I am overjoyed that I live in a world where I will be able to share new episodes of Thundercats with my twin daughters.
Showing posts with label Television. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Television. Show all posts
Monday, April 04, 2011
Monday, March 21, 2011
What Should a Television Wonder Woman Look Like?
With the news that David E. Kelley is planning a new Wonder Woman series for NBC, and the fact that the internet geek subculture is abuzz with chatter about the first look of the costume in this series, it seems time to ask just what exactly the costume should look like in a weekly television program.
A generation of television viewers grew up with the Silver Age comic book inspired costume worn by Lynda Carter. If those same viewers are honest with themselves, they'll admit that while Lynda Carter looks fantastic -- the outfit itself is a tad campy. It adheres honestly to the Silver Age costume, it isn't intentionally overly campy, but its mere adherence to the comic book imagery means that Lynda Carter looks good, but she doesn't look like she can "kick ass." The focus on the outfit is on the "Princess" and not on the "Power" to borrow a few terms from Marvel's analogue to Wonder Woman.
This points to what I think should be the central component of the equation. Whatever costume Wonder Woman wears, sexploitation or classy fashionable, it should look like the woman in the suit is a Warrior -- a badass Amazonian combat machine from a warrior culture who has come to fight injustice!
There are certain elements of the Adrianne Palicki that seem to be aimed at increasing how "asskicking" David Kelley's new Wonder Woman looks. Wonder Woman's "bracelets" have been transformed into more proper bracers, and her "Golden Lasso" looks like it can serve as more than mere window dressing. But there is something incongruous about the outfit. Its glossy neoprene look makes it look more like a cosplay outfit than proper fighting gear. My good friend Bill Cunningham describes his frustration with the outfit in the following way:
His contention -- in stronger language than I am using -- is that by ignoring the "mythic" origins of Wonder Woman, the producers are limiting the narrative and visual power of the character. He would have us not forget that the character's origins are in the Greek legends of the Amazon warriors who fought alongside/against the greatest of the Greek heroes. They were a force with which to be reckoned. This glossy new outfit manages to simultaneously make Adrianne Palicki look less sexy than normal, and like she is completely lacking in physical prowess.
But how would one create a costume that harnessed classical mythology to create a costume that looks both appealing and functional. It seems that the internet has already provided an answer, back when Joss Whedon was thinking about making a WW movie.
Notice how the image, which uses photoshop to present a "Cobie Smulders as Wonder Woman" depiction, has bracers, greaves, and pteruges that all add to a sense that the person wearing them is actually a combatant and that the suit is for more than show. It still manages to adhere to the comic book depictions, but also manages to avoid camp. It bears some small resemblance to the Amazon Warrior depictions by George Perez during the "War of the Gods" storyline in the 80s.
Even if one wanted to do a more "modern" Wonder Woman character design, one could still look at older comic book designs for the character -- rather than the recent Jim Lee costume that the Kelley production seems to be using as its starting point. In the late 60s, Wonder Woman abandoned her traditional costume entirely and transformed from a "bathing suit" wearing character into one whose style more resembled the classic Diana Rigg character Emma Peel -- who was both sexy and looked like she could kick ass (if only The Avengers had legitimate martial arts choreography how magnificent the show would have been).
In this case television popular culture helped to shape the comic book representation of the character. The Wonder Woman of that era lost her "mythic" appeal, but she still had an espionage lethality appeal.
I'm not advocating that Kelley adopt the Diana Rigg version of the character, but I am wondering if he and the audience would be better served by his production looking beyond modern comics -- and the much criticized Jim Lee costume for the character -- for inspiration. I point out the Diana Rigg influenced Wonder Woman only to say that one can create images of powerful women that become so ingrained in popular culture that the comics themselves adopt the newer image. David Kelley has a chance to redefine Wonder Woman as a powerful woman of the 21st century. I'd like to see him do that and television is the perfect medium for him to achieve that goal. Kelley is a talented show creator and I have hopes for what he will be able to do with this character.
Let's home that the leaked costume gets changed soon.
A generation of television viewers grew up with the Silver Age comic book inspired costume worn by Lynda Carter. If those same viewers are honest with themselves, they'll admit that while Lynda Carter looks fantastic -- the outfit itself is a tad campy. It adheres honestly to the Silver Age costume, it isn't intentionally overly campy, but its mere adherence to the comic book imagery means that Lynda Carter looks good, but she doesn't look like she can "kick ass." The focus on the outfit is on the "Princess" and not on the "Power" to borrow a few terms from Marvel's analogue to Wonder Woman.
This points to what I think should be the central component of the equation. Whatever costume Wonder Woman wears, sexploitation or classy fashionable, it should look like the woman in the suit is a Warrior -- a badass Amazonian combat machine from a warrior culture who has come to fight injustice!
There are certain elements of the Adrianne Palicki that seem to be aimed at increasing how "asskicking" David Kelley's new Wonder Woman looks. Wonder Woman's "bracelets" have been transformed into more proper bracers, and her "Golden Lasso" looks like it can serve as more than mere window dressing. But there is something incongruous about the outfit. Its glossy neoprene look makes it look more like a cosplay outfit than proper fighting gear. My good friend Bill Cunningham describes his frustration with the outfit in the following way:
I often think that it's a matter of people thinking they must make something more" important" or "sophisticated with a message" when often it's a matter of keeping it si...mple and pure and allowing the drama to come out of that. case in point: Buffy. Simple concept (girl slays vampires) that opened up the whole metaphor about "growing up."
I made my cosplay joke because that's how these TV guys seem to see Wonder Woman. It's sickening because when you look at WW and what legends and myths and strengths she represents (not only to women, but to men) then you see the possibilities of what sort of stories you can tell.
But you can't do that when your lead is dressed in rubber and has scarlet lipstick on that matches her bustier. Then she's reduced to NERD STRIPPER or even more appalling, WHORE CLOWN.
Again, the character and the actress deserve better.
His contention -- in stronger language than I am using -- is that by ignoring the "mythic" origins of Wonder Woman, the producers are limiting the narrative and visual power of the character. He would have us not forget that the character's origins are in the Greek legends of the Amazon warriors who fought alongside/against the greatest of the Greek heroes. They were a force with which to be reckoned. This glossy new outfit manages to simultaneously make Adrianne Palicki look less sexy than normal, and like she is completely lacking in physical prowess.
But how would one create a costume that harnessed classical mythology to create a costume that looks both appealing and functional. It seems that the internet has already provided an answer, back when Joss Whedon was thinking about making a WW movie.
Notice how the image, which uses photoshop to present a "Cobie Smulders as Wonder Woman" depiction, has bracers, greaves, and pteruges that all add to a sense that the person wearing them is actually a combatant and that the suit is for more than show. It still manages to adhere to the comic book depictions, but also manages to avoid camp. It bears some small resemblance to the Amazon Warrior depictions by George Perez during the "War of the Gods" storyline in the 80s.
Even if one wanted to do a more "modern" Wonder Woman character design, one could still look at older comic book designs for the character -- rather than the recent Jim Lee costume that the Kelley production seems to be using as its starting point. In the late 60s, Wonder Woman abandoned her traditional costume entirely and transformed from a "bathing suit" wearing character into one whose style more resembled the classic Diana Rigg character Emma Peel -- who was both sexy and looked like she could kick ass (if only The Avengers had legitimate martial arts choreography how magnificent the show would have been).
In this case television popular culture helped to shape the comic book representation of the character. The Wonder Woman of that era lost her "mythic" appeal, but she still had an espionage lethality appeal.
I'm not advocating that Kelley adopt the Diana Rigg version of the character, but I am wondering if he and the audience would be better served by his production looking beyond modern comics -- and the much criticized Jim Lee costume for the character -- for inspiration. I point out the Diana Rigg influenced Wonder Woman only to say that one can create images of powerful women that become so ingrained in popular culture that the comics themselves adopt the newer image. David Kelley has a chance to redefine Wonder Woman as a powerful woman of the 21st century. I'd like to see him do that and television is the perfect medium for him to achieve that goal. Kelley is a talented show creator and I have hopes for what he will be able to do with this character.
Let's home that the leaked costume gets changed soon.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Nostalgia and Self-Loathing -- "Legends of the Superheroes"
It is the curse of Generation X. In our youth, we experienced some of the best pop culture entertainment ever produced. We grew up watching The Six Million Dollar Man, Starsky and Hutch (you can really tell the Michael Man Episodes), Kolchak the Night Stalker and reading Watchmen, The Killing Joke, Tim Truman's Scout, and the Giffen/Maguire/DeMatteis Justice League, Star Wars, The Terminator, and Tron.
We also had to endure the legacy of the ultra-camp "too hip to like pop culture" mentality of many Boomers. Case it point is the "Legends of the Superheroes" television special. Gen X kids loved the Super Friends cartoon, especially when the show added the Wonder Twins, so we eagerly begged our parents to let us watch the "Legends of the Superheroes" special when it aired.
After all, what could be better than a live action version of our favorite show?
Apparently, a kick in the face would have been better. The show was campy and awful, and the follow-up roast was a mockery of everything the kids loved about shows like Super Friends.
And yet...I still have this compulsion to buy and watch the special and relive the hopes that I had for the show, even as I re-experience the nightmare of its reality.
There must be some connection between nostalgia and self-loathing.
We also had to endure the legacy of the ultra-camp "too hip to like pop culture" mentality of many Boomers. Case it point is the "Legends of the Superheroes" television special. Gen X kids loved the Super Friends cartoon, especially when the show added the Wonder Twins, so we eagerly begged our parents to let us watch the "Legends of the Superheroes" special when it aired.
After all, what could be better than a live action version of our favorite show?
Apparently, a kick in the face would have been better. The show was campy and awful, and the follow-up roast was a mockery of everything the kids loved about shows like Super Friends.
LEGENDS OF THE SUPERHEROES - watch more funny videos
And yet...I still have this compulsion to buy and watch the special and relive the hopes that I had for the show, even as I re-experience the nightmare of its reality.
There must be some connection between nostalgia and self-loathing.
