Pokecember: The First Movie

   This month, I decided to something a little different. Pokemon is my favorite franchise. The world-building, the creativity, the imagination, the sheer possibilities you could do with this concept is marvelous. Now, with Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire upon us, I've decided to create a theme month. Here, on Pokecember, I will review all of the Pokemon movies, from the first to the last. I will do these in the style of my normal reviews. However, this will be an analysis of both the film on its own, and as a Pokemon film. If I haven't seen it, (I only haven't seen the most recent), I will try watch it. Note that this largely a fan's perspective, so certain terms might not be familiar if you don't know the source material. Also, there will be unmarked spoilers. This might bleed into January due to time restraints. So, sit back, and enjoy my review of Pokemon: The First Movie. Yes, the very first. Got released at the height of Pokemania in 1998 (1999 in the US. Drew in crowds, and the ire of film critics, who clearly only saw a marketing tool for an inexplicably popular franchise with esoteric character names and jargon that had adults up in arms, and savaged it. They saw this as epitome of cultural decline that Pokemon as a whole symbolized (Now that Pokemon is beloved, I could safely say that never happened)Me? I was too young ( just got out of diapers) to watch it in theaters, so my memories of this film come from watching it on home video during early 2000's. (I'll get to that) How does it hold up?
     The film starts sometime in the recent past. A scientist named Dr. Fuji and his team have cloned the legendary first Pokemon, Mew, on a laboratory on a distant island. They decide to call this clone Pokemon, "Mewtwo." Fuji is attempting to study cloning in order to clone his dead daughter. During the embryonic stage, Fuji's daughter and Mewtwo bond telepathically. However, the daughter dies, causing Mewtwo to go into a rage upon awakening, killing most of the scientists, including Fuji, and destroying the lab. Upon this killing, however, he is approached by Fuji benefactor: Giovanni, head of the nefarious Team Rocket. Giovanni states that Mewtwo and him could create a partnership. Mewtwo joins forces with Giovanni, become his personal war machine, and also fighting in his gym. However, Giovanni tells Mewtwo (for no apparent reason) that he is little more than Giovanni's weapon. Mewtwo, obviously enraged, releases himself from Giovanni, and flees, returning to the island of his birth, there, he swears that he will take his vengeance. Later, in the Kanto Region, Ash, along with his loyal Pokemon Pikachu, and his friends, Gym Leaders Misty and Brock, are enjoying some quiet time during their journey, when a Dragonite brings a message from a mysterious source. A very powerful trainer seeks to battle the best and the brightest, and asks them to arrive on his fortress on New Island (yes, that is what it's called). Ash, jumping at the chance, takes the group to a port, but a storm has blocked passage. Ash, Pikachu, Brock, and Misty, along with several other trainers, brave the storm to reach the island. They arrive, and find that their challenger is none other than Mewtwo. Mewtwo, driven by a radical misanthropic ideology, wants to eliminate humans, as well as the Pokemon who serve them (viewing them as traitors). He challenges the trainers to a battle, where he reveals clone versions of the Kanto starters. His clones demolish the originals. He proceeds to capture their Pokemon using special Pokeballs. Pikachu holds out, but is eventually captured. Ash tries to free his friend. Meanwhile, the clones are sent to a special facility, where they are processed, and cloned. Team Rocket stumbled on it earlier in the film.Ash frees Pikachu and the others, but the clones have been made. Now, a battle begins between clone and Pokemon, and soon, another challenger arrives. Mew, the original that Mewtwo was born from.
      I will start, as usual, with the good things, because there are a few. Mewtwo is a compelling villain. He's somewhat sympathetic, or at the very least, you understand why he does what he does. I haven't seen the Japanese version, but I've heard that it made Mewtwo even more sympathetic. He also seems quite the menance in this story (though compared with the god-like Pokemon of the other generations, his power does diminish), and he is a legitimate threat. Also, it doesn't feel like an hour and a half episode of the show. It does feel grander and larger in scale.Also, Ash's dedication to Pikachu is a nice symbol of their friendship (this is expanded upon in a later movie, but I'll get to that later (and boy, am I excited when I get there).  The look of the island is also very unique, unlike the rest of the series, and the cloning apparatus is very creative. The battles are also very detailed, once again, unlike the tv show.
       Now, you might think I like this movie. Well, I don't dislike it. A lot of people do, but personally, I always felt it was okay. Not good, not bad, just mediocre. And I still feel that way. The bad stuff is largely what this movie is teaching. Yes, this is a lesson film. Okay, fine, but I don't agree with either message. First, there is the "fighting is bad" message. Yes, a Pokemon movie has that message, wrap your head around that. You see, we see the clones and the regular Pokemon duke it out, and it is brutal, and there are scars, and there's music. Nurse Joy (Mewtwo's hypnotized servant) proclaims "Pokemon shouldn't fight; not like this." Yeah, they shouldn't fight with their fists. They should fight with energy beams, fire punchs, high velocity water pumps, cuts, and leaching their energy... A lot of people have said this "This is unbelievably hypocritical," and they are absolutely right. Also, the resurrection scene. Bear with me, folks. During the end, Mew and Mewtwo are about to release these high energy beams at each other, and Ash move in their path. The attack causes him to turn to stone (as opposed to vaporizing him). The Pokemon see this, and they shed tears. Their tears are enough to bring Ash back to life. Yes, you did just read that. Tears were about to bring someone back to life. Seriously. Do I have to tell you this is stupid? I mean, what is this teaching kids? Urgh, and you have minor 4-Kids hiccups, like misidentifying Pokemon, and leaving out plot details.
       The question I ask myself is "Why was this released to theaters?" Perhaps, I'm biased in that I never saw it in theaters (or really any other Pokemon movie), but enjoyed it on home video. I feel that the latter was a better place for it. This, along with most other pokemon movies, are direct to video or DVD fare. I don't think this was good enough to warrant a theater release. Maybe, it was really Pokemania that brought this to the theaters, but really, this should have been released to video. Does this make it terrible? No. I don't hate this movie, as much as other people do. I just feel it isn't very good. As a stand-alone film, it barely explains anything, and thus the situation has no meaning to those who aren't already familiar with the franchise. It also has messages that are either hypocritical or simply are too fantastic and whimsical to teach children. As a Pokemon movie, it's decent enough. The Battles are detailed, Mewtwo is powerful, the animation is slick, and it does have an intensity to it. Overall, if you want to watch the first one, watch it. If you want to get into the franchise, this film is not the place to start. If you just want to show a child this, there are far better childrens films, or hell, far better Pokemon movies, you could show them. Anyway, Join me next week for Pokemon:2000.

