Some sci-fi comes and goes before it barely has a chance to begin... less than two years ago, or thereabouts there were three sci-fi shows launched on mainstream networks...
Threshold - A team implement an elaborate contingency plan to prevent the bioforming of our planet by an alien race sufficiently advanced to travel interstellar distances, master dimensions out with the regular three and to be able to "hack" our DNA with sound... yet too damned stupid to target their big shiny thing at a major population centre...
Invasion - Invasion of the body snatchers... in Florida but with all the speed and urgency of a glacier...
And Surface - Strange goings on below the seas as a new species is discovered and bad things start to happen.
Invasion was the only one of these to actually get a full season. Surface got left on a pretty major cliffhanger and Threshold didn't even manage to air all of its half season. Threshold is perhaps understandable... it was a generic production from the addled brain of beloathed Trek producer Brannon Braga. About the only thing it had going for it was Brent Spiner and even he didn't see terribly interested in what was going on. You could pretty much have made this any kind of secret cover up show and it wouldn't have made a difference and of course, there was never really any sense of progress and naturally all the clichés were trotted out. Overbearing military, people escaping and so on and so forth. Not that the idea was without merit... it was simply badly implemented in an entirely banal way... so, no surprise it crashed and burned.
Invasion was more of a slow burner. Gradual infiltration of the town... and even the people who got body snatched didn't seem to sure they weren't human any more. Still, it had a building tension in it... clearly enough to keep some people hanging around, certainly more than the other two. Really though, it focused a lot more on the personal drama than the OMG ALIENS, aspect of the story
Surface was the most interesting - kind of a proto-Heroes, actually - and presented several disparate threads that came together. A mystery that began to unfold, some good action... but nothing unrealistic or at least... not jarringly so. The characters were all understandable and true. It would be fair to say that they were quite realistic and not quite from the regular cookie cutter of sci-fi characters... we didn't have any main characters from the military or ex-military running around like Rambo... I guess we DID have the hot scientist but c'est la vie... if a scientist is female it's pretty much IMPOSSIBLE for her not to be hot. Still, it presented the most intriguing multi-threaded story of the three... and yet cut down in its prime.
Naturally, had any of these had "Star Trek" in their titles, they'd have been allowed 3-4 years of rubbish episodes before fans started to get weary of them... Threshold... deserved the axe. Invasion had the potential to be interesting even if it wasn't exactly rip roaring fun... Surface is possibly the greatest loss, it had threaded together a multi-faceted stories and we had just had the mother of all cliffhangers...
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Sequels are - without question - a tricky business. The easiest way to fail is to simply rehash or try and out do the original... but then it's equally difficult to succeed by making something different because you risk losing the elements of the original that made it so good. So, the fact that "28 Weeks Later" managed to - despite some pretty horrible trailers - pull it off is impressive.
Perhaps the best analogy would be to say that "28 days later" is to "Alien" what "28 Weeks Later" is to "Aliens". That is to say, "28 Days Later" relies more upon suspense and atmosphere, whereas its sequel is more about a fairly non-stop action rampage. Although, that said the opening sequence is clearly an homage to Danny Boyle and the original - in both directing style and tone.
It would have been easy for this to simply be a simple - RAGE GETS LOOSE AGAIN! There was an element of that... well, it would be a pretty pointless exercise in film making if they didn't have people running around murdering and puking and such. The way in which infection recurs is... something of a stretch but then, there are plenty of stupid people in the world. Still, you'd think that their containment procedure would be somewhat more refined given the highly communicable nature of the disease.
You won't be surprised to hear that this plays into the hands of the virus and soon the American military is making friendly fire seem like the euphemism it is. It managed to be good though - it was its own film - never apologised... For the best... not as good as the original but still good.
Perhaps the best analogy would be to say that "28 days later" is to "Alien" what "28 Weeks Later" is to "Aliens". That is to say, "28 Days Later" relies more upon suspense and atmosphere, whereas its sequel is more about a fairly non-stop action rampage. Although, that said the opening sequence is clearly an homage to Danny Boyle and the original - in both directing style and tone.
It would have been easy for this to simply be a simple - RAGE GETS LOOSE AGAIN! There was an element of that... well, it would be a pretty pointless exercise in film making if they didn't have people running around murdering and puking and such. The way in which infection recurs is... something of a stretch but then, there are plenty of stupid people in the world. Still, you'd think that their containment procedure would be somewhat more refined given the highly communicable nature of the disease.
You won't be surprised to hear that this plays into the hands of the virus and soon the American military is making friendly fire seem like the euphemism it is. It managed to be good though - it was its own film - never apologised... For the best... not as good as the original but still good.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Star Trek is often seen as being about an inherently optimistic future... but no one seems to have noticed that The Federation seems to be some manner of inherently undemocratic organisation.
It seems that the Federation Council is some monolithic and detached government run by people in ivory towers. Willing to agree to such monumentally unpopular ideas as the DMZ after the Cardassian war which resulted in dozens of worlds being on the wrong side of the border. When Picard goes to protest the seemingly arbritrary relocation of native Americans (IN SPACE!) he's pretty much told "the Federation Council says we're doing this" and it hardly sounds as if the people were taking it lying down either.
Not to say that this kind of thing doesn't happen in real life - doubtless any sufficiently informed person could rattle off a dozen things which have gone against the collective will of the people... but these things can often be appealed and protested. Here the impression was given that the big boys had decided what was happening and everyone else just had to take it. It seems fairly obvious the move wasn't popular as the formation of the Maquis suggests.
In fact, there is perhaps no greater demonstration that the democratic process has failed to accommodate people satisfactorily than said people taking up arms... and the Maquis seemed to enjoy widespread support throughout all the worlds in and around the DMZ. While it seems likely that they were wiped out by the Dominion... the fact that people in a time so apparently enlightened resorted to such methods - and enjoyed support and even defection from more than a few high ranking starfleet officers - speaks volumes about the Federation that are never spelt out.
Perhaps this is all made rather more strange by the fact that Earth seems to be some kind of veritable paradise - and in fact, is described in just that way in DS9 - whereas the colonies are generally shown as pretty poorly developed... Not that we really get a very good idea of how things are in the Federation... still, it seems that the Federation Council pretty much runs the show... and we've never really heard talk about elections or anything like that. It seems that the Federation is run more by some people deciding what's best for everyone more than anything - although, this would hardly be the first time that accusations of communism had been levelled at the show.
It simply seems ironic that a programme which supposedly espouses such an optimistic and bright future seems so utterly devoid of the trappings of democracy - or indeed anything other than some form of benign oligarchy. That couple with the fact that the Federation has had a rather troubled history - war and conflict with pretty much all their neighbours... many more than once - and the problems of discrimination that we've seen - Data was going to be dismantled because he was initially considered property rather than a person, Doctor Bashir risked expulsion from Starfleet simply because his parents had him genetically augmented and The Doctor on Voyager was ostensibly treated as a second class citizen because he was a hologram... and he was the lucky one, the copies in the Alpha Quadrant got stuck working in mines. Taken as a whole, the Federation hardly seems like some kind of utopian ideal it's often portray was as - in fact, in some aspects it seems worse than contemporary Western society.
It seems that the Federation Council is some monolithic and detached government run by people in ivory towers. Willing to agree to such monumentally unpopular ideas as the DMZ after the Cardassian war which resulted in dozens of worlds being on the wrong side of the border. When Picard goes to protest the seemingly arbritrary relocation of native Americans (IN SPACE!) he's pretty much told "the Federation Council says we're doing this" and it hardly sounds as if the people were taking it lying down either.
Not to say that this kind of thing doesn't happen in real life - doubtless any sufficiently informed person could rattle off a dozen things which have gone against the collective will of the people... but these things can often be appealed and protested. Here the impression was given that the big boys had decided what was happening and everyone else just had to take it. It seems fairly obvious the move wasn't popular as the formation of the Maquis suggests.
In fact, there is perhaps no greater demonstration that the democratic process has failed to accommodate people satisfactorily than said people taking up arms... and the Maquis seemed to enjoy widespread support throughout all the worlds in and around the DMZ. While it seems likely that they were wiped out by the Dominion... the fact that people in a time so apparently enlightened resorted to such methods - and enjoyed support and even defection from more than a few high ranking starfleet officers - speaks volumes about the Federation that are never spelt out.
