The Daily Shaft Archive

0

A PoR Public Service Announcement: Do not Submit Your Fiction to Starburst Magazine

Though I’ve only sold one short story in my life, I’ve had a great many stories rejected. Moreover, I’ve been getting rejected long enough to feel a certain amount of confidence in my ability to parse submission guidelines and the rights that magazines/publishers are looking to buy. In a recent attempt to find a home for my fiction I came across Starburst Magazine. After reading their submission guidelines I feel fully confident in saying the following:

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTNACES SHOULD ANY WRITER SUBMIT A PIECE OF THEIR ORIGINAL FICTION TO STARBURST MAGAZINE.

At the time of this post, Starburst continues to accept submissions for original fiction. For the sake of convenience, I’ve reproduced their guidelines below.

Would you like to see your original fiction featured in the pages of Starburst Magazine or online at www.starburstmagazine.com? Then you’ve come to the right place! We’re currently on the lookout for sci-fi, fantasy and/or horror themed short stories, so if you’d like to submit yours for consideration, email it to:

rylan.cavell@starburstmagazine.com

Stories must be 100% your own material, previously unpublished, between 800 – 1600 words in length (for print) and categorically NOT about the zombie apocalypse. (Seriously, we love a good zombie yarn as much as the next person, but the amount of these things out there right now is frightening. And not in the good way.)

Please note: If published, Starburst will retain copyright, but any further use beyond the above will be subject to renegotiation. Additionally, while every effort is made, the demands of the submissions process deem it difficult to offer critiques on all material sent in.

I see two problems with these guidelines. First, they don’t talk about payment. Even if a magazine doesn’t pay, it should say so in the guidelines. More troublesome though is the final paragraph.

“Starburst will retain copyright?” What? That’s not right. By those terms a person submitting their fiction to Starburst is not offering it for sale but surrendering the ownership of said story.

I reached out to Starburst for clarification, assuming this was all just a mistake on my part or a typo on theirs. Here’s my email.

To the editors,

I am writing regarding your submission guidelines for original fiction.

You do not list any per-word or flat rate for payment. At this time are you offering payment for accepted submissions?

You also state that Starburst will retain copyright upon publication of a story. This suggests that you are buying the story outright and in perpetuity. Is this an accurate interpretation?

Cordially yours,

Adam Shaftoe

Starburst responded with the following:

Good evening,

Thank you for your interest in Starburst Magazine. At the current time we are not offering payment. When and if published Starburst will own the rights to the fiction, but this can be renegotiated in the future if needs be.

I hope this clears up any confusion

Rylan

For the record, reputable magazines do not bring up copyright except to reaffirm that it remains in the hands of the author. A sample contract from Lightspeed Magazine illustrates this previous point.  A magazine buys, or is given, certain publication rights. Starburst’s guidelines are on par, if not worse, than what we’ve seen recently from scummy publishers who try to gimmick neophyte writers into surrendering all rights until the sun explodes. At least in those cases the author is still the legal owner of the work in question.

Though I am not a lawyer, it seems to me that these these guidelines are so poorly written that they may not even be actionable under the laws of gods and men – at least not without a highly unconventional contract to support Starburst’s ownership claim on printed fiction. Regardless, the publishers of Starburst Magazine, either out of slime-bag malice or colossal ignorance, have set up a system which appears to appropriate the work of the artists they purport to showcase. This will not do at all.

I encourage all writers, readers, and interested parties to boycott Starburst Magazine, and share any outrage they may feel with the magazine’s editorial team until such time as Starburst’s submission policies reflect a more responsible and equitable approach to publication.

Contacts at Starburst Magazine

EDITOR

Jordan Royce jordan.royce@starburstmagazine.com

ASSISTANT EDITOR

Kris Heys kris.heys@starburstmagazine.com

PR LIAISON

Phil Perry phil.perry@starburstmagazine.com


1

Predictions on CBS’ New Season

Let’s play a game, shall we? I’m going to go through the press release on CBS’ new 2013-14 primetime series, as pillaged from TV Line.com, and make some predictions on how I think they will do. Ready? Here goes.

Crazy Ones (Comedy)
EP | David E. Kelley (Harry’s LawAlly McBeal)
DIRECTOR | Jason Winer (Modern Family)
CAST | Robin Williams (Mork & Mindy), James Wolk (Political Animals), Sarah Michelle Gellar (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Ringer), Hamish Linklater (The New Adventures of Old Christine), Amanda Setton (Mindy Project)

Log line: A father/daughter workplace comedy set in the world of advertising.

Prediction: So we’re getting a lighter hearted version of Mad Men, interesting. Buffy fans are going to go ape shit for this series because OMG BUFFY! ZOMFG! Meanwhile, Boomers will hail the return of Robin Williams to television. Williams won’t be quite as manic (or funny) as people would hope for, but he’ll be good enough to get the show picked up for a second season within nine episodes.

The Millers (Comedy)
EP | Greg Garcia (Raising Hope)
DIRECTOR | James Burrows
CAST | Will Arnett (Up All Night), Margo Martindale (The Americans), Beau Bridges (My Name Is Earl), JB Smoove (Curb Your Enthusiasm), Mary Elizabeth Ellis (It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia), Michael Rapaport (The Mob Doctor)

Log line: The multi-cam project revolves around a recently divorced man living with his parents.

