"Raised by Wolves" Seasons 1 & 2 Reviewed

Season 1 [Adapted from these Tweets] - was more watchable than expected, knowing very little before hand, other than people thinking it a bit odd. I felt it was a decent, slow-burn sci-fi. It definitely has Ridley Scott flavours: grey-blue colour pallet of Prometheus [2012]; various visual details, from android blood down to hats; the horror-spun theme of birthing/raising children, intersecting with brooding alien mysteries.

Raised by Wolves was not at all as sci-fi silly/tacky as some of its initial appearances.

There really are some seriously dark themes (trigger warning). Including a teenage girl coming to terms with being coerced into carrying a pregnancy following rape (while unconscious). Then dealing with meeting the perpetrator (whose made theatrically monstrous). Attempted suicide. The grief of loosing several children (pictured right) and self blame for that. Mass murder. Loss of bodily autonomy. Orphan child soldiers. Child abduction, etc. But I guess its all softened the surrealness of a sci-fi setting. Anyway...

Much is lost...

The season had enough time to develop its main characters, particularly heroine/antagonist android "Mother". She took an opposed arc to Travis Fimmel, who was apparently reprising his King Ragnar roll (from Vikings). Military genius, usurps power, undergoes religious conversion, hobbles about injured with a staff, etc. 

"Y: The Last Man" Season 1 Review [Mild Spoilers]

The show blasts through the virus apocalypse part implausibly fast: a single day in the first episode. But that's fine, to quickly establish the show's axiomatic question: what if all the men in the world suddenly die?! 

... Except for one privileged slacker and his capuchin monkey. Which is perhaps a link to "Outbreak" [1995] which also featured a capuchin. "12 Monkeys" [1995] depicted a post viral apocalypse, but doesn't really feature any particular monkey, ironically.

[My collage] Y: The Last Man promo material also echoes some visual themes from virus movies.

Anyway, more specifically, it's everyone with a Y chromosome who dies. So, refreshingly, we see plenty of trans men, including a central character. There's a recurring theme around the flip in how male-presenting individuals are perceived, but new issues for them. Having an overwhelmingly female cast is also fantastic, interesting and pretty much unique. Perhaps on par with "Orange is the New Black"?

It excels in doing what I loved "The Walking Dead" for: exploring fundamental social psychology, once social niceties and norms get stripped away. But with a focus on varied and opposed female perspectives, feminism and what that can mean to different women. Such ideals get subverted, in one of the scenarios, with anger against men stoked and exploited to control a group. Showing how the fiercest anti-man agenda can be as manipulative and damaging as any patriarchal hegemony.

"The Wheel of Time" Season 1 Short Review

 I wanted to mention a few more points that wouldn't fit into my micro-review tweet...

Screenshots from the Amazon Prime TV show for illustration of this review (fair use).

Fantasy is not my cup of tea, so I started watching with fairly low expectations. Friends who'd read the books were enthusiastic, so I checked it out, just in case it's the new Game of Thrones (GoT). It was alright - sufficiently well made to be watchable. Somewhat interesting, if more for it's cultural links.

It seems like Amazon would certainly like it to be the new GoT. The show logo has a similar feel and the dialogue explicitly talks about a human "dragon" who will "break the wheel". But the character building and human intrigue is more simplistic. 

It is probably better likened to Lord of the Rings (LotR): the magic and monsters have significant visual similarities and are unleashed right from the first episode. So, without the huge budget of those movies, this looks only OK. There's some stilted acting amongst the core cast, coupled with very awkward production in one instance, at least. So, overall, suspension of disbelief is greatly reduced compared with GoT. It's show about magic stuff in a pretty medieval setting.

"The Good Place" [Netflix] - is it set in an Omega Point Singularity?

When I first grudgingly dipped into episode 1, four years ago, I thought it was an unlikely setting but a typically zany and shallow sitcom. Leaning on Kristen Bell's following (since staring in cult hit series "Veronica Mars")...

But it repeatedly subverted my exceptions for the better, in terms of both continual plot twists and a liberal peppering of popular philosophy references (both explicit and situational). I liked its low-key ridiculing of contemporary theological beliefs that stopped short of stomping all over religion (from my heathen point of view).

There's a perpetual ambiguity of context - the show might be attempting to dramatise an actual spiritual afterlife, but there are myriad stylistic touches that scream of technological simulation. From Janet being a high-end sentient Alexa/Siri, to computer terminology or rebooting the neighbourhood, deleting and restoring memories, etc. Also, to cosmological concepts, with regards to the non-some of the non-human characters.

So I'd actually class it as science fiction. And the best type of sci-fi, in dealing at length with serious mid-deep future issues: digital sentience (e.g. via mind uploading), infinite torture, unlimited life spans, etc. As well as the moral philosophy of day-to-day living. Big brain stuff, all wrapped up in a (potentially) popular, approachable presentation.

Spoilers: Seriously, watch the end of the show first, if you're going to!

"Years and Years" - BBC's answer to Black Mirror?

If that's what it's meant to be, it's a very pale comparison. I found this 6 episode mini-series hard to watch, with ridiculously stilted writing. It takes a very non-subtle approach to futurism, with awkward exposition of technology and societal changes.

I'm not sure if these failings were primarily due to aiming at a broader, older, BBC audience, or just harsh budget and time limitations. Its pacing dragged and felt rushed, in turn; totally unbelievable character behaviour in the opening episodes was blatantly there to move us between plot points.

The artistic value was bargain basement, in terms of the repeated, cacophonous drum music theme, like a mangling of the BBC news beats designed to be absolutely certain that the viewer should to terrified of the future. The culmination of the first episode bringing that to a cringingly awful crescendo, with the central family shouting incoherently at each other cut with pound land apocalypse scenes of asylum seekers rioting, or something, around a bonfire.

Which brings us to the actual main topic of the show - (illegal) immigrants and xenophobia. "Years and Years" is essentially a family drama smashed into the depressing main-stream news reporting of the last few years, dramatised in a semi-sterile BBC fashion, and sprinkled with hard lumps of cliche transhumanist tropes.

If sci-fi is valuable (in my opinion) for preparing society for major changes to it's norms, this series seems determined to prepare the UK for Farage as prime minister, via an unsubtle female equivalent character. It could be argued as a cautionary tale, but I think that (like all his press coverage) it's as much softening the blow, familiarising us.

Game of Thrones - In Conclusion

The biggest show on TV ever...? Certainly a notable part of 2010's popular culture. The concluding season had a whole lot of viewer hopes and expectations riding on it and there was no way it wouldn't be sad for most to see an end to it, any which way things went down.

