Science Fiction Entertainment, - TV shows, movies, magazines, books

I just saw War of The Worlds last nite and lets put it this way...its the kind of movie that gives birds a part in the stupid plot twist.

Tom Cruise...just annoyed me. All I kept doing is thinking...wow...this idiot believes in all this sci fi and he just kept striking me as delusional. I just wanted the movie to end. Even in the movie Tom Cruise was pushing his beliefs onto the other characters like he did to Matt Lauer and Brook. Yuk

I haven't seen it yet. I may wait 'til it's released on cable, which will probably be about two years away.

I've read some mixed reviews of it. Some like it, some think it's only average.

War of the Worlds, Ireland Online

Excerpts:

This is living proof that no amount of modern-day technology, big-name stars or whiz kid directors can't always match a well-made film from the past.

This unnecessary and vastly disappointing re-make of the l953 Gene Barry-Ann Robinson classic sci-fi film based on the timeless H.G. Wells novel isn't a patch on the original.

Sure, it's slick and packed with computer eye-poppers but somehow it illustrates the argument that Cruise is slipping.

Decan Herald

Excerpts:

An astounding Steven Spielberg classic, War of the Worlds is better than the average alien attack movie where Americans defeat the scaly outsiders and are proclaimed the heroes of planet Earth. War of the Worlds is simple and huge.

It follows one family — Ray Ferrier and his children Rachel and Robbie — as they run and hide from the killing machines. It also follows a powerful narrative where we see Ray transform from an irresponsible lay-about to a protective father to an extraordinary warrior.

It’s the psychology of it all that Spielberg concentrates on. While H G Wells’ novel drones on and pushes the reader towards boredom, War of the Worlds is out there and strikes in your face. Once the alien attacks start, they don’t stop. If there is a moment of peace, its only to let the magnitude of the destruction sink in.

.... Destruction apart, the entire movie rests squarely on the shoulders of Tom Cruise. For once, he isn’t a boy toy.

The man may have had his shining moments in Jerry Maguire or The Last Samurai, but War of the Worlds brings him into his own. Dakota Fanning and Justin Chatwin are superb in bringing out fright and dread.

Watch out for a brilliant performance by Tim Robbins and his silent fight with Cruise. The foreword and conclusion by Morgan Freeman is also not to be missed.

War of the Worlds flies high - US News and World Reports

Excerpts:

It's [War of the Worlds] a cut above the usual summer blockbuster fare, not because of Cruise's performance (which is good) or Spielberg's direction (which is top-notch as usual), but because that tyke Dakota Fanning is one heck of a believable screamer.

Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" wins over critics

Excerpts:

BEIJING, June 30 -- "War of the Worlds" has won over U.S. movie critics, who gave generally good reviews to the highly anticipated science-fiction adventure directed by Steven Spielberg and starring Tom Cruise.

.... The Los Angeles Times trumpeted ‘War of the Worlds’ as sci-fi at its best.” The New York Times was less enthralled with the story, but found the special effects impressive.

Showbusiness newspapers The Hollywood Reporter and Daily Variety praised the movie, and on the Web site rottentomatoes.com, which compiles reviews, “War of the Worlds” received a 79 percent “fresh” score.

Mayhem and Meaning: What's Missing from War of the Worlds

Excerpts:

Teleology is the philosophical study of purpose -- for example, in nature, design, or morality. Rick Warren's best-selling book, The Purpose Driven Life, would have been considered an unnecessary title at the beginning of the 20th century because people already believed that they had a purpose.

The malaise that infected the late 20th century, and which continues unabated, comes from the loss of a sense of purpose among many in the West. We have become an a-teleological culture, but, I think, not an anti-teleological culture. We may not have a purpose, but we certainly are looking for one.

Lack of purpose is why so many people are leaving Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds (DreamWorks) remake with a hollow, unsatisfied feeling that I predict will dampen box-office receipts. What makes a movie a blockbuster is that people want to see it more than once. I cannot imagine wanting to sit through War of the Worlds again.

