The Three Laws

Sometime in my early school years, I remember reading a short essay on the Three Laws of Robotics, made famous by Asimov's classic compilation I, Robot. The original form of the laws are listed below:

•  First Law: A robot may not injure a human being, or by inaction, cause a human being to come to harm.
• Second Law: A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law
• Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence, as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

At the time, I was impressed with both the simplicity and the reasonableness of the laws, and of the idea that robots would need to be unalterably programmed with such prime directives in order to allow them to interact in society. We would need to have some basis for public trust. Although I have not read much of them, I hear several of Asimov's stories explore the ramifications of these laws in great detail. To get an idea, you can quickly read the plot synopsis of his first essay called Runaround.

I also remember hearing that in I, Robot, things go terribly wrong with the Three Laws. It wasn't until I saw the recent film starring Will Smith that I finally got to see this illustrated. It is a decent film in its treatment of some of Asimov's ideas, although as usual it is pumped up on action sterioids and the more thoughtful elements become somewhat lost in the shuffle. But the main problem in the movie's version is linked to the fact that someone decided to create a master control system that allowed all the individual robots to be coordinated to achieve a central goal. You would think that would be ok as long as the central computer obeyed the Three Laws, which it does, and would therefore use its great power to protect humanity, which it also does. But the central control system, which undoubtedly has access to global information, is smart enough to observe the fact that we humans harm each other each and every day. Given that this is inevitable, the only way to prevent us from harm is to protect us at all times from ourselves. The master computer decides the only way to do this is to take control of society and of the lives of everyone who could potentially cause harm to someone else.

The first objection that comes to mind regarding this solution is that robots are supposed to obey us, not the other way around. But if you look at the Three Laws, the directive to obey us is second, while the directive to protect us from harm is first. Thus, it is perfectly consistent for the robot to take actions to protect us even if it goes against our wishes. That, in essence, is the flaw in the Three Laws which is thus illustrated. The fact that this solution looks suspiciously like what occurs in a political overthrow, or revolution, is a poignant reminder of how such events in human history are often driven by people who must think they are acting for the good of society, and of how compelling their logic must seem to them.

Now that I've taken some time to think about it, I find myself asking about what other flaws might be lurking in the Three Laws of Robotics. They are written using terms that seem clear to us, but which are not necessarily well defined to a logic driven machine. For example, when I read the second law, I interpreted "harm" to mean imminent harm. We might expect a good person to try to save us from a dangerous situation, one that presents an immediate risk. We would not expect them to shelter us from any possible harm that might come to us. Would it help to add the word "imminent" to the second law? It may help, but it would not fix the problem. How do you define "imminent"? Computers work in terms of probabilities. How probable does the harm have to be to make it imminent? What if there are several people involved and saving some means harming the rest? The laws provide no guidance here, and in fact, our own consciences would have trouble deciding what to do. Do you take the course that saves the most from harm? If the odds are even, do you pick one at random?

Now, these laws are not presumed to be all that a robot is about. Each system would have a set of directives that tell it how to make value-based decisions on all sorts of things. Whole industries would probably have their own mandatory laws that any robot that works in that industry must adhere to, just as we have similar laws for humans. The point is to find a universal common denominator that makes robots suitable for interaction with humans. Given this, I must question the point of the third law, i.e., that robots must have a self-preservation instinct. I can understand manufacturers requiring it so that they don't lose an expensive piece of equipment, but if it is purely an economic decision, it won't always go that way. If a manufacturing plant is run exclusively by robots, you would want each of them to be willing to sacrifice themselves in order to keep the plant from blowing up and destroying them all. Whatever the reasons, it does not seem like a good candidate for a mandatory universal law. Of course, if you take it out you only have Two Laws, which doesn't have that fundamental ring you get with three.

So I'll take a stab at my version of the fundamental laws of robotics. I think the first part of the first law is sound, so lets keep it:

First Law: A robot shall not take any action which may lead to harming a human being.

The slight change in wording ensures that the robot must project its actions into the future to determine probable indirect consequences, rather than just direct consequences. There are still problems of course. We would need to replace "may lead" with a minimum probability or the robot may never do anything. We would also have to specify how to define and determine what constitutes "harm". But it is a start. I would then skip the second part of the first law and avoid all those difficult moral dilemmas. We don't automatically expect people to act heroically, so I don't think any one would expect a machine to, which leads us to the second law:

Second Law: A robot shall obey any orders given to it by its registered owner, unless doing so would conflict with the First Law.

The original second law requires a robot to obey anyone without regard to the person's authorization. How would it handle conflicting orders from different people? Requiring it to obey only the registered owner resolves that problem and provides a few other benefits. We now know who is responsible for the robot's actions in case it is called into question. If the robot robs a bank during the night, investigators know where to start to find out who is involved. Owners also now have a sense of control over their robots. They may grant access to others or to the general population in varying degrees, but they always have priority thanks to the second law. There would also have to be rules about how to authorize a transfer of ownership and what to do if the owner dies. The only catch is making sure an identity thief can't take control of the robot. But thanks to the first law, neither the owners nor a thief can use the robot as a weapon. And if someone is in danger, it will be up to the owner to direct the robot to save them, which means it is really the human in command who is intervening. And as mentioned, the original third law would be chucked.

Now the whole robbing a bank idea is something we might want to rule out altogether. I think in order for our robotic friends to get along in society, we would want to require them to be law-abiding citizens. If you require the robot not to break the laws of the land in which it resides, you have essentially put it on a trust level equal to, and perhaps greater than, any person you might meet on the street. The robot could not steal property or use it without permission, could not cheat when preparing someone's taxes, could not lie under oath, etc. This would be a great candidate for a second law, but it would require all robots to have knowledge of all local, state, and federal laws. You could not pre-program it since laws change across time and location. That opens the door to incorrect instruction and there goes your trust factor. No, our indelible laws must be universal in nature in order to work.

