the time, and it was one of the extremely few cultures that treated women as equals or near-equals to men. The Spartans aren't admired for their "culture" so much as for their military prowess, which was impressive. And they managed to hang around as an independent state for quite a while for the times. They even held off Alexander the Great.

Almost forgot. The entire current-politics argument is so completely projectional that it reminds me of people doing Rohrschach exams with blank pieces of paper.

, at what point do you imagine your grumbling about the historical accuracy of such movies will move you to routine acceptance of it as a simple given? :-)

Good point!! ;-)

What I'm grumbling about is the high interest in Sparta among manyn conservatives that triggered the movie's existence in the first place.

Tully, the Spartans were decidedly worse. Of course, by modern standards, every government back then was horrible and tyrannical. But the Greek democratic city-states of the day were a clear head and shoulders above the rest.

o One citizen (though good luck becoming a citizen without being born to it), one vote.

o Most kinds of speech were relatively free. Plato seems to've been able to grumble about Athenian politics for decades before being put to death. That's why people still read so many Athenian authors, even today, and so few Spartan.

o Athenian government and quality of life was continually improving. They seem to have invented both the ideas of equality of men (OK, equality of male citizens), a civil culture, (OK, and democracy. Neither was ever implemented in Sparta.

o In Sparta, if you weren't one of the lucky few chosen or a king, you1 had no power or voice. The people lived, well, Spartanly. Intellectuals were given short shrift, and I can't think of anything the Spartans invented. There was only a limited notion of private property. Its government and peoples' prosperity shifted little over the ages. Well, except they could import better goodies from Athens and other democracies. Yes, they were good at soldiering and largely level-headed government. Yes, they granted their women property rights and schooling, but not equality, and they couldn't be Ephor or King.

As one who is not a conservative, but cannot wait to see this movie, I honestly must say that I see the struggle at Thermopylae in general as an epic archetype, 300 Spartans against the whole Persian empire. It was indeed critical to the survival of Western civilization, and think that cannot be ignored, although it is certainly true, that the Spartans really aren't the best examples of good government.

I really don't read much of an "Imperalism/anti-Persian vibe in the movie itself, and a lot of this smells like an overreaction.

As for the history, a lot of this has been mythologized. When Frank Miller wrote the graphic novel, there was a lot of artistic license.

And as a general note, what's up with the idea of having to love/hate a movie based on politics? See the movie first, and judge for yourself.

Perhaps Thompson should have had a cameo in 300 for shaping his image in a possible run for president.

I doubt Liberals want to embrace later Athenian society anymore than conservatives want to promote Sparta. Athenians did what many now think the Democrats are libel to do: fail to protect their approaches and make the necessary sacrifices for their national defense, until it is too late.

Tully is right about today's discourse. It colors just about everything. I heard Hillary comparing herself to JFK. Putin, I believed, compared his effort to FDR. I can image the spin if Genghis Khan makes the big box office. He didn't like Islamic terrorists very much. Cheney and Bush in a goatees anyone?

Perhaps Thompson should have had a cameo in 300 for shaping his image in a possible run for president.

I doubt Liberals want to embrace later Athenian society anymore than conservatives want to promote Sparta. Athenians did what many now think the Democrats are libel to do: fail to protect their approaches and make the necessary sacrifices for their national defense, until it is too late.

Tully is right about today's discourse. It colors just about everything. I heard Hillary comparing herself to JFK. Putin, I believed, compared his effort to FDR. I can image the spin if Genghis Khan makes the big box office. He didn't like Islamic terrorists very much. Cheney and Bush in goatees anyone?

That's why people still read so many Athenian authors, even today, and so few Spartan.

Sparta had authors? I thought almost ALL of what we know about Spartan society came from Herodotus and Aristotle and Thucydides and such, who were decidedly pro-Athenian writers. The Spartans produced so little in the way of the written word that we still have a word that means "not saying much of anything, and that briefly" based on them--laconic.

People don't read Spartan authors because there weren't any. The Spartans didn't write. They kept no records, wrote no histories, had no literature that I'm aware of. We have no clue how "free" speech was in Sparta, save from the accounts of writers from rival city-states.

He who writes the histories establishes the "truth," no? The other Greek city-states despised the Spartans because they feared them, and because the Spartans repeatedly kicked the crap out of them. But it was the other Greeks that wrote the histories, as Spartans didn't go in for the written word and other such luxuries.

Anyway, the point is that applying the cultural relativism of modernity to the distant past by proclaiming which state was "better" is an exercise in futility and projection. Especially when most of what we know about them was written by others who hated them. The Spartans are still admired by some today because they were tough independent pragmatical bastards who kicked ass and didn't run away from a fight, even when the odds against them were long. All the rest of the Sparta-slamming and Athens-praising strikes me as silly. I wouldn't have wanted to live in either place. Certainly not as a Spartan serf or an Athenian slave.

Well said Tully.

Personally, I find the need to interpret virtually all combat- and war-related movies through whatever political lens you're wearing regarding Iraq to be tiresome.

But people are pattern-noticers and meaning makers. They'll see allegory regardless of whether the creating artist intended to say anything specific about the present. Ideally, novelists and filmakers try to show examples that point at one eternal truth or another. If enough time has not passed since the time of Sparta that we can keep it disentangled from Iraq, then for what HAS enough time passed?

