New Horizons: Choosing your time travel destination

Imagine time travel was a real possibility. Where would you go? Presumably you’d hear recommendations from friends ‘we had an amazing time in neolithic Europe’, ‘you simply must go to 15th Century India’. Magazines and websites would be full of adverts for favoured destinations. Soon enough, there would be lists of ‘time periods to visit before you die’. This is all fine and good but the problem is some places and times would quickly become overdone and ruined by all the time travellers materialising at their now overcrowded beaches and bars.

TV, film and books (let’s call it fiction) has had the use of time travel for some time now and, predictably, created a number of tourist traps as successive writers take cues from what has gone before and been popular. It’s about time (and space) that we started looking further abroad and away from the well-beaten track. Thusly, here follows a short list of tourist traps to avoid and a few suggestions of new places I’d like to see explored. Feel free to add your own ideas (comments accepted here, on facebook or on twitter).

Tourist Traps

The Old West

westernThere’s an amusing David Mitchell (the comedian not the equally brilliant writer) piece questioning why a mere 30 year period in history should constitute an entire genre when other more historically significant 30-year periods don’t. You never hear people say ‘oh, I like fiction about the 30-years war mostly’. Perhaps they should; there’s a hell of a lot more to explore there. In any case, westerns are well-established and that’s fine and if people want to make a western I’ve no problem with that. What I tire of is seeing people from many centuries later ending up there and unfailingly having at least one party member who is au fait with the period through their love of old movies. Seems unlikely given the current popularity trend of old classic westerns.

This obsession reeks of writers of a certain generation repackaging their youth and expecting all who follow to buy into the experience. Likely, if the time travel holiday were available tomorrow the old west would quickly become a new Florida riddled with ageing gunslingers distinguishable from the locals by the whiteness of their replacement gnashers.

The Late Republic/Early Roman Empire

I’m not knocking ancient Rome as a setting but when there’s so much to explore why keep going back to the same bit? As there’s more to Italy than Rome, there’s more to the Roman Empire than the section from Julius Caesar to Nero. Why not try the delights of the early Republican period as the Italian peninsular is united or witness the drama of the Punic wars? They’ve got elephants and everything! Or, if you are of a different taste, witness Constantine’s rise to power and the division of the empire between east and west. Want to see the Colosseum in it’s heyday? For that you need to travel on from Nero to get to Vespasian’s time. colusseum

When dealing with a period of hundreds of years it’s a shame to get stuck around a single lifetime.

Victorian England

English_School,_19th_Century,_Snow_Hill,_Holburn,_LondonI’ll admit a touch of bias here. I studied the Victorians early on at school and I found them to be quite an unappealing group of people. Ethically and aesthetically it seems to me to be one of the less enjoyable bits of history. That’s not to say many great things didn’t happen but does your journey through time have to mean bumping into Charles Dickens or passing under the shadow of Jack the Ripper?

Likewise, Victoria seems to be one of the least fun monarchs of the lot. If you want to dine with a King or Queen, I daresay most others would be more entertaining company. Oh, and if you are desperate to wander through a foggy London, remember the ‘pea-souper’ was called that for a reason. That pearly cloud you picture yourself bisecting in your greatcoat will actually be green and probably smell horrific.

 

Some alternatives

The Aztecs

The Aztecs were a very interesting people; fascinating architecture, a vivid pantheon with bloody rituals, and gold everywhere. For the most part they seem to have been ignored by fiction (I suppose Dr Who might struggle with the pre-watershed slot) both historical and sci-fi. Still, the story of the meeting between Montezuma and Cortez and how a great civilisation came to crumble so quickly would be interesting to observe from an outsider’s perspective.aztec

 

The Dark Ages

vikingSeeing as the ‘dark ages’ remain one of the most misrepresented periods of time, a visit here would be educational if nothing else. Most people’s notion of history seems to be that there was the Romans and then not much happened until 1066. Nothing could be further from the truth. Apart from anything else, there was still a Roman Empire in the east throughout the whole period. The rise of Charlemagne seems to be something unheard of to a lot of people who studied history only at school.