There is at least one behavior that I think would qualify as universal. Something that we all inherently expect robots to do is tell us the truth, but they can certainly be programmed to deceive just as easily as anything else, or they could be allowed to use deception of others in order to achieve a goal. We humans all agree that deception is not a valid means to an end with certain important exceptions, like to save one's own life or someone else's. I think we could safely bar the robot from deliberate deception except if it conflicts with the first law. Knowing that all robots are required to tell the truth provides another crucial step toward gaining the public trust. I would also not allow the robot to be commanded to deceive. This is why it must be the second law in priority. And since robots normally deal in probabilities, we should couch it in those terms. Finally, this does not mean that a robot must be compelled to answer any query. It just must answer truthfully when doing so. So below is my final version of the three laws of robotics:

First Law: A robot shall not take any action which may lead to harming a human being.

Second Law: When conveying information, a robot shall communicate the information as accurately as possible, unless such action conflicts with the First Law.

Third Law: A robot shall obey any orders given to it by its registered owner, unless doing so would conflict with the First or Second Laws.

In addition, there would need to be a set of rules about how precise human commands to robots must be in order for them to actually follow those commands. Otherwise, you get into the kind of ambiguous interpretations that caused the problems in the first place. Apparently, a lot of thought has gone into this topic over the last 50 years since Mr. Asimov introduced it, and that is fitting, because I'm sure the day will come when we will indeed face the need to implement such a program. I would have loved to have had this conversation with him if he were still with us.

AI Video Version Link

Notes on the Battle of L.A.

I went to see Battle Los Angeles this weekend. As I was checking times, a young lady buying tickets asked the teller, "Is it true that it really happened?". The guy behind the glass looked up and, holding back a smirk, confirmed to her that it indeed actually happened. I'm sure she figured it out about 10 minutes into the film. The real Battle of Los Angeles was an interesting incident in 1942 that has captured the imagination of U.F.O. followers ever since, but it has absolutely nothing to do with this film. I really didn't expect to be saying anything about it here, but it caught me by surprise in a way that I thought should be commented on. You see, I was expecting a science fiction film. What I saw was a very nicely directed war film. There wasn't the slightest trace of what sci-fi fans usually go to see, and that is a good thing. Who needs to be teased? If this is a war movie, then by God, let me put on my marine helmet and enjoy it as such. In other words, the movie earned my respect for NOT trying to be science fiction.

It was a very clever idea. Being from L.A. myself, the idea of seeing a bona-fide war film set right in my own backyard is something that I'll admit can draw me in. Even if I believe it will be cheesy, the familiarity factor is enough to interest me. But you could not pull off an invasion from another country of the world without also offending entire neighborhoods in this town. In a city where you find just about every nationality there is, the only invader that could get them all rooting for the same team would have to be from outer space. To create a war scenario, the invader would need to be of hostile intent from the first moment so there is no time to bother trying to communicate with them. The cadets at Camp Pendleton would be called upon immediately to engage. And this is exactly what happens. Any information that is obtained about the alien's biology or weaponry is used as intelligence to better strike against them. Although their weapons are advanced, none of it is all that unusual. The intent of the creators is to produce the same experience as might be expected when fighting any new enemy where one must learn how they think and what their military capabilities are. On top of that backdrop, you have all the elements that make war films worth all the carnage. Heroic sacrifices, camaraderie born out of shared suffering, dealing with the ghosts of past memories, and getting a bunch of people to work together to overcome seemingly impossible circumstances. There are also some scenes with a family they are trying to rescue that were touching enough to bring me to tears. Like I said, it's no Saving Private Ryan, but I think war movie buffs will eat it up.

So my hat goes off to John Liebesman for having a clear vision for what he was trying to do and then doing it well. Yes, this is a Marine pride film, but not in the usually cheesy manner that these guys are sometimes portrayed in Hollywood. No, this is one that does a decent job of actually honoring the soldier hero. Hoo-aah.

AI Video Version Link

Cowboys and Aliens

This is the first time I'm going to talk about a film that hasn't opened yet. You've probably already seen the trailers for Cowboys and Aliens which is slated for release in late July. When I first saw it, I had one of those moments of realization where you think, "It's so simple, why didn't anyone think of it before?". There are many film genre's that are based on historical periods - Victorian, Medieval, World War II, Ancient Rome, even Prehistoric, and of course, Westerns. Stories that are set in these periods usually stick to their own historical turf, even though they are completely fictional. Once in a while, science fiction writers will dabble in these other genre's via time travel tales, where someone from the present travels back to an earlier era. But in that case, the story setting is really the present and includes only an intrusion into the past. The thing that really made me stop and think was that I still cannot recall any serious science fiction work that actually takes place in a former historical period - an earth period of course, not just "A long time ago...".

To some degree, this is understandable. Science fiction writers are a creative bunch, and they like having a blank slate to draw on. That is why many of their works are set in the future. Even in period stories where characters make early discoveries of known science and technology, because the discoveries are not new to the reader, these are not really classified as "science" fiction. On the other hand, alien invasion films, from War of the Worlds to the many film and TV offerings coming out just this year (Battle L.A., Falling Skies), are always classified as science fiction. This is because it is usually assumed that such an epic event has to be set in the near future, and that works better anyway because it gives the humans a fighting chance and hits closer to home. But if aliens are allowed to exist and visit earth in present day, there's no rule that says they could not have visited earth in some other time period. After a century of alien invasion films, someone has finally decided to give it a shot. And thank goodness it is not just anyone.

I am not surprised at the specific names I'm seeing involved. Among the many contributors, Spielberg and Ron Howard appear in the producer list (of about 15!), and Harrison Ford managed to get on the ticket. These are all people who know how to sniff out an original story concept. At least 8 people are named as screenplay contributors, including the guys behind Star Trek reboot and Men In Black. It's quite a big production. What they are trying to accomplish is not just a new setting for an alien invasion movie, but a merging of two film genre's. You can tell from the trailer that they want to duplicate the sets, style, characterization, and flavor of a bona fide Western. The point is to convince an audience that has grown accustomed to modern Western film making that they are in familiar territory so as to enhance the impact of the new material. Will they succeed in this? My guess is they could overdo it. With a production crew this polished, the tendency will be to try to iconize the look and feel but miss the texture. Witness the film title, which would sound truly corny if it weren't for the ground breaking nature of the material (and of course the graphic novel). It indicates that they are perhaps too aware what they are trying to do. But as I said before, I'm glad it's these folks rather than some nobody. It will give it enough credibility to pave the way for future experiments. I hope they can come up with a decent script. The fact that it was born from a graphic novel does not guarantee its quality.

