As mentioned in my asides, I didn't have much time for blogging last week. Sorry about that. But here's a round-up of a few of my TV thoughts:
Survivors
Pretty rubbish. Couldn't even be bothered to watch episode two. Interestingly, probably the only instance of a TV show adapted from the novelisation of an older TV show, and there was the name-switch of a couple of characters to fake out the seven people who could remember the original series/novel and who lived/died.
But still very tedious, with no really interesting characters and no real sense of disaster or tragedy. "Oh my God, I've had to burn the body of my dead husband. Right, anyone for chips?"
To a certain extent, the problem is with the format, since although it's got a great starting point - almost everyone in the world dies so how will the survivors manage to eke out an existence? - invariably it descends into decisions about crop rotation, government structures and population stabilisation systems that somehow manage to avoid discussing or depicting sex since it's mainstream BBC.
But the original series still managed to make the characters interesting so clearly not everything can be blamed on Terry Nation.
Knight Rider
We've stopped watching it. It really is very, very bad.
Odd BBC2 links
We were watching Top Gear yesterday when up pops a trailer for Louis Theroux's programme following the police in Philadelphia. Two things:
- Theroux needs a different act if he's going to do serious journalism. To policeman: "What would have happened if he'd drawn that gun?" "He'd have been shot." "Who by?" Erm… Are you mental?
- The BBC2 announcer then said "It's just like an episode of The Wire". So now we're trailing BBC2 programmes with references to a show that's only on FX and gets about 36,000 viewers. That's a bit niche, isn't it?
24: Redemption
God. Hasn't television moved on since the last series of 24. That felt ridiculously antediluvian. Can 24 only thrive when there's a Republican presidency - discuss?
Heroes
Getting bored now, mainly because Ali Larter isn't in it enough, but also because of all the ridiculous personality switches, the fact there are so few characters who act like grown-ups, general inconsistencies, lack of logic, etc. Sigh. Roll on volume four (hopefully) although some of the spoilers I've heard don't fill me with much enthusiasm. How would you fix the show?
Dexter
Told you you have to wait for a while to see if it gets good. Always around the seven or eighth episode.
The Unit
Why aren't more people watching it? It's brilliant.
The IT Crowd
Thank God it's back. Officially the only comedy show in which Matt Berry and Richard Ayoade have ever appeared in that's funny. Katherine Parkinson's great - and a redhead again. Yey! And that magician was great. If only bluffball.co.uk were a real site…
Thanksgiving
Is all good television banned on Thanksgiving in the US?
December 1, 2008 | Reply
I agree about Survivors - it was pure, unadulterated, cliche-ridden crap. I've watched the original series on DVD and it's far superior.
It would be nice to see a drama which didn't have pounding, melodramatic music accompanying every scene. It would also be good to have casting that reflects society, rather than the BBC's agenda. We've gone from one extreme, where almost every actor was a middle-class white person, to the opposite end of the spectrum where half of the characters are from ethnic minorities. The BBC are ticking boxes.
The cast were never given the chance to develop as characters and actors like Patterson Joseph deserve better than this (let's hope he's soon named as the next Doctor Who).
How long was the Muslim boy praying? Didn't he notice everyone else in the mosque popping their clogs? And why did they all die at once?
This remake is shallow, sensationalist and utterly ridiculous. Watch the original series and weep over what's happened to British television drama.
December 1, 2008 | Reply
Couldn't agree more - the boy praying in the mosque sums up much of what's wrong with the remake. Comparing 'The Fourth Horseman' from the original series with the opening episode of the new actually made me feel embarrassed on Adrian Hodges' behalf.
December 1, 2008 | Reply
Amazed you managed to get this far with Knight Rider. =)
December 1, 2008 | Reply
Wow, in almost every blog on the net that's discussing Survivors someone is posting that there are too many non-white characters. Is this a Daily Mail campaign or something? It's not a great show (unfortunately, it's a good premise) but focusing on that as one of the problems seems extremely dubious.
December 1, 2008 | Reply
Heroes: can't be fixed. It's beyond broken. Looking back, I'd say that it broke even before the end of the first season. People are beginning to realize that it's not as good in reality as it is in our heads.
The IT Crowd: Love it (I work in computer science, so it's close to my heart). Been missing it. My mates and I still quote from 'The Work Outing'. (re: Matt and Richard: You really don't like any part of The Boosh?)
Thanksgiving: Yes. The only television we watch on turkey-day is American football (even if we don't like American football; it's TRADITION!).
December 1, 2008 | Reply
I spent Thanksgiving watching American Football despite being English, living in Wales, and not getting to eat any turkey.
Survivors may be quite bad, but at least it's not Bonekickers.
December 1, 2008 | Reply
I can't speak for everyone, but my agenda wasn't racist. I hate the Daily Mail and everything they stand for.
I just feel that the BBC dramas present a very London-centric view of Britain. I would object just as much if most of the characters were Scousers, for example.
9 out 0f 10 people in Britain are white - an average which hides huge regional variances. Dramas should reflect the ethnic and class make-up of different areas, otherwise they lose their realism.
Why weren't there any overweight chavs in Survivors? They're a large minority (in every sense) but watch any BBC or ITV drama and you'd think they never existed.
