Hollywood has always been pretty lax when it comes to adhering to science as we understand it - even out with science fiction. The most obvious things that one can expect to see - as the site Intuitor is often at pains to explain - are sparking bullets, the infinite clip, people able to fall substantial distances or smash through windows without injury, the amazing exploding car and of course
Perhaps the favourite science cliche in sci-fi is that anti-gravity is just about THE first thing a space faring race will develop. Not only that but it can be pumped through a ship like central heating and is a thousand times more robust than everything on the ship - including critical systems like... life support. Just about the only time artificial gravity ever failed were in Star Trek VI - The Undiscovered Country... and very briefly in the B5 TV movie - In The Beginning.
They really ought to try and build consoles with the same technology... because they do explode an awful lot. It's really saying something about your ship when your biggest worry is a computer blowing up in your face, rather than explosive decompression. Probably not a good thing either. Barring Dell's exploding laptops, there is little in the terms of equivalence.
Of course, these are generic sci-fi clichés... like the starfighters acting like they're in an atmosphere or Star Trek space battles being akin to being fought by pick-ups being driven around in a car park, firing nerf at one another... they're just things that are done for dramatic effect and such. However, once every few years there is just a film that is so stupidly idiotic that it shouldn't be bothered with.
Sunshine seems to be the next torch bearer, surpassing The Core. OUR SUN IS DYING! ONLY A BOMB THE SIZE OF KANSAS CAN SAVE US! Where to start... the inaccuracy. The fact our dying sun would consume the Earth rather than go off like a light bulb? The idea that a sun that has depleted its (massive) amounts of fuel can't be "reignited" by a bomb... and even if it could, the Earth is 1/109th the diameter of the Sun. Even though, it's akin to throwing a match on a dead fire. Not that logic ever applied to Hollywood.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
One has to wonder why the mainstream media bother to try and make the general public aware of security issues... such as the dangers of unencrypted wireless Internet, phishing, what not having a firewall could do and so on.
The chances are, if you watch and know what they're talking about - you're sufficiently knowledgable to avoid these kind of pitfalls... in much the same way the average person might avoid stepping in a bear trap or off a cliff. However, those not sufficiently imbued with knowledge on these matters are likely unable or unwilling to do anything about it.
Which makes them rather pointless. They're simply insulting the intelligence - or perhaps, allowing people to sit back in a moment of smug superiority - of people "in the know" and not doing much more than making people who are at risk worry because all they'll do is bring on some "expert" who will tell us -"WIFI IS UNSAFE" but then make little if any effort to inform people how they might go about securing it.
It actually might be useful if they did because if you know anything about the more prolific viruses or larger DoS attacks these days, you'll know that they are in fact all down to people who allow their computers to be sequestered by trojans etc. which are then used to proliferate said virus or participate in an attack. Which of course, degrades everyone's Internet experience.
The chances are, if you watch and know what they're talking about - you're sufficiently knowledgable to avoid these kind of pitfalls... in much the same way the average person might avoid stepping in a bear trap or off a cliff. However, those not sufficiently imbued with knowledge on these matters are likely unable or unwilling to do anything about it.
Which makes them rather pointless. They're simply insulting the intelligence - or perhaps, allowing people to sit back in a moment of smug superiority - of people "in the know" and not doing much more than making people who are at risk worry because all they'll do is bring on some "expert" who will tell us -"WIFI IS UNSAFE" but then make little if any effort to inform people how they might go about securing it.
It actually might be useful if they did because if you know anything about the more prolific viruses or larger DoS attacks these days, you'll know that they are in fact all down to people who allow their computers to be sequestered by trojans etc. which are then used to proliferate said virus or participate in an attack. Which of course, degrades everyone's Internet experience.
Ever notice that sci-fi shows will introduce an enemy - either an individual or a race - who are pretty awesome. Obvious examples would be Star Trek's Borg and Species 8472, SG-1's Replicators and probably the Daleks...
Species 8472 and the Replicators were BOTH notable for something that made them immensely unique in terms of televisual science fiction. They weren't humanoid! Actually, neither were the Daleks but they're not relevant to this particular point. Both 8472 and Replicators were hard ass mofos, hell 8472 blew solar systems apart for kicks... and the Replicators were usually only a few episodes away from galactic domination.
Both of them were of the strong and silent variety - generally not saying anything, just being relentless in their pursuit of the enemy... beyond reason and the like. Which, naturally put them above the average bad guys... the Borg were somewhat similar but let's leave them for a minute. 8472 were no prominent in Voyager but they fell prey to the bad guy budget effect. That means that if you have a cool race of bad guys - but they're kind of expensive (as CGI effects lik 8472 and Replicator) you want to have them but not the expense. So, what do you do? HUMANISE THEM!
Even BSG did it - albeit for somewhat better founded reasons. In Stargate and Star Trek though, the reason was abundantly clear, they wanted to have their cake and eat it. What they seem to have failed to appreciate is that when the Replicators went from evil mechano to the generic SG-1 bad guys... they just lost their appeal. Species 8472 went from being all conquering and evil to being just misunderstood... Aww!
The Replicators clearly proved such a good idea that the immensely original Stargate writers decided to interject a (very slightly different) version of them into Stargate: Atlantis... guess what! They were human too and much like the human form Replicators from SG-1, they proved to be little more than t-1000 clones, albeit with the mincing bad guy Stargate cliché. There was something sinister about evil Mechano, having Five go all emo over Carter was just laughable and played more like the kind of drama you'd except from Internet social sites than anything... and to add insult to injury, they essentially became whipping boys once they got anti-Replicator guns...
Which brings us to the Borg... anyone that has seen their introduction to the Star Trek universe "Q Who" or the seminal "Best Of Both Worlds" from TNG will probably remembering thinking the Borg were immensely powerful. A juggernaut that was as unstoppable as it was relentless. In fact, writers remarked that they would have liked to use the Borg more but they found it hard to think up ways to beat them... what with them being so bad ass and all.
This changed around the time of First Contact. Presumably for reasons of scripting - it might have been hard to play against mute drones or "resistance is futile" for 90+ minutes - we had the introduction of the Borg Queen, who was essentially an arch-villain in the James Bond cat-stroking tradition that Stargate so keenly emulates/parodies. Far be it from Star Trek to let sleeping dogs lie... but we had the obligatory resurrection of the Borg Queen in Voyager.
Where she ostensibly took part in some manner of interstellar lesbian love triangle with Janeway and 7 of 9. Sounds like something out of a badly written slash fic? There can't really have been any other logical explanation for the lengths she went to in attempts to reclaim Jeri Ryan. She was one level below slavering, con attending, mace resistant, can't tell the difference between TV and real life fanboy in her devotion. Which is presumably the explanation for how the Borg went from hardcore to Voyager's whipping boy. Did people writing those episodes know about Wolf 359? An entire fleet wiped out by a single cube. Seemed like a single Voyager could wipe out a fleet of cubes (even without future tech).