I think it's a shame that people are so polarized about the war that they can't acknowledge whatever sundry positive _and_ negative lessons Sparta teaches us. One ought to be able to digest the film on its own merits without deciding that, say, they need to dislike it because it, say, sends the wrong message. That strikes me as foolish and short sighted.

I had an interesting conversation with my cousin this weekend when the topic of political bands came up. He pointed out how the bands that had the foresight to speak generally of eternal truths wore much better than those that chose to single out this leader or that policy or that event. The bands that made their material personal and current sound dated and their songs don't connect as well.

As art like a song or a movie or a novel passes into time, it really doesn't matter whether at the time whether the creator crafted the work as a thinly-veiled allegorical attack on this guy or that guy or against this policy or that war. All that matters as time passes is how well the work points at eternally relevant truths about culture, government, human nature, what have you.

Good example...On the Waterfront. Do future generations need to know about blacklisting to decide what eternal truths are there to see. I'm sure mileage varies. FWIW, I didn't know the history when I saw it, and now I do, but I still love the part where Brando says "I'm GLAD what I done."

I do get Jon's point. He finds the admiration of the Spartan's military qualities unseemly and distasteful. But military types have admired the Spartans time out of mind--for their military prowess, not their social institutions, which were a combination of oligarchy and pre-communism. Just as intellectuals have admired Athens for time out of mind for their accomplishments in the foundations of Western thought and the Socratic/Aristotlean tradition, not for their slave trade, conquest imperialism, or oppression of minorities.

Both city-states earned that admiration in those specifics, but neither was a model to emulate today as far as society goes. Life in either for most was quite Hobbesian, as it was everywhere at the time. Me, I like modern medicine, indoor plumbing, and air conditioning. (Keep your flying cars, I'm still waiting for my robot maid.)

Well said too, Brian. There are certainly issues and dramas of past violent turning points that have little to do with present realities. Humanism did spin Greek History when I was first learning about Athens and Sparta. Liberals v Conservatives shadowed numerous characterizations of the Athenians and Spartans back in the seventies. Draconian is a term we might apply to present measures taken for national security reasons. Certainly Athenians became decadent and excessive. Shall we say Viet Nam was influencing the sweeter colors text book authors cast on Athens? Some of the greatest works on Greece were written decades ago in the shadow of totalitarianism and global violence.

I can't think of ANY combat movie including Saving Private Ryan that didn't have some subliminal moral message intended for today's combat debates. I see it in Munich and Platoon. How much time must pass for one to deal objectively with a violent historical event? Well, the one in question has much intended irony as Iran threatens the West with secret nuclear programs. Who can deny that this reality didn't figure into the selection of subject material? Maybe an “objective” view of war must follow a long lasting peace in the world. Then such historical violence might be viewed as unfortunate primitive behavior by less advanced humans. Right now, I'm not sure what future century that objectivity might be found. Are you?

I'm sure not holding my breath waiting for future objectivity. I'd settle for a willingness to see both sides, a willingness to see the pluses and minuses, and a willingness to say, understand Sparta primarily in its own context for whatever things it teaches. Ultimately, anyone who has spent any time thinking about objectivity versus subjectivity understands that objectivity is only useful as a comparative term. Noticing that none of us can achieve anything near a perfect escape from our own inevitable subjectivity does not, IMO, suggest that we ought therefore to throw up our hands and declare all views equally biased and subjective. Much good can be achieved by aiming at an unachievable ideal, if western thought has any worth at all. There are the twins again, hope and faith.

IMO, Nothing about Sparta proves anything about Iraq. The supple mind learns more from these episodes than the rigid ones. Previously, I said eternal truths but I probably ought to have said eternal questions. I am not sanguine on the prospects of a future where violence is presumed to be primitive behavior we've no need for because it has no efficacy or because we've made a moral choice to reject it. It's a pipe dream, one we may achive much through aiming for, but only if we are careful to retiuan our understand that a time may come when the principles we can follow while still surviving and thriving may be dictated by the more primitive, less advances, less scrupulous, or simply those of following a fundamentally different philosophy. That's an eternal question right there, what does the will to survive justify?

I'd note that "300" is a frame-by-frame adaptation of Miller's "graphic novel," which was written in 1998. Whatever "statement" it makes about current events is purely in the eye of the beholder, and not on the part of the author.

perhaps Iran protested Miller's novel too?

Well, Brian, I agree with your sentiment, but I'll add another relative qualifier, "Live free or Die". The will to survive in itself says little about the fruits of living. No one would desire an endlessly tortured existence. I suggest that the critics references to Iraq, which Tully explains could not have been a motive of Miller, is rather references to the dialectic "Clash of Civilizations" in which Sparta showed great bravery centuries ago. The question the movie may prompt in today's ironic context is, "shall we show resolve and bravery too?" It doesn’t mean we should reflect Spartan society as a political concept. Nor does it provide solutions to Iraq or the Middle East. Miller’s novel, it seems, hardly translates into Sparta being pre-Republicans and Persians being yesterday's Jihadists (they were not). At least Liberals can't accuse Miller of being a neocon. At best, the spin is about competing hegemonies and the sacrifice by Westerners long ago, to defend the emerging Western polity from Eastern onslaught. As I said, Genghis Khan would be another great epic to film.