Perhaps this is all made rather more strange by the fact that Earth seems to be some kind of veritable paradise - and in fact, is described in just that way in DS9 - whereas the colonies are generally shown as pretty poorly developed... Not that we really get a very good idea of how things are in the Federation... still, it seems that the Federation Council pretty much runs the show... and we've never really heard talk about elections or anything like that. It seems that the Federation is run more by some people deciding what's best for everyone more than anything - although, this would hardly be the first time that accusations of communism had been levelled at the show.
It simply seems ironic that a programme which supposedly espouses such an optimistic and bright future seems so utterly devoid of the trappings of democracy - or indeed anything other than some form of benign oligarchy. That couple with the fact that the Federation has had a rather troubled history - war and conflict with pretty much all their neighbours... many more than once - and the problems of discrimination that we've seen - Data was going to be dismantled because he was initially considered property rather than a person, Doctor Bashir risked expulsion from Starfleet simply because his parents had him genetically augmented and The Doctor on Voyager was ostensibly treated as a second class citizen because he was a hologram... and he was the lucky one, the copies in the Alpha Quadrant got stuck working in mines. Taken as a whole, the Federation hardly seems like some kind of utopian ideal it's often portray was as - in fact, in some aspects it seems worse than contemporary Western society.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Science fiction has an unfortunate habit... it likes to put humanity on a pedestal. Somehow, we're just this awesomely wonderful race. Special and wonderful and just lovely. What does it mean?
Basically - humanity isn't much. People think that humanity is the greatest thing ever. Destined to heal the universe, ascend to a higher plane and so and so forth. Even Babylon 5 thought that humans were pretty amazing... despite our lack of comparative technological advancement. Not that it really spelt out all that much.
Unlike Star Trek - which went "Oh by the way, Humans are pretty much awesome and will become omnipotent!" and SG-1, which said "Humans are descended from omnipotent beings!" Hell, Star Trek had the stupidest episode ever where an act of immense stupidity - wilful exposure to a deadly virus - was expounded to make humans somehow special... especially stupid, I'd say.
Farscape was better. It liked to point out that humanity was - of the species shown - the shortest lived, the least resilient... just generally not that great. Which is somewhat ironic given the fact that 99% of races in Star Trek lived easily twice as long as Humans. Men in Black also playfully poked fun.
Dr. Who seems to be uncertain - at times, The Doctor is keen on humanity. Lauding humanity for going off and exploring, then going off about how humanity are "the monsters"... Still, given the focus of the show - especially as it is now - he pretty much has to be enamoured with humans... or the show wouldn't work.
Also, human morality - that is to say Judeo-Christian flag waving, truth, justice and the American Way morality - is the best in the universe and superior to all. Realism isn't an object, eh?
Basically - humanity isn't much. People think that humanity is the greatest thing ever. Destined to heal the universe, ascend to a higher plane and so and so forth. Even Babylon 5 thought that humans were pretty amazing... despite our lack of comparative technological advancement. Not that it really spelt out all that much.
Unlike Star Trek - which went "Oh by the way, Humans are pretty much awesome and will become omnipotent!" and SG-1, which said "Humans are descended from omnipotent beings!" Hell, Star Trek had the stupidest episode ever where an act of immense stupidity - wilful exposure to a deadly virus - was expounded to make humans somehow special... especially stupid, I'd say.
Farscape was better. It liked to point out that humanity was - of the species shown - the shortest lived, the least resilient... just generally not that great. Which is somewhat ironic given the fact that 99% of races in Star Trek lived easily twice as long as Humans. Men in Black also playfully poked fun.
Dr. Who seems to be uncertain - at times, The Doctor is keen on humanity. Lauding humanity for going off and exploring, then going off about how humanity are "the monsters"... Still, given the focus of the show - especially as it is now - he pretty much has to be enamoured with humans... or the show wouldn't work.
Also, human morality - that is to say Judeo-Christian flag waving, truth, justice and the American Way morality - is the best in the universe and superior to all. Realism isn't an object, eh?
Friday, May 11, 2007
Stargate has become... in many ways the Star Trek of the 2000s... that is to say, a long running show that has spawned sequels... The little known Stargate: Infinity and the better known Stargate: Atlantis... which is to be discussed herein.
Atlantis was... an opportunity for Stargate. The opportunity was to put in a new set of characters, a different enemy and just make for something beyond the general "village on planet P3whatever" format that Stargate had built itself up on.
They did at least manage to escape the mythology aspect... but then, that was one of SG-1's strengths. Even if it got somewhat forgotten toward the end - what with people pretending to be gods being replaced with beings who actually were gods... more or less. Nope the "big bad" for Atlantis was to be diabolical SPACE VAMPIRES!
Who have pretty much disappeared since we found out about Replicators 2.0... and of course, that's in between all the RANDOM VILLAGE and RANDOM PLANET episodes that don't really have much to do with anything... perhaps the most embarrassing thing is that we have a cast that now closely resembles the SG-1 cast, the quipping commander, the science person, the strong and silent guy and the person who knows the cultures and stuff.
Rodney is probably the only truly original character, given that he got his start on SG-1... as kind of an anti-Carter. Weir also got her start on SG-1 (though played by a different actress)... but she seems to serve no real purpose. On paper, she'd seem like an equivalent to General Hammond but in reality she is far, far more irritating and possibly the worst negotiator ever. It feels as if she was put in charge of Atlantis for the sole reason of having a "strong" woman in charge and to create that ever tiresome military/civilian conflict. As it is, all she does is moan on in an irrating fashion - presumably because the writers haven't a clue what to do with her.
The Wraith also became the most quickly nerfed race ever. In the first season... they could take entire clips to take down but by the seasons two, they're going down if you look at them funny
they'd die... and then they became pretty thin on the ground once we discovered there were Replicators in the Pegasus galaxy. Of course, these Replicators are - how handy for the budget! - never evil mechano. Nope, they're just people. They're not very good Replicators!
So, only three seasons in and the show is already pretty much SG-1 - even to the point of having the same baddies... rather embarrassing that it can't stand on its own merits. Sure, the Wraith weren't exactly great but there was potential there but as soon as their civil war started, that was them consigned to the dustbin and now it seems we must dine on Replicators for breakfast lunch and dinner. They were the mid-season cliffhanger AND involved in the season finale cliffhanger. It seems to only prove that the creative team of Stargate has totally stagnated. They can provide you 40 minutes of sci-fi related life wasting but it's never really more than that.
Atlantis was... an opportunity for Stargate. The opportunity was to put in a new set of characters, a different enemy and just make for something beyond the general "village on planet P3whatever" format that Stargate had built itself up on.
They did at least manage to escape the mythology aspect... but then, that was one of SG-1's strengths. Even if it got somewhat forgotten toward the end - what with people pretending to be gods being replaced with beings who actually were gods... more or less. Nope the "big bad" for Atlantis was to be diabolical SPACE VAMPIRES!
Who have pretty much disappeared since we found out about Replicators 2.0... and of course, that's in between all the RANDOM VILLAGE and RANDOM PLANET episodes that don't really have much to do with anything... perhaps the most embarrassing thing is that we have a cast that now closely resembles the SG-1 cast, the quipping commander, the science person, the strong and silent guy and the person who knows the cultures and stuff.
Rodney is probably the only truly original character, given that he got his start on SG-1... as kind of an anti-Carter. Weir also got her start on SG-1 (though played by a different actress)... but she seems to serve no real purpose. On paper, she'd seem like an equivalent to General Hammond but in reality she is far, far more irritating and possibly the worst negotiator ever. It feels as if she was put in charge of Atlantis for the sole reason of having a "strong" woman in charge and to create that ever tiresome military/civilian conflict. As it is, all she does is moan on in an irrating fashion - presumably because the writers haven't a clue what to do with her.
The Wraith also became the most quickly nerfed race ever. In the first season... they could take entire clips to take down but by the seasons two, they're going down if you look at them funny
they'd die... and then they became pretty thin on the ground once we discovered there were Replicators in the Pegasus galaxy. Of course, these Replicators are - how handy for the budget! - never evil mechano. Nope, they're just people. They're not very good Replicators!
So, only three seasons in and the show is already pretty much SG-1 - even to the point of having the same baddies... rather embarrassing that it can't stand on its own merits. Sure, the Wraith weren't exactly great but there was potential there but as soon as their civil war started, that was them consigned to the dustbin and now it seems we must dine on Replicators for breakfast lunch and dinner. They were the mid-season cliffhanger AND involved in the season finale cliffhanger. It seems to only prove that the creative team of Stargate has totally stagnated. They can provide you 40 minutes of sci-fi related life wasting but it's never really more than that.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Enterprise - the only post TOS show to get less than seven seasons...