Review: Interstellar

     Here's a funny anecdote from my film-going experience. When I was waiting in line for this film, with my popcorn, and my nuggets.I was about to take out my ticket, to show to get in. However, I found that I didn't have it on me! I was completely stressed that they may not let me in. Luckily, the couple for me vouched that I had been there the entire time, and I was able to get in. My faith in humanity has been restored. And that's really it for the introduction. Okay, let... Alright fine, I'll give you more. Science fiction is my favorite genre, and recently, it has been growing in popularity. Superhero films are being churned out on a regular basis, and films like Avatar, and (much to my dismay) the Transformers films have grossed millions of dollar. However, with the new fame, comes the inevitable realization that perhaps a genre has become overwrought with cliches, and perhaps, it has become too oversaturated in the media. So, when Interstellar was announced, I was really excited. Sure, I'm not a Nolan fan, but I saw as a sort of a 2001 for the modern era. When 2001 came in 1968, science fiction films were largely crude productions, known for their absurdity. 2001, a film which deployed subtlety and imagery, helped influence science fiction pictures which are generally considered better. Now, as science fiction is going through a similar phase (albeit with science fiction becoming little more than "Fast and Furious" style masculine pandering), Interstellar, I assume, would be a return to cerebral, intelligent science fiction. And it is a story promoting Space exploration, which has gone stagnant over the past few years, particularly in the US. Here was a film telling us to explore and seek, which would help the people on Earth. I was very hyped. Then the reviews came in, and said that the film was visually impressive, but lackluster in narrative. And when I saw it, the movie sort of fit that mold, and kinda didn't... Full disclosure, I liked the picture. I didn't love it. I wasn't disappointed with this film the same as Gone Girl, but I didn't get the film I was hoping for several months ago.
     The story is set in the not-too distant future. Cooper (I don't think he was given a first name)(Matthew McConaughy) is a former astronaut test pilot turned farmer living in rural America. The world has been rocked for many years by ecological disaster, which has caused crops to slowly die out, adding to the fact that the large population simply cannot be fed . Cooper lives with his father Donald (John Lithgow, of all people), and his children Tom and Murph. Murph reports having a ghost in her room. After initially dismissing it, Cooper finds that this supposed ghost is actually a gravitational anomaly, which is stating a set of coordinates in binary. The coordinates send him to a secret instellation, which is the remnants of NASA, now forced underground to undertake a secret mission. A wormhole had been discovered near Saturn, leading into another galaxy and several team were sent into it to find habitable worlds (why they didn't send robots first to investigate first is not answered). Some of the teams were to send signals indicating if the planet was habitable. Then, two courses of action were taken. Either they begin colonization with the humans on Earth, or they send in eggs to be fertilized. Professor Brand (Michael Caine) an old teacher of Cooper, encourages Cooper to take up the mission. Cooper reluctantly accepts, forcing him to leave behind his children. Murph, in particular, is great dismayed by this.  Cooper and his crew, including Brand's daughter, Amelia Brand( Anne Hathaway) , launch, and after two years in cryogenic sleep, arrive in Saturn orbit (sound familiar?). The wormhole takes them to several planets orbiting a massive black hole, where the three remaining signals are coming from. After the first signals turns up a dead signal on a water world, Cooper and Brand return to find that, due to the time dilation on the planet, coming from it orbiting a black hole, 23 years have passed on Earth. In those years, Murph (Jessica Chastain) is now a NASA scientist working with the dying Brand on a gravitational equation that would get the entire population off Planet. However, Brand reveals on his deathbed, that his equation revealed that there needed to be the singularity of a black hole to solve it. This meant that he abandoned getting humans off the dying Earth, and was hoping to use the embryos to save humanity. With this knowledge, Cooper and Amelia must find a new home, before they run of time (literally), whilst Murph continues to work on Brand's equation. However, soon, things get complicated.
        There is a lot of very good things in the film. The special effects are magnificent, the best I have seen all year (including Planet of the Apes). The worlds they create just pop into life, and are just so extensive. The black hole they explore is simply gorgeous to look at. Similarly, the world-building is great. The way that they establish that exploration is discouraged by teaching the Apollo hoax was interesting, as was the Dust Bowl-inspired setting. The worlds that they explore are also very interesting. Additionally, as an aficionado of hard science fiction, the technical and scientific jargon was a treat, and gave the world more depth. I particularly liked how, in the scenes actually in space, there is no sound. The acting is good (surprising for a Nolan picture), as is the score by Hans Zimmer. All these elements allow for a good first hour, and a solid last 30 minutes.
         You know, if I wanted to watch 2001, I have it on DVD. I would watch it, if I wanted to. I say this because many of the elements in this film are taken from 2001. From the scenes on the ship, to the views of Space, to the wormhole and black hole sequences (Star-Child, anyone?). Seriously, when the ship is leaving Earth orbit, I started whistling "Blue Danube" Also a ship with cryogenically stored astronauts leaving for Saturn? Haven't seen that before. I only bring this up, because the film obviously seeks to homage that movie. However, when I watch these homages, all I could think about is how much more subtle and interesting 2001 was, and how I wanted to watch that. However, if that were the only flaw, I would forgive it. If only. The second third of this film is terrible. The twist that Brand wasn't going to save the people on Earth is simply stupid, and serves merely to give more drama to a story that should already have drama. It's like Little Shop of Horrors, where they just added needless elements, when a guy buying a man-eating flytrap is a good enough story. The story, as it stands, already has drama, as Cooper is leaving his family, and potentially risking his life, all whilst time moves on Earth. We do not need this twist. And character begin acting irrationally, for no reason other than the plot said so. For instance, the grown Tom is refusing to move his family, even as the dust destroys their lungs, and becomes aggressive, once again, because the plot said so. And the story just grows so convoluted, it gets very hard to follow, what is even going on. I would give more detail, but frankly, I don't want to go into it.

