Several months ago, at the beginning of ABC’s fall season, I truly liked what I saw of FlashForward. Even the title promised that the new series learned something from old favorite LOST’s flashes forward, backward, and sideways. The pilot episode intrigued me, and if the lead character was more protagonist than true hero, I could live with that. An Oceanic airline advert even popped up on screen, and I started comparing kangaroos with polar bears.
Unfortunately, I should’ve been equating Oceanic 815’s crash to the new series; it would’ve been a more apt predictor of FlashForward’s fate. Today came the announcement that FlashForward is dead. I wonder what the actors in that pilot episode saw in their flashforwards six months ago.
One of the highlights of FlashForward has been Dominic Monaghan’s Simon, a decidedly uncuddly character, unlike the actor’s previously high-profile roles. Simon is calculating, cold brilliance. If ratings-conscious networks and producers learn anything from FlashForward, may it be that Dominic Monaghan is an actor to watch.
FlashForward dived into TV’s murky waters at a time when ABC began seriously fishing for a successor to LOST, whose May 23 “The End”-ing follows FlashForward’s funeral by a few days. LOST’s finale is a wake for the no-longer-flashing-anywhere series but also a celebration of its transcendence into another elevated dimension of television. It now becomes one of those great, often-lamented series that changed TV.
With the loss of LOST and FlashForward, ABC steps back from the ledge that is original science fiction programming. It still has V, a far better remake of a 1980s miniseries, but that’s not a risk-taking series like LOST (such as inserting a mythology episode with only a handful of hours left) or an innovative story, again like LOST or its struggling wannabe FlashForward. Fans often joke that the dead can come back to life because anything is possible in science fiction. I don’t want to see LOST zombies or clones clogging the networks, but I truly hope that thought-provoking, character-driven, action-laced SF can rise from the dead on network TV.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
Finding a New Home for Torchwood's Captain Jack
Is Fox’s loss ultimately viewers’ gain? Within the past 24 hours, BBC Worldwide announced that plans for 13 episodes of Torchwood on Fox have been scrapped. According to the press release, other networks may still pick up the series for production in the U.S.
So, Torchwood fans, should we rejoice that the Big Bad Americanized TW may be dead? Fans feared that the Fox version would strip Captain Jack of, well, stripping, or having sex, or making sexual innuendo inappropriate for conservative audiences. Is it good news that this network now won’t get their claws into our beloved Captain Jack? Or should we mourn the loss of a series that’s made the news as much for its controversy as its intriguing characters?
As a cynic reading the news this morning, I believe the U.S. version is deader than Ianto. Although a new (or re-imagined) series technically can be pitched, piloted, and produced at any time of the year, the reality is that U.S. mainstream networks still tend to follow the old mindset of a spring pilot season leading to autumn premieres, with January as a backup plan against fall misfires. That’s not a good mindset for a U.S. Torchwood series looking for a new home in 2010. By the time another network can pick up the series, the momentum created by “Children of Earth” will be even longer gone.
Of course, maybe this latest announcement will quickly lead to a follow-up by another network that has already agreed to produce the series—or would be willing to do so. Perhaps. But was Fox really BBC Worldwide’s first choice if there was a queue?
Fans who still want the series to go on, even with a new cast, worry that BBC Wales has teased forthcoming plans for Torchwood but then left the series off its roster of big-name programming planned for continuing production in Cardiff. Let’s face it—if BBC really loved Torchwood as much as we do, they likely would have commissioned more episodes sooner after last summer’s miniseries. Budget issues, Russell T Davies’ cross-planet move, and probably many other factors we’ll never know compound the conundrum about when or if Torchwood should return.
As a long-time Torchwood fan, yes, I would love to see the series return, but I want at least 50 percent of the original cast. (Considering that only two original characters survive, that shouldn’t be too much of a challenge.) I want to see Cardiff, even if it masquerades as London sometimes. I want to see Captain Jack in action, every way imaginable, and if writers want to broaden my imagination, that’s OK with me.
Sadly, I doubt if a new Torchwood will provide all that on screen in the next year. I haven’t given up hope yet for a series, but I’m becoming more cynical (realistic?) that it may not happen.
