Star Trek Deep Space Nine: A Nifty Theory, I Think?

This meme more or less describes my relationship with Star Trek. I’ve soldiered through every episode of every series at least once, and when I finish, I just start all over again. I’m not terribly discriminating when it comes to the episodes that I’ll watch either. If they’re next in line, they’re getting watched. What I like about the experience, from a philosophical standpoint, is that as I gain more wisdom and insight, I start to see new things about these shows. That’s one hallmark of great science fiction. If you can go back and discover new things that you never caught before, then it’s great because it generates a relationship with the subject matter.

That said, I did an article not too long ago about Babylon 5, and all its various appendages. It was a really fascinating experience watching B5 from the perspective of a Star Trek fan. One of the primary reasons, as I explained, was the controversy surrounding the timing of the release of Deep Space Nine, and the general belief that the concept was stolen from that of Babylon 5. I’m not going to rehash that here, but what I would like to point out about B5 is that if you watch the main show and it’s movies, you’ll start to get the impression that the entire story was actually about Londo Mollari. It’s an interesting take on the storytelling process, using the one character to channel the ‘bad guys’, and making that character the real focal point of the show.

Now why do I bring this up? There are a couple of reasons. First, it’s been recently announced that the new Star Trek show, Discovery, is going to star a female lead character who is not going to be the captain of the ship. This has elicited grumblings from some people with very little imagination, and even less flexibility. That’s an important point because my second reason for revisiting Babylon 5 is to demonstrate that Star Trek has already used the formula before to great success. We all may not have realized it, but hopefully once you get done with this, you’ll start to see how things repeat in the meridian of time.

DS9 has been my Trek du jour for the last few months, and as I’ve slowly worked through other shows, I’ve also been working through this one in tandem because no matter how great a show is, sometimes you need a short break. Life got interesting as I was watching both Babylon 5 and Deep Space Nine concurrently because I started to draw a lot of parallels between the two shows. Now, I’m sorry if you’re quicker on the uptake than I. If you’ve already made these realizations, feel free to take a week off. If not, get ready for some fun!

As previously stated, in B5, Mollari is the focal character of the show overall. It’s important to note that that does not necessarily mean that he was the focal point of each episode, just that in the grand scheme of things, he was the most pivotal character in the cast. All of the bad things that take place in that show are as a result of choices made by Mollari. In much the same fashion, the focal character of DS9 was not Sisko, but Dukat. If you look at the series on the whole, it really makes a lot of sense. Let’s do that. Let’s start at the beginning and look at the show on the whole.

At the beginning of the very first episode, The Emissary, Sisko is given command of space station Deep Space Nine to run in concert with the Bajoran provisional government, which was established following a decades long occupation of the planet Bajor at the hands of the Cardassian military. Guess who was the primary leader of Bajor at the time that the occupation ended? That’s right, it was Dukat. In the season four episode Indiscretion, we learn that Dukat has an illegitimate half Bajoran daughter. That’s not a detail that nails our point to the wall, but it does start to show a trend. As a protagonist, we’re given an awful lot of information about Dukat. Certainly, we’re given more that would be spent on just a minor character, but maybe we’re not given as much as would be given for our focal character yet. Still, it’s a start.

Next, in the episode Return to Grace, we find Dukat captaining a military transport. We learn that when news broke about his daughter, Dukat lost everything, again. He lost a lot of his credibility following the breakdown of the Cardassian occupation of Bajor, but he lost everything following the revelation that he has a half Bajoran daughter. We find out that another officer has stolen his wife from him, he’s lost his children, and he’s been stripped of his social standing. By the end of the episode, he’s taken out a few ships that have encroached on Cardassian space, but this is all for not as far as his standing in society is concerned. He does, however, wind up with a sweet, sweet Bird of Prey so that’s something.

There are a few articles lurking around the web that talk about why Dukat is such a great villain and I’d like to echo some of their sentiment here. Dukat was only featured in 35 out of 176 episodes of DS9. That’s just shy of 20% of the total episodes, and yet, his influence can be felt at every major turning point of the series. He really is a great villain in that he wholeheartedly believes that the things he does are for a greater and better cause. His motivations are made pretty clear from the start as well. He simply wants to regain his former glory both within the Cardassian Union and the galaxy at large. He’s a man who’s absolutely driven by his ego in every imaginable way. What makes him really interesting is his willingness to work with his presumed enemies whenever he sees potential gain on his behalf. All of this behavior reeks of a megalomania that’s practically unrivaled in television history.

