Author Archives: Jared Hill

Terminator Genisys – Reinventing the Robot?

Posted on by

terminator-genisys-empire-1280jpg-c2d836_1280w

 
James Cameron’s first two Terminator films continue to be regarded as two of the best examples of action/sci-fi storytelling of all time. The sequels that followed, despite being supplied with sufficient star power and formed around a familiar mythology, failed to generate the same critical acclaim or fervor from fanboy audiences. This year’s Terminator Genysis, which opened last month, has already been cited as the first picture in a new stand alone trilogy – Terminator 2 (working title) is set for release on May 19, 2017 and Terminator 3 (also working title) has a release date planned as far ahead as June 29, 2018.

Lightning rarely strikes in the same place twice, let alone 4, or even 5 times successively. Despite this, studios have nowadays become accustomed to dropping buckets of money on the umpteenth iteration of the same worn-out tale – the Terminator franchise being a prime example. Before the most recent film even hit theaters, James Cameron went on record saying that Terminator Genisys is the “real” third Terminator film, effectively writing off the other two features as non-canon. Though Cameron had no direct involvement in the production or filming of Genisys, his endorsement hinted at its potential to re-inject some life into the storyline. But even with the help of the first T-800 himself (the inimitable Arnold Schwarzenegger), it lacked the strength to assume responsibility for yet another reprisal.

Unable to participate in the fourth film Terminator Salvation due to his political pursuits, the former California governor, now 67, quickly slipped back into his former role as cinematic cyborg. The Genysis screenplay explains why the T-800 ages like humans do, using a life-size CGI model of a 37-year old Arnold to represent him as the younger robot from 1984’s original The Terminator. Schwarzenegger had to train twice as hard to get back to the same weight he was in 1991’s Terminator 2: Judgement Day, as Genysis features T-800s from all three different time periods. The overall plot is mired in temporal paradox, as Sarah Connor and Kyle Reese battle both a “killer” app and the nefarious satellite internet-based plague that is Skynet while simultaneously attempting to change the outcome of life in a parallel universe. Too convoluted for casual viewers and too much of a stretch for anyone else who has grown up loving the series, appreciating Genysis requires a full reimagining of time as a linear construct.

After the announcement of the arrival of another Terminator film hit the Internet, comment trolls immediately questioned the need for it —  even the most devout fans seemed to agree that Salvation should have effectively closed out the saga. Studios pressed ahead anyways, and Genysis went on to generate relatively lukewarm box office numbers alongside mixed critical reviews. One of the film’s harshest critics, Grantland’s Wesley Morris offered some particularly scathing insight, saying, “It’s neither a surprising work of pop art nor an entertaining piece of crap.” Within the Terminator universe created by Cameron, this film stands out not necessarily for its explicit awfulness, as it is arguably a “better” movie than 2003’s T3 or 2009’s Salvation. However, treading on overly familiar ground, it does little more than dig a deeper grave for the once-great story of robotic apocalypse.

Paramount Studio’s premature hopes for the franchise’s longevity (evidenced by their early announcements of both additional sequels) may be dashed, as it hasn’t truly seen success since the mid-’90s and for many, the lackluster Genisys is just further proof that it’s best years are over. Unfortunately, film studios seem to pay less and less attention to the creation of uniquely compelling characters and plots. This year’s release of Mad Max: Fury Road and Jurassic World, as well as the upcoming Star Wars sequels and the initiation of projects like the all-female Ghostbusters only serve to indicate Hollywood’s increased reliance on the exploitation of familiar, formerly-glorious, success stories. Paramount has suggested that if the film fails overseas (it has an August 23th release date in China) plans may be scrapped for the 2017 and 2018’s Terminator pictures. A disinterested Asian audience might be enough to finally convince executives that there is an important distinction between giving up and knowing when you’ve had enough.

Good films don’t necessarily need critical support, but they do need to tap into something primal within the hearts of audience members. In a world where robots are achieving an ever more powerful presence in our day-to-day life, there’s no reason why the stories we write about them should fail to excite. If Paramount does choose to carry out plans for two additional sequels they would do well to abandon the Terminators completely – today’s technology is surely enough to inspire a new storyline, full of the imaginations and intrigue which made the first two films so great.

Androids, and Cyborgs, and Robots, OH MY!

Posted on by

images

 
Terminator: Genisys, Avengers: Age of Ultron, Chappie and Ex Machina: Hollywood is nothing if not entranced with the idea of artificial intelligence. In truth, great movies have always spoken to the fears plaguing our current culture. That being the case, what do all of these films about AI tell us about this current point in time? Simply put, we are terrified of what our own inventions can potentially become.;

Terminator: Genisys tempts us with the promise the previous sequels did—preventing Judgment Day. Avengers: Age of Ultron pits super heroes against a rogue AI built by one of their own. Chappie puts forth the age old debate asking us who the real monster is. Ex Machina follows suit. While the first two present the plot of AI eventually rising up to wipe out the weaker species, the latter two call into question how humane humans truly are.