Prediction: On paper, this should work. This is a talented cast with no shortage of Emmy pedigree. James Burrows has been directing smart TV comedies for longer than I’ve been alive. The problem, as I see it, is that ABC already beat CBS to the punch on this one with the dreadful Sarah Chalke comedy, How to Live With Your Parents (For the Rest of Your Life). The comparisons will be inevitable, and The Millers won’t do nearly as well as it would have under other circumstances. They’ll make it to the finish line of their first season, but not even a Will Arnett chicken dance will see it to a second season.

Mom (Comedy)
EPs | Chuck Lorre, Eddie Gorodetsky and Gemma Baker (Two and a Half Men)
DIRECTOR | Pam Fryman (How I Met Your Mother)
CAST | Anna Faris (The House Bunny), Allison Janney (The West Wing), Nate Corddry (Harry’s Law), Matt Jones (Breaking Bad), French Stewart (3rd Rock From the Sun), Spencer Daniels (The Office), Sadie Calvano (J. Edgar), Blake Garrett Rosenthal

Log line: A newly sober single mom tries to pull her life together in Napa Valley in the multi-cam sitcom.

Prediction: French Stewart in a Chuck Lorre series? No good can come from this. I foresee maudlin pathos grabs in every episode, ultimately leading to “feel good” comedy. Despite the fact that anybody with half a brain will see through Mom as dim witted schmaltz, it will get picked up for a million seasons and become the new Two and a Half Men.

We Are Men (Comedy)
EP | Rob Greenberg (How I Met Your Mother)
CAST | Jerry O’Connell (The Defenders), Kal Penn (House), Tony Shalhoub (Monk), Chris Smith (Paranormal Activity 3)

Log Line: A ditched groom moves into a short-term housing complex and makes friends with some older, divorced dudes in the single-cam sitcom.

Prediction: Brosplosion! Part of me, the very dark part that feeds on the misery of others, wants to watch Jerry O’Connell-Romijn sad-sack it up. Though there will be lots of potential for smart writing, I foresee a cloud of Kirk Van Houten oafishness and some wholesale misogyny poisoning the show for anybody who isn’t a bro. It will get cancelled before it has a chance to get to the back nine.

Hostages (Drama)
EPs | Jerry Bruckheimer (CSI), Rick Eid (CSI, Dark Blue)
CAST | Dylan McDermott (American Horror Story), Toni Collette (United States of Tara), Tate Donovan (Deception), Sandrine Holt (House of Cards), Rhys Coiro (Entourage), Billy Brown (The Following), James Naughton (Gossip Girl), Mateus Ward, Quinn Shephard

Log Line: Based upon the Israeli format, the project centers on a family caught in the middle of a grand political conspiracy and a righteous FBI agent at the center of said conspiracy whose role will come as a surprise.

Prediction: This sounds like a network equivalent to Homeland. The cast is solid. Moreover, Bruckheimer’s reputation as an EP speaks for itself. Where ABC tried and failed with smart, high-stakes geopolitical drama in Last Resort, I anticipate Hostages will pull back a bit and let the audience latch on to individual character conflicts rather than selling the politics outright. I think this one will finish its first season, and likely get picked up for a second, if only because it will attract a following from fans of CSI and The Practice.

Intelligence (Drama)
EPs | Michael Seitzman, David Semel (No Ordinary Family), Tripp Vinson, Rene Echevarria (Terra Nova)
DIRECTOR | David Semel (No Ordinary Family)
CAST | Josh Holloway (Lost), Marg Helgenberger (CSI), Meghan Ory (Once Upon a Time), Michael Rady (Emily Owens, M.D.), James Martinez (Breaking Bad), John Billingsley (True Blood)

Log line: Centered at US Cyber Command, and focuses on a unit that has been created around one agent with a very special gift, a microchip that has been implanted in his brain that allows him to access the entire electromagnetic spectrum.

Prediction: Much as it pains me to say it, I don’t think the only show that remotely qualifies as SF in CBS’ lineup will make the cut. While I blame Brandon Braga for most of Terra Nova’s failures, Echevarria’s association will be something of a poison pill. Despite featuring that guy from Lost, the pitch sounds a lot like 24 meets The Six Million Dollar Man. Genre fans will give it a go but I doubt a man with (insert ray) vision will attract enough of a broad audience to lock down a second season, at least not when people can watch Person of Interest. CBS will try to ride it out, but I expect a quiet cancellation after the finale.

And there we have it. Now to sit back and bask in my prescience, or suffer the jeers of my readers when I get everything totally wrong. Tell you what, let’s make this interesting. If I don’t bat at least .500 on this one, I shall make some sort of act of contrition, to be named by my readers, on a future podcast. My fate is in your hands.


0

The People Versus Zach Braff

I was content to leave Zach Braff’s Wish I Was Here controversy alone. I said my piece on celebrities using Kickstarter during my last podcast. But upon witnessing the sheer condescension and doublethink of Mr. Braff’s recent knee jerk to criticism, I’ve decided to build upon my past dialogue.

