Entries from last years blog, right here...
NOW UNDER REVISION AND RECONSTRUCTION..!!
It's my favourite show, as I'm sure it is yours? Of course Christmas is my favourite time of year.
It's the deepest part of winter, the exact midpoint, Christmas Eve - halfway out of the dark.
Amy and Rory are trapped on a stricken space liner, plummeting through banks of thick icy fog to the surface of the planet below.
Only one man has the power to save them; Kazran Sardick, a rich but lonely old miser who rules Sardicktown with a sky-mast of iron.
The Doctor's only chance of rescuing the ship's four thousand passengers is to save Kazran's soul and show him that life is worth living.
Can he bring him out of the dark?
Matt Smith (The Doctor) said: "I've always wanted to be part of the Christmas Doctor Who experience.....the great thing about this episode is that when Doctor Who and Christmas are put together you combine the spirit of both those things. It was a real privilege to work with Michael (Gambon). He's so crafty and when I asked him about working with iconic actors such as Olivier and Bates he said the one thing they all had in common was they were naughty - and he's exactly the same.
Katherine Jenkins (Abigail): "I had the most amazing time; I must admit I was very nervous and I felt out of my comfort zone...However, when I arrived on set the whole team was so welcoming and supportive. The story is very emotional which I hope is going to touch people. I had a really good laugh with Matt between takes. He kept mucking around and singing to me but you know people should hear his voice; I think he's got a great bass voice!"
Steven Moffat, writer: "Oh, we're going for broke with this one. It's all your favourite Christmas movies at once, in an hour, with monsters. I've honestly never been so excited about writing anything. I was laughing madly as I typed along to Christmas songs in April". Last week saw the BFI preview followed by a Q&A session with castmembers and Moffat where he commented further..."Well, the base line of Doctor Who is a man who lives in a telephone box and saves the universe in a bow tie. So you have to go some to up that. And if you're going to do a Christmas Day episode, which is basically the principle that the audience have had a selection box for breakfast and are probably drunk, then you actually have to sort of move it on a bit. Because, actually, a normal episode of Doctor Who wouldn't be enough at that point". I think you have to be emotional...You have to laugh and cry a bit.
Ben Stephenson, Controller, BBC Drama Commissioning:
"Matt Smith and Karen Gillan captivated audiences in their debut series, and Doctor Who's clever twist on the much loved A Christmas Carol will thrill BBC One viewers this year..."
...well said Ben.
Matt, Karen Gillan and Arthur Darvill, who all return in this and the forthcoming sixth series,have proven incredibly popular. Pulling off the hand over from David Tennant's universally loved tenure as The Doctor, with aplomb.
That's Doctor Who at 6pm, Christmas Day on BBC1 followed by Doctor Who Confidential at 7pm, on BBC3. Both specials are repeated, on Boxing Night on BBC3, and will be available on BBC iplayer from Christmas Day, for 7 days. There's also a cutdown version of Confidential screening at various points and additional RED-BUTTON content, each day, from the DWC production team. And listen out for Matt Smith and Karen Gillan on BBC Radio 1 picking their Top 10 of the year at 8am on Christmas Eve morning.
Doctor Who: The Christmas Specials
Sadly skipping DT's debut episode from 2005, but showing the 2006-2009 episodes in a mid afternoon slot. Each special has an identity of it's own, and some are more Christmassy than others. If you don't own them, or haven't seen them since original transmission, this is exactly what those tubs of Roses and Quality Street are made for.
This Christmas sees the launch of the latest in the run of "Adventure Games". enititled, "Shadows Of the Vashta Nerada". A fourth and final one in this series, picking up the story of the Doctor and Amy who've materialised just south of London, inside a sea-bed colony called Poseidon. This game features a real-world conspiracy and also takes place at Christmas.Steven Moffat, once again: "We've gone all-out for the "season finale"...entirely underwater - something which would be impossible for the TV series, as water is so expensive. It's thrilling, terrifying, educational and fun. Just steer clear of those shadows..." No surprises by the title, that the game features the return of the shadowy Vashta Nerada from Series Four (Silence in the Library /Forest of the Dead) The game's written by Phil Ford,and available to download from the BBC website for PC and Mac.
Can it really be 12 whole months since David Tennant bode The Doctor farewell, in the epic "The End Of Time"..?
Time really does fly, its seems.
Later in the week, I'll preview this years Christmas special of DW itself, but before that there's another production starting which stars someone you may just recognise. Yes, that IS, after a fashion K-9 from Doctor Who taking centre stage for FIVE's series premiering this weekend. Another spin off, you ask.....? Well, yeah....but NOOOO. Why C5.....? It's complicated. Does it have anything to do with Sarah Jane Adventures...? And if not, then who's it for..?
All not unreasonable questions and I'll go some way to answering them and previewing this children's series in the paragraphs below.
K9: The Series begins its UK terrestrial transmission on FIVE this coming Saturday. And no, this isn't technically anything to do with DW OR SJA. It's previously aired in the UK on digital only kids station Disney XD, and on Network 10 in Australia, where it's been written and produced.
K9 remained a fixture of the series for almost 4 years and was popular enough with the viewers, old and young, that a true spin off was piloted in 1981. That's the fan dividing production, K9 and Company. On that occasion, a full series never materialised and K9 would only ever make fleeting appearances in anniversary specials, or as himself on magazine and game shows until Doctor Who's eventual return. It was during that time DW spent in the TV wilderness, Baker and Martin began a long period of development on the series which finally makes it's terrestrial debut this week. Bob Baker serves as writer on some instalments and is joined as developer/producer by Paul Tams. They've explained that this K9 is the "original" model, of the 4 seen in DW over the years. K9 Mark I, which appeared from 1977-78, and was last seen opting to stay with companion Leela, when she left the TARDIS to remain on Gallifrey. A second full series of K9 has already been green-lit. If you've not caught it yet, here's the trailer.
In that link you may hear that Docor Who legend, John Leeson reprising his role as the voice of K9, as he does in both DW and SJA to this day. The rest of the cast is made up by Philippa Coulthard playing Jorjie Turner, Keegan Joyce playing Starkey, and Daniel Webber playing Darius Pike. Finally there's the undoubtedly Doctor-ish element, provided by Robert Moloney as Professor Gryffen.
K9 follows the adventures of three teenagers - Starkey, a young rebel genius who's lost his parents in mysterious circumstances, not to mention his own way in society; Jorjie, a very capable fighting dynamo in the deceptively cute frame of a privileged-schoolgirl from the upper echelons of society.
Darius, a sneaky and cunning delivery boy who knows the city like the back of his light-fingered little hand - and, of course, K9, a cybernetic wonder - a robotic dog built of mysterious alien technology and has suffered a malfunction to his memory banks.
Okay, so those are the facts, but what's the series like...? Well, without saying too much I can state that K9:The Series could've turned out way worse. I've seen some already, and you can definitely tell when Bob Baker (K9 originator) is at the keyboard and when it just the monkey's. But it's not a cheap show, nor a simple cash-in. The producers are aiming for something with perhaps a Power Rangers like appeal and response from that target audience. One younger,less inclusive than that of Sarah Jane Adventures. As such there's little here for the older children, teens and adults to hold interest amidst the run-around adventure and pantomime like performances of some of the cast, aside from a nostalgia buzz for Children's TV of the past.
K9 is nicely written with a charm which eludes a much of the material on Nick and Disney XD. If you've seen the later PR shows and other Disney stuff like Aaron Stone, you'll probably find the level. Some decisions in the production seem odd, given budget and place in the market and don't help to convince of it's long term worth. Still, it's harmless. Perhaps time will tell a different story and be kind to this series. It's not aimed at older DW fans, though there are the odd nods here and there. For example, in the opening episode the type on K9's casket is in Old High Gallifreyan, as seen in the classic series story The Five Doctors and most recently in The Time Of Angels, last year. K9: The Series started today, Saturday 18th December at 10am, with a further episode each day at various times. FIVE is showing the first 13 of the 26 episode first series in this block, with the remainder promised at Easter. I'll be taking another look at this spin-off that isn't really a spin-off, in the New Year.
EGGHEADS DOCTOR WHO SPECIAL
With this latest project, Smith has quite clearly looked to the rich, distinctive and hardly sensitive back catalogue of the Amicus and Hammer Studios productions of the 60's and early 70's. Creating a historical, action-horror so very British yet similarly 21st century. Black Death makes quite an impression. It's a dark, fun but layered piece, falling into the same bracket as classics such as 1968's Vincent Price movie Witchfinder General and The Wicker Man. Also bringing to mind recent Tarantino film Inglorious Bastereds. Originally a project offered to another Brit, Geoffrey Sax ( White Noise, Stormbreaker, Doctor Who) the movie was actually filmed, as with a lot of projects set in medieval England, in rural Germany. It's those locations and hue of the film which serve to recreate that aforementioned era in film, even if the sensibility is a modern one. A more realistic tone, even though the journey of these characters is fraught with the grotesque and the other-worldly.
Sean Bean leads the cast, as Uric the knight whose reputation for zero-tolerance and devotion to Christianity, goes before him. Partnered with virtual newcomer Eddie Redmayne as young, idealistic and troubled, monk Osmund they're tasked with investigating those rumours of necromancy. Both actors impress, in parts that seem so removed from one another at the outset. Osmund sees the mission as respite almost, and a means to another, more selfish end. Whereas Ulric, by this point, has little left in this life other than his own duty and legend. The cast is rounded out with a variety of familiar faces from British TV and film, even if you can't put names to that many of them. Alongside a few I'm sure I've never set eyes on before but will look out for now. Present are noted thesp Tim McInnnery, veteran of Smith's earlier Severance (2006) and forever Percy and Kevin in the various Black Adder comedy series, and genre royalty David Warner. Warner was famously the guy decapitated by a sheet of glass in The Omen, his CV also lists Time Bandits, Twin Peaks, Babylon 5, 3 roles in the Star Trek franchise and many other distinguished shows and films. Carice Van Houten impressed me in this: a name to watch for in the future..
But let's not get too carried away on the deep and meaningful. BD is hardly a laugh a minute, but there is a black sense of humour arising from the characterisations, at play. It adds to the realism and makes for a rounded "watch". Obviously, there's a fair bit of violence on show here. However, Smith employs considerable restraint in depicting it. BD isn't gratuitous and I certainly wouldn't describe it as "gore". Shots most likely closing in on the faces of those committing violent acts, rather than the acts themselves. As such there's not huge amounts of CGI in evidence, I feel. This adds to the old school chill as much as the slightly blurry treatment of the film stock. Still, this movie has a power to startle.
Some films are essential, for example, solely because they're so very notorious and talked about. Benchmarks in the careers of influential figures and trends, or maybe because they're just plain bad and perfect examples of how NOT to do it. In which case, I'll try and stray away from lazy slating and shine a little light on the answers to questions that often come to mind, following viewing. All with my sense of humour and perspective, well in check. At the end of the day, however revered or derided any of this stuff is, it's an entertainment.
Perhaps I'll revisit films I've not connected with before...? Maybe dismissed and even despised, in an attempt to challenge my own perceptions and illustrate how our tastes and understandings may change. Bravely jumping in with those which have slipped through my net, some of which may surprise you, and along the way. People often say to me that "I like what I like.." (...folds arms ) and whilst I sympathise and respect that, I reckon that closing doors and assuming you've seen all there is to see or that you're not capable of having missed the appeal or not seen a bigger/alternative picture can be hasty. We're only human, and have our off days and blind spots don't we...? Last but not least I'll take a glance at the movies in context to the broader landscape, both inside the genre AND within the popular culture arena generally. Making sure to post some of those gorgeous original theatrical posters, such as the one a little further down, in all their glory. Enjoy and please make suggestions for further choices, via the forum page above or over on the TNM Collectables Facebook page...
The 1970's was a big decade for motion pictures generally, and for this genre it would prove massive. Where hype and the definition of entry into the consciousness ascended to something beyond mere ticket receipts. Following key films like 1968's Planet Of the Apes and Jaws (1975), the "brand" was defined and taken to a new level.....but that was the year after Logan's Run, in 1977 with the original, game-changing Star Wars. What Logan's Run represents to me is the last of it's breed. A final hurrah for an older, more serious (certainly in intention) way of bringing SF stories to the big screen through reflecting a distorted vision of our own way of life, back at us, free of extravagence. What's referred to as the "shattered earth" brand of science fiction which also includes the Apes series and The Omega Man. The very first thing that hits you about pressing that PLAY button on LR, now in 2010, even if you watch a lot of SF, is that it is so, so serious....perhaps beyond wisdom. It also boasts some distinctive production design from the opening shots, and a bizarre and unsettling scoring which sadly gets much more traditional as the film moves on. In fact, that's true of the film generally too, looking back.
Things start with an almost nightmarish and unsettling feel. The shininess of the spaces and happy clappy sensibility of the populace freak you out, even today. What if The Village, of The Prisoner, had been a 1970's shopping centre instead..? It's not subtle, but then again, LR isn't about subtlety at all, as we'd see confirmed later on. For those versed in the language of dystopian SF, we've got a good showing for the cliches here: zero tolerance police forces, legitimate sex industries, hologram entertainments, big subway like roads linking domed cities, whilst casual wear seems to consist of toga like curtains. One of the most enjoyable, pre-emptive glimpses of the future concerns this societies everyday attitude to plastic surgery. It's all bordering on the hedonistic, deliberately echoing the Roman Empire. One of many allegories, which is re-established in the final act.
Three of the four lead characters are portrayed by British actors. Michael York, who's star was ascending at this point, on stage as well as screen, is perfectly cast as Logan 5, the establishment figure who questions the status quo and gradually comes to "blink" and "run". When we first meet him and his plain shifty colleague Francis 7, played by Richard Jordan, they enjoy their rather grim duties way to much for comfort. York possessed, in equal spades, heroic good looks and an other worldly intensity which he channels into what could've easily become the films undoing. Logan is incredibly unlikeable, most of the way through, as "heroes" go and it's refreshing. Helping us all the more welcome the presence of Jenny Agutter as Jessica 6. A vision of loveliness most guys watching will fall for and as such we place faith in her judgement as she sees something dawning within Logan. If she thinks Logan's worth saving, and his truth worth finding, so do we. Agutter is captivating in this understated role. Stunning to look at, in skimpiest of costumes.
Francis 7 would naturally be the one who'd pursue them breaking away from the only civilisation any of them have known, across the alien Earth outside. Once again bringing Planet of the Apes to mind as we find those iconic landmarks of our world, fallen into neglect and ruin. Jordan's performance is enjoyable, in a pretty conventional role. Certainly convincing enough when the shades of grey separating his and Logan's perspectives, begin to show. The late Sir Peter Ustinov takes the other major role, but doesn't show up until some way in so I'm reluctant to go into any detail for those who've not seen it. It's the presence of this noted character actor which refocuses things somewhat when it starts to seem there's nothing new left to see. An exchange between his character and Jessica which provided my favourite moment in the whole thing.
At it's best, the film itself is exactly what we gravitate towards SF and fantasy for! Huge concepts and vivid realisation. There's no way you can mistake this film for any other, whatever conventions it would fall back on. At almost 2 hours, there's an episodic feel to Logan's Run, and clear divide between it's three acts. Contributing to somewhat of a dilution of it's original power and into something more tried, tested and square-jawed. That may be a saving factor in a film which quickly swings from taking itself so desperately seriously to embracing adventure and dare I say, a silly side to it all. The viewer has plenty familiar to latch on to, and mercifully the film falls just short of running out of steam before a more focussed and surprisingly quiet finale.
That about-face is partially a bi-product of the big silver robots, enormous super-computers which start to break down when the get even remotely confused, underground cities and matte painted skies. Most of which would be instantly consigned to the history books by Industrial Light and Magic over the next few years. There's a final punch up between the errant Sandmen where the symbolism of Logan throwing dusty old books and clasping the star and stripes flag in self-defence, will hammer the message well home. Followed by Logan's decision to share his enlightenment, which whilst hardly original and maybe corny by today's standards, are told with Biblical connotations and a restrained tone. As such the integrity of the story survives, and there's no doubt whatsoever, I've been entertained. They pulled it off, even if it does end rather abruptly.
LOGAN'S LEGACY
Michael Anderson's movie met with mixed reviews, in 1976. Though the movie's visuals got more widespread acknowledgement as LR received the Oscar for Special Achievement in Visual Effects. Anderson would go on to bring The Martian Chronicles to television.
