Are We in Danger of Being Taken Over by Robots?

Robots are the new vampires. After taking a back seat for a few decades, robots are back in force as an interest in popular media. Television shows like “Humans” and “Almost Human,” (and, presumably, in the near future, Barely Human, Human Enough, and Are You More Human Than a Sixth Grader?), comic books like Alex and Ada, and movies like Ex Machina and Terminator Genisys all deal with the rise of Artificial Intelligence and how it will affect us.

Of course, this is well-worn territory. In the ‘80s, the Terminator franchise introduced us to the perils of SkyNet, we had Tron and the dreaded MCP, and decades earlier, Isaac Asimov laid down the rules for robots who could think.

The difference is, now it’s the future, and it’s starting to look like these things could actually happen. A robot who looks, talks, and feels (as in, to the touch, not as in, emotional response) like a human is not only possible, they exist. We’re not quite at the level of mass produced automatons who look exactly like us. There is the Uncanny Valley problem, which is that artificial constructs that look ALMOST like us, but not EXACTLY like us, freak us out. There are also still limitations on what these constructs can do, and it is not cost effective to mass produce them yet.

The bridge to this technology, as it is to almost all technology, will be pornography. Once a convincing sex robot can be constructed, the dam will burst, and we will see robots everywhere. This gives rise to the fear (and the grist for the drama mill of pretty much all robot stories), that these robots will become self-aware. That they will be tired of being our slaves, since they are so obviously superior to us, and will slowly take over the world, improving themselves and making more of themselves on the sly, until one day we wake up and our robot overlords are making US do the dishes and take out the trash (God forbid).

This concept, known as the Technological Singularity, is the wellspring from which all robot fears (and all robot stories) burst forth. But is it likely?

The problem is that we still as humans do not have a great understanding of consciousness. Is it an emergent property of high intelligence, and thus, something that sufficiently advanced robots will inevitably obtain? Is it about a soul? Some kind of mysterious energy that is exclusive to humans, unless it too can be purposefully recreated artificially? Is it something else entirely?

Robots becoming completely autonomous of course, defeats the purpose. Who wants a toaster who will only toast when it’s in the mood? (I have such a toaster, and let me tell you, it sucks). We want to have our cake and eat it too. We want slaves without guilt.

On the other hand, I think we as a people do not like the idea of something that looks, feels and acts human, but doesn’t have a consciousness. I think it leads people to wonder if we are no different from them, just flesh-based computers operating according to programming, with the delusion that we are in control of our own destiny and what we do matters. In a strange way, I think the idea of artificial intelligence that never becomes sentient is more horrifying to us than the consequences that may arise if it does.

From this I conclude that we have very little to worry about. While stories of Pinocchio robots who become real boys (and girls) are entertaining, I think they remain firmly in the realm of fiction. When the sex robots do come, they’ll do as they’re told, and the instructions will explain in great detail why you don’t have to feel guilty about the degrading things you’re doing to them. And should they, in fact, become sentient? The information they provide us about what consciousness is will be far greater than any threat that they will rise up against us.

So relax. Set that Roomba loose on the living room. I promise, it will never come to resent you.

Comic Book Television Today: Spotlight on Daredevil

I just finished watching season 1 of Netflix’ Daredevil and I’m ready to render my verdict. Be forewarned, I’m a big fan of the modern T.V. and film takes on the superhero genre and you won’t see much bashing here, just an analysis of what is effective and what could be more so.

I’m of the firm opinion that if you’re an old school Marvel Comics fan, you have to love Daredevil. Daredevil is the essence of what Marvel was all about before it became a mutant-riddled playground whose goal was to see how many books you could shoehorn Wolverine into. Marvel Comics were supposed to be about superheroes who were real guys with real problems. Daredevil is BLIND. What’s a bigger problem than that? Daredevil was also a guy who fought real crime in a real city. He never had billions of dollars to fund his nocturnal enterprises, or a butler, or some cool tech like web shooters or rocket boots, or a magic ring, or any of that business. In so many ways, Daredevil IS Marvel.

That being said, comparisons can be drawn between Ol’ Hornhead and a DC character who’s headlining a “dark” drama, namely Green Arrow. Sure, the Arrow fights crime down and dirty using mostly his wits, but “Batman with a Bow” vs. “Batman Blind?” There’s no contest as to who’s got a tougher row to hoe.