I view Kickstarter, Indiegogo, and other crowd sourcing platforms as a very high class form of begging, and that’s fine. People who pass the digital plate around are usually saying, “I don’t have the money to do x, but here’s my plan, and this is the endgame. Please invest without actually buying stock.” In theory, crowd sourcing then works as a meritocracy. The essential problem here is that mixing celebrity sponsored projects into the equation has the potential to skew what should be a level playing field.

In this case, it is fair to ask if Zach Braff met his funding goals because people believed in his creative vision, or if adoring fans supported the object of their affection, regardless of the value of his project. The latter becomes problematic and potentially exploitative. I doubt Kickstarter’s founders would claim that the intended purpose of their platform was to facilitate celebrities leveraging their notoriety as a means of funding vanity projects. And in the eyes of this critic, there is a very fine line between passion project and vanity project.

In the wake of criticism from the likes of Ken Lavine, and the internet at large, Braff made the mistake of taking to youtube to defend himself. NB: I say this as somebody who quite enjoyed Garden State and mostly liked his work on Scrubs. So, dear reader, please do not assume I am jumping on board the hate for hate’s sake bandwagon. Where Braff should have applied his celebrity sensibilities and ignored his detractors, he instead he got righteous with the internet.

Braff opens with an attempt to establish a sense of legitimacy as both a citizen of the internet and film maker. Fair enough, I’ll concede Braff’s knowledge of directing outstrips mine. Unfortunately, this opening salvo very quickly turns into a sort of narcissistic doublethink. Braff points out his “huge” social media following, suggesting that “it would only take 20,000 or 30,000 people giving ten bucks a piece” to make his movie. Never mind that he set a fundraising goal of two million for Wish I Was Here; let’s stop and parse his statement. Zach Braff has over a million followers on Twitter. In his hypothetical situation Braff would be mobilizing a mere 2.5% of that fan base. To put this in context, if 2.5% of my twitter followers (at the time of this post) gave me 10 bucks for a production I’d have about $100 – enough for one new podcast quality microphone, but not the mic stand. Perhaps there is something to be said for the online community raising questions about (ab)use of star power in this situation.

Braff further attempts to leverage himself as a member of an online community when he is directly pressed on his celebrity status as a key to kickstarter success. In answering this question he segues into an anecdote involving his publicist reminding him that he was writing a production blog for Garden State before blogging was a mainstream thing. Ah, hipsterism at its finest.

The problem is that Braff doesn’t seem to realize that any points he may have scored for being “one of us” are now tallied against the fact that he’s the kind of person who begins a story with “my publicist just reminded me.” How many other people seeking funding for projects on Kickstarter have publicists? I don’t begrudge Braff his success, and subsequent need for a public relations person. Yet it remains difficult to buy into his dialogue of egalitarian oneness when he’s invoking something that is closely related to celebrity exceptionalism.

In a further discussion on community Braff discusses how he received unsolicited concept art from a German fan. Braff appears genuinely grateful for the support. Yet he never seems to acknowledge that his role in the community is of a first among equals. We might all part of an online space, but not everybody gets people doing things for free on their behalf. By virtue of his mainstream celebrity, he is predisposed to a certain type and quantity of sweat equity that other independent producers can only imagine. Again, this is fine. But when Braff idly suggests that he could call Bill Lawrence if he wanted to really make money, in lieu of working on an independent production, he’s not demonstrating humility; he’s projecting an air of cluelessness about the connections he has within the entertainment industry. Where other producers on Kickstarter will be scrounging talented volunteers, and daring to hope for mainstream recognition, Braff has a rolodex of established industry professionals to call upon. On some level, he must recognize that he’s not just some kid from Jersey with a video camera and a pocket full of dreams. Joss Whedon might have made Doctor Horrible as an indie project, but he was still able to get Fillion and NPH on-board before they’d even seen a script. Braff isn’t Whedon, but he moves in similar circles. Any pretensions otherwise land as, at best, flaky, and at worst, dishonest.

Perhaps the most damning parts of the interview occur when Braff speaks to his critics. He begins with humility but then transitions into condescension: “Those of us involved in social media, or are very web savvy, had to see this was coming.” Really, Zach? What does that mean? Seems to me like you’re suggesting those who disagreed with your vision aren’t as plugged in as you are? He also chalks up the “head scratching and vitrol” directed toward his campaign as a reaction to the unexpected speed with which his movie was funded. It’s all very polite, but there’s a distinct subtext of righteous indignation to Braff’s words. It is as if he’s saying that those who agree with him are clearly hipper than those who dare to question what is happening.

To reiterate, my ultimate point of contention is not with Braff as being “too rich” or too successful to use kickstarter. I don’t have access to his books, so I won’t speculate. I do suspect a great many people find his justification for using kickstarter distasteful. Similarly, his demands for total creative control might echo as hollow and self-aggrandizing. For me, the crux of this issue is Braff’s faux humility and strategic application of doublethink.