Logan's Run did, however, get a thumbs up from William F Nolan and George Clayton Johnson: writers of the 1967's original novel on which it was based. As with most cases, certain aspects of the material were tailored to the needs of the script, budget of the time, and to suit Michael York's age. The most obvious change being that the age of death in the book was just 21, not 30. Following the success of the film, Nolan would revisit the characters for two further books. Logan's World follows Logan's return to Earth, and the ashes of the system he'd escaped. Logan's Search deals with Logan going to an alternate reality, and it features an alien race. The most famous extension of the life of Logan's Run came on the smaller screen just a short while later. CBS Televison screened a short-lived remake, very similar in both budget and dynamic to the TV series of Planet Of the Apes (...yep, again!) Effectively an entity in itself, look for coverage of Logan's Run: The Series, back here soon.
Marvel Comics produced a 6 part adaptation of the movie and attempted to continue the story beyond. That venture was cancelled, due to flagging interest at just issue 8, but once again was pre-emptive of their Star Wars series which would come the following year and run for almost ten years, telling original stories. In the 80's a smaller publisher produced a new version of Logan's Run this and Nolan's Logan's World novel, to some success. In the last few years, as talk of a remake started to resurface, Bluewater Comics have published a series called LR:Last Day incorporating and developing much of the movie's imagery.
The legacy of LR undoubtedly lives on and talk of a remake has persisted since the mid-90's, fuelled by Nolan's desire to realise his stories more accurately and extravagentlty, as CGI allows. It's nearly happened too, as recently as 2006, when Bryan Singer ( X-Men, The Usual Suspects )had developed the project to the point where studio space was booked. Financial complications slowed things down, before Singer moved on. The rights are believed to reside with the actor, writer and producer Matt Damon. Michael Bay ( Transformers and Armageddon supremo ) undoubtedly had Logan's Run in mind when realising his 2005 film The Island starring Ewan MacGregor.
Although the film isn't as powerful nor stylish as it appeared when I was a boy, Logan's Run stands as a better than average last shout for it's kind. It's often repeated on both network and multi-channel TV and always reached down for a brush up whenever the next evolution in home entertainments starts to penetrate with consumers, most recently with a new Blu-ray release. Fun, if flawed, Logan's Run is the definition of a product of it's very specific time 3.5/5
We're promised The Doctor and Amy, having a tea party and treating us to a preview, titled "A Christmas Carol" (....hmmmm,familiar..??)
That's tonight anytime between 7pm and 9pm on BBC1. Then it's just a 5 week wait to see the rest. I'll not be watching the preview bit tonight, as I'd much rather see the whole thing, as written, on the night. But I know many viewers will be chomping at the bit for any new DW after all these months. If it puts smiles on faces and pounds in Pudsey's account, fair do's. There's other items of interest that night, specifically what the official site are describing as such:" you can find out what happened when two young fans of Doctor Who had their dream come true...a very special treat featuring Matt Smith and continues Doctor Who's long tradition of supporting Children in Need."
Never a truer word has been spoken...! For fans of my age, DW and CIN are forever linked since the feature length 20th anniversary story was transmitted in the middle of 1983's event. A full 90 minutes worth of DW..! Can't imagine them doing that now, for any series. I'll be taking a closer look at DW and this worthiest of causes another time, but as far as these previews go, it's the third consecutive year. Viewers know what to expect by now, and I've no doubt families up and down the country will be suitably tantalised as Wogan rattles his bucket...!
Families have proven to be the lifeblood of DW since it's return in 2005. As they had been through almost the entirety of the original run from 1963-1989. DW was a mainstay of the evolution in Saturday night entertainment on British TV, which followed after the football results. Peaking with the 70's famous menu of programming which would also include Basil Brush, The Generation Game, Morecombe and Wise and many popular, harder drama's. ( see below )
In the 80's DW would prove, certainly in UK originated series terms, the "last man standing" as Little and Large, Roland Rat and Paul Daniels Magic Show, even upstarts like Robin Of Sherwood, were all picked off from around it. Notoriously, sidelined to a mid-week slot, opposite Corrie. Only when the series seemingly abandoned that broad family demographic, and a bedtime friendly timeslot on a school night, did DW truly vacate it's place in the hearts of the nation. In the years which followed, little stirred within this bracket, other than a pretty short, though successful and mostly forgotten pairing of Lois & Clark (known in the UK as New Adventures Of Superman) with Noel Edmond's House Party. Then we hit extended "tumble-weed" time as TV executives rationalised "why would families watch TV's together, when every kid has a TV and other activities in their bedroom's..?"
Me, I've never read one. In fact, I even came to the films late. Now I'd be worried that reading the books would spoil the last couple of movies in what've proven an incredible series. Seemingly as beloved as the books, uniquely I suspect, the 2 versions are appreciated in tandem. This is despite everyone having the favourites and opinions about where they differ. It's all heartening to witness. As is the crossover appeal of the new generation of games consoles.
But back in 2003, family TV was conspicuous by it's absence. Scripted product was impossible to locate. ITV had screened one run of Harry Hill's TV Burp, though it had yet to achieve popularity or hit upon a winning formula, shown late-night on Thursdays or Fridays. I remember a journalist, just months before the screening of Chris Eccleston's debut, claiming that the BBC's and industry's in general, high hopes for Doctor Who were unrealistic based on these assumptions. Of course, we all know what actually happened now.....and continues to happen, every Saturday 13 weeks a year. Chiefly because Russell T Davies, Julie Gardner, Mal Young and Jane Tranter, tapped into that audience.
Some do remain oblivious to a distinction between children's TV and family TV. In response to this, I point in the direction of....well, only the biggest TV series of all-time...? Yes, that's The Simpsons.
That show was originally conceived as adult, coming from a slot on a late night sketch show, but expanded most sensitively to play on more levels. It's never held it back creatively, in fact quite the opposite. It also has a unique existence, in that the world around the characters moves on, all be it at a slower rate, yet they remain un-aged etc. The boundaries between fantasy and reality blur and plenty of episodes, from what devotees tell ME, contradict. The Simpsons has,like DW, an anthology-like relationship with it's own fluid lore: (certainly compared to stuff like Star Trek) It's a serial element come mythology which is drawn upon to suit it's continuance and creative freedom.
DW's development was an almost opposite. Though never made by the children's department, ALWAYS the serials division of the BBC. On paper, it was formulated originally for children, to inform and entertain. Yet the two series meet in the middle. DW was cannily tweaked in gestation. Dreamt up by one man, drawing on his inclinations and experience then fine tuned by a what we now call a "focus group", to suit that family audience, whilst it's initial 13 episode order was being devised. Just look at the dynamic of that original cast, and see how they're characterised and relate to their surroundings and quandaries in those first 3 adventures. All whilst popular TV was still in it's infancy, DW was bravely, boldly defining the model just as The Simpsons would in the early 90's. That continued, and began to overlap more so once the series became a unique staple of the schedules and occupied special place in the hearts of viewers. It never really stopped.
The Simpsons' would no more be running now, 20 years on, than DW would've been had it not been given those extra layers enabling it to be watched on different levels, within the same households. The Simpson's watch word is always: comedy, DW's: adventure. Not only is there a huge crossover appeal between DW and The Simpsons, but it's pretty clear that members of the production staffs of both series share a mutual admiration. DW scripts have featured references to Groenig's colourful world and The Doctor has even made the odd cameo appearance in Springfield.
Some will declare, as I've heard recently commented by confirmed DW fan,TV's David Mitchell, that when you watch DW not to expect adult storylines. Of course, he was absolutely right. Not primarily, and definately not exclusively and that counts for The Simpsons too. DW is an unashamed Saturday night fantasy and adventure series. I would also remind those who STILL expect, nay demand HARD Science Fiction from the series, of DW's firmer footing in the fantasy genre more so. It may LOOK like SF (as The Simpsons look like a cartoon, rather than a situation comedy), and they always go to great lengths to make sure when real science is present, that it's correct, but DW is not and never will be, Blade Runner.
There are those to whom "family" orientated programming doesn't suit their pallet. Who may even boast of solely being able to enjoy and invest in stuff aimed squarely at adults, and that's fine, of course it is. Nine times out of ten, they most likely to be outside the target demographic and /or sensibility anyway. Each to their own and all that, but I take issue with any dismissal of worth and achievement which will come from the same lips. The proof is all around us now in the international TV schedules that it's possible to work on those levels, to the wider demographic. At the same time, provide material that challenge adults as well as children. DW reached for new maturity and adult storytelling throughout it's inaugural run in 2005. Reaching further the following year, then positively ascending from 2007. So much so, it gave birth to series like Primeval, Robin Hood and Merlin. Not to mention it's massively popular, award-winning spin off, The Sarah Jane Adventures which recently finished a fourth run. Frankly, there IS such a thing as family television, on British TV again and single-handedly due to DW.
With the opening on the penultimate movie in the Harry Potter series, this week and the associated rush to the cinema, I'm reminded of the debt DW owes to JK Rowling. RTD invited her to write for the series, in the first two years. She's since admitted to being disappointed her schedule couldn't accomodate it and even voiced hope they'd ask again, some day. DW has shown courtesy with the odd reference to her work, here and there, but I do hope one day this becomes a reality.
When Journey was released theatrically in 2008, it made little impact and had a muted, at best, response. However, as with a significant amount of these effects heavy, Holiday season flicks, I've found there's little cause for some of the more verbose criticism aimed in it's direction. It's all too easy to take pot shots for what it doesn't do, rather than to enjoy and itemise what it does....Once Sean (Josh Hutchenson)and his Uncle Trevor (...I can hear the trailer voice man " Brendan Fraser IS Uncle trevor INNNN.....!!!!,hehe) head off from a short set-up to a rendezvous with a "Vern-ian" crackpot, the film slips out of a goofy-neutral and into the realm of B-movie thrills. Yes, it's rather linear in it's storytelling, with little directing attention away from our three intrepid explorers and yes, it's a tiny cast of 3 (..with literally a couple of bit players) but this works in it's favour. Making the viewer privy to something almost a "secret". People have dismissed the film based in part, on these factors. I ask, on the other hand, why set this movie up to be something it isn't..? Why load it up with an extended cast, and protagonists when that's little connection with the nature of the story being told nor the material which inspired it. It would just take attention away from where the audience really want to be, and we all tire of blockbusters that we can tell are grafted on, and strung out, don't we..?
Journey is part travel log of an almost 150 year old, influential, classic science fiction adventure and part quest film. Respectfully; lovingly and vividly brought to life from Jules Verne's original novel using the 21st century innovations, if in a rather primary coloured way. Effectively a sequel to Verne's story, but in a world where it's published fiction. It's all very reminiscent of those Doug McClure starrer's like Amicus's At the Earth's Core and 1959's straight adaptation of Verne's story featuring James Mason, also owing a debt to Spielberg's original Jurassic Park. Plot is very much more an A to B to C affair, where we see our characters, virtual strangers at the beginning, come to rely on each other and embrace their remarkable situation. And you know what..? That's fair enough..! When all's said and done, the clue IS in the name.....it's called "Journey to the Centre of the Earth". Don't moan when that's exactly what you get..! It may be slight, but it doesn't feel insubstantial nor desperate. Neither talking down to children, nor falling over itself to justify itself to grown up's.Journey's dynamic shows it's roots not only in those early days of science fiction and fantasy literature, but as a showcase for 3D movies as is becoming quite commonplace now, just 2 years on. Billed as "JTTCOTE in 3D", on original posters and trailers, this was removed when it would turn out the movie would only be possible seen in 3D at a few select USA theatres. Even on standard DVD, and without that extra dimension to play in, the film boasts some pretty damn good special effects. Yeah, you'll have seen better, particularly if you consume a lot of genre movies but there's way worse out there and it's bold and brash!! Only the most cynical of minds could remain oblivious to it's easy charm and serial style thrills. It's only very occasionally obvious as 3D, when watched in 2. Working in it's favour as the ride gathers momentum, but with plenty of room left to take it all in, rather than fill our field of vision with crowded screens. It's a lack of restraint with productions like this, which can leave a movie looking more like a computer game.
It's very obvious this is a family friendly movie, even by PG certified standards. No severed limbs, just flapping ones as the cast run around wailing and sweating. It's to director Eric Brevig's credit that so much genuine tension is rung from the story, when it's just this small band of movie stereotypes against the forces of nature, probability and the limits of their own knowledge. Any kids out there with an inclination towards science and/or natural history will be fascinated by a movie like this. My own son whispered "....that's siiiiick..." under his breath during one of the many set-pieces (...apparently, that means "GOOD"!) A great deal of it is wildly implausible, of course, but where desired time is taken to take in the scenes and life forms present. Whilst it's explained to us in context to Verne's story and real science taught in schools all over the world. This isn't always a responsibility observed in such fare. Kids will detect the dividing line: they ain't stupid. I too found myself gripped by some scenes and keen for them all to survive (...yep, even the kid!!)
When The Doctor is declared dead, old companions Sarah Jane and Jo Grant meet for the very first time and join forces to discover the truth. As an interstellar conspiracy gathers around Unit HQ, Clyde finds that he holds the fate of the Time Lord in his hand - quite literally!
Old friends fight together to make one last stand against the sinister Shansheeth. But with Clyde and Rani trapped and in terrible danger, Sarah Jane and Jo Grant realise their worst fears - their friendship with the Doctor might be the very thing that dooms them.....
Matt Smith, Laila Rouass and Katy Manning guest star in Death Of The Doctor, written by Russell T Davies.
It's half term in UK schools and it's been a very special week for DW fans, old and young. For past and future generations of the series, cast and viewers who"tune in" or "tune on" (...in the digital age!) to this weeks The Sarah Jane Adventures. Not only has the customary 2 part tale "Death Of the Doctor" featured Matt Smith as The Doctor, giving us just the snack we need between the two meals that were The Big Bang and the imminent Christmas Special, but it's also seen the return of a much older, in the nicest possible way, familiar face....
Katy Manning last played Josephine Grant, on screen, in 1973. Yet as soon as the publicity pictures started to appear, first of Manning alongside SJA leading lady Lis Sladen, then eventually with the latest Doctor, on set of the TARDIS, it was obvious she's stepped back into those knee-high boots effortlessly. Here's what fan favourite Katy Manning had to say on her own website, after filming...
"I was really surprised at how it all came back, and how quickly I felt like Jo again. It was a genuine pleasure to be playing her once more." Continuing: "And to be inside the Tardis again was the icing on the cake. I love how it's been updated - or retro-dated is more accurate, I suppose."
She alludes to the way the character has altered, in the intervening decades....
"You'll have to watch the programme to see what I mean, but Russell T Davies has done a wonderful job of showing how Jo has developed.... You can still see the young and awestruck girl she was, but that's been tempered by experience and maturity - not replaced, but tempered."
Since that last appearance opposite Jon Pertwee's formidable Third Doctor, Manning herself has spent most of the time living and working in Australia. Only returning to reside in Britain last year. Flexing her DW muscles, recreating Jo for a couple of the wonderful Big Finish audio series DW: Companion Chronicles and playing a brand new role in a spin off audio series (...more of which another time!) Manning never distanced herself from the role or it's followers in that long gap, and had been a regular on the antipodean convention circuit in particular. Establishing a unique rapport with her fans, and a devotion probably only rivalled by Lis Sladen herself.
37 years on and Jo Grant is still Jo Jones. Her marriage to Stewart Bevan's Doctor Clifford Jones, shortly after leaving The Doctor's side has taken her all over the world. Just as she'd imagined in that that final story The Green Death, which would surely figure on any list of seminal DW works. Katy had been with Jon's Doctor for over 2 years on screen and throughout 3 full series. The two had become close personal friends and this transferred to screen, as their characters relationship did. Her farewell story was the first deliberately constructed to "close an arc" by modern standards, with the imminence of her emotional as well as physical separation from The Doctor becoming clearer to the viewer, as well as the lead character, over it's 6 parts.
It's a popular belief that the girls in DW before the new series were one dimensional and practically interchangeable. Whilst that's partially true as the series was much more straight adventure back then, with The Doctor always, unfailingly front and centre, anyone rewatching them now can see the contrast and development with the times. Even if the role of the companion had requisite marks to hit, she was almost always an icon of popular culture in her own right too.