Iran's comments This went missing from my last post. Hope it posts now.

Max I thought the criticsm centered around the notion that pro-war folks/conservatives were especially prone to like 300, not that it was in fact crafted specifically to be some sort of allegory.

And of course, even though Tully makes an excellent point that Miller's work couldn't have been crafted as a graphic novel specifically to be some sort of allegory for Iraq, the movie could still have been made BECAUSE of the aptness of the parallels that could be made. And suitable editorial choices could have been made by the director/creative team. Not that there's anything wrong with that, just sayin'.

But yeah, obviously Miller can't be charged with intent. :-)

Tully said:
Anyway, the point is that applying the cultural relativism of modernity to the distant past by proclaiming which state was "better" is an exercise in futility and projection.

Hah! Caught you by your own petard! Or, more likely, just mixing your metaphors. Bwahaha! You first grumbled about that nasty cultural relativism stuff and then indulged in it yourself by grumbling about comparing Athens and Sparta.

Rafique said:
I really don't read much of an "Imperalism/anti-Persian vibe in the movie itself, and a lot of this smells like an overreaction.

It probably is. It's as much a reaction to reading stuff 15-20 years ago as to current reviews and events. Now, Pournelle recently 'fessed up to wishing a dictator would take over on his blog, but IMHO, both overinterest in Sparta and interest in authoritarianism are on the decline.

I understand your point, but I was referring to a number of conservative and liberal critics who seem to think that the movie was produced and marketed now BECAUSE of the aptness of the parallels that can be made between Iraq and Spartan resolve. Suitable editorial choices were probably made to nudge the film's message in a certain way, but I have yet to see 300. I agree the historical choice of the movie company was probably made because of contextual connections between 300 and our present Middle East debate.

I can also see why conservatives will probably enjoy the film (if it is well made). I think this might be the case because of the parallels found in Greek and Modern dialectics regarding the "Clash of Civilizations" and that Sparta represented, at least, a brave stand to protect the evolution and survival of Western principles. While it is unfair to equate the white conservative male minority in American to Spartans (not that you did this), I can see how this historical event can give hope now to these mostly men that the few can possibly contain the growing adversarial numbers who oppose Liberal Democracy (which Sparta was not, but let's be a bit relativistic). To many Westerners, Islamist extremism and criminal fascists threaten to obtain the means to place Democracy at risk for decades, if not actually provoking a major conflict and the use of WMD. Many ancient Athenians and Spartans would probably see a dangerous General Western Apathy trying to confuse us as barbaric enemies seek to steal the weapons of the Gods. Which view would be the allegory is hard to tell,.... objectively.

I hate reading reviews before I see a movie. I have seen trailers and no matter how 300 is butchered or sanctified, the historical lesson does inspire this more liberal citizen. I find that is not just a conservative thing. I can equally picture JFK asking his compatriots, not what their country could do for them, but rather, what they could do for their country. Perhaps this message has become lost a bit, even in the shadow of 9/11, except when we see the growing ranks of wounded or killed in Iraq. The parallel will undoubtedly be drawn to Iraq by present pressure to filter in that binary mode given the historical material, but with Iran already weighing in on the movie, the greater parallel will be draw towards the Clash of Civilizations. I think this is the real reason for the polarization here, not Iraq. Democrats are really much more concerned about pre-emption of Islamist extremists than even the carnage in Iraq. Some people have told me they won’t see the movie because they feel it was intended to fuel warmongering. It is sad when our interpreting history becomes so colored by subjective BS. As though millions haven’t died so you and I could chat about our freedoms, or lack of them.

I see, the next waste time thread will be:
"The Parent Trap: Haylie Mills, Lindsey Lohan and the the Breakdown of the American Family. and the links to lefty or right blogs so we can see just how evil everyone is.

doesn't anyone just watch for entertainment anymore???!?!?!?
Take it from the pro.

get some popcorn and a soda. Sit down. Enjoy movie.
Go wow where appropriate.

Now I know who I won't go to movies with.
"The Host", a great sci fi monster flick, would be wasted on you guys.

How about a real subject like comparing the circumstances 2nd article of Nixon's impeachment and the firing of the AG's?

Well, why don't you start a new thread? Perhaps you might begin with this or perhaps this.

As far as movies, may I suggest Borat's unedited version of his latest release? Pan Labyrinth might be worthy of popcorn and Letters from Iwo Jima is sure to evoke some emotion and a large Diet Pepsi, unless 40 Year Old Virgin is more your speed.

I haven’t seen a good Sci Fi in a long time. Perhaps Solaris with Clooney might have been the best in recent memory.

And yes, Host is on my list to see too, along with 300. Unfortunately, 300 has already caused a stir. Crowds are filling cinemas in Greece while Iran has banned the movie. I don’t think many theaters are open in Iraq. Drive ins would not be a great idea.

I liked "Serenity" a lot and think it's one of the best sci-fi features in the past 10 years. Good action, good story, nice premise, kick ass fight scenes and of course the "unbeatable" foes, always a good sci-fi staple when done well as it was here. Solaris...I still really like the Russian version but Clooney does a good job.

