Category Archives: Article

Doctor Who Series 11 Premiere: A Round-table Conversation

There’s a lot of regeneration in the Whoniverse these days. With a new doctor, Jodi Whittaker, and a new showrunner, Chris Chibnall, Whovians have expressed feelings both of excitement and of trepidation going into the long-running British science fiction program’s 11th series. With so much change happening at the start of the new season, Movie (P)Review Show has gathered a diverse panel of science fiction journalist, fans, experts, writers, and publishers to discuss Sunday’s premiere. The panel was generally impressed with Whittaker’s performance, which reminded many of David Tennant’s portrayal of the titular character, and excited by the potential of the new direction in which the show seems to be headed, although it was somewhat more critical of the episode’s story and of its villain.

For this round-table, our TARDIS was piloted  by our own A. A. Rubin (@TheSurrealAri) who was accompanied by the following companions:

Ariba Bhuvad (@watchwithreebs), WatchWithReebs (www.watchwithreebs.com),

Travis Czap (Twitter: @CzapProductions, IG: @travisczap), CBR (https://www.cbr.com/author/tczap/),

Gene Hoyle (@genehoyle), Nerd Nation (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/nerd-nation-radio/id423840697?mt=2),

Adrian King (@adrianhasissues), Adrian Has Issues (http://adrianhasissues.com/),

Sophia LeRoux (@thesophialeroux), Kyanite Publishing (http://www.kyanitepublishing.com),

And

David McAllister (@Dgundersen), The Gallifreyan Buccaneer Blog (https://gallifreyanbuccaneer905439277.wordpress.com).

Their trip through time and space went as follows:

Movie Preview Show (MPS): Describe your previous experience with Doctor Who. Are you a long-time whovian? A fan of new who? Classic who? New to the program entirely?

Ariba Bhuvad (AB): I started watching Doctor Who back in 2014 and immediately fell in love with it. Being a fan of new Who, I became completely enamored with each doctor’s journey and time on the show, and loved the many, many episodes that inspired me and lifted my spirits on the toughest of days.

Travis Czap (TC): I’m pretty new to the show- I’ve seen a few episodes from various seasons.  I’m most familiar with David Tennant’s seasons on the show, but also have seen a few of Eccleston’s and various others throughout.

Gene Hoyle (GH): I came in late to Who fandom. The 11th Doctor was my first.

Adrian King (AK): I’ve watched the bulk of Doctor Who seasons since its revival in 2005, but I couldn’t call myself a Whovian. Trust me, you wouldn’t want to invite me out to Doctor Who trivia night.

Sophia LeRoux (SL): I fall somewhere in the middle. I’ve had the pleasure of seeing several different Doctors in action, but Matt Smith and Christopher Eccleston really stood out the most for me.

Dave McAllister (DM): I grew up with the Sylvester McCoy era and when I was old enough started to watch previous Doctors. When the show came back in 2005 my love for the show started all over again.

 

Movie (P)Review Show(MPS): Let’s get the big one out of the way early. What did you think of Jodi Whittaker as The Doctor?

AB: I absolutely LOVED her! She carried on the torch effortlessly and fit right into the crazy world of The Doctor. She’s funny, intelligent, and exudes an enthusiasm that encompasses everything about this iconic character.

TC: I really enjoyed her portrayal and the opportunities presented within the writing. While there is that familiar ‘Doctor’ in the character and in the writing, it was clear that we were treading new ground, and I was definitely on board for the ride. There was some great comedy, and Whittaker took on the idea of a traditionally male character being in a female body and relearning her identity very well.

GH: She was fantastic. She embodied everything that the Doctor should be

AK: Jodi is a phenomenal actress with a dynamic range. Even though the first episodes of a Doctor’s run often deal with the character struggling to get their bearings after regenerating, Jodi’s confidence in the role is what immediately won me. She is always in control and is clearly having the time of her life.

SL: Honestly, I have mixed feelings. I think I’ve grown so accustomed to having male a Doctor that a female one feels strange, almost like straying from tradition. Still, it may be a good thing; she’s a great actress. We’ll have to see.

DM: As soon as Jodie appeared on screen she convinced me she was the Doctor. The mannerisms and fizzy excitable energy were spot on.

 

MPS: I always look for elements of previous doctors in the current Doctor, especially in their first few episodes. To what extent did you see any aspects of previous Doctor’s performances in Whittaker’s performance? If so, which doctors did you see and when?

AB: I got a hit of David Tennant’s corky humor, Peter Capaldi’s swag, and Matt Smith’s uplifting personality. She definitely had hints of these three who were all my favorites, and seeing the best parts of them come together with one character was absolutely amazing.

TC: I definitely felt a bit of Tennant’s Doctor in Jodi Whittaker’s portrayal—particularly in her interactions with the characters who seem set to become her companions in this season, the humor and genuine concern for their well being echoed Tennant very much, I think.

GH: There was a lot of Tennant in her performance—in all the best ways.

AK: This is tough to answer, as I always try to see each Doctor’s performances for what they are without adding any undue comparisons. With that said, I noticed that there’s a level of whimsical recklessness often seen in Tenants run yet like most incarnations of the Time Lord, there’s an underlying layer of intensity especially in her confrontations with Tim Shaw–Shaw–er, Tzim-Sha.

SL: In this episode, I can honestly say she seemed to have a personality as the Doctor that was one in its own

DM: The first thing that jumped out at me was how big an influence David Tennant’s Doctor was on Jodie’s portrayal. We may get hints of other Doctors as the show goes on, but for now DT was the touchstone—no surprise really given Jodie’s close friendship with him.

 

MPS: Much has been made of the fact that Whittaker is the first female doctor since the announcement that Whittaker would be the new Doctor. Now that it’s happened, how did you react to actually seeing this change in a full episode?

AB: I thought it was great to finally see the shift from male to female! It was such a welcome change, and while it takes some time for it to truly sink in that there is a female Doctor, the entire episode was just a blast to watch with Jodie Whittaker taking the lead in this role.

TC: I think it went very well. The show didn’t suffer in any way from the change, and I think it was an interesting new element- not only is the Doctor learning a new identity, but now is learning this new identity in an unfamiliar body type. Considering that the Doctor is an asexual genderless Timelord, I never understood why anyone would have any issue in the first place, but Jodi Whittaker’s portrayal should silence any doubters, I’d think.

GH: It was no more jarring than any of the previous Doctors.