Sarah Jane Smith followed Jo Grant and marked a balance being achieved: Lis Sladen's characterisation being probably the pinnacle, certainly of the Earth originated companions. Still, much of what was achieved during her 3 years on the series was a consequence of what Katy Manning, along with script editor Terrance Dicks and the characters creator, producer Barry Letts did earlier with Jo Grant. Taking her from what was definately the quintessential damsel in distress, to someone who would grow and finally graduate from The Doctor's tutorship more so than any had been allowed to before. By design or by inclination. When originating, then casting her replacement, Dicks and Letts would break further ground. Speaking of whom, we can't forget that this is the first time The Doctor has caught up with Sarah Jane Smith herself since his regeneration too. How wonderful that Sarah Jane's friendship with the Time Lord transcends era's in a way The Brigadier's always had...or still does, depending on how you look at the DW universe.
Lis Sladen has commented on working alongside her 4th regular Doctor (...previous anniversary stories non-standing) saying on Matt Smith:
"He'd just come back from Los Angeles and he was absolutely jet-lagged. They gave him this big scene to start with. He walked into this unfamiliar set-up and no matter who you are, I think you feel that." Adding:" He just had a week and he was really, really good. I think people will love it".
In the press release which accompanied the launch of this season of SJA, Lis made mention of the changing faces of The Doctor, and how its affects her role, and on a personal level....
"It's such a revelation each time because they are chosen for a specific reason - they are good actors and they have something extra, something different that they can bring to it. It's a joy to watch him being regenerated and I have no problem with that. It's like I see them and think 'Oh, that's what the Doctor looks like now'. I'm closest I suppose to Jon and Tom because I worked with them longer and they were both very supportive. I had a lovely card from Tom when I was reinvented in the attic."
Matt Smith has confirmed his glee at joining Sladen for this landmark story. It's clear he's having a ball, being The Doctor, with all it's side-projects. The relish on his face during the recent DW Prom also being obvious as he add-libbed alongside the little boy he'd recruited from within the audience at the Royal Albert Hall. David Tennant also guest starred in SJA last series, so in my eyes this return appearance for the character, post-regeneration, makes sense. "Emotional symmetry", you could call it...
Producer Phil Ford has been careful to state that this won't happen each year on SJA, recently talking to Broadcast Magazine:
"We have to remember that this is The Sarah Jane Adventures and Doctor Who is another show. Crossing the boundary is fun every now and again, but I'm not sure we should do it all the time." Adding that he'd be wary of crossing over again for the time being, to preserve that sense of occasion. Though the door is left a jar,as is wise : "I'm sure he'll be back again some time," he said.
Also returning to the DW fold, though from behind the keyboard this time, is former DW showrunner and executive producer, Russell T Davies. Despite remaining executive producer on SJA after he departed the parent series, these are Davies are first actual scripts since the pilot episode, in 2007. News soon broke following the press screening of the episodes, that RTD has adressed, albeit it in a low key scene, a key concern of the series since it's return. One that has been redefined before in the series though will have little implication on the week to week events of either SJA or DW. It will, however, be of huge importance to the ongoing mythology of the series and is personal to The Doctor himself.
Featuring some typically RTD era style monsters, memorable lines and his signature blend of the funny and emotional "Death Of The Doctor" feels like an early Christmas present. There's also a great guest cast, including Jimmy Vee as The Groske (far right above) This story is about to make it's network premiere, after a screening on the CBBC channel, and is already up on the BBC iplayer, in it's entirety. Check bag here to this blog over the coming days for more comment and coverage over what's proven an event, in terms of the mythos of DW as well as historic meetings and reunions.
Showing: Monday 25 and Tuesday 26 October 5.15-5.45pm CBBC
Repeated: BBC One at 4.30pm, Wednesday 27 and Thursday 28 October and available on BBC iplayer
This film epitomises the phrase "car crash cinema", because despite everything, I couldn't tear my eyes away from the screen. Blimey, I have to psyche myself to even try and talk about it...! I know, I know....how CAN there be a Crank 2 anyway....? I mean, Chelios (London's own Jason Statham) fell from a helicopter in the closing moments of the first film, and before that his life expectancy hadn't looked too clever in any case. But, yeah, everyone knows he's back. Crank 2 makes his survival feel as if it were inevitable the whole time, but I don't suppose I should knock them for that. It's pretty much done in the right spirit. These films are as much a part of the fantasy genre as they are action, after all.
I'm not spoiling anything by revealing that Chelios is immediately scooped from the street, literally, by a group of medics. Awaking in a back street clinic, having his heart removed whilst a bunch of bad guys watch over. Chelios sees his heart placed into a cooler box, and loses consciousness again, as the same medics push an artificial heart into his chest in its place. 3 months later, he escapes, attached to a battery...and cue mayhem....! In between kicking much butt, he learns that he'll shortly have just 60 minutes to re-acquire his missing organ, before the artificial one stops working....
The idea was to take up the story, once again in real-time, from a short time after the finish of Crank. To pretty much provide more of the same and then some, which frankly should be the a remit of any sequel...no harm in that! Crank itself was a ballsy, exuberant and funny exercise in machismo which in many ways harked back to a by gone era of movies. That of the action movies of the late 80's and early 90's...proudly style over substance. An almost high concept (..of course, purposefully under-written) a high body count, high volume and plenty of gratuitous female nudity. Imagine a direct to VHS movie, only given a colossal budget, oh and watched on fast-forward the whole time...?! I know, it's sounds horrendous doesn't it, but somehow it just worked. The kind of movie which cinema-snobs dismiss as a "guilty pleasure", Crank ticked in permanent ink, every box a movie of it's kind should.
The first 10 minutes of Crank 2 are actually okay, it just quickly goes downhill from there as a compliment of stereotypes are wheeled out to fire a few guns, then be cannon fodder themselves. Innocent objects are turned into weapons, usually to destroy someone's genitalia with and Statham gets to run around, A LOT!!!. Looking even more crazy 8-bonkers than usual, mainlining his heart to keep him going, though his character is almost impossible for the viewer to re-connect with, in even the most rudimentary way. This time the story so nonsensical and flimsy, it's hard to invest it when there's absolutely nothing else to cling to. Trying to enjoy Crank 2 is like trying to enjoy watching someone else play a PS3 or Wii game. I'm sure they had a blast making it, at least.
Within 20 minutes, they'd totally lost me as to where he was running to next and why. Also why his on-off GF, Amy Smart again, was now a pole dancer when 3 months earlier she'd been a nurse or something...? Okay, it's hardly relevant, and you can surmise certain things should you feel inclined. If they can't be arsed colouring this character even slightly, when tere's only really the two of them in it, why the hell should I...? She's actually only really there so that Neveldine and Taylor can top the memorable bonking scene from the last one. The fact is I don't remember caring this little about either of them or Chelio's mission, the first time out. Could it be that the tipping point I mentioned in this concept, was such a definite one, that as much as I was up for a sequel, the truth is Crank needed one about as much as Highlander did....?
Influences are...well, everything! From the Spaghetti Western and Tarantino, to the Toho Godzilla movies which provides the film with it's "jump the shark" moment. The whole movie turning to total soup, when Chelios and the guy he's brawling with are transformed into Godzilla like costumed creatures stomping about a modelled backdrop. I just stared, and wished I was watching Godzilla vs. Mothra instead. Crank 2 throws that much at the screen, it's difficult to keep your dinner down. It says something for a motion picture that the scene which surprised me most and stuck in my mind starred "Ginger Spice" Geri Halliwell....(..shall I just give you a second to read that bit again, then come back....?) as Chelios's Mum. It's a dream sequence, where we see a juvenile Chelios taken onto a Springer style show to account for his destructive, violent behaviour and explore his troubled psyche. We see him on the run, in 1980's London, and once again I thought to myself I'd rather see THAT film, than this one. Finally, I promise, you do reach THE stand-off, at the gangsters poolside complex, with the heart back within Chelios' grasp. That's when a preserved head is revealed in a tank of gunk, as a major player in the action....I physically raised my arms in submission.
People who enjoyed this movie, and I know I'll bump into one (...I always seem to) will ask me what did I expect, exactly? Explaining that Crank 2 is OTT, what's wrong with that...? Truth of the matter is that there's OTT, and then somewhere considerably above that mark, there's this over-egged pudding. By trying so hard to top what'd come before and trying to be unpredictable, Neveldine and Taylor have become predicatble. In closing, and trying to be constructive, I suspect that If the excesses and homage's had been reined in, to just a few, maybe there'd have been something approaching gratification left on the bones of what I only begrudgingly call a franchise here. Let alone any appetite for the proposed 3rd film. I can see it now, who'd like to take a bet on Crank 3-D..?!! 1.5/5
In the special two-parter co-produced with BBC America, key scenes will be filmed in Utah for a story set in the late '60s in which the Doctor, Amy and Rory find themselves on a secret summons that takes them on an adventure from the desert in Utah - right to the Oval Office itself.....Matt Smith, Karen Gillan and Arthur Darvill will then travel to America in mid November to shoot pivotal scenes. They will also be joined by Alex Kingston who reprises her role as River Song.
....so more River, and so soon....! Music to these ears. Steven Moffat had promised her return and assured eager fans that we will find out exactly who Professor Song actually is to The Doctor, next year. I suspect this 2-parter will be just the first of a few appearances. Moffat chips in with the following :
"The Doctor has visited every weird and wonderful planet you can imagine, so he was bound get round to America eventually! And of course every Doctor Who fan will be jumping up and down and saying he's been in America before. But not for real, not on location - and not with a story like this one!"
More big talk from the current showrunner eh...? On top of the game-changing promised too. The bigger the hype, the more pressure to deliver, so Steven must be pretty damn sure of himself. I'm fully expecting that now Smith has well and truly become The Doctor, we'll see the shackles broken right off for the coming series, story wise. Moffat has set the standard for others to match since 2005 with The Empty Child, and I will predict an arc will take shape which we've probably already seen the beginnings of, to see right the way through Matt Smith's time in the TARDIS. Probably encompassing any 50th anniversary proceedings in 2013.Though the cast and crew aren't heading over to the US to film this material until next month, production of next years series is well underway and the first block of episodes filmed already (...they're more often than not, made out of sequence for a variety of reasons). Before then, of course, we've got the 2010 Doctor Who Christmas Day special to look forward to. Series 6 will air, as usual, from Spring 2011 though this time it'll be split into 2 separate batches. Episodes 1-7 airing from Easter, with the remainder from 8-13, possibly labelled as Series 7, airing in the Autumn. Moffat confirmed this a while ago, at the Edinburgh TV Festival 2010 and once again the BBC issued an official statement:
"....By splitting the series Moffat plans to give viewers one of the most exciting Doctor Who cliffhangers and plot twists ever, leaving them waiting, on the edge of their seats, until the autumn....."
Moffat added: "The split series is hugely exciting because viewers will be treated to two premieres, two finales and more event episodes. For the kids it will never be more than a few months to the next Doctor Who! Easter, Autumn, Christmas!!"
As the battle between Sarah Jane, Androvax and the androids reaches its climax, Rani has to save her own mother from being caught in the crossfire. But, as the Vault opens, with the destiny of the entire Veil species at stake, is it too late to save anyone?
Repeated: BBC One at 4.30pm, Wednesday 20 and Thursday 21 October
This week, I'm going to tackle the above, but first the facts:
This coming week, the other spin off from Doctor Who, The Sarah Jane Adventures returns to BBC1 and the CBBC Channel.
A 4th run of brand new episodes feature the usual mix of amazing monsters and exciting, funny SF for all the family.
There's an array of guest stars and even a visit from The Doctor himself, as played by Matt Smith.
The official press release teases:"Sarah Jane and her teenage gang set off on brand new adventures that take them out into space and back in time to face Nazi soldiers, a Victorian ghost-hunter, and turmoil in the Tower of London. From their secret attic in Ealing the gang battle enemies old and new, including Androvax the veil, deadly androids, relentless robots and undertaker vultures. Luke confronts his worst dreams when he meets the Nightmare Man; Rani and Clyde wake up to find they are the only humans left on Earth...."
Starring alongside her again are Tommy Knight as Luke, Daniel Anthony as Clyde and Anjli Mohindra as Rani. Aided by their computer Mr. Smith and robotic dog, K9. Later in the series, in a special story, the team are joined by another of The Doctor's former companions, Jo Grant, played once again by Katy Manning. Together they discover a conspiracy, threatening the life of the Time Lord himself.
This week, things kick off with The Nightmare Man: Parts One and Two....
" Sarah Jane's adopted son Luke, faces life-changing events and Bannerman Road will never be the same again when he has his first nightmare and is haunted by a dark figure from his dreams. A strange entity is reaching out to our world, with terrible consequences for the whole human race."
Except for the first week where the Commonwealth Games coverage will relegate all CBBC terrestrial content to BBC2. The Sarah Jane Adventures : Series 4 starts on BBC Television from Monday 11th October 2010.Also this year, there's an accompanying series called Sarah Jane's Alien Files. Where Sarah Jane and friends "recount their adventures each week - the ultimate guide of everything you could possibly need to know when facing hostile aliens." The first "file" follows part one of The Nightmare Man, at 5:45-6:20pm on CBBC Channel.
Of course it's a kids series, but this is one of the long line of such programmes, which we've a tradition of in the UK, as being for kids "of all ages". There's no shame in that whatsoever, particularly when you're talking about less than 60 minutes a week, for just 6 weeks of the year. Now obviously, if you've got children and you enjoy it's parent series, as a family, odds are you feel well at home in Sarah Janes attic on Bannerman Road. There's little point preaching to the converted. All I can do is state my optimism that Series 4 will contain more of the same, and hopefully develop subtly from last series, as each new run has.
Similarly, there's little point trying to press gang those who can't enjoy stuff aimed at a younger demographic. No matter how far its reach beyond that. It's clear when you watch an episode that levels of threat or jeopardy, language and morality, are all pitched in a way sensitive to the minds of younger ones, as they should be. Likewise, some performances, notice I say SOME and never from the regulars, have a footing in panto tradition. Bad guys ALL wear their black hats in SJA, whereas in DW it's not always that B/W. What it does have to balance this all out is a high level of creativity within such boundaries. More so than actually exists in much adult programming, I have to say. There are high production values, top notch casting (...Julie Graham in a forthcoming episode,for example...) and big ideas!
Neither does SJA shirk from meeting viewers other needs, or reduce important things in minors lives to the trivial. It never talks down to children and it's relevant. As such, I doubt any adult would ever find it boring nor insubstantial. In the oldest SF tradition, SJA uses its concepts and the unique mythology of the expanded DW universe, to address such issues as divorce and absent parents, prejudice, grief, peer pressure, identity and adoption.....the list goes on. The series also asserts key ideals, as does DW, of responsibility for ones own actions, respect for others and challenging pre-conceptions and barriers. Particularly with regard to learning.
The stories themselves are inventive, varying in tone and theme. Some are overtly comedic and pastiche, others scary, whilst the bread and butter is still purest adventure. As if Enid Blyton co-wrote with Douglas Adams, if you get me? It's not that SJA is aims for or serves, a different audience to DW so much as the balance between the myriad age groups that make it up is re-distributed, slanting in another direction. This is a series that adults are invited to watch WITH their children, rather than the other way around.
For long term viewers, there's always time taken to develop new layers to Sarah Jane herself. Both in context to her time travel/outer space exploits, and those of someone getting obviously older and making fresh choices in life. She second guesses herself, makes mistakes and is fallible, having never been a parent before. Sarah Jane isn't played as matriarchal a figure as others of her age group on TV. Children feel a kinship with her.
SJA may never be a series to change the world, but it's proof that spin off's are worthwhile endeavours and it has encouraged a steady increase in better quality scripted television for family audiences once more. All I can suggest is to put pre-conceptions aside and try it..!
So, for those who are still with us, let's take a look at SJA up to now, and look ahead to the future.... 26 years previously, the BBC tried a similar spin-off with Sarah Jane Smith and K9. K9 and Company, which never proceeded beyond a pilot screened that Christmas, 1981. Nevertheless I've always found it great fun..! All pentagrams, candles and featured a child protégée taken under wing by Sarah Jane Smith. K9 even got to sing a few lines of a Christmas carol. But that's a story in itself...
Following her sensational, emotional return to screens in DW itself: School Reunion (2006), Elisabeth Sladen was signed up for another shot at spin-off success. The Sarah Jane Adventures itself, began as an hour long pilot episode, screened on New Years Day 2007. CBBC had requested ideas from the DW production office for a spin-off. Russell T Davies refused their original proposal for a series about the Time Lord himself as a youngster, instead cannily picking up on the notion of the former companion. Pairing her with an assortment of younger people,from different walks of life whom can share her adventures and develop alongside her. Giving Sarah Jane the distinctly Doctor-ish adopted son, Luke in particular.....