It's the inherent danger, you create an enemy so powerful that you want to have them back again but the only way you can have them back is to nerf their power, which of course all but invalidates the reason for having them back in the first place. One notable exception to this nerf rule seems to be the Daleks... once upon a time, all you needed to do was run up so stairs, or to tip them over. Now they're tin pot titans that can fly, suck your face off and take a casual stroll in laser cross fire. That and they came back from being - apparently - erased from time... three times.
Species 8472 and the Replicators were BOTH notable for something that made them immensely unique in terms of televisual science fiction. They weren't humanoid! Actually, neither were the Daleks but they're not relevant to this particular point. Both 8472 and Replicators were hard ass mofos, hell 8472 blew solar systems apart for kicks... and the Replicators were usually only a few episodes away from galactic domination.
Both of them were of the strong and silent variety - generally not saying anything, just being relentless in their pursuit of the enemy... beyond reason and the like. Which, naturally put them above the average bad guys... the Borg were somewhat similar but let's leave them for a minute. 8472 were no prominent in Voyager but they fell prey to the bad guy budget effect. That means that if you have a cool race of bad guys - but they're kind of expensive (as CGI effects lik 8472 and Replicator) you want to have them but not the expense. So, what do you do? HUMANISE THEM!
Even BSG did it - albeit for somewhat better founded reasons. In Stargate and Star Trek though, the reason was abundantly clear, they wanted to have their cake and eat it. What they seem to have failed to appreciate is that when the Replicators went from evil mechano to the generic SG-1 bad guys... they just lost their appeal. Species 8472 went from being all conquering and evil to being just misunderstood... Aww!
The Replicators clearly proved such a good idea that the immensely original Stargate writers decided to interject a (very slightly different) version of them into Stargate: Atlantis... guess what! They were human too and much like the human form Replicators from SG-1, they proved to be little more than t-1000 clones, albeit with the mincing bad guy Stargate cliché. There was something sinister about evil Mechano, having Five go all emo over Carter was just laughable and played more like the kind of drama you'd except from Internet social sites than anything... and to add insult to injury, they essentially became whipping boys once they got anti-Replicator guns...
Which brings us to the Borg... anyone that has seen their introduction to the Star Trek universe "Q Who" or the seminal "Best Of Both Worlds" from TNG will probably remembering thinking the Borg were immensely powerful. A juggernaut that was as unstoppable as it was relentless. In fact, writers remarked that they would have liked to use the Borg more but they found it hard to think up ways to beat them... what with them being so bad ass and all.
This changed around the time of First Contact. Presumably for reasons of scripting - it might have been hard to play against mute drones or "resistance is futile" for 90+ minutes - we had the introduction of the Borg Queen, who was essentially an arch-villain in the James Bond cat-stroking tradition that Stargate so keenly emulates/parodies. Far be it from Star Trek to let sleeping dogs lie... but we had the obligatory resurrection of the Borg Queen in Voyager.
Where she ostensibly took part in some manner of interstellar lesbian love triangle with Janeway and 7 of 9. Sounds like something out of a badly written slash fic? There can't really have been any other logical explanation for the lengths she went to in attempts to reclaim Jeri Ryan. She was one level below slavering, con attending, mace resistant, can't tell the difference between TV and real life fanboy in her devotion. Which is presumably the explanation for how the Borg went from hardcore to Voyager's whipping boy. Did people writing those episodes know about Wolf 359? An entire fleet wiped out by a single cube. Seemed like a single Voyager could wipe out a fleet of cubes (even without future tech).
It's the inherent danger, you create an enemy so powerful that you want to have them back again but the only way you can have them back is to nerf their power, which of course all but invalidates the reason for having them back in the first place. One notable exception to this nerf rule seems to be the Daleks... once upon a time, all you needed to do was run up so stairs, or to tip them over. Now they're tin pot titans that can fly, suck your face off and take a casual stroll in laser cross fire. That and they came back from being - apparently - erased from time... three times.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Who likes bandwagons more than politicians and the media? Oh, content creators!
Hollywood and the gaming industry are the people who do it to death. With the papers and politicians, they'll drop them after a few days but because of the time involved in making a film or game, it often seems we glut on something... one might argue that the fad for RTS and FPS games that started the better part of fifteen years ago never really ended - to the detriment of other genres.
The problem is that games aren't cheap any more - apparently the next-gen (isn't that term meaningless now?) consoles aren't even going to turn a profit until 2008... all the more reason to make games for the PC, fools -and the days of Billy Nomates in his room making a game that might be commercially viable have passed.
It's rather sad that the variety of games has lessened... while the QUALITY of games has increased dramatically - beyond simply the graphics, production values have improved substantially - it seems as if the games themselves are less original. God games are seemingly a thing of the past - oh, sure you could play the rubbish that Peter Molyneux puts out but really, how much should you be willing to trust someone who left Bullfrog because EA bought it (ostensibly for the purpose of disbanding it), only to go on have his own study sell its soul to them...
As time passes and computer and video games become an increasingly prevalent form of entertainment, it seems somewhat perverse that the diversity of games produced is so much less than it used to be. While there are SOME games that aren't in the FPS/RTS mold - or the large number of generic sport/fighting/racing game of the year that EA knock out - it seems abundantly clear that we need more companies willing to take risks... or we're all going to have to learn how to shoot better.
Hollywood and the gaming industry are the people who do it to death. With the papers and politicians, they'll drop them after a few days but because of the time involved in making a film or game, it often seems we glut on something... one might argue that the fad for RTS and FPS games that started the better part of fifteen years ago never really ended - to the detriment of other genres.
The problem is that games aren't cheap any more - apparently the next-gen (isn't that term meaningless now?) consoles aren't even going to turn a profit until 2008... all the more reason to make games for the PC, fools -and the days of Billy Nomates in his room making a game that might be commercially viable have passed.
It's rather sad that the variety of games has lessened... while the QUALITY of games has increased dramatically - beyond simply the graphics, production values have improved substantially - it seems as if the games themselves are less original. God games are seemingly a thing of the past - oh, sure you could play the rubbish that Peter Molyneux puts out but really, how much should you be willing to trust someone who left Bullfrog because EA bought it (ostensibly for the purpose of disbanding it), only to go on have his own study sell its soul to them...
As time passes and computer and video games become an increasingly prevalent form of entertainment, it seems somewhat perverse that the diversity of games produced is so much less than it used to be. While there are SOME games that aren't in the FPS/RTS mold - or the large number of generic sport/fighting/racing game of the year that EA knock out - it seems abundantly clear that we need more companies willing to take risks... or we're all going to have to learn how to shoot better.
Perhaps even more lumped together than things that fall within the huge umbrella of "science fiction" are cartoons. Since the rise and rise of The Simpsons, cartoons directed toward adults have been increasingly prevalent... however, despite the fact many of them are totally different - they're all just kind of assumed to be the same and often looked down upon because, obviously cartoons are just for children.
Anyone acquainted with the likes of The Simpsons, Family Guy and South Park - probably the three best known cartoons in the West - will know that while there are some similarities (they're all cartoons, aimed at an adult audience with the intent of being funny) they are three very different shows. These days, The Simpsons favours wacky acomedic adventures... but then, I guess if you'd done over 300 episodes you'd struggle to be funny. Family Guy is mired in pop culture references and cut-aways... And of course, South Park - never far from controversy and easily the most offensive and funniest of the three.
