Another Life: REVIEW *

I subscribe to Netflix (for now). I'm constantly looking for new ideas, and to see what others have to contribute to the science fiction genre. I started watching Another Life, because it has Katee Sackhoff (BSG) and Samuel Andersen (Dr Who). I enjoy both of these actors, and I enjoy science fiction, what could go wrong?

HOLY COW! Where do I even start?

The basic premise?
The lazy writing?
The terrible characters?
The bad science?
or the hot steaming pile of politically correct wokeness that is this show?

Let's start with the basic premise. Within the first minute we are introduced into the shallow, vapid world of the distant future. The first person we meet is a morally bereft, self-centered, egotistical side character that has little to do with the main plot (other than portray reporters as egocentric, scheming, lying, and unethical). An alien probe (shaped like a mobius band) suddenly appears, lands, turns into an antenna, and begins transmitting. The signal is traced to Pi Canis Majoris. Without analyzing the signal, understanding the object, or knowing what they're doing, they send a ship, captained by Niko Breckenridge (Sackhoff) to investigate. SIGH!

What is the purpose? It's unclear, and unspecific. We know that they plan a six month trip (three months there, and three months back). WHY!?! What is the point of going there, turning around, and heading home? SERIOUSLY! Why waste your time? What is the point? What are you going to do once you get there? Is there a plan?

Apparently not.

They crew the ship with a bunch of young, neurotic, idiots who couldn't even get hired by NASA to scrub toilets, let alone fly on an interstellar mission. One of the crew is open about her psychopathy and is, at the very least, a sociopath. One is a transsexual, who would never be considered (due to the high suicidal risk, not because they are transsexual.). The Executive Officer has borderline personality disorder, and the rest of the crew appear to suffer from a multitude of psychological conditions, which would preclude them from going. This includes Niko, the captain, who is suffering from severe PTSD. From a mental health perspective, not one of the crew is fit for a deep space mission.

The crew, for some reason, are quasi-military, but lack any discipline or hierarchy. Crew members routinely engage in insubordination, mutiny, fighting (verbal and physical), and murder. The AI, William (Andersen), is the only other character (besides Niko) that takes any responsibility, or behaves logically. The only member of the cast who is semi-professional, is Niko. The others seem to be stuck in High School, trying to imitate the cast of "The Breakfast Club". If this were a mission to save the Earth, NONE of the characters would be considered, let alone selected, for this mission. The characters don't seem compelling at all. With the exception of Niko and William, they are all forgettable, interchangeable, vapid, generic, and unlikable.

The selection of mission specialists doesn't appear to have much rhyme or reason, and none of them seem to have the requisite scientific knowledge to support their specialties. They typify the general perception of the millennial generation, but I can't tell if the writers are trying to make a social commentary, or writing the characters because they are that way themselves.

This brings me to the writing.

One of the reasons why my second book in the Tales of Arabella series has been so slow to come out, is because I am working on a second book series. Working on this second book series has become one of the most research intensive activities I have done outside my graduate school studies. The major reason for this is because it deals with interstellar travel. I write hard science fiction, which means scientifically accurate. To make sure I get it right, I have to know what works and why. I also have to make sure my readers can follow the science without needing an advanced degree in physics, chemistry, or engineering. This means I have to write compelling characters while still getting the science right. It isn't an easy task when you're writing at an 8th grade level and trying to convey concepts most people don't learn until college.

Balancing this took time, research, planning, study, and effort. This is something the 11 people with writing credits obviously didn't do. It makes the character development chaotic, and almost impossible to predict, and the science appear as if it were written by a person, who's highest grade in the subject, was a C-. There is a reason why Futurama is so smart, funny, stimulating, and creative (even at its worst).  It was written by people who were scientists first, and writers second. After all, David X. Cohen (Executive Producer), has a PhD in Mathematics, not English. Most of the principle writing staff worked on shows like Degrassi (teen drama), instead of anything substantive. The only reason why I can see why the writers wrote and developed the characters the way they did, is to pacify the specific demographics they are trying to appease. They didn't try to write carefully developed characters, and give them a compelling story arc. They threw a bunch of mentally incompetent people together and put the setting in space. This doesn't make for good television. this makes for a soap opera. Unfortunately, the people who watch space based science fiction aren't looking for that. If you're looking for Degrassi in space, I guess this is it. It still sucks.

Now for the science.

Where do I begin?

GRAVITATIONAL LENSING by dark matter. UGH! Even if dark matter exists, which I see no evidence that it does, it would not behave this way. How do we know? Because there is no evidence of it affecting light in that way. How do we know this to be true? Because we have seen the effect, and studied it. With Pi Canis Majoris being less than 100 light-years away, we would see any gravitational lensing fairly quickly.

REAL-TIME COMMUNICATIONS with light-years between the points. This defies basic fundamentals of physics. Einstein proved that nothing can exceed the speed of light. This cosmic speed limit has no exceptions, and has been proven correct in every experiment. Quantum entanglement has been proposed as a way to transmit messages instantaneously over great distances, but it doesn't transmit information. In other words, it doesn't work that way.

RADIATION. At several times, the crew is exposed to high doses of ionizing radiation, including Gamma Rays. None of them even question the use of high-energy particles to irradiate them. Once they receive, what I calculate is, a lethal dose of gamma rays from Sirius B, they are only rendered sterile. In reality, they would probably die, within an hour or two, from radiation sickness. This is in addition to any radiation they are exposed to from simply being in space. There is some vapid response about a radiation shield around the ship, but I doubt it would be capable of shielding them from the environments they find themselves in (using a highly active star as a navigation aid). Again, none of the crew would survive.