But winter did finally come and it delivered in terms of epic battles and convincing CGI dragons, recapturing the awesome feeling of seeing the Lanister troop caravan getting napalmed in the previous season. Each of the 6 episodes was a 75 minute film in it's own right; the best of television now truly drawn level, or even surpassing cinema, for my liking.

But yeah, of course the writing wasn't great, in terms of plot and dialogue. The show runners had been left the unenviable task of rounding off GRRM's epic fantasy garden of characters, with only rough notes from him about where he has been aiming to take things.

The natural expectation is that the original author will finish the book series properly. But it sounds likely there's a good chance he'll struggle just as much. if he ever gets there at all: GRRM describes himself as a 'gardener', merely tending the seeds of the characters he's planned. Giving them so much agency that he's struggled to get them where they need to go for the plot - Daenerys being waylaid in Meereen a symptom of this.

D&D certainly made substantial compromises to bring things to a deliberate ending. Even with many minor characters and huge elements of the world entirely ignored (like religion and the whole of Essos), season 8 still feels very rushed. Major turning points are so compressed as to be frustratingly unbelievable and stepping stones in key character development are skipped over, making the shape of their arc unrecognisable and actions unconvincing.

Writing quality as seasons progressed (popular meme).

I felt they could have done with about 2 additional series, in place of the last 3 episodes, to have everything make sense. I guess they felt this would have stretched their weak writing even thinner, viewer figures doping off as a result and hurting the appetite for the spin-off shows.

Having watched a few videos and read a few articles about the this last season, here's a regurgitation of their most salient points, mixed in with the biggest issues I had. Huge spoilers ahead, of course!

Sense8 and Technological Empathy

This show has a decidedly slow, somewhat uncertain first episode or two. But stick with it for gradually evermore rewarding viewing. Part of it's virtue is in not having to justify its creation with a pilot episode and not feeling the need to simplifying it's backstory into a 18 second opening montage (iZombie, for example). Here, the viewer is asked to absorb the rich background texture as the plot is resolved, rather than marching straight into a clockwork orrery of comic book waypoints.

The international settings initially brought to mind "H+: The Digital Series", an insanely ambitious YouTube serialised sci-fi from 2012, which I really liked. I was then briefly worried by a reference to a drug "DMT", since this was (ab)used as the axiom for "Lucy" (2014).

Screen capture montage from title sequence.

But Sense8 settles down comfortably into more of a Cloud Atlas feel, with unlinked or loosely linked character narrative sections spread spatially around the world, instead of echoing through time (as in the 2012 movie). This parallel should be immediately obvious given the shared production personnel (Lana Wachowski, Tom Tykwer and Andy Wachowski) and signature acting talent (South Korean, Bae Doona). I think this series far more successful than that film, avoiding any 'yellowface makeup' [1] awkwardness and utilising a host of beautiful real-world settings from the actual cities involved (probably awesome in 4k video).

Sense8 is far more critically worthy than the silly sci-fi-action romp Jupiter Ascending, from earlier this year. Although this series similarly 'deviates from typical gender dynamics' [2], it also escapes the prerequisite blockbuster explosion festival, stilted script and cardboard acting. It achieves a distinct, waltzing poetry with punctuated by serendipitous plot alignments.

There is a heavy emphasis on exploring emotion, cultural identities and sexualities, family, close friendships and even religion. Showing the overwhelming interpersonal similarities despite great diversity. If ever a piece of fictional work aspired to present contemporary global humanity in it's entirety, this would be it.

I hope this sci-fi-lite framework will appeal more to a universal audience (i.e. feminine positive). It's great that it manages to totally drop CGI reliance. It's inspired in comparison to current typical superhero movies/series, copy-pasted comic book stylings. Far from the old sci-fi standard, white American dystopia/space-opera.

So don't expect a Heroes (2006) all action plot. This is far more reflective, mostly good for chilling out. But the threads do dance together for a triumphant peak about 2/3rds the way through, the like of which I've not experienced from the Wachowski's since the culmination of the original Matrix (1999). It is certainly watchable and gets increasingly compelling, perfect to semi-binge over a several days.

Discussion and spoilers below...

ScarJo for GITS? Alternative Actresses (Image Montages) & Thoughts on the Remake

Recoloured sketch augment by me (2009)

'News' of the possible casting for Ghost in the Shell seemed rife the other night (Guardian, io9, IGN, etc, etc). Probably because Facebook's algorithm can clearly see that I've LIKED the GITS film and SAC pages. Dipping briefly into the milieu of rabid fan comments, some alternative names cropped up that sparked me to think I might feasibly use this topic to squeeze a few film reviews into a single post (but then time and length over-ran, so they got their own posts).

Firstly, let me apologise for abbreviating Miss Johansson's name in the title, since she's reported as stating that the contraction "...sounds tacky... lazy and flippant... violent...[and]...insulting..."; a press convention designed to diminish women. This according to The Atlantic on "Scarlett Johansson's [Subversive] Vanishing Act" Note the partially redacted title! lol.

I would actually be fairly pleased with this casting choice in general. I have been pretty impressed with the direction she's taken with her acting roles (aside from the big Marvel money makers): oozing charisma through voice alone in "her", then reversing that completely with the disturbingly cold, emotional sparsity of "Under the Skin" (both 2013). The latter film could be taken quite literally as a metaphor for how the media industry feed on male weakness, using up successive starlets; all lust with no real intimacy pay-off.

Scarlett Johansson's shown she has the intensity. (Left: Under the Skin. Right: GITS 1995)

Whether she's deliberately challenging herself or even being a feminist heroine via clever casting choices is debatable. Obviously her sexuality never goes unnoticed, or uncommented. Supposedly it is flaunted in "Lucy" (2014 - though I've yet to watch it), in which her character uses "looks... as a utilitarian instrument of revenge" [Atlantic]. Obviously these 'looks' also woo a certain audience segment, too. This sounds just fine for Motoko's role, in certain respects. If this live action film leans towards the more overtly sexualised Major of the TV series (even more so the original manga...), then Johansson's reputation may be even more fitting (for better or worst).

On "Her" (2013)

My enthusiastic review extended into a whole blog post.

My concerns with Scarlet are more on how convincing fight scenes might look; I remember Scarlet's secret agent action role in "Iron Man 2" broke the 4th wall for me, in terms of believability for the physical capabilities of her body shape. Actually not so terrible, reviewing that scene. But the major generally goes toe to toe, rather than mauling opponents like a demented, Kung Fu squirrel. Maybe this inflexibility is a sexist failing on my part; "refus[ing] to embrace women in their entireties." [Atlantic].