It's been almost exactly two years since this ill fated show departed the small screen forever - managing to surpass DS9 effortlessly for worst finale ever - and it's not really surprising that it didn't last long. Much as with Voyager, it was a concept that was not beyond redemption. In fact, it could probably have been done rather well if any thought or coherence had been lent to the idea.
Naturally, it wasn't though and so even the hopelessly loyal Star Trek fans who swore death before dishonour switched off in their droves - not that the omission of the words "Star" and "Trek" from the title, for a substantial amount of time helped - and by the time Manny Cotto was given creative control over the still warm corpses of Rick Berman and Brannon Braga, it was too late.
The show was a step back, both literally and figuratively. By the end of Voyager many fans were starting to feel that there wasn't much to do... TOS and TNG had done the Alpha and Beta Quadrant, DS9 did the Gamma and Voyager did the Delta - which really wasn't the case given that little of the Gamma Quadrant was explored and despite Janeway's deranged detours because of the several big jumpers
Enterprise was clearly conceived to get back to that spirit of exploration that TOS and early TNG had captured and which had so clearly been lost, so much so that in Star Trek: Insurrection Picard even comments "Can anyone remember when we used to be explorers?" Not just that but to have that... Old West sensibility that could sometimes be felt in TOS, people on a frontier... and of course, to dramatically cut the amount of treknobabble.
You can tell that they wanted to send a message that there'd be less treknobabble when in the first episode, Archer is confronted with the phrase "Temporal Cold War" and doesn't understand it. Ironically, the Temporal Cold War would go on to be one of the more problematic elements of this troubled show - a case in point that storylines should be planned out and not just made up as and when it's required.
The main flaws with the show were really more general... its place in continuity, the characters and the plot...
Its place in continuity is rather precarious... Shortly before the formation of the Federation and a couple of generations before Kirk would take the helm. You'd think THE first Captain of a big fancy ship who goes out, does some exploring and saves Earth a few times would be as big a legend as Kirk... oops. Then of course you have the fact that many species introduced in Enterprise - Denobulans - are never seen or heard of again... which makes the already overpopulated Trekverse even more so. Then of course, there was the fact that instead of the Earth/Romulan war we got the Earth/Xindi war... if you could CALL it a war. More like a quest... a pretty dull quest.
Next we have the characters... initially we were promised characters who were "rough around the edges". To be honest, there was no real reason for that... NASA crews aren't rough around the edges... it's not hard to get a ship to be crewed by professionals, after all. As it was - they were all bland... Phloxx was happy and easy going, T'Pol wore a jumpsuit and was stuck up... Archer shouted "REPORT!" a lot and generally taking the moral high horse only when it suited him and the rest just blended together. This was an obvious mistake... TNG could sometimes pull off what wasn't really that great an episode because of the strength of characters... and even in Voyager you could at least relate to the fact Janeway was a crazy bitch or that Tom Paris was irritating.
The plot was problematic - in that it hadn't really been thought through. You'd think that if you were doing a prequel, you'd want it to fit in with the existing stuff... and hence, plan carefully but no... we got a lot of dull episodes. Enterprise was a good chance to establish more precisely how the Trek universe ticked and how the Federation came to be... they ran so low on ideas, they had to have a Borg episode. Then there was mess of the Temporal Cold War... which never really felt it was going anywhere... and of course, the Xindi War... which admittedly had its moments but was problematic in that Archer seemed fairly capable of just switching off his morals - most likely making him an ancestor of Janeway.
The potential for success was there but they made a real fudge of things. The technology was too advance - transporters? Grav plating? And so on. Sure, it wasn't the button pushing ease of Voyager but it still felt better than TOS and that was always going to be a problem. They also totally failed to instil any sense of awe or wonder. It was pretty much the regular "what's going to happen at this planet"? And so on and it all came at a time when Trek couldn't afford such mistakes. The new film looks set to be readying itself to not learn from history.
It's been almost exactly two years since this ill fated show departed the small screen forever - managing to surpass DS9 effortlessly for worst finale ever - and it's not really surprising that it didn't last long. Much as with Voyager, it was a concept that was not beyond redemption. In fact, it could probably have been done rather well if any thought or coherence had been lent to the idea.
Naturally, it wasn't though and so even the hopelessly loyal Star Trek fans who swore death before dishonour switched off in their droves - not that the omission of the words "Star" and "Trek" from the title, for a substantial amount of time helped - and by the time Manny Cotto was given creative control over the still warm corpses of Rick Berman and Brannon Braga, it was too late.
The show was a step back, both literally and figuratively. By the end of Voyager many fans were starting to feel that there wasn't much to do... TOS and TNG had done the Alpha and Beta Quadrant, DS9 did the Gamma and Voyager did the Delta - which really wasn't the case given that little of the Gamma Quadrant was explored and despite Janeway's deranged detours because of the several big jumpers
Enterprise was clearly conceived to get back to that spirit of exploration that TOS and early TNG had captured and which had so clearly been lost, so much so that in Star Trek: Insurrection Picard even comments "Can anyone remember when we used to be explorers?" Not just that but to have that... Old West sensibility that could sometimes be felt in TOS, people on a frontier... and of course, to dramatically cut the amount of treknobabble.
You can tell that they wanted to send a message that there'd be less treknobabble when in the first episode, Archer is confronted with the phrase "Temporal Cold War" and doesn't understand it. Ironically, the Temporal Cold War would go on to be one of the more problematic elements of this troubled show - a case in point that storylines should be planned out and not just made up as and when it's required.
The main flaws with the show were really more general... its place in continuity, the characters and the plot...
Its place in continuity is rather precarious... Shortly before the formation of the Federation and a couple of generations before Kirk would take the helm. You'd think THE first Captain of a big fancy ship who goes out, does some exploring and saves Earth a few times would be as big a legend as Kirk... oops. Then of course you have the fact that many species introduced in Enterprise - Denobulans - are never seen or heard of again... which makes the already overpopulated Trekverse even more so. Then of course, there was the fact that instead of the Earth/Romulan war we got the Earth/Xindi war... if you could CALL it a war. More like a quest... a pretty dull quest.
Next we have the characters... initially we were promised characters who were "rough around the edges". To be honest, there was no real reason for that... NASA crews aren't rough around the edges... it's not hard to get a ship to be crewed by professionals, after all. As it was - they were all bland... Phloxx was happy and easy going, T'Pol wore a jumpsuit and was stuck up... Archer shouted "REPORT!" a lot and generally taking the moral high horse only when it suited him and the rest just blended together. This was an obvious mistake... TNG could sometimes pull off what wasn't really that great an episode because of the strength of characters... and even in Voyager you could at least relate to the fact Janeway was a crazy bitch or that Tom Paris was irritating.
The plot was problematic - in that it hadn't really been thought through. You'd think that if you were doing a prequel, you'd want it to fit in with the existing stuff... and hence, plan carefully but no... we got a lot of dull episodes. Enterprise was a good chance to establish more precisely how the Trek universe ticked and how the Federation came to be... they ran so low on ideas, they had to have a Borg episode. Then there was mess of the Temporal Cold War... which never really felt it was going anywhere... and of course, the Xindi War... which admittedly had its moments but was problematic in that Archer seemed fairly capable of just switching off his morals - most likely making him an ancestor of Janeway.
The potential for success was there but they made a real fudge of things. The technology was too advance - transporters? Grav plating? And so on. Sure, it wasn't the button pushing ease of Voyager but it still felt better than TOS and that was always going to be a problem. They also totally failed to instil any sense of awe or wonder. It was pretty much the regular "what's going to happen at this planet"? And so on and it all came at a time when Trek couldn't afford such mistakes. The new film looks set to be readying itself to not learn from history.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Sci-fi gets to its most embarrassing when it pretends to have an actual basis in fact.
It's often notable that the best sci-fi steers itself clear of any real talk of science... Heroes doesn't have people trying to explain the superpowers - people express amazement that they violate the laws of physics with such ease but no one ever starts using big made up words to try and explain it. Neither did Farscape or Babylon 5... and Battlestar Galatica hasn't either. BSG never really tries to explain anything. Hell, they had an episode where their never explained FTL drive got broke and all that was involved in fixing it was pretty much like changing a fuse.