Friday, February 04, 2011
Hulu Recommendation Friday -- Community: Advanced Dungeons and Dragons
After a long hiatus, here is the much deserved return of Hulu Recommendation Friday. This week's offering is very near and dear to my heart. I have thoroughly enjoyed the NBC sit com "Community" from its pilot episode, but now that it has fused itself with another of my loves the show has my undying loyalty. If NBC execs try to cancel the show...I'll have them performing Otto's Irresistible Dance.
Gamers...
Note the fusion of new school (Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms) with old school (Queen of the Demonweb Pits, Unearthed Arcana, The Dungeon Master's Guide) in the products featured.
To those of us who saw "Role Models," it's no surprise that Ken Jeong knocks the ball out of the park in this episode.
Gamers...
Note the fusion of new school (Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms) with old school (Queen of the Demonweb Pits, Unearthed Arcana, The Dungeon Master's Guide) in the products featured.
To those of us who saw "Role Models," it's no surprise that Ken Jeong knocks the ball out of the park in this episode.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Avengers Earth's Mightiest Heroes vs. Iron Man Animated Adventures
My daughters adore the Nicktoons series Iron Man: Animated Adventures. In fact, one of my daughters' favorite games is for me to "fly" her around the house while she wears "Tony's Suit" and becomes "Iron-Keyo!" The show is witty and has excellent and engaging animation.
Next month Marvel Comics is releasing their new Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes series. The new show has many of the same writers as the Nicktoons show, and some excellent voice actors, but if the animation matches the style in the "Micro Episodes," the show will leave a lot to be desired from a visual comparison.
Next month Marvel Comics is releasing their new Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes series. The new show has many of the same writers as the Nicktoons show, and some excellent voice actors, but if the animation matches the style in the "Micro Episodes," the show will leave a lot to be desired from a visual comparison.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Hulu Recommendation Friday -- Raising Hope
What are your thoughts about the new sitcom Raising Hope? I enjoyed it, but I'm wondering just how long they can maintain the raw humor before they slip into the land of the routine.
Any sitcom that features a scene of a father covering his baby's eyes as the baby's mother is being electrocuted for murder is showing a nice audacity, but I hope they can keep it up.
So far I've really enjoyed the performances of Cloris Leachman, Garret Dillahunt, Martha Plimpton, and Shannon Woodward.
Any sitcom that features a scene of a father covering his baby's eyes as the baby's mother is being electrocuted for murder is showing a nice audacity, but I hope they can keep it up.
So far I've really enjoyed the performances of Cloris Leachman, Garret Dillahunt, Martha Plimpton, and Shannon Woodward.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
The CW's Nikita is Stylish, Sexy, and Soulless
When considering how to approach the CW's new action television series Nikita, I reminded myself of a couple of my core rules to follow when reviewing works of entertainment. In this case, I wanted to make sure that I followed rules #2 and #7. I find that having certain principles of review ensures that a review is as fair as possible to those who made the effort to produce an entertaining product. Making an entertainment product requires a lot of work, and those working on the products do so because they want to entertain the public.
So what are rules #2 and #7 and what are some examples of them in application?
An intellectual property that perfectly exemplifies the importance of rule #2 is Frank Herbert's Dune series of books. If one were to compare David Lynch's version of Dune to the novel one would find numerous differences and omissions, but that would be a disservice to Lynch's brilliance in the film. Lynch's Dune isn't a translation of the novel adapted to the big screen. Instead, it is a story inspired by the book that attempts to tell a similar story through a different medium. It approaches the central conflicts of Herbert's SF masterpiece and builds a film narrative structure around it. It also uses the strengths of the different medium to add new levels of spectacle to the property. One should judge Lynch's work apart from Herbert's because it departs widely from the original property.
The several Syfy series based on Dune, which claim to be "faithful" adaptations, should be scrutinized heavily due to their claims of fidelity. In fact, the failure to live up to the claims of fidelity -- followed by the invention of lame filler narrative -- is one of the chief flaws of the Syfy versions of Dune. The others are low production values and poorly choreographed melee combat (inexcusable in the post HK New Wave era).
Pilot episodes are often clumsy and the actors frequently have yet to build the chemistry that will make a series worth watching week after week. If one were to look only at Star Trek's original pilot, one would wonder how the show ever got picked up by a network in the first place. The concept is solid, but the execution is awkward -- something I often call "pilotitis." Additionally, the first episode shown may not even be the first episode "narratively." When Fox released Firefly, they showed a middle episode as the pilot and viewers where left without any context for the "universe" they were experiencing. As any Browncoat can tell you, this was a shame because viewers missed out on what ended up being a great ride.
I waited to review CW's Nikita for these very reasons. First, I had to judge just how closely they were associating the property with the original Luc Besson film, then I wanted to see if the show's quality improved or declined in the second (and eventually subsequent) episode.
From the advertising posters to the opening scene of the pilot episode, it is clear that Craig Silverstein and crew are making deep associations with the original film. Both posters show Nikita in a similar pose, and both properties begin with the robbery of a drug store for pharmaceuticals. This association continues in the second episode when Nikita's protege Alex is given "two weeks to improve" before the Division decides to "eliminate" her, the identical raising of stakes Nikita faced in the film.
It should be noted that the new Nikita isn't attempting to be a remake by any means, rather it is striving to be a sequel. It is a "what happened next" story that is using the original as a jumping board. This would typically make it a heavy candidate for rule #2 suspension of disbelief, except for the numerous overt parallels between this series and the original. Since it isn't a direct remake the show doesn't deserve "strict scrutiny," but it does deserve "close scrutiny" because it keeps reminding me of its relation to the original property.
So how is CW's Nikita in light of this level of comparison, and how is it in its own right?
Maggie Q is sexy and powerful in her portrayal of an expert assassin who seeks revenge against the organization that did her wrong, but she's too sexy and too competent. Anne Parillaud was vulnerable and sympathetic. She was a fish out of water, who we cared for in spite of the terrible things she does in the first scene of the film. It's easy to like Maggie Q, but it isn't easy to empathize with her. She's too glossy, too strong, too competent -- except when she inexplicably isn't.
The closest parallel to Parillaud's Nikita is Lyndsy Fonseca's Alex character. Fonseca's performance often demonstrates the vulnerability and humanity of the Parillaud version, but these moments are undermined when the show's "twist" is revealed. Alex suddenly becomes less vulnerable and become an instrument of revenge -- losing some of her humanity in the process.
Allow me to elaborate.
Besson's Nikita opens with an amazing image. Four drug addled youths are walking brazenly through the late night streets of Paris. One of these addicts is carrying an axe and dragging a body behind him. It's a disturbing image that plays off of the classic heroic introduction in The Right Stuff with an ironic twist. These young people are attempting to break into a drug store to get a fix, and as it turns out the drug store is owned and operated by the father of one of the youths. There is a touching scene where a father recognizes his child, and is saddened and horrified by what he sees. The tension and sorrow are palpable. Eventually, it almost seems as if everything is going to turn out okay and deescalate when the police arrive and the scene explodes in gun fire. The first two casualties are the father and son, then all of the youth save Nikita who had been curled up under a desk suffering from withdrawal symptoms. A policeman sees this young woman, attempts to gently help her out of the store and is coldly murdered by her. Her addiction has eliminated her humanity. The rest of the film is about -- among other things -- her rediscovering her humanity.
It is a sad story that constantly keeps the audience worried about the protagonist. We forgive her murders because we see her desperation and vulnerability. Besson makes us care about the killer from the first two minutes.
One of the perfect demonstrations of this vulnerability is expressed in the movie poster.
While Nikita is dressed in a sexually appealing outfit, high heels and all, what immediately registers with the viewer is fear and vulnerability. She is in a near fetal position. She is gripping the gun with two hands, and her eyes gaze worriedly off camera at some unseen threat. The viewer is interested in the character because the viewer is worried about her safety and we wonder what it is that she is looking off camera for. Who or what is just off the screen?
In contrast, the new Nikita opens in media res with a robbery of a drug store taking place in mid-action. The robbers are both wearing masks -- one bunny and one pig -- dehumanizing the criminals from moment one. Our first view of Alex, and we later discover Nikita, is as inhuman mask wearing figures. This sharply lessens our ability to empathize with them as vulnerable characters. The bunny mask is captured after the pig mask murders someone on site. The "innocent" bunny is unmasked and we first see the face of Alex, who will be our Alice in the rabbit hole that is Division. Where Besson knew that he could get us to sympathize with a murderer Silverstein makes sure that the new recruit is seen to be "in the wrong place at the wrong time" and doesn't trust the audience can be empathetic. We meet Alex, the "next" Nikita in this scene.
Then we are introduced to Nikita herself, the stylish and sexy Maggie Q. Through voice over and flashback we are given her back story and informed that she intends to get revenge against Division for them killing the man she loved. This is all presented pro forma, its just enough to set up the situation but lacks any emotional weight.
As the story unfolds we are introduced to Michael (Shane West), the "Bob" (Tchéky Karyo), of the series. West's performance isn't as subtle as Karyo's, but it is strong and gets better as the show progresses and his character is given more dramatic conflicts to resolve. Michael and Alex, along with Amanda (Melinda Clarke), are very compelling components in the show. They have a "realism" that is lacking in the almost superhuman confidence of the Maggie Q Nikita. Though the Michael/Alex relationship once more highlights the lack of heart in the television series.
In a scene that parallel's the movie, Michael informs Alex that she has two weeks to improve in training or she will be eliminated. This scene comes after Michael has saved Alex's life -- nominally -- and Michael notifies Alex just as she is about to thank him. It is a scene that works well as Michael is simultaneously asserting that he will not allow himself to become personally involved with a trainee (again), but that he does feel vulnerable in Alex's presence. The scene is good, but is shallow when contrasted to a similar scene in Besson's film.
In the film, Nikita has been acting out upon being forbidden from leaving the training facility. She has frightened the techie, bitten the ear off the judo instructor, danced in celebration of biting off the ear, and painted graffiti all over her room. "Bob" has been notified that she has two weeks to improve or Division will kill her. He enters her room with a birthday cake and a gift -- a poster of Degas' The Star.
He cuts her a piece of cake -- with a switchblade -- and tells her that she is only excelling in painting and dance. He is referring to the graffiti and the dance of humiliation she did earlier, which are demonstrations of her individuality and humanity that he appreciates. The Degas painting's portrayal of dance and the individual amplifies this association. He gives her a brief moment of celebration and kindness, and then drops the bomb that she has only two weeks to live if she doesn't improve. It is a powerful scene. It has a weight entirely lacking in television show.
