|
by Rick Norwood
| |
|
SF on TV | |
Space travel is back.
Moon (***), by
Duncan Jones and Nathan Parker, is about an astronaut on a mining outpost on the far side of the
If you've been successful so far in not knowing the plot before seeing the film, I'm not going to spoil it
for you. (I don't think it is any surprise that the off-screen villain is an evil corporation. In what
modern movie is that not the case?) The special effects are good, in a workman-like way. They make one
blunder common to most SF films. The gravity on the moon is moon gravity outside, but Earth gravity
inside. Given the modest budget, there was probably no way around that. The science is mostly pretty
good. I like the use of a linear accelerator, the kind Arthur C. Clarke so often used to launch objects from the moon.
Why am I not more enthusiastic about a movie that does so many things right? Because space travel
is boring. Even 2001: A Space Odyssey is boring. It's gloriously boring, but still there are
long, long stretches where nothing happens. Space travel is not alone in that respect. All travel is
boring. That's why we bring a book with us when we travel. The pioneers on wagon trains rolling west
must have been bored most of the time. But the western genre figured out how to make stories about
wagon trains interesting. You introduce sympathetic characters and then skip the boring bits. You do
a quick transition from the flash flood that almost sweeps the wagons away to the Indian attack three
weeks later. Star Wars and Star Trek did that, but the "serious" science fiction film
has not gotten the hang of it. So, the first twenty minutes of Moon, before the plot kicks in, are kind
of boring, in a mildly interesting way.
One thing that drove me crazy: the plot would have moved a lot quicker if people just asked and answered
obvious questions, instead of going all moody and refusing to talk about what is clearly on their
mind. I suppose people do that in real life -- my ex-wives certainly did. But it still drives me
crazy, and I would think astronauts would be more sensible.
Mundane critics had problems understanding the plot, but readers of science fiction should be OK. If
you have any questions, you can ask
them on the film thread on the SF Site Forum.
See Moon, but don't expect Star Wars.
The other new space travel story in a visual medium is the television
series Defying Gravity (***)
by James D. Parriott. It held my interest. It introduces sympathetic characters and does a quick
Reviewers on the web seem to love this show or hate it. I can take it or leave it. It's the best
thing on the air this summer, so I'm watching it. They make some science mistakes, but the science is way
better than what passed for science on Battlestar Galactica. Contrariwise, they are
a long way from reaching the dramatic heights that Battlestar Galactica reached. There
are a few embarrassing plot blunders, such as two characters having sex in space in the first episode,
when in the third episode we're told that the astronauts are all wearing "halos" that prevent sex in space.
Both Moon and Defying Gravity are mildly entertaining, but I don't plan to buy
the DVDs. I'm glad to see us thinking about space travel again, more than thirty years after the last
moon landing. We went to the moon in the 60s to beat the Russians. Maybe we'll go to the moon in
the teens to beat the Chinese.
| |
|
Rick Norwood is a mathematician and writer whose small press publishing house, Manuscript Press, has published books by Hal Clement, R.A. Lafferty, and Hal Foster. He is also the editor of Comics Revue Monthly, which publishes such classic comic strips as Flash Gordon, Sky Masters, Modesty Blaise, Tarzan, Odd Bodkins, Casey Ruggles, The Phantom, Gasoline Alley, Krazy Kat, Alley Oop, Little Orphan Annie, Barnaby, Buz Sawyer, and Steve Canyon. |
|
|
If you find any errors, typos or other stuff worth mentioning,
please send it to editor@sfsite.com.
Copyright © 1996-2013 SF Site All Rights Reserved Worldwide