TEEVEE IN SPACE

BATTLESTAR GALACTICA
If you're not aware, a year or so ago some industrious folks brought forth a remake of the old stinker scifi show from a previous generation.

Cheap and cheesey, the original "Galactica" stood as a risible effort of cashing in on the original "Star Wars". The new 21st Century effort is amazing. The effects, the acting, the stories are all top drawer scifi adventure stuff. No debate there.

Well, they started out that way.

The production quality is still top notch, but I've given up on the series. It is the most wretched meal of misery one can imagine. I could no longer find any enthusiasm to wallow in the despair every week. I enjoy a good drama. I can find entertainment and, possibly enlightenment, in serious stories. "Battlestar Galatica" is nothing but bleak despair.

To be sure, the premise is a grim one. The perpetual flight of refugees from an enemy bent on their extinction is certainly a serious matter. However, without some crumb of hope, without some morsel of positive energy, I stopped caring. When all the every hero's feet of clay now extends up to their collar bones, I don't care how the cliffhanger death threat resolves. Put the poor saps out of their misery.

STARGATE: SG-1
This show is in its ninth season, making it a contender for the longest running scifi series ever. ("Dr. Who" will probably claim that title forever, so the race is for the Silver Medal)

However, they suffer from the reverse problem of "Battlestar Galactica". They don't take anything seriously. The show has the tension of a very old rubber band. Sure, the storylines are supposed to be of life and death and cosmic danger, but it don't come across.
The actors mug and smile and shrug and generally mooch around. The stories are rehashes of early "Stargate" plots. The characters acknowledge "Hey, this happened to (fill in the name) before." The characters proceed with a token urgency sapped by a "been there, done that" attitude and the hour passes in a forgettable, mellow way.

I think the show needs to somehow get back to Humans and Earth against the Bad Guys. For too long the storylines involve Super-de-Dooper Cosmic Gods. The only way our mortal heroes can hope to fight these bad SdDCG is with the help of friendly SdDCG. Sure, the plots try work up some thin rationale how SG-1 is contributing to the struggle, but it's unconvincing.

They need to take away all the potent interstellar allies. They need to remove all the alien wonder junk in Area 51. They need to lose the Earth Force starships that make Warp Factor 9 look like speeds granted by a rusty tricycle. They need to make our human heroes perspire again.

THE EIGHTH WONDER OF THE WORLD

In a general way, I've been a fan of "King Kong" and giant monsters for most of my life. When "Planet of the Apes" came out in the 70's, one of my first reactions was "Hey, with ape make-up having reached that level, they could make a great new 'King Kong'!" Apparently Dino deLaurentis thought along similar lines. Sadly, not only did he mimic my 11 year-old thinking, his film resembled something an 11 year-old might make. That might be a bit harsh. There were some nuggets worth keeping in that effort, but overall it stunk.

A decade or so ago, for reasons not germaine just now, my enthusiasm for Kong sharpened considerably. When Peter "Lord of the Ring" Jackson announced his next project was a period remake of "King Kong", I nearly peed myself. It's been a tribute to my patience and mental discipline to have waited all these long months.

Last night, the waiting ended.

WOW!! Blew the top off my enthusiasm. Buried the needle in my Fun-o-Meter. Five unreserved, wholehearted stars out of five!

The 1933 "King Kong" was not unlike the "Star Wars" of its day. An exciting, gripping roller coaster ride using the cutting-edge special effects available. That's precisely the description of the 2005 "King Kong". It may be the first Hollywood remake that needed to be done and was done well.

(And look beyond giant apes and dinosaurs when I say "special effects". Consider that, unless he owns a time machine, Peter Jackson did not film that on location in Depression Era New York City. Staggering visuals.)

Beyond the stupendous visuals, Jackson and Co. took what the deLaurentis crew attempted and made it work. I'm speaking of fully human characters. Emotions. Pathos, motivations, depth. Real people. And when I say "people", I'm stretching it to include the star, Kong himself.

Yep, I liked it.

SURVIVOR

According to the trends in television, this tirade is coming a bit late. The reality show fad seems to be fading away. Can't end soon enough for me.

I was in the wrong place at the wrong time and had to endure the "Big Climax" of an episode of "Survivor: Soundstage 3 Made to appear as a Tropical Island".

Gods, I hate that show and all it spawned.