Throughout the first two episodes Nikita attempts to undermine the actions of Division, but she soon discovers that not all who oppose Division are her allies. Maggie Q's Nikita is continually shown as powerful, competent, and sexy -- with one moment of almost farcical incompetence in the second episode in a "sniper" scene. Since the show is using Alex as the proxy "film Nikita," Maggie Q's Nikita is almost the direct opposite of Parillaud's. A quick cheat for what I am referring to is the marketing poster for the new series. Look at how it parallels and differs from the original film poster.
Here Nikita is holding two guns, one in each hand, and has a spare sub-machine gun at her feet. She is lounging sensually in a chair holding her pistol with one hand and looking at the viewer with confidence and authority. The background is sharp and red, as opposed to foggy and blue. This is the image of a ruthless and attractive killer and not a vulnerable and sympathetic fish out of water. If it weren't for the way that the poster, and show, reference the original as they simultaneously reject it, I wouldn't make note of it. But the fact is that they are constantly referencing the original, and not in an "easter egg" manner.
I have thought long and hard about why the show would both reference the original and then advertise its rejection of the template and the only reason I can come up with is Dollhouse. This version of Nikita is as much a response to Dollhouse as it is to Besson's Nikita. The new show's glossy style and sensuality is reminiscent of Dollhouse, while the story structure is reminiscent of Nikita.
It's almost as if this Nikita is saying, "this is what Dollhouse could have been."
As critical as I am of the lack of emotional weight of Nikita so far, I have to say that I am impressed with their twist. I am impressed enough to watch the show for a few more episodes to see where they go.
At the end of the pilot, we discover that Nikita was the pig in the opening scene and that Alex is being used as her "mole" inside Division to help her destroy it from the inside. It is a nice twist and one that I wasn't expecting.
The show has some interesting moments, but it's going to have to acquire some "heart" if it wants to retain me as a viewer. It can either do this by giving me empathetically dramatic stakes, or by adding humor. I don't care which one they do, but they have to make the show stand apart from its origins.
So what are rules #2 and #7 and what are some examples of them in application?
Rule #2 -- When reviewing a property that has been translated from one medium to another, it is only fair to compare the property to the source material as far as the property relates itself to the original.
An intellectual property that perfectly exemplifies the importance of rule #2 is Frank Herbert's Dune series of books. If one were to compare David Lynch's version of Dune to the novel one would find numerous differences and omissions, but that would be a disservice to Lynch's brilliance in the film. Lynch's Dune isn't a translation of the novel adapted to the big screen. Instead, it is a story inspired by the book that attempts to tell a similar story through a different medium. It approaches the central conflicts of Herbert's SF masterpiece and builds a film narrative structure around it. It also uses the strengths of the different medium to add new levels of spectacle to the property. One should judge Lynch's work apart from Herbert's because it departs widely from the original property.
The several Syfy series based on Dune, which claim to be "faithful" adaptations, should be scrutinized heavily due to their claims of fidelity. In fact, the failure to live up to the claims of fidelity -- followed by the invention of lame filler narrative -- is one of the chief flaws of the Syfy versions of Dune. The others are low production values and poorly choreographed melee combat (inexcusable in the post HK New Wave era).
Rule #7 -- Never judge a new television show purely upon its pilot episode.
Pilot episodes are often clumsy and the actors frequently have yet to build the chemistry that will make a series worth watching week after week. If one were to look only at Star Trek's original pilot, one would wonder how the show ever got picked up by a network in the first place. The concept is solid, but the execution is awkward -- something I often call "pilotitis." Additionally, the first episode shown may not even be the first episode "narratively." When Fox released Firefly, they showed a middle episode as the pilot and viewers where left without any context for the "universe" they were experiencing. As any Browncoat can tell you, this was a shame because viewers missed out on what ended up being a great ride.
I waited to review CW's Nikita for these very reasons. First, I had to judge just how closely they were associating the property with the original Luc Besson film, then I wanted to see if the show's quality improved or declined in the second (and eventually subsequent) episode.
From the advertising posters to the opening scene of the pilot episode, it is clear that Craig Silverstein and crew are making deep associations with the original film. Both posters show Nikita in a similar pose, and both properties begin with the robbery of a drug store for pharmaceuticals. This association continues in the second episode when Nikita's protege Alex is given "two weeks to improve" before the Division decides to "eliminate" her, the identical raising of stakes Nikita faced in the film.
It should be noted that the new Nikita isn't attempting to be a remake by any means, rather it is striving to be a sequel. It is a "what happened next" story that is using the original as a jumping board. This would typically make it a heavy candidate for rule #2 suspension of disbelief, except for the numerous overt parallels between this series and the original. Since it isn't a direct remake the show doesn't deserve "strict scrutiny," but it does deserve "close scrutiny" because it keeps reminding me of its relation to the original property.
So how is CW's Nikita in light of this level of comparison, and how is it in its own right?
Maggie Q is sexy and powerful in her portrayal of an expert assassin who seeks revenge against the organization that did her wrong, but she's too sexy and too competent. Anne Parillaud was vulnerable and sympathetic. She was a fish out of water, who we cared for in spite of the terrible things she does in the first scene of the film. It's easy to like Maggie Q, but it isn't easy to empathize with her. She's too glossy, too strong, too competent -- except when she inexplicably isn't.
The closest parallel to Parillaud's Nikita is Lyndsy Fonseca's Alex character. Fonseca's performance often demonstrates the vulnerability and humanity of the Parillaud version, but these moments are undermined when the show's "twist" is revealed. Alex suddenly becomes less vulnerable and become an instrument of revenge -- losing some of her humanity in the process.
Allow me to elaborate.
Besson's Nikita opens with an amazing image. Four drug addled youths are walking brazenly through the late night streets of Paris. One of these addicts is carrying an axe and dragging a body behind him. It's a disturbing image that plays off of the classic heroic introduction in The Right Stuff with an ironic twist. These young people are attempting to break into a drug store to get a fix, and as it turns out the drug store is owned and operated by the father of one of the youths. There is a touching scene where a father recognizes his child, and is saddened and horrified by what he sees. The tension and sorrow are palpable. Eventually, it almost seems as if everything is going to turn out okay and deescalate when the police arrive and the scene explodes in gun fire. The first two casualties are the father and son, then all of the youth save Nikita who had been curled up under a desk suffering from withdrawal symptoms. A policeman sees this young woman, attempts to gently help her out of the store and is coldly murdered by her. Her addiction has eliminated her humanity. The rest of the film is about -- among other things -- her rediscovering her humanity.
It is a sad story that constantly keeps the audience worried about the protagonist. We forgive her murders because we see her desperation and vulnerability. Besson makes us care about the killer from the first two minutes.
One of the perfect demonstrations of this vulnerability is expressed in the movie poster.
While Nikita is dressed in a sexually appealing outfit, high heels and all, what immediately registers with the viewer is fear and vulnerability. She is in a near fetal position. She is gripping the gun with two hands, and her eyes gaze worriedly off camera at some unseen threat. The viewer is interested in the character because the viewer is worried about her safety and we wonder what it is that she is looking off camera for. Who or what is just off the screen?
In contrast, the new Nikita opens in media res with a robbery of a drug store taking place in mid-action. The robbers are both wearing masks -- one bunny and one pig -- dehumanizing the criminals from moment one. Our first view of Alex, and we later discover Nikita, is as inhuman mask wearing figures. This sharply lessens our ability to empathize with them as vulnerable characters. The bunny mask is captured after the pig mask murders someone on site. The "innocent" bunny is unmasked and we first see the face of Alex, who will be our Alice in the rabbit hole that is Division. Where Besson knew that he could get us to sympathize with a murderer Silverstein makes sure that the new recruit is seen to be "in the wrong place at the wrong time" and doesn't trust the audience can be empathetic. We meet Alex, the "next" Nikita in this scene.
Then we are introduced to Nikita herself, the stylish and sexy Maggie Q. Through voice over and flashback we are given her back story and informed that she intends to get revenge against Division for them killing the man she loved. This is all presented pro forma, its just enough to set up the situation but lacks any emotional weight.
As the story unfolds we are introduced to Michael (Shane West), the "Bob" (Tchéky Karyo), of the series. West's performance isn't as subtle as Karyo's, but it is strong and gets better as the show progresses and his character is given more dramatic conflicts to resolve. Michael and Alex, along with Amanda (Melinda Clarke), are very compelling components in the show. They have a "realism" that is lacking in the almost superhuman confidence of the Maggie Q Nikita. Though the Michael/Alex relationship once more highlights the lack of heart in the television series.
In a scene that parallel's the movie, Michael informs Alex that she has two weeks to improve in training or she will be eliminated. This scene comes after Michael has saved Alex's life -- nominally -- and Michael notifies Alex just as she is about to thank him. It is a scene that works well as Michael is simultaneously asserting that he will not allow himself to become personally involved with a trainee (again), but that he does feel vulnerable in Alex's presence. The scene is good, but is shallow when contrasted to a similar scene in Besson's film.
In the film, Nikita has been acting out upon being forbidden from leaving the training facility. She has frightened the techie, bitten the ear off the judo instructor, danced in celebration of biting off the ear, and painted graffiti all over her room. "Bob" has been notified that she has two weeks to improve or Division will kill her. He enters her room with a birthday cake and a gift -- a poster of Degas' The Star.
He cuts her a piece of cake -- with a switchblade -- and tells her that she is only excelling in painting and dance. He is referring to the graffiti and the dance of humiliation she did earlier, which are demonstrations of her individuality and humanity that he appreciates. The Degas painting's portrayal of dance and the individual amplifies this association. He gives her a brief moment of celebration and kindness, and then drops the bomb that she has only two weeks to live if she doesn't improve. It is a powerful scene. It has a weight entirely lacking in television show.
Throughout the first two episodes Nikita attempts to undermine the actions of Division, but she soon discovers that not all who oppose Division are her allies. Maggie Q's Nikita is continually shown as powerful, competent, and sexy -- with one moment of almost farcical incompetence in the second episode in a "sniper" scene. Since the show is using Alex as the proxy "film Nikita," Maggie Q's Nikita is almost the direct opposite of Parillaud's. A quick cheat for what I am referring to is the marketing poster for the new series. Look at how it parallels and differs from the original film poster.
