Princes of the Universe

Advanced Theory I

Check out the Advanced Theory Blog for an interesting cultural theory. I'm not sure it makes coherent sense, or if it is even supposed to. It may be as esoteric as many other post-modern theories, or it may just be a pseudo-intellectual way to criticize and make fun of modern culture. Either way, it seems worthy of some consideration. Every post he makes regarding Sting (no pun intended - really), contains a statement to the effect of "I don't know if Sting is advanced or not", which I find quite amusing. It seems Sting is so super-Advanced, he has confused the founder of Advancement theory, but I'll have more to say about that later.

The Sun Always Shines on TV

OK, the new TV season started this week, which means I have to allocated more time to staring at another screen. Now I know that television is mind-numbing, soul-sucking vortex. It is a ubiquitous form of entertainment for stupid people: it caters to the daft, unintellectual, and mediocre types. It allows people to be passive and avoid the effort required for inter-active entertainment and therefore tells people what to think as a convenience so they don't have to think for themselves. I'm always surprised by how many people say they don't watch TV on their Myspace profiles. Either they simply don't have time (or haven't learned how to timeshift) or TV's prominence is beginning to diminish. If its the latter, than either people are really too embarrassed to admit that they watch it, signaling an image problem for television, or new mediums have overtaken it. Nevertheless, I think it is a great medium for somewhat artistic entertainment. I find that when people ask me what movies I've seen recently, I don't have much to answer, but I seem to know more about many recent tv shows. Almost all of my DVD purchases are music or TV, and much of my Netflix queue is similar. Film is artistically superior, and I think one of the greatest art forms, so why is this the case?

First, I think the quality of films has fallen faster than TV, certainly in the mainstream. At least is hasn't increased, where TV has. It seems the great independent film making days of the 90s has lost momentum. Its possible that such films just don't get the publicity like they used to, similar to the music industry, and I should probably research more, or at least get more Henry Rollins reviews. Like music, time is an issue here. I would rather spend the time experiencing the work, than trying to search for it.

One more aspect is the introduction of HD. I'll pretty much watch anything that's in HD, maybe even a few seconds of sports. As for films in HD, it would take a substantial investment in equipment, and I wont even get into the format wars.

It seems the Sopranos set a new standard in TV quality. Premium channels have been putting out some good material such as Entourage, Californication and my new favorite comedy Flight of the Conchords.

So, onto this season. My returning favorites are Numb3rs, Lost, Jericho for the dramas and of course How I Met Your Mother, The Office, and Scrubs for comedies, along with Two and a Half Men and Rules of Engagement. The Big Bang Theory seems to have the most potential for this year's comedy achievement, and I'll give Reaper a try, although I'm not hopeful. In the drama category, the only new candidate for me is Journeyman.

As for the sun shinning on TV, it is symbolic of American optimism, or at least repression, where the darkness stays hidden, but it ever-present. Nothing represented that more than Miami Vice, but more on that later.

Don't Lose Your Head

Since 1991 fans have been trying to undo the damage Highlander II created. The original film was unlike any other film, original (somewhat) and thought-provoking. It was a kind of magic. The sequel took what was an epic-fantasy-noir film and reduced it to pure sci-fi. Even the film makers tried to undo it by unsuccessfully releasing the Director's cut. Like all good stories of immortality, the original worked by showing its unnatural place in a familiar reality. But the apocalyptic sequel was far too unconnected from our reality to make a moving statement. That, said I never thought it was a really bad film, it just wasn't a good Highlander film. Highlander was a movie that was just unsequelable. It portrayed the end of a story. When the series was created, it effectively rebooted the story and presented a worthy counterpart for the film, albeit in watered-down TV fashion. We had hoped that the producers had learned their lesson from the aftermath of the Quickening.

That was until September 15th, 2007. Word about Highlander the Source was not good, but one at least expected a straight to DVD release. Instead we were given a "Sci-fi Original" movie. Even though it was never created by the Sci-Fi Channel, it might has well have been, it was just as bad. The awfulness that The Source achieved was simple unimaginable. It makes the Quickening look like a great film. It took the idea of an apocalyptic world far further than the Quickening did (although I won't even mention the Animated Series), and was far more disconnected. This time they decided to make the characters act unlike their previous incarnations. So we are left with a story that has no point of reference in terms of setting, plot, or characterization, and with a film that has no cinematic feel of the original. The noir elements are long gone, as are any flashbacks, a core part of the Highlander universe. Instead we get really cheesy special effects. I won't dwell on how bad this movie is any further, suffice to say it is simply unwatchable and it probably killed any chances for a continuation of the story. Stay tuned for my reaction to the other "revisioning" of the Highlander universe, Highlander Vengeance.

