It’s almost trivial for a long-running show to pass the test; just have two women talk to each other about something other than a man in any episode. Some shows do better than others, though, passing the test in more individual episodes.

I started to write a list of sci-fi and fantasy shows I’ve liked, with a “Bechdel rating” or “Bechdel factor” for each, but I soon realized how time-consuming and tedious that would get. (It gives me an excuse to rewatch some old favorites, but if I waited for that you’d be getting this posthumously.) I don’t remember individual episodes of most shows anyway, so the numbers would be pretty arbitrary.

Still, it’s fun to guess. Quantum Leap would score surprisingly low; Al spent more screen time talking about his ex-wives and conquests than any two women spent talking about anything. I’m not sure if they’d get credit for episodes where Sam leaped into a woman, but even counting those I can’t remember many scenes that would pass.

Battlestar Galactica and Firefly would do pretty well, but for some reason I’m not remembering many specific conversations between women. The awesome banter between Inara and Saffron probably passes, and Kaylee and Inara share moments here and there. (Oddly enough, I can’t remember Zoe talking to anyone but Mal or Wash.) Roslin and Starbuck have enough dialogue in BSG that most episodes probably pass.

One show stands out as an obvious winner: Star Trek: Voyager. (I know, I know. I liked it, though.) The Captain and Chief Engineer are both women, and it’s tough to find an episode where those two don’t talk tech. Introducing Seven later in the series probably upped the percentage toward 100%, but it would have been close anyway.

Notice I haven’t said a thing about Buffy. That’s because I have yet to watch an entire episode. Sorry, Deb!

The test itself fascinates me. First of all, it doesn’t make any claims about quality or fairness, or even sexism per se; the two women could be delivering cliche lines about tax law while wrestling in mud. It’s also frightfully easy to make a movie that passes the test; just stick in a few minutes of mud-wrestling tax chat and proceed with the rest of your film as-is. (Yes I am looking at you, Star Trek.) It also shouldn’t be construed as an ultimate benchmark of feminism, because it’s possible to make a film that doesn’t pass but still treats women as first-class characters.

That said, the subset of my favorite sci-fi and fantasy films that would pass the test is an amazingly short list. Some of the dropouts (like 2001 and Moon) have few or no female characters, and some (like Star Wars and The Princess Bride) don’t have any conversations between women. In fact, finding a single genre favorite that passes starts to challenge my memory. Brazil? Nope. Raiders? Nope. Back to the Future? Nope for all three. Lord of the Rings? Heh.

Then I get to Serenity. OK, here we go. Joss Whedon, strong female characters, more than one on screen at a time. A cinch, right? Well… I’m trying really hard to remember a conversation between any two women in the film, and it just isn’t working. I’ll probably go through the script scene-by-scene just to check, but it should just pop to mind, right? Reverse genders and it’s obvious: Mal talks to the Operative on more than one occasion, Book and Mal share a nice moment, the Operative shares exposition with that functionary guy–and then impales him, but it still counts.

I’ve heard tell that the Alien movies qualify, but I must admit that I haven’t seen them. As for the rest of my list… well, I guess there isn’t one yet. I can’t think of a single genre film I’ve seen that passes the Bechdel test. Can you?

On the left, Lucas surrounded by a ton of stuff from the first Star Wars trilogy, which ended with 1983′s Return of the Jedi. On the right, Lucas surrounded by the only object that mattered in his second Star Wars trilogy, finishing with 2005′s Revenge of the Sith: A green chroma screen.

I’ve been thinking about this in terms of television shows lately. On the one hand, using CG and green screens is so much cheaper that it allows shoestring indie productions to look as good as big studio stuff. (See the indie-to-SciFi show Sanctuary for an example.) On the other hand, green screens make it harder for actors to get involved, and there are lots of ways to get the visuals subtly wrong.

So here’s my question: do we actually need the green screen anymore? There seem to be lots of “extended super special restored director’s cut” editions of existing shows and movies now, and plenty of YouTube remasters of even the crappiest pre-digital video. None of that stock had green screens or motion dots or matchmove data, so why can’t we shoot new video without all those things?