Here Nikita is holding two guns, one in each hand, and has a spare sub-machine gun at her feet. She is lounging sensually in a chair holding her pistol with one hand and looking at the viewer with confidence and authority. The background is sharp and red, as opposed to foggy and blue. This is the image of a ruthless and attractive killer and not a vulnerable and sympathetic fish out of water. If it weren't for the way that the poster, and show, reference the original as they simultaneously reject it, I wouldn't make note of it. But the fact is that they are constantly referencing the original, and not in an "easter egg" manner.
I have thought long and hard about why the show would both reference the original and then advertise its rejection of the template and the only reason I can come up with is Dollhouse. This version of Nikita is as much a response to Dollhouse as it is to Besson's Nikita. The new show's glossy style and sensuality is reminiscent of Dollhouse, while the story structure is reminiscent of Nikita.
It's almost as if this Nikita is saying, "this is what Dollhouse could have been."
As critical as I am of the lack of emotional weight of Nikita so far, I have to say that I am impressed with their twist. I am impressed enough to watch the show for a few more episodes to see where they go.
At the end of the pilot, we discover that Nikita was the pig in the opening scene and that Alex is being used as her "mole" inside Division to help her destroy it from the inside. It is a nice twist and one that I wasn't expecting.
The show has some interesting moments, but it's going to have to acquire some "heart" if it wants to retain me as a viewer. It can either do this by giving me empathetically dramatic stakes, or by adding humor. I don't care which one they do, but they have to make the show stand apart from its origins.
Thursday, September 09, 2010
I Recorded Hellcats to My DVR Because I Love Phineas and Ferb
As the father of identical twin daughters, who turn 2 1/2 this month, I have watched uncountable episodes of Phineas and Ferb. As a Gen X-er, I would have watched this brilliant show without the need of youthful encouragement, but my daughters absolutely adore "The Candace Show." My youngest daughter, by one minute, used to actually squeal with joy when the theme song played -- and my wife and I have heard the phrase "again!" in reference to The Candace Show more often than any other entertainment offering.
The show is fantastic in all the ways that a cartoon can and should be. It has all the humor of The Family Guy with none of the cynicism. And when it comes right down to it, I think my daughters have it right. The reason the show is so effective is the Candace character. Disney is really dropping the ball with regard to merchandising Candace. She is the character who gives the show heart and is an ideal "straight man" for much of the shows humor.
A perfect example of why the Candace character works, is the "Ducky MoMo, is My Friend" song that Candace (Ashley Tisdale) sings during the hilarious "Nerds of a Feather" episode. It has the right balance of comedy and pathos, just like the character.
So...that love of Candace led to me recording Hellcats on my DVR. I'll watch the show this weekend and let you know what I think.
Yes, I'm that guy. The guy who watches Real Housewives and Project Runway -- in addition to Top Gear.
Is it just me, or does Ashley Tisdale looks like Candace in this promo image?
The show is fantastic in all the ways that a cartoon can and should be. It has all the humor of The Family Guy with none of the cynicism. And when it comes right down to it, I think my daughters have it right. The reason the show is so effective is the Candace character. Disney is really dropping the ball with regard to merchandising Candace. She is the character who gives the show heart and is an ideal "straight man" for much of the shows humor.
A perfect example of why the Candace character works, is the "Ducky MoMo, is My Friend" song that Candace (Ashley Tisdale) sings during the hilarious "Nerds of a Feather" episode. It has the right balance of comedy and pathos, just like the character.
So...that love of Candace led to me recording Hellcats on my DVR. I'll watch the show this weekend and let you know what I think.
Yes, I'm that guy. The guy who watches Real Housewives and Project Runway -- in addition to Top Gear.
Is it just me, or does Ashley Tisdale looks like Candace in this promo image?
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
GOLD -- The Web Series that Does HALF Damage
If you want to see an excellent independent drama/comedy that focuses on Generation X geek culture, go watch FREE ENTERPRISE written by Robert Meyer Burnett and Mark A. Altman. The film combines a solidly humorous "turning 30" narrative with constant LOGAN'S RUN, STAR TREK, STAR WARS, and comic book references. If SWINGERS weren't already the geek's version of SWINGERS, then FREE ENTERPRISE would easily take that slot in film canon. Oh...and it has William Shatner as an actor named William Shatner who wants to make a musical version of JULIUS CAESAR with William Shatner performing all the speaking roles. The film is hilarious and on target.
GOLD, a web series created by David Nett, is an attempt to for gaming what FREE ENTERPRISE did for the rest of Generation X geek culture. That is to say that it attempts to create a compelling drama around the lives of a group of individuals how happen to be professional role playing gamers. Every work of fiction has its one "gimme," in the world of GOLD that gimme is that there is a role playing game league that has enough fans who wish to watch games being played that role playing is a professional sport. Other than that, the world is our world.
If I were of a mind to do it, I could make almost endless comparisons between GOLD the web series and FREE ENTERPRISE. One of GOLD'S co-protagonists is a tad whiny and fails to seize the initiative while wallowing in his own personal drama, like the character played by Eric McCormack in ENTERPRISE. Both have nightmare's related to their "drama." The other of GOLD'S co-protagonists sleeps around with people he has disdain for, and is the "cooler" of the co-protagonists. FREE ENTERPRISE'S Rafer Weigel character comes quickly to mind. But there are enough differences between the two that I believe that the similarities are coincidental, especially given the differences in the overall tone and narrative.
Some comparisons need to be made, because FREE ENTERPRISE did such a good job of translating geek culture to a wider audience, but not beat by beat comparisons.
I want to love GOLD. It is attempting, unlike most gamer web series, to present a serious drama series focused around the lives of gamers. Sometimes it succeeds, but most of the time it seems to suffer from what I call "pilotitis."
Pilotitis is when a show's pilot presents the viewer with an intriguing premise -- that is for the most part well done -- but that feels ragged around the edges. That describes GOLD to a T.
It's six 10-minute episodes equate roughly to an hour long drama pilot, and the overall story is interesting. The show isn't about gaming, it's about the people who play role playing games. This is where the show shines. The character interactions are believable and often compelling.
Where the show fails is in translating to its audience what exactly is going on in the narrative. If a viewer were to jump in at episode two without a knowledge of role playing games -- and without reading the background on the About tab of the GOLD website -- that viewer would feel lost to some extent. The episode narrative would be clear, but the season's narrative arc would be unclear.
Jon, one of the co-protagonists of GOLD, is in physical rehabilitation for some sort of injury sustained during a gaming competition. The cause of that injury isn't revealed until the 6th episode of the series. If one watches the prologue and episode one, without reading the website, one might come to believe that the accident happened in the kitchen when Jon was telling his soon to be wife he would still be a while at the game. That's not clear storytelling -- and that is what this show lacks.
It is often said, and rightfully, that stories need to be character driven. They also need to have a narrative that lets the audience see what is happening. An audience watching a visual medium needs to be shown and not told. They also need more than vague implications. They need to see the world at large and how it affects the characters.
Nett and crew get the characterizations right. They get the acting right most of the time, though it is agonizing to watch the acting injured moments. The characterizations are sometimes over the top, but that is appropriate to the genre. If only more of the characters were over the top. If only more of the narrative were over the top. If only there were more humor in the show.
Then the show would be great.
As it is, the show just hits my entertainment Armor Class. Given my desire to like shows in the genre, meaning that my gamer web series AC is lower than normal, I think that the show might struggle outside of the gaming community. It doesn't quite fill in enough information for the uninitiated and uses its website as too much of a crutch for filling in narrative elements that were not shown during the episodes.
For those who are gamers though, GOLD provides the first real attempt at a genuine dramatic entertainment featuring gamers as protagonists. This in and of itself is praiseworthy. The fact that it does a workmanlike job and presents compelling characters is icing on the cake.
If you're a gamer, I recommend watching GOLD and supporting its second season. If you aren't a gamer you should still watch it, but only after reading all of the background information on the website.
PEDANTRY ALERT: Rulebooks from quite a few different roleplaying games are used as props to represent the rules for the "in world" role playing game. Looking for these easter eggs can be a distraction, but they are proof that the creators are people who genuinely love games. Why else would Jon be picking up a copy of the Mayfair Games edition of CHILL? I don't even want to think about all of the licensing problems associated with the DM screens and wall posters in this series.
GOLD, a web series created by David Nett, is an attempt to for gaming what FREE ENTERPRISE did for the rest of Generation X geek culture. That is to say that it attempts to create a compelling drama around the lives of a group of individuals how happen to be professional role playing gamers. Every work of fiction has its one "gimme," in the world of GOLD that gimme is that there is a role playing game league that has enough fans who wish to watch games being played that role playing is a professional sport. Other than that, the world is our world.
If I were of a mind to do it, I could make almost endless comparisons between GOLD the web series and FREE ENTERPRISE. One of GOLD'S co-protagonists is a tad whiny and fails to seize the initiative while wallowing in his own personal drama, like the character played by Eric McCormack in ENTERPRISE. Both have nightmare's related to their "drama." The other of GOLD'S co-protagonists sleeps around with people he has disdain for, and is the "cooler" of the co-protagonists. FREE ENTERPRISE'S Rafer Weigel character comes quickly to mind. But there are enough differences between the two that I believe that the similarities are coincidental, especially given the differences in the overall tone and narrative.
Some comparisons need to be made, because FREE ENTERPRISE did such a good job of translating geek culture to a wider audience, but not beat by beat comparisons.
I want to love GOLD. It is attempting, unlike most gamer web series, to present a serious drama series focused around the lives of gamers. Sometimes it succeeds, but most of the time it seems to suffer from what I call "pilotitis."
Pilotitis is when a show's pilot presents the viewer with an intriguing premise -- that is for the most part well done -- but that feels ragged around the edges. That describes GOLD to a T.
It's six 10-minute episodes equate roughly to an hour long drama pilot, and the overall story is interesting. The show isn't about gaming, it's about the people who play role playing games. This is where the show shines. The character interactions are believable and often compelling.