Emily Blunt - has greater stature and already filed a military command role as Rita Vrataski (image above). She also has under her belt (the pretty decent) sci-fi action "Looper" (2012), with "Adjustment Bureau" (2011 - blogged here) rounding out the A-list of male action stars shes played support to. She actually turned down the 'Black Widow' role that now lets Johansson net serious money as an establish action star ($10M on the table for GITS). So if the current casting falls through (again), maybe history will be mirrored.

On "Edge of Tomorrow" (2014)

My blog post with analysis and criticism.

Blunt reminds me strongly of Keeley Hawes (in Ashes to Ashes): aside from being somewhat identical, both are type cast as indomitably assertive women with posh English accents. Which is all good. But I've yet to see Blunt in a lead role, and she seems to have a tendency towards hanging slightly agape, rather than tight lipped, steely determination.

Rinko Kikuchi - you might have hoped, would be more of an obvious choice, given that she's a japanese actress who has starred in a number of (English language) action blockbusters, (including 'Mako Mori' in the terrible Pacific Rim, see linked post below). Sadly, I think her accent is too strong to deliver the necessary philosophising with any serious weight (in a language I can comprehend, anyway).

Digital TV Series to Supersede Silver Screen? + Movie, Anime & Web Series Reviews

Full video from Telegraph.co.uk

Not so long ago (when I first tried to write this post) Kevin Spacey had just caused a bit of a media stir with his keynote speech at the Edinburgh Television Festival. He blows his own trumpet, regarding his latest, nine time Emmy nominated tv netflix series "House of Cards" (an Americanised version of the BBC show from 1990, staring Spacey), but more interestingly, he preaches to the TV industry to follow his lead: embrace digital distribution.

He disrespects America's wasteful insistence on pilot episode based commissioning of TV series. He claims that giving viewers the ability to "binge" on reasonably priced series can help save content distributors (and creators) from the level of internet piracy the music industry suffered last decade. He asserts that the boundaries between movies, TV and streaming content are indistinct: just "stories" on a screen. All pretty sensible stuff that most internet users have probably felt for a good 5-10 years, but coming from a big name movie star and being lapped up by the media.

There's very powerful market disruption, with the big companies of legacy media formats finally being forced to acknowledge internet distribution as a legitimate business model. But, just as "Video [didn't] kill the radio star", no old technology is ever going to go totally extinct. I think that cinema is going to suffer further ignominity, increasingly sidelined as web distribution further boosts the influence of serialised content.

For example: I really liked "Continuum", as I laid out in my previous blog post. The level of intrigue a good series like that can cultivate is utterly unattainable for feature film pieces. Also, the conclusion of "Breaking Bad" precipitated a months long media frenzy in my news feed. Great show, but a bandwagon I'm not going to jump on here.

No film can generate that kind of on-going, free publicity, let alone develop such well loved characters or cover so much ground in such detail. I've become pretty resigned to a continuing drought, as far as inspiringly novel (sci-fi) films are concerned. Neil Blomencamp made perfectly clear that his summer blockbuster was necessarily polished (away to blandness) for mass market appeal.

Three of 2013's Summer Sci-fi Film Flops:

The unredeemed, action-bling nonsense of "Star Trek Into Darkness". The second 'reboot' instalment makes it evident that cheap one liners and recycled caricatures are the main reason for the intellectual rights, since the spirit of the Star Trek universe is repeatedly discarded whenever it suits slightly slicker transitions between action sequences.

The fundamentally flawed "World War Z", or 'Brad Pitt Zombie Movie' is ostensibly an adaptation of a popular book by the same name (of which I know nothing). Maybe it never stood a chance as a film; I certainly think that fans, these days, prefer to dream of their most beloved works of fiction being picked up for a mini-series, rather than crumpled up into Cinema format.

I actually sat back and enjoyed the first half of "Oblivion"; the pristine look and feel really meshed well with the atmospheric, synth heavy (Mass Effect style), soundtrack by M83. However, it falls apart under continued scrutiny, culminating in a ridiculously cheesy (inexplicably implausible) resolution. Philosophically, it is partially redeemed by apparently embracing a patternist interpretation of personal identity (rather than some pseudo-Christian, Hollywoodism).

Oh dear, not my idea of blue sky thinking. (Enterprise plummets - Into Darkness.)

Continuum - Review (Spoiler Free!)

Knowing nothing about Continuum, beyond iO9 repeatedly name dropping it in my Facebook timeline, I was expecting no better than Jean Claude Van Damme, ricketing down a tunnel o'time in a two seater Sinclair C5 lookalike ("Timecop" 1994), with irritatingly clashing flavours of causality in each successive episode.

But Continuum is far more grown up, with unexpected attention to detail. We're not talking "Primer" (2004) level mind strain, but it is more grounded than the "Back to the Future" (1985) style paradoxical paradox resolutions, also present (but better executed) in "Looper" (2012). Of course there wasn't a blockbuster budget here, so the CGI is relatively light and tasteful, with the all singing/dancing views of the future carefully rationed. Action/fight scenes aren't it's forté either, but are always passable, without any cringe-worthy flaws.

It is pretty clever at setting it's own tone, in the first season, by building up towards opportunities for obvious (dramatic tension building) clichés, staring them square in the eye, then casually bypassing them with a barely glimpsed smirk.

It's fully Bechdel test compliant too (unlike "Elysium"). In fact, the central female character is of a convincingly conservative disposition, despite supermodel looks and that skin-tight, nano-weave onesie. More of a Major Kusanagi of 1995 (my personal GITS preference) than the harlot of the (still highly recommended) 2002-2005 series, or the original manga (I've not yet seen the new "Arise" reboot).

Major Kusanagi (GITS 1995) vs Kiera Cameron (Continuum)

Simon Barry (show creator) was almost certainly influence by Ghost in the Shell. One obvious similarity being the full body invisibility cloaking, despite exposed head and hair. But don't be expecting weekly servings of bad guys gratuitously beaten up by a ghost: TV budget limitations, remember. Similarly, in parading all the cool, semi-magic, future-cop gear, they do risk the viewer wondering why certain toys aren't used more often. But these are clearly fallible characters, and any FPS experienced gamer will be able to empathise with the difficulty of scroll-selecting the ideal weapon in a panic!

Usually it's a compliment to be more akin to the works of Masamune Shirow than J.K. Rowling's...