          This is one good opening and ending, with a terrible middle sandwiched in there. Despite that, the opening and ending are good enough for me to recommend this. It might even get nominated for an Oscar. If you like Nolan, you're probably going to watch this, regardless of what I say. If you want a good science fiction film, I say watch this, if only for the world building and the scientific accuracy. If you want to just watch a film out of boredom, well, probably watch it, but you'll have sit in the theater in 3 hours. Overall, the film earns a 60%. Oh, and another thing, if you will watch it, watch it in IMAX. Yes, the sound occasionally makes dialogue unlistenable, but it does pop, and the sound is quite extensive. 

Whatever happened to Science Fiction Anthologies?

   I don't watch much television anymore, at least new ones. I tend to watch Netflix shows on weekends, and I watch the occasional sitcom. However, mostly, I don't have the time to watch television, nor, in some cases, do I have the interest. However, I do follow the news somewhat infrequently, and I am aware of new TV shows. Some of the new shows include anthologies, such as True Detective, or American Horror Story. However, both of the aforementioned series are both season long anthologies, not episode based anthologies. What prompted this article was the announcement of "Scream Queens," another anthology produced by Glee's Ryan Murphy (The announcement included that Murphy hoped to create a new genre "Horror-Comedy", a genre which has existed since the Forties, and has even had modern examples, like "Scream," and "Cabin in the Woods," but that is neither here nor now.)  This one is said to be an episode anthology series, meaning each episode tells a different story. This got me thinking: What about science fiction? There haven't been any good science fiction anthology shows in a while. Could there be another sci-fi anthology on the horizon, given the recent interest in anthology shows.
      Science Fiction anthologies have been around since the 50's, largely shows like Science Fiction Theatre (remembered primarily for a reference in Back in the Future). However, the show that would forever codify the genre was Rod Serling's seminal 1959 series "The Twilight Zone." In the Twilight Zone, Serling used science fiction and fantasy tropes to comment on social or everyday ills. He made modern-day parables, using strange events to hammer the point. Another show to use similar devices was the 1961 show "The Outer Limits." Whilst never as good as the Twilight Zone, it nevertheless used a similar approach (albeit with monsters and aliens, and primarily sci-fi elements): use fantastic elements to give a moral to the story. And those are just the most famous examples. Britain had "Out of this World," and Journey to the Unknown," several short-lived shows of the 80's and 90's included "Amazing Stories," "Ray Bradbury Theatre", and "Masters of Science Fiction."
     So, could a science fiction anthology show be successful? Well, one might say that the Twilight Zone could be revived. That would work... except they already did that. Twice. One in 1985 (ran for three seasons), and one in 2002 (ran for only one season). Whilst neither of those were bad (I actually quite like them), reviving it again might ring out any sort of potential from the franchise. The Outer Limits was also revived in 1996 (and the revival actually ran longer than the original did.) So, instead of reviving old series, why don't we stick to creating new ones? Creating one shouldn't be hard: the effects for tv SF is not the greatest, so the budget can be kept low. The CW can create effects for supernatural tv shows on a TV budget, so a Sci-fi show should fare the same. Also, there are plenty of stories to adapt. There are many science fiction magazines, and fanzines, which publish great stories. So, given these facts, are new science fiction anthologies on the horizon. Well, SyFy is slowly returning to its roots (hopefully abandoning that asinine name as well), making a fairly hard science fiction show "Ascension." Perhaps they could create an anthology show. Or perhaps another channel looking for interesting material, like AMC or HBO. So, will there be another great science fiction anthology show? Only time will tell.

Review: Gone Girl

   What makes a film good or bad? Well, that could be determined through quite a number of criteria. From basic cinematic elements to the enjoyment aroused by such a picture, to the ideas and themes that a film provokes. Now, we have films that are definitively good and bad based on those criteria, correct? Well, often, it isn't as clear cut. There are good films that have glaring flaws, and bad films with redeeming features. Some of my favorite films have flaws Now, my style of reviewing revolves around pointing out these benefits and drawbacks. Most films are conducive to this style of reviewing, as there is no such thing as a perfect film, merely one with less than noticeable, or subjective flaws. Perhaps no films exemplifies this than Gone Girl, one of the most frustrating experiences I have ever had watching a film. Not because it was terrible, but rather it had the potential to be great, but elements bogged it down, resulting in a film I can't love, but I can't hate.