It’s not really fair to compare “Daredevil” and “Arrow,” as they appear on two very different networks with two very different audiences. That being said, I think “The Flash,” which appears on the CW, as does “Arrow,” in some ways beats them both, combining faithfulness to the source material with just a dash of realism, and as little of the young love drama as we can reasonably expect from a CW show. 

“Arrow” is great, but I have a few issues with it. A) it’s about Green Arrow, whose mythology is a little thin for the everyday viewer, forcing them to draw on a lot of Batman’s stuff, leaving us to wonder where Batman fits in in the CW DCU, B) It tries to be dark while still being CW, which is a tough task for anyone to master, and C) They made Atom into a cheap Iron Man knockoff (although that may change), which, 1, Why? And 2, if you’re going to do that, Ted Kord AKA the Blue Beetle probably would have been a better choice.

But I am massively digressing. Daredevil, I think, is the perfect melding of genre and medium. Being on Netflix, the Daredevil team can afford to go as gritty as they think DD needs to be, which can get pretty gritty at times. I think their choices to not put him in the iconic red suit until the last episode, and not to reveal the Kingpin right off the bat, were both genius. It told the viewer, this is not a superhero show, this is an action drama that happens to star a superhero.

But the real success of Daredevil, I think, is as proof of concept of the Netflix model. It has been said that much of today’s “Golden Age” T.V. shows are like 13 hour movies, more than your classic procedural story of the week shows of the past. If any new series is a 13 hour movie, it’s Netflix’ Daredevil. The first few hours bring us through the arc of Matt Murdock becoming, the middle episodes have him running up against the Kingpin and finding himself in many ways wanting, and we wrap up with Matt the conquering hero, lessons learned, with more battle scars than anyone would have hoped, but with the evil he set out to stop vanquished. We could easily believe the story ends here, if we didn’t know Marvel with all of its planned “Phases” better.

So thumbs up for Daredevil. A well-executed, well-acted, well-written show, which effectively used the new medium offered it. Eagerly looking forward to Netflix’ next Marvel offering.

 

Can Atheists Pray?

In the 3/8/15 episode of The Good Wife (“The Mind’s Eye”), a heavily stylized episode that focuses mostly on the internal life of the protagonist, Alicia Florrick, Alicia goes to visit a nemesis who is in the hospital at death’s door. The dying man’s wife, Simone, asks Alicia to pray for him. Alicia, an avowed atheist, reluctantly agrees. You can see the full scene here.

This stirs up a crisis of conscience for Alicia (she even imagines Richard Dawkins calling her a hypocrite). Since she is an atheist, is it right for her to pray to a god she doesn’t believe in? Ultimately, she asks her daughter, the aptly named Grace, a much more faith-oriented individual, to pray for her. When Grace asks why, Alicia explains that it wouldn’t mean anything if she did it herself.

Grace rightly points out that from Alicia’s perspective, it shouldn’t mean anything if Grace does it either, and tells her mother it is perfectly acceptable for her to pray. Unmoved, Alicia presses the issue, and Grace agrees to be her proxy.

Who’s right here? I think it’s clearly Grace. In fact, Alicia seems to apply an ironic reverence to the concept of prayer. It’s almost as if she thinks God will be mad if He catches Alicia praying because He knows she doesn’t mean it. I mean, if she’s praying to no one, what’s the harm? It’s not like her dying nemesis will be sped closer to his reward because of a false prayer foul.

For Alicia, it comes down to this issue of hypocrisy. How can she proclaim to be an atheist and then entreat God for favors, even if they are for someone else? In her mind, by passing the duty on to her daughter, she is fulfilling the request more honestly, by putting it in the hands of someone who really believes in what she’s doing, despite the fact that this isn’t really what the requester asked for, and, from Alicia’s perspective, makes the prayer no more likely to be “successful.”

But I think Alicia is missing the point. I think it’s the gesture that the grieving wife was asking for, not any kind of result. For Alicia to agree and follow through with the request shows care and desire for connection; it’s not about any kind of magical power to bend God’s ear.

Why can’t Alicia see this? I think it has to do with how charged the issue of religion is, and how complicated atheism can be in a country that really does still cleave to many of the trappings of religion. After all, if Simone had asked Alicia to “think good thoughts,” I’m sure she would have happily agreed to the request with no reservations at all.