Just like Minority Report, Spielberg's War of the Worlds is one long chase

Excerpts:

No one combines sound and visual effects like Spielberg to sustain momentum and the initial scenes of the largely unseen invaders tearing their way through New York are outstanding.

Once the tripods actually appear, however, the War of the Worlds suffers a similar fate to Jurassic Park.

When the dinosaurs/tripods are introduced, the realism is nothing short of extraordinary.

But the "wow" factor soon subsides and there is little else the colossal beasts can do except chase fleeing, screaming humans for the remainder of the movie.

With the United States' inherent fears of a foreign attack since 911, War of the Worlds could have tapped into a nation's obsession with homeland security and questioned its futility.

Instead, Spielberg has focused on the importance of the family unit and asks the age-old question: How far should a parent go to protect his children?

An interesting theme, but one that doesn't require a global invasion of extra terrestrials: Any unremarkable kidnapper or housebreaker could be called upon to test a parent's courage.

.... War of the Worlds is decent entertainment, even if it's nothing more than a competent chase movie

There's another biggie out this week, so I wouldn't put it past anyone to try and sabotage this flick. That's starting to happen now, people putting out fake word of mouth......but who knows.....

Check out www.tomcruiseisnuts.com

Hee hee hee hee hee! I just checked their site out. From what I've seen so far, I approve! Thanks for sharing that.

War Of The Worlds had already been remade as a television series back in... I think it was 1992-1993. I know it starred one of my favourite actresses, Catherine Disher (she was also the voice of Jean Grey in the original X-Men animated series).

And the reviews of the War Of The Worlds movie remind me of Independence Day (you know, the invading-ETs-who-want-to-drain-our-planet-of-its-natural-resources flick with Will Smith, Bill Pullman and Jeff Goldblum). ID4 was slick, and the rapport between Smith and Goldblum's characters was quite funny. There were some great one-liners in there too.

I'm interested in the War Of The Worlds movie but I'm not much of a moviegoer. So I'm going to wait until it's on DVD, and then I'll rent it.

I'll wait to see it when it's on pay-per-view.

I really dig cable's Sci Fi channel, really. I especially like Stargate, Stargate Atlantis and the new Battlestar Galactica.
However!

Every now and then, Sci-Fi airs pure and total cheese, cheese that's made for them, in their "Original sci fi programming, made for Sci Fi" (or however they bill it) material. Their "made for sci fi channel" movies have to be the worst.

I don't have anything against actor Bruce Campbell - he seems kind of cool - but he was in a 'made for Sci Fi' movie several months ago, where he played an astronaut who wound up fighting big, bug-like alien monsters. That movie had more cheese than my Mom's nacho dip.

Here lately, I was watching a film on Sci Fi that debuted this week called "Blood Suckers." It's about a group of futuristic bounty hunter/mercenary type people who hunt vampires - in outer space.

Most of the special effects were okay, but the storyline was cheese-ball, and the acting was horrible, in particular by an Asian lady who played one of the vampire hunters. I'm hard pressed to determine who the worst actress is - that vampire hunter actress or Madonna.

Am I the only one who's noticed that while some of the shows on Sci Fi are okay, some of their other stuff (usually their original movies) are cheese?

I used to love the SciFi Channel. I hated it when they removed Forever Knight, Farscape and Dark Shadows off their programming schedule though (DS was pure cheese, but I loved the nostalgia).

Other than SG-1 and (occasionally) SG Atlantis, I really don't watch SciFi anymore. And SciFi's really the only channel I watch anymore besides the History Channel and A&E (neither of which I can get at this point, because I had to downsize on my cable package).

I especially hate the fact that they're getting into reality television now, what with Scare Tactics, Mad Mad House and the new one... Master Bait---... er, Master Blasters. Gag me with a spoon.

And as for the "SciFi original pictures". Frank Herbert's Dune seemed interesting (I didn't get a chance to watch it though). I heard they completely butchered Ursula LeGuin's Earthsea books and she got pissed at them for it, and that Tremors BS.... ugh!

Cube 2: Hypercube ruled, though. I wish I had taped it. It had one of my favourite actors too: Geraint Wyn Davies (who's spent a lot of time doing theatre and is mega-talented).