These points become important when we look at the grand scale of DS9 and the major events that happen during the series. Early in the show, around the third season, there’s a war between the Klingons and the Cardassians. Dukat puts himself at the forefront of this conflict politically in order to garner favor from his peers. When the Dominion first crop up in the Alpha Quadrant, the Cardassians are leery of supporting them. It’s only after Dukat does some political maneuvering and installs himself as a leader in the Cardassian government that Cardassia sides with the Dominion. When that ploy leads to the absolute subjugation of the Cardassian people and the installation of a Dominion controlled military government, Dukat flees to Bajor and attempts a union with the Pah Wraiths in order to turn the tide of war in his favor. It’s this last act that really pushes home my point home.

In one of the best finale moments of all time, Deep Space Nine does a touching walk down memory lane montage where they show some highlights from seven years of the show, and then we’re treated to the entire cast together one last time as they’re given their sendoff into the unknown future. It’s a scene that makes me misty eyed every time I watch it. However, that’s not where the show actually ends. Instead, Sisko has to go to Bajor, to the fire caves to finally put an end to all of the scheming that Dukat has done in the last couple of seasons. At first, I found myself wishing that the show had ended right after the montage, but I realized over time that the show hinges on Dukat and his struggle against Sisko. This really reinforces the idea that although we experience the show through many different eyes during its run, Dukat remains the key thread that holds the tapestry of DS9 together. Sure, he’s not featured in much of the show, but the effects of his actions drive the plot continually.

Perhaps I’m on to something, or perhaps I’m just nuts. But the theory certainly lends food for thought when coupled with the theory that DS9 borrowed heavily from the concepts behind Babylon 5. What do you think? Feel free to weigh in with your own theories!

The Truman Show... What a Movie!

I’m not sure where I developed my affinity for existential films that beg me to question my reality, but I see that’s been a theme lately, and if it’s getting kind of old, sorry, not sorry. I love movies that lead me to question what I think I know, movies that challenge how I perceive the world around me, and movies that cause me to dig a little deeper into my understanding of myself. Movies that can do that well force us to look inside and take stock, they help us learn, and most importantly, they can help us grow. What I’m saying is, those types of films are great. Movies like Blade Runner, Total Recall, and Groundhog Day really get me excited. But it’s really hard to do existential movies well, and I think that’s why I enjoy them so much. Go to subtle, and the messages are lost, which makes the film feel directionless. Go to heavy handed and the film feels to preachy and self-aware. There’s a fine line that must be walked in order to present a truly good existential film, and because of the rarity with which one sees them, I just enjoy them that much more.

I got to thinking about The Truman Show after watching an editorial by one of my favorite online reviewers, the Nostalgia Critic. He did a wonderful piece about whether a movie could be so good that it’s bad, and Truman Show just happened to show up in a brief list he flashed on screen. I saw this movie when it first came out and I remembered liking it, generally speaking, but it had been quite a while so I gave it another watch through, and holy crap is it awesome! At this juncture, I’ll point out that when it was released, Paramount was sued by a playwright who claimed that the idea was lifted directly from one of his stage plays, Frank’s Life. I’m not going to delve into the validity of that claim, nor could I find how the whole thing worked out. I only mention it because to me, it adds to some of the mystique of the film. That aside, let’s take a look at ourselves as we take a look at The Truman Show.

The film starts off with a pretty pretentious monologue by a character named Christof, played by Ed Harris. I won’t lie, at that moment when the film starts, I really felt like I might be in for a terrible experience. However, the pretentious, but brief setup puts us right into the life of Truman Burbank, our titular character whose entire life since before he was born has been recorded and broadcast 24/7/365. Brief, but painstaking efforts are made to give us the impression that Truman has a very mundane, and boring life; that each day plays out almost exactly like the last. This is important as it feeds into one of the major themes of the movie, which we’ll discuss soon. The day seems to be starting just like any other, when suddenly, an object falls from the sky. As the audience, we know it to be a stage light. Truman really has no idea what to make of it. During his commute to work, during which the radio DJ is literally having a conversation with him, the entire incident is blamed on an airplane. The movie wastes absolutely no time presenting us with plot and theme. It’s tasteful in how it does this. Nothing is said so long as it can reasonably be shown, and I really like that.

