THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
05/03/02 -- Vol. 20, No. 44
El Presidente: Mark Leeper, mleeper@optonline.net
The Power Behind El Pres: Evelyn Leeper, eleeper@optonline.net
Back issues at http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper
All material copyright by author unless otherwise noted.
To subscribe, send mail to mtvoid-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe, send mail to mtvoid-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Topics:
George Alec Effinger (obituary)
Hello? (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Ratings Minutiae (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Science Ponders, "Was Leeper right?" (comments by Mark
R. Leeper)
BLADE II (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: George Alec Effinger (obituary)
George Alec Effinger died 26 April 2002 at the age of 55. He was
the author of many novels and stories, including "Marid" series
(beginning with WHEN GRAVITY FAILS) and the Hugo-, Nebula-, and
Sturgeon-award-winning novelette "Schrödinger's Kitten." A fuller
obituary can be found at
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/119/obituaries/
George_Alec_Effinger_author_laced_humor_with_science_fiction+.shtml
===================================================================
TOPIC: Hello? (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
I have always had this paranoid vision that something is going on
that people are not telling me about. I suppose this is not an
uncommon delusion. It doesn't help that when I open a bottle of
soda for no reason on the underside of the cap it unexpectedly
says, "Sorry, please play again." [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Ratings Minutiae (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
I have been asked for verbal equivalents for my 1 to 10 ratings.
This is generally how I might break them down. Also I give the
equivalent in my -4 to +4 scale.
10 A film of superior quality, five or six this good a decade (+4)
9 Excellent film, maybe one or two a year (high +3 or +3)
8 Very good film, probably will be on my top ten (low +3 or high
+2)
7 Good film, certainly worth seeing (+2 or low +2)
6 OK, could be worse, could be better, about average for released
films (high +1 or +1)
5 Watchable, probably on the level of average cable TV (low +1 or
high 0)
4 Flawed film, may have moments but pretty weak (0 or low 0)
3 Not really worth seeing, perhaps the filmmaker has some
potential (high -1 or -1)
2 Seriously flawed film, not worth the time (low -1 or high -2)
1 Uniformly poorly made (-2 to -4, some films are worse than
others)
Charles Harris pointed out that he had seen reviews in which I
rated films high +0 on the -4 to +4 scale. He asked how this was
different from a high 0. It isn't. I treat it much like an
electronic calculator does. +0 is the same as 0 is the same as
-0. They are all the same number. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Science Ponders, "Was Leeper right?" (comments by Mark
R. Leeper)
A lot of these editorials I write are just musings that I have.
Frequently I will think about some science article I have read and
give my own theories. Without much of the education it would
require I cannot give an expert opinion. However, you shoot
enough times at a target and occasionally you hit. Occasionally
months or years later I hear what seem like echoes of my own
thoughts in what the experts say.
I cannot say I am right about this, but a suggestion I made in an
editorial many months back is curiously echoed by a new scientific
theory. You may have heard that a few years ago an odd phenomenon
was discovered. Two different studies tried to measure the degree
that gravity was slowing the expansion of the universe. Both
studies found to their surprise that gravity was not slowing the
expansion as much as they expected and in fact it appeared that
the acceleration was outward, not inward. OK, what is likely to
cause that? There would have to be some force pushing outward.
But we know of no such force. We know gravity will give an inward
pull. We do not know what could give an outward acceleration
unless there was energy from somewhere. Matter attracts other
matter, it does not repel it.
It was in answer to this question that I wrote one of my MT VOID
editorials, September 17, 1999. The whole quandary seemed to
arise from receiving the measurement of light that had traveled a
huge distance for a very long time. In fact, this was light that
must have traveled about the longest and from the greatest
distance of any light we have ever used in a measurement. I asked
if this light could be bearing false witness? Or more accurately
maybe we were not correctly interpreting this light.
Could it be that the very great distances this light had traveled
could be relevant? It could be changing the properties of the
light itself? After all we have seen the behavior of light over
only very short distances. I think that experiments testing the
properties of light to see if we understand it have been
overwhelmingly been performed on light that has traveled less than
100 million miles. Even that measurement has been rare compared
to experiments on light that has traveled only a few meters as it
did in the Michelson-Morley Experiment. Light that has traveled
from the edge of the universe may not arrive in "mint" condition.
Properties like wavelength may change subtly over very long
distances. From where we sit on Earth that would be hard to
detect.
