Fan Theory #3: Dalek lights.

Anyone who’s watched “Doctor Who” for any amount of time, would be familiar with the Daleks. Or you can be like me and watched “Coupling” before you ever saw an episode of “Doctor Who”, so you’d be aware of Daleks before ever watching the latter show. Anyway, for those who aren’t, what is a Dalek? A Dalek is an extra-terrestrial race of squid-like beings, who can barely transport themselves over land, so they use these special tank-like human-sized machines to transport themselves. This way, whenever they’re on-screen, you almost always see the machine, rarely do we see the things inside them, so people would easily mistake them for robots (much like some of the writers on “Doctor Who” have done as well). These tank-like machines have one arm to grab hold of things, one gun to shoot (I know, I’m often mistaken for Captain Obvious), and one electronic eye. But it also has these two light-bulbs on top. Here’s a question: why?

Yes, I have seen the extras on the “Doctor Who” DVD, which explain that those light-bulbs were created because, according to the script, several Daleks would often appear on screen together, but we would have no way of knowing which Dalek is talking, and when. That’s what the light-bulbs are for, they light up whenever a Dalek is talking. So that’s the behind the scenes explanation, but what’s the in-universe explanation? What function could they possibly fullfil? If you’re going to say that maybe it’s so even the Daleks know which of the other Daleks are talking, you’d be wrong, since some episodes have implied that Daleks have hive-minds. So whatever thought one Dalek has, the others would have it too. In which case, they don’t need to talk to each other.

So what do I think those lights are for? I’ll share it with you, but before I do that, I’ll have to explain a thing or two about how light (in general) works.

As I understand it, light is reflected, refracted, and absorbed by the objects around us. If an object is whits, we know this because the white object would reflect all the light. That reflected light enters our eyes, which our brain then interprets as the object being white (and also allows for our brains to identify the object in question).

In other words, light is a means to send electrical signals for our brain to interpret. If the Daleks are as superior as they say they are, they too might have figured this out. And as we have seen in some episodes, while they think they are above all other living things, they often rely on others to do some of the dirty work (like in “The Dalek Invasion Of Earth”). My point being that they still need some means of communicating with us, whether they want to learn our language(s) or not. And since they think of themselves to be supreme, I don’t think they would want to learn other languages. So it would surprise me if Daleks bothered to learn English (or even German, as at least one Dalek did in “Journey’s End”). So here’s what I’m thinking: what if these lights are a means for them to talk? That is, whatever thought they have, is being transmitted into those light-bulbs, which flicker, and our eyes catch those lights, and whatever information is in the light from those bulbs, it’s all interpreted by our brains in terms that we would understand. On top of that, since light is reflected everywhere, one does not even need to directly look at a Dalek in order to “hear” them talk.

Of course, it’s just a theory on my part. Still, the notion that one needs to see a Dalek in order to hear them… we’ve encountered stranger things in the Whoniverse, haven’t we?

When a TV-episode “was all a dream”…

Something that seems to be a staple with sci-fi/fantasy shows is that they must have at least one episode where “it was all a delusion”.

The formula usually goes as follows: one of the characters (usually the main one) wakes up in a mental hospital, and it turns out that everything that has happened in the show so far was all a delusion. They have an episode like that in “Buffy The Vampire Slayer”, “Farscape”, “Stargate Atlantis”, “The 4400”, “Star Trek TNG”, and even an episode of “Smallville”.

And no, the Dream Lord episode of “Doctor Who” doesn’t count, as it’s merely about the events all being a dream, it doesn’t explore the possibility that nothing that’s happened in the show was ever real. Which reminds me, since they already have an actor who resembles William Hartnell (who even played said actor in “An Adventure in Space and Time”), wouldn’t it be interesting to see him take on the role of the First Doctor, facing the possibility that all of his adventures were never real?

But I digress. Here’s a problem I have with episodes like this: they are far too predictable. That is to say, they try to make us (the audience) believe that this other world may actually be real, and that everything we’ve seen so far was indeed (even in-universe) fictitious. But despite their best efforts, the audience pretty much already knows even before the character does that this other world isn’t real. So where’s the tension?

Take the “Smallville” episode, we already know that Superman is such an iconic character, it just seems unfathomable that his adventures weren’t real. Though it would be interesting if the episode was really about Tom Welling (the actor portraying Clark Kent) being in a mental hospital, for whatever reason convinced that he’s really Superman. In the end, the episode served to just introduce the Martian Manhunter (that, and it brings up the fact that Clark is still in love with Lana, but that’s another subject altogether).