After the dropping of the bombs on Japan revealed to the world the utter devastation unrestrained technology could bring about, campy sci-fi movies emerged during the Cold War to tackle this widespread technophobia. Such Cold War films as The Thing from Another World placed their hope in the possibility that the same technology that destroys can also be used to build. Still other titles, like The Day the Earth Stood Still, poignantly exhibited the unnecessary brutality humans have toward things that aren’t their kind. If you delve deep enough to the true threats of each film—self-destruction and racism—we can see our fears have not changed at all, they’ve only adapted to the available technology (the films in question are streaming on TCM and DTV).

Take Metropolis, for instance. An absolutely outstanding movie, this futuristic city’s backdrop once again pitted man against machine. First it’s the workers against the machines that run the city. Then it is the Whore of Babylon, a robot disguised as a woman, that brings about near catastrophe on the city and the two heroes caught up in the battle. The machines are very much the embodiment of sin. Only by uniting as a human race could the horrors be quelled.

The question that must be asked, then, is why are we still so afraid of technology? After all, the vast majority of us now speak to an artificial voice that reads us driving directions. Isn’t that any indication of how well we’ll get along with AI when it is finally emerged? According to the films, the truth of the matter is that we do not respect what we create. Because of this, we either dismiss it, allowing it to take over, or we fear it, working to destroy it even though it is harmless. If we take this idea deeper, our fear is simply us being afraid of being relegated to uselessness, the way the elderly in our society often are.

All the same, our love of inevitable doom is what has kept the Terminator franchise kicking for so long. Rumors even have it that Genisys is only the first of a new trilogy, going so far as to reboot the entire story told in the first film. Even bigger rumors are circulating about the supposed villain. According to the stars, it’s going to be quite the twist. As we head into 2015, munching on popcorn, we can rest easy knowing that AI dystopia is one thing, at least, that will never be obsolete.

Arthur C. Clarke: Predictions of a Sci-Fi Psychic

Posted on by

 
2001-a-space-odyssey-original
 
Arthur C. Clarke (1917 – 2008) was one of the most prolific science-fiction authors of the 20th century. His body of work includes more than a dozen novels, more than 100 short stories and even a few non-fiction books. His magnum opus was perhaps the screenplay for the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, written jointly by Clarke and director Stanley Kubrick as an adaptation of one of Arthur’s short stories. 2001 has been viewed by millions and has become an iconic cultural touchstone.

Now that several decades have passed from the time Clarke started writing, it has become clear that he was not just an imaginative and talented author, but also a prescient prognosticator of the future. Many of the technologies that Clarke envisioned have become commonplace realities. This may be a case of life imitating art because many young scientists and engineers were avid fans of his, so his writings themselves may have influenced the development of the modern technological landscape.

In 1945, Clarke wrote a paper entitled “Extra-Terrestrial Relays – Can Rocket Stations Give Worldwide Radio Coverage,” describing satellites using geosynchronous equatorial orbits to facilitate worldwide communications. Clarke’s article initiated an interest in the subject – in the 1960’s, together with Howard Hughes, NASA began work on the Telstar project (which would ultimately culminate in satellite television broadcasts and the HughesNet data satellite networks as they exist today). The first satellite using the principles outlined by Clarke was launched in 1964, and they are now extensively employed in meteorology, mobile phone communications and radio and television broadcasting.  His contributions to the field are reflected in the fact that these geosynchronous orbits are also called “Clarke orbits.”

Even more striking are Clarke’s frequent pronouncements on devices that ordinary people would use in their homes. In a 1964 documentary broadcast by the BBC, he noted that “trying to predict the future is a discouraging, hazardous occupation,” but he nevertheless continued on to give his predictions for the coming decades. Clarke foresaw what he called a “replicator” to reproduce physical items along the same lines that documents and photographs can be copied. 3D printers are now turning this vision into reality. In the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, astronauts aboard a spaceship used “newspads,” which bear a remarkable similarity to today’s tablet computers, to watch a TV interview. In 1974, Clarke stated that people in the future would have small computers in their own homes in contrast to the bulky, business-oriented machines then in use.

Rather than just imagining the physical devices that would be built, Clarke focused on the changes they would bring to human society. He believed that people would be able to get in touch with their friends all around the world easily as well as look up their bank records and theater reservations right from their computers. He thought that these small, household computers would become ubiquitous and would enable people to work far away from their offices. He even predicted the rise of telemedicine, and the future of robotic surgeries. All of these seemingly farfetched shifts in lifestyle have become largely true, at least in many wealthier countries.

Of course, not all of Arthur’s conjectures turned out to be accurate. His idea of people using monkeys as personal servants still seems as unlikely today as it did when he pronounced it. Likewise his suggestion that people would dwell inside giant domed communities on the north and south polar ice caps. Nevertheless, wild guesses of what’s to come in future years are typically left to psychics and dreamers – whose predictions aren’t often accurate. Arthur C. Clarke’s unique genius enabled him not only to see into the future, but nudge his futuristic visions towards reality.