Torchwood is still an interesting premise for a series, but I hope it doesn’t take nearly 30 years to re-imagine it in a viable on-screen format (think BSG). If it doesn’t go to series, here’s hoping that others will rescue Captain Jack and convince him to revisit Earth by 2011. As fanfiction and conventions have shown, there’s an international Torchwood fandom waiting for new stories—in print or on screen. Perhaps someone will realize that and creatively find an answer to the question of what to do with Torchwood.
So, Torchwood fans, should we rejoice that the Big Bad Americanized TW may be dead? Fans feared that the Fox version would strip Captain Jack of, well, stripping, or having sex, or making sexual innuendo inappropriate for conservative audiences. Is it good news that this network now won’t get their claws into our beloved Captain Jack? Or should we mourn the loss of a series that’s made the news as much for its controversy as its intriguing characters?
As a cynic reading the news this morning, I believe the U.S. version is deader than Ianto. Although a new (or re-imagined) series technically can be pitched, piloted, and produced at any time of the year, the reality is that U.S. mainstream networks still tend to follow the old mindset of a spring pilot season leading to autumn premieres, with January as a backup plan against fall misfires. That’s not a good mindset for a U.S. Torchwood series looking for a new home in 2010. By the time another network can pick up the series, the momentum created by “Children of Earth” will be even longer gone.
Of course, maybe this latest announcement will quickly lead to a follow-up by another network that has already agreed to produce the series—or would be willing to do so. Perhaps. But was Fox really BBC Worldwide’s first choice if there was a queue?
Fans who still want the series to go on, even with a new cast, worry that BBC Wales has teased forthcoming plans for Torchwood but then left the series off its roster of big-name programming planned for continuing production in Cardiff. Let’s face it—if BBC really loved Torchwood as much as we do, they likely would have commissioned more episodes sooner after last summer’s miniseries. Budget issues, Russell T Davies’ cross-planet move, and probably many other factors we’ll never know compound the conundrum about when or if Torchwood should return.
As a long-time Torchwood fan, yes, I would love to see the series return, but I want at least 50 percent of the original cast. (Considering that only two original characters survive, that shouldn’t be too much of a challenge.) I want to see Cardiff, even if it masquerades as London sometimes. I want to see Captain Jack in action, every way imaginable, and if writers want to broaden my imagination, that’s OK with me.
Sadly, I doubt if a new Torchwood will provide all that on screen in the next year. I haven’t given up hope yet for a series, but I’m becoming more cynical (realistic?) that it may not happen.
Torchwood is still an interesting premise for a series, but I hope it doesn’t take nearly 30 years to re-imagine it in a viable on-screen format (think BSG). If it doesn’t go to series, here’s hoping that others will rescue Captain Jack and convince him to revisit Earth by 2011. As fanfiction and conventions have shown, there’s an international Torchwood fandom waiting for new stories—in print or on screen. Perhaps someone will realize that and creatively find an answer to the question of what to do with Torchwood.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Caprica: "Know Thy Enemy"
Showing was more important than telling in tonight's Caprica episode. Three very different sets of images pique my interest:
The Opening Credit Sequence
I love the opening to Caprica. I feel like I’m entering a holoworld or a video game. The images represent humans, but they only act out predetermined iconic actions; the characters are all avatars in my virtual TV world. Even the pace is set for a short attention span appropriate to a gaming environment, and the timing of each character’s iconic actions hits important musical beats. I see Caprica through the eyes of a Cylon/avatar/teen—the perfect perspective for a skewed view of modern society.
Symbolism
Knives are such an important image in Caprica, again evidenced tonight. Slicing vegetables, slicing people—both done with clinical, rapid efficiency. The people who wield these knives may be surprising—such as Daniel Graystone, who methodically, if emotionally, hacks to death a zuchini. I like the imagery, but I hope knives become as symbolic as Lost’s keys or bunnies. Let's see them recur even more often than Daniel's nightmares.
Nicely symbolic ending to this episode, too, provided through close-ups of glasses. After the toast, Vergis’ flute is full, but Graystone’s is empty. How foreshadowy.
Barnabas’ True Introduction
First seen as a shadow, Barnabas becomes the figurative and literal darkness against the light (represented by Sister Clarice, bathed in candle glow, in the next scene). He wraps barbed wire around his arm, clearly a man with a bloody self-image—wow, talk about the perfect way to introduce James Marsters’ latest character. Short scene, but powerful imagery. Soft flesh wrapped in barbed wire; soft speech erupting into harsh commands--Barnabas is the epitome of explosive devotion. I’m intrigued. He’s much more vibrant and menacing than the name-dropping in past episodes suggested.
