#tmiahm

[somemissedconnections]

Policenauts & (The Moon is a) Harsh Mistress: The Gravity of Space

A comparison of two grounded science fiction stories, what they say about societies of control, and the limits of realistic fiction.

Policenauts Translation Project: http://policenauts.net/ World of Longplays: https://longplays.org/home.php NASA Space Visualization Studio: https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Citations Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qWHfA87edc6jqy3HCrGHry__0vGsvciAAEZswdrQ_ZI/edit?usp=sharing

[sillyyvanillyy]

I redrew the mike I drew back in 2023

He's still as bbg as he was back then

[bexical]

Black Panther: plot

Alright, let’s talk about the actual plot of the movie. There will be spoilers.

A friend of mine compared the movie to The Lion King, and the comparison certainly has its merits on a surface level. But The Lion King is about Simba and his journey and what he learns, and I would not say the same about Black Panther and T’Challa.

Let’s go back to the discussion on science fiction from my earlier post on Annihilation. I was discussing The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (TMiaHM), a scifi novel about lunar colonization and AI. It’s not about Mannie (the main character) or any individual. Similarly, I might actually classify Black Panther as a science fiction movie that proposes the country of Wakanda, or more generally, a hidden but advanced African nation. The movie explores the motivations behind the isolation and the people’s feelings on the plight of black people around the world, and it uses this exploration to form a political commentary. Using the fictional country of Wakanda, the movie actually criticizes stringent immigration and refugee policies in countries like the US by condemning Wakanda’s past for keeping to themselves and hiding their technological wealth. At the same time though, it condemns reverse racism pretty heavily; Killmonger is repeatedly deemed mad for bloodthirsty plans.

Note that none of this is at all subtle. In fact, if there is one complaint I have regarding this, it’s that there doesn’t really feel like there is much to discuss afterwards, because it’s all stated pretty clearly. Wakanda is not doing the right thing with its isolationist policies. Killmonger is right about that, but his ideas are also quite awful. T’Challa learns (from Killmonger and Nakia) and incorporates his learning into a new vision for Wakanda. I suppose one could debate the merits of the first statement more - is it really wrong for Wakanda to isolate itself? But the movie itself doesn’t lend much credence to the other side, in my opinion, nor does it seem like people are debating it; if anything, people are questioning whether or not Killmonger, who wants to overthrow the world in bloody conquest, is actually a villain... hm.

Nonetheless, it is still impressive that they were brave enough to discuss such ideas in what could have otherwise been a standard action superhero film. I’ll take a brief sidetrack in to a discussion on the MCU; I just want to say, I think they have been very brave in tackling aspects of American politics and really elevating the superhero film genre (even as DC tries to drag it down...). I posted this link a while back, which says pretty much the same thing: https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/2/26/17029572/black-panther-marvel-politics.

However, also as noted in the article, Black Panther gets distracted in the end from its message, much like many of the other MCU movies. The brawl at the climax basically ignores the main political debate of the movie, and I honestly felt a little uninvested in the fight.

Admittedly, there were a number of minor script flaws that led to that feeling. Let me list some of those flaws (not all of which are related to the climax): 1) It’s unclear why W’Kabi attacks T’Challa at the end. It’s clear that the ritual is not yet complete (”I did not yield, and as you can see, I am not dead!”), so Killmonger is not the rightful king, but W’Kabi still likes him more because he... brought Klaue’s body in? Even though he was the one who freed him..? 2) “Would you really kill me, my love?” (W’Kabi to Okoye) - uhh, you just tried to kill T’Challa, did you not? 3) “Wakanda needs a king! It does not need a warrior right now.” There is no evidence that points either way, so the statement just kind of sits in a vacuum. Is she right? I don’t know. 4) “It’s hard for a good man to be a king.” What does he mean by that? Hearing this in the trailer, I thought T’Challa was going to have to face more difficult decisions where he has to choose the good of the country, but nothing like that happened for him that I can think of. I did wonder if perhaps the movie was saying that T’Chaka was wrong, and one must actually be a good man to be a good king. I feel like some ideas were wasted here. 5) Did Killmonger really commit the cardinal sin of villainy of not killing the protagonist when he had the chance? I mean, really. The script could’ve even avoided this by choreographing the fight a little differently so T’Chaka fell off the cliffside and Killmonger didn’t actually have the chance to kill him, for example.