South Park tends - especially these days - to be rather topical. Totally irreverent, not afraid to make fun of itself and there is often a message in there... beyond the one that is hammered home with all the subtly of a sledgehammer. In many ways, this is the kind of counter-culture The Simpsons had in its earlier years, before it lost sight of its roots and simply became a bland, inoffensive kid's show.
Admittedly, if you'd been going for 18 years it would be hard to have the same set of characters go and do something new and exciting every week and probably about the first 7-8 were (well, after season 1/2) extremely enjoyable, well written, clever and not afraid to be satirical and comment - albeit rather backhandedly - about various social situations in the USA. Now though, just wacky adventures... which is rather sad. The only way in which the new episodes are an improvement is that they happen to have a far more polished quality of animation... outside of that, this is a shadow of the original show.
Family Guy started out being rather edgy... and relied a LOT less heavily on pop culture references that are probably lost on most people who don't keep up with contemporary American celebrities and far less of the cutaways, which -as South Park pointed out several times - mean that all the jokes are interchangeable. It's a valid point - Family Guy episodes seldom have any plot of merit and ever since it returned from televisual oblivion many of its episodes have been hit and miss. Not to mention that - by and large - the show has been far more bland and inoffensive since it returned, presumably after the episode with the Jews in it - they got told to cool their jets.
South Park is probably the most consistent of the three... although, admittedly, it's got half the episodes of The Simpsons. It has become more topical - and somewhat more preachy - lately but it's aware of that and it's still as offensive and funny as ever... and while Family Guy had some implausible or surreal elements, South Park uses them with such regularity, it can go pretty much any direction and still be South Park.
Amusingly, Matt Groening has recently said that he thinks that The Simpsons could go on forever... One assumes that means he hasn't watched it in the last ten years or he's just keen on getting the bags of cash that being an executive producer on a cash cow like the The Simpsons entails. Ironic that the words of one of the show's own characters summed it up... "Who knows how long there is between now and when the show stops being profitable."
In any event, they're three rather different programmes and simply because they're all cartoons does not mean that they are instantly analogous to one another... Far from it. Simply because Frasier and Friends were both live action sitcoms, they didn't warrant being lumped together... why should cartoons be any different?
Anyone acquainted with the likes of The Simpsons, Family Guy and South Park - probably the three best known cartoons in the West - will know that while there are some similarities (they're all cartoons, aimed at an adult audience with the intent of being funny) they are three very different shows. These days, The Simpsons favours wacky acomedic adventures... but then, I guess if you'd done over 300 episodes you'd struggle to be funny. Family Guy is mired in pop culture references and cut-aways... And of course, South Park - never far from controversy and easily the most offensive and funniest of the three.
South Park tends - especially these days - to be rather topical. Totally irreverent, not afraid to make fun of itself and there is often a message in there... beyond the one that is hammered home with all the subtly of a sledgehammer. In many ways, this is the kind of counter-culture The Simpsons had in its earlier years, before it lost sight of its roots and simply became a bland, inoffensive kid's show.
Admittedly, if you'd been going for 18 years it would be hard to have the same set of characters go and do something new and exciting every week and probably about the first 7-8 were (well, after season 1/2) extremely enjoyable, well written, clever and not afraid to be satirical and comment - albeit rather backhandedly - about various social situations in the USA. Now though, just wacky adventures... which is rather sad. The only way in which the new episodes are an improvement is that they happen to have a far more polished quality of animation... outside of that, this is a shadow of the original show.
Family Guy started out being rather edgy... and relied a LOT less heavily on pop culture references that are probably lost on most people who don't keep up with contemporary American celebrities and far less of the cutaways, which -as South Park pointed out several times - mean that all the jokes are interchangeable. It's a valid point - Family Guy episodes seldom have any plot of merit and ever since it returned from televisual oblivion many of its episodes have been hit and miss. Not to mention that - by and large - the show has been far more bland and inoffensive since it returned, presumably after the episode with the Jews in it - they got told to cool their jets.
South Park is probably the most consistent of the three... although, admittedly, it's got half the episodes of The Simpsons. It has become more topical - and somewhat more preachy - lately but it's aware of that and it's still as offensive and funny as ever... and while Family Guy had some implausible or surreal elements, South Park uses them with such regularity, it can go pretty much any direction and still be South Park.
Amusingly, Matt Groening has recently said that he thinks that The Simpsons could go on forever... One assumes that means he hasn't watched it in the last ten years or he's just keen on getting the bags of cash that being an executive producer on a cash cow like the The Simpsons entails. Ironic that the words of one of the show's own characters summed it up... "Who knows how long there is between now and when the show stops being profitable."
In any event, they're three rather different programmes and simply because they're all cartoons does not mean that they are instantly analogous to one another... Far from it. Simply because Frasier and Friends were both live action sitcoms, they didn't warrant being lumped together... why should cartoons be any different?
Saturday, February 24, 2007
What the hell qualifies as sci-fi?
No - this is not going to be a debacle about "future fantasy" and other such time wasting concept... it's about sci-fi... the non-genre, because sci-fi ISN'T A GENRE. In a sense. Perhaps the delineation was more obvious a while ago.
These days, it seems as if everything is getting tossed into the genre. Lost, Heroes and so on and so on... even Buffy and Angel. All unceremoniously dumped into it... even Smallville. Naturally, science fiction leads to the notion of people flying on rocket ships... that's what sci-fi used to be.
Sci-fi seems different now. We must refute the notion that superpowers constitute sci-fi... a century or close, means they're their own genre. Perhaps more legitimately than sci-fi. Lordy, if Heroes keeps it up... they'll be struggling to make enough superhero films and shows.
But it's not really sci-fi, hell the Sci-Fi channel thinks that horror, giant snakes and pro-wrestling are sci-fi...
Sci-fi is sometime in the future, involves techology beyond us and such... anything else probably needs a better name NOT FUTURE FANTASY.
No - this is not going to be a debacle about "future fantasy" and other such time wasting concept... it's about sci-fi... the non-genre, because sci-fi ISN'T A GENRE. In a sense. Perhaps the delineation was more obvious a while ago.
These days, it seems as if everything is getting tossed into the genre. Lost, Heroes and so on and so on... even Buffy and Angel. All unceremoniously dumped into it... even Smallville. Naturally, science fiction leads to the notion of people flying on rocket ships... that's what sci-fi used to be.
Sci-fi seems different now. We must refute the notion that superpowers constitute sci-fi... a century or close, means they're their own genre. Perhaps more legitimately than sci-fi. Lordy, if Heroes keeps it up... they'll be struggling to make enough superhero films and shows.
But it's not really sci-fi, hell the Sci-Fi channel thinks that horror, giant snakes and pro-wrestling are sci-fi...
Sci-fi is sometime in the future, involves techology beyond us and such... anything else probably needs a better name NOT FUTURE FANTASY.
How are women and the disabled ideologically similar?
They are both groups of people who - despite not being the same as their opposite numbers (men, the able bodied) they want to be treated equally. That might be all well and good... but they don't REALLY want to be treated equally.