The appearance of Jericho's (2006-2008) gawky-young-post-apocalyptic-small-time-commerce-king-pin-of-the-year award winner, as another central protagonist, was slightly distracting for me at first. Erik Knudsen perhaps feels a little under-energised to be typecast as a super-geek. From their résumés, it looks like most of cast will hold similar familiarity for fans of other American/Canadian sci-fi shows. It took me a good couple of episodes of mental groping to put my finger on a Caprica (2009) actor in the second season.

Many monitors maketh the 'Great Man'..?

Seemingly disposable background characters become central, which is cool. It even goes some way towards mitigating over-reliance on the Great Man theory (of innovation). There is (ab)use of the Swiss pocket-knife style, omni-scientist/technician, trope; there's a glaringly backwards setup comprising 7 terrorist grunts to 1 all-purpose geek, which is toned back towards acceptability as characters are all fleshed out. Anyway, for a full memetic deconstruction of the series, you could just read the ever prescient TV Tropes.

The plot does feel a little more unfocused, midway through the second run, but never jumps the shark in terms of confusing complexity. It actually comes together very tidily, disdaining a frustrating cliff hanger, or "Hero's" (2006-2010) style hanging segue to season 3, in favour of a deliciously dark full stop.

Beyond the Death of Silver Screen Space Operas

Contents:

1. Back to the Future Moon

2. Dystopia Blues

3. Other (space) Sci-fi Worthy of the Title

4. Back into Deep Space, TV and Further Discussions

== Back to the Future Moon ==

During a Facebook message thread, started (1.5 months ago!) on the topic of the new movie "Moon" (as yet still unseen by myself): I was whinging about the implausibility of of the setting and it's possible efficacy as pro human space-flight propaganda (when I consider any question of such pursuits moot). We started discussing a (potentially) similar movie and the genre in general. The following is a quote from one of my good friend's comments (my reply turned into this blog entry):

"I also thought Sunshine was a disappointment, but mostly because of the way the climax of the film declined into teen-slasher territory. Its important for sci-fi to be realistic enough to suspend disbelief, but I think any film ultimately has to make compromises with the story. That the idea of jump-starting the sun is preposterous to me doesn't make the film less interesting. Like all such films its about the journey rather then the destination."

I absolutely agree that it's entirely valid to have a major violation of reality (and any subsequent deviations that directly stem from that) in a movie (TV series or book), in order to explore another (entirely unrelated) topic.

My gripe is that no, so called, “sci-fi” films set in space have actual been about sci-fi since the early 70s, when there was a slew of them: “2001 a Space Odyssey”, Solaris, “Silent Running”, etc. Since then space has been used solely as an alternative backdrop for movies that I think belong more predominantly to other genres:

- Action blockbuster (Independence Day, Armageddon)

- Fantasy adventure romp (Star Wars, Fifth Element)

- Horror (Event Horizon, Alien)

- Western (Firefly/Serenity)

- Psychological Thriller (Sunshine)

- Comedy (HHGTTG, Space Balls, Mars Attacks)

Remakes don't count! (e.g. War of the Worlds, Solaris, The Day the Earth Stood Still). The only exception I can currently think of is the 1997 film "Contact" (and that's based on a novel from 1985). [I dug up some more possible exceptions later: see below]

One might argue that culture has moved on from the moon landings era obsession with space travel (hence no market for traditional space sci-fi). That is part of it. But I don't think it's a case of maturing beyond unrealistic fantasies: interplanetary human colonisation and encounters with unimaginatively biological aliens (inexplicably intent on genocide). Space just went out of fashion. The movie industry is fixated on recirculating the same old ideas, albeit with updated technobabble and stunning visual effects. But a lack of innovation by Hollywood is not limited to this specific genre, for sure.

Remakes are the most obvious aspect of this. Then there are tributes to the heyday of the genre: "Moon" appears to be one, but seeing as no cinemas within 25 miles of me deigned to show it, I haven't found out yet. This cinematic commission might seem a little odd given it's critical acclaim and coincidence with the 40th anniversary of the moon landings. One can only assume the film's distributors weren't on good enough terms with most cinema chains. Or the easy money to be made, by devoting 3 screens entirely to Harry Potter, outweighed any desire to provide choice to customers. (and 'the industry' wonders why there's so much pirating)

[Above: Mark Kermode reviews Moon.]

The remaining class of Features, are only ostensibly original; where there should be some solid concepts, there is just the watered down echoing of dependable old favourites. A near universal bias towards a certain area of the sci-fi 'idea space'.

== Dystopia Blues ==

The most immutable theme is the Orwellian Dystopia. So much is planted firmly at the foot of films like "THX 1138" and "Fahrenheit 451"; it's a genre of it's own: Blade Runner, Escape from New York, Demolition Man, Gattaca, Equilibrium, Minority Report, Aeon flux, Children of Men, The Island....

Much of the general public seems to have unconsciously accepted technological advance as synonymous with a gloomy, dystopian future. Any, self proclaimed, fictional utopia is *always* shown to be flawed and dystopian, probably a fascist dictatorship too.

I would go as far as to blame this (in part) for the new romanticism permeating our culture: a rosy fantasy vision of the past; the perceived superiority of organic food, and the false environmentalism of living off your own land, for examples. Somewhat reminiscent of the revival of mysticism in pre-Hitler Germany (and other countries): a backlash to the impersonal horrors of industrialism and WW1.

Maybe, if films had been pushing the frontiers of sci-fi, in the process depicting *some* instances where progress provides mostly boons to society, there would be more for people to be positive about in the mid-distant future.

Keanu (i.e. devil's advocate): "u couldn't have a story line where nothing goes wrong and everyone's happy: it'd be boring!"

Obviously I'm not suggesting that; there is drama and strife aplenty in my favourite sci-fi novels, that also harbour pro-progress sentiments. OK, so I'd be expecting a lot for a major film company to bank-roll a feature based in or around Vinge's Technological Singularity (for the moment at least). Even if they went with one of Stross's books, those leave human kind (as we know it) sidelined into unfavourable positions, because of a Singularity. Besides he was only first published this millennium: far too avant-guard for popularisation! It seems there's a 20-30 year period before hard sci-fi ideas can be de-classified for widespread media consumption. Ironic, given that they're generally outdated within 10-15 years, these days.

However, Iain M. Bank's has been writing stories set in his "Culture" universe since 1987. In many ways they're pretty damn bleak: often, most of the main characters get killed off just before they might have reach a happy end. But there is an ever present, positive leitmotif: the galactic civilisation of "The Culture" itself. An unmistakable utopia, where an anarchy of super-intelligent, yet emotional, machine minds (embodied in space ships and entire planets) altruistically cater for a race of near-humans. Because of their near god-like control of matter, it's trivial to provide for the humans' every whim, however lavish by today's standards. The tribulations come in dealing with other, less advanced civilisations, and characters there-in.