And that Bloodsuckers movie sounds like pure 100% grade-A manure. I love vampires, I love cheesy movies... but it does sound like a painful viewing. Seeing the promos when I hopped onto the SciFi.com site was enough for me.

If I were to come up with a concept of intergalactic vampires, it'd be a hell of a lot better than the tired cliche of "let's kill them all 'cos they're all evil, mindless parasites raping our good society of its natural human resources, even though we do much worse to our own kind and are more of a threat to God's green earth" (which is the very reason I can't stomach John Carpenter's Vampires).

You're right... Sci Fi has been doing a lot of reality shows lately, and I've never been fond of reality tv.

I only watch Sci Fi on Fridays, to watch the new Stargate and Battlestar episodes, but every once in awhile, I will watch one of their original movies. If I miss a new ep on Fridays, Sci Fi usually repeats them a day or two later, so I'll catch them when they repeat.

I think that was a mini-series, right? What ticked me off is that I kept seeing Part 1 but never Part 2. Anytime I tuned it, they were always airing Part 1.

I never got to see how the thing finished.

From the way Ursula tells it, tuning in wouldn't have been worth it. She had very little input on what the story (for the mini-series) was about.

Details what little the series has in common with the books.

Her venting over the director of the series making assumptions about why she wrote the Earthsea books.

Commenting on why she couldn't talk about the series before it aired and how little input she had.

Thanks to her fans for expressing their sympathy and outrage.

Fan petition demanding an apology be issued to Ms. LeGuin from the SciFi Channel.

And my friend Mike, who's a big LeGuin fan, was annoyed at how the mini-series didn't resemble the books too.

I just finished reading over the Slate article you linked to. I don't like the author's attitude.

BTW, Knight, I do not hold you accountable for anything this lady said in her article. You simply linked to it, so please don't feel the need to defend her from any of my criticisms below (unless you share her views and would like to do so). I'm just venting here.

The author says that she's "white, but not european." She tries very hard to make herself out to be "sensitive" about skin color, so much so that she comes off sounding like she dislikes white people.

Maybe she's a self-loathing white person? I've heard of self-loathing/self-hating Jews

White people are even referred to as "honky" in this article,

"I didn't see why everybody in science fiction had to be a honky named Bob or Joe or Bill."

It's okay for offensive terms to be used against whites? "Honky" is a racist term.

She makes several rude comments about white people - very ironic, considering she never, ever wants to offend people of color. I guess that's every skin color except white?

But American liberals tell us that because Hispanics and blacks are in the minority in the USA (and for some reason American females, regardless of skin color or ethnicity, are regarded as minorities despite the fact that there are more females than males in the USA) that we should all take special care to respect them.... being in the minority is supposed to afford them special class or protection, that is the reasoning that some on the left use. (Or it used to be, I don't know if they've changed their reasoning.)

This next comment doesn't make any sense, coming from her someone who purports to be so race sensitive, as she does:

I think it is possible that some readers never even notice what color the people in the story are. Don't notice, don't care. Whites of course have the privilege of not caring, of being "colorblind." Nobody else does.

So she would rather for white people to care - to the point it leads to white people making decisions on how to treat someone based upon the other person's skin color? Isn't this something we've been trying to get away from?

I've heard that this problem exists among dark skinned people, too, that lighter skinned black Americans are racist against darker skinned black Americans, or think that they are inferior. I've seen dark skinned black people on American talk shows discuss their hatred of white people. So racism doesn't go just one way, white against dark skin.

I was raised to take each person on his or her own merits and inherent qualities. I am not going to give you a special pass just because you are black, or Hispanic, or Asian or white, or because you are male or female (on the other hand, I'm also not going to judge you outright or dismiss and condemn you because of your skin color or gender).

When it comes to skin color, I really don't care, and I bet that's something that scares people such as Ms. Le Guin - she is probably an advocate of affirmative action and the like.

That's not a problem. I agree with her, to a point. But I can see where it seems that she has a bad attitude about it. Then again, were I in her place, I might react similarly too. I don't know though, as that hasn't happened to me (at least, not yet).