By the time the first run kicked off in Autumn 2007, the pieces were in place and apart from the absence of K9 due to rights issues it bore a resemblance to that 1981 show. Sarah Jane has taken a child protégée under wing, and given him a name and home this time too. The stories were eclectic and considerably more layered than we'd perhaps been expecting. In fact, I'll openly state I considered that first series to be a sharper and more "grown up" affair than the entire first series of post-watershed stablemate, Torchwood.
After their biggest success in years, CBBC commisioned more of SJA before the first had finished airing. Though there were cast changes for 2008's Series 2, which took a little getting used to. Whilst the stories did maintain the same high standard and the guest artists got bigger, there was some repition starting to creep into the formula I felt. Still, by the time of the finale which saw Luke Smith caught inbetween his adoptive mother and his creator, plus a guest spot from DW royalty The Brigadier, it was clear SJA had potential to run and run.
Following a fun comic relief episode guest starring Ronnie Corbett, for Series 3 in 2009 the stars really aligned on SJA.
The pace was quicker, and the effects were better. The scary ones were scarier, the clever ones were cleverer and there was real innovation and distinction to each of the 6 individual adventures once more. K9 returned to become a real part of the cast again, and there was a sensational guest appearance from The Doctor, played by David Tennant, in a story which saw Sarah Jane about to marry.
Series 4 (2010)
Coming up over the next 6 weeks.....
401-02 : The Nightmare Man by Joseph Lidster
403-04 : The Vault of Secrets by Phil Ford
405-06 : Death of the Doctor by Russell T Davies
407-08 : The Empty Planet by Gareth Roberts
409-10 : Lost in Time by Rupert Laight
411-12 : Goodbye, Sarah Jane Smith by Roberts and Hickman
I can say that although Triangle, directed by "Severance" creator Christopher Smith, would normally get a wide berth from me ( as does pretty much all of the stalk and slash genre nowadays) I'm pleased I gave it a look. It was very entertaining, which isn't always a given, and what's at the heart of this seemingly cheap and cheerful chase movie, is more considered than the likes of the Final Destination franchise, and it's kind. There's even something resembling a message, about being careful what you wish for and what constitutes a real second chance to do right by someone you love, when you feel you've let them down. Naturally there's also a fair amount of unpleasantness, blood, intrigue and claustrophobia despite much of the action taking place above deck on a blue skied afternoon.
All I knew about Triangle, was that it was a pretty new, probably pretty low budget, UK and Australian co-production featuring a small cast and scarce locations. Mind you, what there is on screen is really quite beautiful. Sunny, almost stone washed visages work with the eerie tone from the outset making me sit up, watch and listen intently. Sets are bold, beautiful and geometrical in a way that reminds me of some of Stanley Kubrick's work (eg. Eyes Wide Shut and The Shining) It looks quite unlike anything I've ever seen in this vein and the action and suspense, once they kick, in refuse to let you go. Don't worry, you don't have to wait too long for any of that...! Triangle is one of the smartest and brightest, hidden gems of this genre in recent years, that I'm thinking will achieve notoriety on DVD and cable via word of mouth. You're better off coming to this film as cold as possible, so I'll refrain from elaborating too much. Not that it's "rocket science", by any stretch...Although it appears to be the story of an everyday woman and her autistic son, living the simplest of lives, Smith is developing Melissa George's seemingly hostile and unsympathetic "Jess", within minutes. By the time she's set sail with a group of acquaintances, rather than friends, aboard the titular ship we know she's not the average heroine of these kind of movies (eg. Megan Fox). For one thing, she's over 30...credit where credit's due, she looks sensational in a pair of very short-shorts. Jess never gets much chance to crack that gorgeous smile mind, as stormy waters ruin the sailors afternoon in record time and things get seriously worse from there.
Ms. George invests Jess with a credibility which lifts the material, whilst grounding the story even when it starts to edge into Twilight Zone territory. She gets' the lions share of the screen time and jeopardy, though the other characters are nicely played and recognisable enough to hit the mark. I will state that the story itself, simple yet effective in the thrills stakes, doesn't stay still for a minute. As soon as you catch up with what you've seen up to a certain point and think "right, i'm with 'ya!", the narrative is challenging you to a little more. Some of the set pieces are so hauntingly effective, they stayed with me well into the next day. All leading to a satisfying, reflective epilogue many will relate to, despite it's transgressions into fantasy.
Negatives are so, so few....what happened to the "other" crew member, for example....? It seems there was something there, they never elaborate on. Maybe that was some of the slight of hand the film employs to some effect later on..? And whilst it's great to see a piece of this kind done with such conviction, a little more warmth or humour in the mix perhaps wouldn't have gone a miss....? Smith clearly takes this story very, very seriously. Perhaps to highight a versatility after the tongue in cheek "Severance"...?
She's not going anywhere! Well, not anytime soon anyway....
Nevertheless, UK tabloid The Sun is claiming that they can and will save Amy Pond from this imaginary "chop" (...anyone would think it's still the 1980's...!) All absolutely ridiculous and a waste of trees, as usual, but as someone once said maybe "all publicity IS good publicity"...?
What this does tell us that is of some use is that Karen Gillan has arrived. She's carved out a little place in the hearts of the nation as The Doctor's latest lovely companion, in just 13 weeks on screen and with zero public profile previously. I was pleased to see both Gillan and Smith listed as contenders for this years NTA Awards in the Best Drama Performance category. Billie Piper had been a darling of the press for sometime prior to her critical and public success as Rose, remember. They loved her! She was sexy, funny and liked a beer. Her antics caught attention, imagination and thus sold papers.
I'll stick my neck out and admit I don't consider Karen to have quite the charisma Billie has, nor the acting chops. However she is more than capable and has rounded out the character of what must be Ledworths only kiss-a-gram, nicely. There've been many highlights of Series 5 that have been due in no small part to Karen's charm and way of tapping into the real voice of her character (The Beast Below, The Time Of Angels being fine examples) Plus she's hungry for success and appreciates the role and it's connection to the British public, of all ages, by default.
"I think that she's a completely different person at the end of the [fifth] series to when we meet her," she said. "She's really quite odd and a bit messed up in the first episode. I think she's much more... in tune with what she understands about herself... and The Doctor by the end of the series." Teasing.... "...there's a lot more to come in the next series. I really want to just keep on developing her character."
From a viewers perspective, I'm expecting considerable development of both the character and Gillan herself over the course of the next 12 months. If I've one criticism of this years run of stories it's that Amy as a character fluctuated way more, in function and in pitch, than any have in recent years. Gillan weathered this well, but to my eyes she veered from being incredibly effective and relatable to almost annoying. In real time, she acclimatises to her new life a little too quickly compared to predecessors, at times almost seeming like a tourist on a package holiday. Similarly her affections have been much more a play thing of the writer of the week than I can recall in others, with Richard Curtis's script for Vincent And The Doctor being the most noticeable offender. It would be a shame to see the role of the companion slide back into anything approaching the 2-dimensional, and whilst we're a long way off from that actuality....I can't pretend I'd not noticed.
Ultimately, even if the next series (or two series, now that next years run of 13 is split up!) does see the departure of Amy, I can guarantee you that it will have been exactly the same had The Sun not declared their devotion and clout to save her. After all, these scripts have been formulated, to a strict arc, months ago now, and are being fine tuned and filmed over the next 6 months. When she and The Doctor do part company, it won't be the last we'll see of Karen Gillan. The role of DW companion being far from the poisoned chalice it may have been in the classic era.
Karen was unveiled to the press a companion to the forthcoming 11th Doctor on 29 May 2009. Described by BBC News as a "Little known". Steven Moffat stated they'd seen some "amazing actresses" but Gillan "walked through the door the game was up".
Freema was eventually successful in her audition for Adeola in The Army Of Ghosts, appearing on screen on 1 July 2006. However, by this time she'd already got the part of Martha in the bag after impressing the production team during filming. It would be written into the script for her first appearance as the new regular, that the two roles were identical.... erm, cousins.... Oh well, why not eh.!?
Eve Myles played the delightful Gwyneth in The Unquiet Dead (2005). Consequently Davies conceived the regular character of ex-WPC Gwen Cooper of Torchwood specifically with Myles in mind. Of course Gwen Cooper herself would appear in DW in Journey's End (2008) where The Doctor and Rose both recognise the resemblance between the two, putting it down to distant relations. I'd always taken a connection between the two, given the important part that TUD played in setting up the whole mythology of Torchwood, as a certainty anyhow.
John Lesson, the voice of K9 even to this day, appeared on screen as a Dugeen in 1978/9 whilst voicing the "tin dog".
As I mentioned last week, 2 years before slipping on companion Harry Sullivan's famous duffle coat, the late Ian Marter appeared in Carnival Of Monsters as Lt. John Andrews. He'd originally, unsuccessfully, auditioned for the role of UNIT Captain Mike Yates in 1971.
Talking of UNIT luminaries, Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart himself, Nicholas Courtney once played Bret Vyon in 1965 epic The Dalek Master plan. That appearance, opposite William Hartnell's original Doctor means he's the only actor to have appeared on screen with the first 7 TV incarnations of the character (...yes, I'm counting 1993's Dimensions In Time, live with it...!!,hehe)
Stretching back into the B/W era, Blue Peter legend Peter Purves had played Steven Taylor in DW for a year in the mid 1960's. However, in the very same story he debuted as Taylor (The Chase) he'd also played an American tourist called Morton Dill (...no, I don't believe anyone would ever be called that, under any circumstances either....!)
Going right back to the original TARDIS crew, Jaqueline Hill managed to do it the other way around....!
15 years after leaving the role of Barbara Wright in 1965, she would return to the series. To play the frosty religious zealot "Lexa" alongside Tom Baker's Fourth Doctor in Meglos (1980). Sadly, Hill died in 1993.
Special mention has to go to veteran actress and writer of stage and screen Jean Marsh. You may have seen her as Rose, in Upstairs Downstairs, or as witches in Willow,Return to Oz or The Tomorrow People, but she's appeared in DW three times. 
With an out-of-this-world set... special FX, optical illusions and spectacular pyrotechnics building to an epic finale. Accompanied by the music of longtime DW composer Murray Gold. These iconic scores will be brought to life by a live band on stage....
Viewers of DW are all too aware that there's more to the show than The Doctor himself and as long as the show keeps the sense of fun and adventure of the series: scaring kids (...and a few Mums and Dads!) in a non horrific way, everyone will be happy. 
Like all the best entertainment, SF AND of course DW, this story thrives on imagination! Huge concepts, even by this series standards and visual imagery that would stay with viewers for a lifetime. The thrashing and snarling of the Drashigs leaves most contemporary monsters standing, even if they do look drastically better in some scenes than others. The idea that The Doctor himself could be reduced in both stature and status like this is thought provoking as it is horrific and it's realised with fearless gusto by the production team. 
Exciting news, as those two additional words derive from a recent line of comics which have proven pretty popular, which I'll explain more about later. This development also signposts a move to take the MOVIE incarnation of the X-Men, in a new-ish direction. Not to unrecognisable proportions, after all it'll still be about mutant superheroes, "sworn to protect a world that fears them" but a reset button of sorts is being pressed.
Why so, you may be wondering...?!!? After all, the last pure X-Men flick X-Men: The Last Stand was hugely lucrative and popular with mainstream audiences. Hell, you may have really enjoyed it yourself...!?!
Of course anyone who's ever regularly read any of Marvel's huge output of "X titles" over the last 40 years knows, in the nicest possible way, better. Whilst Marvel have spoilt the broth somewhat in the pages of X-Men books, HUGE events and deaths/resurrections happening yearly, that's not really what the comics truly do at their best. That's the case with a huge percentage of comics, to be fair, but traditionally X-Men is more built for it than others. Or more accurately, was rebuilt. I'll explain...
A "mutant" himself, Charles has discovered these powers hail from an "x-gene", missing in homo-sapiens. His long term goal is to help those affected to harness their abilities, support and protect them whilst building an understanding between the world at large and this "homo-superior". It's all even harder than it sounds in the face of racial prejudice and fear, plus there's other mutants out there undoing all his hard work! Wreaking havoc, raising tensions, using those powers for personal gain etc. Some even quickening what they view as the rightful passing of the earth into their hands as the next stage in evolution. That first issue of their comic also introduced arch enemy and occasional collaborator, Magneto who would continue to be crucial and personification of an opposite to Xavier's ideals. He can also kick some serious ass!!
So far so good, and yes the comic provided mostly riffs on the standard plots of the age and medium. Never really taking flight and joining the top tier of Marvel comics roster, such as the Fantastic Four and Spider-Man. In fact, The X-Men eventually got cancelled at issue #93, due to general apathy toward their exploits.
Some were brought over from the old run into the expanded cast, and Cyclops remained their leader, but the new team was bolstered by 6 new names. Most notably Wolverine or Logan. In time he'd arguably become the signature character for the whole saga. Under the guidance of artists Dave Cockrum and John Byrne and writers Neal Adams, then Chris Claremont, the X-Men achieved success and status that had eluded them before. In a a few short years becoming the flagship series of Marvel Comics.
The re-christened regular book, now The UNCANNY X-Men, was the first to truly become an "ongoing". In the narrative sense I mean, with the ongoing, developing character arcs for each of the roster. Often compared to a "soap opera", as a relatable short-hand for those out there who never "got it" where comic books were concerned. There were supporting characters who weren't just standard comic book baddies or victims together with a feeling of the cultural, political landscape the comic was taking place against. An aspect which hadn't, perhaps couldn't, really been embraced in the earlier version. Nothing against the other books that Marvel or anyone else was putting out, it's just that they weren't as built for the task as this was. Though many would follow suit, and adjust their balance.
It was this world, and way of telling "superhero" stories which director Bryan Singer brought us in his original film "X-MEN" in 2000, for the most part....only aimed at a mass audience. An X-Men film had been in development for much of the preceding decade. It's eventual, massive success had a rejuvenating power to a genre of movie which was seemingly stuck in a rut (...witness Batman and Robin (1997) A chain of events which seems, with hindsight, like it was just waiting to happen..! A long running X-Men cartoon had paved the way, but the majority of ticket buyers had still no real preconceived ideas as to what these characters were about or what made the material so different. Of ocurse there's not a single pair of underpants or a swooning love interest in sight!! So they certainly didn't look like super-heroes, and what is "X-Men"..? Sounds like something you'd book for a hen night, right!?. A decade on, the word "mutant" has entered the public consciousness, most people you show a picture of Hugh Jackman to will recognise him as Wolverine and veteran thesp Patrick Stewart is as synonamous with Professor X as he was with Captain Jean Luc-Picard. Singer would raise the bar again, two years later, with the stunning "X2", or X-Men United, as it was known in some countries.
A further sequel, the aforementioned "X-Men: The Last Stand", this time with Brett Ratner at the helm, followed in 2006. Finally last year there was "X-Men Origins:Wolverine", directed by Brit Gavin Hood. Serving as a sideways prequel of sorts, and itself with a sequel well into the planning stages.
Taking it's lead from the comic of the same name, X-Men:First Class due for release next year, returns to the earliest days of Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters and the foundation of his vision for peaceful co-existence for humans and mutants. The comic book version being very much a back-to-basics series, telling stories based around the original line-up, back in their late teens, albeit wearing more 21st century threads! It wasn't the first instance where such a comic had been produced, but the timing must've been better as this mini-series of 8 was warmly received and led to a couple of sequels and specials. A chance to see versions of characters, including other stalwarts of Marvel comics, from an earlier age given a modern voice, whilst being less bogged down in 40 odd years of story.
First Class THE MOVIE, will be different. They've pretty much lifted the nifty name just as a starting point it seems, but that's no bad thing..!! For a start it's been confirmed to be more an true period piece, actually taking place from the early 1960's and playing to the aesthetic of the day. "James Bond-ian" technology and sets is what Aint' it Cool News say is the intention.
James McAvoy who was the first piece of casting confirmed, taking the role of Charles Xavier told MTV News "I think the fun about these films, when you go back and you either reboot or do a prequel, is you get to see how people became who they are. That means that you have to do them differently and by the end of the movie you have to do them the same way." Adding "the interesting journey is what happens to them, what changes them, what makes them evolve - not just mutate, but emotionally and psychologically evolve." Which hits the nail square on the head, I think.