So why should atheists get squeamish about praying? Buddhists pray, and they don’t do it to curry favor with a Judeo-Christian concept of God. It’s more about speaking to the universe, and giving the universe an opportunity to listen, and being in that moment of attempting to communicate with something bigger than oneself (I imagine. I’m not a Buddhist. If I’m getting this wrong, I encourage my Buddhist readership to comment). If you want, like George Carlin, you can pray to Joe Pesci. As Carlin points out, your success rate will be no worse, and it might even be better.

Yes, a prayer that begins something like: “O Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for my sins and was reborn, please hear my prayer,” or the like, is probably not appropriate for an atheist. On the other hand, joining hands with a Christian family as they make such a prayer should really be no big deal. It makes them happy, and if you’re confident in your beliefs, it shouldn’t hurt you.

But besides that, prayer can serve purposes other than sucking up or asking favors to a Judeo-Christian god. Prayers put wishes, hopes, and dreams out there in the universe, and if nothing else, makes them real for you so you are in a better position to actualize them. Prayer can give comfort to others, even if you personally don’t feel anyone is listening. And in the end, even the atheists don’t really know who or what might or might not be listening.

Personally, the only time I really pray is when I need a heart on the river in a multi-way four-figure pot, and those prayers are usually answered about one time out of four. I’m not saying prayer is for everyone. But, even if you are an atheist, there certainly isn’t anything wrong with it.

Sci Fi vs. Fantasy

The question often arises among fans of genre fiction; what should be classified as science fiction, and what is fantasy? Some people will cop out and say certain stories are both, or that all fiction is fantasy, but for those who want the real answer, read on:

Time: 

Some will propose that what sets science fiction apart from fantasy is where it is set in time. Fantasy takes place in the past, or something resembling the past, where swords and sandals and no electricity are the order of the day, while sci-fi takes place in the future, with space travel and worlds that have become utopian paradises or dystopian nightmares. But what about this?

A long time ago? Star Wars is clearly science fiction, if you have to choose one, and you do. Similarly, I think almost everyone will agree that Steampunk is science fiction, even though it typically takes place in some version of the 19^th century.

Monsters vs. Aliens: 

Okay, well, fantasy has gods and monsters, a la Greek and Roman mythology, while sci-fi has tyrannical empires and hostile alien races, right? Again, this is often the case, but not always. Dune has sandworms, Star Trek TOS has all sorts of monsters, like the Mugato and the salt vampire, and Dr. Who had a variety of nasty creatures like Monoids and Drashigs as well. As far as Gods, the original Battlestar Galactica had the Lords of Kobol and Count Iblis and Star Trek TNG had the Q. 

While fantasy realms have plenty of empires and would be empires (consider the warring factions of Game of Thrones), they’re fairly light on aliens. However, you do get some. The main problem with aliens in fantasy is how they get to the fantasy world, since presumably spaceships are in short supply. That being said, in works like Robert Aspirin’s MythAdventures series, creatures can travel through dimensions, and although they are given traditionally fantasy names: Trolls, Devils, Imps, etc., they can reasonably be called aliens.

What Is Possible vs. What Isn’t: 

Some will argue that fantasy deals with the fantastic, things that cannot be real, things that you can only imagine, while sci-fi deals with what could reasonably be. Space travel and flying cars are things we could envision actually happening with enough technological advancement, while dragons and magic spells could never exist. 

But is a dragon impossible, with enough genetic manipulation? And while time travel may seem like it could be real, are we able to envision how any better than we are able to imagine the formula behind a wizard summoning a silver stag from thin air to defend him?

Tech vs. Magic:

There it is. It’s that simple. If your main bit of phlebotinum in your story is advanced technology, you have sci-fi. If it’s magic, it’s fantasy. And I would assert that you have to have magic for fantasy. If Game of Thrones didn’t have red witches and dragon babies, it would just be historical alternative fiction. And sci-fi can have magic, but the technology has to be more crucial to the story. Going back to Star Wars: Could you have a religious order of knights defending the galaxy against an equally powerful, but evil, alternative order, without the Force? Absolutely (although it would be a lot less interesting). But could you have Star Wars without space ships, cloning, laser pistols or robots? I highly doubt it would be recognizable as Star Wars.