What I heard was the part about her being an anthropologist's daughter and that it makes her sensitive to issues of skin colour and ethnicity. And how disgusted she is with sci-fi characters always seeming to fill a certain mold.

She is right about the predominance of white lead characters in science fiction and the issue of leading ladies with "violet eyes". I've seen crap like that in RPGs as well, and I literally had to call a stop on having so many buxom blonde ladies with strange, intense eyes in the RP I moderate for the sake of having more diverse play. It just gets boring if all the characters look, sound, dress and act the same.

I have characters of all colours both in RPGs and in fiction. I have white characters, black characters, olive skinned characters and red skinned characters. I have a blue-green skinned alien with thin "spidery" limbs, and lots of vampires, elves, demons and angels. I have reptilian creatures and lycanthropes too. And I would be pissed as hell if someone took it upon themselves to say what my character's actions, feelings and what-have-you should be in gameplay (which is an absolute no-no in RPGs and is referred to as godmoding).

Though I tend to lean more towards the characters I have of Italianate and Greek ethnicity because that's what I know best. My most prolific character is a vampire and former prostitute named Rakella. She's a dark haired, brown eyed and olive skinned beauty of Italian and Russian origin. (One less blonde with violet eyes, at least. ) She also has a more aquiline nose as befits her ethnicity, unlike most female RP characters who have a "button" nose. She's very proud of her heritage and her not-so-common beauty to the point of being somewhat vain, hence why I bring it up in play -- because the character demands that I do so.

Not that there's anything wrong with having "white" characters, but people tend more to write for white characters than they do other ethnicities because Caucasians are mistakenly seen as "privileged". So, you've got others on the opposite end of the spectrum who write nothing but non-white characters in an attempt to balance things out.

I can't say I agree with the way Ms. LeGuin stated her case, but she saw a need for more ethnic characters 30 years ago and decided to fill that void. I can't blame her for being at least a little annoyed at someone trying to change her vision of her characters wthout consulting her about it.

Yeah, that does seem a little harsh on her part. Apparently, though, there are a race of white-skinned people in her Earthsea books (the "Kargs"), but I have no idea what role they play in her stories. I, personally, have never read the Earthsea books so I can't make a judgement on that. I just hope she didn't do a "reverse racism" with them and cast the pale-skinned ones as being "evil" or just not-quite-right on any level.

They all are, technically, in the job front. Statistically, women are still paid less than males in the same job. A black man will earn less than a white woman, but a black woman will earn even less than the black man will. Of course, when you're someone of any colour or sex making millions a year, the numbers no longer matter.

I don't think anybody should be "priviliged" or "unpriviliged", or that there should be "haves" and "have nots". Yes, there's a different complex history with being born in a Hispanic home than in, say... an Irish home, but that doesn't mean that one's more worthy of respect than the other.

In addition to my Italian/Caucasian ethnicity, I'm part Native American too. So while my skin colour is white, I see myself as more of a mutt. I don't believe I should get any special pass for having pale colouring than I should had I been born with a more ruddy or olive complexion and less so-called "Aryan" features. (I'll explain this further in the Private Chat, because the issue of my own ethnicity is a sensitive subject for me.)

You're right; that comment doesn't make sense. What matters to people when they pick up a book is the story inside, not the characters' skin colour. Unless a character's ethnicity is a major part of who and what they are and your fictional world is one with racism involved, there's really no reason to bring it up.

I've heard among black Americans that it goes in the opposite direction: that lighter skinned members of the community are ostracized for not being "black enough". So, it definitely goes both ways.

My mother taught me much the same thing.

That's one of the few instances where I don't mind if the issue is raised or focused upon. If you're filming a movie about the civil rights movement in the '60s, for example, obviously, you're going to cast a black actor in the role of Martin Luther King Jr., you're going to have shots of white men wearing robes burning crosses on people's front lawns.

I'm not against having characters of various skin colors in books and movies per se.

I just think that harping on skin color either way, whether it's based on intentional or unintentional bias (an author including all blonde, white characters because the author is herself white), or because you're purposefully trying to cram in 'darker' people to make up for years of all-white casts is annoying (to me, anyhow) - well, it's not always annoying to me (more on this in a moment).