When I wrote about the idea I suggested that something like a
shift in wavelength may have taken place and that would be giving
false data. Now there is a theory that that is not what happens,
but what may be happening is that some photons are becoming axions
along the way when they travel long distances.
Oh. What are axions? Well, now, there you have me. They are
theoretical particles that have been suggested exist. Photons can
transform into them. It is explained in an article was published
April 16, 2002, at http://unisci.com/stories/20022/0416026.htm and
titled "Do Photons From Supernovas Become Axions On The Way?" If
I had suggested that light was transforming into axions, I could
really be proud. But it is interesting that I was as close as I
was.
Well, it is interesting to me. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: BLADE II (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: Guillermo del Toro directs but unfortunately does not
write this sequel to BLADE. There is lots of fighting filmed with
some style but only about five sentences worth of plot in the
entire film. Wesley Snipes recreates the title character whom he
subtly interprets as righteous, mean, and undefeatable.
Ironically an all-action film that drags. Rating: 3 (0 to 10), -1
(-4 to +4)
America has George Romero, John Carpenter, and Wes Craven. Canada
has David Cronenberg. Italy has Dario Argento. Ironically none
of them has a record for quality like Mexico's much lesser-known
Guillermo del Toro. He has made three very stylish films to date:
CRONOS, MIMIC, and THE DEVIL'S BACKBONE. I was not fond of BLADE,
directed by Stephen Norrington, and had no desire to see the
sequel until I heard Guillermo del Toro had directed. Sadly his
hands appear to have been tied by a dull script that needed del
Toro more than he needed it.
As we learned in BLADE the world is ravaged by evil vampires, but
they are kept in check by Blade (played by Wesley Snipes) who is
the half-breed that resulted from his pregnant mother being
attacked by a vampire. Blade conveniently has all the special
powers of vampires, but none of the limitations like allergies to
sunlight and garlic. Vampires in this world are preternatural,
getting their powers from a special blood type, though
inconsistently they do have some supernatural powers that seem
like they cannot possibly be related to blood type. In battle
Blade can do many things because though he is a vampire he is also
a "daywalker." Kris Kristofferson returns as Whistler who knows
many things because he walks by night.
In BLADE II Blade and his vampire enemies form an uneasy non-
aggression pact in order to fight against a new kind of vampire
that feeds off of both humans and vampires alike. These new
vampires are anatomically different from humans and vampires with
a modification that should, among other things, totally destroy
their ability to speak distinctly. The story, which is actually
slow with the gaps filled by battles and characters posing for
dramatic images, then works itself out with no untelegraphed
surprises. Watching the film is like spending an evening at the
fights and knowing at the beginning of each fight who is going to
win.
Visually, del Toro has managed some reasonable touches. That is
not surprising since del Toro films are known for their
atmospheric visuals of a dark world. The film does get a nice
Eastern European atmosphere by being filmed and set in the Czech
Republic. When a vampire is killed he does not just fall to dust
but from the inside burns to embers. Most settings seem to be in
some dark European nether-world. Some rather athletic vampires
move like super-ninjas, but are a little too obviously digital
images.
What is supposedly the most innovative are the computer-enhanced
fight scenes. That is not a feature I can tell you much about.
For me the fight scenes are just passable because they do not
interest me a great deal. It is like asking me to tell really
good dishes from ones that are just okay in Inuit cuisine. The
fights staged do however get the job done, though they take a lot
of film time doing it. The new vampires are fairly gross-looking,
if that is an accomplishment. This film may have subtleties in
aspects I do not appreciate. Del Toro is certainly a director who
creates subtleties I do appreciate in his other films. Here he
has created a big comic book for the screen with a lot of fast cut
dark bang up scenes.
The film brings back Wesley Snipes as Blade. He looks mean, and
is fully up to the athletic requirements of the film which are
considerable, and the acting requirements which are minuscule.
Snipes snarls as convincingly as any actor alive and the script
asks for little more than that. Kris Kristofferson seems a little
tired, but that may be what the part calls for. Playing master-
vampire Rienhardt is del Toro veteran Ron Perlman.
Perhaps the proceeds of BLADE II will help to fund del Toro's next
film, HELLBOY. In any case, del Toro is writing that one and by
the release date I will have forgotten that he was involved with
BLADE II, which I rate a surprising 3 on the 0 to 10 scale and a
-1 on the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
"My disdain for the establishment is exceeded
only by my disdain for those who rebel against
the establishment."
--ANONYMOUS
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Stock for $4
and no minimums.
FREE Money 2002.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/J.MolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mtvoid-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/