“Know Thy Enemy” indeed. Every confrontation between two characters illustrates future enemies. I'll return to this episode at the end of the season to see just how many later betrayals and plot twists began with the images revealed tonight.
The Opening Credit Sequence
I love the opening to Caprica. I feel like I’m entering a holoworld or a video game. The images represent humans, but they only act out predetermined iconic actions; the characters are all avatars in my virtual TV world. Even the pace is set for a short attention span appropriate to a gaming environment, and the timing of each character’s iconic actions hits important musical beats. I see Caprica through the eyes of a Cylon/avatar/teen—the perfect perspective for a skewed view of modern society.
Symbolism
Knives are such an important image in Caprica, again evidenced tonight. Slicing vegetables, slicing people—both done with clinical, rapid efficiency. The people who wield these knives may be surprising—such as Daniel Graystone, who methodically, if emotionally, hacks to death a zuchini. I like the imagery, but I hope knives become as symbolic as Lost’s keys or bunnies. Let's see them recur even more often than Daniel's nightmares.
Nicely symbolic ending to this episode, too, provided through close-ups of glasses. After the toast, Vergis’ flute is full, but Graystone’s is empty. How foreshadowy.
Barnabas’ True Introduction
First seen as a shadow, Barnabas becomes the figurative and literal darkness against the light (represented by Sister Clarice, bathed in candle glow, in the next scene). He wraps barbed wire around his arm, clearly a man with a bloody self-image—wow, talk about the perfect way to introduce James Marsters’ latest character. Short scene, but powerful imagery. Soft flesh wrapped in barbed wire; soft speech erupting into harsh commands--Barnabas is the epitome of explosive devotion. I’m intrigued. He’s much more vibrant and menacing than the name-dropping in past episodes suggested.
“Know Thy Enemy” indeed. Every confrontation between two characters illustrates future enemies. I'll return to this episode at the end of the season to see just how many later betrayals and plot twists began with the images revealed tonight.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Stereotyping "Caprica"
Muttering as she hacks up fresh meat. Cackling over the bones of jacks players past. Vowing to take vengeance into her own gnarling hands.
Until Friday night's episode of Caprica, I hadn't really thought of Willy Adama's grandma as a stereotypical crone. In a series supposedly careful about stereotyping gays and "Mafiosos," especially gay Mafia hit men, Grandma is a bit of a surprise.
She becomes the latest in a line of grasping witches (more early Into the Woods or Disney apple bearer than Witches of Eastwick) or curse-wielding gypsies. A part of me acknowledges that even Betty White doesn't always play sweet and kind older ladies any more, and stereotyping all grannies as benevolent blue-haired cookie bakers isn't any better than turning them into cleaver-wielding assassins. Still, there was something a bit over the top with the transformation from a quietly exasperated, behind-the-scenes, traditional Tauron matriarch into a bloody butcher.
This mutation was hardly subtle, unlike the casual references about domestic bliss interspersed into Sam's dialogue. I rather like his character, despite his night job. Perhaps it's because he knows exactly who he is. He kills for a living. He's good at his job. He's a professional much more so than his "respectable" brother Joseph. If his passion for his partner is as tightly focused as his passion for his vocation, I can see why Larry is a happy guy. The most recent allusion to Sam's partner--"Larry doesn't like me to come home bloody"--helps establish Sam's relationship and self-acceptance as the norm.
What's intrigued me about Caprica so far is its probably inadvertent insights into how and why Willy Adama becomes the complex, volatile, occasionally self-abusively maudlin, and thoroughly commanding presence of adult Bill Adama. Seeing how Grandma and Sam guide his adolescence explains a lot. I'm glad to have the familial backstory, even if I have to chuckle at how Lee would've been eaten alive by his relatives.
With all the hype leading to James Marsters' March debut, SyFy and even the series' creators seem to want audiences just to hang in there a few weeks longer for the exposition to settle and the action to begin. I like the backstory and character development to date. I just want to avoid the supersized helping of cackling crone so I can feast on the more subtle development of Sam.
Until Friday night's episode of Caprica, I hadn't really thought of Willy Adama's grandma as a stereotypical crone. In a series supposedly careful about stereotyping gays and "Mafiosos," especially gay Mafia hit men, Grandma is a bit of a surprise.