BRIDGE WITH NO SEAT BELTS. My biggest pet peeve with Star Trek and BSG has now come to this. No seat belts. NONE. What happens if there is turbulence during landing? People can be severely injured or killed during takeoff and landing. Even private planes won't move without everyone buckled in.

NO CONTROLS. A bridge that has no active input from a pilot, no place to sit, no input consoles, and no way to monitor what's going on around it. The Command Deck is fairly barren, with only rudimentary consoles. I can only assume the AI (William) does all the piloting. What happens when he goes off-line? What happens if all the computers fail? What happens when things go wrong? Controlling the spacecraft seems a pretty important feature to overlook. Even from a production standpoint, cockpits are pretty much mandatory. Even Firefly could make a budget bridge look awesome.

LACK OF MILITARY. Before you say that military structure is not science, let me remind you that anthropology is a science. The military is hierarchical, and has been historically, so it falls under anthropology. I don't recognize Social Science as an actual scientific discipline, but more of a pseudo-science (you can disagree, but that's my opinion). One of the main antagonists is General Dobois (played by Barbara Williams). The General title denotes a military structure. As I have stated before, there does not seem to be any military discipline. The military works entirely on the concept of hierarchical structure. Orders are followed because of this structure. Failure to follow this results in immediate severe punishment. It has been this way for centuries, because it cannot work any other way. I'm surprised the shows writers couldn't even get it close to believable. They even had a visual resource that gets it pretty close: Battlestar Galactica. Oddly enough, Sackhoff was one of the star cast on that one. Why can't they get it right, when they have something so accessible for reference.

I don't know if I can continue watching past episode 3. My nerd rage is pretty strong right now. This series misses on every level: story telling, world building, character development, and overall entertainment value. Science Fiction and Fantasy are escapist genres. To do that, you must suspend disbelief. Watching this show, suspending my disbelief is impossible. I can't, because it's not clear what this crew's mission actually is. This whole show is just more attempt at a woke agenda that seems to infect every aspect of the entertainment industry. One thing is for certain, it isn't anything that will be as fondly remembered as Battlestar, Star Trek, Firefly, or even The Orville. That's sad, because the world need a better class of science fiction set in space.

My Problems With Interstellar Act 3

One of my biggest pet peeves in all cinema, is consumables. A consumable is a finite resource (bullets, food, air, fuel, money...etc.). When gunfights are prolonged without the need for reloading, or when characters have a seemingly unlimited supply of ammo, or go for days without food or water, it bothers me. In the case of Interstellar, fuel is used as a convenient plot device, after ignoring it in the second act.

When the crew leaves Earth, they use a large rocket to get into space. The reason for this is simple: a large amount of fuel is required to lift a given mass into orbit, and keep it there. The greater the mass, the larger the rocket. The physics behind this is well known, and isn't anything new. The movie uses it at the beginning of Act 2 (launching into space).

This scene is accurate. To lift the spacecraft into orbit for rendezvous and docking requires a lot of fuel. Where Interstellar goes wrong is on Miller's Planet. They use a Ranger spacecraft to descend to the planet's surface. Miller's planet is a water world, with gravity greater than 1 G. Because of these two facts, we know something about its size. Worlds larger than Earth are generally completely covered in water. The scenes on this planet are accurate - right up to the point that they leave.

Why, you ask?

Because the Ranger spacecraft leaves with the fuel it has on-board. Not a big rocket like it needed on Earth. This is a plot-hole so large I can fit a Saturn V in it. In order to reach escape velocity on a planet larger than Earth, you need to be going much faster. Don't believe me? Here is a calculator that will quickly do the math for you.

For all that Interstellar gets right on the majority of the science in the movie, it flunks basic rocket science in this one scene. AARRGGGGGHHHH!! It drives me crazy every time I see it, and my wife is getting tired of my tirades when I lose my mind as I watch it.

Fuel is key. As you can see from the clip, there is no big rocket to get them off a super-earth. NO NO NO!!! This is bad science. For a factual article on this, visit NASA (Here).

This continues to be an issue that is only half dealt with for the remainder of the film. The expenditure of fuel and the thrust required to escape the gravitational pull of celestial bodies becomes a plot point near the climax of the film. After visiting Dr. Mann's planet, they are forced to venture to Edmond's planet, but only one can make the trip. They use Ranger 2 and Lander 1 as rocket boosters. After their fuel is expended, during the escape burn, they are jettisoned to save on weight. This is accurate, but a very terrible idea for real astronauts. The best chance for survival is for both living astronauts to be on the same ship, not jettison the only competent pilot. True this is the emotional pinch of the film, but it makes no logical sense.

The other issue is using the gravity of a black hole to slingshot themselves to another planet. Although black holes aren't the cosmic vacuums that we've been led to believe, they are not to be approached. This would be reckless at best, and bordering on suicidal. There would be no way to accurately calculate exactly where the actual event horizon is, because you would not know the mass of the collapsed star inside. If you want to try it, HERE is a calculator. In addition, the Hawking radiation around the accretion disc would probably fry the crew. Black holes are not to be used as navigation aids by humans. PERIOD.

While I still very much enjoy this film, this major point brings my overall liking down a notch.All this hard science entertainment, that overlooks the basics, is making me angry. Now I have to go relax before I have a stroke.