How often do cripples go "oh, we want to be treated equally"? Lots... but guess what YOU'RE NOT EQUAL. Equality is - amongst other things - one of the lies of democracy. Most women are probably smarter than most men... black people can run faster than white people, the list goes on. The fact of the matter is that, women and disabled people want to be treated equally... but y'know not really.
The examples are not quite the same, women still except men to romance them, pay for dinner, open doors, inevitably lose custody of children and of course, sexually harass them... but the idea is the same. People who are not the same, not expecting the same but pretend they do.
If cripples said - we want to be treated like disabled people but with normal rights... that would be different. If women said - we want equal pay but ignore the fact we have babies, are moody 3+ days a lunar cycle etc... well, perhaps there are valid reasons to treat people with a degree of equality... but let's not lie. Billy can't walk isn't the same as Jim able bodied.
Ask for things that are SENSIBLE. Equality is a big fucking lie, you're reading this blog... well, that probably means you're better off than 90% of the world... so, don't preach.
They are both groups of people who - despite not being the same as their opposite numbers (men, the able bodied) they want to be treated equally. That might be all well and good... but they don't REALLY want to be treated equally.
How often do cripples go "oh, we want to be treated equally"? Lots... but guess what YOU'RE NOT EQUAL. Equality is - amongst other things - one of the lies of democracy. Most women are probably smarter than most men... black people can run faster than white people, the list goes on. The fact of the matter is that, women and disabled people want to be treated equally... but y'know not really.
The examples are not quite the same, women still except men to romance them, pay for dinner, open doors, inevitably lose custody of children and of course, sexually harass them... but the idea is the same. People who are not the same, not expecting the same but pretend they do.
If cripples said - we want to be treated like disabled people but with normal rights... that would be different. If women said - we want equal pay but ignore the fact we have babies, are moody 3+ days a lunar cycle etc... well, perhaps there are valid reasons to treat people with a degree of equality... but let's not lie. Billy can't walk isn't the same as Jim able bodied.
Ask for things that are SENSIBLE. Equality is a big fucking lie, you're reading this blog... well, that probably means you're better off than 90% of the world... so, don't preach.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
It may seem a strange thing to say... but Batman Begins and Casino Royale actually have a considerable amount in common. Both of them were back to basics endeavours in an attempt to reverse the campy trends... and let's face it, Batman & Robin was so bad it sent a fairly profitable, high profile franchise into the abyss... kind of like Superman IV but Superman Returns wasn't particularly good.
Batman Begins may have made that modern day mistake of epilepsy inducing cinematography at times... but otherwise it was pretty much fantastic... and let's face it, that's down to Christian Bale... it's ok to find that man attractive. They managed to get Batman down as a character far better than they ever did in the 1980s instalments...
Perhaps this is proof that less is more. Sure, there might not be quite as many massive explosions or action set pieces but the time of the brainless 80s action film has passed and those which came after were just hollow and campy. The days where Arnie, Sly or similar could be handed a gun and pointed toward a thousand bad guys are sadly disappeared and now we must have things that attempt to be edgy or cool... but at least you can say of these two films that there was something to them.
Batman Begins may have made that modern day mistake of epilepsy inducing cinematography at times... but otherwise it was pretty much fantastic... and let's face it, that's down to Christian Bale... it's ok to find that man attractive. They managed to get Batman down as a character far better than they ever did in the 1980s instalments...
Perhaps this is proof that less is more. Sure, there might not be quite as many massive explosions or action set pieces but the time of the brainless 80s action film has passed and those which came after were just hollow and campy. The days where Arnie, Sly or similar could be handed a gun and pointed toward a thousand bad guys are sadly disappeared and now we must have things that attempt to be edgy or cool... but at least you can say of these two films that there was something to them.
Remember the "Save Enterprise?" campaign? That was kind of pathetic... anyone that actually watched Enterprise would what a bad idea that was... Although, isn't it interesting that when Rick Berman and Brannon Braga were jettisoned that the quality of the show mysteriously improved substantially? The number of times T'Pol got a rub down dropped too... anyway, when the show stopped just shy of 100 episodes, it seemed as if Trek was in for a bit of a rest... which seems only fair given the fact it's been working since the late 80s without one.
Of course, just as Paramount was assuring us that all the sets had been burned down and that Threshold had ensured Braga would be launched into space for his sins... we hear that J.J. Abrams is going to test his mettle on a new Trek film. Best known for his shows, Alias and Lost could he be the man to revitalise the fallen franchise?
The short answer is no. While he's not said anything concrete about the plot it seems likely that there is something to the Star Trek Academy rumours... and that might just be horrible. You don't butter up fans as much as he's done unless you're planning on kicking them in the genitals and what could be more enraging to fans than a young Kirk and Spock, raiding the girl's dorms at the Academy.
It really hasn't been long enough... and while there are surely blubbering fanboys - aren't there always? - who pray at the altar of William Shatner every day that there will be a return to the screen, it seems as if the public will probably be jaded about the film... Nemesis was a bit of a disaster at the box office and pretty much everything after TNG was on a downward spiral of ratings... by the end of Enterprise, only three people and a cat were watching... which is a shame, seeing Jonathan Frakes look as if he'd been living on paint stripper for a month was funny... but if Enterprise showed us anything, it's that you can't move forward by looking backwards. An obvious lesson but Abrams may not have learned it.
Of course, just as Paramount was assuring us that all the sets had been burned down and that Threshold had ensured Braga would be launched into space for his sins... we hear that J.J. Abrams is going to test his mettle on a new Trek film. Best known for his shows, Alias and Lost could he be the man to revitalise the fallen franchise?
The short answer is no. While he's not said anything concrete about the plot it seems likely that there is something to the Star Trek Academy rumours... and that might just be horrible. You don't butter up fans as much as he's done unless you're planning on kicking them in the genitals and what could be more enraging to fans than a young Kirk and Spock, raiding the girl's dorms at the Academy.
It really hasn't been long enough... and while there are surely blubbering fanboys - aren't there always? - who pray at the altar of William Shatner every day that there will be a return to the screen, it seems as if the public will probably be jaded about the film... Nemesis was a bit of a disaster at the box office and pretty much everything after TNG was on a downward spiral of ratings... by the end of Enterprise, only three people and a cat were watching... which is a shame, seeing Jonathan Frakes look as if he'd been living on paint stripper for a month was funny... but if Enterprise showed us anything, it's that you can't move forward by looking backwards. An obvious lesson but Abrams may not have learned it.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Sometimes, it seems as if democracy is a waste of time... first off, these days established democracies are generally about... 50% apathetic toward voting, in the Britains this is not surprising. Two main parties - let's not pretend the Liberal Democrats are much more than drunks - who now occupy so much of the same political space, it's impossible to tell who is who.
The USA need not worry about a socialist government in Britain, Tony Blair pretty much made sure socialism was replaced by Tory policies with some tweaks and such... but anyone that thinks there is any significant difference between the two parties now is mental.