December 1, 2008 | Reply
Does anyone know where Survivors is actually set? I was thinking Manchester due to some of the supporting actors' accents and the close proximity of the Lake District. There was also a name check of my hometown Blackburn which isn't far from Manchester. That said, it could be anywhere outside of London as the characters made mention of 'going down to London'.
Sadly, this is the most interesting thing about Survivors for me, it's geographical location.
December 1, 2008 | Reply
I think it was supposed to be set in Manchester, which is quite ethnically diverse.
Actually, the "ethnic" casting is quite interesting. If you consider that certain groups sometimes have genetic differences in terms of susceptibility to diseases (eg sickle cell anaemia, which provides a defence against malaria, is only found in those of African descent; those of white European descent tend to have the gene that allows adults to process the lactose in cow's milk, and thus avoid lactose intolerance), it's entirely plausible that the Survivors flu might be less likely to attack those with a genetic background more commonly found in non-whites. Which I have absolute faith the BBC was intending to suggest all along.
December 1, 2008 | Reply
Aaron: it was definitely filmed in Manchester, although they never explicitly said it was set there. Particularly in the first episode I recognised quite a few locations and overhead shots. The exterior of Reza's (sorry, Al's) flat was definitely the new Civil Justice Centre (aka the Filing Cabinet), and he drives his car down Market Street at one point. And I lost count of the number of times the Beetham tower snuck into shot like a particularly annoying extra.
December 1, 2008 | Reply
No doubt the survivors will all turn out to be children of Arthur Petrelli.
December 1, 2008 | Reply
Survivors. Well ok its very middle class, safe, diverse and non specific. However I've been reading the Terry Nation book and there are a number of similarities. Once you get past Abby and her 'in house' maid and husband who 'works in the city darling' it gets pretty interesting. There is specific mention of people driving and parking their cars at home rather than leaving them in the street. Mind you we've seen the bad guy 'Dexter' but not Arthur Wormley yet! Over all the book is great (I'm a religious fan of the origial, the series and the sequel book) but needs an overhaul.
The new series is a mixed bag. Good credits (great tone1) some characters killed off early. The fact it has a mixture of characters is the same as the original (guy in a wheel chair, rich bloke, mentally handicapped bloke, gypsy!) and is done more subtly. Also the young lad ,Chahak Patel who plays Najid is brilliant. I thought the actress playing Abbey was excellent. Even Max Beasley was ok in both episodes.
The second one was a not bad, good villian, creepy situation in the warehouse. I liked the 'scavage like its a job' mentality.
Bad points well the Sarah character is annoying (the original in the book was). Not enough corpses! Ok 59.99 million dead... all at home! Probably a reflection of the time its being shown? Also the government minister is pretty awful... very poor!
Still I'm going to give it a chance at least watch it as its a very very limited run. Its far less 'stagey' than the original. Also its typical of modern TV that they will only do 6 episodes rather than 10 or 12. Too cautious.. still could keep improving?
24: Rubbish. As Mrs Espedair said 'there was Jack all Jack'!
Knight Rider..... do I need to comment?
The Unit: Brilliant!
Heroes: Gets better by episode 5 or 6 of this section. I mean its a typical Marvel scenario!
I'll stop going on now.....
December 1, 2008 | Reply
Other than Heroes (which I'm staying with to the end, unless it becomes sub-Sliders), all the shows mentioned fall into "don't watch" (like The IT Crowd), "can't watch" (Knight Rider) and "can't be bothered to watch" (Survivors).
December 1, 2008 | Reply
Well, speaking as one of the Yanks hanging out here, the reason there's no good TV for Thanksgiving is because we're just too busy to watch it. Therefore, the networks aren't going to throw away anything that could garner them good ratings at some other time during that period.
The basics are football and the parades. Lately the dog show following the Macy's parade has become an up and comer. Otherwise, it's a great time to catch up on old favorites in marathons on various cable channels. (This past weekend, Fox Movie Channel became "The Channel of the Apes" with its "Planet of the Apes" franchise marathon.)
Because they knew nobody would be watching, that's why NBC tossed off that 'Rosie Live' debacle on Wednesday night......
December 2, 2008 | Reply
(Above anon. comment was me, forgot to sign in not trying to be mysterious)
I actually think the multi-ethnic casting in some shows is ridiculous, principally Merlin - yes, I know it's a show with magic and dragons and therefore not in any way historical, but implying that there were all sorts of random black people in Britain at that time without anyone thinking they were demons (which is pretty much what anyone thought if you were even from a few villages along) seems to me to tell a different sort of lie and airbrush history.
But Survivors, being a random collection of characters who just happen to have survived, why shouldn't they be various backgrounds and races? I would like to hope that it was cast colourblind and (apart from the Muslim boy and lapsed Muslim playboy, who are obviously paralelling each other) they simply picked the best actors they saw. I don't think the show is all that but without Paterson Joseph it would be even less!
Heroes is like Oasis to me - never as good as people said it was/they were and not as bad now as people claim. Even the first series was clunky and pompous.
December 4, 2008 | Reply
Having sat through Xena and Hercules, which might have inoculated me, I'm none too fussed by Merlin's ethnic casting. Once you've messed with history/legend as much as they have done already, changing the composition of the population isn't that big a sin. Throw in magic and hey presto, I'm not fussed.
Besides, there were more black people around in the UK in days gone by than many people suspect.