From that moment on, Truman starts to question his very existence and the life that he lives. His suspicions are further fueled by a chance run in with his ‘dead’ father, who died in a boating accident when Truman was a young boy. These types of fourth wall breaking events start happening more and more often as Truman’s behavior starts getting more and more erratic. Those around him start to believe that he’s having some sort of breakdown, and after a life threatening altercation, Truman’s ‘wife’ leaves him. After deciding that he’s had enough of whatever is going on in his life, and facing his deepest fears, Truman leaves the show that’s been created around him at the end of the film. I want to keep the synopsis brief for those of you who may not have seen this film, but at the same time, it’s going to be difficult to discuss certain things without delving into specific points of the plot. If you don’t want the film spoiled, perhaps stream this fine movie on Netflix and then come back to my review.

Obviously, every aspect of Truman’s life has been painstakingly engineered to serve just one purpose, to get ratings. There’s a fascinating aspect of this movie where we get to see the story from the point of view of Truman’s audience from time to time, and there’s a bar that shows the show constantly. In the bar there’s a sign that declares that The Truman Show has been on the air for 10,910 days. I did the math for you. That’s over twenty-nine years. That’s a lot of air time. But this is really where the concept gets interesting. It’s obvious that if the show was constantly the same thing day in and day out, that it would get cancelled pretty fast. As a result, the production team has to interject story arcs into the action,but out of necessity, they have to make it feel organic to Truman. That brings us to our first set of themes that I want to discuss. There’s an idea presented that the reality that we perceive to exist may not exist in the way that we perceive it at all. That’s the broad stroke of it. Just like Inception we’re challenged with the notion that perhaps life really is a dream after all. But like any great film, there are way more layers to the concept than just what’s on the surface. Through the premise, there’s commentary on just how much the media is able to influence what and how we think. There’s a question of just how much of our privacy, and indeed our very livelihood we’re willing to forfeit in order to maintain our lifestyle. These are thought provoking and poignant themes that perhaps we don’t think about often, but that we should revisit from time to time.

There are a couple of key scenes in the film where it’s revealed that Truman’s father died in a boating accident, the result of Truman himself steering them into a storm. Truman holds himself responsible and as a result is afraid to be over water in any way. He doesn’t even drive over bridges. On the other side of that manipulation is a chance encounter with a beautiful young woman named Sylvia whose real intention is to alert Truman to the fact that his entire existence is a lie. They share a brief moment and a kiss, and then he’s told that she’s moving to Fiji. Truman spends the rest of his TV days obsessing over Sylvia and Fiji. I bring this up because these two key scenes tie into another major concept of the movie. Truman goes through a process during the film where he evolves from simply accepting his life as it appears to be to really seeking the truth behind his existence. I find this most interesting because it’s a process that I think all of us need to undergo at some point in our lives. Truman makes a journey wherein he has to confront his demons, namely the death of his father and the responsibility that he feels over that event. Fortunately, he’s actually reunited with his father so that situation sort of resolves itself, but then he also has to face his deepest fear, the water that surrounds him. This process of facing our demons and our fears is crucial to the larger process of self actualization. As we continually confront who we are currently and try to reconcile that person with the person we wish to be, we evolve and we grow as an individual, and it’s through that evolution that we’re ultimately made free from our self-imposed bonds. It’s a fascinating psychological model. And it’s interesting that Truman is not able to start moving forward until the moment that he’s finally willing to face his real self and his reality as it actually exists. Once he takes his blinders off, then he can make progress. It’s all laid out very well, and it’s a very good lesson to learn. As a side note to that, one of the key points made toward the end of the film is that facing failure without giving up is one of the life lessons that we need to learn in order to be successful.

The other big theme of the movie comes as a result of the conversation being had between Truman and his audience. There are a handful of people that we’re told represent the audience watching the show and their reactions as the story unfolds really say a lot. This aspect of the film comments very well on our media obsessed culture, and I think that’s really interesting. You have to bear in mind that this movie was released in 1998. Reality TV was on the rise, but we didn’t yet live in the social media world that we live in now. The idea that we could literally keep track of our favorite stars 24/7 was a totally foreign concept, and yet here’s this film exploring what it means to be addicted to Hollywood and the media. I find the dichotomy of obsessed fans obsessing over a show in a movie that ultimately tries to suggest that we think for ourselves very compelling as well. The entire setup adds so much depth to the story, and it lends some great moments as well. When everyone is rooting for Truman to finally leave his show, it helps you to get invested in the action that’s going on. It also might leave you a little puzzled as you wonder why these fans who have invested years their lives to this show would suddenly want to see it end. It serves the plot well, and it does it in a compelling and even a fun way.