AK: I think that the full reveal of the new Doctor was handled brilliantly by having Jodie be dropped right in the middle of the fray instead of a long, drawn-out entrance. It was as if to say, “Boom! She’s here. She’s awesome. Let’s get right into this!”

SL: Again, it’s strange. It almost feels like a different show, but it could still pan out. I am a creature of habit and tradition.

DM: Gender played very little role in this story. It just felt new like any other new Doctor has felt in the past. Kudos to Jodie for embodying the Doctor so well.

 

MPS: Although much of the discussion in the lead-up to the episode was about the new doctor, that was not the only major change for the program: Chris Chibnall has replaced long-time show runner Steven Moffat. Clearly, he has a different vision for the show than Moffat did. In what ways did the show feel similar to—and/or different from—The Doctor Who with which you were familiar previously?

AB: There were definitely a few shifts in the show’s overall feel from Moffatt to Chibnall. The most noticeable difference is seeing a group of people who seem like they will be the Doctor’s companions. We’ve only see the character work with one other person and I’m digging this change because it gave the episode more substance and excitement, and I think that will carry on during the course of the season. I like that the show still feels like Doctor Who, and there wasn’t some drastic difference that made us feel like it’s not the same show anymore.

TC: Well, there were certain elements that are almost always going to be there in a new Doctor’s first episode- the energy leaving the Doctor’s body, for example. In that way, I think this premiere satisfied longtime fans of the show and character, but beyond the changing of the Doctor from a male to a female, that there’s now several companions, and a new sonic screwdriver built from scratch- these seemed to be symbols of the show taking some new directions and departing from tradition a bit.

GH: It appears that we will have a Doc without a TARDIS for a bit. That of course makes me think of the third Doctor.

AK: This new season feels like a true follow-up to the previous seasons, but also a bit of a reboot and I think that that’s smart. As we’re seeing with long-standing franchises like Star Wars and Star Trek, the series has to evolve and make it accessible to new audiences if they intend to continue. It was a smart decision to see the Doctor in action long before revealing the Sonic Screwdriver or even the TARDIS.

SL: As weird as this may sound, I feel like it has more dramatic elements than fantasy elements; as the prior ones did.

DM: It felt very different than Moffat for me. A lot of dark textures and seemed to focus on real world drama more than it has for a good few years. It made me feel like I was in Sheffield witnessing an alien invasion with real people.

 

MPS: During Peter Capaldi’s run as Doctor, the show felt very nostalgic. There were many references, Easter eggs, etc to Classic Who. This episode seemed to break from that, and try to establish itself as a new beginning. How do you feel about that change in attitude?

AB: I think it’s nice to break away from that so people who haven’t seen the Classic Who episodes can enjoy the show without missing out on references. I think it’s nice to take a break from that so everyone can enjoy it together, versus the references that others can miss out on. And the new beginning feels fitting due to the fact that we have now have a female Doctor and things are taking an exciting, new turn.

TC: I’m open to it, personally. Nostalgia is great, but I also think that too much similarity and parallelism risks feeling too familiar. I’d rather see something completely new than something that just echoes the same old thing.

GH:  It’s important. Change is the key word. Many little girls will start here. This will be their Doctor.

AK: Capaldi’s run, in my opinion, was a deconstruction of not only the idea of heroism but also the legacy of the franchise. Even then you felt like there was a change in how the series approached new concepts. In other words, the rules had to be reestablished before they could be broken in order to bring about change.

SL: I’m not sure how I feel about it. When it comes to a show like Doctor Who, I like consistency. New isn’t always better.

DM: I was a huge fan of Moffat and to my mind he’s one of the best writers there is. But I think it was time for a change. Doctor Who has always been about change. Once everything is established I’m sure we’ll get a few Easter eggs. For instance it’s easy to imagine this series ending with the appearance or even just a hint of the Daleks or Cybermen.

 

MPS: I’ve often thought that while everyone focuses on The Doctor, a large part of the success of each season depends on the quality of the stories. How would you rate the story in this episode? Why?

AB: I would give the story a 7/10! This is because while I was invested in Jodie Whittaker’s first episode as the Doctor, I wasn’t all that into the actual story and villain they were trying to take down. That sort of felt messy to me and I didn’t quite enjoy that aspect of it. But she did so great that it made up for the mediocre storyline. However, I loved the way it ended which also brought me in by the episode’s end.

TC: The idea of the Tzim-Sha’s species and contest seemed pretty familiar- it’s basically the plot of Predator, right? Alien warrior species sends hunter to Earth on a rite of passage to kill a human? In that respect, I was a little disappointed, but Doctor Who always does things a little differently, and it’s those extra elements that set it apart. The tentacle biomech creature was neat, the confrontation on the crane at the end as pretty solid. I’d say the story gets a 7 or 8 out of 10.

GH: As it’s a set up, a lot has to be accomplished. I feel that they did an excellent job.

AK: The story was very engaging from a character’s perspective. They did an incredible job of establishing the relationships of who would eventually be the new companions before jumping into the story of Tzim-Sha, which I felt wasn’t as strong but our leads needed a central conflict.

SL: The story was good, but in some ways it felt more like an action movie than a Doctor Who episode. I know that there can be a lot of action in Doctor Who, so this is hard to describe—but that’s the best I can do.

DM: The alien hunter story wasn’t particularly strong for me. But I don’t think it was intended to be. It needed certain elements to introduce the characters and to establish the new rules for this series. In that respect it was perfect.

 

MPS: The companions have always been a major part of Doctor Who.  How would you rate their performances, and to what extent did you connect with them?

AB: I think they all did fairly well but I’m not quite invested in them just yet. I think with any new companion(s) it takes some time to establish a connection and given that we have multiple people this season, it will definitely be a few episodes before I could truly answer this question.

TC: So, I really liked Graham. His nervousness and desire to avoid danger made him a bit of a comical character while also being the voice of reason, which I really appreciated. I feel like Ryan didn’t have much of an opportunity to develop or contribute to the episode’s plot as a whole, while Yaz was really the one actively helping the Doctor throughout. I imagine we’ll see Ryan successfully ride a bike before the end of the season, though, right?

GH: I really like this set of companions. I see enormous potential.

AK: The companions were among some of my favorites of the franchise. I think giving them both a literal and figurative familiarity with each other was a smart move. Though, if I must say, at times they were almost too “okay” with dealing with the concept of benevolent and malevolent aliens.