And what is democracy without choice? To be honest, party politics is the absolute anathema of democracy... not that indirect democracy was ever particularly great... but party politics rather blunts the idea. People are elected for their party, not their person... this renders the indirect democracy mute in the face of party whips and such... Especially New Labour drones, who are controlled by embedded computer chips.
If you are discontent with indirect democracy, this is because it is a system that does not represent you and because people are apathetic. Democracy is simply a bad because the vast majority of you are people who do not deserve to reproduce, let alone vote... democracy is bad because it espouses a fundamental lie. Everyone is equal... do you really think you're equal to Jimmy Billionaire, probably dodging tax and buying his knighthood? Plus, you're ugly
The USA need not worry about a socialist government in Britain, Tony Blair pretty much made sure socialism was replaced by Tory policies with some tweaks and such... but anyone that thinks there is any significant difference between the two parties now is mental.
And what is democracy without choice? To be honest, party politics is the absolute anathema of democracy... not that indirect democracy was ever particularly great... but party politics rather blunts the idea. People are elected for their party, not their person... this renders the indirect democracy mute in the face of party whips and such... Especially New Labour drones, who are controlled by embedded computer chips.
If you are discontent with indirect democracy, this is because it is a system that does not represent you and because people are apathetic. Democracy is simply a bad because the vast majority of you are people who do not deserve to reproduce, let alone vote... democracy is bad because it espouses a fundamental lie. Everyone is equal... do you really think you're equal to Jimmy Billionaire, probably dodging tax and buying his knighthood? Plus, you're ugly
For a while, I thought that BSG was probably going to be the best sci-fi show since Babylon 5... or at least Farscape but as it continues in a somewhat melodramatic rut, Heroes grows ever more in my very limited affections.
Many shows claim to be about extraordinary things happening to ordinary people but I don't think any of them come close to Heroes... I suppose, in many ways, Heroes is like a superhero story for people think that comics are all a bit silly... And really, comics are a bit silly. It seems to be assumed that upon discovering superpowers, will decide good or evil, don tights... arm themselves with a suitable array of one liners and off they go.
Heroes offers us something more believable... it's a lot smaller in some respects... but it's better for that. We don't have fooling around in alternate dimensions, two dozen alien races, uber advanced technology or that kind of nonsense... we've got a bunch of people who discover they have amazing abilities. Some of them use them for good, some for evil... most just try and get on with their lives. We're sixteen episodes in, I don't think I've heard a single Spidey-like quip and I'm pretty sure that we've not had anyone in spandex.
No, beyond the fact that we've had abilities ranging from the manipulation of time/space and telekinesis to metal melting and superhearing, this hasn't really adhered to any kind of comic clichés... well, they sneaked a cameo from Stan Lee but then that wily bastard sneaks in everywhere. No, we've got a drama that manages to provide action and characters and of course, superpowers. It all links together - but not in a rubbish Lost, OOO MYSTERIOUS! way - just in an interesting intersection way.
The danger I foresee is that of an Orson Welles - peaking too early. The standard is so high that when we wrap up the first season... well, if it's sensible it won't be wrapped but that danger is that the next arc can't match the first... Still, let the good times role, eh? This show is easily the best thing anyone could watch these days and to compare it to Lost... well, that's a real insult... a lot better than Lost ever was and Lost hasn't been good for getting toward two years. Don't mar it with that comparison, this show is WUNDERBAR.
Many shows claim to be about extraordinary things happening to ordinary people but I don't think any of them come close to Heroes... I suppose, in many ways, Heroes is like a superhero story for people think that comics are all a bit silly... And really, comics are a bit silly. It seems to be assumed that upon discovering superpowers, will decide good or evil, don tights... arm themselves with a suitable array of one liners and off they go.
Heroes offers us something more believable... it's a lot smaller in some respects... but it's better for that. We don't have fooling around in alternate dimensions, two dozen alien races, uber advanced technology or that kind of nonsense... we've got a bunch of people who discover they have amazing abilities. Some of them use them for good, some for evil... most just try and get on with their lives. We're sixteen episodes in, I don't think I've heard a single Spidey-like quip and I'm pretty sure that we've not had anyone in spandex.
No, beyond the fact that we've had abilities ranging from the manipulation of time/space and telekinesis to metal melting and superhearing, this hasn't really adhered to any kind of comic clichés... well, they sneaked a cameo from Stan Lee but then that wily bastard sneaks in everywhere. No, we've got a drama that manages to provide action and characters and of course, superpowers. It all links together - but not in a rubbish Lost, OOO MYSTERIOUS! way - just in an interesting intersection way.
The danger I foresee is that of an Orson Welles - peaking too early. The standard is so high that when we wrap up the first season... well, if it's sensible it won't be wrapped but that danger is that the next arc can't match the first... Still, let the good times role, eh? This show is easily the best thing anyone could watch these days and to compare it to Lost... well, that's a real insult... a lot better than Lost ever was and Lost hasn't been good for getting toward two years. Don't mar it with that comparison, this show is WUNDERBAR.
Oh, Stargate... where did it all go wrong?
Surely, if you showed someone unaware of the franchise the film and then a recent episode of it... they would struggle to see any similarity between the two, except for the eponymous Stargate. In fact, it's entirely possible that if you showed someone an episode of the show from early on and a recent one, they might struggle to realise they were the same show.
Naturally, we've still got the same cast... well, barring Richard Dean Anderson... and of course, it seems pretty regular for other members of the original cast to just miss an episode or two while further development of the Ben Browder character is rammed down our throats... Strangely though, the format of the show hasn't changed greatly... oh, sure the show has become less Stargate and more Star Trek and of course, no everyone speaks English... but the basic premise of 45 minutes of running around shooting and/or fixing something has not changed one iota, so hardly saddening that the series is concluding shortly.
They can't complain though - ten seasons and over 200 episodes makes it the longest running modern sci-fi show and given that it has spawned not one, not two but three spin-offs... it would seem they're doing pretty well. Very well, in fact. That's getting close to Star Trek... although, it's worth pointing out that one of those spin-offs was Stargate: Infinity... a very short lived cartoon and even the show's creators have conceded that it's unlikely Atlantis will manage to last the ten years that SG-1 did. As to the third spin-off? Rumours about it are suitably nebulous at the moment but we've been promised it'll be a "whole new universe" or other such New Speak for "derivative".
For those of you who are blubbering about never seeing Samantha Carter again, you shouldn't worry... there will doubtless be an eternity of syndication of SG-1. Not only that but she'll be in the straight-to-DVD films that will make the executive producers a nice big cash bonus... sorry, wrap up the Ori story. A story which shouldn't really have started in the first place... let's face it seasons 9 and 10 were just a
Honestly they couldn't have made it a more thinly concealed cash grab if they tried... Stopping Ori storylines in episode 15 and just dolling out more filler episodes until the finale, which is inevitably going to be a cliffhanger to induce people to rush out and buy aforementioned DVDs... oh and then we get a time travel one, apparently.
It's amusing really, Amanda Tapping suggested that her contract could mean that she'd get shuttlecocked over to Atlantis until it expired - presumably after 10 years, she's gagging to go off and start working the sci-fi conferneces which will be the majority of her income for the rest of her natural life - the way she phrased it was hilarious... it was one step away from "I've got a lot of broken glass I'd rather be crawling over."