Then there’s that “Star Trek” episode… where I can safely say they weren’t even trying. In it, Riker was in a mental hospital… on an alien planet… where everyone else was alien, and he was the only human… if he were in a mental hospital in a contemporary world (not the future), and here on Earth, the episode may have had a chance, but by allowing it to take place in the future and on an alien planet, it’s safe to say that they weren’t even trying. Granted, I like the little twist in the end, but it doesn’t excuse how the episode was build up. Not helping is the fact that Star Trek had a long history preceding it. And Riker wasn’t even in the show from the very beginning.

This brings me to an episode from “Stargate Atlantis”. This happens to the character Elisabeth Weir. If it happened to Daniel Jackson, this would have made a lot more sense. Not just because of the history of the show, and he was there from the beginning, it would also make sense because he has a love for mythology and culture. If O’Neill were to go through this, it would have made less sense. Still, the people who made this episode knew that the audience would have figured this out, so instead of waiting for the end for the big reveal, they revealed it somewhere in the middle. This makes the episode even more interesting, because this way we see how the other characters deal with their friend being “asleep”, and try to rescue (in this case) her.

Then you have the episode from “Farscape”, where the creators also knew that the audience is too smart to figure the episode out. So instead they decide to make fun of the concept, by not even trying to fool us (I’d explain how, but it would make more sense if you saw it for yourself).

And then there’s that “4400” episode. It started with Tom Baldwin waking up, after being fired from the mental hospital. He finds out that the (for lack of better terms) 4400 incident did not happen, and everyone is living a normal life. Yeah, we know it’s not real, but it explored what the characters’ lives would be like if the 4400 incident never happened, so it’s an interesting episode none the less.

Lastly, there’s the “Buffy” episode. This one not only explored how the characters from the show feel about the possibility that they might just be figments of Buffy’s imagination, but also ends with an open ending, where mental-hospital Buffy becomes catatonic, so she’d continue living inside her delusional world. This implies that the mental-hospital world may actually be real. Some of my sources even claim that Joss Whedon (the creator of Buffy) has outright stated that either world may be real.

There are probably more, of course, but unless I’ve actually seen them, I can’t talk about them (so in case there was one in, say, “The X-Files”, I haven’t watched that show, so please don’t ask me how I feel about THAT episode).

Since I wish to write in this genre, it may be expected of me to try and write a story like this. In which case, I have some food for thought. How do I write an episode like this, and still bring the audience something new?

Fan Theory #2: What happened to Diana Powers?

In keeping with my series of fan theories, here’s another one I came up with.

Back in 1994, “they” had decided to make a show about Robocop. I loved the first movie, the second… was OK (just not as good as the first) and the less said about the third, the better. So why won’t I watch the show? It should be noted though that the pilot episode for the show was written by Miner and Neumeier. That’s right, the same two guys who wrote the script to the first movie wrote the script for the show’s pilot episode. That is to say, they wrote a script for the sequel, but it was rejected in favor of Frank Miller’s script (which was turned into the actual second movie), so they decided to use this rejected script for the show. So since the original writers wrote the script to this one episode, I personally consider the tv-show to be canon. Or at least the pilot episode.

Now, the show introduced a character named Diana Powers, whose brain (like Alex Murphy, aka Robocop) has been severed from her body, and put inside a machine. This time, the machine is connected to all the electricity in the entire city. As such, she can now see what people are watching on their TV-screens, she can shut down the power in any building, she can see what’s going on in front of CCTV cameras, you name it. In short, she became something of a guardian angel who watches over the city, and even helps Robocop out where needed. On top of that (what with this supposedly being the future), she can create holographic projections of herself. And there was one of the main issues with the show. The actress portraying Diana Powers would have to act in front of a blue/green screen, and she would be added into other scenes later. During a time when CGI wasn’t as perfected as it is today, you can imagine how pricey doing something like this was. No wonder then that toward the end of this series’ (one-season) run, Diana didn’t appear all that often anymore. Now, I understand why she didn’t appear on screen anymore from a behind the scenes perspective, but what’s the in-universe explanation? Think about it, there was one episode in which a man was about to be executed for a crime he didn’t commit. Robocop had evidence proving his innocence, but he was stuck in… I don’t know what it’s called, it’s one of those machines that compresses cars into smaller blocks. Anyway, he was stuck in that one machine, so he had to escape, hurry to the place where the (televised) execution was to happen, and save an innocent life. The odd thing is, with Diana, this whole thing would have been solved in five seconds. She would have stopped the machine that was crushing Robocop (or at least suggested it, but Robocop would tell her to never mind him, and to save the other guy first), and would even have cut power to the building where the execution was about to happen. But as far as we know, Diana wasn’t incapacitated (as had happened before in the show), nor did they even give us a throw-away line telling us why we won’t be seeing her in this episode. So this begs the question, what happened to her? I may have an answer to that.