The story will move back, in continuity, so as to focus on the formation of Xavier and Eric "Magneto" Lensherr's plan to create "The X-Men" of course means that most of those characters present in the earlier films would be too young or not even born at all in the time period. So it will be inline with the previous films rather than being an actual adaptation of the comics. In place of Cyclops, Jean and Angel will be new characters. Well, I say new, they're new to movie audiences, but in actuality drawn from the full 40 year history of the books. Fingers crossed, senstively and in service of the story. For example, we have Cyclops older brother Alex "Havok" Summers as the lead student, alongside Banshee and other familiar names but we also get to meet NightCrawler's father Azrael, who's been a relatively recent addition to the supporting cast in the comic.
Where might I have seen them before...?
Moira MacTaggert - Rose Byrne ( Marie Antoinette, Sunshine, Damages )
Emma Frost - January Jones ( Love Actually, Mad Men )
Sean "Banshee" Cassady - Caleb Landry Jones (....who knows..?!)
Alex "Havok" Summers - Lucas Till (The Spy Next Door, Walk the Line )
Azrael - Jason Flemying (Snatch, From Hell, Stardust, Primeval )
Darwin - Edi Mue Gathegi ( Gone Baby Gone, Twilight, New Moon )
Angel "Tempest" Salvadore - Zoe Kravitz (The Brave One, Fury Road )
X-Men: First Class is presently due in cinemas on June 3, 2011
I believe the stars are aligning for this reinvigoration of the franchise. On paper this film has everything...! I'm expecting spectacle, intelliegnce, humour and the real drama which Singers films had. Once you add the whole retro angle, including a more traditional super hero look to the uniforms, X-Men:FC looks set to be unmistakeable and unmissable as event cinema.
Perhaps it'll be even truer to comics too. After all, in recent years we've had the likes of Road to Perdition, 300, V for Vendetta and Watchmen all make it from page to screen. They've all been reflective, and canny reimaginings of the source material with fewer compromises than "comic book" movies had to make prior to 2000. The icing on the cake could well prove to be appointing Matthew Vaughn. I reccomend without exception or hesitation his tremendously enjoyable and layered adaptation of Kick-Ass. Watching that makes the potential for catching lightning twice here, clearer still.
As the title implies, he finds himself afflicted with a curse. The kind that makes getting out of the house on full moon, bad news for everyone else. Can Talbot possibly contain the beast within, when he's clueless as to it's nature and plagued by his own murky past? Particularly when his own father isn't being anymore co-operative or welcoming despite their recent loss. Though its clear his brothers widow is attracted to Talbot, will he manage to keep them both alive for long enough to do anything about it..?
Dripping in dread, and a welcome homage to an era or film-making long gone, whilst nicely updated for the CGI age.
Universal Studios go through phases of tapping into their heritage of monster movies from the 1930's and 40's, and fairs fair, they've produced some pretty good remakes over the last 20 years. The Mummy (1999) seemed to almost single handed revive the "adventure" genre, even if it did owe as much to Indiana Jones and I've got no qualms about stating I think Coppola's version of Dracula (1992) with Gary Oldman, is a great movie (...no one mention Keanu Reeves!, hehe). Wolf Man was kind of revisited with Wolf (1994), but to my mind that film signified some of what went wrong with genre movies for a time. Falling mostly back onto the subtexts it almost apologised for being a "werewolf" flick. Wes Craven tried it with Cursed, but less said about that the better.
It struck me whilst watching this, that it's actually got more things in common with Peter Jackson's King Kong, which I looked at a few weeks ago, in origin and flavour. In short a remake, but like any good remake (...and I maintain there've been plenty!) it takes the original as a starting point, rather than an exact route to follow. The Wolf Man is another old movie icon, to a lesser degree I grant you, nursed to the screen over a period of years, this time by star and producer Del Toro. So long a period, I did doubt this project would ever see the light of day to be frank.
However where King Kong triumphed in broadening its canvas, The Wolf Man sticks to telling the story dead straight, and in doing so struggles to get wind under wing and take flight until almost half way in. King Kong added considerable back-story to all the characters, played with humour and tragedy elevating the material from the ground up. With this film, playing it so down the line in tone, that "lift" seems very much something decided on after the fact, then pretty much abandoned once the claws come out. Johnson and Del Toro seem happy enough to be making a loud and proud monster movie which probably shouldn't have run to anything longer than 90 minutes, rather than the almost 2 hours I watched. Have to hold my hand up and say that I found the first three quarters of an hour, hard going....! So little seems to happen, and the actors struggle to bring real sparks from the script. There's also an odd little scene on a train, which seems like it should be significant but serves no purpose other than to stick proceedings into neutral for a few minutes more.
I have to give a nod to the really rather lavish scenery and high production values. It's so rich, and lends the whole production a validity above the kitsch or camp that sometimes drag its kind down. Similarly Tim Burton veteran Danny Elfman's wonderful score, reminding me of Sleepy Hollow at times, another film which owed great debt to Hammer Studios.
...that's what you need, right....?
Well, that's what I had drummed into me by trumpeteer and star of Dr.Who & the Daleks, Roy Castle all through my childhood on BBC's series "Record Breakers".
Made up of 212 "stories" plus a standalone TV movie, in 1996.
(SG-1 is in 2nd place, with the likes of The X-Files and Smallville close behind)
Last year the series added a 2nd world record to it's shelf and this week saw it in print as the 2011 edition of the Guiness Book of Record was published. The latest volume names DW as officially the "Most successful Science-Fiction series". It's a newly created accolade, based on a combination of standard TV ratings, DVD sales, book sales and now global downloading popularity of the show. "It is too good a show to have just one record," Guiness editor-in-chief Craig Glenday said when presenting a certificate of confirmation to former showrunner Russell T. Davies, at the San Diego ComicCon last year.
The book further celebrates it's legacy with a double pages spread listing other facts and statistics.
It looks like awards season has kicked in too. DW has already bagged Best Family Drama at this year's TV Choice Awards. Then our Matt Smith won Best Actor at this year's GQ Men of the Year Awards. I think it's safe to say he's "arrived" then...!! 
Needless to say, this isn't new territory for Doctor Who, nor it's viewers. If you consider that Smith's job was tough and unenviable, following an actor who had encompassed the part in the minds of a whole generation, maybe even two, then consider the task in hand for actor Patrick Troughton in 1966. Trying to fill a place in the nations hearts that William Hartnell has so made his own, and from scratch. DW had been insanely popular, Hartnell was TV's favourite grandad and it was before recasting parts, even without the miracle of "regeneration", was so common place as now.
Yet Pat Troughton bravely took that baton. Instantly and intuitively building on what his predecessor had achieved, then in time becoming as synonymous with the role. If not more so as he radically expands on the complexities of The Doctor's nature; his place in his universe; the way he relates to those around him...to the point where, for the first time, his past eventually catches up with him.
Famously, it was a DVD of another of his tales which David Tennant gifted Matt Smith, upon his casting. It made a huge impression and Smith name checks Troughton regularly in interviews, even using certain characteristics of that portrayal as a starting point for his own.
In next to no time, The Doctor is roped into a bit of detective work as some of the crew have been collapsing into comas with a strange virus. Naturally, International Space Control quarantines the Moonbase. Particularly as their own doctor, Evans, was the first one to get it. In his fever, Evans talks of a "silver hand" before succumbing to this disease. Soon others start to disappear, and are their radio transmission being monitored....? Could it possibly be a menace last seen a century ago, which has now passed into legends of mankind....? Why would the Cybermen want to alter the weather patterns of the planet Earth, and can The Doctor save anyone left on the moon...?
By this point there is a clear move towards action-based serials. Not that it's not still informative, in this story alone we learn of the chemical breakdown of companion Polly's nail varnish for example (..yes you read that right the first time!) it's just it loses those little "lessons" of previous years. Now the thrills, the spectacle and the MONSTERS are more the selling point than they'd ever been and in that respect this story is notable, maybe even crucial.
The story itself is also, famously, very little more than a refined, "remake" of that first Cyber-story. Writers Pedler and Davis substitute a moonbase for an icebase, Hobson for General Cutler etc. with very few modifications. However, to my mind it all gels together a little more satisfyingly, energised to some degree by the change in lead and a directive to rebuild the Cybermen as THE new iconic monsters following their impact in their first outing.
One tiny aspect I really liked, and I reckon a great tool in taking the Cybermen from oddities to legends, is the idea that in the history of the Earth in this future, that first encounter with the Cybermen has become a staple of the history books. One taught to children, who no doubt would have nightmares of their return. Indeed, the original title for this story was "Return of the Cybermen".
At face value, 40 years on, it's entertaining if never really pacey, with loads of 60's kitsch and classic pulp SF imagery (such as the bubble-like helmets and boxey control panels) Hokey in it's principle and cosily spooky, if that makes any sense at all..? As the Cybermen silently cross the moon and the disease claims more of the crew of the base, confounding The Doctor, whilst he gathers clues. I particularly enjoyed early scenes of The Doctor and his three companions bouncing around on the surface of the moon in their suits, larking about in a way that previous TARDIS crews just wouldn't have. Perhaps that sums up this story and it's nearest bedfellows the most...? A "lark", and a great contrast to such as The Aztecs I talked of a few weeks ago. This is DW flexing it's young muscles as purer, populist adventure. Average, but average for a pretty consistently great era in the series history and at only 4 parts, there's less fat than in other, sometimes more celebrated, stories. So I rate it a steady 2.5/5
Still Patrick Troughton's Doctor stands pretty much fully formed at this point, and that's the truest worth of The Moonbase. The more overtly comedic tendencies of earlier stories have given way to something more considered, though with a playful edge. Witness his hunt for clues to the origins of the threat, snatching boots off crew for his alien-ness. The Moonbase even supplies this Doctor's most quotable speech as he laments "...there are some corners of the universe which have bred the most terrible things....they must be fought". Sensational stuff, so beautifully played.
The Moonbase is one of the many stories originally wiped from the BBC archives, along with other classic productions of the day. All in a programme of cost-cutting exercises, before the true lifespan and legacy of the shows had become clear. Sometimes full episodes are recovered and restored, and that was the case with two of the four which make up this story. The remaining two existing only as soundtracks and in sequential, still-photo form. The version I've watched included a "reconstruction" of those missing episodes, made up of bringing those two sources together. Presently, it's the closest way to simulate the experience of watching this story and those like it, as originally experienced by TV audiences. The Patrick Troughton era of DW is the most affected by this loss, but thanks to the dedication and expertise of those who assemble these reconstructions, most notably the "Loose Cannon" group, they can be enjoyed again. It may not be ideal, but thanks to these guys I feel like I've experienced The Moonbase in it's true medium and at the intended pace for the first time. They have my admiration and gratitude.
However, the soundtrack, with narration, of the story is available as a BBC Audio CD.
There's also a DVD set entitled "Lost In Time" containing the soundtrack to the missing two, alonsgide the full ones.
Chancer and movie-maker Carl Denham plans to film his next project whilst on the way to an uncharted island he's discovered on a mysterious map. By fair means or foul, he gets a cast and crew aboard...naturally telling them they're going somewhere they've heard of. He's against the clock, and when his leading lady "jumps ship" (...ouch, terrible pun Hadley!) Denham manages to secure the service of a down on her luck, gorgeous young actress. Ann Darrow also happens to be huge fan of the guy Denham's practically imprisoned aboard his vessel to write the thing, in transit.
On arrival at the island, the filmmaker and his company would come face to dirty, hairy face with a lost world.
Holding a whole civilisation and prehistoric environment, with a mighty 25 foot tall ape at the top of the food chain. The lord of all he surveys, he's tasty with his fists and is very alone (..snnfffff...)....the "eighth wonder of the world", KONG...!!
Almost as old as Hollywood itself, 1933's original film of that title is must-see of decades standing. Never mind Star Wars, frankly, if you've not seen it at least twice you're a lightweight in movie terms. Of course it's been remade before....oh and sequelled, then sequels of remakes, transplants into other franchises completely etc. It's even been cartooned and parodied ad infinitum, but nothing ever threatened to compromise the B/W, stop motion animation splendour of that first RKO production nor replace it hearts.
Director Peter Jackson, officially the "Lord of Lord of the Rings" had been angling to commit his vision of his childhood favourite, to film for well over a decade. The project was actively "in development" for a time in the 90's. Universal eventually got cold feet and the project was discontinued. Of course when Jackson eventually managed to not only film what many had said was an un-filmable trilogy in LOTR, AND make them hugely successful, loved by the public and critics, he became the hottest of property. Able to name his project and pay packet. So hot in fact, that it was Universal that went back to him, with the blank cheque.
The intervening years had seen a resurgence and development in fantasy cinema and an increase in those it appealed to. Brought about by not only Jackson's own LOTR adaptations, but also the Star Wars prequels, The Mummy series and The Matrix amongst others. Technology too had come on leaps and bounds, making Jurassic Park seem old news. As such Jackson completely tonally reworked his original take on King Kong, lifting it gently from it's purely pulpy roots to reach for something more literate. With more pathos, romance, opulence and wonder.
I've seen this particular King Kong three times now, each time a couple of years apart and it never fails to take my breath away. There is no frame of the whole three hours that isn't beautifully composed, thoughtfully scored nor expertly acted. Everyone plays it straight, as it should be. Andy Serkis and Jamie Bell excel in what are pretty small parts, then there's the three main players. Jack Black's Carl Denham maybe familiar Black territory at first glance,but he does it so well!?! There's more light and shade for him to play with than roles both before and since, and the movie would've been poorer without a non simian anti-hero to begrudgingly root for. With his wide brimmed hat, he cuts a figure that's part "Professor Challenger" and part Orson Welles.
Adrien Brody, a man who looks like he's been animated by the bloke who did Corpse Bride, is hero Jack Driscoll. A romantic soul, who'll chase after Kong to rescue a woman he's only just met, but whom he loves deeply (....in true matinee idol fashion) Brody walks a very fine line between metro sexual and Michael Douglas in a part that is only just about as interesting as he should be, so as to never make us truly prefer being in his company to the titular gorillas.
Most importantly there's Naomi Watt's archetypal heroine, Ann Darrow. A cocktail of period flapper, with a modern sensibility. She's her own person. Strong and principled whilst feminine and vulnerable. In a period piece, this isn't a balance that's easy to write nor perform so convincingly.
Depending on where your own sensibilities lie, may find you left behind in either of those first two parts. The character builds aren't 100% relevant to what would come later and the "creature feature" stuff is excessive, but it does mean that there's something for everyone somewhere along the way making King Kong a real family friendly film. In relative terms, we wait no less time to see the monkey in the original film either. Though some scenes may scare younger ones, it's fair to warn.
The attention to detail in the cities and jungles is matched by beautiful sky-scapes, which bring to mind those painted backdrops of the golden era of Hollywood. Similarly the score echoes the cinema of that age but taps into the ethereal and the magnificent which remind me of aspects of Lord Of the Rings. My own favourite sequence is probably one where Lumpy the cook and the rest of the rescue party (..who said monster-fodder?!) find themselves on the menu of some giant insects and revolting worms. The scene has dreamlike ambience and a sense of the futility of fighting nature, as members of the party must submit and become part of the merciless natural food chain of the island.
Much time is spent on connecting us as viewers, and Kong himself for that matter, with Ann, before during and after they meet. Kong himself is so impressive, expressive and just as multi-sided in his extraordinary nature that the sight of him chained and taunted is hard to bare as Darrow's return to obscurity. We feel his solitude and development of sorts. The movie draws these parallels between Darrow and the ape just enough to maintain credibility, in hindsight.
The original King Kong had decades of being analysed and perhaps Jackson's takes lead from what we understand now about where the Kong's, Tarzans, Oz's and Quartermain's originate from. In context to the era's or minds that spawned them and how successive generations have read into them, then passed on. As with all timeless tales, from Beowulf onwards. It's not that it's a better film, in relevant terms at all, but Peter Jackson's King Kong is built to last as Merian C. Cooper's was, though in this case it's deliberately. Personally I feel that although it's "sacrilege" to consider, this production may ultimately consign King Kong (1933) to the vaults marked under curiosity, albeit it a legendary one.