Which isn't so surprising, the shows are remarkably similar. They swapped some things around but they're still very similar... not least because they just do the same things over and over again... and the level of technological advancement in Pegasus seems to be far more consistent. Which is all irrelevant really. The thing that has killed the show - or at least given it AIDS - is the total apparent stagnation in the writing.
A lot of people would say - it's hard to come up with 200+ original stories... well, yes. Obviously. I'm not sure a team of the most original writers in the world could come up with 200+ stories all taking place in the same continuity and with the same characters. It's the wrong way to approach the problem, perhaps if the show had tried to tell more of a coherent story than deliver self-contained 45 minute packets of brain numbing then we'd not have had episodes where they went "Hey, this is just like that other episode! But by recognising it, we're making fun of it and it's not an issue!" Uh, yes... it is. Much like Star Trek, there was probably a computer program generating them... but with the addition of... HUMOUR! Oh, it didn't take itself so seriously... personally I think Stargate has gone a long way toward wholly substantiating the notion that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
Not just that but if it wasn't for Star Trek, then people would probably comment more often - this is one HELL of a preachy show. It's not exactly Janeway preaching from the pulpit - mainly because it's actually fairly consistent in what it says - but it's not far off. Constantly there are messages about how all alien socieites - and indeed, alternate Earths - should all run just like present day America. If one were especially cynical, you might even suppose that it's essentially espousing the kind of "liberation" that Iraq and Afghanistan enjoyed... just comes across as rather simplistic and patronising most of the time. Non-interference is not a doctrine the SGC understand or endorse.
Surely, if you showed someone unaware of the franchise the film and then a recent episode of it... they would struggle to see any similarity between the two, except for the eponymous Stargate. In fact, it's entirely possible that if you showed someone an episode of the show from early on and a recent one, they might struggle to realise they were the same show.
Naturally, we've still got the same cast... well, barring Richard Dean Anderson... and of course, it seems pretty regular for other members of the original cast to just miss an episode or two while further development of the Ben Browder character is rammed down our throats... Strangely though, the format of the show hasn't changed greatly... oh, sure the show has become less Stargate and more Star Trek and of course, no everyone speaks English... but the basic premise of 45 minutes of running around shooting and/or fixing something has not changed one iota, so hardly saddening that the series is concluding shortly.
They can't complain though - ten seasons and over 200 episodes makes it the longest running modern sci-fi show and given that it has spawned not one, not two but three spin-offs... it would seem they're doing pretty well. Very well, in fact. That's getting close to Star Trek... although, it's worth pointing out that one of those spin-offs was Stargate: Infinity... a very short lived cartoon and even the show's creators have conceded that it's unlikely Atlantis will manage to last the ten years that SG-1 did. As to the third spin-off? Rumours about it are suitably nebulous at the moment but we've been promised it'll be a "whole new universe" or other such New Speak for "derivative".
For those of you who are blubbering about never seeing Samantha Carter again, you shouldn't worry... there will doubtless be an eternity of syndication of SG-1. Not only that but she'll be in the straight-to-DVD films that will make the executive producers a nice big cash bonus... sorry, wrap up the Ori story. A story which shouldn't really have started in the first place... let's face it seasons 9 and 10 were just a
Honestly they couldn't have made it a more thinly concealed cash grab if they tried... Stopping Ori storylines in episode 15 and just dolling out more filler episodes until the finale, which is inevitably going to be a cliffhanger to induce people to rush out and buy aforementioned DVDs... oh and then we get a time travel one, apparently.
It's amusing really, Amanda Tapping suggested that her contract could mean that she'd get shuttlecocked over to Atlantis until it expired - presumably after 10 years, she's gagging to go off and start working the sci-fi conferneces which will be the majority of her income for the rest of her natural life - the way she phrased it was hilarious... it was one step away from "I've got a lot of broken glass I'd rather be crawling over."
Which isn't so surprising, the shows are remarkably similar. They swapped some things around but they're still very similar... not least because they just do the same things over and over again... and the level of technological advancement in Pegasus seems to be far more consistent. Which is all irrelevant really. The thing that has killed the show - or at least given it AIDS - is the total apparent stagnation in the writing.
A lot of people would say - it's hard to come up with 200+ original stories... well, yes. Obviously. I'm not sure a team of the most original writers in the world could come up with 200+ stories all taking place in the same continuity and with the same characters. It's the wrong way to approach the problem, perhaps if the show had tried to tell more of a coherent story than deliver self-contained 45 minute packets of brain numbing then we'd not have had episodes where they went "Hey, this is just like that other episode! But by recognising it, we're making fun of it and it's not an issue!" Uh, yes... it is. Much like Star Trek, there was probably a computer program generating them... but with the addition of... HUMOUR! Oh, it didn't take itself so seriously... personally I think Stargate has gone a long way toward wholly substantiating the notion that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
Not just that but if it wasn't for Star Trek, then people would probably comment more often - this is one HELL of a preachy show. It's not exactly Janeway preaching from the pulpit - mainly because it's actually fairly consistent in what it says - but it's not far off. Constantly there are messages about how all alien socieites - and indeed, alternate Earths - should all run just like present day America. If one were especially cynical, you might even suppose that it's essentially espousing the kind of "liberation" that Iraq and Afghanistan enjoyed... just comes across as rather simplistic and patronising most of the time. Non-interference is not a doctrine the SGC understand or endorse.
It almost feels as though Casino Royale should be called "How James Bond Got His Groove Back". It's fair to say that previous Bond movies were always a campy affair, even if they didn't mean to be... this being taken to the illogical extreme in Die Another Day, where we had an invisible car - which really seemed to be taking it all a bit too far.
It's a shame really, Pierce Brosnan was a good Bond... he had the misfortune of being a good Bond in bad films. With the exception of Golden Eye, they all had a distinctly hacked together feel... which is presumably the result of the rewrites that were going on DURING FILMING.
While expressions like "reboot" are to be treated with trepidation but it seems as if Casino Royale was actually what the franchise needed. It would have been difficult for the series to continue to top itself in over-the-top action set pieces anyway and the gadgets were just getting stupid. What was next? The intangible car? Anyway, we seem to have left all that far behind and Daniel Craig is far more in line with Flemming's Bond, much colder and far less inclined to quip camply after having destroyed an army with his nuclear powered pistol.
It's really not like any of the Bond films. Things are all kept far more realistic... naturally, there are still some of the classic Hollywood clichés that bend the laws of physics - the recoiless, totally suppressed infinite clip SMGs are still around... and people can jump improbably distances without any ill effect and houses collapsing into the sea probably isn't a normal occurrence but for casual viewing there aren't any "THAT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN!" moments.
All in all, it's a relief to see that we've managed to avoid the mistakes of the past. The romance aspect was a bit iffy but I suspect that was necessary for a variety of reasons and it never really gets in the way... and it's far more credible than the last half dozen Bond girls...
It's a shame really, Pierce Brosnan was a good Bond... he had the misfortune of being a good Bond in bad films. With the exception of Golden Eye, they all had a distinctly hacked together feel... which is presumably the result of the rewrites that were going on DURING FILMING.