The overblown music to drum up nail-biting suspense. The insanely long pauses between IMPORTANT RESULTS. "Survivor" and all its demonic imitators have only enough material to fill a half-hour time slot, but have stretched the thing out on a torture rack to fill an hour.
I think the primary reason I hate "Survivor" is the label "reality". I'll grant you they're more "real" than a scripted episode of "CSI" but they are closer to that fictional end of the television spectrum than reality.

(By way of short hand, any time I use "Survivor", I mean all those shows)

"Survivor" might not have a script with memorized lines, but it is still fiction. There is no way the carnival huckster creators of this show are taking the chance of collecting a dozen people who then sit around a campfire singing "Row, row your boat". Their twisted little minds want nasty, ugly conflict. To that end, the contestants are overtly and covertly prodded, guided and heaped with suggestions. If one of those people isn't an undercover agent provocateur, I'll eat a bug.

When it comes to the contestants' diet, I'm working with second hand information. It's my understanding they have to scrounge and forage and live like castaways. They only receive meals as special rewards for jumping thru hoops.

If this is the claim, it's a steaming pile of succotash.

In the litigious realm of the USA, where insurance is god-emperor, no TV show would toss a random group of citizens out there to flounder and starve. I'm given to understand that contestants drop a lot of weight in the course of a "Survivors" run. That's not proof. The most plausible scenario is that a professional nutritionist has made up a strict and healthy diet. The contestants get three, A-1, no junk food, broccoli and carrot stick, wholesome meals a day. Their health and well-being is therefore assured. It's like going to a variation of a "fat farm".

The biggest scam is claiming "Survivor" is anything but a game show. The same realm as "Wheel of Fortune" or "The Price is Right". In quality games and sports competitions, the winner has proven to be smarter, faster, wittier or stronger. As far as I can see, the main way to win at "Survivor" is to be a treacherous bastard.

That's probably the allure of the show. Couch potatoes around the world are made to feel inadequate when they watch other humans excel. Watching "Survivor", they can dare to dream, dare to hope, dare to challenge the world with: "I can do that! I can be a backstabbing little weasel!"

THAT CITY IN CHINA

There's a bit of fuss in the local paper about tipping the wait staff at restaurants.

"Tipping" is an arcane and bizarre custom. It obviously has nothing to do with the quality of service, or we wouldn't have this rigid percentage of the final bill demand. It doubly has nothing to do with the quality of the service, or in some restaurants, I'd expect a monetary discount for putting up with the ineptitude of the staff.

I've never heard a credible origin of when we consumers were expected to recompense this labour sector for having a crappy, low-paying job. There is, sadly, a nigh-endless number of crappy, low-paying jobs in our society, but only people slinging hash seem to demand a bonus reward.

The poor schlubs pumping gas in -20 degree winter weather don't expect a fiver for their trouble. The patient schmoes clerking in a shoe store don't demand a percentage of the price for the sneakers they've found for me. Leave us not forget the unseen masses not directly dealing with the Public. I don't know what some new immigrant without English makes per hour, but does anyone stop and slip them a little something as they go in to scrub the toilets?

And yes, for the historical record, I have done my stint as a waiter.

I'll tip when the service has truly been that much above par and/or the service has truly enhanced my dining pleasure. I ain't tipping because it's a penalty for eating out. I'm not concerned with the blackmail repercussions of waiters spitting in my soup. The frequency of my eating in restaurants matched against the turnover in restaurant staff means the odds are good I'll never see the same waiter twice.

When it comes down to the nub, if restaurant staff have a problem with their wages, then get angry with their cheap employers, not with me.

WE'RE WINNING THE WAR

I had a sweet moment the other day, totally at the expense of another human's misery. That's not a very heroic ideal, but I could not help it.

While walking down Broadway Avenue in the mid-morning sunshine, a man in his late-twenties approached me. He had a distinct aura of desperation about him.

He brandished a cigarette and asked in a forlorn tone, "Do you have a light?".

"Nope."

"Doesn't anyone smoke anymore??" He all but wailed as he continued on his way, his left eye twitching.

BWahahAHahaHaha!

I almost pumped my fist in victory and did a little "touchdown dance", but refrained because smokers are well known for having zero sense of humour about their addiction.