Oh, and there’s Vikings. Obviously Vikings are awesome in their own right (or horrific if you are on the other side) but more importantly, we need more depictions of them never bloody wearing horned helmets. We don’t use Wagner musicals to inform our history for anything else and it’s about time this annoying myth died a death.

 

A non-apocalyptic future

According to time-travel fiction, there’s only a couple of centuries at best left for human civilisation before we regress massively. That might be true, who can say for certain, and that’s one way to view the future. Does it have to be the only way? For once, can’t we see Earth a bit further on that isn’t dystopian? I appreciate this is harder to render because you can fall into the realm of futurology and having to make predictions which may turn out to be ludicrous. Equally, it’s harder to make political points about now if everything turns out all right (although there’s still room for this by showing the will to change was what made things better). That’s not to say our future has to be shown as utopian either. Maybe some of today’s problems will persist and be worse in some ways. That doesn’t necessarily mean we will all need to be hunkering down in burnt out shelters staring forlornly as the last of the water supply vanishes.

post

 

There’s many more that can be added to both categories and I expect I will update as I go. For now, I will sign off with this. As people we like to see new things and visit new places: let’s do that as time-travellers too.

 

 

The Dangers of Fan-casting

On Sunday after the Wimbledon Men’s Singles Final the BBC will reveal the identity of the next Dr Who. In many respects, it would make more sense to write this afterwards but the final decision is not really what I want to address – it is fan-casting. For any who are unfamiliar with the term ‘fan-casting’ it’s etymology seems a little shaky. As I understand it the original idea was ‘fantasy casting’; the idea like with fantasy football that you could pick your dream cast for a film or TV show regardless of financial restrictions, contracts, scheduling etc. This idea has been very popular for a while now particularly in the field of adaptations from books and comics. Fans say who they want for roles and the favoured choices then become talked about over and again. In this way fan-casting has evolved from ‘fantasy casting’ into actual ‘fan casting’ where fans of a series, franchise or book try to influence the casting through the internet.

This is where things get problematic. It is completely understandable that fans can have an actor in mind who they think is perfect for a particular role and in some cases these actors have ended up getting the part. Everyone is happy, right? After all, it is arguable that many fans are more invested in and have a better appreciation of the object of their 1319033604d96695b390c6049da4186d--the-simpsons-beautiful-ladiesfandom than the TV or studio execs trying to turn it into a film. You can bet that the fans are more invested in a ‘faithful’ rendition than the show runners and sometimes than the creators. An example of this would be the ‘Jack Reacher’ series. Tom Cruise is physically completely unlike the character in the books (a foot shorter for a start) and pretty much everyone I know who is a fan of the books can’t bear to see Tom Cruise represent him. The author, who is clearly aware of the lack of resemblance, is reportedly less concerned. Although it is tempting to think of the McBane/Wolfcastle defence here.

In general, I have a certain amount of sympathy for fans trying to defend the purity of the source material. My only problem with it is when it becomes dogmatic and ignores what an actor can bring to a role. Like Tom Cruise, Hugh Jackman is completely the wrong height for a role. It’s not talked about much now but when Jackman was first cast many fans of the comics were enraged that a guy who was 6’3 was given the part when Wolverine is meant to be shorter-than-average stature. If fan-casting had had it’s way Jackman would still be on Broadway and the cinematic Wolverine we know would never have existed.

The trouble with fan-casting becoming too rigid really comes to the fore when a fanhood starts to consider their casting as somehow canon. What happens if that actor is unavailable? Now, instead of whoever is chosen being revealed and given a chance to prove themselves on merit, they begin their tenure with a sense of disappointment hanging over them. That may not stop a good actor making the role their own but there are some who will never forgive them for not being someone else.