SL: I think their performance was fine and that they had a diverse cast. I have yet to really connect with any of them though.

DM: I liked them all. It was obvious to me that something bad was going to happen to Grace because we’ve not seen her in the promo material/trailers. It made me smile when it was revealed almost immediately the connection between Ryan and Graham and then later between Yasmin and Ryan. I’m interested to see how they developed as a group.

 

MPS: Doctor who has a notorious rogues’ gallery. From Daleks, to Cybermen, to weeping angels, the monsters have become cultural phenomenon in their own right. How did you think ‘Tim Shaw’ and the Stenza rate, and would you like to see them again?

AB:  I didn’t really enjoy ‘Tim Shaw’ at all, especially for the first episode of this season. It was certainly nowhere near the level of Daleks and Cybermen, and I think that if I saw it again in the future, I wouldn’t really care as much.

TC: I liked Tzim-Sha. The design was simple but effective. The idea that an alien race was brutal enough to embed the teeth of their enemies in their faces as trophies is pretty morbid and evil. It really upped the threat level almost instantly with that visual. The armor was intimidating enough, but when he took off that mask, it really raised the bar.

GH:  Maybe a return down the line would be fun. I was not terribly invested in this villain.

AK: The resolution of that conflict ended entirely too neatly for my liking. I did appreciate “Tim Shaw” as a callback to popular aliens like The Predator, but there were holes in his story. I’d be willing to see him return as either a recurring adversary or even a reluctant ally.

SL: I think Tim Shaw/Stenza rate okay so far. It felt a bit different from previous seasons, and definitely did not feel as epic as the Weeping Angels or as nostalgic as the Daleks, but I’ll have to see how it pans out.

DM: The Tim Shaw gag made me chuckle every time. I don’t think we will see him again. I don’t think they were particularly strong but my young children were terrified, so you know, in Doctor Who terms, job done.

 

MPS: There were some ‘meta’ moments when the dialogue seemed to straddle the fourth wall and address the ‘big change’ of featuring a female doctor for the first time. Some quotes that stood out to me were, “all this is new to you, and new can be scary, but stick with me…” and “We can evolve while still staying true to who we are. We can honour who we’ve been and choose who we want to be next.” How did you react to the this piece of dramatic irony? Did you find it clever, for example, or did it take you out of the story?

AB: I actually picked it up on it too and I loved it. The fourth wall type of dialogue is super exciting as the viewer because it make you feel a part of the story and a part of what’s going on. It always brings me into the story when this happens and I feel like I get to take part of something that means a lot to me.

TC: To be honest, I didn’t think that was too on the nose- it seemed like the same kind of thing that any other Doctor could have said in that situation, which is why I think the new female Doctor worked so well. Yes, they obviously had to mention that the Doctor is now a woman, but they didn’t make that the focus of the show, which I think is what some people were afraid of, for some reason.

GH: It was great, and as I said earlier, important to the show’s theme.

AK: The Doctor’s big speech may come off as heavy-handed to seasoned vets of the series, much like the similar messages in let’s say The Last Jedi, but necessary for those who may be reluctant to the many new changes to the series. The new changes hit hard and fast and sometimes we just have to be shaken out of our comfort zones and deal with things in a real way. I appreciate the show’s attempt to do this without belittling the audience.

SL: It took me a bit out of the story because I felt like the obvious was thrown in my face a bit. I get she’s a female Doctor, and that’s great, but emphasizing on it wasn’t necessary.

DM: These ‘meta’ m moments were the highlight for me. It spoke directly to anyone having doubts. As I said before, Doctor Who has always been about change. This is arguably the biggest change in the shows history. That it got mentioned in the episode itself was quite clever and well done.

 

MPS: Overall, how would you rate the first episode? 

AB: I would give it a 7/10! There were some elements I wasn’t thrilled about but overall I loved Jodie Whittaker and I loved her presence on the show and I can’t wait to see where it goes!

TC: This was a solid first episode. There are some season premieres that are better than others, I’d say this is one of the better ones: great acting, great special effects, a decent story, good characters.

GH: At Nerd Nation, we have a 5 pocket-protector scale. This episode was a 4 out of 5 for me.

AK: If I had to go on a 1 to 10 scale, I’d rate this episode an 8. It’s a strong debut for Jodie and I loved how the writers made a point of showing just how keen she is on being handy and inventive, especially in the scene where she reconstructs her own Sonic Screwdriver and explained its purpose to the viewers unfamiliar with the significance of the item. The antagonists felt lacking, but they really served to give the companions some great interactions. I especially loved how Ryan, his grandparents and Yaz felt like a family and not just in relation to each other but also The Doctor. This is a great jumping on point for new viewers, and I feel the new direction is a nice change of pace. I wasn’t ready to say goodbye to Capaldi so soon, but Whittaker made such a great first impression that I was engrossed from the jump.

SL: It was good, but it didn’t stick with me like the first episode featuring Matt Smith did.

DM: As first episodes go this has been my favourite since Rose. I felt quite ill after ‘Deep Breath’ thinking that my love for the show was dying. I grew to love Peter Capaldi after that false start. But this new episode was very, very strong. 9/10,

MPS: Is there anything else that you want to add, that hasn’t been addressed in the above questions?

AB: I don’t have anything specifically but I am excited for the rest of the season and for where the story is going to take the new Doctor. I think she is off to a great start and I know it’s only going to get better from here on out.

TC: Who wants to lay money down on Ryan having to ride a bike to save the world in the season finale?

GH: I cannot wait for more!

AK: With any big changes to a long-standing franchise, it’s understandable to be a bit hesitant and even a little worried. I would argue that this season is well on its way to being one of my favorites. Whittaker’s enthusiasm, charisma, and energy are infections. It’s no wonder that Ryan, Yaz and the crew had very little problems following her. She’s that awesome.

SL: Nope, you were very thorough.

DM: The soundscapes created throughout by Segun Akinola and that new theme music. Sounded very much a mix of the old and the new. Can’t wait to watch again next week. I suspect we are in for quite a journey!

 

MPS: Thank you to all our round-table participants. Let us know your thoughts on the new series.

Advertisements

Adapting Classic Sci-Fi part 2: PKD and Aristotle—Sci-Fi Adaptation and the Golden Mean

Note: This is part 2 of my two-part series on adapting classic science fiction for contemporary audiences. If you missed part 1, which focused on HBO’s new Fahrenheit 451 adaptation, click here.