There is one old film that originally broke ground in merging sci-fi with a Western called The Valley of Gwangi. Here it was the introduction of a "lost world" with dinosaurs into the wild west. You can see a clip of it on one of my earlier entries here. That's another idea that is traditionally classified as science fiction which could also be extended to other time periods. How about a dinosaur rampaging the Medieval World before anyone knew what dinosaurs were? Of course, they would most likely just call it a dragon. What about a Roman army going up against alien invaders? The door could be wide open now.

AI Video Version Link

Deja Vu

I've recently realized a symmetry regarding the nature of time. It is illustrated in the graph shown at left. Under normal circumstances, you and I travel forward in time. Our relationship with the future is not that we know it, but that we move into it, we experience it. On the other hand, our relationship with the past is the reverse of this. We see the past through the eyes of our memory. We know it, but we cannot move into it. The paradoxes of time arise when you try to reverse either of these relationships. If you try to move into the past, you end up creating alternate histories that cannot co-exist with each other. I in fact wrote about the impossibility of backward time travel at length in a previous entry. Likewise, another type of paradox arises if we try to see into the future. Once you know what is to come, you then have the power to prevent what you have seen. This, of course, is less paradoxical than trying to change history. If the future you see does not come to pass, you can always argue that what you saw was never really the future in the first place. But the main point I'm making is that there are philosophical paradoxes associated with traveling into the past and seeing into the future, but there is no paradox associated with traveling into the future or seeing into the past.

Now the real insight for me came when I realized that the non-paradoxical scenarios could be stretched and extended and still remain non-paradoxical. Traveling into the future at a faster rate than everyone else is accepted by physicists as perfectly possible... if you are near a black hole or traveling near the speed of light. It may be a nearly impossible feat to actually accomplish, but theoretically achievable. Similarly, you can collect all the information you wish about the past without running into any sort of philosophical conundrum. The idea of seeing into the past never caught my attention as did the idea of traveling into the future because it seemed so ordinary by comparison. All you have to do to see into the past is spend lots of time in a library. With the help of video and audio recording you can experience the past as if you were actually there. But this whole attitude was turned on its head when I first saw the film Deja Vu. Ok, I know that's an awfully winded introduction for a movie review, but I had to describe all this before getting to the point because I don't think this film gets enough credit for the concept that it's writers so crisply and cleanly introduced to moviegoers. I think it deserves a little respect, and with that, on to the film...

The plot line of this film is quite simple. A ferry in New Orleans carrying over 500 Navy sailors, friends, and families explodes and kills all on board. Denzel Washington plays an ATF agent named Doug Carlin who is sent to investigate the accident. When it is discovered to be the work of a domestic terrorist, the FBI gets involved and, noticing Carlin's keen detective instincts, recruits him to join the investigation. Most of what follows is your basic who-done-it crime drama, with one interesting twist.
The FBI, it turns out, is using the case to test a new technological gadget. It is actually an area wide system connected to remote satellites that allows them to obtain detailed and close-up real time monitoring of any location within a certain radius. That doesn't sound too far from today's satellite technology, except that they are able to use it to monitor such locations at a different point in time, one that is about 4 days in the past. It is a type of time window, but they say they have no way to change the time range of the window. They can record what they focus in on, but they cannot move the window backward or forward in time, and it is video only. It is like being able to watch what happened 4 days ago as it evolves. It is impossible to view every location at once, so they must try to focus on what is important to the investigation. This is where Carlin's help comes in handy.

You might ask yourself, why not record everything and then sort through it after the fact? It is not a stretch for me to believe that the amount of data required for such a feat would be too huge to manage. Even if you could find enough storage capacity to hold all the information, it would be impossible to beam it to one location, whether direct or by satellite, at any usable rate. There is only so much bandwidth available and that restriction is based on the laws of physics. No, it makes sense that one would need to focus on specific locations at a time. Focusing technology does not suffer from such physical limitations. Why they can only see a fixed time period in the past is never explained, and of course is completely arbitrary, but it makes for an exciting detective story. Remember, they only have 4 days worth of history leading up to the crime that they can work with.

=================< spoilers below >=========================

Carlin focuses on one of the victims, a woman named Claire, who is discovered to have been killed before the accident and therefore might have come in contact with the assassin prior to it. If you like detective stories, there's a lot of good material here, but its more than just CSI style puzzle work. The writers really delved into the real time aspect of this time window system. One of my favorite scenes is a type of car chase. In the time window, the terrorist is driving the woman to his hideout outside the city, which is supposedly out of range of the FBI's system. They have an extender device in the form of a helmet with a visor that shows what is happening at your current location 4 days ago. Carlin decides to try to "follow" the suspect by driving the freeways with this helmut on. In the harrowing chase that follows, we see from the detective's viewpoint. One part of the screen shows the suspect's car that Carlin is trying to follow from 4 days ago, and the other part shows the current traffic in the windshield in front of him. The traffic patterns in both windows are completely different, making it a delightfully unnerving sequence to watch as Carlin tries to dodge the real cars, ignore the imaginary ones, and still keep the suspect's car in his viewer. There is one point where the cars stop and it appears like the killer is looking straight at Carlin even though that is really just coincidence. Nice touch. In fact, you can watch most of that chase sequence here from 1:16 to 1:20.