I would be overcome with joy (caring not of being proven wrong) if a film were based on the substance and spirit of any of those novels. I think it would easily make sufficiently compelling viewing for a contemporary audience too, with: action, violence, plenty of scope for overblown use of CGI, prolific sex and drugs. However, because the latter two aspects are presented as entirely acceptable, without any drawbacks, I expect this vista would be considered, by our current 'powers that be', too liberal to be shown to the general public. Not that there's any political bias in our media of course.

Perhaps that is part of the problem: an (implicit) conspiracy not to show people how good they could have it, to prevent dissatisfaction with their continuous drudgery in the pursuit of material possessions. “Nothing is perfect” or comes for free!? (not even the 'best things in life'!) Anything that equips imaginations, highlighting society's blind spot to alternatives to the current monetary system, would be a most dangerous heracy. [But more on that when I finish distilling my thoughts on Douglas Rushkoff's "Life Inc." into a blog entry.]

== Other (Space) Sci-fi Worthy of the Title ==

+ Deep Impact - A glaring exception to my earlier moan. Although it had a near identical plot to Armageddon, it is it's total antithesis. This is a sci-fi movie with good science throughout! Even the name of the nuclear pulse propulsion spacecraft, used to rendezvous with the comet, is a reference to the real world “Project Orion”, abandoned in 1963 because of the Partial Test Ban Treaty. Also, although nuclear bombs are used to blow apart the comet (twice), the result is a much more realistic semi-fail, with an epic tidal wave wiping out much of America (and presumably other parts of the world too; I never said it wasn't US-centric). Released in the same summer as Armageddon (1998) it somehow opened more strongly at the box office. Armageddon did end up grossing more worldwide ($555M vs $349M), but then it cost twice as much to make. So not a total fail for science there.

+ Spielberg has an unparalleled track record here, with: “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “E.T.” and “A.I.”. If he manages not to totally eviscerate the live action remake of “Ghost in the Shell” (1995), my all time favourite film, then he may move even further up my list of favourite Directors. Perhaps then the original, and “Stand Alone Complex” series too, might reach beyond anime fans watching “Adult Swim”. We'll have to wait until 2011 to find out though (22 years after the cutting-edge manga).

[Above: "Tank Wins" by Me; Composition from parts of the end of G.I.T.S.]

A.I. (and E.T.) was (were) largely designed for lacrimation (i.e. 'weapies'), but they had undeniably high conceptual production values. A.I. was somewhat of an epic tale of a robot boy, with a strong message that artificial beings can be every bit as human as ourself. Unfortunately most people I know had fallen asleep by the end, which is the most interesting part (from a futurist's POV): he is dug up and revived by advanced aliens, who are actually told to be the descendent of machines, if one pays attention. Naturally, I'm not keen on the ultimate ending: apparently it's impossible to turn 'Pinocchio' into a "real boy", so he gets 1 "perfect" day with his mommy before dying. OK, it made me cry a little (more from the sentiment of the little robot teddy bear than anything else, mind), but it's still an utter pile of religiousisational gash!: why *not* be able to turn him into a biological boy? He was clearly within a simulation during his perfect day; why not persist there, walk off into the sunset, live and grow with other sentient simulations (of other 'revivers', play on survivors)? Buying into the singularity thing (Tiplerian or otherwise) might be too much, but getting that close to it and then turning around and producing the usual line of: all life is finite, death is the natural order, we should just enjoy the rare good moments and be satisfied....: Bah!!!!

+ Matrix - (including Reloaded), though again I had high hopes for the conclusion of this arc that were brutally murdered by Revolutions: you expect us to believe that after swiftly dispatching humans, the super-advanced, conscious programs of the machine world had just sat and twiddled their thumbs for thousands of years?!!... Even if they had been inexplicably confined to the surface of this one planet, with the capability of simulating an entire world, would they not also have simulated a plethora of other worlds/ecologies/levels and types of intelligence??!! If it's too difficult to visualise these, at least give us a hint they, or something interesting exists...

+ Terminator - up to T2 only, which was largely an action shooter with some brilliant chase sequences. It also largely responsible for founding public expection of human extermination by future A.I.. But at least it raised awareness, and the sucessively advanced terminator robots imply perpetual progess beyond the influence of human creativity.

+ Titan AE - though animated and puerile (and the "pure energy" beings posses no features of such) it has a genesis device spaceship that is kind cool in a retro/steam-punk kind of way.

+ Vanilla Sky (remake of the Spanish original, "Open Your Eyes", featuring the same lead actress) - very impressed that this turned out to be set in a simulation, with Tom Cruise having been resurrected from cryogenic storage. Disappointed there wasn't any hint of events outside the simulation, but was to be expected.

+ Minority report - hmm, kind of; though clearly a distopia, it had a few pieces of hard science-futurism in.

== Back into Deep Space, TV and Further Discussions ==

+ Surprisingly, Star Wars Episodes 2 and 3 largely met my standards. Although action heavy, dark themes replaced whimsical swashbuckling, and there was even a brief nod to the conspicuous lack of (trans)human level AI in their universe. [previously blogged]

+ Star Trek - As the films go, the first, "Star Trek the Motion Picture", is clearly high concept sci-fi that happens to use the established characters from the fictional universe. Because of it's lack of profitability and critical reception, Gene Roddenberry lost creative control of the sequels, probably why their priorities appear to have been turned around: action adventure in a space setting.

If there is a missing link that bridges between the space sci-fi of the 70s and the new millennium, it would undoubtedly be the "Star Trek, the Next Generation" franchise (including most of “Voyager” and the earlier “Deep Space 9” series). Perhaps an episodic structure, and lower costs made this the ideal vestal for space-fiction proper. In my late teens I rejected Star Trek, to an extent, cringing that my earlier self had accumulated the Star Trek fact files in a search for further inspiration/answers to the future. Of course, as a profit extending item of merchandise for hardcore, geek fans, they contained no such revelations. Also, I became painfully aware of how deeply uncool Star Trek appreciation was, thanks largely to a high school peer nicknamed "Trekky". Getting into bona fide sci-fi novels, such as A.C. Clarke's “2001” quadrilogy (that I read in reverse order), also helped foster disdain for the Star Trek universe.

From an even greater retrospective height, I can appreciate the value of the Star Trek series; they introduced me to a plethora of sci-fi, philosophy and psychology concepts. They may even be significantly responsible for shaping my world view and interests in science and technology that took me to degree level studies. I only regret that kids (like me) growing up in the 00s won't have had access, to such a good stepping stone, into sci-fi literature and beyond. Contemporary 'sci-fi' series have gone the way of the space-opera movie: concentrating on drama, character development and TV-soap style story arcs, while focusing on contemporary or nostalgic issues and replacing any humanist philosophy with Hollywood style Christianity.