The road to adaptation is fraught with peril. The sci-fi-nerd community is a nostalgic bunch, and demands that adaptations be as true to the original as possible, yet, to be viable, a certain amount of updating is usually needed. There are a seemingly infinite shades along this spectrum, ranging from completely faithful remakes, about which one could argue “why bother even making remaking the original story if it’s going to be so close to the original, to nearly unrecognizable “inspired by” pieces that bear little resemblance to the source material, which might make one wonder why the writer did not just write an original story. Either way, the adaptation, and by extension its creators, are open to criticism from the very audience they are trying to attract. Last week, we examined how HBO’s new Fahrenheit 451 adaptation tries—and ultimately fails—at this balancing act. This week’s article covers the myriad of other strategies a writer can take when adapting classic science fiction.

Electric Dreams, the Amazon Video/Channel 4 series of 10 short films inspired by the short fiction of Philip K. Dick, provides a fascinating case study in science fiction adaptation. Dick’s writing has, historically, been a fertile ground for adaptation. Some of the remakes of his works, Blade Runner is probably the best example, are considered groundbreaking classics in their own right, while others, Paycheck, for example, failed miserably. Many others have fallen somewhere in between. What makes Electric Dreams so interesting as a vehicle to explore the art of adaptation is not just the ability to compare adaptations by different writers and directors in the context of a loosely unified series which features big-budget production and star-studded casts, but also the ability to compare the thought processes of the writers themselves.

Recently, I watched the series while reading Philip K Dick’s Electric Dreams: The Stories That Inspired The Original Dramatic Series (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017), the companion book that not only collects the original stories which inspired each of the ten short films, but also contains a brief essay by the screenwriter of each episode, each of whom had to grapple with the issues raised above. While each writer, to some extent updates the story for modern times, the adaptations generally fall into three distinct categories: Those that are basically faithful to the original, those that make major changes to the original story or premise for the purpose of using the story to directly criticize contemporary issues, and those that fall somewhere in between. While there are stronger and weaker episodes in all of these categories, ultimately, I find those that follow the golden mean between the two extremes to be the most successful.

Below, I will briefly examine each episode and its approach to adapting classic science fiction. I will be following the Amazon Prime Video order of the episodes rather than the Channel 4 order, which is different.

Note: The cited page numbers come from the above-mentioned book.

Episode 1

Episode Title: Real Life

Story Title: Exhibit Piece

Screenwriter: Ronald D Moore

“Real Life” presents the dichotomy inherent in adapting classic science fiction starkly. As a PKD fan, I was extraordinarily disappointed in it because it changes the original story as much as any other episode in the series. If I hadn’t been committed to participating in a roundtable about the series in which I had to discuss each individual episode, I might have given up on the series after one episode because of the way that it messed with the source material. The other members of the roundtable, however, generally liked the episode and a couple of them cited it as their favorite in the first half of the series. I can only imagine that they are unfamiliar with the source material. Herein lies the problem—the episode was effective at attracting new viewers and hooking them into the show, however it alienated fans of the original short story. Now, the first group is admittedly much bigger than the latter, but I feel that if one is going to present something under the mantle of an adaptation, one takes on an obligation to remain somewhat true to the source material.

In the PKD story, a man who is a curator of a museum exhibit on 20th Century American life becomes trapped—either literally or mentally—in the very exhibit he curates. He begins to live within the exhibit piece and neglects his life in the story’s present, which is our future. It could have been adapted easily by updating the exhibit to be about 21st century life, and by keeping the premise otherwise true to the original. Instead, Moore changes the story, making it about a rich man who gets lost in a virtual world. To me, it was more “We Can Remember It For You Wholesale” (the story that inspired Total Recall) than “Exhibit Piece.” Moore said that he “was attracted to the underlying theme of losing oneself in another reality.” (1) While it is true that “Exhibit Piece” addresses this theme, there are a myriad of other PKD stories that do as well. Moore admits that “very little of remains of the original story remains in the show” (2), which, I feel is unforgivable in an anthology show claiming to adapt some of the great science fiction stories ever written. He does say that he hopes the “heart” and “brain” of the original story remains, although, if they are there, they are difficult to find. “Real Life” is quality science fiction. The reaction of the other participants in the round table speaks to that, but it is barely connected to the source material, and, in this context, it fails for that reason.

Episode 2: Autofac

Episode Title: Autofac

Story Title: Autofac

Screenwriter: Travis Beacham

“Autofac,” in contrast to “Real Life” provides the paradigm for a successful PKD adaptation. While there are definitely elements that are updated for contemporary audiences—and even plot points that are changed—the story remains authentically true to the source material both aesthetically and thematically. The updates are smart and apt, and the theme of remaining human in an increasingly automated world is even more relevant today than when PKD wrote it.

Both the story and the episode follow a community of humans who attempt to rebel against the automated factory that runs their lives in a post-nuclear-apocalyptic future. Beacham said that “you always see stories about malevolent artificial intelligence rebelling against its programming and trying to destroy its creators…And this story follows that path but in the end is something completely different. What’s brilliant about Autofac is that the factory isn’t a machine running amok. It’s a machine doing exactly what its ingenious but irresponsible creators had built it to do” (181). In a world that is becoming increasingly animated, Beacham finds the premise “more realistic than the traditional robot rebellion yarn” and a “more timely technological parable” (181). His understanding of this relevance is, perhaps, what leads him to the authenticity of this adaptation.

“Autofac” is adapted brilliantly. The basic premise is that of the PKD story, and there are certain details like lifting certain prominent lines of dialogue directly from the story that lend the adaptation authenticity. That said, it does change/update certain elements as well. One example is the use of delivery drones in place of the robotic trucks of the original story. The drones speak to where the technology of our world is headed (and are especially creepy when watching the story on Amazon) and the general computer tech is updated as well. The ending is slightly different than the original story’s but the theme, which is, according to Beacham, that “we’re fighting ourselves, we’re fighting our own nature” comes across just as powerfully (182).

“Autofac” strikes the perfect balance between the old and the new. It is not only a great adaptation, but one of the best sci-fi films I’ve seen in years.