Star Trek... well, as it progressed - it just got embarrassing. By Voyager the script was just dominated by meaningless Treknobabble... some of it actually impossible... expressing the power output of something in Dynes? Wasn't that show supposed to have a science advisor? It seems unlikely he had more than a subscription to New Scientist... although the closest they probably got to reading it was using it as a coaster. Furthermore, beyond simply becoming a significant proportion of the dialogue, the jargon actually became a plot point that allowed the writers to avoid any kind of thinking or originality. Bad guys got you down? Get one of your bridge staff to reel off 15 nonsensical science sounding words and BAM! You killed them.
Of course, it's clear that they did actually learn from their mistakes in this case because Enterprise was clearly a setting envisaged to avoid the kind of babbling previous treks had become synonymous with. Of course, that meant there was only about half as much dialogue in there and they had to introduce the obligatory catsuit in the first episode. More on that later.
Stargate SG-1 became increasingly guilty of treknobabble as it got more worn out. Was there any need to have Carter spout out gibberish every so often? Actually, there was... that's about all she said... and given that the format of SG-1 dialogue was generally:
O'Neill - flippant comment.
Carter - treknobabble.
Jackson - simple summation and conclusion.
Teal'c - Indeed.
The obvious change when Ben Browder came onboard was this.
Mitchel: pop culture reference.
Carter: treknobabble.
Jackson - simple summation and conclusion.
Teal'c - Indeed.
SG-1 probably thinks that because they acknowledged that their treknobabble was frequent and gibberish - generally by O'Neill raising his eyebrow and looking like he'd rather be in a vat of boiling acid. That doesn't change the fact that they became increasingly Voyager like in its usage... transiting from explanation to plot point.
It probably isn't coincidence that the shows that babble on and on about pseudo-science nonsense are those of inferior quality aimed at dullards who will watch anything with tight tops and explosions every thirty seconds and those that don't tend to be the more critically acclaimed and just plain better.
It's often notable that the best sci-fi steers itself clear of any real talk of science... Heroes doesn't have people trying to explain the superpowers - people express amazement that they violate the laws of physics with such ease but no one ever starts using big made up words to try and explain it. Neither did Farscape or Babylon 5... and Battlestar Galatica hasn't either. BSG never really tries to explain anything. Hell, they had an episode where their never explained FTL drive got broke and all that was involved in fixing it was pretty much like changing a fuse.
Star Trek... well, as it progressed - it just got embarrassing. By Voyager the script was just dominated by meaningless Treknobabble... some of it actually impossible... expressing the power output of something in Dynes? Wasn't that show supposed to have a science advisor? It seems unlikely he had more than a subscription to New Scientist... although the closest they probably got to reading it was using it as a coaster. Furthermore, beyond simply becoming a significant proportion of the dialogue, the jargon actually became a plot point that allowed the writers to avoid any kind of thinking or originality. Bad guys got you down? Get one of your bridge staff to reel off 15 nonsensical science sounding words and BAM! You killed them.
Of course, it's clear that they did actually learn from their mistakes in this case because Enterprise was clearly a setting envisaged to avoid the kind of babbling previous treks had become synonymous with. Of course, that meant there was only about half as much dialogue in there and they had to introduce the obligatory catsuit in the first episode. More on that later.
Stargate SG-1 became increasingly guilty of treknobabble as it got more worn out. Was there any need to have Carter spout out gibberish every so often? Actually, there was... that's about all she said... and given that the format of SG-1 dialogue was generally:
O'Neill - flippant comment.
Carter - treknobabble.
Jackson - simple summation and conclusion.
Teal'c - Indeed.
The obvious change when Ben Browder came onboard was this.
Mitchel: pop culture reference.
Carter: treknobabble.
Jackson - simple summation and conclusion.
Teal'c - Indeed.
SG-1 probably thinks that because they acknowledged that their treknobabble was frequent and gibberish - generally by O'Neill raising his eyebrow and looking like he'd rather be in a vat of boiling acid. That doesn't change the fact that they became increasingly Voyager like in its usage... transiting from explanation to plot point.
It probably isn't coincidence that the shows that babble on and on about pseudo-science nonsense are those of inferior quality aimed at dullards who will watch anything with tight tops and explosions every thirty seconds and those that don't tend to be the more critically acclaimed and just plain better.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Babylon 5... a name that will set the pulse of sci-fi fans the world over racing.
It seems that only a decade later that something has surpassed it - and that's Heroes... which is a wholly different proposition in its attitude, setting and style... so for the moment, let us focus on more "pure" sci-fi. Just why is it that Babylon 5 didn't lead to more "video novel" style shows?
It would be fair to say that the only things that really came close to B5 were Farscape and BSG.
Farscape took a while to get up and running - though, it could be argued that this was the case with B5... but really, even the pilot was setting up plot points for the future - but when it did, it actually became something approaching a serial. Of course, then Sci-Fi went and axed it... despite it being their highest rated show. While the show still had plenty of "oh no! A PROBLEM!" the bit before and after that tended to impart quite a lot of character and drama. It seems clear that there was some kind of envisioned plot... which unfortunately had to be wrapped up rather quickly in Peacekeeper Wars.
The show was certainly esoteric but what made it enjoyable was that the characters - and cast - evolved and changed over the seasons, more than almost any other comparable show... and unlike some shows, where the introduction of new characters felt jarring - a somewhat ironic example being Farscape's own Ben Browder hammered into SG-1 -in Farscape it generally felt natural... but then Farscape seldom conformed to the sci-fi norms. Few other shows have only had one human as a regular character... and TWO weren't even humanoid. Plus, we didn't have any of the "praise truth, justice and the American way!" or "humans are unique and special!" either... In fact, it seemed that the show often went out of its way to point out that humans were pretty rubbish compared to all the other species portrayed.
Still, it had a direction and a continuity that only grew as the show developed. Some have bemoaned it being a soap opera... but really, that's just whinging fanboys who think that any interaction between characters that doesn't involve technobabble or CGI is soap opera and the way the different characters interacted in Farscape was almost certainly what made it such a popular show. Sad that rubbish like Smallville, SG-1 and Voyager gets to run for years and an innovative show like Farscape gets the chop just because it's not cheap... but regardless it maintained a solid narrative that made it a far more interesting proposition than hundreds of cookie cutter episodes.
Battlestar Galactica is interesting... in that it seems to have started out thinking about itself as directed and focused and then lost its way somewhat. Certainly with seasons two and three it felt as if the story episodes had been written and then some generic drama had been introduced. It remains to be seen whether the show can manage to pull itself together to give a more coherent story.
While it may not quite be a B5 or even Farscape in that respect, it does have continuity. It's not a case of Voyager where half the ship is destroyed one week and then next week it's back to normal... resources do tend to be a problem for Galactica and the ship has really taken a pounding. The start of season 3 marked one more or less continuous storyline but then after that it was more... things to be attended to.
Regardless of some of the greatly inferior work that JMS has gone on to do since B5 - and Legend Of The Rangers is enough to make anyone raise an eyebrow - there is little doubt that B5 was all alone until Heroes rolled around... and possibly did the concept of a video novel better than B5 itself.
Still, you have to wonder why no one even attempted it again... certainly, B5 wasn't a massive success but it was good television. It is is quite possible that it was simply the force of will and creativity that JMS represented. Perhaps it is simply the difficulty of the feat. Sad that... because episodic pap like Star Trek just spoils it for everyone.
It seems that only a decade later that something has surpassed it - and that's Heroes... which is a wholly different proposition in its attitude, setting and style... so for the moment, let us focus on more "pure" sci-fi. Just why is it that Babylon 5 didn't lead to more "video novel" style shows?
It would be fair to say that the only things that really came close to B5 were Farscape and BSG.
Farscape took a while to get up and running - though, it could be argued that this was the case with B5... but really, even the pilot was setting up plot points for the future - but when it did, it actually became something approaching a serial. Of course, then Sci-Fi went and axed it... despite it being their highest rated show. While the show still had plenty of "oh no! A PROBLEM!" the bit before and after that tended to impart quite a lot of character and drama. It seems clear that there was some kind of envisioned plot... which unfortunately had to be wrapped up rather quickly in Peacekeeper Wars.