It's pretty well-known, amongst the people who must know these things, that the final film initially performed lower than Universals expectations, after the all conquering LOTR trilogy. However, King Kong still made $550 million worldwide, becoming the fourth-highest grossing film in their history. That's not including it's later gorilla sized DVD sales. King Kong (2005) was also reviewed overwhelmingly positively at the time. As such, it always surprises me that more people don't talk it up, and enthuse about it. Maybe it will always be considered "what the LOTR bloke did next..", or perhaps it's the fact that at the end of the day it's still a remake, however rich, spectacular and triumphant a one. Me..? I'm not sure I see any way in which the film could've been better, without nit-picking. Does it end rather abruptly, ironically after 3 hours on screen?....yes it does. Could it have been shorter..? Why certainly. But I never felt like a minute of my time had been wasted and that for all intents and purposes, I'd been to all the places on screen in this remarkable adventure.
Therefore I give it a cool 5/5
As performed at the Royal Albert Hall on 24 and 25 July 2010 and hosted by current DW cast: Matt Smith, Karen Gillan and Arthur Darvill.
Plus The Doctor himself puts in an appearance in specially written material. Yes, don't let the word "prom" or the distinguished venue fool you, cos this is pretty much a big posh-panto!
This is the 2nd DW Prom and follows the 2008 event, also shown on TV. All part of a concerted drive to make the proms much more accessible and inclusive, particularly to family audiences. In fact thE DW PROM replaced a similar Blue Peter one which had run for almost 10 years until 2007, after a succesful DW CONCERT staged for Children In Need in 2006.
Firstly on Monday 6th September at 8.30pm, following a repeat of this years series finale "The Big Bang".
It's on for an hour, so will be an edited edition, with the non-Doctor Who music omitted.
The third showing is the full version, INCLUDING the classical stuff, on Friday 10 September, from 7:00pm until 8:30. Both versions will almost certainly available to through the iplayer too.
It doesn't end there either. From Monday 6th there's extra content available through the RED BUTTON service.
Enter Mark : everyman hero. A chubby loser works in film, making factual readings of pure historical true events. No lying means no imagination which means no fiction...if you're following me..??! Mark's bored too. At odds with his work, dating out of his league with generically attractive bird who has no qualms about telling him to his face that she doesn't find him alluring whatsoever. Then his secretary informs him he'll be fired later the following day, once his boss can get psyched up to do the deed. Last year Gervais followed the reasonably well recieved, and pretty damn good "Ghost Town" with "The Invention Of Lying" ("TIOL"). This time he's co writer AND co-director as well as star. Those who've been watching closely will be only too clear of this new hero of modern comedy's influences. Similarly his assertion that good comedy, that's comedy that matters to people, really needs to be about something. To connect, on some other level, even if those viewers aren't aware that it's doing such. This film rips along, as you would expect but from that light bulb moment on it's an altogether more bumpy, if enjoyable ride.
First the good news: The first act of TIOL has a freshness, a bizarre edge and a relaxed pace, whilst being genuinely laugh out loud funny. It's a pretty high concept, (...it's not like anyone would expect an American Pie is it..?) but Gervais grounds it in his usual style. The knack he has for the nicely grotesque, contradictory sides to human nature and behaviour are all very much front and centre. Plenty of those awkward "I can't believe I said that moments.." he does so well. Make no mistake that this is a sympathetic, sophisticated fantasy comedy movie. Think of it as Liar, Liar...just in reverse..?!?!The almost starry cast includes Jennifer Garner and the always value for money, Rob Lowe. There are great cameos too, by very talented big names. TIOL avoids the folly of Zombieland I mentioned a few weeks back.
This great concept gets very high and very fast when the plot takes a bold turn. Mark visits his ailing mother, so distressed and only too aware these were her last moments of life. To comfort her he invents the notion of the afterlife and a big beardy bloke in the sky, on the spot. His imagination just kicks in, with the purest of intentions....'cos of course he CAN lie!!. It doesn't stop there though.
However, it's also at this point the comedy slides. It becomes another movie, almost. One I can't help feeling is more aware of it's own cleverness, and that makes people feel like they're preached at, particular when you've just served them 40 minutes of agreeable-ish fare. Of course with the comedy stripped back we're left with a notion that not everyone watching is going to be comfortable with in their heads. Personally I enjoy it, am challenged by it and I applaud him for doing it but so stark a shift effectively pulls the rug from under his own feet.
After being so idiosyncratic and bold earlier on, this is a pity. Gervais own character, Mark is close to his "Andy Milman" from Extra's. However, it doesn't feel quite as satisfying this time out and I suspect that's because this film tries harder than it should to cover so many bases. As much as I respect Gervais, and enjoyed the movie, I can't help but feel that he's not quite made it to where he's supposed to be yet. Looking back to "Liar,Liar" it's cleverness lay in it's simplicity.
Though on the surface that was a much broader film, Invention Of Lying would've been a better one with a pinch more of the same. 3.5/5
As huge HD PLASMA and LCD screens gradually take over living rooms, DVD evolves into Blu-ray and you've got your disc of effects extravaganza "Avatar" on the shelf, Hadley's going to convince that you MUST see some B/W, SF from 40 years ago...?
...oh yes, so make yourself comfortable..!
Yes, I'll hold my hands up and admit I'm a child of the blockbuster age (..ermm, no not the rental place!) I'm one of the Star Wars generation, who's affection for material sometimes comes as much from the hype and the tie-in product, as the piece itself.
But I still see there's something special; magical about vintage TV. Beyond the curiosity value of seeing old cars that your Grandad may have owned, or the amusement at a silly haircut. Besides which, don't we all get fatigue from the "slickness" and sophistication of even the best of 21st century entertainment, from time to time..? My solution to this, as to a growing number of things I'm finding is, "everything in moderation".
Only last night I wallowed in a shamefully un-remastered episode of Steptoe & Son from 1964. Simple in it's presentation, by todays standards. So weathered and conspicuous on a 40+ inch screen, but it takes little of it's running time to acclimatise oneself to the contrast. The script and performances immediately grabbing a viewer in an intimate way which modern TV often abandons altogether, until some industry "visionary" looks back to these B/W days for inspiration when reaching for real longevity. Remember that not only were screens much smaller back then, but so were our living rooms. Often someone in the family would have to draw the curtains or tinker if there was just an interior aerial on the set, to keep the screen snow-free. There was the one solitary speaker so much "sssshhhhh-ing" and whispering was commonplace. You will not find a better example of this, than in the original seasons of Doctor Who, screened from late 1963 onwards. Unlike poor old Steptoe however, classic DW is all being gradually, painstakingly, faultlessly remastered and restored to look the best it ever has by a team working with BBC DVD. If the thought of watching material, be that movies or TV in anything but full colour fills you with dread, I'll be unlikely to change your mind. But I do ask you what's the worst thing that could happen if one of these DVD's made its way into your player, onto your screen...? Once you have your answer, I'll tell you alternatively, what the best could be. Particularly if you've come to love this particular series since it's return in 2005, or even it's "respray" this year, because DW in 1964, is different yes (I'd be mad to deny...!) but unmistakably the same series. It speaks the same language, has the same roots in classic literature and the popular culture of the day. It boasts the same sense of morality and fun as the Matt Smith episodes, and an air that we may just be "intimately" witnessing the beginnings of something approaching legendary here in 2010.
It places her right in the middle a society which fascinates her so, as she's attended by priests from schools of both "knowledge" and "sacrifice":the villain of the story Tlotoxl. Naturally, the sacrifice aspect doesn't go down too well with our Barbara, who's at this point becoming the heart and soul of the series. She believes perfectly placed and justified in quickening it's abolishment, with Autloc:priest of Knowledge, hanging on her every word. However this not only brings her into conflict with the rather blood-thirsty Tlotoxl, but The Doctor himself as He warns against trying to change so much as one line in established history.Of course it's all doomed from the start, right..??! We know this in hindsight, and it's this impending sense of the inevitable and the failing of Barbara's purest intentions which gives The Aztecs much of it's richness and sense of real drama, above thrill-of-the-week-type antics which the series had mastered up to now. This story assures DW's longevity just as much as that first Dalek story had.
It's very much Jacqueline Hill's time to shine playing Barbara Wright. She wrestles with her emotions, the status and power her assumed identity comes with. As well as personal responsibilities, particularly to Autloc, her devoted follower. Then there's her loyalty to The Doctor, whom by now she has come to respect after so much mutual distrust earlier in their relationship. As his patience with her turmoil turns to frustration at her stubbornness, it's simply magnetic viewing and represents the very best in earliest Doctor Who. Small scale, inter-personal drama which plays with the biggest ramifications.
It's not just the regulars that shine either, the story boasts a small but superb supporting cast. There's a memorable bad guy, you could almost root as he tries to undo Barbara's plans. Then there's Keith Pyott's touching performance as Autloc the priest, at odds with his faith. All played out amongst beautifully detailed sets and costumes.
This being the first time I've watched it in a few years, it particularly brought to mind the 2008 episode "The Fires Of Pompeii", where David Tennant's Doctor also fell into conflict with his companion Donna, over changing history. A strand which would reach a powerful resolution in the following years "The Waters Of Mars". 
Well my conscience is clear, because if there's just one of you hovering about whether to see this theatrically or not, or worse still, who hasn't seen any of them yet, that I can swing it for, I'm justified! TS3 finds us a decade on, in narrative terms as well as reality. As in the real world, things have changed in Andy's room. Sadly, Woody, Buzz and what's left of the rest of the gang just don't get out like they used to. Andy's 17 and moving on, so perhaps they should too...? Or face a different kind of "infinity and beyond", boxed up in the family attic. The movie kicks off with a typically explosive, funny, eye-popping action sequence which instantly makes the 10 years since TS2 seem like 10 minutes. Followed by 100 minutes of top-class entertainment, with something for everyone and plenty left over. The ease at which we drop right back into that world, its language and iconography highlights the commitment to quality that persists at Pixar Disney Studios; the strength of this brand and the near legendary status and appeal of these characters. Destiny unfolds and our heroes cross paws and plastic with another vividly realised bunch of toys, led by a maniacal teddy bear who "smells of strawberries": Lotso, the Top Dog of the seemingly idyllic "Sunnyside Day Care Centre".
Laughs and action come thick and fast all building to a natural, deliberately teary but life-affirming finale. Highlights come by the minute and I wouldn't want to spoil a single one by recounting my favourites here, but i will say that the words "demo-mode" will never seem quite the same again. Personally speaking, I laughed out loud, at the cinema, which I NEVER do. I also found myself brought closer and closer to the edge of my seat as the stakes got high as they could ever get.
Toy Story 3 brings the theatrical movies to a natural end, making a timeless statement. I'm sure these characters will indeed live on, perhaps in short films or even on television. For the moment, Pixar should rest easy knowing they've delivered something special and lasting in this franchise over the last 15 plus years. Don't ask me which of the 3 is the better film either. Hell, I'm not even sure I have a favourite!! The series has proven to be more than the sum of it's parts. Each covering their own ground, rather than re-treading the same. To alter a mark out of 5 in relation to one another would be silly and plain unfair, because there's no question that TS3, like it's previous instalments stands tall in the landscape of modern cinema as an easy - 5/5
I'd not seen it for a couple of years, but watching it with someone else...?
Well, it gave me a window in on what it would be like to see it for the first time. In isolation as a piece of entertainment foremost.
Perhaps for the first time since it's release, and certainly the only time with zero anticipation or expectation on my part.
What I found was, in truth, still a sprinkling of the stuff that legends are made of, but more a magic that has rubbed off, rather than cast a fresh spell and a galaxy slightly further away than before....
The story follows veteran Jedi Master, Qui-Gon Jinn played by Liam Neeson, and his apprentice or "Padawan" (..try pulling that one out of the bag in Scrabble) Obi-Wan Kenobi as they attempt to resolve some trade dispute but quickly embark on a almost sweeping adventure. Taking in a serious amount of sand, but fortunately they're dressed for it...! Whilst trying to secure fresh parts for their damaged spacecraft they meet a young slave boy. It's Jinn who comes to realise this boy, one Annakin Skywalker, has a unusually strong, purely instinctive synergy with "The Force". The Force which, as we all know by now, is the cool stuff which "binds the universe together" to quote another movie.
The special effects remain special, even if you can see the joins more now that digital effects have progressed. John Williams music's as rousing as ever and the universe it brings before our eyes taps into that spirit of Saturday morning serials. Those which Lucas had sought to recreate originally in the mid 70's as he wrestled with the possibilities of bringing an epic space fantasy to the big screen.....that's the good news!
It's often said to me that there are lots of problems with TPM. That's not strictly speaking true. It being more accurate to confirm that there's just two or three, but they're critical ones. Unmissable quantities which no amount of special editions, new scenes, pimped up effects or re-scoring are ever going to put right.
The simple fact is that whilst TPM leaves many other family blockbusters standing in terms of spectacle and box-office, it's a mostly a flat experience compared to a multitude of others. As if Lucas directed from a big comfy arm chair and chewing on his Werthers originals, rather than the frontline hyped up on Smarties.
The scene moves, time after time like a travel log but only really crackles with signature Star Wars vitality at two points in the whole show: the nail-biting, if predictable, pod-race and the duel of the fates as our two Jedi are drawn into a final confrontation with the demonic Darth Maul. Both key junctions in the film I grant you, but the contrast is SO stark that TPM shows itself up as an over-worked, over story boarded film.
Those two occasions are the only times in the whole 2 hours that you really feel inside the story, rather than spectating.
Such mismanagement also is apparent in the frankly idiotic plotting of the thing. Billboards famously boasted, a whole year previously to lampoon Godzilla (1998), that "PLOT MATTERS"....and who'd argue with that...? However the plot of TPM is needlessly dense with political nonsense and bizarre ideas (...a symbiotic circle...?!) Together they mire the mood, dilutes much of the vitality I referred to, and sadly makes it uneasy bedfellows with the other films in the series. It wouldn't be so bad if any of it made any sense. The fact that we're told so much, in such monotone a voice as Portman uses as Queen Amidala, but see so very little, gives a sense that it's the stuff happening off screen that's more interesting. All giving the illusion of real plot, and serious issues but in truth it's just words for the sake of words to cover the joins.
Even the nature of the force itself is altered and explained at microscopic level, when it was completely unnecessary. Here the mystical, romance of The Force as we knew it acquires a controversial association with a biological element, namely the microscopic "Midi-chlorian" organisms. No one needed to know any of this either
Leading us to the bigger problem. All of the above could maybe have been pulled off better had it not been for one thing: that dialogue. It's appalling. Better scripting, truer characterisation could've made even this plot seem more interesting. Or at least made us care for the implications for the core characters and their way of life. There's plenty of brooding and ringing of the bells, yet we're never really sold on it somehow. Speech slides from matter of fact to the plain idiotic or both, witness Annakin's mum's total disinterest in the fact she's immaculately conceived a child. See the resignation in the eyes of the Pernilla August as she tries to sell that one!
Now you could argue that Star Wars, as a fantasy, is inherently ridiculous..? I don't buy that for one moment. There was truth to the way the characters spoke to us in the original trilogy of films. They were familiar archetypes, in many ways (the unsatisfied farm boy, the jumped up Princess etc) but the words seemed to leap from their mouths in contrast. Remember this is, whilst a galaxy far,far away from our own.....still supposed to be the same one and only a couple of decades earlier, rather than a couple of centuries. Natalie Portman is particularly badly served.
Then there's the scene where Jinn introduces Obi Wan to Annakin. So awkwardly composed you half expect the characters to turn to the camera, shake hands and wink at us. Characters seem manoeuvred into situations to hit the requisite marks, stitching the saga together. Whether it serves the plot, or seems natural being by the by. The preservation of such moments has proven counter-productive, I believe, to Lucas's wish for his legacy. A huge contributing factor to the reason why the saga is still, five years from it's finishing in cinemas, still referred to as two different series as films: "Prequel Trilogy" and "Original Trilogy". These films seem to not have the confidence or relevance as tales worth telling in their own right without the "prequel" prefix. To dilute the pathos of this franchise is quite a feat, and a huge shame.
Speaking of the icons from the original trilogy brings me to my final point and the biggest piece that's missing from TPM.
Namely "The Harrison Element". Yes, because every fantasy needs its purveyor of swagger, as personified by the magnificent Harrison Ford as Han Solo. It's this edge that TPM so badly needs to really jump-start the plot, and take us proceedings from a chain of incidents to genuine adventure, with real jeopardy. Exactly who are we supposed to be rooting for here...? Who is our "way in" to a story which, I mentioned earlier, we are merely observing. Someone to rally behind, or even against would have added that heart and passion which itself would've heightened audience interest. Convinced us not only that the characters were in real jeopardy, but that we actually cared one way or another. Palpatine, for example, may be a very nasty man but he's a potentially fascinating character,played by a superb actor.