This becomes more problematic still when the fandom’s canon is actually not faithful.Pedro_Pascal_in_The_Miracle_at_Naples,_2009 Most people I’ve talked to think Elijah Wood looks exactly like Frodo and are surprised when I say I think he was miscast. In this case the fandom has edited out the fact he is too young for the role. This is easy enough to live with because this is more people being happy with the result than trying to influence casting in the first place. For Pedro Pascal the process was quite different. Many who read ‘A Song of Ice and Fire’ seemed to have misread or ignored the description of Oberon Martell from the books and enthusiastically fan-cast Naveen Andrews in the role. When Pedro Pascal was cast these fans were left horrified and accompanied their disappointment with cries of ‘racism’ and ‘whitewashing’.

I’ve no wish to trivialise either of those issues but those accusations were inappropriate in this case. Expecting sympathy from George Martin, some of these fans were then horrified when Martin explained that this was what the Martells were supposed to look like. By any estimation, the source material suggests someone far more like Pedro Pascal than Naveen Andrews. At which point, this vocal part of the fandom then switched approach and claimed they’d fan-cast Andrews because it was an opportunity for greater racial diversity on the show. There’s nothing wrong with wanting that but demanding show-makers follow a particular political agenda opens up a whole multi-pack of worm-containers.

For the most part, TV and film-makers want to be seen as liberal and progressive. There is a good case for this too. If you are holding up a mirror to life then it should be a mirror that reflects in technicolor and not in monochrome. Likewise, values are promoted through our culture and there is a case for ensuring those values are consistent with the kind of society you want to embrace.

Fan-casting to an agenda, however, is a no-win situation. Either the agenda is appeased and or it is denied. Both outcomes will piss people off. Current thinking is that the most likely choice of Doctor will be either Phoebe Waller-Bridge or Kris Marshall. Sunday may prove these predictions completely wrong but whatever happens there will be grumbling and that is because pushing for a female Doctor has become an agenda. If those pushing for it get what they want, others will feel it was forced and will feel alienated from the show. Not only is this bad for the show it’s really unfair of Waller-Bridge or any other female actor who might get the part. Rather than embracing the qualities she will bring to the part, she will have a cloud of ‘political correctness’ hanging over her.

The alternative is that Kris Marshall (or another man) gets the role and the people pushing for a female Doctor feel let down or even that their wishes have been explicitly rebutted. Marshall (or whoever) will also start the role with an unwanted cloud, as if now they are the representative of the patriarchy, reinforcing the glass ceiling. None of this would happen if not for fan-casting. Of course, whoever is chosen may still have been a disappointment to someone but at least it would be on the basis of their acting and not something over which they have no control.

Now, you might argue it is still worth all these problems because the agenda is important. That may be true and works very well as long as TV and film-makers are on board with your agenda. What happens if and when a fandom with a different agenda gets what they want? You might think this is fine as long as their is a range enough of art for everyone and herein lies the rub. Fan-cast in your head all you like but remember what is canon for you isn’t for someone else even if other people on the internet seem to agree with you. In the end, it is better that these decisions are made on an artistic basis.

Finally, whoever is cast as Dr Who, good luck to you. That baton is going to feel especially heavy this time round. tardis

Superheroes are fine – just don’t make them invincible

I’ll start this blog with a couple of disclaimers. First, this isn’t about good adaptations as promised. That article will still come but this one has come into focus now. Second, all my references to superheroes on this blog are based on what I’ve seen on TV/film and not their comic book representations.

Right, with that covered I’ll start wrecking my nerd credentials.

The Invincibles

Invincibility has been in my mind recently, prompted by two events. The first was seeing trailers for the Batman vs Superman movie and the second was after watching Daredevil Season 2 where I was shown a trailer for the new series about Luke Cage. Now, I liked both the Christian Bale Batman films and Jessica Jones but neither of these trailers really appeal to me and I think I know the reason why – it’s invincibility.

I can’t be bothered with Superman. I don’t find anything remotely interesting about him. Sure, a large part of that is he is generally quite a dull character but I’m not sure that can really be separated from the nature of his powers; namely that he is invincible.

Superman wins not by any great courage or ingenuity or triumph of character; Superman wins because he is Superman. By virtue of the gifts he is born with no enemy can match him. In the same vein, it’s hard to take any rival to him seriously because you know he’s going to win because he’s Superman.