This is a film where one could go on and on about the themes. I did a little cursory research and I found page after page on the Internet where someone was analyzing the themes behind this movie. That says a lot about the cultural impact that it’s had’ Moreover, there’s now a subset diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder that is called The Truman Effect, whereby people suffering from the disorder believe that their lives are being filmed for TV and broadcast to an audience. Which brings me to the last interesting observation that I made while watching this movie. There is a little observation made about our tendency to be very self-centric in life. We often like to believe that we’re the hero in our own tale, and the movie asks just how healthy a belief that really is.

As I said, there are pages and pages of sites analyzing the themes of the film. I’d like to conclude by examining some of the technical aspects of the film. I have to say, I’m really impressed. The story and the plot are well crafted, and the overall execution of the film serves both extremely well. There are a lot of accomplished actors involved in the movie and each one gives a superb performance. The score is amazing. The shot composition is spot on. I’m not going to go so far as to say that it’s a technically perfect movie because I really can’t say that such a thing exists, but it is extremely well crafted. The film is nearly 20 years old and it took a Google search just a few days ago for me to realize that the movie is categorized as a science fiction movie. To me, it’s always just been a really great drama, but upon looking at it more closely, I can see how it might fit into the sci-fi genre as well. It’s very rare that a movie is one thing, but that it doesn’t feel like that thing. Normally, I might mark points against a movie for missing it’s identity so blatantly, but in this case, that actually works. By not feeling like sci-fi, a much broader audience got exposure to the thought provoking concepts that the movie covers.

As a parting thought, absolutely give this movie a watch. It’s smart, it’s deep, it asks some interesting questions, but most of all, it’s inspiring. It’s definitely worth the watch. I promise that you won’t be disappointed!

A Discourse on Fandom

I realized recently that my reviews have sort of turned into a very topical outlet for me. There are things about this world that I still struggle to understand and it’s really fun to try and work through those things via reviewing films for all of you. I can only hope that you enjoy the journey as much as I do. This year has been a year that has left me questioning what I should reasonably expect from those properties that I enjoy. Last weekend was SDCC in California. It’s a fantastic time of year for nerdom as all of the producers of geeky stuff roll out the red carpet and use any tactics they can think of to tease and entice us with previews of things to come. There are product previews, movie trailers, and panels with key people who create the stuff that we nerds love. I’ve never actually been to ComiCon, but even I find myself looking at news outlets from time to time searching for the new happening with my favorite properties.

I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not nearly as plugged into the Internet as I could be. I do the Facebook thing, but don’t follow me on Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Reddit, or any other such foolishness because I don’t have accounts with most of those sites, and my Twitter has never been used. I don’t really see the appeal, but to each their own. Some people crave attention and those are definitely outlets for attention. Be that as it may, I get a lot of media related news a little bit more slowly because I don’t subscribe to these things, and more importantly, I don’t connect with other people over my fandoms as much because of this fact. I’m going somewhere with this, but first, let’s look at a horror/suspense classic from all the way back in 1990, Stephen King’s Misery.

Misery is the tale of a writer named Paul Sheldon who crashes his car in a blizzard, causing significant injury to himself, and totalling his car. He should have frozen to death and died, but he’s saved by one Annie Wilkes. Prior to his accident, Sheldon had just finished writing a novel based in a series for which Wilkes was a huge fan. Wilkes begins nursing Sheldon back to health, and as a thank you, Sheldon lets Wilkes read his manuscript. It’s all very nice, but takes an abrupt turn south when Wilkes realizes that the character that she adores so is going to die at the end of the book that Sheldon has just written. Wilkes’ demeanor switches from sweet, but kinda creepy to full on homicidal in an instant and she sets Sheldon up with an office insisting that he rewrite the novel according to her liking. This is especially interesting because it happened in real life. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle made his fortune writing Sherlock Holmes, but he wanted to move on and so he wrote a piece where Holmes dies. The outrage was so vehement that Doyle very quickly went back to writing Holmes stories, and not happily I should add. Anyway, so as to not spoil every little detail of this cinematic masterpiece, things do eventually resolve in as good a way as can be expected. Sheldon escapes, Wilkes dies, and everyone moves on.

