The End of the X-Files Season 3 - The light at the end of the tunnel

      Towards the end of the X-Files season 3 I could really see the show morphing into the style it would be recognized for today. There was much more of a narrative on the individual character and their relationships, both with main characters and non-main characters. Episode 20 also really latched on to the theme of extra-terrestrial, and made the the main conflict of the show very clear. It was almost like the show finally focused and made a decision of what it wanted to be. Before, the show created show much confusion will all the different types of sci fi, there was a few episodes dealing with religion, ghosts, mutated disease, fortune tellers, and even horoscopes, it was a bit overwhelming.
    I haven't watched season 1 or 2, but I do know it was even more monster of the week and very well could have ended with Mulder's death at the the end. It seems like season 3 was literally and figuratively a Lazarus season. So I am impressed with how they eventually decided to direct the show.
    I read a few summaries and I can see how some of the seemingly unconnected aspects of the show connect, so maybe it's a matter of marathoning through the seasons. It was pretty clever how they make it so the men from that secret government society and the aliens that use the "black sludge" to sort of be working together but also not. It 's hard to place blame on either group because they both did very terrible things, the circumstances of the relations are also very reminiscent of the cold-war. Either way, Mulder did have the right to investigate and be suspicious, the way they were conducting this whole ordeal was pretty unethical.
   Also reading into Mulder's backstory I can understand why he almost intuitively knows if there is some paranormal or extraterrestrial happenings. His biggest flaw though is that he can let his emotions, bias, and paranoia get in the way of his reasoning. He can also be selective with what evidence he pays attention to, even if it confirms supernatural intervention, if it could change the perception of someone he cares about. Like when Skinner is accused of murder for example. I like to see vulnerability in characters, so I like this character development. 

X-files Season 3: mostly meh with a side of "that's kinda cool"

          I've watched most of Season 3 of the x-files and so far it has really challenged my idea of what I consider to be science fiction. Most of the cases go unsolved as far as how exactly the murders happen. They can usually find out who is guilty, except for the cases that seem like there is a large group conspiracy, but the means usually go unexplained. My idea of pure science fiction is that every thing, no matter how wild, has some sort of explanation or clue. This is my main issue with the show, the endings are so vague that I really have trouble coming up with a unique analysis or hypothesis. I really do like how Scully and Mulder act as each other's foil, they are both very intelligent, but show contrast each other well as one is a skeptic and the other is a believer of all things paranormal. I can also appreciate the originality of the show. It's possible that I find the show a little bland is that I have seen so many newer shows that have a similar, but improved style, but I guess I should owe that to the shows success.

        The one episode that I really did like, because it did leave alot of room for analysis and matched up with on of the over arching themes of the show was episode 20: From Outerspace. The plot is that there are 2 - 3 people that could possibly been abducted by aliens, but there is also an equal amount of evidence that it was government conspiracy or even a delusion aided by drugs or psychosis. The only thing you can say is that something spooky happened to everyone, Mulder and Scully included. The ending remark made by the honorary narrator was that we are all alone in our perception. This made me think of all of the other sci-fi we have read that had the same idea, The Frozen Journey stuck out most in my mind as being a dead ringer for this psychological sci-fi. Mulder, which from my perspective seemed to be a weaker less developed charcter in comparison to Scully, was described as being one step away from insanity. This was maybe why I perceived him as being weaker in comparison to Scully, he is very willing to believe and accept the unexplainable and often for emotional reasons. I wonder if this is due somewhat to his damaged childhood, perhaps the make - believe is easier for him to accept because it's less absolute and damning.

      Unfortunately we only had enough time to watch season 3, I will probably watch some other seasons, both earlier and later to see if the more complete character development will help me appreciate the more "monster of the week" episodes. Perhaps there was a story line in there that I was just totally missing due to lack of background info.

     
       

Why Star Trek didn't totally pigeonhole masculinity, and other thoughts ...

  I really enjoyed Star Trek. Not just because of the flashy costumes and the retro sets. While it's hard to compare to the diversity of characters we expect now a days, I would have to say they did a pretty great job ( plus lets not forget the lack of diversity we have in media today - a topic for another time).  While the show is scewed in favor of Kirk's personality, which can actually be fun because it's nice and familiar to see the classic hero win, they also include other forms of masculinity into their character base.
   First of all, Spock, definitely a winning character for viewers that might identify with a type of masculinity that isn't defined by physical strength and a leading confidence (that can edge on being too much). I like how they present spock as an intellectual bad ass rather than a pathetic nerd who didn;t deserve respect. It's refreshing when you consider an American show created him; America being a country that is well known for it's tendency to be anti-intellectualism. Of course they had to make him Alien, I mean who do you know who could calculate the exact number of tribble spawn in a few seconds? While he may be a hyperbole of the now super trendy nerd guy, I still say he's a very welcome character. Spock can be viewed be pretty distant from human emotion, which could stereotype intellectual people as unfeeling. In my opinion,  Spock isn't exactly without emotion, as he tries to surpress emotions that he find to be extraneous (vulcans are very good at managing their physical and mental processes). He still shows loyalty and companionship to his fellow crew members, it's just in his own way. Instead of throwing blows at the bar, he likes to drop crushing logic and knowledge.
 