Where the show fails is in translating to its audience what exactly is going on in the narrative. If a viewer were to jump in at episode two without a knowledge of role playing games -- and without reading the background on the About tab of the GOLD website -- that viewer would feel lost to some extent. The episode narrative would be clear, but the season's narrative arc would be unclear.
Jon, one of the co-protagonists of GOLD, is in physical rehabilitation for some sort of injury sustained during a gaming competition. The cause of that injury isn't revealed until the 6th episode of the series. If one watches the prologue and episode one, without reading the website, one might come to believe that the accident happened in the kitchen when Jon was telling his soon to be wife he would still be a while at the game. That's not clear storytelling -- and that is what this show lacks.
It is often said, and rightfully, that stories need to be character driven. They also need to have a narrative that lets the audience see what is happening. An audience watching a visual medium needs to be shown and not told. They also need more than vague implications. They need to see the world at large and how it affects the characters.
Nett and crew get the characterizations right. They get the acting right most of the time, though it is agonizing to watch the acting injured moments. The characterizations are sometimes over the top, but that is appropriate to the genre. If only more of the characters were over the top. If only more of the narrative were over the top. If only there were more humor in the show.
Then the show would be great.
As it is, the show just hits my entertainment Armor Class. Given my desire to like shows in the genre, meaning that my gamer web series AC is lower than normal, I think that the show might struggle outside of the gaming community. It doesn't quite fill in enough information for the uninitiated and uses its website as too much of a crutch for filling in narrative elements that were not shown during the episodes.
For those who are gamers though, GOLD provides the first real attempt at a genuine dramatic entertainment featuring gamers as protagonists. This in and of itself is praiseworthy. The fact that it does a workmanlike job and presents compelling characters is icing on the cake.
If you're a gamer, I recommend watching GOLD and supporting its second season. If you aren't a gamer you should still watch it, but only after reading all of the background information on the website.
PEDANTRY ALERT: Rulebooks from quite a few different roleplaying games are used as props to represent the rules for the "in world" role playing game. Looking for these easter eggs can be a distraction, but they are proof that the creators are people who genuinely love games. Why else would Jon be picking up a copy of the Mayfair Games edition of CHILL? I don't even want to think about all of the licensing problems associated with the DM screens and wall posters in this series.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Nuff Said: Shat My Dad Says
William Shatner...Nicole Sullivan...
I am almost bursting from the anticipation.
I am almost bursting from the anticipation.
Thursday, April 01, 2010
And Now for the Real AVATAR
From the looks of the second preview, the only problem with this adaptation of the excellent animated series Avatar: The Last Airbender is the casting.
Avatar: The Last Airbender is one of the best animated shows I have seen in quite some time, though Phineas and Ferb is on the list, and you can view some clips and a limited number of full episodes at the links below.
Avatar: The Last Airbender is one of the best animated shows I have seen in quite some time, though Phineas and Ferb is on the list, and you can view some clips and a limited number of full episodes at the links below.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Japanese Fanta Commericials are Awesome!
Since I have to study various Costing Systems for a mid-term this evening, today's post must be brief.
Thankfully, Japanese Fanta commercials are awesome!
I might just stat up a couple of the teachers for a Teenagers from Outer Space game in a future post. It might be interesting to begin a TFOS adventure at a Japanese school run by "Fanteachers."
Thankfully, Japanese Fanta commercials are awesome!
I might just stat up a couple of the teachers for a Teenagers from Outer Space game in a future post. It might be interesting to begin a TFOS adventure at a Japanese school run by "Fanteachers."
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
If You Could Play Casual Video Games on Demand Through Your TV, Would You?
According to Interactive TV Today, TAG Networks has been market testing a Video Game on Demand channel in cooperation with Oceanic Time Warner (the Hawaiian arm of Time Warner Cable). They launched the effort in 2008 and are now contemplating expanding the offering to other markets.
Owners of the current generation of console gaming systems can currently purchase games for download through their consoles, a system similar to traditional pay-per-view on demand sales, but it appears that TAG Networks system works more like Netflix on Demand, Stars on Demand, or USA on Demand. Your television remote control is your game system controller. ITVT reports, "TAG, which is ad-supported and available to all Oceanic Time Warner Cable's digital subscribers, allows viewers to use their remotes to play a range of casual games, including branded games such as "Bejeweled 2," "Tetris," "Diner Dash" and "Barney," and classic games such as Texas Hold'Em, Sudoku and Checkers. The channel, which also offers community features, including multiplayer gaming across households and high scores, is powered by a platform for which TAG Networks has filed nine patents to date."
Ad supported on demand gaming through your television sounds pretty interesting, and the offerings are good for the casual gamer )a large segment of the gaming population), but what about the console rpg player or real time strategy gamer?
There are a couple of games that look like they might appeal to the geek in me. In particular "Seven Seas" and "Mummy Maze." Both are casual games, but they share some aesthetic qualities with some games I have enjoyed in the past. "Seven Seas" looks a little like the classic "Sid Meier's Pirates" game and "Mummy Maze" shares some visual qualities with "Gauntlet" -- though it doesn't look like it shares many game play elements with that classic game. I hope that Game Table Online is looking at this channel and looking for ways to get their robust and deep game catalog into an interface like this. I would live to play Axis and Allies or Nuclear War while sitting at my couch.
Looking at the games a little more, and thinking about the possibility of further development in the social/community functionality offerings, a thought suddenly comes to me. While using a TV remote may not be the best way to play a real time strategy game, or an action rpg like Dragon Age, it might be a great way to play a turn based and game mastered role playing game.
When Wizards of the Coast launched the 4th Edition of Dungeons and Dragons, they heavily promoted something they called the "Virtual Game Table" which would allow people to run D&D games through via the internet. The DM would create a scenario using a scenario editing tool, and the players would interface with the dungeon through their individual computers. There are currently a few good remote gaming software packages available, so Wizards' offering would have had to have offered additional functionality and graphics capability that the current software lacks. This was one of the reasons the product failed, that and a fear that D&D 4e was trying to kill the actual table top experience (not a completely irrational fear in the gaming community).
I wonder if TAG Networks technology could be used to create an interactive household to household "television top" role playing game experience. I have friends that live across the country who I'd like to game with and gaming while sitting on the couch holding a TV remote would be more "comfortable" than sitting at my computer desk at the keyboard and mouse -- at least for me. Creating adventures might be a pain, but I think the play experience could be worth while. It also might be a way to introduce new gamers to the marketplace as the "social" interface might allow others to watch an ongoing game (say one that wasn't classified as private by the players).
It wouldn't replace the table top experience, anyone who has played face to face table top rpgs knows that they are a unique experience, but they might help expand the gaming hobby as a whole.
What do you think? Would you play casual games? Would you play rpgs? Other games?
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theory: Substance or Tin Foil Hats?
The number of Gen X-ers who have fond memories of the classic myth and conspiracy television show In Search Of are legion. Each episode, Leonard Nemoy would narrate an "investigation" into some popular myth, ancient legend, or conspiracy. Viewers would learn a lot about the myth as myth, but leave most episodes with little knowledge of the "truth" regarding any of the topics being studied.
The show presented the topic, but didn't engage with it critically -- only observationally. Episodes about UFOs would feature interviews with those who claimed to have seen UFOs, or who claimed to be abducted, but wouldn't usually present the skeptical view.
Years later, Gen X-ers were among the first to enjoy the mythbusting exploits of James Randi, the "Mythbusters," and Penn and Teller. These individual provided wonderful tonic for many of our modern superstitions and did society a service by promoting skeptical thinking. More than that, they also provided great entertainment.
Myths and conspiracies are topics which captivate the imagination, and like most people I love learning about new ones. While the mythbusters listed above spend a great deal of time testing and exposing myths, they don't spend a lot of time introducing us to new ones. That is work for other people.
Enter Jesse Ventura.
The Former Governor, Navy SEAL, and Professional Wrestler has a new show entitled CONSPIRACY THEORY debuting on truTV Wednesday, December 2nd at 10 p.m. (ET/PT). The show builds on Ventura's reputation as a rebel and combines his passion for conspiracy theories with his blunt and forceful personality.
Each episode, Ventura and his circle of intrepid investigators (images of Doc Savage and his crew are currently running through my mind) go out into the field to examine these claims and present their results to the viewing audience. truTV describes the show as follows, "They're on a mission to examine possible conspiracies surrounding secret societies, global warming, alleged 9/11 cover-ups, a research center in Alaska that could be a secret government weapon, and apocalyptic prophecies, to name a few."
The first episode, which airs tonight, investigates claims made about a remote joint Air Force and Naval research center in Alaska called HAARP (The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program). Throughout the episode various claims are made about HAARP. It is a secret weapon, it can control the weather and create earthquakes, it is a mind control device. Ventura and his team present each of these suppositions and interview individuals about the mystery of HAARP.
I think that this was an interesting, and odd, choice for a first episode. I had never heard of HAARP before the episode. This made me interested to learn more about it, but it also meant that it was curiosity with the new and not excitement that brought me to the episode.
Most of the investigation in this episode is less than engaging, that is until Ventura interviews Dr. Nick Begich. Dr. Begich is good television. He is the kind of guest that Penn and Teller's producers work hard to get on their show. The Begich section of the episode is so engaging, particularly after some of the earlier interviews, that I am having to hold myself back from writing more in order to avoid giving out spoilers.
CONSPIRACY THEORY's first episode introduced me to a conspiracy with which I was completely unfamiliar, and it did eventually manage to entertain, but it didn't do what I had most hoped for in a show of this type. Maybe it's because I live in a post-Randi world, but I expect shows like this to question the conspiracy. Ventura and crew didn't, they presented the conspiracy. Which is fun, but I want more.
In coming weeks, the show will feature episodes on the following topics:
The show presented the topic, but didn't engage with it critically -- only observationally. Episodes about UFOs would feature interviews with those who claimed to have seen UFOs, or who claimed to be abducted, but wouldn't usually present the skeptical view.
Years later, Gen X-ers were among the first to enjoy the mythbusting exploits of James Randi, the "Mythbusters," and Penn and Teller. These individual provided wonderful tonic for many of our modern superstitions and did society a service by promoting skeptical thinking. More than that, they also provided great entertainment.