The TV section of the Wikipedia article on Sci-fi confirms and clarifies my view. The 90s were actually somewhat of a hay-day for good sci-fi TV with: "Babylon 5", "SeaQuest DSV" and even "Red Dwarf" (though primarily comedy) and "The Outer Limits" (despite close similarities to "Goose Bumps"; a child oriented horror mini-novel series). There were some inspirational episodes of the X-files too (even if we never did conclusively discover the "Truth... Out There"). The one episode I most strongly remember enjoying (involving a human having been uploaded to the internet) turns out to have been written by William Gibson (the Godfather of cyberpunk novels). However, that episode, "Kill Switch" (series 5), and his latter collaboration, "First Person Shooter" (series 7), were among the last ever examples of Sci-fi authors working with TV production. It is no wonder that science (particularly physics) graduates are in such steep decline. I hope the current (3rd rate) sci-fi, and reruns of shows from the glory days, are enough to inspire *some* of our next generation into sci/tech related vocations.

[Edit 2014-10-21 - Minor corrections and kermode video fixed.]

Classic Lewy - Musical Composition on Evolution

On BBC2 last night - "Classic Goldie": The famous drum'n'bass populariser composes a piece for the 2009 Proms with full orchestra and choir. Themed on (his interpretation of) evolution; Starts with big bang, has tribal phases, spirituality heavy, etc. It's not that surprising that he manages to pull it off with some style, despite having no formal musical training and being initially unable to read notation; he has a professional composer as a personal assistant, an operator to solidify all the details onto computer and an entire orchestra of the most talented musical minds in the country to inspire and assist him.

[Above: compossition of 2 screen shots from the show, via iPlayer]

+ Anyway, I couldn't help thinking about how I would go about creating a piece embodying evolution, starting from the *very beginning*, especially having recently been thinking about genes, memes, and temes.

It would be:

- A musicalisation (audio equivalent to visualisation) of an exponentially scaled (allegorical) history of the universe.

- It would have to show patterns (refrains), like sections of genetic code, cropping up, being copied/repeated (to other instruments), being slightly modified (some fail = stop, some continue & expand in length/complexity). The layers build up on top of one another, being played simultaneously, like a food web/musical ecology.

- A fairly simple concept that would take a musical genius (not me!) to make sound good, as well as being informative. The important bit would be the evolution of tunes ('melod-emes' as i call them), the linear history of time structure could be stripped away if desired.

+ Structure wise it would go somewhat like this:

- Start with a very, very rapidly crescendoing roar of every instrument played evenly (no distinguishable stick impacts or anything).

{inflation}

- The homogeneous roar slowly diminuendos, abruptly cutting out (but not *quite* all at once), leaving part of the percussion department still going.

{first atoms form, universe becomes transparent}

- Distinct beats can be discerned, but in no pattern and very rapid. Low, quiet tone from across the whole orchestral slides very slowly (so at first is not noticed; it has been there since transparency), then increasingly rapid, as it gets higher pitched, culminating in a blowtorch noise {stars ignite}. Perhaps a series of sliding notes from different parts of the orchestra (getting closer together in time) each resulting in a new layer of blowtorch noise.

{gravity takes hold; formation of galaxies, stars ignite}

- Difficult... but most of the layers of blowtorch noise would stop with a crash, one at a time.

{heavier elements synthesised & supernovas}

- Cyclical rhythms emerge in percussion, the more wild/haphazard/syncopated ones end abruptly end (in very loud bangs), leaving one steady beat (no syncopation).

{planetary systems resolve to stable orbits}

- Percussive bangs (not as loud as the planetary collisions, but the tail end of them), frequent but tailing off. Blowtorch still quiet in background. During the bigger gaps between bangs, bits of tune start to emerge, then are temporarily silenced by a bang (or 2), before resuming (the same, timid, simple tune (on one instrument)).

{Cometary impacts}

Difficult to represent asteroids bringing water to the earth's surface unless imitating or using recordings of ocean (wave) sounds, and splashes; don't want the piece to turn into a clip-art esq collection of sound effects!

- Several fairly discordant melod-emes (i.e. tune ideas/memes) might be heard around one section of the orchestra (at random timings, on different instruments of e.g. the string section) then one catchy melodic tune appears and is repeated immediately across that section (so becoming louder, more distinguishable), then split octaves (for cello vs viola), harmonised too perhaps.

{organic chemistry leads to self replicating molecules & genes}

- The above process is repeated for each new section of instruments {species of animal}. In principle they should start with the same tune as the section before, then embellish and add to it. The effect should be a little like singing "London's Burning" in rounds, but much more complicated and with intermediate steps (which are free to clash a little with the existing notes for a while).

{building of ecosystems}

The first melod-eme could start on double-base (e.g. 3-4-3-1-2-4-repeat; bass riff notes), repeating every bar. Then cello (or whatever) joins in the same tune for a bar before adding additional notes in-between on the next repetition. (now i'm just thinking of a jazz number with each instrument coming in, in turn until the star trumpet/clarinet player really takes the tune away into ad-lib craziness. Not quite what i was aiming for, but a good alternative.)

Harmonies/chords on the same (set of) instrument(s) could represent {multicellular organisms}, but perhaps that's a bit of a stretch of interpretation.

- After the bunches of tunes have reached crescendo for a little while (and been dominated by low brass instruments {dinosaurs}), another cometary crash silences the more complicated (recently added) half of instruments/tunes. A new set of melod-emes emerges (more rapidly this

time) along a distinctly different feel of refrain.

{mass extinction > beginning of mammals}

- Need a particularly catchy tune (melod-eme) for humans, medium long, and perhaps on an instrument/played in a way that definitely hasn't been heard yet (in the piece).

{humans}

- Much of the detail of different/convoluted tunes across different instruments can be stripped away now, being replaced by/turning into harmonies of that fit with the dominant {human} tune.

{Agriculture/animal domestication, massive extinction}

- Choir would come in at this point, no words as such (obviously would spoil the music as an analogy, rather than dialogue), should give a ominous effect. Drops away a little as the next feature comes in fully.

{religion}

- Synth/electric instruments (perhaps traditional rock band set) kick in with their own (complimentary, but more jagged/cutting/staccato) tunes.

{technology memes}

This has now become distinctly rock music (with orchestral backing). 2 drum fills could be inserted for the world wars.