There are a lot of positives to this movie. There’s definitely a reason it’s considered a classic. The script is wonderful. There’s this play between the straightforward and the creepy, foreboding undertones that really lay a good framework for every other aspect of the film. The acting is superb. Kathy Bates walks a fine line between innocent naivete and homicidal monster, and she plays the dichotomy of those two characteristics flawlessly. The immediacy with which she’s able to switch between them is uncanny, and lends itself to the frightening nature of the character. James Caan also does an amazing job in his role. He goes from grateful survivor to plotting survivor sprinkled with a little bit of false Stockholm syndrome very well. The power struggle between the two characters is beyond intense. It’s disturbing at times with outright violence, and then at other times, it’s really subliminal. It’s all very well done.

The pacing of the film is incredible. The movie uses suspense extremely well. One thing that I really appreciated is that the story knows how to ebb and flow with the suspense in order to maximize the impact of that suspense as everything unfolds. That would not have been possible if the pacing hadn’t been as complex and well developed as it is. Again, that all falls back on the well crafted script, but it also says a lot about the director, Rob Reiner. He really handled this project masterfully. This buildup of suspense is also accomplished in part by the music. The score just uses the right type of musical cue at just the right time. This is a movie that I can wholeheartedly recommend without any reservation. It really holds up as a masterwork of cinema.

I could go on singing the praises of this movie, but that’s not why we’re here today. Today, we’re looking at some themes that the film presents for discussion. We’re looking at themes as intended by the writer, and themes that I picked up on because of what’s happening in the world around me. Stephen King has acknowledged that Misery is an allegory for substance abuse and his battle to overcome that. He has said that Annie Wilkes represents that addiction and how it isolates you and saps your will to live. In that light, I don’t think that this movie could ever not be poignant, but like great storytelling, it offers the possibility of someone applying to it their own unique ideas and perspectives. This is where my previous ramblings come to play. The year 2016 has left me questioning just exactly what and how much I should be allowed to expect from my fandoms. I’m not sure I’m coining the use of the word ‘fandom’ as a noun to describe something altogether intrinsic in nature, but it’s the best descriptor that I could come up with. I myself consider Star Trek, Batman, Ghostbusters, most 80s cartoons, and a handful of other sci-fi related franchises to be my fandoms.

I’d prefer to classify myself a moderate fan of most of the aforementioned things, but that really depends on the thing in question. I do, for example, really enjoy my Star Trek, but I only consider myself a casual fan of some of the sci-fi related shows that I watch. This is important because as Misery is about to teach us, there comes a point where someone crosses a line in their fandom. They cease to be a fan, or even a superfan, and they become an extreme superfan. If it’s not obvious why this movie came to mind to talk about this subject, consider yourself shamed and continue reading for further enlightenment. Annie Wilkes represents a fan, and her fandom is the Misery book series by Paul Sheldon. It’s not even veiled. It’s established in the movie that she considers herself his biggest fan. So I’m taking the entire premise a bit literally, but it really works on that level, which again, is the mark of great cinema. The entire progression of the film’s story is an excellent parallel to how fandom has evolved over the last 25 years.

Let’s get more specific. Trouble really starts when Sheldon lets Wilkes read his unpublished manuscript. At that moment, Sheldon has granted Wilkes the perception of a little ownership in his art. In much the same way, when we watch TV shows and movies, play games, and buy related products, we begin to feel a sense of ownership over the franchise that we’re supporting. Once Wilkes realizes that Sheldon intends to end her favorite book series, she goes into a homicidal rage. She makes Sheldon burn his manuscript and rewrite the book, giving feedback the entire time and making him start over whenever there’s something to which she objects. This is definitely akin to the kind of outrage that hits the Internet whenever there’s an announcement that something about a thing with fans is being changed. Case in point, what little online presence that I do have is geared toward Facebook. Saturday at SDCC, it was announced that the new Star Trek show had a name and there was a teaser of test footage of the new ship. It took all of about 0.005 seconds for ‘fans’ to collectively lose their crap over the appearance of the ship. Now, it’s one thing to be aesthetically repulsed by the appearance of a computer generated object, but the levels of hate being spewed were embarrassing. There I said it, at that moment, I was embarrassed for a bunch of Trekkies. There were so many comments pleading with CBS to change the ship, and this was within the first 24 hours of the announcement.