There was so much potential in this, but potential doesn't equal satisfaction.
     Based on the 2012 novel by Gillian Flynn, and directed by David Fincher (of Fight Club and The Social Network fame), the film starts with Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck), a married bar owner, who finds his wife, Amy (Rosamund Pike) had mysteriously vanished one day whilst returning from said bar. They had moved to Nick's home state of Missouri due to Nick losing his job as a journalist. At first, there is an outpouring of sympathy, primarily due to Amy being an inspiration for a series of popular children's books. However, the police, primarily Detective Rhonda Boney (Kim Dickens) and Officer Jim Gilpin (Patrick Fugit), are suspicious of Nick, and slowly evidence begins to amount indicting him. Intercut with this is narration from Amy's diary, detailing the blossoms of first love slowly declining into abuse, and potential murder. Soon, the media turns on Nick, and he finds himself the subject of an investigation for Amy's murder. However, all is not what it seems, as twists to the story begin fudge the true details of the murder...
      Goods things: the direction and cinematography is fantastic. It is shot beautifully. It has the intensity a story like this requires. The acting (except for Ben Affleck) is very well done. The satire on the nature of crime culture, and of how the media tends to over exaggerate details about cases, and jump to erroneous conclusions. The story, at times, can be very brilliant. The major twist in the story is handled well. This is a major spoiler for the film, so I will black the text out in case you don't want to read it: It turns out that Amy had, in fact, faked her own death, after she had found out that Nick had cheated on her with a far younger woman. She framed her own murder in vengeance, and promptly flee.   This twist is unexpected, makes sense in the context of the film, and actually invests your interest in how the story will proceed after that, as most twists do. Where they do go with it...
       Honestly, the story should have been re-written one or two times before they filmed the final product, because the script, particularly the second half of the film, is full of useless scenes, and at the very end, completely loses momentum. More spoilers: At first, Amy settles with a group of rednecks, but two steal her money, forcing her to return to her old boyfriend Desi Collings (Neil Patrick Harris). Meanwhile, Nick and his sister (the bar's co-owner) Margo (Carrie Coon) find out about Amy's subterfuge, and with the help of celebrity attorney Tanner Bolt (Tyler Perry) try to expose her lie. After Nick makes an impassioned plea to his wife on national television, Amy decides to kill Collings (I didn't quite get why even after this) and returns to her husband, where upon they decide to hold mutual respect for each other (despite Nick's misgivings)(I think), and have a child, whilst they have their celebrity status. Nick ends bemused and defeated.  .  Honestly, after She returns, the film just loses steam completely. If it had ended there, I probably would have said this was a good film with minor flaws. However, it just keeps going and going. It becomes redundant, and you just want it to end. If I were to rewrite this, I would write it like this:  Nick ends up arrested and convicted of the crime, and is sentenced to death row. After that scene, the film ends with the reveal that she faked her death.. I don't know if that would have actually improved the film, but that's what I would have preferred. Still I did think the ending was handled. I did want it to end on a dark note, and it ultimately did.  Minor pet peeves included a lackluster opening credits (seriously, the credits just pop in and out), and it is filmed at times, like a TV movie built for film (the fact that book writer and screenwriter Gillian Flynn was a television critic perhaps plays into this. 
      It's hard for me to quite muster a recommendation for this film. It is a good thriller, and it did keep me intrigued for most of its running time. So, if you want to see that, I suppose this would be good film. It certainly attract a certain crowd who enjoys these sorts of stories, so I suppose they might like this, but maybe not the ending. Once again, this film had a lot of potential, and a lot of good elements, but sadly didn't maintain these qualities. I give the film a solid 50%. Thank you for reading.