- Volume is now becoming unbearably loud, with lots of extra detail stemming from and fitted around the main human refrain (that has transferred dominance to the electric instruments (perhaps lead by lead-guitar)). Extra layers of guitar and funky beats joining in.

{20th century => Current => G.N.R. revolutions}

- Perhaps a very rapid electronic tuned synth whizzing around everywhere like at insanely fast auto (tone) dialler/modem.

{Internet through to AI}

All tunes/rhythms/patterns that have been heard throughout the piece join back in for a brief, orgasmic climax (fairly strong choir/religious sound permitted, but not dominant).

{Singularity}

- Ending is a paradox, because the Singularity (and evolution itself IMHO) is all about eternal progress, without end, in subjective time. I think, if the roar of orgasmic detail where to inverse rapid-fade (like a backwards explosion/cymbal crash) to deliberately mirror the very beginning (of the piece), that would be as good as could be done:

That way it shows the perspective from real time (if we have Tiplerian Singularity in a closed universe). It also rounds off the whole of existence; there is nothing external to the piece, no before or after movements; all of the meaning/purpose/detail is contained within. And the manically chaotic ending roar is shown to be the polar opposite of the homogeneous beginning roar (having experienced all the details being built up), despite it sounding indistinguishable on first impressions.

[Above: a little composition by me for this article]

+ In principle the music should build up in layers, each on top of the next; the blow torch of the suns, rhythm of the orbits, basic repetitive first tunes {of the micro-organisms}, should continue in the background behind the detail of everything that comes thereafter (like the foundations of an upside-down pyramid). In practice they will definitely need to be gradually faded down to allow the next layer to be properly heard, and probably faded out altogether (until the very end).

+ Writing the combined, interlocking ecosystem of tunes for the end of the piece will be almost all of the work. From there, one can work backwards, taking out notes and simplifying rhythms, making deviations for failed attempts {at species} and writing the alternative {dinosaurs} themed tuned section.

- An existing piece of music (with sufficient depth of layers) could be deconstructed in a similar manner, for this purpose.

- Fragments of Well known tunes could be incorporated into the piece for an ultimate mash-up. However, this would distract too much from the overall meaning of the piece (if that was what was considered important); listeners would start playing name the song.

- The deconstruction could be done automatically with an algorithm/AI. Or built up dynamically using genuine evolutionary algorithms, with a fitness function that rates the resulting listenability or the music (the difficult bit; getting an AI to appreciate music effectively).

+ It might be possible to get the bare bones of this idea done with just jazz band (or even rock band) instruments... That should certainly keep it from getting unhearably complex. In the mid section that would be desirable, but at the end that's the exact effect aimed for. Would have to increase the tempo instead to achieve the same effect.

+ I just realised that a visualisation made to fit with my hypothetical composition would be somewhat like a scientifically rigorous version of the "Big Bang Theory" introduction... They'd do well to replace their original (annoying as hell) theme tune with a (highly condensed) version of my composition!

[Above: another collage of mine - "Evolution of Musicianship?"]

On: Neon Genesis Evangelion

The series starts out looking like it's a shallow minded mega-mecha romp, catering to a Japanese obsession with giant humanoid robots. Only a few subtle pointers suggest otherwise: some non-linear story telling, and a focus on paralysing psychological problems on a part of the main character.

Pay attention to the details that flash past in the lengthy titles if you want some early clues about things. The title music is a purpose written, cheesy, Japanese synth-heavy song (with often indecipherable translation), and the outros are (sometimes amusingly) different versions of “Fly Me to the Moon” in 'Engrish'.

The "Eva" mecha things, each piloted by specific kids, blunder through 1 battle per episode, each against a unique "Angel". It begins to get formulaic; a cross between that awful 70s TV sci-fi "UFO" and Zoids. The whole set up seems pretty arbitrary and silly in many ways. But hidden depths are slowly revealed, until, by mid series, the episodes undergo a phase change, to earnest plot development.

There are no explicit explanations by the end; the last 2 episodes are almost entirely a surrealistic exploration inside the psyche of the main character(s) mind(s). Considering, at length, the meaning of personal existence and the identity, finally resolving into acceptance and connection/merging will all other character[']s [minds/souls]. This is the Human Instrumentality Project, that has apparently been the mysterious goal of the powers that be all along.

Religion:

There's many Judea-Christian references throughout, mostly symbolic to start with, then more explicit and apocrypha (outside of modern Biblical Cannon) as the plot progresses. The Dead Sea Scrolls predicting Angel attacks (and more), the Eva's being clones of Adam (not robots at all) and humans being referred to as Lilims (i.e. from Judaism: Daughters of Lilith (Adam's first wife) and the Angle of death)... Christianity represents only 1% of Japan's population, so all these references are, I suppose, a mirror of the western portrayal of Eastern Mysticism: exotic, strange and scary.

Sexuality:

Part of the popularity of this series is, I imagine, that 3 of the 4 main characters are attractively drawn females, 2 of which/whom are about 15 years old. These could be murky waters to tread, but I think it's covered artfully, tastefully and realistically. Certainly the earlier episodes do offer a serving of titillation from the self-consciously sexy “Misato” (adult), but this is all part of lulling the viewer into a false sense of security, later broken as the depths of this character out. “Asuka” is a fiery girl desperately hung up on, and continually offering her body to, an older guy, to no avail. “Rei” is the quiet enigma (and prime selling merchandise figure), a total loner. Will she eventually fall into Shinji's arms, or perhaps turn out to be his sister (Starwars Style)? The closer she's inspected, the odder she seems: caring less about Shinji accidentally falling on her naked body, than the safety of a pair of broken spectacles. All nudity is purposeful and tasteful (unrealistically so, with nipples sometimes absent).

Shinji's orientation is a little ambiguous: he appears to lust after each of the female leads at some point. But “Kaworu” turns up towards the end, a charismatic boy who invites him to sit and talk naked in the showers, later holding his hand, then saying he loves him... I think Shinji is just relieved to find someone he can talk to and trust. And Kaworu saying “I think I was born to meet you” is clearly more about the fate of the world, given that he's an Angel and all.

Future Technology Compliance:

It seems like a complete failure at first: IRL we're 6 years from the primary setting (2015), and there's no sign of gigantic robot warriors, or sky scrapers that can be lowered into a subterranean abyss (leave alone “2nd impact” that happens in 2000). But given that the Eva's aren't actually mecha, but rather supernaturally derived entities essential to the core of the plot, this is excusable. Also, the enormous underground (lost world style) cavern, is implied to have been a [divine] creation (probably 1st impact; where Lilith, the 2nd angle usurped Adam, and gave birth to the human race, according to Wikipedia), and the city has been planned from scratch as a defendable fortress.