Other have argued to me before that the real story is about how he has to struggle with his identity and the burden that his powers have more than the jeopardy as such. That might have some traction if his human identity was remotely interesting but it’s not. He’s straight-down-the-line, successful, honest and handsome. If his daytime persona were someone who is reviled,that might be an interesting conflict.

In any case, however successfully or unsuccessfully this side to his story plays out, for me, it doesn’t counterbalance the fact he is never in any real danger himself. It’s a problem and I think the writers of Superman agree with me on this – why else did they invent kryptonite?

You’re entitled to disagree but it got me thinking about my aversion to invincibility and why I hate it as a power for Superheroes. There’s a bit in the new advert for Luke Cage when a bunch of baddies pull guns on him and proceed to open fire. You know full well he’s going to fine (he duly is) and so I start thinking ‘why should I care?’ Again, the absence of any real jeopardy nullifies any stakes that may have been involved.

This got me thinking back to the TV series Heroes. The point where I lost all interest, even after the failings of Season 2, was when Sylar finally got to Claire and (drumroll) he does his thing and she’s completely fine afterwards. What? Not only is this massively anti-climatic at the time once you think about it you realise the whole tagline (and story) of the first series ‘Save the cheerleader and save the world’ becomes totally redundant. She never needed to be saved. In fact, it was impossible to save her because she can’t die.

(Further disclaimer: I’ve no idea how Heroes explained this afterwards as I was done after that).

What about regeneration?

Ok, so invincibility is bad, what about regeneration? Isn’t that a form of invincibility? I would say it depends but largely, no. I’ll take the two examples that come into my head for this. I’ll start with Wolverine. Yes, he can regenerate after almost anything but I don’t think you ever have the sense that he is impossible to kill: just difficult. So far I’ve not seen a Claire-like reveal that he cannot die. Moreover, Wolverine palpably suffers, which provides a measure of jeopardy with which we can still identify. Cut him, does he not bleed?

Next up, Dr Who. The time lord cannot die in one sense (although there is a limit on regenerations) but the fact it means a change of actor and personality means in another sense he dies indeed. It’s a death of a personality, which is something to mourn. Also, knowing as we do that each personality has a time limit, that vital element of jeopardy is always present. Is this week the week we are going to lose this incarnation?

What about invincible Super Villains

I certainly prefer the idea of near-invincible super villains to superheroes, the ‘near’ part being crucial. A villain that is exceedingly hard to kill gives a challenge to our heroes and a villain that is more powerful than any one individual hero gives cause to unite diverse groups and individuals in a common cause.

Even so, overpowering your enemy can cause problems. There should always be a way to overcome them; some feat of courage or cleverness that can bring about that miracle beyond hope. When all efforts prove fruitless, hope is shown to be futile and everything you’ve come to believe in mounts to nothing , you might reasonably question what the hell you’ve been investing in this story for (yes I am looking at you Mass Effect 3 ending – it is still not forgiven!)

One against many

Ultimately, probably the guiding principle of the invincible superhero is the chance for the one to succeed against the many. You know full well that Luke Cage is going to kick the arse or ass, if you prefer (and particularly hate donkeys) of every guy that just took a shot at him. You know that superman will come through whatever Lex Luthor throws at him. In this we have the spectre of the inevitable triumph of good over evil. We all know God will defeat Satan in the end, so we must trust in the fight.

Well, from a writing perspective I think that sucks (thanks for the spoiler Bible). The end fight should always be in the balance until the final moment.

One against many can be brilliant. [Minor spoiler] I doubt I’ll see many things on TV/film this year that compare to Daredevil vs the Dogs of Hell. But here there is jeopardy. Daredevil has limits on his powers and he can be hurt. It takes force of will and strategic use of choke points and the environment for him to get through that alive.

Sure the heroes should win in the end most of the time, but barely and with blood on their teeth and knuckles against a foe who almost had them. That is why jeopardy is so important. If your victory is inevitable (or even easy), you’re basically just backing the winning side. Any coward can do that. True courage would be to fight on in the belief you will probably lose but it’s worth the fight anyway.