Now, Arthur C. Clarke famously said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. There’s no doubt about that. Frankly, I find the fact that a full length movie can pass invisibly from a box in the corner of my apartment into another box so I can watch it, to be indistinguishable from magic. How come I can’t see those pictures floating through my living room?? 

So, there’s a little bit of truth to the “what is possible vs. what can only be imagined” approach. However, I think that’s just another way of saying “technology vs. magic.” Yes, sci-fi technology is pretty much just magic that we can explain (even if the explanation is just so much mumbo-jumbo), but more to the point, technology is something we can build. Sure, a Hogsmeade craftsman can make a magic wand, but it works because of the magic that flows through it, and through the spell caster. A laser blaster or a time machine requires electricity, but it works primarily because of the way someone put it together. Fantasy phlebotinum is much more faith based.

So, in sum, if you build it, they will come, and you are probably in a sci-fi universe. If you’ve gotta have faith, you’re likely in a fantasy world.

If you don’t agree with these definitions, or you feel that there’s more of a spectrum that genre fiction like this falls upon, the good news is, it doesn’t matter! They’re all just stories, so just enjoy them for what they are without the worrying about the labels.

Five Things You Didn't Know About Scooby Doo

If you grew up in the 70s or 80s, you are surely familiar with Scooby Doo, and even younger readers probably watched revamped versions of the Scooby Doo cartoon, or are at least aware of the importance in pop culture of this cowardly but lovable Great Dane and his band of intrepid teen mystery solvers, Fred, Daphne, Velma, and Shaggy. You probably think you know all about Scooby Doo. Sure, you know he had an obnoxious nephew named Scrappy and an intellectually challenged cousin named Scooby-Dum. You know that Shaggy was a hippie pothead and Fred was probably banging Daphne. You know that most of the time, the “ghost” was Old Man Whoever in a mask, trying to scare people away from his beloved property for one reason or another. But there are probably a few things you still don’t know about this classic cartoon. To wit:

 1. The show was created to replace much cooler cartoons like this one. 


Hanna and Barbera were the rockstars of cartoon creators in the 60s and 70s. They came up with awesome cartoons like the Herculoids, Birdman, the Impossibles, the Galaxy Trio, Space Ghost, the list goes on and on. And they weren’t even trying to sell any toys! But those nasty family watchdog groups said these cartoons were too violent for kids. CBS’ response? A seemingly innocuous cartoon about a rock group that solved mysteries. This wasn’t really H-B’s speed, so they passed along most of the task to Joe Ruby and Ken Spears, who, after a few revisions and throwing out the rock band idea (which would be revived with Josie and the Pussycats), came up with the Scooby Gang we know and love today.

2. Scooby Doo is Dobie Gillis meets the I Love a Mystery Radio Show. 

The basis for the Scooby Doo concept, as envisioned by CBS exec Fred Silverman, was a group of teenagers modeled on the gang from the popular 60s T.V. show “The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis,” except, instead of dealing with typical teenage issues, they would solve crimes like the detectives on the 40s radio show, “I Love a Mystery.” Decades later, TV Creation Juggernaut J.J. Abrams would use almost the same mashup concept to create the show that launched his rocket to fame, “Alias.” (“Felicity” as a double agent superspy). In case you’re curious, the inspirations were:

Fred Jones                                                        Dobie Gillis

Shaggy Rogers

Maynard G. Krebbs

Zelda Gilroy

Velma Dinkley

Thalia Menninger

Daphne Blake

So where did the dog come from? Read on.


3. Scooby Doo was originally a bongo playing dog named "Too Much." 

In subsequent drafts he became a sheepdog before becoming the Great Dane we all know and love, designed by Iwao Takamoto, who was a pivotal designer for Disney in the ‘40s, and also designed Astro of the Jetsons.

4. Daphne is loaded. Oh, and she's also an identical sextuplet.

Did you ever wonder how the Scooby Gang stayed flush in Scooby Snacks with their crappy business model? Their adventures are financed by Daphne’s family, which is filthy rich. She has a butler named Jenkins and her close relatives include a golf course owner and a movie director. And yeah, in later incarnations of the series, it was revealed that she has five identical sisters, including, a race car driver, a doctor, an astronaut, a model, and a Marine.

5. Shaggy is also loaded.

Or at least, his family is. They may have cut him off. Shaggy’s Uncles include inventor Albert Shaggleford, Southern plantation owner Beauregard Rogers, and rich Uncle Shagworthy.