My kid and I thought Astronaut Farmer was good. A nice popcorn pleaser but Eragon was total spew.
Steel wool and maybe waterboarding might yet erase that abomination from our memories. I think Jeremy Irons BEGGED to be killed off so that he wouldn't have to do the first part of the sequel.

I still hope Wristcutters: A Love Story makes it to a decent distributor, Venus was great, and if you haven't seen Forrest Whittaker in The Last King of Scotland or the incredible war film "Days of Glory" then
SHAME I SAY!, SHAME!
Go rent The Cave of the Yellow Dog(Mongolia) and Bonkers(Dutch)

BTW my speed? The above plus I NEVER saw Titanic, I hate stupid buddy movies and shlocky horror flicks like Jason, etc. Give me Dersu Uzala, Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears, Good Night and Good Luck, Rocky Horror, 2001, Amelie, Paths of Glory, Il Ciclone, High tide, The Quiet Man, Patch of Blue, Field of Dreams, Touch of Evil, M, It's a Mad Mad World where Jonathon Winters destroys a garage with his bare hands, The Producers - a film enhanced tremendously by the editor and Zero Mostel is precious, just about any kind of animation and anime, Iron Giant is one of the best ever made, anything by Naruse, Kurosawa, Kubrick, Truffaut, Fellini, etc....anything with Audrey Hepburn, James Stewart, Bogart, Cal alumna Gregory Peck and a thousand other actors, the documentary series "7 Up" by Michael Apted and the triumphs and tragedies of the rest of the series, the last reel of Carrie, the original cut of Close Encounters, anything with a Phillip Dick story which is pretty much every good sci fi movie, Johnny Got His Gun and if you don't have the new DVD of "The Big Red One" you will miss the most incredible scene with Lee Marvin that was missing from the original release - he had just dealt with the death of a close friend the day before the scene was shot and it is a mesmerizing performance that could have garnered him an Oscar if it wasn't hacked off.
The incredible "I, Claudius" with the incredible Derek Jacobi on Masterpiece Theatre, as many foreign and independent movies as time allows each year at the Mill Valley Film Festival where I've worked for almost 3 decades and got to meet people like Donald Sutherland, Dick Cavett, J. Winters, Malcom McDowell, etc. etc. etc. and watch hours of video shorts and docs. One day I juried 65 videotapes to find only one is good and the rest were crap. Always follow the pet cemetary doc "Gates of Heaven" with "Werner Herzog Eats His Shoe" and you can thank Ted Turner for saving hundreds and hundreds of deteriorating films.if you want your tapes to last for years store them at 60 degreees and less than 25% humidity. Rewind and fast forward every few years.
"To Kill A Mockingbird" is still one of the best and most complete movies ever made.

I could go on for hours but here's my top movie experience of all time-it beat my personalized tour of Lucas's Presidio studios and Toshiro Mifune sitting on stage right in front of me one night but only by a little:

the showing of the restored version of Abel Gance's "Napolean" at the beautifully restored Paramount Theatre in Oakland many years ago, in Tryptic (3 screens) and a full live orchestra directed by Carmine Coppola.
My mom topped that when I bought her a ticket to the same thing under the stars at Coppola's winery years later.

What if the movie is meant for nothing more than appealing the masses of the American people for a few hours because we all know that blood and weapons and women sell, and picking a battle with such crazy odds gives it just enough plot to find something to keep people from getting bored? The first thing I thought of with this movie was not "this is representing our own political battleground" but rather "this is everything the typical average American male wants in a movie", and I am guessing it is the latter of these that are giving it the $$$ in the box office. I think critics who are trying to interpret more out of it than it is are just trying to give the movie more credit than it deserves. This movie just isn't that complex.

Sorry to highjack, but...

No new posts since this DOJ thing? There's a lot of stuff going on. Why keep discussing a movie? (Please take this criticism as purely constructive. I'm just a little worried.)

Jenn, agreed. Critics are overthinking it. I saw a preview of it last week, and it seems highly geared towards authentic graphic representation of violent battle. If there's much plot intrgue, the preview sure didn't show it.

So yeah, targeted at the younger guys especailly, and geared to provide a non-stop visceral rush.

Personally, it struck me as kind of silly, por at least, not my bag. I just can't help but look at many of the costumes and think "that seems like an odd wardrobe choice for a battle. And wonder why more guys don't aim for the legs.

Marcus, I thought serenity was pretty entertaining too. While I was laid up with a fractured vertebrate last fall I was lucky enough to catch a Firefly marathon one afternoon. God bless those afternoon sci-fi channel series marathons, or I'd have killed myself in response to the afternoon TV wasteland. Or used up all my vicodin and cyclobenzaprine much faster. :-) Anyway, I'm wondering if anyone else thinks that the series on the sci-fi channel have slowly but surely become pretty decent fare, much more worthwhile on average than the series of many other networks. Their new one, the Dresden Files, is kind of fun, granted it's sort of a copycat of the fairly odious Charmed, but more noirish and gothic.

Hah! Caught you by your own petard! Or, more likely, just mixing your metaphors. Bwahaha! You first grumbled about that nasty cultural relativism stuff and then indulged in it yourself by grumbling about comparing Athens and Sparta.