Braff talks about nobody making money on indie art house projects. Yet Garden State is an incredibly successful movie in terms of money. It cost, according to Box Office Mojo, $2.5 million to produce and grossed $26.7 million. He talks about Wish I Was Here as a passion project, but then discusses “Presale territories”, and commitments to screen in Rome, Berlin, and Paris. This is not the voice of an “indie” artist who has maxed his credit cards and borrowed from his parents just to submit to a local festival a la Kevin Smith’s Clerks. What it seems like is Zach Braff using Kickstarter to fund Zach Braff Studios, all the while invoking “community” and film school sensibilities as a smoke screen. This is  why people are mad at you, Zach Braff. This is why you need to shut up for a while, then say thank you a few thousand times before making your picture. You said it yourself, Zach, vis-a-vis the disaster of Morgan Freeman’s Reddit AMA, “People can smell bullshit,” and right now your riposte video stinks to the high heavens.


0

The Odd Legacy of Star Trek TNG’s The High Ground

If Captains’ Logs: The Unauthorized Complete Trek Voyages is to believed then The High Ground is one of TNG’s most internally lamented episodes. For those who don’t recall this third season story, it’s the one where Doctor Crusher gets kidnapped by space terrorists, who then hold her captive in exchange for aid from the Federation in securing their country’s sovereignty from planet Rutia’s world government.

Ron Moore called the episode “an abomination.” Moore goes on to say,

“We didn’t have anything interesting to say about terrorism except that it’s bad and Beverly gets kidnapped – ho hum. They take her down to the caves and we get to have nice, big preachy speeches about terrorism and freedom, fighting and security forces versus society. It’s a very unsatisfying episode and the staff wasn’t really happy with it.”

Michael Piller, credited as The High Ground’s co-executive producer, questioned the overall statement the story made about terrorism.

“Was it the point where the boy puts down the gun and says, ‘Maybe the end of terrorism is when the first child puts down his gun?’ It was effective in the context of that show, but is certainly not a statement that provides any great revelation.”

Given that the IRA crisis was far from resolved when the episode went to air in 1990, it is understandable why The High Ground was seen as a milquetoast affair in the face of a real social issue. The closest the episode comes to making an actual statement on terrorism is during a conversation between Data and Picard. Data cites Mexican independence from Spain as a precedent in support of violent insurgency as a last resort when attempting to bring about political change. Picard’s reaction to Data’s android innocence is to fall back on the series’ stock answer: “Well that’s just human nature and these are big questions for which there is no easy answer.” No wonder the writers were unhappy with the episode. At least when TNG married the prime directive with the war on drugs it came with the benefit of Lt. Yar admitting to the allure of chemical intoxication; albeit Wesley’s subsequent “I’ll never do drugs” comment was positively stomach churning.

 

Nearly a quarter of a century after The High Ground went to air, it’s interesting to note how closely the episode’s themes mirror our own contemporary dialogues on terror. Twenty-three years might have given us real world analogues to Star Trek’s PADDs, tricorders, phasers, and even a theoretical model for a warp drive, but clearly our sociology has lagged behind the science.

In the episode’s first act, Alexana Devos (Kerrie Keane), the head of Rutia’s security condemns the Ansata terrorist organization as a group of animals. She further paints the Ansata as “…fanatics who kill without remorse or conscience.” Please to note the othering of terrorists as sub-humans.

Devos’ attempts to ferret out the Ansata portray Rutia as a near police-state. Suspects with even the slightest ties to the Ansata are rounded up in mass arrests and questioned without formal charge or the benefit of legal counsel. Rutian methods extend so far as to arrest children and teenagers as potential Ansata sympathizers. Though nobody comes out and says it, the episode clearly implies that Rutia is a place where the average citizen is either with the government or the Ansata.

Meanwhile the Ansata view themselves as freedom fighters struggling against an oppressive regime. Kyril Finn (Richard Cox), leader of the Ansata, rationalizes himself to Dr. Crusher as a 24th century George Washington. When Crusher reminds Finn that Washington was a general and not a terrorist, Finn retorts that the difference between terrorists and generals is the difference between history’s winners and losers. This leads to an interesting point wherein Finn asks Doctor Crusher how much violence is buried in the Federation’s past? In terms of canon, quite a lot: The Eugenics Wars, World War 3, the Earth-Romulus war, and a century of cold war with the Klingon Empire. Finn throws the idealized world of the Federation in Doctor Crusher’s face to demonstrate the selective memory governments often utilize in the prosecution of terror while simultaneously ignoring their own “legitimate” uses of force.

When Finn takes Captain Picard hostage after a failed attempt to destroy the Enterprise, Doctor Crusher questions the difference between a mad man and a committed man willing to die for his principles. Picard, however, is utterly dismissive of the Doctor’s question. Having witnessed the Ansata murdering members of his crew, he is not inclined to entertain the broader issues of the Ansata conflict. Picard further marginalizes the Ansata position in his suggestion that Doctor Crusher’s entirely conceptual recognition of the Ansata cause is the product of Stockholm Syndrome.

Later in the episode a joint Starfleet-Rutian strike force assaults the Ansata compound. Picard and Crusher are liberated but Finn is assassinated in the process. Picard’s reaction to the kill is somewhere between indifference and tacit approval. Then, as if to wash the Federation’s hands of the entire situation, the Enterprise leaves Rutian security to deal with the aftermath of Finn’s martyrdom. At no point does anybody in a Starfleet uniform acknowledge the fact that the Federation has played an active part in making an unstable situation worse.