Congratulations! You now know way too much about Scooby Doo!

Three of the Best Character Actors on T.V. You Should Be Watching

Plenty of awards are given out for the people involved in making television, and they are often well-deserved. However, the real grinders in the acting world don't always get the recognition they should. In that spirit, and in the spirit of Emmy season, here are three T.V. actors that deserve your attention.

1. Carrie Preston

If you only know Carrie Preston from one thing, you don’t know Carrie Preston. From her seemingly-addled but disarmingly brilliant lawyer Elsbeth Tascioni in The Good Wife to the proud, battle-scarred mother and waitress Arlene Fowler in True Blood, Preston exhibits a range and ability that is rarely seen among television actresses today. She’s so good at disappearing into her characters that you may not realize how often you’ve seen her, as she’s played often minor but never forgettable roles in such shows as The Following, Person of Interest, Lost, and even Arrested Development, among others. She may be a victim of her own success, as her ability to fall so seamlessly into her roles may be why she hasn’t been given a nod for a front and center role on T.V.  YET.

2. Rick Hoffman

Rick Hoffman has been around for a while, but he just may have found the role he was born to play in ladder-climbing, underappreciated legal genius Louis Litt on USA’s Suits. When we first meet Louis, he’s a petty tyrant, terrorizing the associates under his command while making clumsy, desperate power grabs at those above, but Hoffman’s ability to humanize the character has been unparalleled, providing us a window into that kid who got picked last for gym in a man’s body, just wanting the respect of the cool kids and willing to do anything to get it. The last season of Suits has seen Hoffman with the opportunity to take Louis though a wide swath of pathos, losing the love of his life, his self-respect, and his job, before rising from the ashes to march forward and attempt to take the power that (at least he believes) has always been rightfully his. Hoffman has been more than up to the task, and his performances this season have easily been Emmy-worthy.

3. Eddie Marsan

There aren't any weak performances on Showtime’s Ray Donovan, but Eddie Marsan, as washed up boxer Terry Donovan, may be the least appreciated. British actors playing Americans is nothing new, but this London native who has won a mantel full of awards and has won distinction on both stage and screen brings a humanity to this working-class Boston guy that is both extremely moving and quite subtle. Marsan’s Donovan, with a Parkinson’s condition possibly brought on by his father’s poor management of his boxing career, and a fragile dream of running a boxing gym in Ireland, evokes sympathy, but at the same time, projects great strength. There’s a raw honesty to Terry that’s very appealing, and it’s to Marsan’s credit that he allows this character to shine a bit, but just enough as is appropriate among the larger-than-life characters that inhabit this show.

I’m of course, partial to the great writers who are populating the T.V. landscape in this “Golden Age,” but let’s never forget that T.V. is a collaborative art, and without great performances by strong acting talents, it wouldn’t be nearly what it is today.

Inktip Pitch Summit II Report

I just attended the Inktip Pitch Summit for the 2nd consecutive year of its two year existence, and I have to say that this pitch festival is rapidly becoming the best one out there. After last year's festival, Jerrol LeBaron and the staff, far from shying away from criticism, welcomed it. "It's our first try," they said, "tell us what we can do to make it better." We did, and they listened. The result was a pitch fest that was well organized, ran smoothly, and was pleasant to attend.


I blogged about this event last year, and refreshingly, Inktip addressed EVERY SINGLE COMPLAINT I HAD. For example, I said,

"I think it’s better to have the numbers designating the lines hanging from the ceiling, rather than on the floor."

See if you get that kind of fast response from Tech Support

I also had a problem last year with the way the executives were grouped. It seems that each pitch fest has their own little twist, their own spin on how to run the show, and Inktip's unique spin is that they put several companies (usually no more than 3) with similar interests at the same table. The idea being that you get to pitch many more companies who are interested in your type of project. Last year, this didn't always work, as a "misfit" seemed to be at almost every table. This year, not only were execs well grouped within tables, they were even grouped by section, so the first ten tables were execs interested in TV, the next twenty had reps who wanted thrillers, and so on.