I'm indulging in the cultural relativism of modernity by pointing out through specific example that the societies involved were both pretty awful by modern standards, in order to show that assessments of "better" when viewed from a remove of two millenia are pretty, well, subjective? Yeah, kinda. Can't illuminate absurdity by example without utilizing absurdity. But it's not a mixed metaphor. (I like mine mixed with rum, thanks!) (And thank you for the humorous dig in the mixed metaphor throwaway line--for those who missed it, you get "caught" by your own trap, and "hoist" by your own petard. He be ribbin' me.)

Found any of those Spartan authors yet? ;-) PS--Pournelle's always loved the autocratic approach. Mostly because he's frustrated that we don't do things his way. "If I were King...."

I am highly unlikely to go see 300 in the theater, and 50/50 to ever be bored enough to rent it. Just not my kind of film. What marcus and Jenn said--I go to movies to be entertained, not lectured or propagandized. Triple agreement on The Producers, and we don't mean the remake, but the original with Mostel and Wilder, made when Brooks was still brilliant.

I consider most horror films and monster flicks to be dark comedies. The word "vic-DUMB" leaps to mind. I saw Titanic. If not for the nude scenes I'd have nothing nice to say about it. Echo again on Forrest Whitaker in LKoS. The movie, decent, but the performance, amazing. :-)

I think they made 300 because audience market surveys showed that people were tired of spending money on anti-hero tales and depressing life-sucks people-suck morality plays, no matter how well done, and wanted something entertaining that required less cogitation. Call it a revolt against the Syrianas and Babels and Million Dollar Babies. Life me, dammit! Make me leave with a smile!

Marcus--I'm still annoyed that a scenery-chewing remake won Best Picture, even if Scorcese really truly deserved to give up his post as the Susan Lucci Memorial Director of the Academy. I'm tired of seeing "Best Picture" nominees that I'll never ever EVER want to watch again, no matter how well made, which for me would've narrowed the field this round to Little Miss Sunshine and The Queen.

Jenn--they put in the abs and loincloths so the women had something to watch too. :-)

Plot? It has a plot?

Tully,

My 14 yr old daughter felt that Miss Sunshine got robbed. I still have to see it.

an aside regarding Helen Mirren
I did a tribute video for her this past MVFF where they showed The Queen which I had to miss unfortunately. Had a disagreement with the producer over choice of scene from the first Prime Suspect. She wanted and got the scene where she's walking off with one of the detectives and he says something about "royal"
I (underline "I") wanted the scene where she and the chief inspector go hammer and tong in his office. oh well, that's life in the edit world.

bk,
Firefly wasn't given the time to develop, a common reason for any good show's demise.
Fortunately we have "Heroes" to which my daughter and I are totally addicted. And I've taped all the episodes.

Save the cheerleader.

One final shot on Athens vs Sparta. Just as your righties, like to point out about the US vs Iran, or vs the USSR back in the day, as Ephraim Lytle wrote: ". . . . Most Greeks would have traded their homes in Athens for hovels in Sparta about as willingly as I would trade my apartment in Toronto for a condo in Pyongyang."

Jenn--they put in the abs and loincloths so the women had something to watch too. :-)

...in fact, are plenty of reviews I read that liked the movie because they thought the guys were hot. I wouldn't dream of complaining about those reviews... ;-)

We like to watch Numbers. I grumble about the algorithm and math descriptions, she grumbles about plot holes (mostly, both are pretty good, but we've gotta keep watching, just in case, right?).

Whoopsie, messed up that link.

Marcus, true dat on Firefly. Even granting that misjudgement on the part of the sci-fi channel, I still think that they're showing a markedly higher rate of entertaining original series than other networks.

We've been watching and enjoying heroes too. But there's some frustration and impatience too. There are too many plot lines, and this results inepisodes where if you cover them all, most of them barely budge. The most successful ones move a handful of plotlines or a single one much farther.

The other problem is the inherent problem of a serial conspiracy. Because the amount of time the series lasts is indeterminate, it's harder to arc the storylines believably. Inevitably, the extension of the series means that it becomes more outlandish as time passes, because the onion must always have another layer. IMO, serial conspiracy shows are more entertaining when at least half of the time is given over to stand-alone episodes where a given character begins and ends a story within an eposide, by say helping a person or punishing a villain.

I am addicted to HDTV. Once you see the quality (make sure your model has inputs for the best type of cable) it is hard to watch regular digital TV. I have seen a few movies in HD and it is a real jump in definition over DVDs. I must confess I have been watching Discovery in HD more than Sci-fi lately. Occasionally, I get BattleStar in HD and that's impressive.

What Tully said about 300 and Departed, but I am sure the "Iranian" context was anticipated about the former.

As far as the sci-fi series including Heroes on network, most are such escapist, unbelievable stories that often defy physics and serious moral play. Remember the old Outer Limits? I just don't feel today's versions often captures that old magic. I found those oldies were more believable despite the 50's special effects (which were innovative in some respects). New programs do beat out Lost in Space or Time Tunnel (remember that one?), I find the contemporary messages vague, the science too far-fetched and the acting a bit shoddy. I bet many here could come up with better concepts and plot lines. Just consider the old casting of Twilight Zone.

Perhaps we should start a running thread (intellectual property lawyers anyone?) and submit new sci-fi ideas for the cable and network programmers.