She becomes the latest in a line of grasping witches (more early Into the Woods or Disney apple bearer than Witches of Eastwick) or curse-wielding gypsies. A part of me acknowledges that even Betty White doesn't always play sweet and kind older ladies any more, and stereotyping all grannies as benevolent blue-haired cookie bakers isn't any better than turning them into cleaver-wielding assassins. Still, there was something a bit over the top with the transformation from a quietly exasperated, behind-the-scenes, traditional Tauron matriarch into a bloody butcher.
This mutation was hardly subtle, unlike the casual references about domestic bliss interspersed into Sam's dialogue. I rather like his character, despite his night job. Perhaps it's because he knows exactly who he is. He kills for a living. He's good at his job. He's a professional much more so than his "respectable" brother Joseph. If his passion for his partner is as tightly focused as his passion for his vocation, I can see why Larry is a happy guy. The most recent allusion to Sam's partner--"Larry doesn't like me to come home bloody"--helps establish Sam's relationship and self-acceptance as the norm.
What's intrigued me about Caprica so far is its probably inadvertent insights into how and why Willy Adama becomes the complex, volatile, occasionally self-abusively maudlin, and thoroughly commanding presence of adult Bill Adama. Seeing how Grandma and Sam guide his adolescence explains a lot. I'm glad to have the familial backstory, even if I have to chuckle at how Lee would've been eaten alive by his relatives.
With all the hype leading to James Marsters' March debut, SyFy and even the series' creators seem to want audiences just to hang in there a few weeks longer for the exposition to settle and the action to begin. I like the backstory and character development to date. I just want to avoid the supersized helping of cackling crone so I can feast on the more subtle development of Sam.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Academy Nominations and the Future of Film
This morning the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced their nominees. News media followed the announcements particularly closely because the field for Best Picture was broadened from five to ten.
By doubling the number of nominees, film critics noted on every major network, the Academy encouraged the recognition of blockbuster films as possible Best Picture nominees. Popular choices, not just art house films that no one (but people like me) go to see, would make the list. On E! Ben Lyons considered the “traditional five” in his pre-announcement speculation. I don’t think he meant to imply a two-tiered system, with five “traditionally classy” films that would’ve received a nom anyway and five “popular” films now being included, but many moviegoers likely anticipated the Top Ten might break down that way.
When the noms were announced, I didn’t see these predictions fulfilled. Where was a groundbreaking choice like Star Trek? Avatar probably filled that slot, in part because its reception has been huge week after week at the box office, in part because its technology has been heralded as the future of film making. Up probably wouldn’t have made the list if the nominations had been kept to five, the same for The Blind Side (although Sandra Bullock would’ve scored a Best Actress nod anyway). For all the hype about the “surprises” coming in the expanded Best Picture list, I didn’t feel terribly surprised.
The expanded list included a few "popular" choices and a blockbuster, so I guess the Top Ten fulfilled expectations. It gave a thumbs up to films that wouldn't have otherwise made the cut and likely will bring in more Oscar night viewers who have seen at least Avatar or The Blind Side. Maybe that's all it's supposed to do.
But then, I guess I’ve been pondering the future of film (and television, given that LOST’s final premiere arrives tonight). In the next few months I’ll be blogging those ponderings regarding specific aspects of film making, but I’ll finish my immediate ramble here. I guess I was hoping that more films with a history like District 9 would be encouraged.
Many of my friends didn’t like District 9, but I liked it if found it sometimes difficult to watch. It’s a blend of entertainment with a “serious art” theme. What pleases me this morning is that a project that started as a documentary-style 6-minute film a few years ago gained momentum and eventually got the backing it needed to become a full-length feature on big screens. Now it's been recognized by the Academy. That’s the story I want to follow, because I think it provides hope for so many little films and as-yet-unrecognized film makers to get their stories out to the public.
The web is a good place for short films to start. Perhaps that’s why I’m just as fascinated with Girl Number 9, told in five-minute segments over five days online, as with Avatar. Big budget, big studio, big technology = success seems to be the prevailing model. Not all films in the Academy’s Top Ten followed that formula, but enough still do that they dictate the number and types of films financed each year.
Story, however, should be key to what is made. Is a story worth telling on film? online? (And I'm not talking YouTube home movies.) I may be just as entertained by the expectation of the next day’s online 5-minute serialized scenes as an hour 35 of technical wizardry or celebrity star turn on a big screen.