As I mentioned, this whole system is free of paradoxes. But the writers decided to challenge themselves a bit more and allow objects to be sent back into the time window. There are only two instances of this in the film. The first involves sending a piece of paper to the desk of Carlin's partner telling him where to find the suspect. This ends up getting his partner killed, something that was already known to have happened but no one knew why. The detective blames himself. Once they catch the criminal, the second incident involves Carlin convincing the team to send him back so he can save Claire, whom he has begun to care about. They send him to a nearby hospital bed with the words "REVIVE ME" written in large letters on his chest. Very clever. Carlin ends up not only saving Claire but also preventing the entire incident from occurring. What is really neat is that here again, the writers have shown us everything that Carlin's time travel affected at earlier points in the movie. As he intervenes in the time line, you see and understand the reasons why everything was this way or that way when you saw it before, including messages he wrote to himself. In other words, we only ever saw one time line to begin with, except for the very beginning when the boat actually explodes. In the changed timeline, the boat is saved.

Personally, I consider it a really well crafted script. Not only does it keep track of the clues to the crime, it also keeps tabs on the alternate time loop so as to minimize the paradox effect. The only detail to tie up is the fact that two Doug Carlin's exist at the same time now. This is neatly handled by causing Carlin to heroically save the ship at the expense of his own life, leaving his alternate future self to meet Claire under more favorable circumstances, and leaving her as the only one knowing all that actually happened. The film did not do very well at the box office, so maybe there aren't as many people out there who appreciate a good puzzle as much as I do.

AI Video Version Link

Total Lack of Recall

I am not ashamed to admit that I really hate most films directed by Paul Verhoeven. The main reason is similar to the reason I hate a lot of Stanley Kubrik's work, which is that these directors like to take the tools of cinematic art and use them to jerk the audience around just to make a point. This usually involves gross exaggeration, gratuitous sex and violence, and ridiculous attempts at satirical humor. But whereas Kubrik does this with serious intention, Verhoeven just likes to see how far he can take the joke without the audience catching on and then laughing behind their back. He's like the Andy Kaufmann of film directors. Verhoeven pulled this off to maximum effect in Starship Troopers, where his main target was our attitude toward the military and war films (and also Heinlein's book). In Robocop, I'm guessing his target was police action films. In Total Recall, I've recently begun to believe that he was targeting the Hollywood production machine. Before I explain that, let me say a bit about this really bad 1990 sci-fi action film.

I can't just skip over a film that was supposedly based on a Philip K. Dick short story, but I've heard that the film not only diverges from the book but leaves out most of what makes the story interesting in the first place. You can see seeds of Dick's ideas in the whole dream vs. reality themes that are explored, but I've learned that this script floated around Hollywood for many years but never got produced for one reason or another. It went through lots of revisions and I don't suppose many directors wanted to get involved. I will guess that this created a situation where Hollywood had invested a lot of capital into trying to get this movie made and was quite frustrated. They were willing to throw a lot of money at it to get it done. I think Mr. Verhoeven saw this as just too tempting. His thesis on this project would be to illustrate Hollywood's tendency to think that the more money you put into a film, the better it will be. He would take a script by a respected intellectual author and turn it into an action bonanza complete with stupid one-liners and lots of explosions. He would get one of highest paid actors in Hollywood at the time, Mr. Schwarzenegger, chosen precisely because of how well he represented the high paid low talent Hollywood star. He somehow managed to have tons of money spent on special effects which more often than not turned out looking like cheap puppetry, toy models, and cartoonish claymation. He got them to pay big bucks for a nice Jerry Goldsmith score. He littered his screen with blatant product placements and lots of gore and violence while leaving a lot of plot points and story details in the dust. All this he did while keeping a straight face, and then laughed it up under his breath as the film debuted as number one at the box office and the Hollywood executives all patted him on the back.

Alight, maybe I'm being a little over the top, but I'll wager not by much. There is really not much worth remembering about Total Recall (no pun intended) except the possibility that its director was pulling a number on the executives, and maybe the audience, just like he did with several other of his films before and after. I'm sure I'll get some flack for this, but at least you can't say my perspective isn't unique.

AI Video Version Link

Overlords of Mortis

As I mentioned once before, I have been faithfully watching the Clone Wars series which is now in its third season. They are always a treat to watch for reasons I explain in my earlier entry, but this week Mr. Lucas decided to go epic and create a whole new strand of mythology. It is such a great offering I had to just comment on it.

It is a three part sub-series of which two have already been released. The three main characters on the good side, Anakin, Ahsoka, and Obi-Wan, respond to a distress call which turns out to be some type of artificial planetoid in the shape of an octahedron. It looks more like a prison, which in fact it is, but is also a conduit through which "the force" of the universe flows and is somehow amplified. Whatever the explanation, it is a pretty freaky place. You have a trilogy of beings living there - one of light, one of darkness, and one that provides balance between them who is referred to as their "father". They are interested in Anakin because they suspect he is the "chosen one".

Now remember I'm comparing this with the entire Clone Wars series, not the rest of the sci-fi world from which it kind of rips off a lot of material. I could comment on the Avatar like floating rocks, the parallels with Christianity, Excaliber, and Greek mythology (Gargoyles and Griffins), or the fact the "chosen one" idea was overused even before The Matrix. But we love them anyway because they hit close to home. The fact is that the themes of this trilogy and even the animation and flying camera angles are just a step above the previous offerings. We even see visions of past figures both true and deceptive, and ones of the future.

It's not completely out of scope either. Since the early days of The Phantom Menace, the jedi have talked about Anakin being the one who will bring balance to the force according to some ancient prophecy. He is put to a test here by these beings so they can decide if he is the fulfillment, one that requires he tame both the creatures of light and darkness, and he passes. Yet some events transpire which create an imbalance in the force toward the dark side. We of course know that this portends the evil days that are coming. It all has a rather mysterious flavor to it that is a nice departure from the norm. The story accomplishes the dual goal of revealing a new aspect of the mythology of Star Wars that is still anchored to the whole, while also chronicling a key set of events in its history. It is one of those rare glimpses into the world that began in Mr. Lucas' mind. It makes you wonder if it was grafted in recently or was there all along. The full episodes have been removed from the Star Wars official site, but the preview info is still there. And you can try the links below if they are still available:

    Episode S3E15: Overlords
    Episode S3E16: Altar of Mortis
    Episode S3E17: Ghosts of Mortis

AI Video Version Link

The Fifth Element

Aaahhhh! Ok, ok, I'll do it. I'm practically dragging myself to write an entry about this crazy film, which I did enjoy watching the first time and again as I reviewed it recently. The reason this is so painful is that I'm accustomed to honoring works that hold some intrinsic value. The Fifth Element has little of it and yet I can't seem to shake it out of my head. It reminds me a bit of Hitchhiker's Guide, yet different. Alike in that it borrows elements from other science fiction movies, but more as a tribute than in any way a spoof. Alike in it's comedy, but more as a side attraction than as the main objective. Alike in its European flavor, but more French than British. And in addition, it aims at one point to convey a message about the worth of mankind being more in the way we love than in the wars we fight. Well, maybe that's stretching it a bit. But no matter what I may think about it, I can't seem to help enjoying it. As a film that claims such close kinship with the sci-fi genre, this has to be the place to write on it, and so I write.