Project Daedalus: Journey Beyond the Stars

Daedalus craft and Saturn V
Credit/Copyright: Adrian Mann
(A very special thanks to Adrian Mann for allowing me use of the photo. For more of his incredible work, check out:http://www.bisbos.com/index.html)

   

 Manned Interstellar travel is currently impossible. The distance to the closest star, Proxima Centauri is over 4 light years, which translates to 5.87 E 12 miles. In contrast, the moon is 225,622 miles from Earth. Given this, it would take (given the fastest propulsion system, for instance nuclear) at least 87 years to actually get there. It would take even a relatively small craft, like Voyager 1, which is outside the Heliosphere, 80,000 years. Of course nobody has the time to actually, well, live through it. The kinetic energy to achieve reach a close star is beyond the capabilities of many modern spacecraft. Further, the dangers of outer space are well known. Whatever may fill the interstellar medium could damage the spacecraft. You would have to remain on the craft for a long time, without the ability to go outside, and to interact with the same crewmates, These problems prevent a Star-Trek esque future of interstellar travel in the near future. (Then again, that show is set in the 22nd century, so it's hardly the "near-future"). However, unmanned probes could hold potential. After all, the crafts don't have to account for the human side, just the technological side. Whilst the time and distance problems still remains (as seen in the Voyager example above), one can make the argument for an unmanned interstellar mission. One such group acting on this was the British Interplanetary Society, and in the 70's, they made their case.

     The British Interplanetary Society was founded by Phillip Cleator in 1933. It was founded during a boom in rocket societies in developed countries, such as the US, Germany, and the Soviet Union (many members of these societies would become key figures during the Space Race). At first, the Liverpool based organization was based solely off rocketry experimentation, but the Explosives Act of 1875 (which banned liquid fueled rockets) put an end to that. After a move to London in 1937, the membership boomed, with notable members including famed science-fiction author Arthur C Clarke and Val Cleaver, designer of the British Blue Streak Missile in the 50's. They become known for their extrapolations speculating on the possibilities of manned and unmanned space travel. They did a notable study of a moon mission in 1930's, with notable similarities to the Apollo Missions. Even after the space race concluded unceremoniously, the BIS continued to speculate, this time going to more distant locales....

       On January 10th, 1973, thirteen members of the BIS embarked on Project Daedalus, named for the mythical creator of the Labyrinth, a theoretical study dealing with the possibility of unmanned interstellar travel. This was first proposed by member and former Rolls-Royce engineer Alan Bond in 1972. The project was lead by Bond, Tony Martin, and Robert Parkinson.  It was, in part a response to the Fermi Paradox, a supposition by famed physicist Enrico Fermi that contrasted the theoretical abundance of intelligent extraterrestrial life, with its absence. One possibility is that interstellar travel hasn't been developed sufficiently by extraterrestrial civilizations sufficiently. The project was in part made to debunk that interstellar travel was hypothetically impossible, at least for unmanned crafts. The final project was published in the BIS Journal in 1978.  The conceived product was a 54,000 ton craft (larger than the Saturn V), equipped with scientific instrumentation such as robotic sub-probes, telescopes, and cameras, whose destination was the distant Bernard's star, over 5.9 light years away. To mitigate the impact of slow moving particles, a beryllium shield was added, due to the high latent heat and lightweight nature of Beryllium. The giant ship would have to be constructed in orbit, due to its sheer size. The journey was to take 50 years. 