The show was certainly esoteric but what made it enjoyable was that the characters - and cast - evolved and changed over the seasons, more than almost any other comparable show... and unlike some shows, where the introduction of new characters felt jarring - a somewhat ironic example being Farscape's own Ben Browder hammered into SG-1 -in Farscape it generally felt natural... but then Farscape seldom conformed to the sci-fi norms. Few other shows have only had one human as a regular character... and TWO weren't even humanoid. Plus, we didn't have any of the "praise truth, justice and the American way!" or "humans are unique and special!" either... In fact, it seemed that the show often went out of its way to point out that humans were pretty rubbish compared to all the other species portrayed.
Still, it had a direction and a continuity that only grew as the show developed. Some have bemoaned it being a soap opera... but really, that's just whinging fanboys who think that any interaction between characters that doesn't involve technobabble or CGI is soap opera and the way the different characters interacted in Farscape was almost certainly what made it such a popular show. Sad that rubbish like Smallville, SG-1 and Voyager gets to run for years and an innovative show like Farscape gets the chop just because it's not cheap... but regardless it maintained a solid narrative that made it a far more interesting proposition than hundreds of cookie cutter episodes.
Battlestar Galactica is interesting... in that it seems to have started out thinking about itself as directed and focused and then lost its way somewhat. Certainly with seasons two and three it felt as if the story episodes had been written and then some generic drama had been introduced. It remains to be seen whether the show can manage to pull itself together to give a more coherent story.
While it may not quite be a B5 or even Farscape in that respect, it does have continuity. It's not a case of Voyager where half the ship is destroyed one week and then next week it's back to normal... resources do tend to be a problem for Galactica and the ship has really taken a pounding. The start of season 3 marked one more or less continuous storyline but then after that it was more... things to be attended to.
Regardless of some of the greatly inferior work that JMS has gone on to do since B5 - and Legend Of The Rangers is enough to make anyone raise an eyebrow - there is little doubt that B5 was all alone until Heroes rolled around... and possibly did the concept of a video novel better than B5 itself.
Still, you have to wonder why no one even attempted it again... certainly, B5 wasn't a massive success but it was good television. It is is quite possible that it was simply the force of will and creativity that JMS represented. Perhaps it is simply the difficulty of the feat. Sad that... because episodic pap like Star Trek just spoils it for everyone.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Heroes is back...
Hooray! Not many shows could create such an epic cliffhanger and STILL manage to come up with a satisfactory resolution. Of course, it's clear that such a rich tapestry - and I doubt that many productions have ever gone to the trouble of creating so much ancillary content such as blogs, comics and alternate reality games.
It creates a very rich tapestry for those who wish to see it... naturally, those that just want to watch their 42 minutes of awesome TV won't be impeded but for those interested in a little mind, it's all very enjoyable and simply adds to the already elaborate plot.
In any event, it was good to see that Heroes hadn't painted itself into a corner or similar by making itself too good...
Hooray! Not many shows could create such an epic cliffhanger and STILL manage to come up with a satisfactory resolution. Of course, it's clear that such a rich tapestry - and I doubt that many productions have ever gone to the trouble of creating so much ancillary content such as blogs, comics and alternate reality games.
It creates a very rich tapestry for those who wish to see it... naturally, those that just want to watch their 42 minutes of awesome TV won't be impeded but for those interested in a little mind, it's all very enjoyable and simply adds to the already elaborate plot.
In any event, it was good to see that Heroes hadn't painted itself into a corner or similar by making itself too good...
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Ah, Sunshine... this could possibly be the perfection of the space disaster film.
Director Danny Boyle clearly didn't feel like following the clichés of similar sci-fi disaster films like The Core, Armageddon and Deep Impact... there's no people sitting around going "Hmm, something bad is going to happen!" type build up. Nope, Cillian Murphy gives us an explanatory voice over that cuts that down to about thirty seconds.
The science of this fiction is more fantasy than anything but unlike other films, it doesn't really try and explain away issues like... the apparently normal gravity on a ship that isn't discernably rotating and at a point in time where it seems unlikely that you'd be able to pipe gravity through a ship like central heating. Nothing about WHY the Sun suddenly starts to die, how a bomb the mass of Manhattan was transported into space, how it will work... How any material could do the kind of job of dissipating the heat of even a dying Sun at close proximity and allow for people to live comfortably just a few metres away is beyond me... and let's not get started on the travel times - although, mercifully they managed to get the travel time for light from Sun to Earth correct.
Presumably, this is because - as is traditional with Danny Boyle - it's about the interplay of characters facing suitably challenging circumstances. Of course quite why the big ol' bomb can't just be fired at the Sun sans crew is... well, that would be a much shorter and less dramatic film... Anyway, despite there being only eight members of the crew you'll be hard pressed to really get a feel for anyone except Mace - aka Johnny Storm - and Cillian Murphy - aka Scarecrow.
Naturally, things all start going horribly wrong after not too long and as with all of these "saving the world from disaster" type films, we have to see a lot of people struggling to sacrifice themselves first and naturally, they succeed. The film seemed to dally to some extent with the supernatural but really, that's more to do with human perception than anything else. That and the frequent shaky, epilepsy inducing fast cuts...
All-in-all, it's a passable waste of time... don't expect anything that will blow you away, change your perceptions of the world or make you wet your pants because this is a fairly by the numbers film. You never really - despite the fact it's mercilessly hammered home several times - get the sense that life is in the balance. Nor do you really feel for the character plight - they seem to follow the classic profile of most sci-fi crews... as soon as things go wrong and professionalism and not going mental are required... well you can guess. In fact, this film is probably what "The Core" would have been if it was set in space and not written by an imbecile. Of course, when the plot of the film is "restart the Sun WITH A REALLY BIG BOMB!" you're never going to be achieving new heights of excellence. Although, it DOES trump 300 in the no wins stakes... Think you're screwed fighting against a million Persians? Try being on a bomb the size of Manhattan accelerating toward the surface of the Sun!
Director Danny Boyle clearly didn't feel like following the clichés of similar sci-fi disaster films like The Core, Armageddon and Deep Impact... there's no people sitting around going "Hmm, something bad is going to happen!" type build up. Nope, Cillian Murphy gives us an explanatory voice over that cuts that down to about thirty seconds.
The science of this fiction is more fantasy than anything but unlike other films, it doesn't really try and explain away issues like... the apparently normal gravity on a ship that isn't discernably rotating and at a point in time where it seems unlikely that you'd be able to pipe gravity through a ship like central heating. Nothing about WHY the Sun suddenly starts to die, how a bomb the mass of Manhattan was transported into space, how it will work... How any material could do the kind of job of dissipating the heat of even a dying Sun at close proximity and allow for people to live comfortably just a few metres away is beyond me... and let's not get started on the travel times - although, mercifully they managed to get the travel time for light from Sun to Earth correct.
Presumably, this is because - as is traditional with Danny Boyle - it's about the interplay of characters facing suitably challenging circumstances. Of course quite why the big ol' bomb can't just be fired at the Sun sans crew is... well, that would be a much shorter and less dramatic film... Anyway, despite there being only eight members of the crew you'll be hard pressed to really get a feel for anyone except Mace - aka Johnny Storm - and Cillian Murphy - aka Scarecrow.
Naturally, things all start going horribly wrong after not too long and as with all of these "saving the world from disaster" type films, we have to see a lot of people struggling to sacrifice themselves first and naturally, they succeed. The film seemed to dally to some extent with the supernatural but really, that's more to do with human perception than anything else. That and the frequent shaky, epilepsy inducing fast cuts...
All-in-all, it's a passable waste of time... don't expect anything that will blow you away, change your perceptions of the world or make you wet your pants because this is a fairly by the numbers film. You never really - despite the fact it's mercilessly hammered home several times - get the sense that life is in the balance. Nor do you really feel for the character plight - they seem to follow the classic profile of most sci-fi crews... as soon as things go wrong and professionalism and not going mental are required... well you can guess. In fact, this film is probably what "The Core" would have been if it was set in space and not written by an imbecile. Of course, when the plot of the film is "restart the Sun WITH A REALLY BIG BOMB!" you're never going to be achieving new heights of excellence. Although, it DOES trump 300 in the no wins stakes... Think you're screwed fighting against a million Persians? Try being on a bomb the size of Manhattan accelerating toward the surface of the Sun!
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Ok, so you've got a webcomic - good for you. You may even have made it enjoyable, funny, clever or just plain awesome... these things are all good.