Number 1 fav character is definitely Chekov. First of all he's a Russian on a space mission with mostly Americans, which is pretty funny and daring considering the then current space race and Cold War with the russians. But I also like how the show allowed Chekov to be his own individual. He's allowed to be his own person. He doesn't have to be a flag waving, stoic, red blooded American to be accepted by his crew. They make him into a young and quirky, but capable and respected navigator. I think it's very cool of the show to include a masculine figure that younger audiences could appreciate.

I was inspired

https://youtu.be/HU2ftCitvyQ

Lucid Dreaming and Anxiety - Frozen Journey

Have you ever gone to sleep after having a particularly emotional day? What about if you were expecting a particularly impactful tomorrow? Think about your dreams. Were they poignant and fixated on a single fear, exhilarant, or idea? If the dream became to much, you might try to wake up. But Imagine if it was a dream that for all intents and purposes could continue indefinitely. Wouldn't you prefer something a little more mundane?

It is understandable why the main character would choose to relive the same experience repeatedly for most of his trip, I'm sure that whole psychoanalysis thing was not comfortable. Most of us agree that at the end he actually does leave the ship, due to the fact that he we see his unusual actions from the perspective of his ex-wife, I think we were probably meant to think so.

For argument's sake let's say that the main character was still being fed the same manufactured "dream", even at the end. If the dream suddenly became more complex, diverse and suspiciously like reality from the main character's pov, should we assume he has woken up? Since this story showed how tricky and "mind bending" the concept of perception is, I think we could just as easily conclude that his mind had adapted to his state and fabricated a super convincing reality outside of the ship's control. I also want to bring the idea of lucid dreaming into this. Lucid dreaming seems to happen when a person is in a near meditative state. When a person, through practice, is able to let go of some of their anxieties or stressors during their dreams, they often report being able to change the dreams to their liking. Perhaps after years of the same "dream" he could become able to control it.

    I don't think Philip K. Dick was trying to make this point at the end, it was probably more along the lines of how the main characters mind was so conditioned to the "dreams". However, I just wanted to add something to the giant basket of things that makes the distinguished line between reality and false perception blurrier.

Hal's Motives

    

  Before I start writing about the subplot of Jupiter Mission, I'd like to state my position on the whole alien obelisk thing. I can't find any evidence in the movie to show that obelisks are for sure alien antennae devices or information messengers meant to advance humans; either way, it is pretty obvious that they are a) of mysterious alien origin and b) is highly involved in human advancement and discovery/ curiosity, whether that is in physical or metaphorical form. It also seems that the obelisk at least inspired or caused the evolution of modern day humans from the more animal-like prehistoric version. 
     Now to bring HAL into the equation, he is an AI that seems like the pinnacle of human advancement. Cerebrally speaking, he seems very similar to humans, in that he can reason, wonder, and feel. The few differences are that he can process even better than a human, but is still created to serve humans; although he eventually begins to question them. Because of this and the revelation at the end of his sentence, I have two theories behind Hal's odd lashing out towards the crew of Discovery One.
      Number 1: Hal seems to be far superior than humans as far as cognitive intelligence and likely figured out that aliens had something to do with thier motivation to explore farther into space from the top secret tape stored in his hard drive. While Hal may have been highly intelligence in other areas, he seemed to be immature as far as emotional or spiritual intelligence, which is possibly why he responded with fear and anger (both base emotions) at the unknown instead of the more human- like reactions of curiosity and risk taking. This is shown when Hal shows distrust towards the mission, a non-understanding of his emotions and reactions after trying to kill the crew members ("I am afraid, I am afraid"). This is the most distinct difference between humans and Hal, he does not show any interest in exploration; in his defense he had no choice but to venture into the unknown, which could understandably cause fear and frusturation (allthough, who's to say that man had any choice either) 
     Number 2: Similar to theory 1 in how Hal learns about the aliens. However in this theory, Hal's lashing out it caused by his vindictive personal interest. Perhaps, through Hal's superior database and intelligence, he figured that these alien obelisks had something to do with human advancment and feared that by venturing farther out humans would surpass machine once again in superiority. Maybe, Hal was so advanced that he experienced feelings of jealously and power hunger, and was planning all along to overthrow humans. (this theory is the most out there, but considering that Kubrick was probably on wicked acid, it's not as wierd as it could be)

The Martian Chronicles - "Man, I wished there were more about the Martians! ... but I guess that's the point?"