It's clear (well.....clearish!) from certain points in the film that, on paper, this was perhaps supposed to have been the department of Qui-Gon Jinn.
For whatever reason, and at the expense of fan favourite Obi Wan, it was he Lucas intended as our hero. To pass the baton to Annakin. Once again though we're told, rather than see for ourselves, of his reckless streak and a maverick status amongst his peers. Okay he tells a couple of porkies, but his expression rarely changes and his arms are practically always folded. Liam Neeson is more than capable of delivering on this count. Had had he been given the stimulus of a decent script and real characterisation he'd undoubtedly have given TPM the striding, chance taking, classic romantic hero that it so badly needed. Jinn should've been Indiana Jones like and dragging Obi-Wan by his braids through trial after trail, answering for errors after the fact. As it is on screen it's more like seeing the universe with Michael Palin, just without the laughs or the odd bare buttock.
So there we have it! The Phantom Meance all fixed...? ...again...!!! (...note that I resisted banging on about Jar Jar too!) You know what though, for everything that disatisfies me about the film, I've never not enjoyed watching the thing. Not once, and that has to count for something I'm thinking.
It's an enduring film, as I'm sure the children of 1999 will be telling us as they reach adulthood, but how much of this is by association...?
As a neutral starting point, from which things would get better, darker and indeed lighter, perhaps it is the right entry point for children who will now come to the saga as a 6 film opus. You only have to look across at the early Chris Columbus directed Harry Potter movies as better examples of the same principle. No matter what, we're stuck with it and it's "might've beens".
2.5/5
MONDAY 9 AUGUST - TORCHWOOD 4: THE NEW WORLD coming in 2011...
It's been over a year since the last series aired, to huge ratings and similar acclaim. Then everything went decidedly quiet. John Barrowman answered the call from Desperate Housewives (...that's a show, not a facebook group! ) and Welsh geek goddess Eve Myles announced her pregnancy. However, the successful SF drama series which span off from DW, has recently, finally been confirmed for a 4th series. Enitled "Torchwood : The New World" Once again the new run will air on BBC1 though will comprise 10 episodes. That's double the length of last years 3rd series.
Obviously this is excellent news for the little series that just keeps getting bigger, and those who follow it...
No matter what each of us think of the show and it's strengths, weeknesses, triumphs and mis-steps, you'd be deluded to not recognise how important it's become to UK schedules and in furthering the legacy of British TV science fiction that started with Quatermass, back in the 1950's. Or not acknowledge it's influence and the importance of the nature of this latest recommision as a co-production between it's BBC originators and its new US associates.
I notice though that there's already plenty of disinformation floating round about the future of TW, so in this entry I'm going to pull all the hard fact about the Series 4, into the one place. No speculation (...well, not until further down!,lol) just the facts as announced. Seeing as we're closing in on the 5th anniversary of the original announcement of Torchwood, we'll have a little look back to what's gone before too.
So, let's start with the most obvious question. 1:who's starring in it....?
At the moment confirmed casting is just the return of both the ever shy and retiring John Barrowman as Captain Jack Harkness (...last seen picking up that bloke from Being Human in the new Years Day Doctor Who special) and Eve Myles as the heart of Torchwood, former police officer Gwen Cooper. Though there will be new cast members to replace all the ones bumped off along the way, in previous runs. Here's a recent quote fleshing out the remit, as featured in the Hollywood Reporter, from Russell T Daves (..returning showrunner and contributing writer) and Julie Gardner, executive producer and long time collaborator.
"The new story will follow a CIA agent (Rex) and analyst (Ester) who tackle an alien-related global issue. Torchwood, having been destroyed and disbanded, is "like a legend now ... it's like something that's ceased to exist and is now spoken of only in whispers." Soon, Rex and Ester are on the run and are seeking out the help of Captain Jack and Gwen.
"The two teams coming together is a big part of the story -- are they friends or enemies? There's a lot of sparks and excitement."
"We definitely have a really big story to tell," added executive producer Julie Gardner. "It's absolutely rebooted to welcome in a new audience."
The case is promising to "tie the two remaining Torchwood members to the CIA, and will expand into a world-wide threat".
Mention of the ever-present pen of Russell T Davies, or "RTD" as affectionately known, brings us to the next question...
2: who's writing it...?
Well, according to sources, including the Chicago Tribune, the writing team for series four of Torchwood has been selected by Executive Producer and Lead Writer RTD, as follows. Firstly there's John Shiban and Doris Egan, who are both veterans of Smallville as well as covering such US series as House and The X-Files amongst others, between them. Additionally there's UK writer John Fay who also wrote two episodes of Torchwood: Children of Earth. Other work includes episodes of Clocking Off, Blue Murder and Robin Hood.
Last, and perhaps most impressively, there's the name Jane Espenson. For those not in the know, she's a lady approaching god-like status amongst fans of the SF and fantasy genre after a five-year stint as a writer and producer on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, for which she shared a Hugo Award. Further to that she's contributed to a myriad of serial dramas and comedies including recent Battlestar Gallactica prequel, Caprica. As most of us already know, it was Buffy that heavily influenced RTD's original take on Doctor Who when looking to reinvent it so succesfully in 2003/4 and he's been vocal in his admiration for her. So far so good eh...? Hang on though, with all this change 3:will Torchwood still be Torchwood....?Millions of us loved the series as it was, thankyou very much! What if it's unrecognisable after all this excitement..?
After all, the press release promises that whilst previous series were based on location in Cardiff, Wales, Series 4 will see storylines widen to include locations in the U.S. and around the world. In short, Torchwood's going global!
Well, here's what the suits have to say......
-
Jane Tranter, EVP, BBC Worldwide Productions: "Torchwood has attracted remarkable attention and loyalty in both the UK and U.S., and in this new partnership with Starz, the next chapter will not only reward our current fans, but also introduce new viewers to the most impressive instalment yet."
"We're committed to programming exceptional television that is entertaining, imaginative and provides a premium TV experience, and by any measure the new concept for Torchwood fits that mandate,"
-
Ben Stephenson, Controller, BBC Drama Commissioning said: "We have a long history of working with many U.S. networks but it is incredibly exciting to be working with Starz for the first time, as well as to be reunited with the best of British in Russell, Jane and Julie. Torchwood will burst back onto the screen with a shocking and moving story with global stakes and locations that will make it feel bigger and bolder than ever"
-
Russell T. Davies Creator and Lead Writer, has left Britain for Los Angeles. He states confidently in these quotes from USA Today it "will be faithful" to the BBC original. Explaining that the story itself "had been ticking away in my mind for a long while...not been planned as a Torchwood story at all. Suddenly I thought, there's a popular show, there's a great story, let's put them together...It felt like it definitely could move forward and become new again."
"Though it will be newer and bigger, the tone won't change", Davies reassures long term fans. Barrowman's Jack will still be TV's only bi-sexual hero and humor will still play a large part in the show's make-up....It will always be a cheeky show." So could being on Starz, makers of Spartacus:Blood and Sand, mean the show could potentially take advantage of looser standards for nudity and violence....?
"I've always had loose standards and practices," Davies said. "If the story demands intimacy or savagery, we will go there absolutely ... [but] there's nothing better than a great big global thriller that stops for a sex scene -- it's probably hard to make that happen in a thriller."
Okay, so they're all press releases. What did we expect they'd say...?
However, it does ring true when you look at the path TW has taken up to now. The fact is that this series has evolved with each consecutive series in a pretty drastic way. Certainly more so than most British drama series, with their formulas, static (..actually make that falling!) budgets and tried and tested writers.
So here's where my opinion comes in because I believe it was change driven mostly by the necessities. Both of it's increasing profile and a natural growth it would've been foolish to deny, less it stagnate. Torchwood as it stood in 2006, would doubtfully be still running now had it not developed in this way.
Torchwood was initially announced with this image (left), on 17 October 2005: Controller of BBC3, Stuart Murphy, described it as "sinister and psychological...As well as being very British and modern and real." RTD further described it as "a British sci-fi paranoid thriller, a cop show with a sense of humour. [...] Dark, wild and sexy, it's The X-Files meets This Life."
It would be just over a year until we could judge for ourselves and there's no getting away from it..! Some of Series 1 (2006) was preposterous, even by cult TV standards. To the point where it resembled spoof fantasy series Garth Marenghi's Darkplace. Yes, there's a lot of people who liked TW as this slightly seedy, raunchy (....god, I love that word! Whenever I say it in my head it's always as Rik Mayall ) and schlocky series that approached guilty pleasure status.
There were highpoints, yes but it was uneven in it's tone, and the sexual content jarred with the rest lending the whole production an adolescent quality. It brought out the schoolboy in all of us.
Sounds fun doesn't it..? And to be fair, a majority of it was, but the fact is that much of that wasn't intentional.
Commisioned for and broadcast firstly on digital channel, BBC3, it delievered its best audience figures at that time and carved out a niche for itself. It's place in the cult TV panthenon, assurred.
By Series 2 (2008), TW switched to mainstream BBC2. Ratings had been so high it was a no-brainer.
It was a much smoother and satisfying affair which struck the balance between thrills and genuine drama almost sensitively (.....I say again, almost!). Recurring, supporting cast included bubble-butted TARDIS graduate Martha Jones and devilish Captain John Hart, as played by James Marsters.
Again it was made up of individual episodes but the themes which formed the loose continuing aspects flowed much more naturally. All building to real heady climax the way the DW finales have. The main cast too were all given their own arc's, some of which destined for uncompromising tragedy.
The 3rd run in 2009, "Children Of Earth" consolidated this by being tighter scripted, taut with real angst and an unsettling truth usually only found in the heaviest of drama. All set alongside imagery and topics reminiscent of the work of science fiction TV pioneers like Nigel Kneale.
The world it existed in seemed more real than ever. The danger to humanity, more thought-provoking and the light it shone on the darkest instincts of our psyches, uncomfortably bright. It wasn't perfect, but it was event TV which straddled genres with a swagger you couldn't help but be swept up in. All this and it was now in primetime, promoted again to BBC1, and stripped across one week. For all intents and purposes, a mainstream drama hit.
I feel justified, when looking back on this, in stating those who are anticipating more TW on any level should keep the faith, and leave their minds wide open. And if you loved the old incarnations of the series that much...? Well, that's what the DVD box sets are for. So the final question must surely be " So Dan, when can we watch ....??????" Simple one that, if not that precise. We're promised filming will begin in January for transmission later in 2011. If you push me to guess, I'd say the Autumn so that's just over a year to wait. I'll be watching it's development, and following up the piece when casting takes shape. Though I'll be careful to avaoid the spoilers, as ever.
WEDNESDAY 4 AUGUST 2010 - MOVIE REVIEW: ZOMBIELAND
Right....I'll cut to the chase, I really enjoyed Zombieland.....!
There 'ya go. If that's enough for you fair play, but be my guest and read on for the customary "buts" and "maybes" because the film comes with a disclaimer..!
In case you don't know, or can't guess by the cryptic title (...sarcasm, me, surely not..?! hehe) this is another entry into the horror-comedy canon courtesy of Columbia. Once again the global population appear to have been turned into zombies, relatively recently. We get the back story filling out the origin of the new world dis-order from out the mouth of our lead character, " Colombo" in a very matter of fact way. The why's and wherefores are hardly relevant, and it's a neat if disturbing idea...unless you're a vegetarian.
It's all narrated in the first person, and rather effective as Jesse Eisenberg has a great line in these everyman "I just want a quiet life" types.
What follows are some great moments of slapstick, though black enough comedy in a nice riff on the buddy/road movie....just with zombies! All played by a small cast with noticeable chemistry, if one playing character types we've seen before in other stuff. There's even something approaching real "thrills" in fits and starts. You WILL care what happens next, which isn't always a given. It's got a lean running time of just over 80 minutes, and uses terrific graphics and flashbacks as Colombo explains his tried and tested rules for daily survival in this totally hostile world.
At the centre of the mayhem there's a standout turn from Woody Harrelson, as Twinkie fixated cowboy "Tallahassee". If Burt Reynolds had played Han Solo, this is what he'd be like. As we know from past roles, Woody has 2 types of characters he plays. There's (1) the loveable buffoon and (2) the balls-out maniac! Here he challenges us with a cocktail of those: a "loveable maniac" who predictably gets most of the best lines and moments. When he's not on screen you do notice....!
So why so reserved in referring Zombieland, you may ask...? I'd love to enthuse about this movie, lock-stock. To quote "top bits" and lines cos in all fairness there are plenty. If the trading of cracks between the leads doesn't amuse you, then you have no sense of fun. However, the simple fact is that even though it doesn't outstay it's welcome, the middle act falls flat and faster than a bird hitting some patio doors. All to accommodate a sequence which serves no purpose but to flatter the ego of a veteran comedy star, who appears as themselves. My titters, quickly turned to "what the ****'s?!" as screen time is eaten up which should be better spent serving up more of what the first act had so fluidly. Perhaps this could've been a consequence of the projects graduating from it's original intended slot as the pilot for a TV series. Said cameo seemingly intended as the "Obi-Wan" of the piece.
Simply put, the film loses it's nerve and tries to be clever-funny at a crucial point, when just more funny-funny would've more than done. It's called "Zombieland" for Yoda's sake, no one expected "Being John Malkovich". Broadly speaking there's not enough horror for gore-hounds and not enough comedy in the mix for it to inject the fresh blood into either genre that it was capable of. That's frustrating when so many pieces of the puzzle fit so well. If you already have Shaun Of the Dead, From Dusk 'Til Dawn or Tremors you may be better off just watching those again instead. However much I liked this movie, they're all better and then some. There's scope for a sequel or two here though, even if I won't rush to see them theatrically.
Good news is it all rallies for the final push and my adrenaline was well-pumping again for the obligatory shoot-out as our road-trippers reach their destination
3.5/5
I'd even venture that no other genre depends quite so wholly on the continued vitality of the others, than horror.
Having said that though, when a horror film gets it right, it can be massively satisfying. Perhaps the clue in achieving this comes with an awareness of precisely where that fine line between thriller and horror resides...? Hitchcock knew this, as do the likes of Wes Craven and David Cronenberg. Similarly the line between comedy and horror, I'm thinking Craven (again!) Romero (...at his prime) Sam Raimi and Peter Jackson off the top of my head. However for every 2 or 3 that get it right, dozens get it wrong on both counts.
"Friday the 13th" (2009) isn't a period remake, as those of Amityvillle Horror and the aforementioned Chainsaw Massacre had been, but the conventions of the modern age are sensitively afforded minimal impact on the general lay of the land. The producers may kid themselves it's more than a remake, but the truth is it's all about getting a bunch of unlikeable, horny teens (played by 20 somethings, in the noble tradition!) into isolation and then polishing them off in various unsavoury ways. And you know what, Nispel delivers so stylish a film it almost succeeds in making you forget you've seen it all before.....they key word there being "almost".
Well, the idea seemed to be to consolidate an identity for a series which had staggered through a sequence of increasingly "by numbers" sequels throughout the 80's, to the point where few can seperate one from the other in their memory, and potentially move on from there. So the more memorable bumpings-off from the entire canon are re-presented, with Nispel's signature flair. More crucially, the origin of hockey-masked big bad Jason is streamlined. Drastically so, and the trimming of so much fat from events that originally took 3 films to unfold, does indeed lend the character a little more of the stuff of legend which his peers have benefitted from. Nispel's part in it all seems just the hired "eye", and there's nothing other than gloss to characterise the whole experience in any way, nor differentiate it from the herd.
The intention may've been to restart a once lucrative cash-cow but to my eyes all that's been actually delivered is a final word on "Friday the 13th" and confirmation that there's not nor ever will be, anything new or worth seeing/exploring here.
So when I said it wouldn't bother me if I never saw another slasher movie ever again, how did I come to belatedly see "Halloween" (2007) just a short while later? Am I that fickle...??!
Well, to quote Vicki Pollard "...yeah, but no". With Halloween, I will make what appears to be at first glance, the exception.
It's still a remake, clearly, but Zombie comes at the material from a different point. In fact the first 3rd of the film effectively becomes a prequel containing a wealth of new insights and exploring the reality behind the making of the monster from a man, or in this case a boy. It's sympathetic, beautifully acted (particularly by the young actor playing 10 year old Michael Myers) and shot with restraint where's wise. All creating something coming closer to horror as events unfold, culminating in the events on Halloween night, 15 years later.