Myths and conspiracies are topics which captivate the imagination, and like most people I love learning about new ones. While the mythbusters listed above spend a great deal of time testing and exposing myths, they don't spend a lot of time introducing us to new ones. That is work for other people.
Enter Jesse Ventura.
The Former Governor, Navy SEAL, and Professional Wrestler has a new show entitled CONSPIRACY THEORY debuting on truTV Wednesday, December 2nd at 10 p.m. (ET/PT). The show builds on Ventura's reputation as a rebel and combines his passion for conspiracy theories with his blunt and forceful personality.
Each episode, Ventura and his circle of intrepid investigators (images of Doc Savage and his crew are currently running through my mind) go out into the field to examine these claims and present their results to the viewing audience. truTV describes the show as follows, "They're on a mission to examine possible conspiracies surrounding secret societies, global warming, alleged 9/11 cover-ups, a research center in Alaska that could be a secret government weapon, and apocalyptic prophecies, to name a few."
The first episode, which airs tonight, investigates claims made about a remote joint Air Force and Naval research center in Alaska called HAARP (The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program). Throughout the episode various claims are made about HAARP. It is a secret weapon, it can control the weather and create earthquakes, it is a mind control device. Ventura and his team present each of these suppositions and interview individuals about the mystery of HAARP.
I think that this was an interesting, and odd, choice for a first episode. I had never heard of HAARP before the episode. This made me interested to learn more about it, but it also meant that it was curiosity with the new and not excitement that brought me to the episode.
Most of the investigation in this episode is less than engaging, that is until Ventura interviews Dr. Nick Begich. Dr. Begich is good television. He is the kind of guest that Penn and Teller's producers work hard to get on their show. The Begich section of the episode is so engaging, particularly after some of the earlier interviews, that I am having to hold myself back from writing more in order to avoid giving out spoilers.
CONSPIRACY THEORY's first episode introduced me to a conspiracy with which I was completely unfamiliar, and it did eventually manage to entertain, but it didn't do what I had most hoped for in a show of this type. Maybe it's because I live in a post-Randi world, but I expect shows like this to question the conspiracy. Ventura and crew didn't, they presented the conspiracy. Which is fun, but I want more.
In coming weeks, the show will feature episodes on the following topics:
- 9/11
- Global Warming
- Big Brother
- Secret Societies
- Manchurian Candidates
- Apocalypse 2012
Friday, November 27, 2009
Hulu Recommendation Friday -- The Best Chrismukkah Ever
In 2003, Jody and I were still pretty new to life in the Southland. We were also both very busy, especially Jody who was attending USC for Film School at the time. During mid-term week and finals week, she would pretty much spend the full week on campus. During these times, I would drive from our apartment in Crenshaw to the USC campus to spend breakfast with Jody and then I would head out to work and school out in Glendora and Claremont. Then at night, I would stop by the USC campus to eat dinner with Jody and return to our apartment to work on papers, read for class, or prep for my weekly D&D game while listening to the sounds of helicopters and police sirens.
2003 was also when The O.C. came on the air. I avoided the show like the plague for its first season. I had no interest in watching the 00's version of 90210 -- though I guess that job is now being done by 90210. It wasn't until the summer of 2004 that I began to watch the show. Jody had caught an episode from late in the season and it had piqued her interest by the sheer absurdity of the narrative. Eventually, we added the show to our Netflix queue and we've been hooked ever since.
Yes, the show was an evening teen soap, but its combination of geek references and self-referential style was just the thing to give Jody and me a few laugh. Doug Liman's direction of the first episode is magnificent, and we have been big fans of Josh Schwartz since we saw The Best Chrismukkah Ever episode. What red blooded male comic book collector hadn't wished that his girlfriend would dress up as Wonder Woman as a Christmas present? It was laugh out loud funny.
The first season, and the last season, of The O.C. are the best seasons of the show. They both maximize the elements that make the show worthwhile -- family, friends, and geek references. The show got lost in the middle somewhere as show runners took the show in less satisfying directions, but the show's finale is one of my favorite episodes of television.
Enjoy "The Best Chrismukkah Ever"
2003 was also when The O.C. came on the air. I avoided the show like the plague for its first season. I had no interest in watching the 00's version of 90210 -- though I guess that job is now being done by 90210. It wasn't until the summer of 2004 that I began to watch the show. Jody had caught an episode from late in the season and it had piqued her interest by the sheer absurdity of the narrative. Eventually, we added the show to our Netflix queue and we've been hooked ever since.
Yes, the show was an evening teen soap, but its combination of geek references and self-referential style was just the thing to give Jody and me a few laugh. Doug Liman's direction of the first episode is magnificent, and we have been big fans of Josh Schwartz since we saw The Best Chrismukkah Ever episode. What red blooded male comic book collector hadn't wished that his girlfriend would dress up as Wonder Woman as a Christmas present? It was laugh out loud funny.
The first season, and the last season, of The O.C. are the best seasons of the show. They both maximize the elements that make the show worthwhile -- family, friends, and geek references. The show got lost in the middle somewhere as show runners took the show in less satisfying directions, but the show's finale is one of my favorite episodes of television.
Enjoy "The Best Chrismukkah Ever"
Friday, October 30, 2009
Hulu Recommendation Friday: V -- The Series
With ABC running a remake of the classic V miniseries, I had no other choice than to have this week's Hulu recommendation be a V related one.
While there has been much talk lately regarding how SF and Fantasy have come to so dominate popular culture and the collective social conscience that we may now be entering into a "post-SF" era, it should be noted that film and television have been saturated with SF and Fantasy narratives since their beginnings. Even prior to the television and films that affected me as a young Gen X viewer, these media had entertained generations with fantastic SF/F. This earlier influence is what made growing up an SF/F fan in Generation X such a joy. There was an amazing abundance of quality sfnal material to watch when I was growing up, and it wouldn't have been there if not for how much earlier entertainment influenced those who created entertainment in the 70s and 80s.
Let's take a quick look at some of the entertainment offerings that Generation X was able to enjoy. On television, we had THE SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN and the BIONIC WOMAN, SUPERFRIENDS, JOHNNY QUEST, STAR BLAZERS, BUCK ROGERS IN THE 25th CENTURY, BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, SPACE 1999, SALVAGE, and V. In film, we had ALIEN, OUTLAND, STAR WARS, KRULL, THE LAST STARFIGHTER, EXCALIBUR, SUPERMAN, FLASH GORDON, and BLADE RUNNER. The lists above don't even scratch the surface of how much wonderful sfnal material was being produced as Generation X was growing up. Science Fiction and Fantasy films may have bigger budgets today, but they are no more ubiquitous today than they were in the 70s and 80s.
It is often jokingly remarked that the Golden Age of Science Fiction is 13 (or insert some other young age), as that is the time one can best enjoy the fantastic tale merely for the sake of its being fantastic. I'm not one who usually agrees with this statement, as I have yet to be disillusioned about the SF/F I read as a child. Most of what I enjoyed, I still enjoy. Most of what I missed that others tell me I should have read, but may not enjoy as much now that I am "a more mature reader," I have enjoyed. Sometimes, as was the case with the ending of SLAN, I find small quibbles with particular narrative devices or decisions, but for the most part I find that a good story remains a good story.
I remember V being a very good story. It was a wonderful reversal of the alien story told in films like THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL. We had aliens who were visiting our planet claiming to be peaceful, like in DAY. Unlike the humans in DAY, we believed them much to our eventual dismay. That one small difference made V more plausible to me than the high minded and hopeful narratives offered by movies like DAY.
The argument in DAY is, essentially, that if all the scientists can work together (because they understand the futility of war) then Earth can become a wonderful and peaceful place. Of course, if they cannot then the Earth will be destroyed, since apparently the Galactic Community believes in using violence preemptively to stop nuclear capable planets from attacking them. I very much enjoy DAY, but still have trouble with the "we have evolved beyond violence and if you don't..we'll destroy you" narrative. The short story is better with regard to this issue.
The argument in V is "beware of aliens bearing gifts." The aliens come to help us achieve peace and can end all the problems facing human society. One small thing, they really want to turn us into dinner. Given the messages that tyrants have used throughout history to attain power have been ones of "peace," "equality," and "progress." I found the story plausible. (I also found the narrative in ALIEN NATION extremely plausible, and more compelling than V as a "human" story.) The costumes the aliens wore, and the way they manipulated specific humans in order to get their "help," are fairly obvious references to Nazism.
I cannot wait to see what ABC is doing with the new V series on November 3. To get ready, I recommend watching the miniseries link above from google video and watching the spin-off series on Hulu. I've embedded the first episode of the followup series below. It isn't as solid as the miniseries, and I don't know how it will hold up as I'll be finding out over the weekend, but I have fond memories.
While there has been much talk lately regarding how SF and Fantasy have come to so dominate popular culture and the collective social conscience that we may now be entering into a "post-SF" era, it should be noted that film and television have been saturated with SF and Fantasy narratives since their beginnings. Even prior to the television and films that affected me as a young Gen X viewer, these media had entertained generations with fantastic SF/F. This earlier influence is what made growing up an SF/F fan in Generation X such a joy. There was an amazing abundance of quality sfnal material to watch when I was growing up, and it wouldn't have been there if not for how much earlier entertainment influenced those who created entertainment in the 70s and 80s.
Let's take a quick look at some of the entertainment offerings that Generation X was able to enjoy. On television, we had THE SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN and the BIONIC WOMAN, SUPERFRIENDS, JOHNNY QUEST, STAR BLAZERS, BUCK ROGERS IN THE 25th CENTURY, BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, SPACE 1999, SALVAGE, and V. In film, we had ALIEN, OUTLAND, STAR WARS, KRULL, THE LAST STARFIGHTER, EXCALIBUR, SUPERMAN, FLASH GORDON, and BLADE RUNNER. The lists above don't even scratch the surface of how much wonderful sfnal material was being produced as Generation X was growing up. Science Fiction and Fantasy films may have bigger budgets today, but they are no more ubiquitous today than they were in the 70s and 80s.