Storytelling is an art, as well as a commercial venture. The stories that stick with us don’t have to cost a lot to make, but they need to be well told, well acted. I don’t know the budget for some of these online features recently capturing my attention, but the web seems to offer more creative freedom for serious film makers with seriously low budgets. They may even get the attention of audiences and potential backers. Even if the online version isn't expanded for wider screens and longer run time, it's still worth making if it tells a great story in an innovative way. Maybe someday in the not-too-distant future I’ll be looking to other media for more of the stories that appeal to me.
It’s not that I’ve been unhappy with recent films. Of those receiving the “big” nominations for acting, writing, directing, and best picture, my favorites are A Single Man (with an incredible performance by Colin Firth), Up in the Air (but that’s probably because I relate to George Clooney’s character), An Education, and Up. I haven’t seen all the nominated films or performances yet, so my list likely will expand by Oscar night.
I simply don’t want to ascribe to the notion that Academy-recognized films are all that’s entertaining, or even the best of film. I know that my taste isn’t the same as the rest of the movie-going public, but it’s for that very reason that I hope short films, new film makers, and less expensive productions will get more of a chance to tell their stories, even in tough economic times. Not all short or low-budget movies are festival darlings or “art house” features—which make both the films and venues sound pretentious. I don’t see why either Art or Commerce needs to be the exclusive winner. Art and entertainment aren’t mutually exclusive, and the internet, rather than the Academy, may be the place for film makers to prove it.
So this morning I’m pleased for the nominees, especially those for whom I root. I’m happy for the New Zealand connection with Avatar, even as I hope that this technological marvel isn’t the only future for film. I’m glad that District 9, for all that I liked Alive in Joburg better, received recognition. But I’m not surprised by the Top Ten, and I hope to see a little more variety in the selections next year. In the meantime, I’ll head to the cinema on the weekend, but I’ll look even closer online for the next not-so-big thing.
By doubling the number of nominees, film critics noted on every major network, the Academy encouraged the recognition of blockbuster films as possible Best Picture nominees. Popular choices, not just art house films that no one (but people like me) go to see, would make the list. On E! Ben Lyons considered the “traditional five” in his pre-announcement speculation. I don’t think he meant to imply a two-tiered system, with five “traditionally classy” films that would’ve received a nom anyway and five “popular” films now being included, but many moviegoers likely anticipated the Top Ten might break down that way.
When the noms were announced, I didn’t see these predictions fulfilled. Where was a groundbreaking choice like Star Trek? Avatar probably filled that slot, in part because its reception has been huge week after week at the box office, in part because its technology has been heralded as the future of film making. Up probably wouldn’t have made the list if the nominations had been kept to five, the same for The Blind Side (although Sandra Bullock would’ve scored a Best Actress nod anyway). For all the hype about the “surprises” coming in the expanded Best Picture list, I didn’t feel terribly surprised.
The expanded list included a few "popular" choices and a blockbuster, so I guess the Top Ten fulfilled expectations. It gave a thumbs up to films that wouldn't have otherwise made the cut and likely will bring in more Oscar night viewers who have seen at least Avatar or The Blind Side. Maybe that's all it's supposed to do.
But then, I guess I’ve been pondering the future of film (and television, given that LOST’s final premiere arrives tonight). In the next few months I’ll be blogging those ponderings regarding specific aspects of film making, but I’ll finish my immediate ramble here. I guess I was hoping that more films with a history like District 9 would be encouraged.
Many of my friends didn’t like District 9, but I liked it if found it sometimes difficult to watch. It’s a blend of entertainment with a “serious art” theme. What pleases me this morning is that a project that started as a documentary-style 6-minute film a few years ago gained momentum and eventually got the backing it needed to become a full-length feature on big screens. Now it's been recognized by the Academy. That’s the story I want to follow, because I think it provides hope for so many little films and as-yet-unrecognized film makers to get their stories out to the public.
The web is a good place for short films to start. Perhaps that’s why I’m just as fascinated with Girl Number 9, told in five-minute segments over five days online, as with Avatar. Big budget, big studio, big technology = success seems to be the prevailing model. Not all films in the Academy’s Top Ten followed that formula, but enough still do that they dictate the number and types of films financed each year.
Story, however, should be key to what is made. Is a story worth telling on film? online? (And I'm not talking YouTube home movies.) I may be just as entertained by the expectation of the next day’s online 5-minute serialized scenes as an hour 35 of technical wizardry or celebrity star turn on a big screen.