What isn't good is when you ask people to support your webcomic by clicking on a link and that link leads us to something that requires registration? None at all. click and vote - sure. Register? No
What isn't good is when you ask people to support your webcomic by clicking on a link and that link leads us to something that requires registration? None at all. click and vote - sure. Register? No
Friday, April 06, 2007
Good news, middle class people in the developed world... no need to worry about climate change - it's going to fuck the poorest people in the world worst. Hoorah, eh? The most northern and southern areas will do best.
So, well done Europe - all we need do is build a giant wall to stop the immigrant invasion... Let's make it as fatal as possible.
So, well done Europe - all we need do is build a giant wall to stop the immigrant invasion... Let's make it as fatal as possible.
Monday, April 02, 2007
The inherent fallacy of gravy trains should be obvious from one man - Ricky Gervais.
Few people would dispute The Office as a masterful piece of comedy, the awkwardness of the workplace and so on. Critically and popularly acclaimed... well, the first two series. Many found the Christmas Special to be a rather... saccharine wrap up to the show which had done so well because it didn't force a happy ending on us. That should have been a warning sign.
Naturally, though - someone that makes such a hit becomes rather popular with producers and given the deluge of affection for The Office, not to mention the shower of awards it won... it's no surprise that Extras so quickly graced our screens. Hardly surprising but then, hardly the success of its predecessor.
Many people would - perhaps - accept that a creation like The Office would be a peak which they'd never surpass. Ricky Gervais clearly thinks he's great - criticism of the vastly inferior Extras garnered his irritation. Not just that - he seems unable to bear the criticism that marred the release of The Office and made references to it several times in his startlingly mediocre stand-up.
Now Gervais parades around chat shows, struggling to contain his irritation. Clearly burdened by his obscenely large ego. It's hard to know why he's irritated - one assumes he's doing pretty well for himself. Ironic that his ego grows as the quality of his work drops but that's the gravy train... but we'll have to endure the sucking for a while longer.
Few people would dispute The Office as a masterful piece of comedy, the awkwardness of the workplace and so on. Critically and popularly acclaimed... well, the first two series. Many found the Christmas Special to be a rather... saccharine wrap up to the show which had done so well because it didn't force a happy ending on us. That should have been a warning sign.
Naturally, though - someone that makes such a hit becomes rather popular with producers and given the deluge of affection for The Office, not to mention the shower of awards it won... it's no surprise that Extras so quickly graced our screens. Hardly surprising but then, hardly the success of its predecessor.
Many people would - perhaps - accept that a creation like The Office would be a peak which they'd never surpass. Ricky Gervais clearly thinks he's great - criticism of the vastly inferior Extras garnered his irritation. Not just that - he seems unable to bear the criticism that marred the release of The Office and made references to it several times in his startlingly mediocre stand-up.
Now Gervais parades around chat shows, struggling to contain his irritation. Clearly burdened by his obscenely large ego. It's hard to know why he's irritated - one assumes he's doing pretty well for himself. Ironic that his ego grows as the quality of his work drops but that's the gravy train... but we'll have to endure the sucking for a while longer.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
The genius that came up with biofuels must be patting himself on the back now... as the USA grudgingly starts dragging itself toward lowering carbon emissions - except Al Gore, he's just renewed his hypocrite license with his astronomical number of air miles and hilariously high electricity bill - the demand for biodiesel and similar increases.
What people only just seem to be working out is that... biodiesel is made from stuff that is edible. So, in other words - we're trading a significant percentage of arable crops to make a fuel which is of questionable benefit in the "fight" against carbon emissions. I suppose no one remembers the basic economics of supply and demand... increase the demand for wheat, the price goes up.
On the bright side - that's a double whammy for CO2 emissions. Lower the output of the developed world with biofuels and starve people in the less developed world because dead people don't need electricity... Let's just hope they don't burn the bodies, eh? Still, this could be an example of joined up thinking.
Thanks climate changeologists - for saving the planet and killing the poor. Ace.
What people only just seem to be working out is that... biodiesel is made from stuff that is edible. So, in other words - we're trading a significant percentage of arable crops to make a fuel which is of questionable benefit in the "fight" against carbon emissions. I suppose no one remembers the basic economics of supply and demand... increase the demand for wheat, the price goes up.
On the bright side - that's a double whammy for CO2 emissions. Lower the output of the developed world with biofuels and starve people in the less developed world because dead people don't need electricity... Let's just hope they don't burn the bodies, eh? Still, this could be an example of joined up thinking.
Thanks climate changeologists - for saving the planet and killing the poor. Ace.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
300 seems to have been described by many as nigh pornographic.
Why? Because it's just money shot after money shot. There is scant plot - but then, there doesn't need to be. 300 Spartan warriors fending a mountain pass against an army of hundreds of thousands of Persians - in what is possibly the best known last stand of history - doesn't exactly need a great deal of plot or characterisation for that matter.
Few films - and one gets the impression that this is probably the level of visual impact that Quentin Tarantino will strive for his entire life and never get within a mile of - can claim to so regularly deliver such a punch. Not just with the battle but in most aspects of the film. Clearly, Frank Millar's influence here was by no means titular and given the propensity of Hollywood to screw over writers - in the sense of either doing a horrible job of adapting their work or actually weasling their way out of handing over money - who have their worked adapted for the silver screen, you can't blame the man for making sure he didn't get shafted.
And - aside from getting some Iranians to whinge about how Frank Miller was making a propaganda piece - it seems that the proles are happy... and rightly so, there is wrong with this film. It does not pretend to be anything more than it is - a rollicking action film that hits the ground running and doesn't stop until the end credits roll. Naturally, some will criticise the historical accuracy or try and attribute some kind of messages about freedom and the fighting of tyranny etc. but the film doesn't really attempt to elaborate on any of these... it's just some Greeks (with Scottish accents) slaughtering Xerxes' hordes in an apologetically bloody, stylish and awesome way... if only more films could be like this.
Why? Because it's just money shot after money shot. There is scant plot - but then, there doesn't need to be. 300 Spartan warriors fending a mountain pass against an army of hundreds of thousands of Persians - in what is possibly the best known last stand of history - doesn't exactly need a great deal of plot or characterisation for that matter.
Few films - and one gets the impression that this is probably the level of visual impact that Quentin Tarantino will strive for his entire life and never get within a mile of - can claim to so regularly deliver such a punch. Not just with the battle but in most aspects of the film. Clearly, Frank Millar's influence here was by no means titular and given the propensity of Hollywood to screw over writers - in the sense of either doing a horrible job of adapting their work or actually weasling their way out of handing over money - who have their worked adapted for the silver screen, you can't blame the man for making sure he didn't get shafted.
And - aside from getting some Iranians to whinge about how Frank Miller was making a propaganda piece - it seems that the proles are happy... and rightly so, there is wrong with this film. It does not pretend to be anything more than it is - a rollicking action film that hits the ground running and doesn't stop until the end credits roll. Naturally, some will criticise the historical accuracy or try and attribute some kind of messages about freedom and the fighting of tyranny etc. but the film doesn't really attempt to elaborate on any of these... it's just some Greeks (with Scottish accents) slaughtering Xerxes' hordes in an apologetically bloody, stylish and awesome way... if only more films could be like this.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Isn't it jolly nice to have non-ebrities and politicians - who most likely would struggle to scrape together enough credits for a weeks worth of a BSc - telling us how CLIMATE CHANGE IS THE GREATEST THREAT WE HAVE EVER FACED. That's nice of them. Also interesting, in January 2005 5% of people in the UK thought that the environment was a priority... by the same time in 2007 this had jumped to 20%...
Proles, pseudo-intellectuals and the more discerning of you should all realise that there is one REAL reason that politicians are so keen to talk about climate change - various unqualified non-ebrities are doing it because they're publicity hungry self-serving hypocrites - and it is this. It allows politicians to spout endlessly about something that is unlikely to happen any time soon.
Britain is apparently "foremost" in the fight against climate change... yeah. The real reason for this is the following - Gordon Brown and David Cameron know it's easy political brownie points. Something happening in a decade or two is a million miles away. A grand diversionary tactic with little substance or sincerity. After all, it's a lot easier to talk rubbish about the inevitable devastation than it is to tackle the very real, very pressing problems of crime, poverty, social inequality and so on.
Proles, pseudo-intellectuals and the more discerning of you should all realise that there is one REAL reason that politicians are so keen to talk about climate change - various unqualified non-ebrities are doing it because they're publicity hungry self-serving hypocrites - and it is this. It allows politicians to spout endlessly about something that is unlikely to happen any time soon.