That segues wonderfully into the next aspect of extreme superfandom that Misery demonstrates. Annie Wilkes insinuates in one scene that without the Misery books, she would feel as if she didn’t have a reason to live, and that she might end her own life. Sheldon placates her with some generic platitudes and although she doesn’t indicate for sure that she’ll be okay, she stops alluding to suicide. I think as people in general we have a habit of overvaluing the influence we can have on the world around us. That’s not to say that we can’t influence our world, but when someone is posting to a Facebook group, or to Reddit that such and such corporation needs to make this change to so and so TV show that they really enjoy,and expecting tht their rants will actually accomplish something,  then there’s probably some overvaluation going on. The stark truth is that CBS probably will never see your post pleading with them to change the ship design, Marvel probably won’t ever get around to looking at that online petition you started to get Captain America a boyfriend, and here’s why.

James Caan’s performance captures this brilliantly. His relationship with Annie Wilkes goes from grateful and amiable to tense, and then to resentful contempt. The extreme superfan wants to believe that their spewing hate all over the Internet will make a difference. However, the fact remains that unless you work for the company that makes the thing that you’re a fan of, there’s a high probability that as far as they’re concerned, you don’t exist. We live in a world of pseudo connections. Between online social media, and the like, we forget that two people can view the same relationship in very different ways. I think this is most evident on Twitter. A person will send a Twitter to a celebrity, and then get a response, and to most, that’s a cool thing. To the extreme superfan, they’re best friends. Even moderate fans might get a little star struck. However, there are a lot of celebrities who pay social media gurus to keep up their presence on the Face-verse. Ergo, sometimes that dialog that we perceive that we’re having with that person might end up being nothing like that at all. It’s kind of disappointing, but let’s face it, celebrities are busy people too and they don’t typically have the time to answer ten thousand Twits a day. Therefore, our influence on the creators in minimal at best, and that’s assuming that it even exists at all. That’s why it’s fundamentally important to balance our sense of ownership over a fandom with the reality of the real world. Yes we love this thing, and yes we feel like our liking it adds to its uniqueness, but we need to understand that the best way that we can exemplify a fandom is to be like a cheerleader for that thing. We need to channel our passions and excitement into calmly sharing with others reasons to love the thing as well.

Now let’s look at ownership a little further because this is an area where even the moderate fans can get a bit fuzzy. There’s a pervasive attitude that because we watch movies and shows, or buy merchandise, we’ve somehow earned partial ownership of our fandom. We look at the base ideology of consumerism and we think, “Well I bought this CD and so I own it. Surely it works the same way with my show, right?” It’s an interesting discussion because there are two very valid points to be made on two diametrically opposed sides of the aisle. On the one hand, you don’t work for whoever makes your fandom. No one has granted you the keys to that kingdom and told you to create. On the other hand, without fans, a thing ceases to exist. If all of a sudden, every Star Wars fan on the planet suddenly stopped supporting Star Wars and all of the merchandise sat on shelves to collect dust, and no one went and saw any movies, then Star Wars would die a quick death. Obviously that will never happen, but hypothetically speaking, Disney knows this. It’s why they put so much effort into releasing new and exciting Star Wars things. These are two valid points as I said earlier. As an example of crossing a line, I recently learned that Joss Whedon took some major rage hate for his decision to develop a semi-meaningful relationship between Hulk and Black Widow in Age of Ultron. I saw this movie and I thought that the romantic undertones were sweet because I kind of felt like the two characters got each other and they made each other better people. But apparently there were a lot of extreme superfans who disagreed with that point of view. Whedon wound up cancelling his Twitter account and going underground as a direct result. Once again, James Caan’s performance demonstrates some of what’s going on in these situations very well. He writes a new book, but in the end, he winds up resenting all that it represents so much that he burns that manuscript as well. As fans, we have to remember that while we are the consumers, we are not the designated official creators. As consumers, our role is to support our fandoms by giving them attention and money, and that that’s as far as our role extends. We shouldn’t be badgering the creators over petty little points via social media, or in worst case scenarios, making death threats.

That’s not to say that as fans and consumers, that we can’t also create. Misery actually has a scene where Wilkes is explaining to the sheriff that in light of Sheldon’s apparent death, she’s taken it upon herself to pick up that mantle and write her own Misery novel. Fan fiction has been around probably since the dawn of time. Certainly it can be traced back at least to the 1970s when Star Trek fans started publishing their own fanzines and writing their own stories. Star Wars’ expanded universe (RIP) came about because of fan fiction. There are definitely appropriate places and situations to use our own creativity and passion to build up those fandoms that we cherish. What we have to bear in mind is that the creators are doing these things because they find them fun, and they might stop doing these things if doing then ceases to be fun. I will shed a mighty tear the day that a fanbase destroys its own fandom, and I sincerely hope that that never happens. But it could if we continue to live in a world where we debase and hate against decisions made concerning our fandoms one moment only to turn around shortly after and proclaim our undying love for that fandom. That sends a very confusing and frustrating message to those who work tirelessly to feed our fandoms, and it’s not even remotely constructive.