Given the way the word has changed over the last twelve years, it’s hard not to look at Rutia and see a blueprint for our world. Combatants turn each other into monsters to legitimize their respective actions. Disagreement is confused with dissent. Empathy is mistaken for sympathy. The High Ground may not have told the story that Melinda Snodgrass intended in 1990, a story which would have seen the Federation on the wrong side of history, but it does offer a clearly unexpected window into our own world.


1

Superman is a Broken Character, and Man of Steel Would be Right to Fix Him

Yesterday I read a story on io9 that struck a dissonant chord. You can read the full piece here. In short, Rob Bricken’s article argues that the rumoured changes to Superman in Man of Steel might serve to break Superman as a character. I respectfully disagree.

At the core of his argument, Mr. Bricken suggests that making Kal-El a Kryptonian in exile, sent to Earth without the benefit of Krypton being destroyed, removes the source of his pathos. To his point, I would argue that Superman has never been a pathos driven character. Granted, Superman manages to find a bit of time to lament a planet that he never knew. Yet when we set aside the maudlin storytelling, we have to ask ourselves what is in the crux of Superman’s story that would bring out genuine sympathy from the audience?

Young Kal-El was raised in a near Rockwellian environment within the heartland of America. His parents were the salt of the Earth at the height of America’s influence in the world. He didn’t have to stumble through the emergence of his powers, a la X-Men as a narrative on puberty. He was simply raised to believe that he was special by the most tolerant people in America. When the specialness wore off in the face of adulthood, Kal-El had what amounts to an AI construct of Jor-El to teach him about his Kryptonian heritage.

Even though Jonathan Kent died of a heart attack, his passing is hardly an Uncle Ben moment. There’s no lesson in vanity and selfishness to be found in Pa Kent’s death. Neither does the death push Kal-El across a line wherein he adopts Bruce Wayne’s need to reshape the world according to his own image. Poor Kal-El had to grow up with every physical, emotional, spiritual, and psychological advantage a person could hope for. Boo-freakin’-hoo.

But, Adam, Superman is the quintessential story of the American immigrant experience.

Really? Remind me what Superman had to do to assimilate into American culture? Did he have to learn English after a lifetime of speaking Kryptonian? Is there anything external to his image that identifies him as an other? That is to say, could he walk down the street without getting racial epithets tossed at him for having the wrong colour skin? Only when Kal-El assumes the mantle of superhero – an active choice on his part despite Jor-El’s instructions not to interfere with matters on Earth – does Superman other himself. What are the consequences of this othering? Instead of facing justifiable suspicion and fear at the hands of humanity, Superman is hailed as a champion. Then, just to drive home his sameness, Kal-El announces that he shares the same values inherent to his adopted country. Where is the pathos in this character? Who looks at Superman and goes, “Damn, he has it hard?” The only inherit adversity in Superman’s life rests within the realm of sophomoric jokes about Kryptonian ejaculations and the consequences of taco night.

If you want to talk about superheroes as an allegory for the immigrant experience, then the discussion begins and ends with the Manhunter from Mars, or possibly Wonder Woman. But I’ll save those for another time.

Since Man of Steel was announced I’ve also witnessed complaints about the Donner-era Superman movies and a resurgence of hate for Superman Returns. Perhaps the problem isn’t with those movies, but the nature of the character himself. How much deep story telling can an audience expect from a character who is always righteous and utterly unstoppable? When the only thing that can threaten superman is Kryptonite, how do you not use it in a movie?

Bearing this in mind, if Snyder and Warner Brothers are choosing to leave Krypton intact for this reboot, I don’t see it as an instant deal breaker. Instead, we could view it as an attempt to create a viable moral conflict for Superman. Man of Steal might be breaking Superman’s canon, but if we’re expecting more out of Superman than patriotic propaganda and/or pulpy pabulum then these are changes that need to happen. Otherwise Superman is never going to get a movie to rival Iron Man or Nolan’s Batman trilogy.


0

Trailer Takedown: After Earth

What in the hell is wrong with a world that allows M. Night Shyamalan to keep writing and directing movies? Is there nothing else out there? Are there no better screenplays floating around in Los Angeles’ Starbucks and indie hipster eco-friendly coffee collectives? Shyamalan might have brought in the money before we discovered his one and only narrative move, but lately he is not even a consistent box office draw. The Last Airbender’s lifetime gross is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 130 million dollars; the movie cost 150 million to produce. The Happening limped into the black drawing 64 million on a 48 million budget. And against all reason, it cost 75 million dollars to make Lady in the Water yet the movie only returned 42 million. How do you spend 75 million dollars on the Lady in the Water.

I know, I know, he didn’t spend the money personally. But since the Hollywood institution is so shameless in the way it relates ROI as a measure of a movie’s success, I thought I’d throw it in their face for once. Anyway, here’s the craptastic Earth Day themed trailer for After Earth.

“In 2071 we were forced to leave our world.”