One thing you have to bear in mind is that Robocop supposedly takes place in the future. I say supposedly, because there is a calendar visible in the first movie which says the year is 1986. Well, there is no line of dialog, or even a caption which says it all takes place in the future, we just assume it does because of the technologies present in the movie. It’s bit like how “Star Wars” looks futuristic, but every movie always begins with “a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.” So really, “Star Wars” takes place in the past, not the future, or even the present day. The same can be assumed about Robocop. Maybe the universe in which it all takes place is just a bit more advanced than ours (on the field of technology, that is). Granted, there are lines of dialog in the Robocop TV-show that suggest it does take place in the future, like how characters express how something is “so twentieth century”, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that this show takes place in the twenty-first century. I mean, I never encountered anyone who described something as typically twentieth century (on casual conversation, that is to say), and we’re actually living in the twenty-first century. Maybe, and I’m just guessing, the characters in question thought themselves as being so far ahead of everyone and everything, that even the present day (in their minds) is behind the times. In short, this show needs not take place in the future, it can easily take place during the present day.

From Robocop, let’s move on to a different character: Bibleman. To say that this character and/or show he’s associated with, is completely ridiculous, mind-numbing, and something that makes “Sharknado” look like a masterpiece, would still be the understatement of the century. Half the stuff that’s in it was added with the idea that kids like it, but without the understanding as to why they like it. It supposedly teaches kids a thing or two about the bible, but only says that it’s true and doesn’t bother to explain how or why… there are too many things wrong with the show, but I want to talk about the character of Bibleman himself.

As his name implies, he’s supposed to be some kind of bible-inspired superhero. Except neither her or the guy who created him (which is incidentally the same guy portraying him) knows what a superhero is supposed to do. For instance, he quotes the bible constantly, but hides one or two facts about the quote (like context, or even half-sentences instead of the full verse) making it seem like the quote is completely different from what is actually in the bible. He says violence is never the answer, and yet he constantly fights other people. He doesn’t try to talk to them or anything first, he’s the “shoot first ask questions later” type. He tells us we shouldn’t get angry because… because the bible says so. No other reason, the book says so, therefor it’s true. I can name at least two verses from the bible that I happen to agree with, but not just because it’s in there, but because I’ve seen it for myself. Not to mention that while (according to the bible) God himself forbids people to get angry, and yet God himself is known for giving in to his own emotions on more than one occasion. So Bibleman expects us to follow the word of a complete hypocrite? On top of it all, one of the villains at some point says that there’s “nothing wrong with speaking up, screaming your objection.” Are you sure he isn’t the hero? That’s pretty bad, when the villain is acting more like a hero than the actual hero is.

It should be noted that among Bibleman’s (many) aids, there is this one artificial intelligence called U.N.I.C.E. Something which many people have always found odd. After all, a human-made intelligence in a show that glorifies the creator of all life, isn’t that a bit blasphemous? But that’s not the strangest part. U.N.I.C.E. is supposed to be an artificial intelligence, but she acts nothing like one. She gets too emotional, which keeps her from sharing vital information, at one point even expressed concern about God loving her as well… she sounded almost too human to be an artificial intelligence. Which got me thinking, what if she was? What if she was a human, not an artificial intelligence?

Bibleman first appeared in 1995, which was one year after “Robocop The Series” ended. And even then, the dialog in Bibleman suggests he’s been active long before his first on-screen adventure (though calling it an adventure is pushing it a little). As such, it is possible that he may have been active during the events of “Robocop The Series”. With that in mind, it wouldn’t surprise me if Bibleman, believing that nobody besides God should be allowed to watch over everyone, he kidnapped Diana Powers, and even tried to convert her to his religion. Something which would not have worked, of course. She must have kept believing that her good friend Robocop would save her from this mad man that calls himself Bibleman. So in the end, Bibleman had no choice but to lobotomize Diana, and in so doing she became U.N.I.C.E. This may sound harsh, but bear in mind that, as I’ve explained before, Bibleman acts more like a villain than he does a hero. So I wouldn’t put it past him if he did lobotomize Diana.