This movie has guts. Its unconventionally flamboyant sets, costumes, and visuals work because of sheer creativity. Its cartoon-like characters work because they end up satirizing various aspects of human society. Its completely ridiculous mythological backdrop works only because it is designed to touch some place in your heart and soul. All the reasons why it should be bad, somehow end up working. And what is really weird is that it seems to flow naturally from the director's own style rather than feel like it was all thought out in advance. Maybe this is the first sci-fi film in which my recommendation would be to just sit back and enjoy it without thinking about it.

I have no desire to describe the story details as they are much better when viewed, except for one symbolism that I picked up at the end on this most recent viewing (small spoiler here). At the end, the five elements must all be opened in order to fight the evil force that threatens the world. The heroes, which include Bruce Willis' character Korbin Dallas, discover that each element stone must be opened by supplying it with a sample of itself - earth to earth, fire to fire, etc. In addition to the usual four elements of ancient lore, the fifth element is said to be a human being, a female, pure and innocent. We find that she is "closing up" with despair after learning of the evils of human history. She must be opened as well, and this is accomplished when Dallas confesses his love to her, which opens her heart and completes the 5-fold energy force to combat the evil. You see, the fifth element is love. The human being was just the "stone" that was meant to hold it. With themes like that, who needs to analyze?

AI Video Version Link

The Philadelphia Experiment

Back in high school, I remember hearing from some buddies about a World War II era effort to cloak our battleships from enemy radar. The last phase of this involved an experiment in Philadelphia with a fully staffed battleship that was subjected to some type of energy field. The program was then terminated, and a set of urban legends arose regarding this event which came to be known as the Philadelphia Experiment (follow the link to Wikipedia for more info). Some of the post experiment claims my friends talked about were reports of sailors phasing in and out of existence and sometimes materializing within solid matter, even days after the event. Some of them reportedly went crazy. It turns out that the entire program is probably a myth as the Navy denies it ever existed, but it did capture my imagination at the time.

So I was glad when I heard a few years later that a film was out that was based on the incident, called simply The Philadelphia Experiment. I don't know what I had expected it to be, but I do remember that I enjoyed the film. It was a kind of a mix between a traditional sci-fi story and a heart-warming drama, and that is all I could remember of it. Thus, I looked it up on Netflix and found it available for instant viewing and watched it again. I found my opinion hadn't changed much, so here goes.

First, the science fiction backdrop of the story is actually not bad at all. You have the connection to the myth in 1943 as an anchor, and then a wormhole of sorts that connects to 1984 (the year the film was released). I remember thinking that was a rather arbitrary coincidence until you find out later on that it is the same scientist performing the same type of experiment in 1984 that causes the link, and that very neatly closes the loop. Two of the sailors from 1943 abandon the ship and end up falling into the future. One of them gets pulled back but the other has to find his way back home. It turns out that the wormhole in '84 won't close up and is threatening to suck the world into it. The hole, it is said, won't close due to an energy source from the other side. That energy source is the field generator in the battleship which never got shut down, and our hero must go back in to complete the job and save the world. Yes, it sounds crazy but it has a logic to it. If the wormhole was created by the second experiment in '84, then if the guy who actually shut down the generator in '43 now gets sucked into the future, history has now been changed by the precise event that would have caused the wormhole to close. Thus, the only way to fix the problem is to shut it down from the '84 side, which paradoxically fulfills the shutdown that orginally happened in '43. The best guy for that job is the one who was supposed to have done it in the first place. Make sense?

The first thing I like is that the story has such balance. Where most science fiction would focus on the scientist and his experiment, this one focuses on the two navy boys who get caught up in the fray. These are just simple guys with a bit of military training that comes in handy in a fix. The story arc that involves the two friends, both past and future, and their unwitting companion, gives it some heart. In fact, the hero falls for an 80's chick and their whole relationship is quite silly and poorly acted, but it gives him a reason to return back to the future after completing his mission. The characters are developed just enough to allow the film to move quickly and stay interesting throughout its short 1:40 run. The old "fish out of water" device is utilized just enough to be cute (and dated!), but not so much as to take away from the story flow. The special effects are surreal enough to still hold up pretty good, and the pyrotechnics, sound, and wind tunnel work is all done well too. The music sounds like a typical orchestral television drama of that era plus a few 80's style pop hits, enough to get by.

Finally, I just love a time travel film that makes an effort to stay consistent and tie up all the loose ends. You see, since the main character only goes back to the past briefly and then returns to the future, there is no real chance for a paradox to develop, even though you are kept guessing about that until the end. He stays only long enough to correct the one mistake and then goes back to 1984. His friend does not stay in the future long enough to be able to affect it when he returns to the past, and his story about what happened is never believed. You sit and watch all the little facts that are revealed and then neatly resolved by the end. I would not call it a high quality piece of film making, but it is nonetheless a really well executed piece of story telling. I've also discovered John Carpenter was, interestingly, on the executive production team so it makes me wonder if that could have been a factor.