      The mission had three stated goals: 

     

• (1) The spacecraft must use current or near-future technology
• (2) The spacecraft must reach its destination within a working human lifetime
• (3)The spacecraft must be designed to allow for a variety of target stars

      The thirteen member group had a serious task ahead of them. They needed to find a way to achieve astronomically (pun unintended) high speeds, and weather potential threats to the craft. Whilst full on nuclear propulsion (as in the cancelled Project Orion) was possible, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty prevented this. They were able to solve this, by deploying an interesting method. The engine was two stage, with pellets of deuterium and helium-3 (extracted from Jupiter or the Moon, depending on the year) being bombarded by high energy electron beams. This would induce fission, and hence energy for thrust, much like a chemical rocket. There would be 250 of these detonations per minute. The first stage would be a boost stage, which would consume 46,000 tons of fuel, achieving a speed of  75 million miles per hour. After 3.8 years, the second cruising stage would apply, where the craft would travel at 12% the speed of light, which would be 22,000 miles per hour. This would last 46 years, until reaching Bernard's Star. The ship would be inactive during the first part of this journey. However, halfway through, the probe would turn its two 5 meter optical telescopes and 20 meter radio telescopes towards the star, and take photographs, as well as analyze spectrographs, photometers, etc of the star and any accompanying planets. Eventually, its legion of robotic probes are awaken, and given coordinations. The eighteen probes will be released 1-7.2 years before the craft actually arrives to Bernards Star, and then descend upon the solar system, each equipped with spectrometers, photometers, cameras, and other scientific equipment to find more about the planets, and maybe the life on them. These will return data to the ship, and transmit it back to Earth. Robots would also be responsible for the care of the ship.

   No cost was placed on this project, though estimations would put it at a whooping 100 trillion dollars. This is no surprise, given the scale of the project, and the fact the ship would be larger than several famed buildings. Also, the BIS acknowledged that a large degree of international cooperation would be needed to actually build the craft. None the less, this has influenced thinking on unmanned interstellar travel amongst major space agencies, including NASA.Despite the discovery that Bernard's star didn't actually have planets, the model can easily applied to any star. So, will it be used? Maybe, but not in its original form. Elements may survive, but the mission to a distant star system would likely be smaller in scale. After all, this was merely a speculative study, not an ironclad blueprint. Variations  have appeared, including self-replicating robots, and a magnetic sail in place of nuclear engines. It was, and in a way, still is an ambitious project, one which pushes the boundary of what truly is "possible." To quote a former BIS president: "The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible."

Sources

Project Daedalus – Interstellar Mission- The British Interplanetary Society:

http://www.bis-space.com/what-we-do/projects/project-daedalus

Daedalus-Brisbo.com:

http://www.bisbos.com/space_n_daedalus.html 

The Daedalus Starship- Damn Interesting:

http://www.damninteresting.com/the-daedalus-starship/ 

Project Daedalus- Origins:

http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.geocities.com/TelevisionCity/2049/DAEDALUS.HTM&date=2009-10-25+11:06:11 

Project Daedalus- Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daedalus 

Project Daedalus- The World of David Darling

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/D/Daedalus.html 

The Cost of Interstellar probes- Centauri Dreams:

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=13202 

Interstellar Travel- Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_travel

List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs- Wikipedia, the Free encyclopeida