Episode 3

Episode Name: Human Is

Story Name: Human Is

Screenwriter: Jessica Mecklenberg

“Human Is” is another successful adaptation. Even more so than “Autofac,” “Human Is” remains true to the original tale. The episode follows the plot almost exactly. It is told from the perspective of a wife whose husband may or may not have been possessed by an alien life form. The setting is changed slightly—it is a more militaristic future—and the names of the characters have been changed, but all of the key plot points and scenes, including the chilling final conversation between the wife and her maybe-husband are there, almost exactly as they are in the book. Mecklenburg does change the names of the characters, which is unnecessary, and adds a weird sex scene that takes place in an underground subsection of the society, which seems like just an excuse to show some skin on the screen, but only the most staunchly old school Philip K. Dick fans (Dick-Heads?) could complain about the authenticity of this adaptation.

Human Is is probably one of the easier stories to adapt because, as Mecklenberg says, “it has a timeless quality,” but Mecklenberg should still be commended for recognizing “how relevant, if not crucial to our understanding of today’s world”(164) the story feels. The fact that she understands “it’s astounding how essential Philip K. Dick’s work feels” makes her the perfect writer for this particular adaptation (164). If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Episode 4

Episode Name: Crazy Diamond

Story Name: Sales Pitch

Screenwriter: Tony Grisoni

According to Grisoni, “PKD voiced his worries about the tale in 1978: ‘I really deplore the ending. So, when you read the story, try to imagine it as it ought to have been written’” (75-76) Grisoni took this as statement as license for changing not only the ending but the characters and basic premise of the story as well. More than just an adaptation, this almost feels like a continuation, an “inspired by” piece about the further development of the company that created the original Farsad, the sales robot which sells itself. The original Farsad is name-dropped in the story, but the products that the company sells are way more advanced than the ones in the source material. That’s all well and good, and I could buy the changed ending knowing Dick’s feelings about it, but I have a larger problem with the change in the characters and their motivation. While Steve Buschemi is brilliant as Ed in “Crazy Diamond,” he is not the Ed of “Sales Pitch.” Changing his escapist motives from tangible ones—to get to a new planet—to fantasy ones alters his character significantly. Ultimately, “Crazy Diamond” shows the dangers of altering one part of an adaptation. Because of Dick’s statement about the ending, changing it is legitimate. The changes necessitated by the specific altered ending, and the way they change the characters and the plot are worse sins, however, and ultimately undermine this adaptation.

Episode 5

Episode Name: The Hood Maker

Story Name: The Hood Maker

Screenwriter: Matthew Graham

One of the reasons that the book version of Electric Dreams is so fascinating is that it gives insight into the screenwriter’s mind. This is especially so for “The Hood Maker.” When Graham read the story as a boy, he imagined the eponymous hood as a full cowl that covers the wearer’s head and protects them from mind reading. In actuality the hood is a concealed metal headband. Graham preferred the hood to the band because it was “at once a brave act of public defiance” and “a way to hide one’s personal identity, to remain aloof and secretive. It spoke to the theme of the story—what secrets do we have the right to keep? Should all our thoughts be sacred, even if they are dark and dangerous ones? Do I have a right to read your mind if I believe that it’s in the national interest? Can I hide? Is that wrong?” (115) Ultimately, despite recognizing his boyhood error, Graham decided to include the full hood in his adaptation. It is a choice that works well for exactly the reasons he describes. Other than that, “The Hood Maker” has a similar attitude toward the source material as “Autofac.” It is successful for the same reasons, though not as well executed. It is also a reminder of an important point about adaptation. We all love the source material, but we each have a different experience with it. What may be authentic for one reader is not necessarily so for another.

Episode 6

Episode Title: Safe and Sound

Story Title: Foster, You’re Dead

Screenwriters: Kalen Egan and Travis Sentell

This episode suffers from the same issues that I discussed last week in part 1 of this series: It attempts to take a piece of classic sci-fi and apply it to a current political issue. In fact, it takes those issues and multiplies them tenfold.  Although the screenwriters claim to be big PKD fans, and even to have met each other through his work, they admit that they “wrote [their] adaptation of Electric Dreams during the ascent and election of a man riding a new wave of American populism and found [they] couldn’t escape at least half a dozen unintended resonances” (136-137). To this viewer, even if those resonances are ‘unintended,” they are too dominant. The allegory is heavy-handed and hits of over the head with its relevance to today’s political and social climate. Egan and Sentell claim to be taking the cold war paranoia of the original story and updating it to reflect the jingoistic paranoia of the contemporary period. In the process, they change the setting, the characters, and the story until they are unrecognizable. If I wasn’t told that this was an adaptation of “Foster, You’re Dead” I wouldn’t be able to figure it out. Other than the surname of the protagonist, little remains of the source material.

Episode 7

Episode Title: The Father Thing

Story Title: The Father Thing

Screenwriter: Michael Dinner

Much like “Human Is,” “The Father Thing” is virtually, a faithful adaptation, until the last minute that it is. The screen story is told in much the same way as it is written, and the writer and director even play off the campy aspects that come with so faithful of an adaptation. At the end of the episode, when the child-protagonist, types #resist, the echoes of the current political climate are reflected in the episode, but, unlike, “Safe and Sound,” the message feels authentic because of the faithfulness of the adaptation. It retains its timeless aspect, which is what allows it to be timely.

Dinner’s summarizes his attitude toward adaptation as follows: “I wanted to preserve the emotional core while firmly placing it in my own world” (97). This, he does successfully. The setting is contemporary, but the characters, conflicts, and themes remain true to the original. Even the double-political message at the ends works, partly because of the credit Dinner has built with the viewer by remaining otherwise true to the original material. The episode successfully navigates the dilemma at the core of adapting classic sci-fi as well as any episode in the series.

Episode 8

Episode Title: The Impossible Planet

Story Title: The Impossible Planet

Screenwriter: David Farr

“The Impossible Planet” presents a different type of challenge as the subject for adaptation. It is a very short story, and there is probably not enough there to sustain a full, hour-long film. Expansion is necessary for the story to fit the format. Farr does a good job of staying true to the “timeless themes” in one of PKD’s “simplest stories” (39) while fleshing it out enough to not only sustain the run-time, but also provide the kind of mind fuck ending that is reminiscent of the best PKD adaptations. It ends with the same type of uncertainty as the endings of the original Blade Runner movies. Overall, a job well-done.

Episode 9

Episode title: The Commuter

Story Title: The Commuter

Screenwriter: Jack Thorne

On the surface, “The Commuter” takes a similar approach to adaptation as “The Impossible Planet.” Certain scenes from the original story are performed virtually identically in the show. However, the attempts at addressing more contemporary issues fall a bit flat in this one, partly because they are done in a straightforward, obvious way. In fact, the entire thing is more concrete, as the lines of several characters are telescoped into the protagonist, and the fluid timeline is straightened out a bit. While in his essay, Thorne praises the “twists and turns of the story” (22), ultimately, this episode felt like a simpler version of the original, almost as if it’s dumbed-down  for a mass, tv audience.