You’ve got to be joking. How in the name of Lucifer’s beard do you expect to sell an audience on a planetary evacuation within the next 60 years? We can’t go to the moon with our technology as it is right now. A mere eleven seconds into this trailer and After Earth is already asking me to accept near-impossible innovations in heavy lift rockets, potentially FTL-travel, ecological engineering, human augmentation, terra forming, and probably two dozen other quantum leaps in human science. Forgive me for throwing out the bullshit flag.

Oh and while we’re tossing reality to the wind, let’s blow Will Smith out of a pressurized aircraft while it’s in flight and have him survive through the miracle of handwavium. I’ve met toddlers who wouldn’t up-check that scene.

“We are the first humans to set foot on this planet in over 1000 years…” but despite being removed from a terrestrial atmosphere, gravity, and air pressure, we require nothing but t-shirts and shorts to survive here. Hey, M. Night, I’ve got this great book I want you to read. Maybe you’ve heard of it? It’s called War of the Worlds.

“Everything has evolved to kill humans?”

This is me putting my face into my palm.

Somebody tell me there’s a hidden camera above my desk. There is so much wrong with that statement I don’t even know where to begin. Nature might be a bitch but she isn’t vindictive. Climate change might kill off animals but it doesn’t give them the ability to react to the things which produce climate change. Moreover, even if everything on the Earth was capable of evolving to kill humans over the course of a a millennium (not likely outside of X-Men) such a change would result in an exclusively and impossibly carnivorous biosphere. There is simply no way everything could be a human killer without all life wiping itself out or nature finding a herbivore/carnivore homeostasis.

“Danger is real, but fear is a choice?”

Dear Mr. Shyamalan, fear is a neuro-chemical reaction to external stimulus, which in turn prompts a fight-flight reaction in mammalian life. Your attempt at profundities is laughable.

Also, I’m sure there’s a good reason why a civilization which has mastered interplanetary travel only equips their ships with spears and space lances. One would think a conventional pistol or a phaser might be a bit more apropos for a movie set in the thirty-first century. And maybe it’s just me but are we really going with two black guys fighting animals in the jungle with primitive weapons for this story? Really? Okay. I’m sure that’s going to play really well. I can’t imagine a scenario where somebody might read into that and find a troubling subtext.

If this trailer was supposed to be After Earth’s big television debut, then I really have to question its effectiveness. The trailer might not overtly talk down to me as a viewer, but it certainly presumes heavily upon the audience’s willingness to indulge its bat shit crazy concepts. Being that this was my first exposure to After Earth I can’t say the trailer has done anything but make me want to eviscerate this movie when it comes to theatres.


1

Serialized Novels and eBooks: This Decade’s Power Couple?

From my very limited perspective on the world of genre publishing there seem to be two schools of thought when it comes to eBooks. There are the publishers who recognize eBooks as an environmentally responsible alternative to print books. Those same publishers also seem to look at the one-time cost of specialized typesetting as being offset by the absence ongoing publication expenses. To that end, these publishers price their eBooks well below the cost of their paperbacks. I like these publishers.

Then there are the other publishers. These fine folk seem inclined to hold on to the ancien regime of publication. This in turn results in near parity in pricing between print and digital copies of books. Case in point: the kindle edition of The Running Man currently costs $10.40. The list price for a paperback of the same book $7.99.

I see pricing patterns from the other publishers as a tad unjust. I don’t like it when corporate entities attempt to deal with me in an unfair fashion. Such actions stir the part of me who wants to download the whole internet for free, and can get away with it too because he’s not morbidly stupid. But let’s not open that debate. Instead let’s entertain the idea that there might be a better way for the other publishers to have their cake and eat it too.

Enter: the serialized novel.

For the last thirteen weeks I had turned Tuesday night into The Human Division night. I would come home from teaching, watch some junk tv with my dinner, and then buy the latest installment of John Scalzi’s novel. With each passing week, Tor Books earned themselves another 99 of my cents. The Human Division is now my most expensive eBook. Under normal circumstances I generally won’t pay more than seven or eight dollars for an eBook. Since I’m not getting a physical product, and I’m reasonably certain the writers aren’t collecting any more royalties off eBook sales than they are print copies, I won’t usually go past what I see as a threshold of publishers laughing their way to the bank or using eBooks as a sponge to clean up messes in print publishing. Yet I will spend 99 cents on a short story, assuming of course that I like the author in question. And what is a serialized novel but a collection of really tightly linked short stories?

Independent authors flogging their wares on Amazon know that the name of the game is making a million sales of the 99 cent eBook. So why shouldn’t larger publishers try out the same model? Why be slavish to the format of the novel, which in and of itself is a product of the business of 20th century publishing, if slightly changing that formula, at what ultimately amounts to a null cost to the publisher, will bring in a market of eBook buyers who were previously turning up their nose at perceived injustices in pricing?

Say nothing for the fact that where conventional novels might get their blog tours and hullabaloo a month or two before launch, the serialized novel has multiple release dates. A smart PR person could craft a social media and marketing campaign that brings something slightly new to the table over the course of three or four months. Rather than flogging the same tag lines and promoting interviews which vary on similar themes, publishers can react to readers on a week to week basis. To me, this sounds like a recipe for greater advertising penetration and thus more sales.