Sorry, I’m nitpicking again. But that’s the thing with this movie: I feel like it’s so good in so many ways, but it’s really held back by these details here and there. Still, I have to state once again that I am impressed with how this movie continues to elevate the idea of what a superhero film can be and their bravery in tackling these ideas in such a prominent pop culture movie. Overall, it really is an amazing movie.

Note: I said I would be talking about the characters, but I realized I didn’t actually have much to say. The characters are all interesting and fun, but there’s nothing subtle to discuss there really. I think I’ll be doing one more on the fights though.

[bexical]

Annihilation

Let’s discuss Alex Garland's Annihilation, which came out in theaters in the US recently.

Annihilation has been simultaneously hailed as "the most thoughtful science fiction movie since Arrival" and dismissed as "a beautiful heap of nonsense". It is certainly a frightening visual wonder, and many individual elements are spectacularly unique. For those who have seen it, the flower girl and the aftermath of the unnamed male body (among others) were fantastically horrific scenes that I thought were absolutely incredible, and other scenes are just as visually and psychologically striking.

A couple of things felt a little unpleasant though. Certain things that should have an explanation don't. One plotline feels odd and slightly out of place; it did make sense, but needed more work to really belong. The science sometimes feels inaccurate and oftentimes seems to be drawing an inappropriate metaphysical conclusion; some statements suffer from both flaws.

However, there is a particular characteristic about it that bothers me, and I have been internally debating whether or not it is a flaw. That characteristic is its approach to the genre of science fiction.

Science fiction (broadly speaking, in my opinion), is fundamentally about 'what if?'. The more intellectual science fiction works 1) answer that question and 2) use that answer to say something about humanity. Robert Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (TMiaHM) is about lunar colonization and AI and the resulting politics. If we consider the aforementioned comparison, Arrival uses an alien arrival and language to discuss communication of various varieties (interspecies, international, interpersonal). (These two examples are oversimplifications, of course.)

Annihilation does not do the same thing, or at least not the same way. Essentially, I don't think it fulfills the first part (answering the 'what if the Shimmer existed, with these properties?') well. The science behind it feels off, and the responses from the people (as a collective and as individuals) feel off. But, I also feel like it doesn't aim to fulfill that part well, and I am incredibly conflicted at the moment on whether or not that is 'okay', so to speak.

Another way to compare Annihilation with other sci-fi is the cause and effect. Generally speaking from memory of the two examples I mentioned, the contents depend on the 'what if' scenarios. In TMiaHM, the culture, technology, politics nearly all depend on lunar colonization and/or AI. In Arrival, nearly all plotlines result from the alien arrival. (I can think of one example each that do not follow from the premise, and both are relatively minor examples.) But this is fundamentally untrue about Annihilation, and I think this is because it is really only about annihilation as a concept (I apologize for being vague) and not about the Shimmer.

Other quick notes: It has aspects of a horror film. I liked the acting, though some out there on the internet hated it. The pacing is slow (not necessarily good or bad, just slow). It was based on a novel, though I hear it differs greatly.

Starring Natalie Portman, Gina Rodriguez, Tessa Thompson, Oscar Isaac, Jennifer Jason Leigh

[boomerangbacktomyself]

I'm one the grind. Y'all watch out for me.

[thaddeus-maximus]

A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as ‘state’ and ‘society’ and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame . . . as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world . . . aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure.... My point is that one person is responsible. Always. If H-bombs exist—and they do—some man controls them. In terms of morals there is no such thing as a ‘state.’ Just men. Individuals. Each responsible for his own acts.

Professor De La Paz in R.A. Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"