Episode 10

Episode title: Kill All the Others

Story Title: The Hanging Stranger

Screenwriter: Dee Rees

Much like “Safe and Sound,” “Kill All The Others” was written in “the throes of the 2016 Presidential Campaign.” When there was a “blind, chanting jingoism” according to screenwriter, Dee Rees (54).  As such, it is subject to the same weaknesses. There is little in this story that follows the source material. In fact, the most PKD elements actually come from the story, “Sales Pitch,” which is, theoretically, the inspiration for the episode “Crazy Diamond.” Much like the other episodes that attempt to be timely, this one changes too much about the original in pursuit of timeliness.

Looking back at these adaptations, I am reminded of the great Greek philosopher Aristotle. This might seem a strange association, since Aristotle was a man who advocated for the concrete and the real over the esoteric philosophies of his teacher, Plato, but his theory of the “The Golden Mean” is particularly relevant to this conversation. The Golden Mean is the sweet spot between two extremes where, Aristotle believed, the truth lies. Those who wish to adapt classic science fiction, like that written by PKD or Ray Bradbury should re-read their Aristotle. While, as we discussed last week, it is important to update the source material to fit a future the original authors could not foresee, the adaptation is still beholden to the original to some extent. Balancing these aspects, finding the golden mean, is essential to creating a successful adaptation. Episodes like “Autofac” and “The Father Thing” provide the perfect counterbalance to the type of adaptation done in Fahrenheit 451 and the perfect template for being both timely and   and timeless.

 


A. A. Rubin lurks in the shadows. You may have thought you saw him in the back of the bar, or going into the subway station, but when you looked back, he was gone. His fiction has appeared in Pif MagazineScrivener’s Pen, and The Hopper Review. His short story “White Collar Blues,” which originally appeared in Skyline, was nominated for The Carve Magazine/Mild Horse Press Online Short Story Anthology Award by the editor. His debut graphic novel will be released by Golden Bell Studios next year. He can be reached at: birdman33@gmail.com and on twitter as @thesurrealari .

Adapting Classic Science Fiction, Part One: HBO’s Fahrenheit 451 Timely, But Not Timeless

Note: This is part one of a two-part article on adapting classic science fiction. Part 2, which deals with Amazon Video/Channel 4’s Electric Dreams will appear in this space next week.

Ray Bradbury once said, “There are worse crimes than burning books, one of them is not reading them.”  Raman Bahrani’s new film adaptation (HBO) is an adaptation that will only appeal to those who have never read the original, or who are only familiar with the type of condensed, digested versions that Bradbury laments in the original novel. Those who have read and loved Fahrenheit 451 will find the Bahrani’s version disappointing, as it, to quote Hamlet, has “only got the tune of the time” (5.2.169) but not the timeless substance of the original.

Bahrani’s falls victim to one of the classic blunders in adapting classic fiction for contemporary audiences: He makes too many changes designed to beat the viewer over the head with the story’s relevance to the contemporary political and social situation, but, in doing so, he diminishes those aspects that made the original a timeless classic. This is shame, because there is a lot to like in this movie. It is well-acted and beautifully shot. Unfortunately, none of these makes up for messing with core aspects of Bradbury’s story.

Now, I recognize the need to adapt certain aspects of classic science fiction for a modern audience. Futuristic science fiction comes with a built in shelf life. Time stops for no one, and, therefore no matter how far distant the future seems at the time a piece is written, eventually history catches up and either the future will resemble the one that’s described in the sci-fi story, or it won’t. Either way, the writer’s world is left in an unenviable position. Rarely, the writer will prove correct, and the modern submarine will resemble—and even be inspired by The Nautilus—or a soda company will create a drink which is, literally, addictive–in which case, we’ll marvel briefly at the foresight a particular offer has displayed, before lamenting the loss of wonder that comes from reading the book, or watching the movie, that comes with the perspective of history. More often the particular history described in the work of fiction will bear little resemblance to reality once real history catches up. Some of the most successful words of science fiction are replete with anachronisms. Why are there no flat screens (or touch screens for that matter) aboard The Enterprise? Moreover, if an author hits on a particular prediction once, it doesn’t necessarily imply a particular skill at predicting the future. While the afore-referenced Jules Verne, by any measure one of the all-time greats, may have predicted the submarine in 2000 Leagues Under The Sea, many of his books, From Earth to the Moon and Around the World in 80 Days, for example seem dated today, because the things that have happened since the books were written make the feats described in these novels seem unimpressive by today’s standards.

Futurism, however, is not the main reason we return to classic sci-fi. Rather, the most successful science fiction speaks to universal themes and provides social criticism that is as relevant to today’s society as it was when it was written. It matters little that the world had not been taken over by Stalinist megapowers by the historical year 1984. The themes presented in the classic novel, from government surveillance, to groupthink, to the changing nature of language, are just as relevant today as they were when Orwell imagined his classic dystopia in 1948. If anything, the issues presented in his novel are even more prevalent today. The recent Facebook scandal recalls Orwell’s telescreen, and concepts like “fake news” and “alternate facts” remind us of doublethink and newspeak.

With this dilemma in mind, let’s return to Fahrenheit 451. There are many aspects of modern society that Bradbury’s novel correctly predicts, including the increasingly immersive, but, ultimately, vapid personal home entertainment market and the importance of optics over policy in politics, but there are many developments that it fails to predict, most prominently, the internet, which would have a major effect on the essential 512px-Ray_Bradbury_(1975)_-cropped-.jpgmessage of the novel. None of these matter in the grand scheme of things, because the central timeless issues of the book—censorship, free thought, and literacy—still speak to modern audiences just as loudly, or, in some cases, even more loudly than they did when the book was written.

Thus, when Bahrani’s version includes the effects of the internet on the preservation of knowledge, I’m basically ok with it. When social media plays a prominent role in his world, fine, I can see how that’s needed to build a believable future. But, eliminating characters such as Montag’s wife, and completely changing Clarice’s character from a purely innocent, but visionary child, to an adult, tortured double-agent fundamentally alter the original story in unforgivable and unnecessary ways. That doesn’t even get into the way that the HBO film changes the Montag and Beatty, the central characters in the story.