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_stars_and_brown_dwarfs

Nostalgia

  Recently, I have gotten back into the animated television show "Ed, Edd, 'n' Eddy." My favorite show as a kid (and one of my  favorite shows of all time). It is better than I remember. I now get the sometimes subtle jokes that the show deploys. I also appreciate the slapstick, and the loose, wild animation.  However, I suppose that part of my newfound enjoyment of the show stems, in part, from an inherent sense of nostalgia. Nostalgia is an emotion many humans have, whether they know it or not. All humans feel an appreciation or a longing for the past. Because they are dissatisfied with the present, or they simply want to reflect on a time that was simpler (in their eyes).Nosalgia is a natural feeling to have. Why point this out? Well, I hope it mitigates the  response that I might get from this article.
      Recently, there has been a boom in 80's-90's nostalgia. There are entire websites and tv shows dedicated to the culture of these two cultures, and appreciation of them. ABC's "The Goldbergs" is a show that completely emmerses itself in 80's nostalgia. Buzzfeed has daily lists dedicated to the topic. Definitely, the internet has given us a whole new culture of old. This is of course nothing new. The 70's and 80's worshiped the 50's and 60's. The 90's had an affinity for the 60's and 70's. Now, it is the 80's and 90's that the disgruntled older masses have decided to latch on. Of course, there is no inherent problem in occasionally indulging your childhood likes and dislikes. However, if I were to leave it at that, there would be no use for this article.
   If internet nerds were merely expressing their love of their childhood, that's one thing. However, constantly proclaiming that your childhood is superior to anyone else's childhood is whole different matter entirely. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the point of this article. The people who will constantly degrade the present, and put divinity towards their childhood. Rational people are irritated by this. However, they infest every part of the internet. They will constantly say "Why, the 90's were BETTER. I mean we had (this) and (that), which is much better than the crap of today." You would see this comment at times on Youtube or Facebook. Now, before you chastise me for trying respond to irrelevant peoples who have no bearing on society whatsoever, I write this as a counterpoint to the mainstream nostalgia obsession, as well as this trolls.
      Were the 90's better? Well, you can't really answer that. Every historical era is flawed in one way or the other. One can find several things that would dampen 50's-60's. The 80's and 90's were no different. Yes, the Eighties had Star Wars, ET, and Back to the Future. It also had Troll 2, Heaven's Gate, Howard the Duck, and Mommie Dearest. You may have great music acts, too numerous to count, I will admit, but you also have equal amount of terrible music. It may not have cell phones, but it did AIDS, and crack, lots of it. The 90's also have flaws. Think of all of the Direct to Video films that Disney and other companies spewed out every year of the decade.  While there were many good video games from, there were also a lot really bad ones, many from the Giants Nintendo and Sega. This one fellow on Youtube said that we had less terror problems. Yeah, so Waco, the WTC bombing, the bombings at the Atlanta Olympics, Osama Bin Laden's 1998 attack on the Tanzanian Embassy all of a sudden don't count. And there were more obscure acts of terrorism that occurred during the decade. (When I confronted the guy, he claimed that "Waco wasn't terrorism (which I suppose is debatable), and that they caught Ramzi Yousef in 5 years (Why this matters, and how this makes the incident not count as terrorism is beyond me). I could go on, but then, I'd go into personal preference, which might compromise the piece.
     If you enjoyed something as a child, and you just like the show just due to that reason, that's fine. For the EE'n'E example above, I know that there might be people who will criticize that show for reasons that I'm sure are valid. However, I would like to challenge the idea that all nostalgic things are "good." I will take the example of Pokemon, particularly the first generation. A lot of people will tell you that they like only the first generations, and the other generations are "inferior." (I loathe such persons passionately, but that is neither here or now). Was the First Generation the best? In my opinion, no. The region is boring, the story is lackluster, the graphics really haven't aged well in 17 years. It was revolutionary in 1996, I am certain, and it was the first, so they had no precedent to work off of. However, that was 1996. In modern times, the games of generation 1 haven't held up. And that's not even going into the Pokemon, which are very childish, and very simple. (And don't tell me that is part of their charm. Yes, I suppose there is an appeal of sorts to simple Pokemon. There are simple Pokemon in every generation, yet people seem to loathe them too. So, why do you excuse the First generation for having a blob, a rock with arms, and a pokeball, but than proceed to heap hate onto Trubbish or Vanilluxe) I only like 5 or 6 pokemon from this particular generation. I freely admit this could be bias. I didn't grow up on Generation 1. I got into Pokemon in generations 2 and 3, and I prefer them, because that's what I grew up on, so perhaps I've fallen into the same mindset as the ones I condemn, but you see my point. (Further, I do understand if many find faults in later generations. I myself wasn't all impressed with Gen VI's lineup, but this isn't out of nostalgia, and more out of critical examination)  Nostalgia is not a marker of quality. Just because you played and/or watched something in the past does not make it the greatest ever. That is simply personal taste, and that is not quantitative.
       Do I get nostalgic? Well, not much. Sometimes, I watch Cartoon Network's current line-up, and I think of the shows that I grew up watching on the network. However, I don't bemoan that the network has somehow declined in recent years. It simply has different shows now, shows that are being watched by a generation not older than when I was watching it. These are their nostalgic shows, and they will forever cherish them, much as I, and the targets of this article, cherish our childhood memories. Nostalgia is not an inherently bad thing. However, when you are obsessed with the past and its supposed perfection, you ignore what was wrong with yesterday, and what is good about today, or what will be good for the future. The past is the past, and continually insisting that it was untarnished is not helpful in securing a good present or future. In the end, you must let go of the past if you want to have a bright future. Nostalgia is something that we will all have. However, if you let your nostalgia consume your being, you'll always be stuck in the past.

The Jungle Palace of Henry Ford

     