I’m not suggesting this would work for all novels and all writers. Frankly, I wouldn’t buy into a serialized novel without pre-existing experience with an author. Also, serialization requires a writer who is equally adroit in both long and short form. If somebody like Marie Bilodeau were to announce she was doing a serialized novel set in her Destiny’s Blood universe, I would respond with my best Philip J. Fry, “Shut up and take my money” meme.

Then again, I might be more inclined to roll the dice on a new writer if I’m only staking 99 cents against their ability to entertain me for the span of forty pages. So maybe this could be something to consider for neophytes and masters alike.

At any rate, I hereby present serialization as my alternative solution for publishers who insist on keeping parity pricing between print and electronic books. Such a plan might require foresight and a bit of planning on the PR front, but it taps directly into the internet’s culture of instant gratification. So long as the would-be serial is worth the computer code that went into typesetting it, why not take a page out of the past to capitalize on digital publication.


2

Trailer Breakdown: Elysium

Yesterday saw the trailer release for District 9 director Neill Blomkamp’s new feature film Elysium. I want to like this movie, honestly, I really do. I want to tell you that Blomkamp’s bringing it for all it’s worth in this trailer. And I want to hold on to the hope that a derivative trailer which evokes all the nuance of Total Recall (2012) is the result of broadly targeted marketing and not a reflection on the film at large. Because the reality is, I’m getting a bit tired of class warfare for the sake of class warfare in Hollywood productions.

 

It’s not that I have a problem with exploring economic disparity through film. It’s just that action movies may not be the best way to do it. District 9 got the job done through a pseudo-documentary approach to storytelling. Elysium, at least in its current state, looks more like In Time than it does District 9. So right off the bat the trailer manages to evoke more suspicion than wonder.

0 to 44 seconds

Dear Hollywood, please stop using the Inception bwangh. Will somebody do me the kindness of explaining the current fixation with that sound effect?

Anyway welcome to Elysium, a space station named after the fabled paradise of Greek mythology. Landscapes and wide shots set a scene which looks nothing short of gorgeous. Clean lines, tropical plants, and safe looking white people populate a land made for the privileged. Much like the mythical afterlife, there’s no disease on Elysium. The only close shots within this first part of the trailer show a sunbather crawling into a coffin-like machine, adorned with a bronze representation of Panacea (I guess), the Greek goddess of universal remedies. In Stargate fashion, the coffin cures the sunbather of pre-cancerous cells, leaving her “100% clear”.

44 seconds to 1:22

Flash a few title cards and then cut to a wide flyby of a ruined cityscape to reveal that everybody who isn’t living on Elysium is living in squalor on Earth. And this is where I call shenanigans on the trailer.

Even if I muster up all the suspension of disbelief necessary to imagine a future where sometime between tomorrow and the middle of the 22nd century Humanity will be capable of building an orbital colony which looks as breathtaking as the interior of the Mass Effect’s Citadel, I don’t see how it could happen in such a way as to leave the Earth a ruin. Sure, it’s a great way of physically elevating the haves over the have-nots, but the hard sci-fi geek in me isn’t inclined to buy into the wholesale decadence. Superstructures demand cooperation and long term maintenance. And if there is some sort of cornucopia technology or next-generation energy source powering Elysium, what’s the point of hording it for the rich other than to tap into contemporary social tensions?

Moving on, we witness some of the story’s central drivers coming together. First and foremost Matt Damon gets augmented with some sort of exo-skeleton. Cool, I guess. Is it wrong of me to say the armour looks a little underwhelming? Alex Murphy totally wore it better.

From there, a voice over hints at “having the power to override their whole system.” Perhaps this is in reference to the exosuit, perhaps a McGuffin kept safely off screen. Ultimately this sequence provides us with the story’s core conflict: Matt Damon wants to break into Elysium.

Please let this be some sort of play on Orpheus leaving the underworld.

1:23 to 2:16…or as I like to call it, the part with smash cuts, fades, and intercuts.

The rest of the trailer shapes up in typical sci-fi action movie form. There are robots, exploding cars, hover cars, and flying things that look like the drop ship from Aliens, none of which tell us anything about the movie. Jodie Foster stares seriously into the camera on multiple occasions while robots steal children and a Hugh Jackman looking ruffian pulls a sword out of his exosuit. Matt Damon slow-mo fires an AK-47 decked out to look like a future gun just because it looks cool, only after ripping the head off a robot. And toward the trailer’s end, the smash cuts sync up to persistent percussion sounds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Verdict: There may be something to Elysium as an action movie. The deceptive nature of trailers means there may also be something to this movie as a piece of social commentary, but probably not. If the story puts a premium on the idea of a man becoming more than a man, and in doing so giving up part of his humanity, to fight against an oppressive system, then it might be on to something. If the exosuit is just a gimmick to enable impossible acts of strength and agility, then this movie is going to fall flat for anybody looking for a spiritual successor to District 9.


0

Where you can find me at Ad Astra 2013

That’s right, it’s time for a little bit of shameless self promotion.

This coming weekend (April 5-7) I will be at Ad Astra Toronto. And for those of you who actually want to hear me talk, or more likely want a convenient time to cross my name off a hit list, here is where you can find me.