As an intermediate step, would it be possible to dress a set the way you might for a stage play, then fill in the screen-quality props and sets digitally? Can actors look out a cardboard window at a black cloth with stars painted on it, but viewers see a porthole with galaxies whizzing past? That way, you don’t have to make the decision between the on-stage prop and the virtual one until you’re in the editing room. Who knows? You might just decide to leave the cardboard in.

Don't Panic!

From Wikipedia (which, I remind all students, is NOT a source!):

Towel Day is celebrated every May 25 as a tribute by fans of the late author Douglas Adams. On this day, fans carry a towel with them to demonstrate their love for the books and the author. The commemoration was first held in 2001, two weeks after Adams’ death on May 11, 2001.

1. Watch this. Mostly listen, really, because you’ve seen the visuals before**:
   
2. Listen to lots more Marian Call music, and contemplate picking some up on iTunes or your favorite music-purchasing outlet.
3. Wonder where Marian Call has been all your life, and realize she’ll be at Lestat’s next Wednesday night. If that’s too far away for you, there’s always following her on Twitter and asking her to tour a bit closer. (Not the same, I know.)

So there you go. I don’t ask much, do I?

* but not SyFy, because WTF, right?
** and if you haven’t, we need to talk.

On a side note, George Takei is 71?!? Criminy! Yet another person I can see storming around when he’s 120, shouting, “I’m one hundred and twenty!”

As members of the local Mars Society and NSS chapters, my family was invited to a “friends and family” preview of Star Trek: The Exhibition at the San Diego Air & Space Museum. It’s an exhibit we had intended to see anyway, but seeing it on opening day with a bunch of other fans and space enthusiasts was too good to pass up.

The short summary: It’s a fun exhibit for fans of TOS or TNG, or fans of the Trek universe in general. It’s worth going just for the chance to sit on the Enterprise bridge or stand on the transporter pads. More of my review after the jump, including photos and a short YouTube clip.

Continue reading “Star Trek: The Exhibition in San Diego” »

And it is a quote that I’ve always loved. But the more I look at it and think about it, I have to wonder if it still applies to our world.

I’m watching the Transformers movie while writing this. Huge robots from outer space coming to Earth. Does anyone think they are magic? Of course not.

“I bought a car. Turned out to be an alien robot. Who knew?”, says a nonchalant Sam Witwicky.

More technologically advanced than us? Totally. But magic? Don’t be silly! Never even enters anyone’s mind.

Yes, but no. As advanced as a transforming robot might be, I don’t think it’s “sufficiently advanced.” In terms of imagination (if not practicality), an Autobot is a simple combination of a technology we have (a car), a technology we’re working on (a humanoid robot), and a technology that’s explicitly described in the story (transformation from one machine to another.) Each step along the way is imaginable as a technology.

The problem is that we’re describing things we already understand (or have a grasp on, thanks to science fiction), so it’s hard to find something “sufficiently advanced.” Perhaps we could look at aspects of the world we don’t understand, things that spook us when they happen.

The island on LOST could be one. Crazy, unexplainable things happen. Dead people come back to give warnings, weather responds to emotions, buildings appear and disappear. Since the audience doesn’t know enough to explain all the events, they could be magic or some advanced technology. (Or the product of a deranged imagination, but Clarke didn’t say anything about that.) It’s even a theme of the show: is the Island a magical force to be obeyed, or a technological treasure trove to be exploited?

Harry Potter could be a nearer-term example. Flying broomsticks? Animal transformation? Wands that influence the world with a few words and a gesture? They’re presented as magic (and denounced as demonic), but I see technologies that aren’t far off.

The Doctor makes millions for the BBC, so perhaps it should listen to Davies’s anger about the time it is now being shown – 40 minutes earlier than before, at 6.20pm. “It’s a shame. It’s a terrible slot. We will lose viewers. I am unhappy. We’ll see.” Expect to see it moved back, later in the run.

Other sci-fi writers make a point of praising their hardcore fans, but Davies can be very rude about them (look away now, Whovians). “It’s like having a swarm of fucking mosquitoes buzzing around you. It doesn’t stop you doing your job, but, Christ, they buzz!”

There are a few spoilers, but they’re more intriguing than revealing, certainly not worth avoiding the interview. We watched the first episode of Series 4 over the weekend, and I’m excited to see where it leads.