Britain is apparently "foremost" in the fight against climate change... yeah. The real reason for this is the following - Gordon Brown and David Cameron know it's easy political brownie points. Something happening in a decade or two is a million miles away. A grand diversionary tactic with little substance or sincerity. After all, it's a lot easier to talk rubbish about the inevitable devastation than it is to tackle the very real, very pressing problems of crime, poverty, social inequality and so on.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
So, 40 or more days until Heroes allows us to bask once more in its radiance - time to look back on eighteen episodes of excellence.
It's often been said that it takes a while to start a show. To establish characters, plots and so on... in fact, Star Trek fans are used to giving a show three seasons to approach being good... a rule TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT ALL seem to adhere to and it's really not that uncommon for a show some time to hit its pace... naturally, there are exceptions. 24 - perhaps by its nature - had to hit the ground running... Lost, lost the plot before the end of the first season but still had a strong start and so on... but I don't think I've seen anything since Oz, that manage to so effectively propel itself.
It hit the ground at super speed... and it has yet to stop. With many shows, you can expect some lapses... Even 24 tends to have some more problematic episodes. Heroes hasn't had any "flat" episodes... there have been ones where we've had less action but they more than compensated with more revelations and the show so often delivers a gratifying cliffhanger... Something that has probably been absent from the screen since the hey day of Dr. Who.
Not only that but for a show which has so much in common with comic book superheroes, it has managed to - almost studiously avoid the generic cliches... Though, admittedly it's early days. For all we know, people could be donning spandex, going to alternate universes and people repeatedly being killed and coming back to life... just because they're too popular to die. The real risk though, is that Heroes has set the bar too high. That once the first storyline is wrapped up, that it will struggle to meet the high standards it set itself. This is, of course, a danger for any show of quality. That it will struggle to remain good. Let's just hope Heroes can continue to be one of the best shows - if not the best - on TV.
It's often been said that it takes a while to start a show. To establish characters, plots and so on... in fact, Star Trek fans are used to giving a show three seasons to approach being good... a rule TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT ALL seem to adhere to and it's really not that uncommon for a show some time to hit its pace... naturally, there are exceptions. 24 - perhaps by its nature - had to hit the ground running... Lost, lost the plot before the end of the first season but still had a strong start and so on... but I don't think I've seen anything since Oz, that manage to so effectively propel itself.
It hit the ground at super speed... and it has yet to stop. With many shows, you can expect some lapses... Even 24 tends to have some more problematic episodes. Heroes hasn't had any "flat" episodes... there have been ones where we've had less action but they more than compensated with more revelations and the show so often delivers a gratifying cliffhanger... Something that has probably been absent from the screen since the hey day of Dr. Who.
Not only that but for a show which has so much in common with comic book superheroes, it has managed to - almost studiously avoid the generic cliches... Though, admittedly it's early days. For all we know, people could be donning spandex, going to alternate universes and people repeatedly being killed and coming back to life... just because they're too popular to die. The real risk though, is that Heroes has set the bar too high. That once the first storyline is wrapped up, that it will struggle to meet the high standards it set itself. This is, of course, a danger for any show of quality. That it will struggle to remain good. Let's just hope Heroes can continue to be one of the best shows - if not the best - on TV.
Monday, March 05, 2007
One has to wonder why Star Trek enjoys such a substantial and loyal fan base. Naturally, when originally conceived it was rather radical. The idea of a ship where people of all colours, creeds and nations worked together represented something totally inconceivable at a point in time when equality was still a long way off and the Cold War was decades.
Not only that but - and it's hard to believe these days - but the effects were something akin to cutting edge at the time. Understandably, this and the raunchy antics of Kirk made it popular. Then of course it got cancelled and wouldn't grace the small screen again until Patrick Stewart et al donned their pyjamas in The Next Generation.
Inherently, these spin-offs tended toward the original format of the original series - with the exception of DS9 and even it followed many of the conventions. There wasn't anything particularly earth shattering about any of the new shows... the effects were no longer cutting edge, the stories may have been at times interesting but they were seldom controversial or original. In fact, it would be fair to say that as time progressed, the show became even more standardised under the auspices of Berman.
Ignoring DS9 - which didn't come under Berman's control - one can see the Star Trek "product" become more and more refined. While one could lay many criticisms at the door of Enterprise and Voyager, their episodes were all incredibly polished and refined... to the level of almost mathematical precision. Of course, that tended to trap the shows in their own rut... where they just churned out episodes with no soul, just 40 minutes of life filler.
Enterprise finally managed to change with its third season and the Xindi war but - as with DS9 - there were regular breaks from the story arc for relatively unrelated stories and it had a somewhat improbable ending. At least it actually had an ending though, in stark contrast to the ill-fated Temporal Cold War which didn't really end, so much as just stop - making as little sense as it ever did.
As to DS9... well, it was the first attempt by Star Trek at long term story arcs - The Emissary one and the Dominion War - but really, the Emissary element was far more understated and the Domion War didn't really even get under way until the end of the season 2 and really, it was only season 7 that had consistent arcs... and they only bookended the season. We had a pretty grim and gritty start, followed by some of the most insipid episodes - Take Me To The Holodeck is an abomination - and then the closing arc... which managed to end with something akin to a clip show (with Terry Farrel notable by her absence).
Even if the quality of DS9 was on the wane after season 5, at least it could occasionally throw off the feeling that each episode could happen independent of the other. Voyager regularly threw its characters episodes which would probably scar most people but consistently hit the reset button to make sure they never remembered... shame they didn't use it on the Borg kids or Naomi Wildman. The problem being that you never really got a feeling that the characters were progressing.
Obviously, Data and The Doctor both undergo a degree of humanisation but fundamentally they're still the same people seven years on, somewhat less irritating to their crew mates but not really much else. Tom Paris is a cock any season you view. Sisko might shave off his hair, grow a goatee, get a promotion and change uniform but he's still prone to shouting. The format just didn't encourage writers to do anything permanent to characters... hell, it actively DISCOURAGED any change to the status quo... it was almost like the perma-stasis of a sitcom, everyone frozen in a moment in time for years on end.
Not only were the characters unchanging... but so were the episodes. Aliens of the week, random energy anomaly, ship malfunction (including everyone's favourite - the holodeck!) or "personal" episode - the ones where people undergo a life changing event... and then promptly forget pretty much sum up the staple of episodes. Naturally, with some time travel or season finales thrown in for good measure. Things were getting pretty repetitive by the time we got to the Xindi war... which offered only some relief.
When you think about it, Star Trek really hasn't done anything for its fans. Even the Xindi war was a kick in the teeth to fans - as if the whole Enterprise/prequel idea wasn't bad enough - as it meant the Earth/Romulan war (well known to many fans) was eschewed for something totally different that put in an entirely new race that - much like the Denobulans - were never seen or heard of in subsequent (chronological) shows... that and the Temporal Cold War was introduced
Of course, Voyager personified the problems with Star Trek - although, on the plus side... it so disgusted Ronald D. Moore that he went off and made BSG - unlike Enterprise, it never underwent a change of management... it might have been cancelled if not for the introduction of 7 of 9 and her slutty catsuits. Just as well fanboys saved the day, eh? Not really... Voyager just provided more of the Berman brand homogeneous product. If you want to waste 40 minutes (60 with ads) why bother with Star Trek... you could do it with anything and quite possibly better.
If anything, Star Trek actively kicked its fans in the nuts... Voyager, Enterprise, Star Trek: Insurrection, Star Trek: Nemesis... hardly delivering fans love. Berman and Braga made a good job of making substandard episodes. Generic and soul sucking. You'd go to anything for a franchise that fucked you over repeatedly? If you love it... it hates you.
Not only that but - and it's hard to believe these days - but the effects were something akin to cutting edge at the time. Understandably, this and the raunchy antics of Kirk made it popular. Then of course it got cancelled and wouldn't grace the small screen again until Patrick Stewart et al donned their pyjamas in The Next Generation.
Inherently, these spin-offs tended toward the original format of the original series - with the exception of DS9 and even it followed many of the conventions. There wasn't anything particularly earth shattering about any of the new shows... the effects were no longer cutting edge, the stories may have been at times interesting but they were seldom controversial or original. In fact, it would be fair to say that as time progressed, the show became even more standardised under the auspices of Berman.