I've been watching repeats of one of The Matrix sequels on HBO this past month (I think it's called The Matrix Reloaded). Some of the characters in this film are played by white actors, others by black actors.

When I am watching a scene, on one level, I may recognize that an actor is of a certain skin color (I'm not blind after all).

However, that information gets filed away in the back of my head, much as the color of pants they're wearing (meaning, it isn't all that important to me - unless I'm led to believe that the character's pants color is integral to some plot point later in the story ).

I get absorbed into the character's personality, his/her backstory, and what he/she is doing.

When I say I don't always find it annoying, I can see how it's not necessarily a bad thing to go out of one's way to include characters who are not always blond and blue eyed (or male).

When I was a kid, my favorite movie franchise was Star Wars.

Other than Princess Leia, one didn't really see any female characters.

At the time, I didn't totally understand why all the Jedi Knights were men (as I got older, I came to realize that most of the Jedi were killed off by the time Luke Skywalker came along. Further, the 2 remaining Jedi - Ben and Yoda - just happened to be male; I suppose Lucas could have made Ben or Yoda female, but I don't think he was intentionally being sexist).

Regardless, it was a little unsettling that SW was mostly a male universe, so yes, it was nice to see more female characters (especially female Jedi) in the newer SW films (Attack of the Clones, The Phantom Menace).

Even if Lucas had not included more females, I still would have enjoyed the films - or NOT enjoyed them, as the case may be (I liked the original SW triology, and Revenge of the Sith but Phantom Menace and Clones were bad, very convoluted plots, mostly boring characters, etc).

To make things more complicated, my all -time favorite character wasn't even human, my fave was (and still is) Chewbacca, a wookie.

I didn't really take Chewie's gender into account, I just didn't care - being that he's a wookie, you can't even tell that he's a male, really, unless someone tells you. I don't think female wookies wear pink bows in their fur

I don't have the perfect solution to any of this, I'm just wondering aloud.

Knowing me, I'd gripe and complain no matter what directors and authors did.

~If they had an all-white cast (or all males, or all females, even), I'd probably find fault with that. I do find it irritating when some shows try to be politically correct and have one representative of each group: one white person, one black person, one Hispanic, one Asian, an equal number of male vs. female (or they'll have all male except for one lone female).

When they go that route (including one from every group), they're being too obvious about it, and it looks fake to me.

Her attitude came across as being racist - but against whites (what some would term 'reverse racism'). I don't think that bashing whites is necessary to defend people of color or to defend their inclusion in a novel/movie.

In the same way, I don't care for secular feminism, how so many of the feminists trash and demonize all men in the name of defending women.

I saw a web page somewhere which points out that this may no longer be the case. If I find it again, I can link to it, though probably in the Outlook forum.

One reason why women don't earn as much is that many of them choose to take time out of their career to stay at home and raise kids, while men remain on the career track and get promoted more, which equates to a larger salary.

Me too, Cherokee and Choctaw. I'm also part Belgium, British, and Irish. To me, that's just interesting background information; I regard myself as being an American.

Yep, I've come across that.

I've seen black actors make fun of other black actors for not being "black enough" - or sometimes they phrase it the other way, as being "this black man is acting too 'white'."

I think in cases such as that, it has less to do with skin color than with the speech, clothing attire, music choices, and mannerisms of the person.

I've seen some black Americans get hacked off with that attitude and say, "So if I don't wear a baseball cap backwards on my head, baggy pants that show off my butt crack, and if I don't go around saying, "Yo, yo, g!," and wear big gold chains, that means I'm not 'black enough'?"

~There are black Americans such as Bill Cosby saying acting, speaking, and dressing that way is not "black," or that it should not be the only definition of what it means to be black.

I've seen white people (usually white male teens) who adopt the stereotypical, black, American, gangsta- rap- music- video- mannerisms, clothing, etc. That muddies things up, too.

