Straightest straights in Straighty Town
I've watched the two first episodes (out of four) of The Aztecs
and... well... er... ZOMGSOVINTAGE!
There! I've said it! I regret nothing! XD Just look at this
! They're so cute! (BTW, guess who the bad guy is.) And the costumes! The shirts they use to pretend they're not that near to total nekkidness! XD *bounces* I think I'll end up making icons out of DW version of the Eagle warrior
and the Jaguar warrior
I find One to be very likable, and the companions are uh, there to fulfill their roles and little else, but that's okay, I guess. I mean, at the very least their actions move the plot? >.>;;
And I can finally pinpoint what strikes me as odd from the show: it gives the feeling of a theatrical play filmed by a not-so-savvy cameraman. The asides gave it away. :P
I also watched the first episode of a series called Masters of Science Fiction
. C'mon! With a title like that, how was I supposed to resist? :P
It was good, actually. Intriguing and scary, though mostly because it sorta reflects current, IRL circumstances. I'm not going to give the plot away, I'm just going to point you to where the torrents are
All of this overdose of science fiction has got me thinking about something I was told once, that this genre and horror are intrinsically intertwined. I wasn't told why, but since then I've noticed it to be true.
Here's my guess on the matter at hand: For starters, sci-fi deals with a technological what-if; in other words, if the things that happen in your universe don't have scientific bases, you're doing it wrong
There's always Clarke's third law
, of course, but we must proceed carefully to get under its wing. I think it's a bad move to play dirty with our audience so they can't tell where we're standing. It's either science fiction, fantasy, or even science fantasy
, but we must not cheat on the reader. I mean, even the fantastique
has its ways to make clear we're not supposed to know what in the world it's actually going on, by using an unreliable narrator --in drugs, drunk, schizophrenic-- or having the story being told by a friend of a friend of the protagonist, for example. Thus, when we take advantage of that third law, it's a good idea to have either at least one character or the narrator --though I don't really like this approach-- to tell at some point that a wizard didn't actually do it, that it was science that made the trick. (To talk in length or not about the details of the aforementioned science is the difference between hard and soft science fiction, btw.)
But what has that to do with horror? Simple: you can't have a story if you don't have a conflict.
Now, since conflict is easier to find in the worst-case scenario, that's where most of science fiction goes to. The developed technology is great, it can do lot of good to humanity, but to leave it at that would be no more than wishful thinking. Something has to go wrong --miscalculations, greed, madness-- and, when the more is a stake, the worse it gets. And the best it gets from the audience point of view, specially if the writer managed to make the reader to care about the character(s).
The horror comes precisely from there. It has everything to do with proportions. You gave lots and lots of decision power to a machine you thought perfect? Now you pay the consequences; you're under its control --because it's so going to develope artificial intelligence if it doesn't already have it, and it's going to take 'protect mankind' too literally-- unless you find a way to turn it off. Or, after going through a series of trials and distress, you understand there's nothing to do against it or that it won't be worthy, so you surrender.
There's the horror, in the lack of control, in the not knowing what is going to happen, not knowing what can be done.
For me, anyway.