Ignoring DS9 - which didn't come under Berman's control - one can see the Star Trek "product" become more and more refined. While one could lay many criticisms at the door of Enterprise and Voyager, their episodes were all incredibly polished and refined... to the level of almost mathematical precision. Of course, that tended to trap the shows in their own rut... where they just churned out episodes with no soul, just 40 minutes of life filler.
Enterprise finally managed to change with its third season and the Xindi war but - as with DS9 - there were regular breaks from the story arc for relatively unrelated stories and it had a somewhat improbable ending. At least it actually had an ending though, in stark contrast to the ill-fated Temporal Cold War which didn't really end, so much as just stop - making as little sense as it ever did.
As to DS9... well, it was the first attempt by Star Trek at long term story arcs - The Emissary one and the Dominion War - but really, the Emissary element was far more understated and the Domion War didn't really even get under way until the end of the season 2 and really, it was only season 7 that had consistent arcs... and they only bookended the season. We had a pretty grim and gritty start, followed by some of the most insipid episodes - Take Me To The Holodeck is an abomination - and then the closing arc... which managed to end with something akin to a clip show (with Terry Farrel notable by her absence).
Even if the quality of DS9 was on the wane after season 5, at least it could occasionally throw off the feeling that each episode could happen independent of the other. Voyager regularly threw its characters episodes which would probably scar most people but consistently hit the reset button to make sure they never remembered... shame they didn't use it on the Borg kids or Naomi Wildman. The problem being that you never really got a feeling that the characters were progressing.
Obviously, Data and The Doctor both undergo a degree of humanisation but fundamentally they're still the same people seven years on, somewhat less irritating to their crew mates but not really much else. Tom Paris is a cock any season you view. Sisko might shave off his hair, grow a goatee, get a promotion and change uniform but he's still prone to shouting. The format just didn't encourage writers to do anything permanent to characters... hell, it actively DISCOURAGED any change to the status quo... it was almost like the perma-stasis of a sitcom, everyone frozen in a moment in time for years on end.
Not only were the characters unchanging... but so were the episodes. Aliens of the week, random energy anomaly, ship malfunction (including everyone's favourite - the holodeck!) or "personal" episode - the ones where people undergo a life changing event... and then promptly forget pretty much sum up the staple of episodes. Naturally, with some time travel or season finales thrown in for good measure. Things were getting pretty repetitive by the time we got to the Xindi war... which offered only some relief.
When you think about it, Star Trek really hasn't done anything for its fans. Even the Xindi war was a kick in the teeth to fans - as if the whole Enterprise/prequel idea wasn't bad enough - as it meant the Earth/Romulan war (well known to many fans) was eschewed for something totally different that put in an entirely new race that - much like the Denobulans - were never seen or heard of in subsequent (chronological) shows... that and the Temporal Cold War was introduced
Of course, Voyager personified the problems with Star Trek - although, on the plus side... it so disgusted Ronald D. Moore that he went off and made BSG - unlike Enterprise, it never underwent a change of management... it might have been cancelled if not for the introduction of 7 of 9 and her slutty catsuits. Just as well fanboys saved the day, eh? Not really... Voyager just provided more of the Berman brand homogeneous product. If you want to waste 40 minutes (60 with ads) why bother with Star Trek... you could do it with anything and quite possibly better.
If anything, Star Trek actively kicked its fans in the nuts... Voyager, Enterprise, Star Trek: Insurrection, Star Trek: Nemesis... hardly delivering fans love. Berman and Braga made a good job of making substandard episodes. Generic and soul sucking. You'd go to anything for a franchise that fucked you over repeatedly? If you love it... it hates you.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
As if it was needed there is confirmation that the next Star Trek film is to be a great step backward. Perhaps this isn't as dire as the original concept for Star Trek XI, which was to be - apparently - set in the very near future and to not really be about space but nuclear war... or something similarly half-baked.
Of course, this was to be expected. When a director/producer is given what is generally considered to be a beloved franchise, the last thing you ever want to hear out of their mouth is the confession that they're a "big fan" or "have a lot of respect for the films". This is code for either "never seen it" or "don't care", or most likely something that amounts to the fact that their vision must be paramount above all other considerations. Continuity, fans and logic are not considerations when it comes to this vision.
While it's easy to see why Abrahms wants to go back to Kirk et al - he's got no idea what to do, they're still probably the best known Trek characters, it lets him put in younger, edgier actors like MATT DAMON - it seems to be ill conceived. If a prequel didn't work before, it seems naive to think a prequel/remake combined is going to fair any better. Not just that but you're messing around with characters that are very much identified with specific actors. Shatner's OTT hamming up, Nimoy's indifference, DeForrest Kelly the drunk... Scotty the fat bastard - these are all images that are well engrained upon the collective consciousness of Western society.
So, really there are two options available. Either try and redo it, being as true to the original as possible... which is going to be - at best, hard - or just strike out in a new direction and thus, more or less invalidate the reason for using the characters again... except if you say "this will have Kirk in it!" you can guarantee that slavering fanboys will turn out just to see that - even if they have gone "BUT IT'S NOT SHATNER" for eighteen months solid.
Not to mention the issue of the set... will things be recreated verbatim from the 1960s show? Or will we have that perverse situation of things looking more hi-tech, despite it being set before the first show of the TV series? Enterprise still looked helluva better than TOS ever did... and there's also the most pertinent question for Trek fans...
Where will this put any potential TV show? Presumably, if the film is a success - and it could go either way - it will be an incentive for either further films or continuation of the television franchise... Given the likelihood that the film will have big name actors - its seems hard to imagine a TV show containing the same cast...
All in all, this selection of premise is poor - not as bad as the uber prequel idea - and if it's thrusting big name actors into the well established roles, it's going to take a feat of supremely good writing, acting and directing to make this film come close to being a fan pleaser. Of course, the proles are who will doubtless be targeted for the commercial success of the film because, even if there is a loyal Trek following, willing to see the film several times to make it "succeed" they pale to the demographics of the many. So, don't be too surprised if you get Matt Damon or similar hamming it up in a summer popcorn movie because this could be another great step back for Star Trek... and of course, if the film doesn't break even or just scrapes it - Star Trek might well not get parole from purgatory.
Of course, this was to be expected. When a director/producer is given what is generally considered to be a beloved franchise, the last thing you ever want to hear out of their mouth is the confession that they're a "big fan" or "have a lot of respect for the films". This is code for either "never seen it" or "don't care", or most likely something that amounts to the fact that their vision must be paramount above all other considerations. Continuity, fans and logic are not considerations when it comes to this vision.
While it's easy to see why Abrahms wants to go back to Kirk et al - he's got no idea what to do, they're still probably the best known Trek characters, it lets him put in younger, edgier actors like MATT DAMON - it seems to be ill conceived. If a prequel didn't work before, it seems naive to think a prequel/remake combined is going to fair any better. Not just that but you're messing around with characters that are very much identified with specific actors. Shatner's OTT hamming up, Nimoy's indifference, DeForrest Kelly the drunk... Scotty the fat bastard - these are all images that are well engrained upon the collective consciousness of Western society.
So, really there are two options available. Either try and redo it, being as true to the original as possible... which is going to be - at best, hard - or just strike out in a new direction and thus, more or less invalidate the reason for using the characters again... except if you say "this will have Kirk in it!" you can guarantee that slavering fanboys will turn out just to see that - even if they have gone "BUT IT'S NOT SHATNER" for eighteen months solid.
Not to mention the issue of the set... will things be recreated verbatim from the 1960s show? Or will we have that perverse situation of things looking more hi-tech, despite it being set before the first show of the TV series? Enterprise still looked helluva better than TOS ever did... and there's also the most pertinent question for Trek fans...
Where will this put any potential TV show? Presumably, if the film is a success - and it could go either way - it will be an incentive for either further films or continuation of the television franchise... Given the likelihood that the film will have big name actors - its seems hard to imagine a TV show containing the same cast...
All in all, this selection of premise is poor - not as bad as the uber prequel idea - and if it's thrusting big name actors into the well established roles, it's going to take a feat of supremely good writing, acting and directing to make this film come close to being a fan pleaser. Of course, the proles are who will doubtless be targeted for the commercial success of the film because, even if there is a loyal Trek following, willing to see the film several times to make it "succeed" they pale to the demographics of the many. So, don't be too surprised if you get Matt Damon or similar hamming it up in a summer popcorn movie because this could be another great step back for Star Trek... and of course, if the film doesn't break even or just scrapes it - Star Trek might well not get parole from purgatory.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)