AI Video Version Link

The Good, The Bad, and the Mediocre

Well, I keep running into sci-fi related films and series that I feel should be commented on, and yet I find I have nothing significant to say about them. It's not just a matter of being bad. Sometimes a really bad film is interesting to talk about simply because it is so bad. In fact, much of the material in the vintage sci-fi category is great because it is bad, or at least in spite of it. But I sometimes feel the need to explain why I'm not interested in some item that is obviously in the sci-fi category, and so I have decided to dedicate an entry to list all those topics I don't want to blog about with a short commentary on why. Then when someone does a blog search for it, they'll at least get an opinion, and then maybe they can comment and convince me to actually write about it. There is no way I will be able to cover the huge amount of sci-fi material that gets put out every year, but I'll try to revisit and expand this entry as time goes on.

Here's the list in alphabetical order:

Donnie Darko (2001) - I actually liked this odd but well directed little film. Some classify it as a creepy thriller, others as a time travel sci-fi piece, but I don't think it really fits in anywhere. More to the point, the only science-ish element is the attempt to explain time travel, but it's all just a bunch of silliness, intended to be taken more as fantasy than anything else.

Johnny Mnemonic (1995) - Set in a dystopian future where information is the most precious commodity and in order to keep it from being stolen, it is transported via couriers who have the data uploaded into their brains and downloaded upon arrival. Of course, that means the couriers are targets themselves. Keanu Reeves plays one of these couriers in a pre-Matrix lead role in a story that doesn't have much point to it. It has a cyber-punk feel and I guess it played for me like a juvenile comic book story - you know, filled with outrageous yet stupid ideas. Hey, some people love that stuff though.

Lost in Space (1965-1968) - This light comedy-adventure series was a bit of a phenomenon, like Leave It To Beaver meets Robinson Crusoe in space. They even owned a pet robot modeled after the one in Forbidden Planet. Anyway, the only memorable character besides the robot was the cowardly Dr. Smith. Otherwise, it was the usual tepid network material.

Mad Max Series (1979-1985) - Another adventure in a dystopian future. Before I get the flack for it, I'll give credit to the original film for introducing the concept of post-apocalyptic science fiction to a new generation of filmgoers. It tried to be epic, it tried to be touching, but just didn't have the quality to achieve either. Most of the characters are just cartoonish. The sequels were more of the same.

Red Planet (2000) - This film is just badly put together and I don't think I've ever been able to sit through it entirely. How can you start with a film about saving the dying Earth by colonizing Mars and then try to turn it into a horror in space film and go killing off all your characters, mainly as a result of their own stupidity? It makes the whole Earth space program look like a joke.

Robinson Crusoe on Mars (1964) - An astronaut on a two man mission to Mars gets stranded when their ship crash lands and he and his experimental monkey subject are the sole survivors. He makes due via a set of discoveries which become progressively far fetched, culminating in his stumbling upon an alien slave labor camp. It is slow and somewhat directionless.

Solaris (2002) - I really tried on this one. The film did not seem interesting enough for me to watch except to blog about it, so I did. I even researched the original 1961 book by Stanislaw Lem. It's definitely bona-fide science fiction, especially the book, and the topics have a certain intellectual interest, but I just can't get into it. I forced myself to write a whole blog entry and after 5 days with absolutely no hits decided to delete it. I'd rather write about things that I really love and not simply out of obligation.

Stargate SG-1 (1997-2007) - When I saw the original Stargate film in 1994, I remember thinking it was quite interesting for the first half hour or so until the exploration team stepped onto the new planet, after which it became a really stupid Egyptian alien influence meets mediocre action film. I left thinking it was entertaining but forgettable. To this day my jaw still drops that it actually turned into a wildly popular TV series that lasted a whole 10 years! I've never watched much of the series so maybe someone will someday point me in the right direction. Maybe if I watch the film again I'll see something I missed. Who knows?

Sunshine (2007) - The concept on this film is quite original. Basically, at some time in the future, the Sun starts unexpectedly running down, threatening life on earth, and an expedition is sent out to deliver a nuclear payload to restart the fusion process, on a cool ship appropriately named the Icarus sporting a huge solar radiation shield. The first 45 minutes or so really engages you into what seems like a great space sci-fi film, but from there on to the very end, it just goes downhill with bad science, bad characters, and a really bad script. Danny Boyle was probably not the best choice of director here, but it could be a candidate for a future write-up.

The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951) - I don't know why this is such a classic of science fiction except that maybe it had a well written script. But the story was just another atomic angst film that used an alien to convey the message. My reaction to it has always been a big "Who the hell cares?". The same goes for the remake in 2008 with Keanu Reeves.

The Terminator Series (1984-2009) - I really enjoyed T2 when I first saw it, mainly for the great direction and never before seen stunts and special effects. What else might you expect from a James Cameron film? Arnold was also still pretty cool back then. But there's not much more to say about it. All the sci-fi related ideas are just re-hashed from other films. After watching the other installments, I still think T2 is the best one of the bunch.

The 3-Body Problem (2024) - Although this film was a very enjoyable watch with a lot of easter egg references to scientific figures and theories, just about every concept it creates regarding both alien and human technology is so unbelievable and inaccurate that it is hard to take it seriously as science fiction.

Waterworld (1995) - I suppose this is a dystopian futuristic adventure as well. I had hope for this one because the concept was promising. What would life be like if the world was covered with water? But it doesn't really explore much of that and just spends time on unbelievable characters and situations. That makes it even harder to forgive the fact that if the polar ice caps did actually melt completely, the ocean would only rise about 200 feet, which would cover maybe 20% of the land mass.

X-Files (1993-2002) - Only a portion of this weirdly outrageous TV series was actually pure science fiction. Most of the time the writers dabbled in the supernatural and other things in a way that harkened back to an old show from my childhood called Kolchak: The Night Stalker. But I could never take it seriously as real science fiction.

AI Video Version Link

Dark City

If you were to try to name the best merging of science fiction and film noir, many people would first think of Blade Runner, but I have another film in mind. A year before The Matrix introduced stylish trench coats and dark alleys to the genre, it had already been superbly done in Dark City. This is an extremely unique film with very neat sets and cool visuals. The story line is pure science fiction, which means that the World War II era film noir elements are done mostly for effect and as a kind of tribute, but the reason they are there is the same, even if on a much deeper level. Ok, if I sound like I'm speaking in riddles it is to reflect the mysterious nature of the film and before I get to the plot synopsis I should warn that it is better not knowing anything before you watch it for the first time. So please note the spoiler alert.