In the last 25 years, it’s become unprecedentedly easy to ‘connect’ with our fandoms. The Internet has given us all a virtual sounding board to share our ideas and our passions. A quarter century ago, we could only look on as spectators of our fandom for the most part. In much the same way, Annie Wilkes was acting as a Paul Sheldon fan. She knew all the little details of his life, but she’d never met him until he crashed. I imagine if this story were adapted to a more contemporary setting, she would be spending most of her days Facebook stalking him and leaving creepy messages on his Twitter feed. She’s probably attend conventions and take awkward pictures with him in order to feed that belief that she mattered in his life. Obviously, she’s an exaggeration of my point, but the point still stands. We need to remember to moderate our words and our actions. Discussing our fandoms rationally, and without malice is a great way to meet like minded people and also expand our thinking, but constantly expressing outrage over every little detail and development might be a sign that we need to seriously rethink whether or not we still take enjoyment from that fandom. Perhaps the answer is to simply live in the good old days of your fandom. That’s certainly possible. There’s no rule written or otherwise that explicitly states that you have to continue to support something if the joy that you used to take from that thing has soured. There are a lot of fans out there and they all love a lot of different things. It’s never our place to sour someone else’s experience simply because we feel that our own experience has been soured by something. It’s fine to not like something, but in a world of absolutes, we need to learn to live less in said absolutes. Only the Sith deal in absolutes and they are most often the losers. Don’t be a loser. Feel free to disagree. Discuss your feelings with those around. But understand that nothing is ever the best, or the worst. Because in 0.005 seconds, something else will come along that’s considered the best, or the worst. Like things, or dislike them, or even hate them, but do so in a way that doesn’t spoil the fun of those around you, and certainly don’t direct your rage at those who work so hard to create new things for your fandom.

I guess to tie it up, I’ll just say that this has been a harrowing exercise for us all. Just take a few moments to think about what that comment, or that Twit is going to accomplish before you throw it out there for the world to read next time, and consider being a force for good within your fandoms rather than a critical voice of dissent. Here’s a sea otter to make you smile…

Oh SyFy... Just When I Thought You Couldn't Get Any Dumber

You go and put out some great shows and TOTALLY REDEEM YOURSELF! Okay, that was maybe a little cheesy, and the reference may only appeal to my mid-90s Farrelly brothers demographic, but how often does this situation actually happen? For years SyFy has been on the ropes for programming. That’s not to say that they’ve ever been super good at what they do, but at some point, they decided to stop even trying anymore. In recent years, they did have some big winners like Stargate Universe, and the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica. However, they mangled their lineup with fodder like WWE, and various reality shows, like Ghost Hunters. These latter bits are not very science fiction-y.

Indeed, for years, Stargate was the SyFy bread and butter. The original show spun off two other shows, all of which lasted for, like, 20 years worth of programming I’m sure. During the Stargate years, SyFy supplemented that programming mostly with miniseries events. Shows like Children of Dune, Tin Man, and Earthsea offset the brief periods of programming when there wasn’t a Stargate something on. Ok, I jest, but as a casual watcher of the channel, it sometimes seemed that way. There were other ways that SyFy rounded out their programming. They showed reruns of older sci-fi shows like Andromeda, Eureka, and Farscape. And who could forget Lexx, or MST3K? There have definitely always been high points in SyFy programming, but within the last year, the station has apparently reached some sort of renaissance period. I’m only going to look at a few shows because they’re the only ones that I’ve watched, but feel free to chime in with your thoughts and suggestions.

For me, it started with Helix.I’m not even really sure what the show was really about even to this day, but it included some sort of virus, the Arctic, and corporate meddling. It was what I would call a mid-concept sci-fi show in that it dealt with themes, but not necessarily in each episode. Instead, there were meta-themes throughout and the week-to-week enticement was the mystery that was unfolding. It’s the same formula that I’ll talk about for all of these shows. It just didn’t quite catch on. Next, I found Ascension. Talk about a great show! There’s an ark ship barrelling through space with definite class stratification, and all the benefits, or lack thereof that come with. There was intrigue, mystery, murder, and some top notch acting. And the season finale! I won’t spoil it, but it definitely left me thirsty for more! It got cancelled so expect disappointment, but it’s still well worth the watch. These two shows are what I consider a major turning point for SyFy. They started tinkering with a model that was different for the channel, and that could be used to create new, exciting, and most importantly, sci-fi centric shows. It should be mentioned that all of these shows fit into a category that I like to call the viewer participant category. They offer the viewer clues about the story and let the viewer try to figure everything out before the information is revealed. It’s not groundbreaking, but it is effective.