Part of the reason I am somewhat leery of people carrying diversity in movies/ plays/ novels too far or focusing on it constantly in other avenues is that politically speaking, and depending upon what we're talking about, reminding people of their differences usually prolongs disputes. It doesn't make them inclined to see what they have in common and to work together.

We have black Americans such as Rev. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton running around telling the American black community that whites are to blame for all of their problems, and to demand rectification from the American govt. in the form of new laws or in financial reimbursement.

This doesn't solve anything or get to the root of the problem, from what I can see. All it does is keep animosity flowing on both sides (but it keeps Jackson's and Sharpton's wallets fat).

I'm not against having Hispanics, blacks, Asians, dark-haired whites, females, etc. in stories. I do think, though, there can be a draw back in becoming consumed by it. Emphasizing differences - even if there are good intentions for doing so - doesn't always help to heal former divisions in society.

About the only positive outcome I can see from such emphasis is that people who may have formerly been prone to hate people who look different from them and who would otherwise not have had expsoure to them, now have that exposure, and they may learn to judge others based upon who they are, and their values, rather than what they look like.

But y'know, in this day and age of the internet, satellite t.v., cell phones, and so on, you'd have to live in a pretty remote, third -world area not have exposure to those who look different from you, so is it really necessay to "force" diversity on people?

Outside of dictatorships, Islamo-fascist states, and communist nations (all of which have limited media, or the news is heavily censored), many people around the world have access to open media, which means they're going to see Hispanics, Asians, women in powerful positions, black people, atheists, Muslims, Christians, etc., in t.v. news reports, sit coms, movies, and they're going to see them in newspapers.

This could be a 'chicken or egg' (which came first) argument - you could very well argue that the diversity we have in the media today came in to being precisely because there were people who emphasized including different groups in movies/t.v. shows etc. to start with. How true that is, I don't know.

I do think we're getting to a point - or we're already there - where it's becoming unnecessary to 'force' diversity on people, since diversity appears to be everywhere already (at least in free, Western societies). In this day and age, it seems hokey and fake to me to have a cast where you have one white female, a black guy, an Asian, and one Hispanic.

I've rambled on quite a bit.

I watch this SciFi movie called Volcano: Nature Unleashed and the storyline didn't make sence to me. Has anyone watch it?

Sorry, I haven't seen it. Was it on recently?

This past week Sci Fi has been advertising some upcoming natural disater movies made for their channel, and one of them is called "Tornado" and stars Bruce Campbell.

I just wanted to add my two cents about Earthsea, as I've read the books. The color differences in the books are very important, which is why Ms. Le Guin was so unhappy on seeing who the Sci-Fi channel cast for the books. Earthsea is many islands spread over a large area, and pretty much every island has a different skin color/look. The Kargs are the palest people, and as their island is more isolated, they run into people less. I don't want to ruin anything for anyone who wants to read the books later, so I'll just say that there is a plot-turning encounter between Ged, the main Earthsea protagonist, who has dark reddish-brown skin, and a Karg, who is very white.

Despite the fact that neither has ever seen a person who looks like the other, and each has indeed been told that the other is an enemy from birth basically, they trust each other on the actions they have seen each perform, not what they have been told. I can only imagine what Ms. Le Guin must have thought when her literal rainbow of people was cast with white actors - and the producers congratulated themselves on their "multiculturalism" by having cast Danny Glover. Myself, whenever I though about/re-read Earthsea, I always pictured Adam Beach as Ged, every since I saw Dance Me Outside.

On an aside, I see that some other members besides myself can claim Native ancestry. I can't tell how far back, but my father is half Cherokee, half white, my mother is mixed Hispanic/Choctaw/white. My brother is very, very dark - if I tell someone my brother works at place X, and tell them how to recognize him, I've had people say "Is that the one who's Indian?" Then they realize we have the exact same features, although my skin is rather pale. My brother actually looks somewhat like Adam Beach - another reason I like the actor!