99 Red Balloons

For those of us who grew up during the Cold War, we were well aware of what would probably happen if the US and the Soviets went to war. Within a few hours everything would go to Hell (almost literally). What fascinates me is what would have happened if the Cold War had become a hot one using conventional weapons and leaving the nukes hidden away. Many films and books have presented various scenarios, most of which I find highly unlikely. What I'd really like to know is how the government thought this might happen, how they trained for it, and what plans, procedures and such existed for it. Obviously the Powers that be thought a conventional war was at least a possibility, otherwise they wouldn't rationally have spent the hundreds of trillions of dollars on forty years of military build-up. So far the first bit of info I've come across is "Dropshot", the war plan originally conceived in 1949.

This essay by John Reilly explores the US plan for World War III (Dropshot) circa 1957. In the age before ICBMs became the main strategic weapon, it was still seemingly possible for a U.S./ Soviet war to be fought conventionally. The plan was for an initally defensive war against an aggressive Russia that was actively seeking expansion and eventually some sort of global domination. This alternative history explores how this might have happened under the right conditions. Reilly makes some interesting political and economic points along the way.

"There is a good argument to be made that the United States took as little hurt from the Cold War as it did because the president during the 1950s was that logistics expert, Dwight David Eisenhower. . . Using his own good judgment to gauge just what the Soviets could or would do, he starved the U.S. military during the 1950s to let give the consumer economy room to breathe." Compare this to the 1990s of the Clinton administration, where the military was starved, but the economy did quite well.

Reilly contemplates what would have happened if Eisenhower had been replaced by Adlai Stevenson. His ambition to destroy the communist bloc was similar to Reagan's, although his timing would have been wrong. It wasn't until the 1980s, when the Soviet's finally "exhausted the growth capacity of the command economy," that the opportunity to pressure the Soviets farther finally occurred. In my opinion, Reagan's administration may not have been clever enough to know with certainty that they could break the Soviets by outspending them militarily. Reagan played a dangerous game of brinkmanship, such as the deployment of the Pershing II missiles. If they were confident of economic victory, these aggressive stances seem unnecessary. I think Reagan got lucky. He took a big gamble that could have got us all killed, but was fortunate enough to find success.

Also in Reilly's scenario, Stalin stays in power. If Stalin had lived longer, past 1953, he may have planned to fight a decisive war. If Stevenson backed up his own idealism by sending forces to Europe, Stalin very well could have countered by launching his offensive. Thirty million Americans would be needed for service, and unlike World War II, this one would be devastating for the American economy. The U.S. would have been forced to become a command-economy state.

The plan was for NATO to hold the front, until the American forces could arrive, which could be a year. IT suggest that the Soviets could very well advance past Germany, and the UK would probably not be held.The second phase would be an offensive to occupy Russia. Dropshot notes that invasion from the Far East or the Middle East would be impractical, and only an offensive straight in from Europe would work.

Finally, the aftermath of a successful war would have had terrible effects on the world economy, although it may have been less damaging than World War II. Russia might have been able to transition to a market economy with less resistance. In America, collectivism and Socialism might have become instituted as the command economy which helped win the war would be viewed as superior to the market economy. The social revolution of the 1960s would not occur, and presumably the pessimism of the 40s and 50s would be reinforced, with the continuing view that the world is a dangerous place. Positively, The arms race would never have occured, and the threat of nuclear annihilation would be gone.

But, would the outcome have really been so positive? I certainly don't think a communist victory would be a good thing. However, An American victory might have had its downsides as well. The US would have global domination of the advanced world, and without any opposition would be free to do anything it wishes. This unhindered power may have been too much to contain, and would probably be used on scale far exceeding what we have seen in the 21st Century, where the US has done things that would have previously been unthinkable, both constitutionally and morally, due to the possibility of destroying the integrity of our 200 year history. [1] In the 80s miniseries Amerika, the Soviets achieved global victory, and the conditions under their rule, however intolerable, were unescapable "There was nowhere else to go." A post-World War III Socialist America could have utopian possibilities, [2] but it would also have the potential to become a tyrannical, dystopian police state. Having two equally-matched superpowers during the Cold War meant there was a Yin/Yang balance, and there were possibilities to choose from, depending on what type of system your allegiences might fall.


Geek edits:
[1] example: Star Wars - Palpatine and the fall of the senate
[2] example: Star Trek (although despite the superficial utopian Socialism, ST could be viewed as a communist society , see this article for explanation.