Eagerly Awaiting The Return of Doctor Who

Posted 3 weeks ago, under Scifi
Comments

When I heard this week that there was a new Doctor Who trailer being shown on the BBC this Saturday, I was far more excited that I should be over a TV program. Particularly when all we were getting was a 1 minute trailer that’s obviously designed to look impressive in 3D more than anything else.

New Doctor Who Logo


But… it’s Doctor Who. And it feels like it’s been a very long time since we had a full season of Doctor Who. I mean, sure we had the specials. But they were spaced so far apart, that you got that brief moment of joy and then nothing for months.

And we still don’t have an air date. Spring 2010 is all they’re saying. So the earliest it could be would be the end of March and if I was to guess I’d say mid-April is a more likely date. That’s still two months away!

Patience is a virtue, but there’s so much to anticipate. A new Doctor. A new companion. A new TARDIS interior. A new producer. I’m generally in the wait and see before judging camp, but I am oh so curious about how the feel of the show may change from series 4 to series 5 (or 1 or whatever).

I’m a huge fan of Steven Moffat and have been since I first saw Press Gang many years ago. The man has rarely if ever put a foot wrong in my book. Jekyll was fantastic and his Doctor Who stories have been hands down brilliant. But there’s a huge difference between writing 1 or 2 episodes a year and writing 6-8. And what affect will he have on the other writers for the show this year?

I’m curious about the new lead too of course. Matt Smith looks distinctly different to either David Tennant or Christopher Eccleston. And he’s younger, but I’m not too concerned about that. I’ve been watching Who for a very long time and I expect my Doctor’s to change on a regular basis. I don’t think there’s been a bad one yet so I’m sure he’ll grow on me quickly. Takes most of them a few episodes.

Lots of questions that need answers, but more importantly I just want to watch more Doctor Who! I want adventures in Time and Space. Lets see more of the TARDIS. More alien planets. By all means bring back some familiar faces. Not too many Daleks, but some other classic monsters would be good to see again.

I love being a Doctor Who geek!



Related articles by Zemanta
Comments

Learning The Wrong Lessons From Lost & Battlestar Galactica

Posted 4 weeks ago, under Opinion
Comments

Science Fiction shows are being made in such numbers now you might think they were becoming mainstream. As a scifi fan I’d see that as a good thing. But a lot of these shows don’t seem to last very long. The Sarah Connor Chronicles and Dollhouse both only made it to two seasons. V’s audience has plummeted in just the first 4 episodes. Stargate: Universe isn’t pulling in as many viewers as Stargate: SG1 managed. While Heroes has survived multiple seasons, it’s ratings are a shadow of what they were initially.

I’m noticing some common story telling techniques emerging in recent sci-fi series and I’m starting to wonder, have producers learned the wrong lessons from Lost and Battlestar Galactica?

The Story Arc

The most significant change in modern television is the emergence of the story arc. To various degrees it can be seen in almost all science fiction shows from Warehouse 13 to Chuck via Heroes and V.

The series that solidified story arcs as a valid method of tv storytelling was of course the scifi classic Babylon 5. Adoption was slow initially, but we now have shows like Lost and BSG that almost have to be watched as part of a larger arc if you want them to make sense. Even the continuity light shows like Chuck or Warehouse 13 generally have a season long story arc these days. Each show stands on it’s own, but there’s some hints at a larger story as well.

I’m a big fan of the story arc. Done properly it creates a much richer story than can be achieved in the standard 45 minutes. But there are a lot of downsides. My wife and I fell behind in watching Lost during the second season and after about a month realized it was just more trouble than it was worth trying to catch up again.

Grim and Gritty

Back in the 80’s and 90’s there was a big fad for “Grim n Gritty” superheroes. Fortunately it seems to have faded in the last decade. Unfortunately that same trend has infected my scifi shows!

Battlestar Galactica showed that stepping away from the space battles and focusing on characters who aren’t purely black or white can produce some intense viewing. But that doesn’t mean every single character has to behave like an ass.

Shaky Cam

As part of the trend towards a more realistic presentation, quick cuts and shaky hand held camera work. Done well this can add to the tension of a scene. Overdone, it is intensely annoying.

How About Making It Good?
All of these techniques have been used successfully before but they aren’t what made Lost or BSG a success. Strong characters, a plot that pulls the viewer in and high production values are what actually made those shows popular. None of these elements are actually required to make a good tv show.

Wouldn’t it be much better to create a show that is true to itself? That has a style that enhances the story it is trying to tell rather than mimics the latest fad? Wouldn’t the show do better if it wasn’t pretending to be something else?

Comments

Buzz, Hysteria, Hype and Social Networking

Posted 4 weeks ago, under Opinion
Comments

It’s possible you may have heard that Google launched a new service, Google Buzz, recently. In fact by now the odds are that you’ve read a minimum of a couple of dozen articles and opinions on what Google did wrong. Negative sells better than positive.

It’s certainly not a new phenomenon. People have been complaining about the media’s tendency to over-hype and over-react to every bit of news they report on. With the advent of blogs that annoying habit rapidly spread to everyone else who felt the need to share their opinion.

But the advent of social networking seems to have escalated this problem. Now people have to make judgements quicker than ever before and in order to get attention, to get a reaction, they have to couch them in ever more extreme terms.

This constant upping of language intensity numbs the audience and devalues both the previously perfectly adequate words and the words we are now using in their place. It’s no longer sufficient to say that Google showed poor judgement. Now we have to call them evil. So if Google are evil, does that mean we’re placing them on the level of murderers?

The English language contains over a quarter of a million words. With that level of subtlety at our fingertips why do we immediately reach for a sledgehammer?

This linguistic laziness is made even worse by the speed of reaction on the internet. Because not only does the originator of the post have to make a snap judgement, apparently so does everyone who reads it.

But if all anyone does is scream at the top of their voice and repeat the same handful phrases that they just, there’s no value in the medium. You’d get as much insight by standing in the middle of a train station and listening to fragments of conversation from the people passing by.

So what’s the point of this little screed of mine? Think before you post. Life isn’t binary and nor is language. Use the textures and shading that language provides to show the complexity of the subject you’re discussing.

It can be done. Even in 140 characters.

Comments
◀ Older Entries
Newer Entries ▶