Friday 7 pm: Right to Review – Ellsemere East

Beverly Bambury (moderator), Adam Shaftoe, K.W. Ramsey

-   Wherein I get to talk about a topic near and dear to my heart with two of the coolest people I have the pleasure of calling friends.

 

Friday 10 pm: The Contemporary Troll – Ellsemere East

Adam Shaftoe (moderator), Beverly Bambury, Chris Charabaruk, Derwin Mak

-   Wherein I will attempt to lead a critical discussion on troll culture. Why does it exist? Did Aaron Sorkin get trolling right on The Newsroom? What empowers a troll? And how can a person react to a troll without feeding them?

 

Saturday 11 am: Moderator University – Ellsemere East

Beverly Bambury (moderator) and Adam Shaftoe

-   Wherein Beverly and I will talk about the various and sundry ways a person can effectively moderate a panel at a convention.

 

Saturday 12 pm: Nerd Game Show Power Hour – Ellsemere East

Sara Dhooma (moderator), Daryl Smith, Matt Moore, Adam Shaftoe

-   Wherein hopefully nobody will attempt to draw a windmill a la Pierce Hawthorne in the Pictionary component of the program. Also, Match Game.

 

Sunday 1 pm: Summer Scifi Trailer Park – Beaufort East

Sara Dhooma (moderator), James Bambury, Matt Moore, Adam Shaftoe

-   Wherein we will break down trailers for summer movie blockbusters, and Matt Moore and I will try not to make like Randal and Dante.

 

Sunday 12 pm: Limited Release Podcast and the Page of Reviews Present the Epic Panelcast Crossover: Live and Unscripted! – Ellsemere East

Adam Shaftoe and Nick Montgomery

-   Wherein I will fire back a Sunday-at-a-con sized Red Bull before doing a live and unscripted podcast with 1/2 of the Limited Release Podcast.

 

Once again my endless gratitude to Ad Astra for having me back as a panellist this year. Anybody looking for something to do in the GTA this weekend should come check it out. Would you like to know more?


0

CBC’s 2013 Bookie Awards: What the Hell Happened?

On Wednesday the CBC announced the short list for its third annual Bookie Awards. Upon review, it didn’t take long to notice the dramatic change in format between this year’s nominations and last year’s. It took even less time for me to feel somewhat disappointed by this reboot. And being that I’m the sort of guy who will likely never find himself in a place to be nominated for any sort of writing award, I don’t mind sharing my disaffection.

While I am sure all of the nominated books are quality works, worthy of attention and praise, it’s hard to look at the structure of the nominations themselves and not wonder if somebody at the CBC has lost sight of what these awards are meant to do, or at least what they managed to accomplish last year; therein the Bookies broadcast an impressive range of talent and type in Canadian writing.

Of the utmost importance to this website’s mandate is the removal of the sci-fi/fantasy/spec-fic category. Last I checked, Canada still has a vibrant and supremely intelligent community of genre writers. Why is this fact no longer worth celebrating in the eyes of the Bookie Awards? Surely if there is room on the ballot for categories like “The Brangelina Award for Most Attractive Book Cover,” “The Hot and Bothered Award for Steamiest Read,” and “The Up All Night Award for Most Spine-Tingling Canadian Book,” then we can find a place for “The Most Fantastic Vision of Another World in a Canadian Book.”

Another problematic change is the addition of “Canadian Author of the Year” and “International Author of the Year.” What’s the difference between “Canadian Author of the Year” and “Best Canadian Book?” Furthermore, should we not expect to see a bit of overlap between the two? How is Will Ferguson the only writer to be seen in both categories? In fact, Will Ferguson is the only Author of the Year nominee to have a book nominated within the Bookies. Forgive my ignorance, but what constitutes an Author of the Year in this scenario? I’m not suggesting these authors aren’t fantastic within their fields. Rather, I’m calling upon the Bookies to offer some sense of qualification for their nominations.

And I do hope my readers will indulge any perceived lack of class on my part for what follows, but in what world do we put E.L. James, and her ersatz eroticism, in the same category as Sir Salman Rushdie? I won’t pretend that I have picked up a Rushdie book post-university, but surely the man who wrote The Satanic Verses is hors concours against an author whose claim to fame is stirring a select audience’s loins while broadly pissing off the kink community.

Also absent this year’s ballot are categories for graphic novels, short story collections, young adult fiction, and poetry. Off the top of my head I can think of enough Canadian authors who published in those categories within the last orbit of the sun to merit some individual recognition.

Taking a broad approach to the awards, I’m not quite sure what the overall message is meant to be. Actually, that’s a lie. I fear I know exactly what the take away is, I just don’t like it. Last year the Bookies made an effort to sample from many walks of Canadian writing in forming their nominations. Every category may not have appealed to every person who visited CBC Books’ website, but there was almost certainly something for everyone. Since the award itself is one of bragging rights and exposure, this diverse scope was good and just.

This year’s taxonomy of awards suggests a celebration of books deemed interesting only by the conveners of the Bookies. Lost is the attempt to mobilize a base of readers with a variety of interests. In only their third year, the Bookies have shifted from aggregators of talent, inclusive of divergent genre and medium, to arbiters of taste. This is not only unfair but a misrepresentation of creative culture in Canada.