Storytelling is an art, as well as a commercial venture. The stories that stick with us don’t have to cost a lot to make, but they need to be well told, well acted. I don’t know the budget for some of these online features recently capturing my attention, but the web seems to offer more creative freedom for serious film makers with seriously low budgets. They may even get the attention of audiences and potential backers. Even if the online version isn't expanded for wider screens and longer run time, it's still worth making if it tells a great story in an innovative way. Maybe someday in the not-too-distant future I’ll be looking to other media for more of the stories that appeal to me.
It’s not that I’ve been unhappy with recent films. Of those receiving the “big” nominations for acting, writing, directing, and best picture, my favorites are A Single Man (with an incredible performance by Colin Firth), Up in the Air (but that’s probably because I relate to George Clooney’s character), An Education, and Up. I haven’t seen all the nominated films or performances yet, so my list likely will expand by Oscar night.
I simply don’t want to ascribe to the notion that Academy-recognized films are all that’s entertaining, or even the best of film. I know that my taste isn’t the same as the rest of the movie-going public, but it’s for that very reason that I hope short films, new film makers, and less expensive productions will get more of a chance to tell their stories, even in tough economic times. Not all short or low-budget movies are festival darlings or “art house” features—which make both the films and venues sound pretentious. I don’t see why either Art or Commerce needs to be the exclusive winner. Art and entertainment aren’t mutually exclusive, and the internet, rather than the Academy, may be the place for film makers to prove it.
So this morning I’m pleased for the nominees, especially those for whom I root. I’m happy for the New Zealand connection with Avatar, even as I hope that this technological marvel isn’t the only future for film. I’m glad that District 9, for all that I liked Alive in Joburg better, received recognition. But I’m not surprised by the Top Ten, and I hope to see a little more variety in the selections next year. In the meantime, I’ll head to the cinema on the weekend, but I’ll look even closer online for the next not-so-big thing.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Caprica Commentary--Spoilers for "Rebirth"
Caprica isn't as surprising as I'd hoped it would be, but "Rebirth" provided a few intriguing character twists. Four reasons why I'll be back--
1. Amanda Graystone
I don't identify with her or particularly like her at this stage of the story, but I adore the way she can twist the plot. Who knew the grieving mom could "out" her daughter at a memorial for bombing victims? And what a way to finally grab Daniel's attention!
2. More minutiae--links among the two BSGs and Caprica
Anybody else notice that Daniel plays the original Battlestar Galactica theme on the piano? In his lab at his remote lair (how very Dr. Frankenstein), Daniel welcomes Zoe/Cylon home with a few bars of the original series' opening. That theme also survived from the 1970s to the 2000s in a few episodes illustrating Galactica's history. Nice tie-in, guys.
3. Shifting perspectives of Zoe/Cylon
Similar to the way the audience saw Baltar's "imaginary friend," Head Six, Zoe appears as her teenaged self when we see her, yet everyone else sees her as a Cylon. That visual shift provides some of the best moments in "Rebirth," such as when Zoe holds out a hand to best friend Lacy and the two embrace. Seeing the BFFs hug is normal, whereas Lacy clinging to a tall, gleaming robot is a bit disturbing. So is watching a drill approach "human" Zoe's face when a lab tech plans to work on the Cylon body. The visual shift helps us to mentally shift from foe to friend and makes me want to protect Zoe, which brings me to ...
4. Sympathetic Cylons
Since 1978, Battlestar Galactica slowly has been changing fans' view of Cylons, first portrayed as pure monster out to purge the galaxy of humans. The recent BSG helped us view our prejudices toward Cylons and gradually accept at least some of them as "human" characters we could understand. After only the pilot movie and one Caprica episode, I'm already sympathetic toward Zoe/Cylon. Should the audience become sympathetic with characters who, in less than a century of the BSG/Caprica timeline, destroy humanity? Should we root for the Cylons? Or should we feel that humanity has/had it coming?
So far that's Caprica's only controversial aspect and the most interesting reason to follow the saga again next week.
1. Amanda Graystone
I don't identify with her or particularly like her at this stage of the story, but I adore the way she can twist the plot. Who knew the grieving mom could "out" her daughter at a memorial for bombing victims? And what a way to finally grab Daniel's attention!