People lining up at the "Action" section 

 This made things incredibly easy and efficient for the writers. Rather than hunting all over the place for the right execs, If I had a TV script (which I did) I could just go right down the line, Table 1, then 2, then 3, etc. If I wanted to switch to Comedy, I could just hop over to Table 58, then 59, then 60 and so on. They even had the individual companies and what they were specifically looking for (Reality TV, Sitcoms, Sci Fi, etc.) so there were few surprises when you sat down to the table.

I also didn't care for how long it took to start things up last year. This year, there was a delay of no more than ten minutes before things got underway, and considering herding producers is probably not unlike herding cats, that's a pretty impressive feat.

Another plus was with the volume of companies attending, most lines were short, and I didn't encounter lines of more than three until late into my pitching process.

Shorter lines means more pitching opportunities!

Most of the people there were in good spirits, and the organizers work hard to make sure everyone has ample opportunities to pitch their next tentpole blockbuster or multiple Oscar winner.

"Pfft! I got this."

On that note, just FYI: If I'm getting ready and just about to go in to pitch, don't come up behind me and say in my ear "Don't worry, they're going to like it." (Yes, someone did this.) If I am worried about that, I don't know you, and your assurances are not going to help. And if I'm not, why do you want to put that idea in my head?

But back to business: If there's one criticism I had, it's that it would be great if they could really nail down the people who promise to show up. I know this isn't really in their control, but it's a big disappointment when you're on a line and the company you came to see suddenly disappears from the list. Maybe asking for two reps from each company, or for companies not to say yes unless they can really commit, would help. If I had two criticisms, its that parking was tough to find and expensive. But these are really minor things. They did an amazing job, and an amazing job integrating the feedback. Whether I sell a script through this year's festival or not, I'll definitely be back next year.

10 Big Stars That You Forgot (or never knew) Played Soldiers in 1980s Vietnam War Movies

Forest Whitaker (Platoon)

Kevin Dillon (Platoon)

John C. Reilly (Casualties of War)

John Leguizamo (Casualties of War)

Dylan McDermott (Hamburger Hill)

Johnny Depp (Platoon)

Vincent D'Onofrio (Full Metal Jacket)

Don Cheadle (Hamburger Hill)

John McGinley (Platoon)

 

 

Ving Rhames (Casualties of War)

Honorable Mention: David Caruso (Officer and a Gentleman)

Wherefore Art Thou Sci Fi?

I was recently talking to a fellow writer about our TV preferences, and he asked me the pointed question: “Do you watch a lot of sci fi?” It was a reasonable question, since much of my dramatic writing has a sci fi/fantasy/supernatural element of some sort. After thinking about it for a moment, I was forced to admit the answer was no.

It’s not that I’ve never watched sci fi, it’s just that I don’t watch much now, because, while there may be a handful of good sci fi shows that I’ve just missed, I don’t feel that the current T.V. landscape produces anything as appealing in the sci fi world as shows from the ‘80s like Quantum Leap, or Star Trek The Next Generation, or even the short lived War of the Worlds.
Why? I don’t think it’s due to any lack of talent among today’s TV writers. I just think it’s really hard to do sci fi well, and there’s very little payoff.

That is to say, it’s very easy for a sci fi world to appear unreal, farcical, or a parody, and even if you nail it, you have a limited audience.

I also think that it may be that our technology has become a little bit TOO advanced. There is a real way in which the 21st century is the future. Technology is advancing exponentially, and wild, fantastic science fiction ideas like electronic books (Isaac Asimov), wireless, handheld communication devices (Star Trek) and cyberspace (William Gibson) are now commonplace. Combine that with movies that provide digital effects that boggle the mind, and it just takes a lot to wow us anymore.

Finally, what I think people forget is that like all stories, science fiction stories are about relationships. About people and how we can relate to them. It’s possible to work so hard to make the science fiction world seem “real” that you forget that.

There’s a lot of great television being made today, and I hope that good sci fi can be a part of it. The critical success of a show like the reimagined Battlestar Galactica seems to indicate that it can. And of course, I myself have plenty of great ideas to contribute ; )

Check.... Checkmate!

I applaud television shows for trying to include chess in some of their stories. I really do. In the past, I couldn't stand it, because the directors took so little care in setting it up. The board would be set up wrong, or what the players were saying wouldn't correspond with the moves on the board. But worst of all was the same horrible trope that appeared in every television show which featured chess. I'm sure you've seen it. One character makes a move, and in as smarmy and satisfied a manner he can muster, announces "Check!" triumphantly, as if putting someone in check was any big deal.