  "Wow, this is a whole lot less cool" I remember thinking as I started reading into the central chapters. I had really enjoyed reading about the Martian's culture, special abilities, and their environment. Plus it was pretty entertaining to watch the Martians intentionally and unintentionally foil the first few missions. The fact that what killed the Martians was chicken pox made the colonization of Mars pretty unearned and anti-climactic for the Americans. The beginning of the book seemed more like a fantasy adventure story and I guess after that the story was a little too close to home. In my opinion, Ray Bradbury did this specifically to juxtapose the two civilizations and show how one of them *cough cough* maybe didn't belong there.
   Not to say that the portion of the chronicle where the humans had colonized wasn't interesting; it was just a little humbling to see that even if we did change planets we would probably bring all of the stuff that made earth unlivable in the first place with us anyways. That was the point of  Spender's last hurrah, he knew that even if the first few colonists were harmless, eventually capital interests or violent interests would further destroy the memory of a civilization already ruined by disease.
  Something else interesting is how little the humans actually adapt to the new planet. There was an attempt to start planting earth seeds in martian soil to try to fix the oxygen problem; however, it was pretty poetic how the attempt seemed to be a magnificent success only to be completely ruined by the harsh martian sun and showing how unwelcome the humans were. Although the martians and the humans seem very similar and mars was almost habitable to humans, it's obvious that the humans were being carless when deciding that mars would be a good place to settle down.
  When the alien and the colonist meet in a road and literally cannot exist in the same reality, it really emphasizes the point of thier alien-ness to each other. Allthough they share similar desires, they cannot co-habitate, the whole "there can only be one" (courtesy of Highlander) argument is really strong here and eventually proves it's self to be true by the end of the book.

Why are metropolises so common in science fiction?

  What I find so interesting about science fiction is how the genre both congratulates and criticizes in equal parts. The attitude of the "looking forward" experiment seems to depend on whether the author accepts or fears technilogical advances at that particular time as is. In my opinion the attitude seems to be cyclical; when we are on the brink of new promising innovation the genral attitude seems to be positive, but when the technology is new and generally not well understood people are more weary and fears can inflate towards the ridiculous. This is what the archetype of the metropolis shows us.

  Metropolises are always giant hubs of activity set in the future and they are designed in nouveau styles of the time such as art deco or post modernism. They usually have a technological "wow" factor such as hoverboards or flying cars. The main idea that distinguishes between metropolises like Hill Valley in 2015 (Back to the Future II) or the original Metropolis is its connotation. In Back to the Future II the quality of life in 2015 in decidedly better than in 1985 (Although Marty's particular situation might not be that great). The once sleepy town is now bursting with fun activities, cool technologies, and interesting outfits, without any obvious detriment due to these installments of the future. However in the latter example technology is perverted in a way that is harmful to people; lusty robots, man eating machines that demand hours of rudimentary tasks, or an infustructure that is so weak that it completley falls apart at the slightest bit of incohesiveness.

  Another few societies that are popular in science fiction are the utopia and the dystopia. Instead of using an obscene amount of technology as a main trope to deliver an opproving or disapproving message. Sometimes the society is on subtly more futuristic technologically, but instead has more social differences. The social differences are usually exagerrated traits that the author wishes to focus on. For instance, in A Clockwork Orange, the only tech that is focused on is the hyper sexualized "bar maid" robots that serve drugs and the new methods for operant conditioning. The main focus in this dystopian London is the "ultra violence" perfomed by the main character Alex and "The Droogs", and other groups around the city. The city has turned into a terrible place to live; full of rape, burglary, and violence. The final message is a political one; the sociopathic Alex is allowed to live without psychological treatment on the one condition that he supports and participates in the main political party. On the other hand, Utopia by Thomas Moore focuses more on the socio-political details of a perfect and benevolent society. The main character Raphael, frusturated by the cruelty and poverty of Europe, leaves for the island where everyone shares thier goods and housing and no one has to fear one another. Freedom is described as an absence of private property and privacy. ( Yes, there are slaves, but this was written in 16th century England, so probably not that progressive in our terms)

  What I find the most interesting in this sub-genre of science fiction is how dystopian/ evil metropolis stories are so much more common now a days. With popular novels like The Hunger Games , The Handmaid's Tale, or Uglies popping up all over the place in the last 30 years, it would be interesting to study the reason behind this sudden popularity in the genre. Although, the genre really started to gain traction about 70 - 80 years ago, perhaps brought upon by the recent World Wars or the expansion of the Communist bloc, it's pretty interesting how in the last 10 years especially there has been a giant resurgence of faction like dystopias (often with female leads, which is a cool progression in science fiction.)

If you don't like strong women in your sci-fi......lol.