While expressions like "reboot" are to be treated with trepidation but it seems as if Casino Royale was actually what the franchise needed. It would have been difficult for the series to continue to top itself in over-the-top action set pieces anyway and the gadgets were just getting stupid. What was next? The intangible car? Anyway, we seem to have left all that far behind and Daniel Craig is far more in line with Flemming's Bond, much colder and far less inclined to quip camply after having destroyed an army with his nuclear powered pistol.
It's really not like any of the Bond films. Things are all kept far more realistic... naturally, there are still some of the classic Hollywood clichés that bend the laws of physics - the recoiless, totally suppressed infinite clip SMGs are still around... and people can jump improbably distances without any ill effect and houses collapsing into the sea probably isn't a normal occurrence but for casual viewing there aren't any "THAT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN!" moments.
All in all, it's a relief to see that we've managed to avoid the mistakes of the past. The romance aspect was a bit iffy but I suspect that was necessary for a variety of reasons and it never really gets in the way... and it's far more credible than the last half dozen Bond girls...
Sometimes, a show sets itself up for a fall. Lost is a prime example of this...
When it started out, the critics were raving about it and it seemed as if everyone was desperate to see the next instalment. The format was certainly novel but ultimately, it was a structure that has led to the stagnation of the show... which seems to have pushed it to the point where the setting needed to change to actually make it look as if the story was moving on.
Ultimately, it painted itself into the corner with the ol' flashback scenario. To the point where it had pretty much shown you as much as it could about all the main characters and so had to introduce new ones to keep things going... because you could pretty much wrap up the plot of the first two seasons in a couple of episodes.
Strange, really but then any show which is so rigidly constrained by its format is never going to have a long shelf life... not that this will stop them pumping out another few years of it... the idea was certainly new - and bound to be imitated - but just coming up with a clever idea doesn't make for a good show... especially when the show is so up itself...
Besides, Lost is really just a big tease... week after week it offers only the merest hint of some big secret and after a while - as with any tease - you simply realise that the teasing has become tiresome and that the answers would always be somewhat disappointing after all the expectation. This is why calling Heroes "this year's Lost" is rather insulting to Tim Kring.
When it started out, the critics were raving about it and it seemed as if everyone was desperate to see the next instalment. The format was certainly novel but ultimately, it was a structure that has led to the stagnation of the show... which seems to have pushed it to the point where the setting needed to change to actually make it look as if the story was moving on.
Ultimately, it painted itself into the corner with the ol' flashback scenario. To the point where it had pretty much shown you as much as it could about all the main characters and so had to introduce new ones to keep things going... because you could pretty much wrap up the plot of the first two seasons in a couple of episodes.
Strange, really but then any show which is so rigidly constrained by its format is never going to have a long shelf life... not that this will stop them pumping out another few years of it... the idea was certainly new - and bound to be imitated - but just coming up with a clever idea doesn't make for a good show... especially when the show is so up itself...
Besides, Lost is really just a big tease... week after week it offers only the merest hint of some big secret and after a while - as with any tease - you simply realise that the teasing has become tiresome and that the answers would always be somewhat disappointing after all the expectation. This is why calling Heroes "this year's Lost" is rather insulting to Tim Kring.
Monday, February 19, 2007
It's starting to seem as if Britney Spears was genetically engineered to be tabloid fodder... In fact, one can almost imagine lazy journalists conceiving the idea - easy column inches for years to come. Good to see that people are so concerned about her... after all, what cold comfort her millions of dollars must be.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Does anyone really believe in the "special relationship" between the UK and the USA? Well, aside from the more than just friendly one between Tony Blair and George Bush... because a president and his poodle are TIGHT.
Seriously, Tony Blair engaged in what might be one of the most singularly unpopular acts of any prime minister, quite possibly since the poll tax and certainly, the most publicly protested. War on Iraq has been an unparalleled failure and despite the inability of the tabloid press to maintain criticism of it once we had gone to war.
The Americas have had precious little love of their imperial overlords for some two hundred or more years now... but let's not get into that particular debacle... let us focus on the so called "special relationship"... First spoken of by Winston Churchill... Ironically, that speech - which entailed a Cold War - very much enraged the American public, whom he was trying to woo...
A half century has past and the literal war debt has been repaid but I tell you, at no time has there been a special relationship between Britain and the United States. Where was the USA when we went to war with Argentina? Naturally, it was all rather ill advised but that's rather beside the point.
We aren't being paid for this war in Iraq like we were the last one... special relationship... about as special as getting an STD. As if Britain has anything more to worry about than itself.
Seriously, Tony Blair engaged in what might be one of the most singularly unpopular acts of any prime minister, quite possibly since the poll tax and certainly, the most publicly protested. War on Iraq has been an unparalleled failure and despite the inability of the tabloid press to maintain criticism of it once we had gone to war.
The Americas have had precious little love of their imperial overlords for some two hundred or more years now... but let's not get into that particular debacle... let us focus on the so called "special relationship"... First spoken of by Winston Churchill... Ironically, that speech - which entailed a Cold War - very much enraged the American public, whom he was trying to woo...
A half century has past and the literal war debt has been repaid but I tell you, at no time has there been a special relationship between Britain and the United States. Where was the USA when we went to war with Argentina? Naturally, it was all rather ill advised but that's rather beside the point.
We aren't being paid for this war in Iraq like we were the last one... special relationship... about as special as getting an STD. As if Britain has anything more to worry about than itself.
What is it with sci-fi shows?
You'd think that lessons would be learned from the likes of seminal works such as Farscape and Babylon 5... Farscape with aliens - in the main cast - who weren't actually humanoid with maybe a funny earring or a stripy face and Babylon 5 with it's masterfully constructed plot and continuity.
It seems that even the refreshing Battlestar Galactica is starting to wilt under the continued expectation of excellence. There can be no doubt that BSG understood that sci-fi is not a genre in the true sense of the word... it's merely a backdrop for stories to play out in.
Indeed, many whinging fanboys frequently bemoaned the fact that too often it was about talking and drama and feelings... things your average whinging fanboy would trade in an instant for hours of mindless Matrix Revolution style action. However, I fear that BSG has lost the plot... very literally. It seems as if Ronald D. Moore hasn't taken it upon himself to co-ordinate these episodes...
Oh, naturally, there are some elements of continuity here and more than you'd get in time fillers like Star Trek's Voyager or Stargate and so on... but it feels very much as if a few writers went off and thought "OK, we're off New Caprica - you take episode four, I'll take five, you take six... we'll meet up later and get some kind of continuity."
In a sense, that's how early Farscape felt... but it was far more natural there. With BSG it feels somewhat forced and of course... we have the perpetual Starbuck/Apollo element... LORDS OF KOBOL please, hear this prayer. STOP THAT LOVE QUADRANGLE. It's rubbish, boring and tedious... As if Lee having some forgotten love that he remembered in one episode wasn't enough - given the fact he never seemed to have a problem shagging Starbuck - this is just irritating. The best way to solve this dilemma is just murdering one or more of the participants... and we all know it's minor characters, women and ethnic minorities first... bye bye Dee!