One thing that would be interesting would be something that started twenty years out and really takes a stab at extrapolating the world based on today's science and trends. I'm not talking Jericho. Let's see what creative futurist minds think NYC or Boston will really look twenty + years out. Let them depict a world that by 2050 should have almost 10 billion people. Does anyone wonder if Earth can sustain such numbers? And the more of us, the less biodiversity and more conflict, yes? In fact, one could have a series where each week a future date, place and scenario is depicted. On could even have a few hardy time travelers somehow going only into the future and returning to the present in an effort to foresee the real dangers and prevent them. The idea would be that “forward and present” is somehow easier than going back into the past (although at least the past once really existed whereas the future doesn't exist yet...hhhmmm). In any case, the idea would be to explore the coming realistic scenarios and educate the public about what may very well happen from climate warming to nukes the size of laptops. Let us grapple with these questions in an entertaining way before they become the brutal reality.

Just a thought.

It doesn't necessarily bother me when physics is defied. It depends. I am after all looking for entertainment first. What I think you are rebelling against Max is the modern preference for viscerally stimulating eye candy. Myself, I like a roller coaster ride too, but there are reasons why such a ride only lasts a few minutes. Much of the modern fare caters to an audience addicted to visceral appeal at the sake of the quality of drama.

FWIW, one standard academy view on science fiction is that at its best it still covers familar human conflict and eternal questions, simply in a foreign context which re-invigorates the audience by disguising the perspective. In particular, you can see this quite clearly in Battlestar Galactica, which provides a fantastical futuristic context and then still deals with much political intrigue, xenophobia, etc.

I'm not supoer-worried about overpopulation, and not just becuase I'll be dead. The way I see it, is that the growth rate will simply have to slow down unless we can expand to outer space and other planets. Simple as that. Things will change quite a bit obviously, but it's silly to look at current growth rates and imagine they will be sustained so that there are humans crawling over square inch of the planet. That's unlikely to happen, and if it does, it's bound to be a transient moment prior to a mass die-off to a more viable population level. IOW, if our population ever booms that much, it'll bust. I expect that both political and market forces will put a brake on it before we get that far.

Most Greeks would have traded their homes in Athens for hovels in Sparta about as willingly as I would trade my apartment in Toronto for a condo in Pyongyang

Yet 20,000 Athenian slaves deserted their hovels in Athens for hovels in Sparta during the war of Decelea, no? They seemed to think it a good trade, despite the likely death sentence if re-captured by the Athenians.

So maybe you better try to quantify "Most Greeks" there. We don't know the ratio of "free' to "slave" in Sparta (curse their laconic ways!) but estimates of free-to-slave in the rest of Greece ran from 1 to 1 right up to the census of the Athenian tyrant Demetrius Phalereus, which found 20,000 citizens and 400,000 slaves, or 20-to-1. If you're one of the "one" I can see why you might not want to switch--but the mass is the twenty.

Certainly the top dogs of Athens would not have traded over--nor would the top dogs of Sparta. Those lower down might well have (and at times certainly did have--those 20K) different opinions. If we're celebrating Athenian moral and intellectual superiority, is it bad form to bring up Aristole's and Plato's enthusiastic apologetics for Athenian slavery, or slavery in general?

Anyway, my point remains that calling either society "better" from the remove of a couple of millenia is subjective at best. I wouldn't trade my modern hovel for a palace in 400BCE.

I wouldn't trade my modern hovel for a palace in 400BCE.

Right. A 20 to1 shot in favor of someone else making you a slave, especially if you're a big mouth like us guys. No potato cannons.[No right guard!! The smell alone....) No ipods or microwaves. Or splenda! Certainly no hope of imminent robot maids! ROTFL!!

One thing that gets me about Heroes is the metabolic cost of these folks using their powers. I mean, that cheerleader should be banging burgers, fries and shakes down like no tomorrow.

Yeah, there's a major suspension of disbelief required there. What, they don't burn calories? They should be carrying glucose tanks!

I don't have an iPod, but REAL PLUMBING! Air conditioning. Antibiotics...rum! I want rum!

Yeah, a loudmouth like me would have to either be a hell of a fighter, or a very fast runner. And everywhere I ran there'd be the same problem of that big mouth.

LOL .....

My take is that good sci-fi usually does two things. Using "magic" (replaced by reasonable scientific supposition enabling the necessary suspended disbelief), sci-fi composes novel situations in which age-old questions about human behavior and the meaning of life are explored in ways that ordinary fiction cannot. Sure, there is the fear and panic of "Alien", or the determined struggle to survive in "Predator", but the thrills of the miraculous (warp drive, A.I., alien life) combined with the ageless mythological discourse exercises our intuition and tickles our foresight. I saw a great idea recently get destroyed by too much effects and poor screen writing, though the story was fascinating. Christian Bale plays a magician. Boy did Tesla build him a machine, but as I said, the movie suffered needless flaws. Sad.

Today's technical magic shows run thin after every production company re-circulates them. Sure, the scenes in Star Wars are cool, but we have seen them before. The story and characters hold it together. Adult sci-fi epics are seldom made. Departed is apparently more meaningful.