It is often jokingly remarked that the Golden Age of Science Fiction is 13 (or insert some other young age), as that is the time one can best enjoy the fantastic tale merely for the sake of its being fantastic. I'm not one who usually agrees with this statement, as I have yet to be disillusioned about the SF/F I read as a child. Most of what I enjoyed, I still enjoy. Most of what I missed that others tell me I should have read, but may not enjoy as much now that I am "a more mature reader," I have enjoyed. Sometimes, as was the case with the ending of SLAN, I find small quibbles with particular narrative devices or decisions, but for the most part I find that a good story remains a good story.
I remember V being a very good story. It was a wonderful reversal of the alien story told in films like THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL. We had aliens who were visiting our planet claiming to be peaceful, like in DAY. Unlike the humans in DAY, we believed them much to our eventual dismay. That one small difference made V more plausible to me than the high minded and hopeful narratives offered by movies like DAY.
The argument in DAY is, essentially, that if all the scientists can work together (because they understand the futility of war) then Earth can become a wonderful and peaceful place. Of course, if they cannot then the Earth will be destroyed, since apparently the Galactic Community believes in using violence preemptively to stop nuclear capable planets from attacking them. I very much enjoy DAY, but still have trouble with the "we have evolved beyond violence and if you don't..we'll destroy you" narrative. The short story is better with regard to this issue.
The argument in V is "beware of aliens bearing gifts." The aliens come to help us achieve peace and can end all the problems facing human society. One small thing, they really want to turn us into dinner. Given the messages that tyrants have used throughout history to attain power have been ones of "peace," "equality," and "progress." I found the story plausible. (I also found the narrative in ALIEN NATION extremely plausible, and more compelling than V as a "human" story.) The costumes the aliens wore, and the way they manipulated specific humans in order to get their "help," are fairly obvious references to Nazism.
I cannot wait to see what ABC is doing with the new V series on November 3. To get ready, I recommend watching the miniseries link above from google video and watching the spin-off series on Hulu. I've embedded the first episode of the followup series below. It isn't as solid as the miniseries, and I don't know how it will hold up as I'll be finding out over the weekend, but I have fond memories.
Friday, September 04, 2009
Hulu Recommendation Friday: Heavy Gear
In the spring of 1994, Dream Pod 9 released its popular Heavy Gear tactical miniatures game. The game featured a grim and gritty universe where giant humanoid shaped vehicles did battle on the battle scarred landscape of Nova Terra -- and throughout the galaxy. The game featured an easy to learn tactical game system that could be easily scaled to a companion role playing game, so players could use the same characters in both the rpg and the tactical miniatures game. The components were high quality, and the sourcebooks were -- and still are -- engaging.
Dream Pod 9, a company that started business as the creators of a licensed setting (Jovian Chronicles) for another company's role playing game (Mekton), emerged as a force of their own with the creation of Heavy Gear. Eventually, Dream Pod 9's Jovian Chronicles setting would be translated from the Mekton system into the DP9 in house Silhouette system. From small beginnings, the company became a gaming establishment whose product line diversified and whose IP became desirable commodities. Their Heavy Gear game has been licensed as video games and as an animated series. The company has also shown an ability to adapt to changing market forces and have released new editions of their game lines.
In 2001, Sony's 40 episode animated series based on the Heavy Gear IP was released worldwide -- though it seems that there was not much advertising in the American market for Heavy Gear gamers who might have wanted to watch the show. I know I certainly never saw any advertisements for the show, and I was actively looking.
The show had a similar animated style to Reboot, which should come as no surprise as both shows were produced by Canada's Mainframe Entertainment -- now Rainmaker Entertainment. Where the role playing and tactical Heavy Gear games featured a grim setting, the animated series toned down some of the darker elements and aimed a a younger audience. The gear battles at the beginning of the series take place in an arena in formalized, almost athletic, competitions. The show's tone was a far cry from the setting established in the games.
The original press release hints at what the initial concept for the show was intended to be. It appears that the initial concept was closer to the original IP than the end product. That release stated:
The animated series' storylines will focus on the soldiers who pilot the Heavy Gears combat machines, combining state-of-the-art storytelling with the fascination of heroic dogfighter pilots and the dynamics of Japanese mechanical warriors. It will also deliver a tremendously rich storyline that lies beneath the action of Heavy Gear: politics, love, religion and unexpected mysteries as well as unexpected enemies all play their part in the saga of Heavy Gear.
In the end, the show ended up focusing on a character named Marcus Steven Rover whose characterization is close to that of Luke Skywalker in the Star Wars films. Watch the opening episode with A New Hope in mind and you can see how being a Gear Pilot can be seen as analogous to going to the "Academy." The end product, as DP9's current site describes it is:
The Heavy Gear: the Animated Series followed the adventures of Marcus Steven Rover, a young Gear pilot just recruited into the Shadow Dragons, a special independent dueling squad of the Southern MILICIA. His team is pitted against the Vanguards of Justice, their counterparts from the Northern Guard. Both squads meet in a series of events and battles in the arena desert town of Trash City to determine who will take home the coveted Heavy Gear Championship cup and its associated glory. Major Alexander Wallis III, the leader of the Vanguards, will let his team do anything to secure a victory against the ragtag team of Southerners.
Gone are any mention of politics, love, or religion. All that remains is the quest for the cup and a battle against a team willing to cheat to win. As always, we are rooting for a "ragtag team" fighting against the odds.
Though the show abandoned a darker tone, which would have appealed more to the gamers who play the game, it is still an entertaining series. It just happens to be a series for a younger audience. One could look at it as a show you get your kids to watch to "prepare" them for shows like Robotech.
As always...click PLAY...then FULL SCREEN...and ENJOY.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Hulu Recommendation Friday: Journeyman
When NBC released Journeyman for the fall 2007 schedule, I was a bit skeptical. It was hard for me to imagine a "lost in time" television series without thinking of it as a derivative of either Quantum Leap or Time Tunnel.
The show's premise seemed similar enough. Dan Vasser is a time traveler who jumps from point in time to point in time without being able to control his destination. At each point in time Dan has to help some person from the past achieve his or her destiny. The lack of control regarding the destination in time the time traveler ends up at in each episode is a unifying factor for shows of this kind. As a narrative device -- it is also a feature of the Gen X cult time travel show Voyagers -- the "lost in time" trope allows for almost any story to be told. It frees writers in that it allows them to write episodic narratives, with little concern for continuity. Though in the end most of these shows have tended to create an internal continuity in order to maintain audience interest. There is almost nothing devoted fans to any entertainment medium enjoy than debating the "history" of a fictional property. Just look at fans of Sherlock Holmes and how they attempt to "solve" various narrative inconsistencies, or better yet listen to comic book fans deliberate on the various timelines of pre-Crisis DC Comics.
I really had very low expectations for Journeyman, as did most of America apparently since the show never really took off. This is too bad, because Journeyman ended up being one heck of a show and this was due to two key differences between it and past time travel television shows.
Where other shows added a continuity after the show had been running for a while, Journeyman begins with continuity as a main component of its narrative structure. Dan Vasser's jumps through time are all related in some way. Dan doesn't know how they are related, but it quickly becomes apparent that they are. Added to this that Dan's travels through time occur spontaneously. Dan is a journalist, not a scientist, and he just starts jumping through time without ever wanting to. Why Dan is traveling through time, who is responsible, and to what purpose are all a part of the initial mystery underlying the series.
Additionally, a major part of the show is devoted to Dan's modern day family relationships. One could even argue that the show is really about how a person who randomly jumps through time is able to maintain a normal life and keep his family together -- especially when they think he may or may not be insane/using drugs. Dan's family has some nice character conflicts built in and the show explores them in dramatic fashion. Given Journeyman's lack of success, one wonders how well The Time Traveler's Wife will do in theaters as it has a similar conflict.
Kevin McKidd does a good job as Dan Vasser. McKidd is the kind of actor I like to call "a worker." His filmography ranges from cult horror films and video games to "respectable" roles. Any actor who is willing to do voice work after getting a role on Grey's Anatomy deserves respect for his/her work ethic. The fact that McKidd is a very good actor is icing on the cake. Gretchen Egolf and Moon Bloodgood are both good as Dan's love interests -- present and past -- and Reed Diamond is great as the brother who knows all about Dan's dark side and suspects his brother may be relapsing into some nasty behavior patterns.
Journeyman was an enjoyable show that never quite found its audience.
As always, hit PLAY...then FULL SCREEN...and enjoy.
The show's premise seemed similar enough. Dan Vasser is a time traveler who jumps from point in time to point in time without being able to control his destination. At each point in time Dan has to help some person from the past achieve his or her destiny. The lack of control regarding the destination in time the time traveler ends up at in each episode is a unifying factor for shows of this kind. As a narrative device -- it is also a feature of the Gen X cult time travel show Voyagers -- the "lost in time" trope allows for almost any story to be told. It frees writers in that it allows them to write episodic narratives, with little concern for continuity. Though in the end most of these shows have tended to create an internal continuity in order to maintain audience interest. There is almost nothing devoted fans to any entertainment medium enjoy than debating the "history" of a fictional property. Just look at fans of Sherlock Holmes and how they attempt to "solve" various narrative inconsistencies, or better yet listen to comic book fans deliberate on the various timelines of pre-Crisis DC Comics.
I really had very low expectations for Journeyman, as did most of America apparently since the show never really took off. This is too bad, because Journeyman ended up being one heck of a show and this was due to two key differences between it and past time travel television shows.
Where other shows added a continuity after the show had been running for a while, Journeyman begins with continuity as a main component of its narrative structure. Dan Vasser's jumps through time are all related in some way. Dan doesn't know how they are related, but it quickly becomes apparent that they are. Added to this that Dan's travels through time occur spontaneously. Dan is a journalist, not a scientist, and he just starts jumping through time without ever wanting to. Why Dan is traveling through time, who is responsible, and to what purpose are all a part of the initial mystery underlying the series.
Additionally, a major part of the show is devoted to Dan's modern day family relationships. One could even argue that the show is really about how a person who randomly jumps through time is able to maintain a normal life and keep his family together -- especially when they think he may or may not be insane/using drugs. Dan's family has some nice character conflicts built in and the show explores them in dramatic fashion. Given Journeyman's lack of success, one wonders how well The Time Traveler's Wife will do in theaters as it has a similar conflict.