2. More minutiae--links among the two BSGs and Caprica
Anybody else notice that Daniel plays the original Battlestar Galactica theme on the piano? In his lab at his remote lair (how very Dr. Frankenstein), Daniel welcomes Zoe/Cylon home with a few bars of the original series' opening. That theme also survived from the 1970s to the 2000s in a few episodes illustrating Galactica's history. Nice tie-in, guys.
3. Shifting perspectives of Zoe/Cylon
Similar to the way the audience saw Baltar's "imaginary friend," Head Six, Zoe appears as her teenaged self when we see her, yet everyone else sees her as a Cylon. That visual shift provides some of the best moments in "Rebirth," such as when Zoe holds out a hand to best friend Lacy and the two embrace. Seeing the BFFs hug is normal, whereas Lacy clinging to a tall, gleaming robot is a bit disturbing. So is watching a drill approach "human" Zoe's face when a lab tech plans to work on the Cylon body. The visual shift helps us to mentally shift from foe to friend and makes me want to protect Zoe, which brings me to ...
4. Sympathetic Cylons
Since 1978, Battlestar Galactica slowly has been changing fans' view of Cylons, first portrayed as pure monster out to purge the galaxy of humans. The recent BSG helped us view our prejudices toward Cylons and gradually accept at least some of them as "human" characters we could understand. After only the pilot movie and one Caprica episode, I'm already sympathetic toward Zoe/Cylon. Should the audience become sympathetic with characters who, in less than a century of the BSG/Caprica timeline, destroy humanity? Should we root for the Cylons? Or should we feel that humanity has/had it coming?
So far that's Caprica's only controversial aspect and the most interesting reason to follow the saga again next week.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Torchwood Alumni and Random Musings about Desperate Housewives and The Bill
Sad to say, one of my first tasks each day (after making a pot of morning coffee, of course) is to check the news of my favorite TV series. This week Lost and Caprica are top of the list, but with all the hullaballoo about Torchwood last week, it's moving up the charts fast. So...I wasn't surprised to learn the official news that John Barrowman is headed to Hollywood.
Two words: Desperate Housewives
He's been there (Hollywood, not Wisteria Lane) before, and I do remember his roles on U.S. series, but they vanished so quickly that I was startled by Captain Jack in 2005. That role was like meeting JB the actor for the first time. As many of you know, I'm a big fan of Torchwood. I even taught a Torchwood unit in my Honors class last semester. The news this morning has me Hmmmmm-ing, but I expect fan buzz to drown that out as soon as U.S. fans wake up.
I've been waiting for about a month now for news about the next step in Barrowman's career. The CD debuts early in March, now coinciding with that westward flight. If Torchwood was going to start filming in Wales, it would've begun by now. The timing of the Torchwood USA announcement kept me checking back to Barrowman's site to see which would come first: a new TV series or a concert tour. And now we know.
A few thoughts about the news:
1. I'll be watching Desperate Housewives for the first time in years this spring.
2. I previously watched sporadically after Season 2 because of Richard Burgi. (I'm a former fan of The Sentinel and loyal to actors I've enjoyed watching.) Now that he's off the series, I'm wondering if Barrowman's "villain" is a type of replacement. He won't play the same role, obviously, but the series seems to need some kind of confident, sexy, snarky man with a physical build similar to Burgi's. Gee, who could fit that role?
3. The article noted that Barrowman would be meeting with RTD while in Hollywood. Guest shot in the pilot? A starring role in the "US remake," an unfortunate choice of words if I ever heard them? Another project? Tea and scones?
4. Another interesting bit in the article: Torchwood is planned as a joint Fox and BBC production. Not BBC America, but BBC. Typo? Truth? I don't recall "joint" being in previous news blurbs, although I wondered just what everyone was smoking when they started planning Torchwood 4. So...that raises all kinds of new questions about who might be doing what and where. Suddenly I'm a bit more hopeful about Torchwood's future--but there's still too much speculation to know what's going on. I still remember the dreaded "pilot" word from last week's news.
In any case, I shouldn't have doubted JB. He's really not going to be off air that long.
Last week I also was fortunate to see Gareth David-Lloyd's role in The Bill. I don't want to gag anyone with too much sugar so early in the day, but let's just say that I like to watch him act and was looking forward to seeing his next role.
The actors I enjoy most always surprise me. Sometimes it's one little expression or line phrasing; sometimes it's a big old emo scene. The Bill is pretty straightforward, and a guest role like GDL's is meaty enough but still gives limited screen time.