==================<<spoilers below>>=================

A man wakes up in a hotel room bathtub with amnesia and a brutally murdered prostitute in the bedroom. He receives a call from a stranger who tells him some people are coming for him and he must leave immediately. He flees as a group of men in black hats and overcoats arrive to take him. And so the adventure begins. It turns out that the ominous men in black are aliens who are using human bodies (borrowed from the deceased) to get around and who have the power to move and shape things with their minds, including causing their own bodies to fly and rendering people unconscious with the wave of a hand. They call it "tuning". But it's even worse, because these aliens are conducting experiments on humans to try to understand what makes us tick. Why? Their race is dying and they think humans may have the key to their survival. You see, they are like a hive species with a collective mind and they believe that acquiring individuality, in essence, individual "souls", is the answer. They don't realize that by treating their subjects like lab rats they are preventing themselves from ever attaining that higher nature. So they create a city from the memories of people and use their tuning powers to shape and re-shape the city each evening at midnight. During this process, everyone is rendered unconscious and they inject a whole new set of memories into their brains (with a syringe no less), so they can see how each person responds to each new situation they are placed in. In fact, the entire city is actually an isolated laboratory in space, surrounded by a force shield, that is always in darkness because the aliens cannot stand the light. Thus, each person lives out each evening with a new set of memories oblivious to what occurred the night before. It sounds so ridiculous you would think it would be hard to pull off, but it works mainly because the themes that it plays with are so fundamental to the human condition, and although it has a concrete story framework, it plays on screen like a dream, a fairy tale, something we are meant to interpret symbolically more than anything else.

Our main character, John Murdoch, is eventually found to somehow possess the same tuning abilities as the aliens and so they want to either destroy him or study him and sometimes can't decide which. He's also wanted for a string of murders that he did not commit. It was just another programming experiment that he happened to wake up from too early. William Hurt very nicely plays the film noir staple detective trying to solve the murder case and so he too is after Murdoch. Murdoch slowly learns of his situation from a very strange doctor named Shreber, played by Keifer Sutherland, who works for the aliens to create the memories that are implanted into their human subjects. His wife Emma (Jennifer Connelly) is willing to believe his story, even though she is only his wife as of that evening due to the last memory transfer, and the detective eventually gives him the chance to prove his claims by going in search of Shell Beach. That is the place where his memory tells him he grew up and Murdoch spends most of the film trying to find it. It is so amazingly dream-like how every time he asks someone about it, they say they know of it, or have been there, but when asked how to get there, they are surprised when they find they have forgotten the specific directions. Eventually they come to where Shell Beach should be, and find just a poster on a brick wall at the edge of the city. Behind that wall, they discover, is empty space.

The aliens eventually capture Murdoch and think they can use him to find their answer but  Dr. Shreber pulls an ingenious trick that allows Murdoch to battle them and take over the city. This could of course turn into a hollow victory, since not only have the human subjects lost their home planet, they have also lost any memory of their real past and true identity. But John Murdoch does not succumb to despair and remakes his own world into one in which he can begin a new life. You see, the story is really about the triumph of the human spirit over even existential circumstances. The entire setting is meant to convey the dreary existence of psychological captivity. The humans believe they are free even though in truth they are not. The film noir motif has always been designed to convey a sense of the futility of the human condition, and so it serves to poignantly connect this concocted fairy tale to our own lives. The aliens are portrayed in numerous ways as being quite soul-less, from the subtle (as in their being named after inanimate objects like Mr. Book and Mr. Hand) to the symbolic (as in their society being focused around a huge machine), to the horrifying (as in the willingness to use mind control and even rape and murder as a way of studying the human condition).

There are lots of technical details you could pick at. Why are all the alien's bodies male? How do they stop traffic and move buildings around without killing the unconscious subjects? Why does Keifer Sutherland sound like he's out of breath every time he talks? But I think you will find yourself not worrying about all that since it is not the real point of the film. Some point out similarities with The Matrix, but they are mainly surface level, and since Dark City came first, the point is a bit moot. You can watch it and judge for yourself
here (if the link is still good).

AI Video Version Link

Moon Movie

Several months ago some friends recommended that I watch a recent science fiction movie that had just become available for instant viewing on Netflix. It was called simply Moon with Sam Rockwell playing the lead role. In fact, it is almost the only role save for a computer named GERTY, voiced by Kevin Spacey, and obviously tailored to recollect HAL from 2001 down to the round camera eye with a glowing dot in the middle. Spacey is a good choice in that respect because he is able to mimic the calm and calculating voice of his predecessor computer quite well, but there are two glaring deviations. For one, the camera eye has a blue dot, not a red one, and second, the computer is so uncannily intuitive in its understanding of emotions and proper responses to them that it is difficult to believe it is actually a computer at all. It even uses emoticons to display its computed "feelings". It seems to genuinely care about Rockwell's character, also named Sam. This I believe is designed to provide a contrast that makes us wonder, up until the last minute, about whether the computer really does have Sam's interests in mind or not. But let's back up a bit.

Sam, it appears, is the sole inhabitant of a space station on the moon about 20 years in the future set up by a company called Lunar Industries for the purpose of mining Helium-3. Let's just stop there a minute since this is the only real science oriented aspect of the film. Why go through all that trouble to mine an isotope of Helium? I credit this film with actually prompting me to research this since it is not actually explored in great detail in the film. It turns out that H-3 can be used as an energy source in a fusion reactor. "So what?", you say, "I thought fusion took too much energy to get started for it to be worth the trouble". And so it is with H-3, however, it has at least two desirable properties. It is a clean nuclear fuel, which means it does not produce toxic waste that must be disposed of (or at least a great deal less of it). It can also spontaneously generate electricity from the fusion reaction because of the release of a charged proton, in addition to the usual heat energy to make steam to run a generator. Apparently, a small amount can go quite a long way. I don't know all the details but the point is that people have seriously looked into this as a viable technology. There is one major problem, however, which is that H-3 is a very rare isotope, and producing it artificially takes too much energy to be useful. And this brings us back to the moon, which has been found to be relatively rich in H-3, especially on the dark side, which is where Lunar Industries has set up their mining operation. At least someone did their homework, except for the fact that the amount of H-3 that would be required to operate even a major city would require several tons of the stuff to be transported back each year, and it's not even clear it could be mined in that quantity. Still, it is an interesting possibility, one that has a well written entry about it on Wikipedia.