Kevin McKidd does a good job as Dan Vasser. McKidd is the kind of actor I like to call "a worker." His filmography ranges from cult horror films and video games to "respectable" roles. Any actor who is willing to do voice work after getting a role on Grey's Anatomy deserves respect for his/her work ethic. The fact that McKidd is a very good actor is icing on the cake. Gretchen Egolf and Moon Bloodgood are both good as Dan's love interests -- present and past -- and Reed Diamond is great as the brother who knows all about Dan's dark side and suspects his brother may be relapsing into some nasty behavior patterns.
Journeyman was an enjoyable show that never quite found its audience.
As always, hit PLAY...then FULL SCREEN...and enjoy.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Hulu Recommendation Friday: Full Metal Alchemist (Brotherhood)
A couple of years ago, my wife and I were captivated once a week by a wonderful anime series called Full Metal Alchemist. The show follows the adventures of two brothers as they attempt to learn the secret of the Philosopher's Stone in the hopes that they can reverse the "price" they paid when they attempted to resurrect their mother using the power of Alchemy. The show wonderfully captured the horror trope hightlighted in classic horror tales like Frankenstein and Faust. No power comes without a price, and the brothers paid a high price indeed. As an added bonus the characters are named Edward and Alphonse Elric. How can I not love a show where two of the characters are named ELRIC?!
The cartoon was a hit, but it also varied wildly from the manga on which it was based. The series had an ending that was nowhere to be seen in the manga, which continues to this day, and which left one feeling mildly disappointed. There was much of the world left to explore and Jody and I felt a little bit robbed by the ending.
Thankfully, the animation studio Bones, has contracted to do a reboot of the series and the show is a part of the hulu streaming video stable. The episodes become available two weeks after they air in Japan and are a new start for the series. Old fans will find much that is familiar, but the new series is closer to the manga and goes into greater depth into many of the secondary characters.
As always...CLICK PLAY...then CLICK ON FULL SCREEN...the ENJOY.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Hulu Recommendation Friday: Battlestar Galactica Classic
With today's news that Bryan Singer is signing on to direct a new Battlestar Galactica movie, inspired by the original series, it seems only appropriate that this Friday's Hulu recommendation be the Glen Larson epic.
Singer has a strong track record in genre films, with only one argument starting hiccup. Singer's X-men movies perfectly captured the tone of what made the Claremont/Byrne run of the comics so engaging, while simultaneously translating the narrative to a different medium. This was no small task and Singer should be rightfully praised -- especially since audiences would soon learn how easy it is to make a bad X-men movie when the third film in that franchise hit theaters.
Singer's one hiccup is his attempt to make an engaging and topical Superman film. His Superman Returns managed to simultaneously get everything right regarding how amazing Superman can be, while getting everything wrong about what makes the character great. The film is beautiful and follows in the footsteps of two excellent Superman films, ignoring the misguided 3rd and 4th films, but it is exceedingly flawed. While it is plausible that in the minutes following the ending of Superman II Kal-El would fly off into space to find news of his home -- especially after the meaningful final conversation with Jor-El -- Superman as deadbeat dad is still a painful concept with which to grapple. It also forgets the most critical aspect of Superman's personality, and the underlying reason Superman has a secret identity. There is no practical reason for Superman to have a secret identity. If Superman were Superman full time, no one would be at increased risk of villain attack. Unlike Spider-Man, Supes secret identity doesn't protect an "Aunt 'Em." Unlike Batman, his identity doesn't protect a vast fortune that can be used to aid the needy. Superman's having a human identity actually puts people at risk rather than protects them. His secret identity causes more problems than it solves. But it does do one thing, it allows him to become human and connect with community. Superman -- like the "perfected man" in Aristotle -- needs the city, that's why he has a secret identity. Singer would have been well served to remember this one fact. Still, the film is spectacularly beautiful and contains two of the best Superman sequences ever filmed. It is a work of contradictions.
The same may end up being true of Singer's Battlestar Galactica. All signs point to his version being closer to the vision of series creator Glen Larson. Larson's BSG was Mormonism as SF narrative. It was biblical allegory with a touch of humor. It was filled with hope in the face of despair. It was more Orson Scott Card than William Gibson, it was more Heinlein than Haldeman. For these reasons, a generation of viewers were engrossed each week as the show aired for its sole season -- we won't count Battlestar 1980. It was a perfect example of golden age SF Space Opera.
When Ron Moore -- who shall forever be known to Cinerati as the man who killed Kirk because Picard couldn't win a fist fight -- re-envisioned the franchise for his 73 episode run, he did so as a writer influenced by Gibson and Haldeman and the events of a post-9/11 world. The story was dark and hopeless, and featured a human civilization not worthy of saving. The colonies of Moore's BSG are craven and deserve destruction, but as individuals they are more human. The series is often praised for its writing, but such praise is misguided. The show is amazingly acted -- the cast does a phenomenal job -- but any series that ends with the ultimate SF cliche ("and their names were Adam and Eve") lacks the depth that its facade presents to the world at large. BSG is the poster child for a generation of viewers/readers who believe "grim means philosophically deep." For those who grew up on the SF of Heinlein and Asimov, deconstructive tales are refreshing. For those who grew up on the SF of Moorcock, Haldeman, and Gibson, deconstructive SF is stale.
I am among those who found BSG stale and staid, but well directed and acted. It is the "reconstructive" narrative that I find refreshing. Give me The Incredibles and Wall-E over most modern SF. Give me Old Man's War instead of Forever War. These are what I find well crafted, innovative, and refreshing.
Singer will have an arduous task ahead of him. Moore's BSG won critical acclaim and brought new audience to the IP, at the expense of losing some of the nostalgic crowd -- people like me. Larson's original is dated and overly campy, so it can't be directly remade. It must be properly reconstructed or those fans who were dissatisfied with Moore's work will still be dissatisfied. But it also has to have complex characters, something Moore's definitely had, or those newer BSG fans will reject the vision as well.
Singer has the same challenge he had with Superman Returns, presenting a narrative of hope that contains complex characters. It is likely any Battlestar he creates will contain some of the same flaws as Superman Returns. Given Singer's ability to craft beautiful visuals and given the stable of actors who frequent his films, I look forward to seeing Singer's Battlestar...flawed or not.
As always -- for those in the US -- hit play, then click on the full screen button and enjoy.
Singer has a strong track record in genre films, with only one argument starting hiccup. Singer's X-men movies perfectly captured the tone of what made the Claremont/Byrne run of the comics so engaging, while simultaneously translating the narrative to a different medium. This was no small task and Singer should be rightfully praised -- especially since audiences would soon learn how easy it is to make a bad X-men movie when the third film in that franchise hit theaters.
Singer's one hiccup is his attempt to make an engaging and topical Superman film. His Superman Returns managed to simultaneously get everything right regarding how amazing Superman can be, while getting everything wrong about what makes the character great. The film is beautiful and follows in the footsteps of two excellent Superman films, ignoring the misguided 3rd and 4th films, but it is exceedingly flawed. While it is plausible that in the minutes following the ending of Superman II Kal-El would fly off into space to find news of his home -- especially after the meaningful final conversation with Jor-El -- Superman as deadbeat dad is still a painful concept with which to grapple. It also forgets the most critical aspect of Superman's personality, and the underlying reason Superman has a secret identity. There is no practical reason for Superman to have a secret identity. If Superman were Superman full time, no one would be at increased risk of villain attack. Unlike Spider-Man, Supes secret identity doesn't protect an "Aunt 'Em." Unlike Batman, his identity doesn't protect a vast fortune that can be used to aid the needy. Superman's having a human identity actually puts people at risk rather than protects them. His secret identity causes more problems than it solves. But it does do one thing, it allows him to become human and connect with community. Superman -- like the "perfected man" in Aristotle -- needs the city, that's why he has a secret identity. Singer would have been well served to remember this one fact. Still, the film is spectacularly beautiful and contains two of the best Superman sequences ever filmed. It is a work of contradictions.
The same may end up being true of Singer's Battlestar Galactica. All signs point to his version being closer to the vision of series creator Glen Larson. Larson's BSG was Mormonism as SF narrative. It was biblical allegory with a touch of humor. It was filled with hope in the face of despair. It was more Orson Scott Card than William Gibson, it was more Heinlein than Haldeman. For these reasons, a generation of viewers were engrossed each week as the show aired for its sole season -- we won't count Battlestar 1980. It was a perfect example of golden age SF Space Opera.
When Ron Moore -- who shall forever be known to Cinerati as the man who killed Kirk because Picard couldn't win a fist fight -- re-envisioned the franchise for his 73 episode run, he did so as a writer influenced by Gibson and Haldeman and the events of a post-9/11 world. The story was dark and hopeless, and featured a human civilization not worthy of saving. The colonies of Moore's BSG are craven and deserve destruction, but as individuals they are more human. The series is often praised for its writing, but such praise is misguided. The show is amazingly acted -- the cast does a phenomenal job -- but any series that ends with the ultimate SF cliche ("and their names were Adam and Eve") lacks the depth that its facade presents to the world at large. BSG is the poster child for a generation of viewers/readers who believe "grim means philosophically deep." For those who grew up on the SF of Heinlein and Asimov, deconstructive tales are refreshing. For those who grew up on the SF of Moorcock, Haldeman, and Gibson, deconstructive SF is stale.
I am among those who found BSG stale and staid, but well directed and acted. It is the "reconstructive" narrative that I find refreshing. Give me The Incredibles and Wall-E over most modern SF. Give me Old Man's War instead of Forever War. These are what I find well crafted, innovative, and refreshing.
Singer will have an arduous task ahead of him. Moore's BSG won critical acclaim and brought new audience to the IP, at the expense of losing some of the nostalgic crowd -- people like me. Larson's original is dated and overly campy, so it can't be directly remade. It must be properly reconstructed or those fans who were dissatisfied with Moore's work will still be dissatisfied. But it also has to have complex characters, something Moore's definitely had, or those newer BSG fans will reject the vision as well.
Singer has the same challenge he had with Superman Returns, presenting a narrative of hope that contains complex characters. It is likely any Battlestar he creates will contain some of the same flaws as Superman Returns. Given Singer's ability to craft beautiful visuals and given the stable of actors who frequent his films, I look forward to seeing Singer's Battlestar...flawed or not.
As always -- for those in the US -- hit play, then click on the full screen button and enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)