Skip to 2015. It was a great year for the channel. I first caught wind when Netflix picked up Dark Matter. I’m going to give credit where it’s due here because this show didn’t originate on SyFy. It originated on the Canadian station Space, but kudos to SyFy for picking a winner! The show revolves around six people on adrift on a ship. They have no idea where they are, or what they’re doing on said ship. No one even knows who they are. In fact, no one remembers anything preceding their waking up from stasis. The entire show becomes about these people trying to find their past, and their exploits along the way. It’s pretty much a meta-mystery, but it does that so well! There’s a lot of action, there are red herrings thrown at the viewer, and the way that the characters are developed makes them pretty relatable. Because you’re trying to figure out a mystery, you’re always left wanting a little more of the puzzle to use and it makes the show pretty addictive. I binged through it in two days because each episode leaves you on a mini-cliffhanger. It’s very fun!

Next in the lineup is Killjoys. A friend recommended that I give this one a try since I enjoyed Dark Matter. I was not disappointed. Once again, this show started on Space before SyFy picked it up, but that was a good move. If Dark Matter Is all about characters discovering who they are, Killjoys is kind of the opposite. It’s about the main characters running away from who they are. Out of all these shows, I understand the setting of this one the least, provisionally speaking. With Dark Matter, it’s intended that you know very little about the setting as a whole. With Killjoys you’re actually given a lot of information about the setting, but not in a way where it all falls into place. As a result, you really have to think in order to put the pieces together. You follow a crew of bounty hunters, one of whom is running from her past where she was actually trained to be a cold-blooded assassin. There are some really fun twists along the way, and by the time I finished season one, I couldn’t wait to see more!

Finally on this list is The Expanse. This is a SyFy original, and it really delivers! The show is about the power struggle between Earth, Mars, and the asteroid belt. Thanks to the dichotomy of the three ‘organizations’, there’s a lot of politics involved, and where there’s politics, there’s intrigue, and there’s drama. I’d say this is the most complex of the shows I’m talking about in the article, and the reason I say that is that the storytelling is pretty innovative. The show centers on the mysterious disappearance of one woman. But, all the action, and all the mystery is driven by three different groups investigating her disappearance. As a result, you’re given pieces of the puzzle that may not appear to fit at first. That aspect keeps you coming back for more as you try to solve the mysteries presented.

So what’s the point of this little editorial piece? First, the train of thought was spawned by a comment made by Chris Pine not to long ago where he said that you couldn’t make intelligent Star Trek anymore. I really feel like all three of these shows conclusively demonstrate just the opposite. Lumping all of the previous three shows together; they’ve all got huge boons working in their favor. Each is relatively smart in the writing, each has great casts of characters that are all utilized well, each has an interesting and well developed setting to play in, and each manages to find a really good balance between the cerebral and the physical, or the smart and the action. Each one of these shows is doing many of the same things as all of the others, but they manage to establish their own unique identity. It’s actually quite refreshing. It all establishes that sci-fi can still be about the ideas and the themes, but still integrate sexiness, and action as well. It gives me hope that we might see a return to good science fiction again instead of silly slug fests with shoddy CG, and terrible make up.

The second point to this week’s discussion is to give praise where it’s due. I’ve been in a sci-fi funk as of late with all that’s transpired within the Trek community. Huge divisions have been created between the studios and the fan base, and we officially live in an era where intelligent sci-fi is actively being shunned by a franchise that was built on intelligent sci-fi. It leaves one feeling somewhat downtrodden at times. But then there are these great shows on SyFy of all places that are showing the world that there are still a lot of people hungry for intelligent science fiction, people who want to see thought provoking material presented in a way that is fun and interesting, and most importantly, showing that action and sci-fi are not exclusive things. They can exist in harmony within the same tapestry. Shows like these are giving the Chris Pines of the world the proverbial finger, and they’re giving guys like me who crave good science fiction both hope and something to satiate those cravings. I never thought I’d say this, but good job SyFy! Keep up the good work!