You'd think that lessons would be learned from the likes of seminal works such as Farscape and Babylon 5... Farscape with aliens - in the main cast - who weren't actually humanoid with maybe a funny earring or a stripy face and Babylon 5 with it's masterfully constructed plot and continuity.
It seems that even the refreshing Battlestar Galactica is starting to wilt under the continued expectation of excellence. There can be no doubt that BSG understood that sci-fi is not a genre in the true sense of the word... it's merely a backdrop for stories to play out in.
Indeed, many whinging fanboys frequently bemoaned the fact that too often it was about talking and drama and feelings... things your average whinging fanboy would trade in an instant for hours of mindless Matrix Revolution style action. However, I fear that BSG has lost the plot... very literally. It seems as if Ronald D. Moore hasn't taken it upon himself to co-ordinate these episodes...
Oh, naturally, there are some elements of continuity here and more than you'd get in time fillers like Star Trek's Voyager or Stargate and so on... but it feels very much as if a few writers went off and thought "OK, we're off New Caprica - you take episode four, I'll take five, you take six... we'll meet up later and get some kind of continuity."
In a sense, that's how early Farscape felt... but it was far more natural there. With BSG it feels somewhat forced and of course... we have the perpetual Starbuck/Apollo element... LORDS OF KOBOL please, hear this prayer. STOP THAT LOVE QUADRANGLE. It's rubbish, boring and tedious... As if Lee having some forgotten love that he remembered in one episode wasn't enough - given the fact he never seemed to have a problem shagging Starbuck - this is just irritating. The best way to solve this dilemma is just murdering one or more of the participants... and we all know it's minor characters, women and ethnic minorities first... bye bye Dee!
We're in something of a strange situation these days. The media - and general population - have an attention span that would make a gnat tick... but the media is now actually AWARE of its immensely short attention span.
It strikes me as ironic that many in the media - most especially newspapers, which is perhaps ironic as they're surely the most likely to be made obsolete as the encroachment of mobile technology becomes ever more pervasive - will appoint themselves guardians of society... but never seem to take a long view...
But naturally, the desire to sate all desires immediately is probably the greatest problem in society and has led to this short attention span... not that we should blame mass consumerism but rather a society that has sought to foster the notion of instant gratification with no thought of tomorrow... it seems as if the ideal lifestyle being espoused these days is to be a non-ebrity from reality TV, living on credit and thinking of nothing more than your next tabloid headline.
It strikes me as ironic that many in the media - most especially newspapers, which is perhaps ironic as they're surely the most likely to be made obsolete as the encroachment of mobile technology becomes ever more pervasive - will appoint themselves guardians of society... but never seem to take a long view...
But naturally, the desire to sate all desires immediately is probably the greatest problem in society and has led to this short attention span... not that we should blame mass consumerism but rather a society that has sought to foster the notion of instant gratification with no thought of tomorrow... it seems as if the ideal lifestyle being espoused these days is to be a non-ebrity from reality TV, living on credit and thinking of nothing more than your next tabloid headline.
What is it with Hollywood these days? It's not enough that they've got to churn out sequels, prequels and remakes on an epic level but now they're doing it with people who should by all rights be somewhere warm - I hear Florida is where the elderly are sent to be neglected in the Americas. First Rocky Balboa - where the already incomprehensible Sly Stallone pushed himself to be even more unintelligble and has his character take a break from drawing a pension to go off and almost beat the world heavy weight championship... pretty realistic stuff.
Now, we have Bruce Willis - also taking a break from drawing his pension - looking to save Washington D.C. Is this supposed to be some kind of empowerment for OAPs? Or is it just that there was some deal signed that said that these people had to be included in any further films and get their requisite X million dollars? By the time Arnold makes Terminator 4, he really might have to have parts of his body replaced with a metal endoskeleton... mainly his cybernetic hips and walking aid! And LORDY, can you imagine what Harrison Ford is going to look like by the time George Fatass and Spielberg get around to making Indiana Jones 4: Indiana Meets The Ewoks? He's probably going to make the dessicated Nazis the films favour look practically youthful.
Naturally, this won't be happening for any women. Once a woman in Hollywood gets past the stage of being forty for about ten or so years, her career is over. Mainly because Dame Judie Dench has got pretty much all the old woman roles sewn up - especially if they're English. I suspect that this is because after a while, their looks can't be sustained with anything but full body immersion in botox... and for the vast majority of Hollywood actresses, once their looks go, they aren't even a one trick pony.
Now, we have Bruce Willis - also taking a break from drawing his pension - looking to save Washington D.C. Is this supposed to be some kind of empowerment for OAPs? Or is it just that there was some deal signed that said that these people had to be included in any further films and get their requisite X million dollars? By the time Arnold makes Terminator 4, he really might have to have parts of his body replaced with a metal endoskeleton... mainly his cybernetic hips and walking aid! And LORDY, can you imagine what Harrison Ford is going to look like by the time George Fatass and Spielberg get around to making Indiana Jones 4: Indiana Meets The Ewoks? He's probably going to make the dessicated Nazis the films favour look practically youthful.
Naturally, this won't be happening for any women. Once a woman in Hollywood gets past the stage of being forty for about ten or so years, her career is over. Mainly because Dame Judie Dench has got pretty much all the old woman roles sewn up - especially if they're English. I suspect that this is because after a while, their looks can't be sustained with anything but full body immersion in botox... and for the vast majority of Hollywood actresses, once their looks go, they aren't even a one trick pony.
Apparently half the population of Britain are now claiming to be working class...
This despite the fact that the traditional working class pretty much disbanded after they lost the class war - thanks to behated Tory leader Margaret Thatcher... now we even have people on £100,000+ claiming to be working class.
But then, class always has been a particularly British obsession. This latest trend, though, is less to do with the notions of social aspiration and the like and more to do with the the fact that's it's somehow "cool" to be working class. If working class actually meant a class of people that worked, then that might be great... sadly, it seems to have little to do with that.
No, it's more to do with emulating non-ebrities and various people who have essentially left behind their own inauspicious beginnings to start being classless and nouveaux riche and of course, let's not forget the double standard that all of this represents. While there would doubtless be a furore over anyone saying "I don't like common people" it's perfectly acceptable to go "I don't like toffs".
No wonder Britain is going down the pan.
This despite the fact that the traditional working class pretty much disbanded after they lost the class war - thanks to behated Tory leader Margaret Thatcher... now we even have people on £100,000+ claiming to be working class.
But then, class always has been a particularly British obsession. This latest trend, though, is less to do with the notions of social aspiration and the like and more to do with the the fact that's it's somehow "cool" to be working class. If working class actually meant a class of people that worked, then that might be great... sadly, it seems to have little to do with that.
No, it's more to do with emulating non-ebrities and various people who have essentially left behind their own inauspicious beginnings to start being classless and nouveaux riche and of course, let's not forget the double standard that all of this represents. While there would doubtless be a furore over anyone saying "I don't like common people" it's perfectly acceptable to go "I don't like toffs".
No wonder Britain is going down the pan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)