Effects can hurt the story especially when there is no deeper content. In "Solaris" the realistic events place you in a novel reality aboard a strange space craft over looking a stranger planet. Only in this artfully and reasonably created expectation of any wish being actually granted would one really ask oneself, "if I had one wish, what would I ask for’?
Where else would answering that question be any more important? What would we want Heaven to be? Powerful stuff without any mention of any religious belief, or a lot of effects.

It's not that Sci-fi must be serious. The first Matrix presented an interesting idea and through spinning a believable premise with great production, it pondered what makes us human. It mixes a bit of humor, as does "Brazil". Sci-fi often had a great balance between funny and serious. "Blade Runner" certainly says some deep things in novel settings. Sci-fi loses its magic when it becomes ordinary and predictable. Again, I think of that simple disturbing feeling when I watched some of the original Outer Limits. There was one……several nuclear technicians become alien zombies under their radiation suits one by one simply by touching a radioactive material. How they achieved the creepiness with few props was amazing. "Dark City" is almost drawn from "The Tunnel Under the World", where a guy wakes up every day to a Wednesday. Want adventure? a remake of the "Forbidden Planet" would be spectacular. Just think of that computer generated Id. The story is so balanced between artifice and myth. In the end, it is Learish. "Childhood's End" would give Scientology some competition. "I, Robot" was actually interesting, though "A.I.", is a hopelessly disappointing mess. At least these are closer to the classical spirit of written sci-fi. "The Thing" (Kurt's version) was excellent entertainment (although, note the lack of a single female). It is about survival (altruism). Film is a bit different from written works. The "Forbin Project" was a much better book than a movie. "Fifth Element" was probably a much better movie than book. There is still an imaginative field film has not captured. And what film can capture almost seduces itself. “Cube” was interesting. Not great. Its message says a bit about our present state of evolution, as did “Altered States” decades earlier. Written works can employ the narrative and exploit the reader’s own imagination to fill in the missing forms. As for film, I am not sure there has been another "Clockwork Orange".

Now over-population; I do not know what you mean. We might actually grow to nine billion in four more decades and many believe the earth, the climate and human cooperation cannot take these unprecedented conditions withoutthings seriously giving out. We are showing signs for some time that ten billion is not sustainable. Add to that the prospect of real medical advances and we are reaching a tough road. War, pestilence and famine? Or are you implying we will come to our senses and avoid the geometrically accelerating rates of pressure? Dude, picture that world coming up fast.. Put on your sci-fi cap and imagine how much more volatile such a world will be and is becoming. Are the Overlords planning to return? Conflict, poverty, environmental degradation, species extinction are the consequence of over-population (excuse the absolutism). We have known this for thirty years. AIDS, nuclear terror, earthquakes? What do you think will slow population growth? Sci-fi tries to effect present behavior by simulating future scenarios. It would be supremely ironic if we ignore the warning signs of the obvious while we zone out to transporters and aliens, mutants and time machines. Irony, in a sci-fi kind of way.

Or are you implying we will come to our senses and avoid the geometrically accelerating rates of pressure?

My hypothesis is that the problem will resolve naturally, one way or the other. The growth rate will slow as we reach the limits of sustainability. This rate is low or even negative in many developed parts of the world, and as others modernize, theirs will too. Various market forces, like the price of food, education, healthcare, fuel, and so on will come to bear.

What I don't think will happen is that we solve it via some sort of global consensus leading to agreements, treaties, laws, and so on.

And then there's the other "natural" solution that Earth's ecosystem will provide if we don't figure it out, some sort of nasty virus or whatever that bleaches the human mildew down to a much more manageable scope. See, I'm not that worried that we'll destroy Earth, except from the perspective of destroying it for human purposes. Earth will endure. The real worry is that we'll set the bounds of the stability of overlapping ecosystems off so badly that in effect, Earth will shrug us off like a horse swats a fly with its tail.

We need Earth pretty much just as it is. Earth doesn't really need us at all.

Earth doesn't really need us at all.

Oh, really? Who's going to run the blogs, smart-guy?

"My hypothesis is that the problem will resolve naturally, one way or the other"

Funny how our last hopes might be "un" natural solutions created by technology such as sterilization or nuclear incineration. Let us put aside the idea of what is natural and what is not.

"The growth rate will slow as we reach the limits of sustainability."

How? I am not sure what mechanism you are referring to. We could run out of food and people would starve. Food prices could go up and nations could fight over fishing areas as the totals keep rising. Disease might flourish given the poverty such growth will produce and hundreds of millions might die. I cannot imagine such death would not first result in global conflict and this might produce millions of more deaths.

We might find increasing infertility. We might find the race to resources will also ignite a war, that again, kills millions. However, I am not sure of the mechanism that will kill billions without radically changing any semblance of our present way of life. Such carnage would make Nazi German a resort town. By 2050, many experts predict (and they have been right before) that we will have close to ten billion people. Rather than to bore you with facts, the oceans, the soil and the ambient temperatures cannot sustain the impact of that many people. We are already seeing the erosion, declines in sea life, changes in precipitation etc. that would be expected of unsustainability (sp). Sure, we could live under water and harness hydrogen power, but that is many, many decades away as is going into space. This human increase in consumption and activity will fuel conflict which already is fighting over water, resources and what any particular country deems legal to do to their environment WHICH WE ALL SHARE. You know where I’m driving. Yes, I would put down ground troops to protect elephants and lions. I would have our protection around estuaries and tropical rain forests if it comes to wholesale destruction. The UN has actually discussed this option in Africa.