This ought to create an interesting situation. Suppose Robocop finds out what happened to Diana, and since he is a devout Catholic (as mentioned in the second movie and hinted at in one episode of the show), how would he feel about Bibleman using the bible as an excuse for all his crimes? Additionally, being part computer, Robocop would have a better memory capacity than Bibleman to remember what is in the bible, and actually be able to point out where Bibleman is wrong with his bible-quotes. Just for the sake of seeing someone put this self-proclaimed hero in his place (and for the sake of making Bibleman INTENTIONALLY entertaining), this would be something I’d love to see.

“Teen Wolf” and its mixed message.

I should mention that for the sake of this blog, I will give away the entire plot of the movie, so if you haven’t seen it yourself yet, I suggest you should stop reading this. Can’t say I didn’t warn you.

“Teen Wolf”, a movie starring Michael J. Fox as Scott Howard, who discovers that he’s a werewolf. Not bitten by another one and changing under the full moon (as the Universal movies suggest they would), he was born as one and slowly discovered his abilities. As the movie progressed, we see that he isn’t really friends with everyone, the girl of his dreams wouldn’t even talk to him, and his basketball team isn’t the best there is. But one day, during a basketball game, he changed into the wolf, and in that form he not only wins the game, but also gains a lot of popularity. Or rather, the wolf is popular, while Scott Howard himself remains to be someone nobody wants to be associated with. Nobody, except Boof (sic), his childhood friend and love interest (not the girl of his dreams that I mentioned before), whom he eventually asks out to the dance. She accepts, but only because she wants to go out with HIM, not the wolf. He doesn’t understand, because everyone loves the wolf, but should he go as the wolf just because everyone else wants him to, or does he genuinely want to be the wolf?

It all sounds like a great story, about in which the guy has to choose between who he wants to be and what people want him to be, and ultimately he chooses to be himself… at least, that is the message of the movie, but in my humble opinion that message is a little mixed.

Throughout the movie, people kept making the distinction between Scott Howard and the Wolf, like they are completely different entities. Which they would be in the traditional werewolf story (well, traditional for the 20th century), but this isn’t a traditional werewolf story. In this movie, Scott wasn’t turned into a werewolf, he was born as one. For that matter, throughout the movie, apart from increased strength and speed and a more hairy appearance, the Wolf still has Scott’s personality and intelligence, so they are still the same person. So why did the movie try to depict the two as two separate entities? Especially given the message it was trying to convey? As I watched this, I came to the following conclusion: that everyone loved the Wolf but disliked Scott, while the one girl who liked Scott wanted nothing to do with the wolf. Shouldn’t she accept both sides of him? Sure, I get that the message they were trying to convey was that one shouldn’t be what people want him to be, and stay true to themselves, but that seems to be contradicted when Scott is told he should deny his werewolf side. That’s a bit like Lois Lane demanding of Clark Kent to give up his powers as Superman (which he did in the second movie, but it was his own choice, nobody asked or even forced him to do it, so that doesn’t count). Talk about a mixed message.

According to wikipedia, this movie has (at best) mixed reviews, and I can see why. I like the movie for the fact that it’s a slightly different werewolf movie, and I liked what it tried to do, but I think even the filmmakers were a little confused about their own message. So I like the movie, except that I don’t (if that makes sense).

Fan Theory #1: Who is Dr. Claw?

It has come to my attention that many self-proclaimed geeks would form their own theories about what goes on in the world of fiction. For instance, it is speculated that in the Pokémon Red/Blue games, the character Blue’s Raticate has died, and is buried in Lavender Town’s tower (don’t ask, it’s a long story), and it is even speculated that Mary Poppins is secretly a Time Lord. To some, it sounds like some people have way too much free time on their hands. But if you’re like me, and you have way too many thoughts going on inside your head at any given time, it’s not that you have too much time, so much as you’re incapable of doing something less than thinking (I’m sorry if that sounds arrogant, I just don’t know how else to put it). With that in mind, why won’t I begin my own series of theories/speculations about what may or may not be going on in the realms of fiction? So, to start off, here’s one theory that I have.

Back in the mid-1980s, there was an animated show called “Inspector Gadget”. It was a show about a man that was part human, part machine (that predates Robocop, mind you), that tries to save the world from the evil M.A.D. Organization, lead by a Dr. Claw. I’ll admit watching this as a kid, as it was always funny to see this Inspector using his many gadgets. Like stretching out his arms and legs, roller-skates coming out of his shoes, a helicopter inside his head (though one wonders where in his body he keeps all those gadgets),… but in the end, the Inspector himself is really inept at solving cases. Still, despite not having done anything useful, he always gets the credit, which is why even Dr. Claw would say at the end of each episode “I’ll get you next time, Gadget. Next time!”