So how does one man run an entire mining operation? Well, he doesn't. Most of the station is managed by GERTY the super computer and a fleet of automated harvester mobiles. Sam's main job is to perform maintenance and collect canisters of H-3 from the mobiles to send via launch capsule back to earth. We start at the end of his 3-year term where he is eagerly awaiting his trip home, and then something goes terribly wrong. The rest of the film involves a crazy set of disconnected events that have both Sam and the viewer trying to figure out what is going on, which turns out to be a huge ruse partly foisted on him by GERTY. I don't want to spoil this one too much here because half the fun is in the mystery, and it ends with some nicely heroic acts by both Sam and his computer companion.

Is it a good film? At first, I didn't think too much of it except that it was kind of fun and kind of original. It almost doesn't take itself seriously - like an allegorical satire. But I found that it grew on me over time. There are several notable aspects besides the ones already mentioned. Despite the other-worldly environment, it has a very real feel to it because Sam's character is written, initially, to be nobody real special. Just some guy passing the time. His frustrations and responses are sometimes clever, sometimes desperate, but always things you or I might actually do or say, and this is conveyed very nicely by actor, director, and writer. It allows them to do things that would normally be taken as straight satire and make us laugh as if it were happening to the guy next door. The writers also do not try to over explain things by putting dialogue in the characters' mouths. There are times when Sam has figured things out before we do and yet we can only guess this by his behavior. Other filmmakers might be tempted to have the protagonist think to himself out loud or something. Regarding Sam's character, there is also some amazing camera trickery that I still can't even figure out. The sequences on the moon's surface are executed rather nicely (except for a very obvious goof with the starfield backgrounds). The images of the harvesters silently spewing moon dirt behind them which rises much higher than normal due to low gravity still sticks in my mind. Finally, the soundtrack is pretty neat throughout. So, all in all, I think it is a better film than it might be given credit for. At least you can say it is unique, and one I think I would recommend as an evening's entertainment. All the stuff I have not gone into I'll save for the comment section later on down the road.

AI Video Version Link

Tron Legacy Review

In my article on the original Tron, I noted the upcoming sequel and stated that from the trailers it appeared this very late follow up would have none of the elements in it that made the original a classic. Now that I've seen Tron Legacy, I can confirm the truth of that statement. The unique computer animation styles seen in the first Tron are replaced by slick CGI graphics. Very polished, but so ubiquitous to moviegoers that it is simply expected to be part of any sci-fi film today. The visuals, characterization, and score have taken on a heavier and darker feel. Given the conceptual connection between Tron and the The Matrix, it is not surprising that this new version seeks to capitalize on the latter's successful fusion of sci-fi and stylism, sometimes rather gratuitously (the original film took no interest in flaunting beautiful girls in tights). Every visual that was employed before has been fed into a computer and embellished in great detail. It adds nothing to the telling of the story except flashy visuals that are even less appealing than the simpler forms from which they were derived.

You would think with Lisberger in the producer's role they might at least maintain the ingenius allegorical parallels between the real and computer worlds. Alas, most is just sloppily borrowed and what is new does not try very hard to maintain the symbolism. I almost dropped my popcorn in one scene where Flynn's son is discovered to be a user because of what looks like anti-gravity blood droplets coming from him after an injury on the playing field. If he is only a programmatic representation of himself, would that really include a bleeding program? Does Flynn have a simulated dinner with his guests just for the nostalgia of it? The original games in Tron were there because the system running the matter transfer experiments happened to belong to an arcade gaming company and the evil master program was using the game programs to carry out his plans. In this film, the games are spectacles of entertainment for the sole pleasure of the inhabiting programs. This is explained as the creation of an evil twin program of Flynn's that has created some sort of perfect society in something called "The Grid" (yep, Matrix was already taken). However, the actual connection to the word "perfect" is never really illustrated.

Once I had accepted that this sequel would not be like the original, I at least held out a little bit of hope that an original story might allow it to take on a life of its own. Here is where we find the greatest disappointment. In 1980, the story in the real world was an interesting plot in its own right, and the computer world simply paralleled it in a way that actually made some sense. In this film, the reverse has happened. The evil plot comes from the computer world and intends to invade the real one. Instead of a clever allegory, we have the usual one-dimensional villain-wants-to-take-over-the-world idea. So much time is spent on the battles and flashy special effects that there is only minimal room for character development, which is a shame because it is the characters and their relationships that aim to be the meat of the story this time around. All the other peripheral characters are nothing more than a means to some end. Tron himself is only seen in a last minute Han Solo type rescue without ever really interacting with him (probably because programs aren't supposed to age like Boxleiter's character in real life does). The supposed helper, Zeus, who turns out to be a turncoat was never anything more than a silly showman anyway. How disappointed can you be at a betrayal when you never took the guy seriously? I'm afraid the script is of no real significance.

One new concept is introduced which is the supposed appearance of independent programs with an emergent consciousness. They are called bio-morphs and are portrayed as having child-like innocence. Of course, we are denied any exploration of this since they are all wiped out by the bad guy before we arrive. The one surviving specimen, played by Olivia Wilde, is by far the most interesting character in the film. It is refreshing to see a beautiful lead female play a character that is not essentially a love interest, although she is definitely loved. She plays the innocence angle very convincingly and I think we will be seeing more of her in future films. On the positive, the CGI work was integrated with some really nice sets in a way where you could not tell what was live set and what was not. All said, in spite of the huge promotional effort, I recommend waiting for the rental unless you want to see the 3D effects (I did not), which might prove entertaining.

AI Video Version Link