When one thinks of jungle ruins, one thinks of ancient Maya or Aztec ruins, or ancient Buddhist temples, encased in vines, forever lost to history. However, there are a particular set of ruins in the Amazon which does not conform to these stereotypes. Here, the ruins are instead of factories, and of homes, and of farms. It almost looks like an American small town, which has been abandoned. Odd place for it, considering it is deep in the jungles of Brazil. This is Fordlandia, the lost dream of Henry Ford, and a warning to all who try this experiment again.
In the 1920's, Ford was booming. Their Model T cars had proven a major success, and they could be seen across the nation. This put company founder Henry Ford, the 65 year old young farmer's son turned engineer turned innovator to the national spotlight, and cemented his place in the American fabric, making him a household name. However, he was facing a bit of a crisis. With the amount of cars he was churning out, he needed an extravagant amount of rubber for tires. However, rubber production and trade was controlled by a small group of British and Dutch robber barons, who grew the rubber trees in British Malaysia, and the Dutch East Indies. It was incredibly expensive to purchase raw rubber. Seeking a cheaper way of obtaining rubber, he decided to look for other places. The rubber tree is not native to South East Asia. It was smuggled in 1870's to the region, and that is how the rubber plantations began. The tree was actually indigenous to the Amazon rain forest. Given this information, Ford reasoned that perhaps he could establish his own Rubber produce, breaking the monopoly, and supplying his company with a cheap supply of rubber.
In 1928, he hired a local surveyor to scout out a location. The surveyor found a 25,000 square kilometer area called Boa Vista (Portuguese for "Good View"), which Ford subsequently selected for Fordlandia. He soon brought a barrage of machines to develop the area. After building the necessary location, he soon sent several workers to the region. Scores of Ford's workers came to Fordlandia to help Ford's vision. Soon, indigenous workers joined them in Fordlandia, with promises of higher pay. Boa Vista was transformed from a wild patch of rainforest to a sprawling 20's American suburb, complete with a power plant, a modern hospital, a library, a golf course, a hotel, and rows of white clapboard houses with wicker patio furniture. It had swimming pools, and a variety of businesses, from tailors to restaurants to bakeries. It It was vision of American perfection, as envisioned by Ford. However, problems arose almost instantly. Henry Ford had very strong conservative, Mid-Western values, which he tried to impose on his workers. He had a policy that all workers had to lead pious, "christian" lives, or they would be fired. The same policy was applied not just to the American members of Fordlandia, but also to the Indigenous workers. Obviously, this wasn't Michigan, and the workers rebelled against the new restrictions, including no women, no alcohol, and having to work a 9-to-5 shift (in the hot equatorial sun). Another problem natives had was the foreign products. They were baffled by concepts like cafeteria self-serving (they were more accustomed to having food brought to them, and the American homes. They also had to eat alien foods like Hamburgers (how quaint), and participate in American festivities. Tensions began to rise between the workers and the administrators. Business of dubious morality were established outside the town's border, to serve the unholy desires of the workers, serving them rum, and giving them women. As if the tensions of the workers wasn't enough, the rubber production wasn't going well at all. Ford hadn't hired any botanist for this project (due to his anti-intellectualism), and relied primarily on the cleaverness of his engineers. His engineer's cleaverness allowed for two hundred trees to be grown per acre, despite there being 7 per acre. The reason was that the trees would fall prey to leaf blight, caterpillars, and ants. And sure enough, many of the trees were rendered ineffective. This is why the Asian Plantations were more successful. South-East Asia did not have the rubber trees natural predators, so they could grow in vast numbers. However, in the Amazon, it was an open feast for the insects and fungi. As months of unproductivity increased, worker discontent also rose. This wasn't helped by an outbreak of malaria (due to the hilly terrain pooling water, allowing for mosquitos to breed.) Then, one day, finally fed up with the conditions, one Brazilian man rose, and declare that he could no longer tolerate the conditions. Soon, others joined in, and a rebellion began. The management fled to the boats, whilst the workers, armed with machetes, destroyed the cafeteria, and spread chaos through the colony. When the Brazilian army arrived three days later, the colony had been severely damaged. Another rebellion arose over workers brought from Barbados, who were taking jobs from the native workers. Finally realizing the mistake he made, Ford hired a botanist. After examining the land, the botantist concluded the land was not suited for rubber production. Ford had bought faulty land from the local surveyor. Undeterred, Ford decided to shift locations to a new area called Belterra. Here, the American traditions were relaxed (although Ford balked at the idea of building a Catholic church, even though the workers were predominantly Catholic). The weather was more conducive to Rubber production. However, by 1945, synthetic rubber had been created. Ford, humiliated, sold the land back to Brazil, and abandoned the two plantations to their fate. The Brazilian government tried to use the abandoned factory for their own uses, but this was short lived. Now, the regions provides tourism and agriculture for the curious. Fordlandia cost the Ford company 200 million dollars in 2013 dollars. It now serves a lesson, actually several lessons. If you run a million dollar enterprise, and you seek to make a risky investment, consult experts before engaging in said enterprise. What is acceptable to people in Michigan may not be understood or accepted by Brazilians. And never try to impose your alien values onto people who are unfamiliar. Fordlandia's story continues to intrigue many, and will serve as a parable for generations to come.

Sources:
F

ordlandia by Mary A. Dempsey- Michigan History Online

http://wayback.archive-it.org/418/20080304195857/http://www.michiganhistorymagazine.com/extra/fordlandia/fordlandia.html

THE RUINS OF FORDLÂNDIA
ARTICLE #207 • WRITTEN BY ALAN BELLOWS- Damn Interesting
http://www.damninteresting.com/the-ruins-of-fordlandia/
Fordlandia: The Failure Of Ford's Jungle Utopia- NPR
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105068620
Fordlândia- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordl%C3%A2ndia