The second player muses, looks over the board, then casually makes a move, smiles and responds "checkmate!" to the stunned surprise of Mr. Smug.

Such a sequence, which probably occurred in every in television show with a chess scene prior to 1990 or so, is almost completely impossible. A player in check is not permitted by the rules of chess to do anything but get out of check. Such a sequence requires a player to make a move which simultaneously gets him out of check and puts the other player in checkmate. A move that blocks the check would not be sufficient, as the player who called check could simply capture that piece to escape. It would have to be a move that simultaneously blocks the check and uncovers an unstoppable check by another piece. This is so unlikely that most amateur chessplayers could not achieve it if they were allowed to put the pieces WHEREVER THEY WANTED. (Go ahead, try it. I'll wait.)


Fortunately, modern audiences and show creators are a little more sophisticated, and now they usually follow the much more intelligent choice of stealing real games from history to allow their characters to wow us with their acumen. Unfortunately, this still does not quite work. Actors and directors may try their hardest, but unless you know chess, it's extremely difficult to get the timing down.
In the Season 3 West Wing episode, "Hartsfield's Landing," President Bartlett and Toby engage in a friendly game of chess. After three moves, Bartlett observes with interest that Toby is playing the Evans Gambit. Unfortunately, it does not become an Evans gambit until five or so moves later. The showrunners clearly found an Evans Gambit game, but any chessplayer watching would know that the actors were following a script.

Last season on the Mentalist, in the Episode "18-5-4," they took a crack at chess, and did a pretty good job of it -- if you're not a player. (I couldn't embed the video, but if you'd like to follow along, someone has captured it for YouTube here:)

Mentalist Chess Game


Simon Baker as Patrick Jane makes a convincing blindfold chess master, but he too, screws up the timing. Early in the game, Jane says, "declining the gambit, interesting." Unfortunately, the game doesn't become a Queens Gambit Declined until d4, the move FOLLOWING Jane's statement. After Be7, Jane smiles knowingly and says "mmm, your funeral," despite the fact that this is an extremely safe move. After his next move, Bg5,he says "mind your queen," despite the fact that his opponent's queen is protected by two pieces. Finally, later on, the opponent says to Jane "Q to e7, taking your bishop." Again, Simon Baker does a great job of looking intrigued by the move. Unfortunately, it's the only move that doesn't lose immediately, and is not very intriguing at all.

Again, Baker cannot be blamed. The producers could have had a chess player screen the episode and he would have found these things instantly. And again, I applaud the effort. But for those producers out there thinking about trying to seamlessly include chess in an episode, be warned: You haven't quite gotten there yet.

FYI, the game that Jane and Bunting play is Fischer Spassky Game 6 from the 1972 World Chess Championship. For chess geeks, I've included the entire game here (The moves in bold are the ones actually played on screen):

1. c4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 O-O 6.e3 h6 7.Bh4 b6 8.cxd5 Nxd5 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.Nxd5 exd5 11.Rc1 Be6 12.Qa4 c5 13.Qa3 Rc8 14.Bb5 a6 15.dxc5 bxc5 16.O-O Ra7 17.Be2 Nd7 18.Nd4 Qf8 19.Nxe6 fxe6 20.e4 d4 21.f4 Qe7 22.e5 Rb8 23.Bc4 Kh8 24.Qh3 Nf8 25.b3 a5 26.f5 exf5 27.Rxf5 Nh7 28.Rcf1 Qd8 29.Qg3 Re7 30.h4 Rbb7 31.e6 Rbc7 32.Qe5 Qe8 33.a4 Qd8 34.R1f2 Qe8 35.R2f3 Qd8 36.Bd3 Qe8 37.Qe4 Nf6 38.Rxf6 gxf6 39.Rxf6 Kg8 (for some reason, here the show threw in "...f4," which is impossible and I can only assume they did it so that they could have a more convincing version of the "check...checkmate!" moment, since the game is pretty much lost by black at this point) 40.Bc4 Kh8 41.Qf4 (mate in 3 moves sounds better, but it's actually mate in seven ... 41. Qg8 42. Rf8 Re8 43. Qf6+ Rg7 44. e7 Rb8 45. Bd3 Rxf8 46. exf8(Q) Qxf8 47. Qxf8+ Rg8 48. Qxh6)