Now, let’s talk about Dr. Claw for a moment. Who is he? We don’t know, we never see his face. Only his hands (occasionally even his feet), but nothing else. If he’s supposed to be a character we’ve seen in the show, we never find out. Granted, several toys have been released that reveal his face, but as long as we didn’t see it in the show, I don’t think too many kids would consider that specific toy to be canon with the series (and the less I say about the live-action movie, the better). So to all intends and purposes, the question still remains: who is Dr. Claw?

If I’m to make up a profile about Dr. Claw, it would be this: he’s at the head of an entire network of criminals, he thinks of himself to be high and mighty (he has to, if he wants to take over the world so badly), and in order for him to be able to afford all his hide-outs, his own special car, and some of his own high-tech gadgetry, it would imply he has to have some kind of fortune of his own.

From this, let’s move on to an entirely different show. One that is probably unfamiliar to most English-speaking audiences, but let’s talk about it anyway: Bassie & Adriaan. It is a Dutch show about two circus artists, a clown and an acrobat respectively, who somehow end up in all sorts of situations. For instance, there was one time when a key to a vault that kept stolen jewelry somehow ended up in the possession of the two circus artists, and so the thieves try everything within their power to get the key back. Another story involves the clown and the acrobat getting their hands on a treasure map, and an entirely different band of thieves becoming aware of the existence of said treasure map. And it is this specific story arc that introduces a character simply known as the Baron (I’d say his name, but it’s not revealed until late in the series, and is even a pun which you wouldn’t understand unless you know Dutch). Who is this Baron? The name alone suggests that he’s of royal blood, so he’s good friends with the Dutch royal family. It even implies he has some money, or at least enough influence to lead a band of thieves that help him finance himself, and all his criminal endeavors. He even has a tendency to boast about how much of a genius he is, going so far as claiming that in the US, he’s known as “the genius”. Sounds familiar at all?

In case you’re still not putting the pieces together just yet, how about the following: Inspector Gadget aired in 1985 through 1986, so it can be assumed that the series took place in and around that specific era. This one serial of Bassie & Adriaan that introduced the Baron was broadcast in 1987. And even then, the very first episode starts off with the characters saying that they just returned home from their latest adventure, and so the rest of the serial is basically a flashback, detailing the events that have lead up to that moment where they’ve returned home. So for all we know, their adventure with the treasure map may not have happened in 1987 at all, but a little sooner than that. And spoiler alert, their adventure ends with the Baron’s arrest. My point being that Inspector Gadget stopped chasing Dr. Claw at about the same time as when the Baron was arrested. So is it not possible that the Baron and Dr. Claw are really one and the same?

It would make sense if they were. Since he’s royal blooded, he has enough money and/or influence to fund his own conquest of the world. Both seem to lead an entire network of thieves, and neither shy away from doing whatever it takes to achieve their goals. Things like kidnapping, leaving people to die, breaking and entering, harboring fugitives, arson (ok, that last one was an accident, but even then he would way “what’s done is done” and move on). It would certainly explain some of the Baron’s actions after his arrest. After all, while his plans were constantly foiled by Inspector Gadget (ok, technically they’ve been foiled by Gadget’s niece, but Dr. Claw doesn’t know that), Claw himself always managed to elude capture. So just imagine how humiliated he must feel when he was caught by two circus-artists. He needed to get even with those two before he could focus on getting even with the (not-so) great Inspector Gadget.

Yes, I’m completely aware that both “Inspector Gadget” and “Bassie & Adriaan” are works of fiction. Yes, I am aware that they aren’t connected in any sort of way. I don’t even think that the Van Toor brothers (pretty much the whole creative team behind Bassie & Adriaan) wrote their serial about the treasure map with Inspector Gadget in mind. But bear in mind, “Doctor Who” wasn’t even created when “Mary Poppins” was first published, and yet somebody came up with the bright idea that Poppins is a Time Lord. The point of this is just having fun with other people’s works. Besides, isn’t that what they’re supposed to do in the first place? They write stories, publish them in some form or another, and somehow inspire their audiences into thinking beyond these media? I should think that’s exactly what I’m doing. Just thinking beyond the real-life boundaries (we’re still talking about fiction, after all), and allow these media to have a life of their own inside my mind, and even share these ideas with others.