None of these changes, however, is as significant as the film’s emphasis on inclusion and exclusion of various groups in society. Bahrani’s film puts the question of EEL’s, shorthand (and heavy-handed) slang for illegals at the center of the film. These EEL’s actively work to thwart the government’s censorship not by hiding books, but rather by  trying to upload full versions of classics to The Nine, the film’s version of the internet  and are hunted down by the firemen, who seem to play the role of police or ICE operatives. The parallels to the current political situation are obvious, as is the message the film conveys. The problem is that while it is a relevant message, it is not Bradbury’s message. Shifting the focus away from what Bradbury wrote, makes the film a different type of dystopia, and the confused return to something more in line with the original plot in the second half of the movie confuses both messages so that neither one is fully developed.

The issue of oppression and insiders/outsiders in society is fine material for a dystopia. If Bahrani wanted to write and direct that movie, he should have made it, as an original story, not as Fahrenheit 451. Such a movie would have been timely. Time would tell whether it would have been timeless.

As an aside, it is counter-productive to message of inclusion and unity to assign the memorized books of the resistance to people of the same race as the authors of those books: The white woman memorizes Steinbeck; the black woman, Morrison; the black man, Baldwin; and the Chinese woman, Mao. The message would have been more effective if at least one of the characters memorized a book that wasn’t written by an author of the same cultural background as the memorizer.

The comparison between the two versions of the story can be seen by juxtaposing Beatty’s speeches in the book vs. those he gives in the movie. Early in the film, Beatty (Michael Shannon) and Montag (Michael B. Jordan) visit a school, give an anti-EEL speech, and then burn some mock books. The speech feels timely, as if they, despite the conceit of the far-distant future society, are speaking directly to America in 2018. However, because the allegory is so direct, it is unclear whether the message will last beyond the current moment. In contrast, Beatty’s speeches about history and education in the novel feel timeless in the same way that Dickens’ commentary on education in Hard Times are timeless. Years after the book was written, they feel just as fresh and relevant. Even Bradbury’s own understanding of the book’s meaning has developed over time because the text he wrote lends itself to multivariate meanings centered around a central theme.

Michael_B._Jordan_Small.jpg

Again, it’s a shame that this movie failed as an adaptation, since it does a really good job at building a believable future, it’s shot beautifully, and it is acted well, especially by the characters who play the central roles.

So, if HBO’s Fahrenheit is ultimately unsuccessful as an adaptation, what makes a successful one? Come back next week to read part 2 of this article, which will explore the different approaches to adaptation taken by the writers of Amazon/Channel 4’s Electric Dreams.

 


A. A. Rubin lurks in the shadows. You may have thought you saw him in the back of the bar, or going into the subway station, but when you looked back, he was gone. His fiction has appeared in Pif MagazineScrivener’s Pen, and The Hopper Review. His short story “White Collar Blues,” which originally appeared in Skyline, was nominated for The Carve Magazine/Mild Horse Press Online Short Story Anthology Award by the editor. His debut graphic novel will be released by Golden Bell Studios next year. He can be reached at: birdman33@gmail.com and on twitter as @thesurrealari .

The Doctor Who Christmas Special: Twice Upon a Time—An Allegorical Reading

The Whoniverse is about to change—we all knew that. Peter Capaldi’s run as the titular character is ending, show runner Steven Moffat is leaving, and Jodi Whittaker will become the first female doctor in the show’s long history. This last bit, you may have heard, has been the subject of much discussion among the Whovians, many of whom have been, to put it more mildly than the 12th incarnation of the doctor would, worried. Moffat sent a message to these folks in his and Capaldi’s final episode: These “worries” are unfounded, and antithetical to his vision of the long-running science fiction program. Thus, in addition to nostalgically looking back to the past, Twice Upon a Time cleverly sets up the show’s future.

Twice Upon a Time picks up where the last season ended. The Doctor is dying, but refusing to regenerate. He ends up at the South Pole where he encounters the First Doctor (who is masterfully played by David Bradley). The two doctors have to solve the mystery of glass-like avatars who are stealing the memories of the dead to unfreeze time, and return The Captain (Mark Gatiss) to World War One, his proper place in the timeline. On the one level, it is the perfect vehicle to send off Capaldi’s doctor: The aliens’ ability to access anyone who has died allows for sentimental appearances from old companions, and the presence of the First Doctor—and his Tardis—invites the kind of allusions to classic Who one would expect from Moffat’s swan song. On another level, however, Twice Upon a Time can be read as an allegory for the state of the Whoniverse, and Moffat’s final statement about what it can and should be.

This allegory is accomplished through the juxtaposition of Capaldi’s doctor with the original doctor. Throughout his tenure, Capaldi has been compared to Hartnell’s version of the character. He was older, grayer, darker, more alien than his most recent predecessors, and his episodes were replete with more classic Who references than theirs, as well. And, indeed, when seen next to each other, they are indeed similar. They have both arrived at the same place with the intention of stopping their regeneration.  Both are considering dying rather than letting someone else become The Doctor. However, when presented with the mystery of The Captain, they are forced to at least temporarily postpone this plan and work together. It is in this partnership that the differences between 1 and 12 are revealed.

Doctor Who_Xmas 2017_PreTX Episodic_19.jpg

Despite the episode’s nostalgic tone, the humorous banter between Capaldi and Bradley carries much of the episode. From the opening sequence, where the two doctors argue over who is THE

Doctor, the subject of the Doctor’s identity is hinted at at the forefront. Is the original the best? Or is the latest version, the culmination of years of experience and growth, superior? At the beginning, it seems like 1 is in charge. He gets the better of the exchanges, and seems to be more comfortable in the role of leader. He identifies himself as “The Doctor” and calls 12 his “nurse” in one particularly funny scene. As the show goes on, however, 12 ascends to the leadership role. Ultimately, it is he who solves the mystery, and it is his plan that provides satisfying, Christmassy resolution to the Captain’s predicament. The first doctor fades into the background and Capaldi is left alone on screen, first for his teary reunion with certain past companions (spoilers) and then for his powerful final monologue and regeneration scene.