SUPERHERO MOVIES ARE STUPID

Comic books are blood relations to television. Books and short stories are related to movies. One form uses a continuing story and developing characters to make you constantly "tune in next week" or "buy next issue". The other form has a beginning, a middle and an END. Why do movie adaptations of comic heroes and old TV shows usually suck mops? This is a strong reason.

I don't know how many bazillions the "Fantastic Four" (to name the most recent effort) had in its budget. I am of the opinion that this money would have gone a long way to creating a crackerjack TV version of the FF for the Fall Season. The wonderful potential there makes my eyes twinkle.

The big hiccup with this suggestion is that making TV is a lot of work. Assembling the team for creating a movie is nearly the same as the team for television, but the movie people work hard for a few months and go home. The TV team has to keep pumping out product the viewers want to see for the better part of the year. And then come back next season, if they're both blessed and cursed with renewal.

Movie makers are direct descendants of the old travelling carnival. They blow into town, put up gaudy signs about seeing the Two-Headed Dog Boy of Borneo and sell their tickets. By the time the rubes realize what a miserable fake the dog boy is, the carnival pulls up stakes and is gone. They have the money and that's all they care about. They know full well that by next summer, the suckers will flock to see the Singing Alligator Woman just as eagerly.

Television is sitting in one place and having to think of new ways to fleece the rubes week after week after week.

So, despite the dazzling logic and reasons presented here, I won't hold my breath that any superhero series will start on TV anytime soon.

116 YEARS AGO and TODAY

One of my favourite books is "Three Men in a Boat" by Jerome K. Jerome. Published in 1889, it is still full of humour and dry wit. Along with the fun, the book is also a delightful window into that past era. It's amazing how little of the work feels "dated" and doubly amazing to think how little human nature has changed in over century.

Human nature and the weather.

Jerome heaps some scathingly funny observations on weather forecasting on how it ruined a holiday or two. The anecdotes could have been written 116 days ago instead of 116 years. It staggers and frustrates me that, despite radar, computers and satellites, the weather forecasting today is just as erratic and unrealiable as what Mr. Jerome dealt with in the 19th century.

After I grudgingly accept that all our shiny technology hasn't helped, what truly irritates me is the meteorologists' presentation. 100% confidence in their prediction. NO question of the exact temperature and precipitation for the next five days. Trust us!

My suggestion is that they expand their probability of precipitation to the whole forecast. Instead of saying "60% chance of snow tomorrow", state "90% chance of this entire forecast being accurate for tomorrow, and 70% for the weekend".

I just hate fibs and phony-baloney. Be honest.

ORIGINS

WHY do the movies keep telling us the origins of these superheroes?? "Batman Begins", "The Fantastic Four", and so on. Do they think we're stupid? Do they think 40 years of Fantastic Four comics hasn't reached the public a little bit? Nearly three generations of humans have come and gone since the first appearance of Batman. You sure don't need six degrees of seperation to find a comic scholar in your social circle to fill in any details for you. (away from the movie theater, please)

Before you think another thought, consider this: "The Incredibles" of last year had no origin nonsense. We knew nothing about the characters. They didn't have generations of publishing history. We went right into the lives and adventures of the Parr family. He's strong, she stretches and away we go. The creators of "The Incredibles" assumed everyone had the concept of "superhero" already in their vocabulary. I know many non-comic book fans that loved it. The ones that didn't enjoy it had other reasons that did not include lack of origin or back story.

Please stop wasting a valuable majority of a movie's two hour lifespan with Origins. Let's see some plot! Some action!

"YOU AIN'T NO KIND OF MAN UNTIL YOU OWN LAND"

Being a nutbar out of step with my demographic, I'm extra-sensitive when I hear my "peers" use the word "renter". They put a slight lip curl and back of the throat delivery to the word that immediately ranks it with such historical epithets like "n*gger" and "ch*nk".

When challenged on this particularly odd view, they describe renters as having no sense of values, no pride, come-and-go forces of mess and noise. Being a renter, I naturally take issue with this. Being a renter, I've spent considerable time living in apartment buildings with other renters. As with any such generalist shots, the number of bad renters don't warrant smearing the whole group of us.

This discussion always flips over to being a home owner. "Why do you WASTE your money on rent?" The sales pitch alternates from esoteric financial schemes to warm and inspiring ideals about roots. With some folks, I can almost hear the music swelling in the background. I'm surprised with that the Officially Recognized Flag for 1313 Mockingbird Lane isn't flapping from a pole set in the daffodil bed.