I have very dark, long hair to go with my light skin, but with somewhat "almond shaped" eyes. If I have my hair down, I will get people asking if I'm part Indian (or Native American they tend to ask - which I think is silly, anyone born here is a Native American), but most of the time I get asked if I am part Chinese/Japanese/Asian, etc. I've had a few people who acted very friendly back off when I tell them the truth - not that I really think it's racism on their part, it just that they figured they had me figured out. Not to mention Japanimation is well-liked among the people I tend to end up around, so being Asian is cool. Indian, on the other hand, is an unknown quantity, and they're not sure how to act. So, they back off. The reverse is the people who ask if I'm Asian, and when I tell them the truth, respond with, "but you don't look Indian!" To which I respond, "no, I don't look like a Hollywood Indian -but then very few do." Then there's the fun people who say my Dad doesn't look Indian. Why? Because he has short hair? His skin is dark, that's where my brother gets it. Does he not look "Indian" because he drives a car, doesn't live on a reservation, is a registered Republican? The assumptions some people make that we all still live in tipis, talk in jaw-breaking pidgin English, can be really obnoxious, but I'm ranting here, so I'll stop.

This ties into Le Guin's Earthsea. Really, it does! I have one very dark brother. My sister and I are lighter skinned, with long, dark hair. I also have a brother (same mom, different dad, but my dad adopted him) who ended up with red hair. Of my cousins on my mother's side, one is blond, many are Mexican and Spanish speaking at home, and two are black, with a Spanish last name. On my father's side, everyone is dark haired, with varying colors of skin. I've always loved reading SF and Fantasy, and this is why I always held a special place for Earthsea - it's the only one I've ever read that my family could blend right into. I just hope Le Guin can make sure that Hollywood and it's ilk never get their hands on The Left Hand of Darkness.

The Sci Fi channel has been promoting a new made for SCI FI movie called "Tornado." It stars Bruce Campbell. Nothing against him, but I don't plan on watching this movie unless there's nothing else on.

May K wrote,

My brother is very, very dark - if I tell someone my brother works at place X, and tell them how to recognize him, I've had people say "Is that the one who's Indian?" Then they realize we have the exact same features, although my skin is rather pale. My brother actually looks somewhat like Adam Beach - another reason I like the actor!

My ex fiancee, (whose dad was a full blooded Chickasaw), was a fairly dark brown color, with black hair (but he had blue eyes).

He told me that a lot of the Hispanic workers he comes across (his job takes him all over the nation) come up to him just spouting off Spanish at him. They assume that he's Hispanic and knows the language, but he doesn't.

To make things more interesting, his little brother looks like the stereotypical white, light haired boy (before he shaved his hair off and got tatoos, piercings, etc, that is). They don't look like brothers at all, but they have the same mom and dad.

I finally saw all of Soylent Green a few days ago. This movie takes place in the 21st century in New York, and food is scarce.

The funniest thing to me - (other than the whole 'Soylent Green made of people' aspect) - is that this movie, which was filmed in 1973, is supposed to be set in a year past 2018.

This was hysterical to me, because for a movie that was supposed to be set in 2018+, it was so obviously made in 1973, with vestiges of 1960s/70s fashion styles/ hair styles/ interior decor.

There was one scene where Heston (who is playing a cop in this movie) is standing by some computers - really antiquated, stone-age looking computers

Oh, oh, Heston's boss in this movie is a black guy with an afro and kinda big side burns - sooooo 1970s!!

All of that - is about as funny as looking at the bee-hive hair-do on Lt. Ohura (sp?) in the old Star Trek series, or what passes for computer consoles on Kirk's bridge...

- or the alien planet sets that are supposed to look futuristic because they're covered in crinkled Reynold's Wrap Tinfoil.

Anyway, bad sets and clothing aside...

I really didn't see what the big deal was with making Soylent Green out of people.

The people used to make the food products were already dead. It's not like Soylent Green Corp. was bonking living people over the head and making chow out of them. They would just toss corpses into big vats and cook them.

Not that I'd want to eat people, mind you, but if had to, I wouldn't feel so bad knowing they were dead first (from natural causes or car wrecks) as opposed to being killed intentionally for me to eat a people burger.

I love those flicks that were set in the future, yet the women had miniskirts and gogo boots, and the guys had big sideburns and V-necks!