Nevertheless, I almost bought into the stalker's story for two little reasons: GDL's fleeting smile when his character talks about his "lover"'s favorite films and a brief sigh at the beginning of an interrogation scene. They weren't choices I expected for that scene.
Sure, the role offered him a good range of emotion for a guest role, everything from pain to disbelief to earnestness to anger. But ... those two expressions, in close up, in the middle of a longer scene and lots of dialogue--those were the choices that made the role interesting to me. OK, you might think I'm mental for noticing minutiae, but small character moments can turn a perfectly good performance into something memorable. (Remind me to tell you about one scene from a stage production of Heaven Can Wait in 1979 that made me respect and admire Peter Strauss forever.)
I'm looking forward to seeing more of GDL in the upcoming Casimir Effect. It seems like a role with a lot of potential, and I expect more surprises in his character interpretation.
Now, off to set the recorder for tonight's episode of Caprica. Undoubtedly I'll be writing about it soon.
Two words: Desperate Housewives
He's been there (Hollywood, not Wisteria Lane) before, and I do remember his roles on U.S. series, but they vanished so quickly that I was startled by Captain Jack in 2005. That role was like meeting JB the actor for the first time. As many of you know, I'm a big fan of Torchwood. I even taught a Torchwood unit in my Honors class last semester. The news this morning has me Hmmmmm-ing, but I expect fan buzz to drown that out as soon as U.S. fans wake up.
I've been waiting for about a month now for news about the next step in Barrowman's career. The CD debuts early in March, now coinciding with that westward flight. If Torchwood was going to start filming in Wales, it would've begun by now. The timing of the Torchwood USA announcement kept me checking back to Barrowman's site to see which would come first: a new TV series or a concert tour. And now we know.
A few thoughts about the news:
1. I'll be watching Desperate Housewives for the first time in years this spring.
2. I previously watched sporadically after Season 2 because of Richard Burgi. (I'm a former fan of The Sentinel and loyal to actors I've enjoyed watching.) Now that he's off the series, I'm wondering if Barrowman's "villain" is a type of replacement. He won't play the same role, obviously, but the series seems to need some kind of confident, sexy, snarky man with a physical build similar to Burgi's. Gee, who could fit that role?
3. The article noted that Barrowman would be meeting with RTD while in Hollywood. Guest shot in the pilot? A starring role in the "US remake," an unfortunate choice of words if I ever heard them? Another project? Tea and scones?
4. Another interesting bit in the article: Torchwood is planned as a joint Fox and BBC production. Not BBC America, but BBC. Typo? Truth? I don't recall "joint" being in previous news blurbs, although I wondered just what everyone was smoking when they started planning Torchwood 4. So...that raises all kinds of new questions about who might be doing what and where. Suddenly I'm a bit more hopeful about Torchwood's future--but there's still too much speculation to know what's going on. I still remember the dreaded "pilot" word from last week's news.
In any case, I shouldn't have doubted JB. He's really not going to be off air that long.
Last week I also was fortunate to see Gareth David-Lloyd's role in The Bill. I don't want to gag anyone with too much sugar so early in the day, but let's just say that I like to watch him act and was looking forward to seeing his next role.
The actors I enjoy most always surprise me. Sometimes it's one little expression or line phrasing; sometimes it's a big old emo scene. The Bill is pretty straightforward, and a guest role like GDL's is meaty enough but still gives limited screen time.
Nevertheless, I almost bought into the stalker's story for two little reasons: GDL's fleeting smile when his character talks about his "lover"'s favorite films and a brief sigh at the beginning of an interrogation scene. They weren't choices I expected for that scene.
Sure, the role offered him a good range of emotion for a guest role, everything from pain to disbelief to earnestness to anger. But ... those two expressions, in close up, in the middle of a longer scene and lots of dialogue--those were the choices that made the role interesting to me. OK, you might think I'm mental for noticing minutiae, but small character moments can turn a perfectly good performance into something memorable. (Remind me to tell you about one scene from a stage production of Heaven Can Wait in 1979 that made me respect and admire Peter Strauss forever.)
I'm looking forward to seeing more of GDL in the upcoming Casimir Effect. It seems like a role with a lot of potential, and I expect more surprises in his character interpretation.
Now, off to set the recorder for tonight's episode of Caprica. Undoubtedly I'll be writing about it soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