The shift in power in the Tardis is accomplished through the progression of the above-mentioned banter. While the First Doctor seems to be getting the better of the battle of wits early on in the program, as it progresses, his jokes begin to fall flat. His views on women, and their role in the Tardis, are at best anachronistic, and at worse offensive. He professes, among other things, that the women are fragile (made from glass) and that it is the female companion’s role to “tidy up” the Tardis. These comments are met with rebuke from the 12th Doctor, as well as from Bill Potts (Pearl Mackie), who makes her return in this episode. As the First Doctor’s worldview is revealed to be out of place in time, the 12th ascends, representing what The Doctor does and should currently believe. The First Doctor’s anachronistic sexism echoes that of a certain segment of the fan base who would reject the 13th Doctor, the first female incarnation, without giving her a fair chance. The First Doctor may not be happy about the upcoming change—either in the context of the show where he is about to regenerate for the first time or in the context of the allegory where his refusal to regenerate reveals his reluctance to progress—but then he would not have been happy sharing the Tardis with Rose, Martha, Donna, Amy, Clara, or Bill, none of whom would be doing his housekeeping. Imagine how he would have felt about Captain Jack Harkness, then consider if you’re being close minded about The Doctor’s gender.

After Capaldi’s regeneration, we get our first, brief glimpse of Jodi Whittaker as The Doctor. Though she is on screen only briefly, she appears comfortable in the role. Her only line of dialogue recalls the 9th Doctor, and her fall from the Tardis into open space may symbolize the endless possibilities that come with a new doctor and new show runner.

There are no monsters in this year’s Christmas episode—no Cybermen, no Zygons, no Weeping Angels. The only Dalek who appears is, nominally, on the Doctor’s side. Even the glass avatars of the dead—the supposed antagonists of the episode—turn out, to The Doctor’s consternation, not to be evil. What, then, is the doctor fighting against? In the end, it is his fear of the future, his fear of change and the unknown, things the whole Whoniverse encounters every time the Doctor regenerates. These fears are cleverly alluded to in Capaldi’s final speech. Early in the monologue, he says (and perhaps it is Moffat speaking through him), “Yes, yes, I know they’ll mess it up without me,” and then implores the new doctor to “wait a moment. Let’s get it right.” He then offers his advice for being a successful doctor: “Never be cruel, never be cowardly. And never ever eat pears! Remember – hate is always foolish…and love, is always wise. Always try to be nice and never fail to be kind.

As long as The Doctor is able to, “Laugh hard. Run fast. Be kind,” everything is going to be ok.

Doctor Who_Xmas 2017_PreTX Episodic_15.jpg

A. A. Rubin lurks in the shadows. You may have thought you saw him in the back of the bar, or going into the subway station, but when you looked back, he was gone. His fiction has appeared in Pif MagazineScrivener’s Pen, and The Hopper Review. His short story “White Collar Blues,” which originally appeared in Skyline, was nominated for The Carve Magazine/Mild Horse Press Online Short Story Anthology Award by the editor. His debut graphic novel will be released by Golden Bell Studios next year. He can be reached at: birdman33@gmail.com and on twitter as @thesurrealari .

 

 

Lightning Strikes the CW

black-lightning_finalBLACK LIGHTNING First-Look Image


WOW! What a great time to be a true comic book fan! Growing up I had some great shows and cartoons. Live action super hero shows were few and far between compared to today, we had reruns of the classic Batman 66″ TV series, the 77″ Wonder Woman series with the still beautiful Lynda Carter {now playing the president of the USA on Supergirl} Shazam & Isis were our “live action” super heroes along with the occasional syndicated run of the George Reeves “Superman”. Today of course TV & Movies have become geek friendly and people just can’t get enough! Just to name a few Fox has Gotham, The Gifted, Lucifer & Legion HULU has Marvel’s Runaways of course Netflix has Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, Iron Fist, The Defenders and soon the Punisher! The CW is waist deep in the DC universe Arrow, Legends of Tomorrow,The Flash,Supergirl & now Black Lighting! By now it’s no secret that Black Lighting won’t take place in the “Arrow-verse” but that doesn’t mean we won’t see other DC characters from the comics appear in this series, in my opinion this has been a long time coming. I was a fan of the character since I was a kid, seeing him co-star along side Batman multiple times in Brave & the Bold and others in various titles not to mention his own series as well but we never got him in the various seasons of the “Super Friends” shows but instead got a kid friendly version named Black Vulcan. Recently they announced that Chantal Thuy has been cast as Grace Choi, this character first appeared in the 2000 run of “The Outsiders” she was later to be revealed to be descended from the amazons. Needless to say she is a heavy hitter. Not a show regular but CW will say she’ll be a recurring character  on the series.

Even though “Black Lighting” has been around since the 70’s he’s been revamped a few times. His modern origin can be found in the mini series Black Lighting Year One this is also where they get a lot of the premise for this new CW show. His short lived original solo series {12 issues} broke ground at DC to be the first hero of color to have their own series, paving the way…eventually for Cyborg and John Stewart two of DC’s most popular characters. It’s what I would consider essential reading for this character, he also co-starred in Worlds Finest, Detective & JLA and was even offered membership in the league but he turned it down and just flew solo so to speak but years later became a member of the league for a time. A pivotal turning point in the characters life was when he lost his powers when an innocent woman was killed during a gun fight he was involved in. Luckily he decided to keep fighting the good fight even without his powers and was enlisted by Batman to help him save Lucius Fox. That’s when we find out it’s all in his head it was just his guilt over that woman’s death that suppressed his powers but with the aid of Batman gets his powers back. In 1983 when creators Mike W. Barr, Jim Aparo & Alan Davis brought Batman & The Outsiders to life “Black Lighting” became a founding member of the “Outsiders”. As of recent we see him in the New 52 where he was teamed up with the “Blue Devil” which is currently available in TPB and well worth your time. As of now he’s made his appearance in DC’s Rebirth in a new mini series called Black Lighting: Cold Dead Hands a 6 issue mini series that started on November 1st but with his adventures coming to the CW in 2018 can his reemergence on a new team be far off? This isn’t the first time we’ve seen the character on tv he’s been animated quite a few times in DC animated feature films and tv series such as Young Justice, Brave and the Bold, Justice League: Crisis on 2 Earths, Public Enemy’s and more.

So if you want to learn more about Black Lighting here’s some suggested reading:

Black Lighting’s original 1977 solo series

Black Lighting vol 2 1995 solo series

Black Lighting Year 1 {6 issue mini series}

DC Presents vol 3 Black Lighting & Blue Devil

Batman & The Outsiders vol 1

Black Lighting: Cold Dead Hands {2017-2018}