But it's all crap.

I know people who "owned" and lived in an older house. They decided to remove the front porch-veranda but were told "NO" by the city. Seems some bylaw requires X amount of front yard. The old houses have been granted a "grandfather" dispensation, but only if they remain intact. Removing the porch removed the grandfather protection and....well, does one win against city hall?

The city's waterworks needs more capacity, so they're expanding. Very nice properties that were a comfortable block away from the waterworks will now be across-the-fence neighbours. I can only guess at what that does to "equities" and "property values".

And in the above example, what of the people whose homes were requisitioned? Whatever equities, roots or plans are gone in the growl of a bulldozer. Here's a cheque. Go away. At this point I was going to finish with a hearty recommendation to see the great Australian movie "The Castle". It seemed the perfect conclusion of how ephemeral home ownership might be until I read the news this morning:

Cities can seize land for private developments: U.S. top court
23 Jun 2005 CBC News

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that local governments may take people's homes and businesses against their will to make room for private developments such as shopping malls and hotels.

We're all gypsies in this modern world. Some just live in denial.

"ADVERTAINMENT"

I learned this term only yesterday in a magazine article. Essentially, it's product placement on "xtreme 'roids".

The problem facing the corporate overlords are television commercials. With newfound power in videotape, DVDs, digital satellites and the internet, people are choosing NOT to watch commercials. (Gasp!)

Product placement is about a day and a half younger than the invention of television. The exhibiting of name brands in the sets and props of a show has peaked with examples like "24". Ford Motors puts up a whack of cash so that every automobile in every episode of "24" is a Ford.

Now the capatilistic invasion has been raised an order of magnitude. No longer do name brands linger in the background for the viewer to notice. Companies now pay big money for their products to be part of the storyline. This idea is a result of "Seinfeld". Without any pay or endorsement, Jerry and his loser friends discussed items like Junior Mints and Snapple. The sales of these products spiked considerably due to this. If this can happen by accident, why not on purpose?

The magazine article cited several examples of it being done already. A few writers have stood their ground and refused to bastardize their scripts with such shilling, but they are a feeble minority. "Write or there's the door."

I think the first wave of response may well be an increase in television fiction featuring History, Fantasy or Science Fiction. And good TV, too. The creative folk with integrity will try to escape the corporate overlords. No Coca Cola in Ancient Rome. No McDonald's burgers in the Shire of the Hobbits. No Nike cross trainers in galaxies far, far away.

This will be a brief golden age. Then the sponsor money of this uber-product placement will be too easy to ignore. When new TV shows are developed, their concepts will be altered to fit the sponsor name brand. SF&F shows where this is impossible will find fewer and fewer dollars and will languish in limbo.

I guess I'll go re-read "The Space Merchants" by Pohl and Kornbluth, just to prepare for this new future.

MOVIE DEFINITIONS

What's the difference between "Horror", "Thriller" and "Action"? I'm thinking it is our perception of the protagonists, or "victims".

If the people spend the movie disbelieving, denying, screaming and generally figure things out only as they die, it's a Horror.

If the people get a handle on what's threatening them and scramble to mount a defense, or even a counter-attack, then it's a Thriller.

If the people grasp the concept of their danger right away, and respond with belated expertise, it's an Action movie.

But, it is perception. By the above definition, the movie "Alien" would be a Thriller. We watch the crew of the good ship "Nostromo" build flamethrowers and try to defend themselves. The tone of the movie has already implanted the sense of futility in our gut. "Alien" is a Horror. "Aliens", the sequel, would seem to be verging on an Action, but as the body count and desperation climbs, it's a Thriller.

All this thinking comes up because I watched "Shaun of the Dead" yesterday. I loved it. Bloody brilliant. I may have to add it to my personal video collection. It lands squarely beside "Tremors" as a grand example of...

I don't know what to call these sorts of movies. Thrillers, for sure, but the comedic touches are enough to require a new name. Not "comedies". There's too much real death and fear and danger for them to be called a Comedy. The hybrid term "Dramedy" was coined a few years ago for dramas with a touch of humour. "Thrilledy"? "Comllers"?

Whatever label can be devised, I enjoy them immensely. There's not too many of this flavour of film, but they're great. What titles would you place in this Category-to-be-Named?