The near-future time-line being so close to the creation of the series (1995), presumably came about because it was so tempting to tie in the “2nd Impact” with the turn of the millennium, associated with a 2nd coming of Christ. Also, the plot relies heavily on having post pubescent child pilots, so that sets the main time frame at 14-15 years after 2nd impact: 2015. So not just arbitrary use of artist licence there.

On predicting everyday tech (in 2015) the series does OK (on balance), though perhaps it didn't bother at all, and that's just what *Japan* was like in 1995 (being so ahead of us): there's a total lack of flat screen desktop computer monitors, and “Shinji” (main character) continually listens to a cassette walkman. But the kids do all use little laptops in school, and the infrastructure of society (transport, electricity, most buildings, construction engineering) seems down to earth and sound enough (apart from a few niggles, like how exactly entire, massive Eva units are recovered from from smoking wrecks, out in the field).

Mobile phones are almost common enough, but there's no particular signs of Internet (in stark contrast to the anime film "Ghost in the Shell" from the same year), with heavy reliance on traditional voice only communications: answer machines and such. This is feasible, and anyway ties in with portraying aspects of emotion/psychology during certain events.

In fact, psychology is arguably the main theme of the series; all 4 main characters have enormous difficulties with self worth, identity and/or social interactions. (apparently resulting from writer/director Hideaki Anno's previous major depression.) These problems are impossible to ignore, when watching the series, getting frustrating almost to the point of annoyance (that the charters just can't console each other, or even get along civilly in the face of annihilation!). But there's undisputedly a beauty to the darkness, particularly with “Asuka” going from super-confident, bossy, show-off down an unrelenting spiral as her ego unravels towards suicide.

Again, in contrast to GITS, there is no (strong) AI, instead there are a trio of massive super computers based around biological brains, copied from an existing human. Even the “dummy plugs” (to control the Eva's without a pilot) turn out to be have been driven by soul-less clones of “Rei”. (Though it's far from clear on exactly what was supposed it going on there.)

There was super intelligence though; the ultimate goal of (the illuminate esq) “Seele” and the conclusion of the series: the “Human Instrumentation[/Complementation] Project” appears to be the merging of (all) human minds/souls into one, heavenly mind. There doesn't appear to be any physical method for this, purely the metaphysics the series is predicated on: breaking down of inter-personal AT fields, that boarder and protect human (and apparently angel) souls, allowing a merging referred to as the next stage of “evolution” and a return to the “primordial soup” (by far the worst mincing of science in the whole franchise...eww!).

Apart from this metaphysical silliness and the pseudo-religious references (to some extent), I quite like their definition of self: formed and shaped by interaction with others and self. Episode 25 and 26 even seem to feature versions of other characters that exist within the mind/soul of Shinji in a way reminiscent of Douglas Hofstadter's “I am a Strange Loop” (perhaps Hideaki Anno was influenced by "Godel Escher and Bach"); little doll-like personality simulations, in one's brain, that can be considered themselves to be little souls.

* Death and Rebirth

It may seem to be a summary of the series, but that's an impossible task to fit a 1 hour format. Instead it mostly just flushes out the main characters a little in readiness for the End of Evangelion movie. It almost exclusively uses footage from the original series, but in very short clips, flashing back and forth anachronistically. The result is a completely different beast to the series; simply being no time to explore the subtle development of the expansive emotional landscape of, loneliness, fear, anger and small reconciliations (that mean so much when they eventually come). Instead an impression of frantic adventure comes across. For example: among the rapid fire of clips, there is an indulgence in including the long silence, in the lift, between Rei and Asuka, which hints at the nature of the series, but I think it misses it's mark here, it's too incongruous, there wasn't the necessary context to appreciate it's emotional depth.

It might serve as a good reminder for those who've seen the whole series a while ago, but I'd imagine that naive viewers would get no idea of the chronology of events, it seems to me that it would be impossible to tell what had happened at all, even confusing which characters were being shown at times (e.g. it kinda looks like Misato accidentally goes back to bed next to Shinji, not Asuka). There is no mystery or build up to revelations, certainly there is no time for the false sense of situational stasis characterising the first half of the series.

* End of Evangelion

There is a blatant disconnect between the end of Episode 24, and the (controversial) mysterious ending, which is basically a dream sequence, explaining nothing. There's brief imagery that suggests both Misato and Ritsuko have been shot, but that's about it. Apparently Hideaki Anno was unable to finish the series to his satisfaction, due to practical limitations put upon him. There's even some imagery in the episode's title sequence that only later turns up in this 2 hour movie (e.g. Unit01 unfurling it's yellow wing things). Part 1 fills much of that gap with an emotional-roller-coaster-come-meat-grinder of solid events and a genuinely spine-tingling battle.

Be warned, if you've watch (and enjoyed) the whole series, you're about to see everything ripped, painfully to shreds with great style and tragic finesse. At the intermission we're left wondering if Shinji's about to kick some serious arse in an apocalyptic looking Unit01?... Part 2 holds no such promise, it's purely the final lament towards Armageddon (and beyond) that's been inevitable since the beginning. The Lilith/Rei goddess is (re)born very stylishly, supernatural essences merge, and the fate of humanity rests entirely in the mind of a boy who's gone way past post traumatic stress disorder, into the realms of crippling psychosis.

This was a brave ending: an epic tragedy, done the way only anime does (I've not seen a Hollywood blockbuster dare to *actually* go through with ending the world!). The fact that the series *has* an ending, and was indeed written to be a discrete (but comprehensive) statement, gives it major kudos with me. I'm not very keen on the use of real world footage towards the end (it kind of breaks the '4th wall'), but that was probably just to help really bring his message home...

“Human souls create their own bodies.”... etc, is clearly a crock of shit if taken literally. I doubt it's meant to be. “Imagination and creative power will create the future for us, and the flow of time.” Is something I believe in; our future is primarily shaped by our desires, which are only limited by our imaginations, the Singularity cometh and these will be realised, and so on. But, I reckon Hideaki Anno sees his work more philosophically as a metaphor for every-day social interaction between people; their inherent loneliness; a built in incompleteness. And probably an examination of personal difficulties he's had; the recurrent theme of running away, deliberate isolation from fear of being hurt; translates to the ultimate defensive technology: the “AT field” standing for “Absolute Terror”; the intangible boundary between minds (AKA souls), that may seem impenetrable to any possible exertions, when one's clinically depressed, has some other mental illness, or is just alive. Neon Genesis Evangelion is an olive branch extended to the world.