Sure, we can build a thousand new reactors giving the growing number of extremists better targets. We can limit our growth rates while the Third World continues to explode. I think we can change direction, but that would BEGIN with the premise that we must act to sustain cooperation.

Therefore, I am not sure of the natural mechanism you think will regulate growth beyond a simple application of thermodynamics which doesn't conform well to living systems. More people, less resources and the systems runs down. Actually that is often not the case in living nature as opposed to closed systems. It is not energy per se that limits us, its space and material resource. Once we can create matter from energy directly, then it becomes a matter of space (excluding unknown exteriors threats).

My theory is that already population size exceeds the capacity for cooperation among humans. We have never been here before. If you really want to talk about what is natural, one must observe group behavior. Your suggestion that some kind of hegemony can’t direct the increasing chaos towards order opposes the only real control and hope we have. Do you see that? The fault dear Brutus is not in the Stars. The only hope IS greater enforcement of human rights and other obvious restraints against illegal behavior which threatens life’s quality and sustainability. This view is provoking claims of a world order ruled by the US.

Frankly, as long as the order is open and sound, it is the consensus of power that leads enforcement. Logically, it could be no other way, unless Jesus comes here and leads us. Cooperation is a function of altruistic genetic components. Punishment and enforcement are also altruistic genetic components. Our ability to communicate and form open ordered societies and cooperation is unparalleled in animal behavior. Cooperation and love (altruism and its awareness) creates the morality we would die for. Yes? To claim that the increased power and unsustainable size of humanity doesn't require even greater manifestations of altruism to avoid the tragic consequences of unlimited population growth and ecological destruction is a bit off the wall. Bacteria will consume all the sugar until there is no more. Then without the next batch, it will die. There is no other earth to replace the one we are eating now. Earth is not sentient. I think you are referring to life. Here I think you miss something. Life's aim is to survive. The most fittest forms, life rewards because through their lives, life is most sustainable and has the greatest potential adaptiveness to survive what other life has endured for billions of years as Natural Selection.. There is no other form that can change its own genetics. I do not know any other life form with greater potential nor greater conscious awareness (my posts excluded of course). Humanity represents life's most prized and dangerous child. Sure, we could all die, but there is no certainty another thinking form like us will one day keep a rock from space from destroying life completely. Our extinction could become life's death knell as well. Life doesn't decide to release a lethal disease to keep us in check. First fish may die. A whole series of irreversible events could occur killing off other species first. Of course evolution will go on, but we could easily undo millions of years of evolution, destroy the future of those we love and violate the prime directive: to serve life.

There is a certain fatalism in your words. There seems to be a cynicism in your faith in human reason. There seems to be a skepticism regarding free will and human nature. Earth doesn't need anything. It is not a person or a consciousness. Life however is different. We are life, bugs are life. We all serve the same God of Life, which has never died since its first start on earth. Life is not a teleology imbuing forms with purpose. And life is not Natural Selection or Mother Nature. Life is conscious awareness and self-organization, assimilating energy and perpetuating itself over time. Life is referred to as a unique process, unlike non living ones. We can set this process back and make Earth look like Mars. We could conceivably destroy life, but not now, completely.

On a much brighter note, we could manage the diversity of life and evolve to higher levels of awareness and organization. Individuals one day might even have a natural right to live unnatural durations of life brought through the fruits of the State and global cooperation. Sci-fi focuses us on these great potentials. It is in our nature to grasp and to destroy. When destroying becomes the antithesis of survival, something has gone very wrong. Our seeking immortality, resolving our conflicts and enhancing our Earth’s Life come from the energy of life and its altruism and drive to survive. I simply do not buy your cynicism.

It is really quite simple. For such a massive and powerful organism as humanity to grow, it must achieve unprecedented high levels of cooperation and overcome the primary directive of individual selfishness. This is not obtained through punishment alone. Nature has given us love. Love drives us to confront dangers in order to protect life as a sacred group despite the prime directive of the individual to survive. This is the most remarkable thing. No other species has been so blessed by life. Without this struggle between survival and love, I would suggest, life has no meaning. It is not death that gives life meaning, it is the love of life itself. We are responsible for everything.

On another note this in from the BBC on the 300

I hope my homily wasn't too much.......

Homo Reciprocans
A good summary of recent findings.

another posting of the earlier Fehr article on altruistic punishment

enter Fowler's Egalitarian hypothesis Note most of the evidence still points to a surprising role for punishment.. Egalitarian or emotional?

more testing Numerous studies seem to confirm Fehr’s results on students.

some other perspectives

towards a general classification of models

some more thoughts A view from psychology.

A number of studies since 2002 suggest an unexpected and critical role for punishment and enforcement in sustaining and increasing cooperation across the human group. This is quite different than what we see in other primates where reciprocity appears the more likely motivator. Most studies do suggest a strong genetic role for cooperation and punishment. Nowhere in these studies do I see random patterns nor a lack of options in enhancing cooperation through a consensus of enforcement. The studies suggest otherwise although we are the experiment in progress.