So in summary, Halloween may not match the original film either, but it has a bloody good go. It feels like a fresh slant, worth seeing and leaves us with some quite startling scenes and a nail biting last act. Even if you know what's coming! Personally I'd say that allowing us to identify quite so strongly and almost sympathise with Myers in his youth, is admirable enough. The intention of depicting real mental torment and the road which many diagnosed as pyschopathic do indeed take. Though perhaps it walks a fine line when you consider some choices Zombie makes with regards to how the women in the film are treated and objectified.
Halloween: 3.5/5
A couple of weeks ago I was musing over super-heroes. Not that unusual in itself, granted. When I'm not imagining what I'd do if I was one, and what power I'd like most, seems like I'm reading about them, or watching them. On that occasion I was talking specifically of the casting of such icons of the comic book and the desire, nay rabid need, to get it right. "The Downey Jnr Factor"...
Then a short time afterwards there's a huge piece of casting announced regarding one of what are the BIG 3, and certainly still the biggest Marvel property : Spider-Man. Andrew Garfield was announced as the new Peter Parker, in a short but busy round of publicity and greeted with universal sentiment "...Andrew who.....?" Well, Garfield's a British/American actor, reportedly bagging "just" (...I'd STILL have done it for half this!) 500,000 dollars for tugging on the tights in the first of 3 contracted films. "Spider-Man", as it's known for now, will debut in 2 years time and in 3D. Hurrah!!!!....or not....???
Within minutes the news had been dissected, Garfield googled (...inlcuding by me, I confess) and backs well and truly pushed up, by folk who seem to spend their lives with that as their preferred state of being. It's predictable, and all part of fun at it's most innocent, and when the dust settles (relatively quickly in this case..) we ALL go back to hating Jar Jar Binks.
But it means from now that this project enters into a unique kind of limbo...
Despite the fact that Garfield's work is easily found, in fact most geeks will already own at least one appearance in a 2007 Doctor Who, we know little of him and he's had nothing which you can reasonably describe a leading role. Just a buzz around forthcoming David Fincher movie about the founding of Facebook (...no, I don't know why either but I see it as the pre-cursor to a biopic of Bill Gates where the young Gates is like Harry Potter, crossed with Reed Richards) Bolstered by, let's be honest, a decent enough track-record in officially acclaimed work and by those who are allowed to acclaim it, rather than those who rant, rave or both online. Director and creative force Marc Webb isn't much more known, with one well liked and distinctive movie under his belt and a parade of music videos which all adds up to an unknown mass we're waiting 2 calender years to see. It all makes fans ansty, even nervous.....and of course the media loves it when fans of anything get nervous, so they can play to it. Probably, uniquely in the UK whip it up a little into real negativity to the point where we're convinced it'll be a "flop" (another all too common phrase in media journalism, which I'm tempted to write a whole blog on in itself!) just because we've been told so. Ambiguity does perhaps understandably not sit well with those who hold a property such as "SM" dearest.
This limbo between announcement and at that first teaser, I'm officially designating "The Garfield Zone", in his honour and just because it would seem I like doing such things!!
Those who have decided they "ggrrrr....hate reboots", like it's a new trend equivalent to hitching your jeans underneath the cheeks of your arse, will use it's duration to reinforce endorsement of their own mindset. Oblivious to the reality that "reboot" is just a newish term for something that's been done successfully and creatively in movies for decades. The rest of us sit on our hands, and will probably alternate between bemusement that Webb hasn't had the decency to pick an actor he's worked with before so we could've predicted it, a slight disappointment that our previously voiced and therefore "obvious" choice (mine was Zac Efron, in case you wondered...)wasn't chosen and a fresher, cautious optimism.
At this time we've no concrete reason to suspect the fusing of this latest actor to our beloved Peter Parker, surely the "geeks-geek", won't be triumphant. Certainly as much a "glove fit" (there I go again!) as his predecessor, the likewise "unknown" but liked, un-obvious choice Tobey Macguire.
The bottom line is that Andrew Garfield is a name few of us recognise and for those who practically insist on being given the opposite, that's unsettling. Despite the fact it's worked out more often than not and traditionally so with franchise properties. People like predictability. They're comfored by it, to the point of feeling validated by it maybe...?
But if you were Avi Arad and his cohorts, what would you rather...? Sign Efron, Jamie Bell or one of the other names we all know from something else, with their requisite baggage, expectation and price tag? Or be first to make a star out of someone before another studio recognise his rising......? I'd go with the latter, but if you disagree I'm all ears. There's no getting away from the fact he's quite older than Peter is supposed to be, particularly at the time in his life when we've been told the new film will reset the character to. That may change also, who knows....? For the right actor, and they must think he's the right one otherwise they'd not have picked him. The photos I've seen range from Garfield looking his age and then some, to being noticeably youthful and undeniably like he's been drawn by John Romita Senior. How irritating!!! Then again, the man makes a living from "pretending" and changing himself......
Webb too is an exicting and potentially huge talent. One who's already redefined the romantic comedy for those in the know (...not me, I've not seen 500 Days Of Summer yet) which is no mean feat. It's fair to say he could've picked his projects up to a point, but he's confident and feels justified enough, at a crucial stage in his career to take on a 50 year icon and lucrative property. This and follow one of the most successful and loved sequence of block-busters in recent times......??!?! I know he's not doing it for free either, but I still think it takes brass bollocks.
Before exploring all this, and sharing it with you, I was tempted to seek out more of Andrew's work as I'm sure a huge amount on bloggers and jounro's have. However, that would colour my judgement as it would inform me. Thus defeating the object of drawing attenton to this zone in a movie's development and the true place, even in the age of the net, where everyone but cast and crew exist. I've put up my deck chair in the zone you see, and whatever the weather turns out like I know there's sweet FA I can do about it. No one's forcing me to see it.
Damn sure I'm not going to worry, let alone mither, about it in between. I consider the fact of the matter could be that on whichever side of the fence you sit, it's all part of the fun.
As a lead on from this post, you may notice from some pics how Andrew Garfield resembles a slightly more cuddly, parent friendly Robert Pattinson of Twilight and...ermmm Twilight, fame.....?! (above, but must dmit I'd struggle to know which is which!) The wirey frame, bushy eyebrows and product loaded, barely tamed hair..? No coincidence, I'm guessing. Are we about to witness a master stroke in getting that elusive teenage girls demographic into a super-hero movie....?...watch this space, wall crawlers...!THURSDAY 1ST JULY 2010 - WONDER WOMAN AT 600
In case you'd not guessed by now, my favourite TV series of all-time, by some way is Doctor Who. Always will be......and it always was....!!! Well, I say always but I'm about to disclose something that I've never told anyone before.
Don't tell a soul, but there was one programme before I got the DW bug. One character that grabbed my imagination, for any hour every Friday evening in dazzling colour and she looked a damned sight better in a basque than Tom Baker......!!
Yes, my confession is that originally my favourite series was Wonder Woman, starring the gorgeous Lynda Carter. I was only about 6 years old, but I knew I fancied her and more importantly I'd seen her in the DC comics my Grandad occasionally brought me back from the paper shop. That's when you could still buy US comics outside of specialist shops in the UK. She was incredible, and the series was so slick to my little awe struck eyes. In relative terms, it didn't last that long. Once Tom took a dive and turned into that guy from "All Creatures", allegiance well and truly shifted (...whoooa hang on, he can change his FACE...?!?!?!?)...but I never forgot Wonder Woman. When I properly got into comics, devouring book after book and soaking in the mythology I fast caught up with Diana Prince. Just in time to see her killed off, then rebooted under George Perez, with a more relevant look and bigger-canvas back story. I remained a regular reader until the late 90's.
Though I'm very much the casual buyer of comics now, I really sat up to attention when I heard not only that iconic heroine was about to clock up her 600th issue (due to some nifty renumbering comics publishers do now) but that she was about to be rebooted once more. Or is that "reimagined"...? This time the man in the chair is former Babylon 5 guru turned comics powerhouse J.Micahel Straczynski.
She's been retooled a few times over the decades, probably most radically as a special agent in the early 70's complete with Emma Peel jumpsuit, but this is something with what appears to be a bigger M.O. More than just a costume, although that's been redesigned too. And it strikes me as not only hugely bold but potentially the chance that this character, who is still seen more as someone people dress up as on hen nights, could become as respected and celebrated as DC's Superman and Batman. Wonder Woman 2010, is redesigned by comics legend Jim Lee. I have to admit I reckon this sounds and looks wonderful....or is it just me...?
Full of the angst and mythology yet with a truth and scope for telling great "super-human" interest stories. You see, I believe WW is a sleeping giant that could one day be a blockbuster movie as other, sometimes lesser, characters have been.
Attempt after attempt, sometimes by very talented creators with track records in both strong female leads (such as Buffy-man Joss Whedon) or in movies generally have floundered and think I may be able to see why. I consider that this new status quo courtesy of DC could be a way in ensuring that she will finally reach the big screen.
Although Wonder Woman has moved with the times, her previous origin was still pretty much based around the notion that it's still enough to be a "woman in man's world". The harsh reality is though, that's probably not enough now to draw people in. Anachronistic to women of today perhaps and even the young girls who you want to make them want to be Wonder Woman when they grow up. It just wouldn't be anywhere near cool enough for boys and I suspect that this combination has been why no movie project has felt satisfying enough to finally trigger a green light.
The new origin and take on the character I can see on the big screen. Aside from the threads which wouldn't risk "fallout" every time she kicks some ass, Wonder Woman 2010 has tragedy and real loss, as all the stories the public take to their hearts really do. There's still enough scope to tap into the mythology, but now it sounds more romantic somehow. I notice it mirrors changes in Marvel's Thor property to a less radical extent, but there's also something of the Harry Potter's at work as Diana encounters and learns from these "guardians". The "woman with one foot in both worlds" will no doubt fracture the psyche of the character in a way she just wasn't built for, as was. If handled as well as we know JMS is capable of, it could make for great reading and even better viewing. Boasting that distinctive and relevant angle and pathos which she has lacked, I don't think it's unfair to say.
Despite the fact that fewer and fewer fans were sticking with the comic under the old story, some will cry foul over this. They always do, and yeah the JMS take is unlikely to remain in the comics permanently. However, I stand by my gut instinct that DC and Warner's will be watching this one very, very closely. Refining it's composite parts, sounding out script writers and examining fan and media feedback closer than usual....
Personally I don't think DC are promoting it quite ENOUGH. This should be a full-blooded "Secret Origins" mini-series like the recent Superman one. This is no less radical a change than what's been done, undone then done again to Krypton's last son over the last 25 years.
So I will close this with another picture of Lynda Carter (..just cos I can!), the lady who I tell myself I've got to thank for my discovering comics, amongst other things. My final words on this other than "Happy Birthday!" must be to watch for that green light.
That's got to have been one of the longest weeks in Doctor Who history, hasn't it...? No real clips, no new footage in the teaser advert on BBC1. Just a couple of very ambiguious stills and non commital responses from the cast and crew at interviews.
Which is, of course, how it should be...Isn't it...?
I'm all for hype and building a buzz, but can't stand spoilers particularly when a series is actually airing, you know..? I mean, what's the longest your going to have to wait to find out for yourself,on screen as those telling said story intend ! I suspect the appeal of spoilers is the notion that, particularly with regard to something so popular and widely consumed as DW, the one who gets this informations knows something very few others do. Makes them feel that little bit closer to it...? As Kryten would say "engage smug mode"...?
A friend of mine mailed me last night assuming that a certain classic series foe will be returning tonight, but he's a casual fan in his late 30's with no insider knowledge at all. Not even the kind that gets onto forums. The fact that he's been thinking about it, to whatever degree this last 7 days, means Moffat has got it so right. I answered him, very confidently with a "no!"...but within minutes it planted the idea in my head that his suggestion may actually be possible. Unlikely, but possible...I decided as I tidied up after my kids. To me this speculation, whether you're a veteran fan or have only been watching since March or less, is so essential to the fun of following DW.
Or have I got it wrong...? Are spoilers just as much part of the fun for some, and more detatchable from the actuality of viewing the show, when Saturday comes than I realise...? On the odd occasion I've had stuff accidentally spoilt for me, I've always found it slightly deflating when the thing's aired. Knowing I'd have enjoyed it more not seeing it coming, but hey it wouldn't do for us all to be the same right...? Spoiler-junkies, enlighten me. Anyhow, back to the plot and The Doctor's sealed inside The Pandorical, TARDIS has exploded with River inside it, just as Vincent warned and Amy....!?!!?..is she really dead...? Blimey!!! In fact, aren't we all dead...? In which case who's writing this...? What's that I can hear.....silence.......??,hehe.
THURSDAY 24TH JUNE 2010 - "The DOWNEY JNR. Factor"
Yesterday I was surprised to read how Patrick Dempsey has "expressed interest" (...I love that phrase! Who talks like that....??,haha!) in playing one Dr Stephen Strange on the big screen for Marvel Studios. Arne Star, who I'm not ashamed to admit I had to look up before typing this, has even gone so far as giving his backing and sending in artwork with Dempsey as the "Sorceror Supreme". Nothing's been confirmed about a Dr.Strange movie, other than it's one of a couple of dozen Marvel is "developing". But I can't be alone in finding this prospect, whilst initially quite random, a "glove-fit" scenario seconds later.
I'd never have thought of him myself, as he remains pretty much off my radar on "Greys Anatomy", but I reckon Marvel should, and probably will leap on his interest like a robbers dog. Because the tide has well and truly turned with regard to casting superhero flicks and it seems to be mostly the fallout from Robert Downey Juniors own charismatic "glove-fit" as Tony Stark in the Iron Man series.
Demspey may not be in RDJs' league as an actor (...only may, it's unfair of me to nail that one down!) but casting him may prove a master-stroke by the same standards. Not only is he allegedly keen to do it, perhaps 3 parts knowing it doesn't hurt to have a multi-million pound franchise ticking along in theatres while you pursue other work to 1 fondness for the comics, but also he comes with a guaranteed fan base. A different one demographically perhaps than RDJ's but a similarly mighty one in terms of getting those bums on seats.
Downey was an almost A-lister from a bygone decade. Liked, despite his troubles. Respected even, though never quite achieving the recognition his talent and ego deserved before slipping into the red and gold. Probably widest known in the years up to then for a recurring role in Ally McBeal. A series which had similar appeal to Greys Anatomy, where Dempsey has been setting hearts a flutter for years. But if you can get Mum into the cinema, as Dempsey almost certainly can, then you can get the whole family and that's how those blockbusters happen. He's also done enough decent work before hand not to be an unwelcome prospect for the blokes out there. I can't see Dr.Strange being any higher up on that fabled Marvel list than any other of those Avi Arad has talked up so far, but I can picture this in my head now. Dr. Strange is a property the general public have no preconcieved ideas about either, making acceptance easier. Patrick Dempsey could make Stephen Strange his own and if I can see how it could work, so you can bet Marvel can...
Broadly speaking it seemed at one time it was thought that you couldn't cast a lead actor over 25 in anything so populist as a superhero movie, never mind someone pushing middle age. Now every potential project will be looking for it's "Downey Factor": that "glove-fit" in the wake of Iron man's continued success. Outside the box thinking, you may say! Or, depending on how you look at it, inside the box! Recently we've had "Lost" survivor Daniel Dae Kim express similar "interest" in Namor:Sub Mariner (...perfect!) and now Nathan "Castle/Firefly" Fillion and the Desperate Housewives stalwart Eva Longoria Parker look set to be cast as Hank Pym and Janet "Wasp" van Dyne in The Avengers. Still don't know if I'm convinced about Chris Evan's hand fitting Captain America's glove so snug, but my mind's wide open.......
If this were an Elm Street movie, that would be followed with an maniacal laugh. I'm doing one, you'll just have to trust me on that!. Yes, you may have thought that the Pandorica opening this evening was enough excitement the geek community could take in one warm (...okay, warmish!) Summer evening. My finally opening this blog could just be the cherry on top. And of course as the finale of Doctor Who is the biggest event in the genre calender, certainly on screen, this next couple of weeks, I can't think of a better place to start.
We're less than 2 hours away as I type this and obviously I'm expecting something big! Traditionally bigger than pretty much anything else on British TV and bigger than the average DW episode. Previous years upped the ante, probably as far as you could've gone down that particular road. By that of course I mean that specific RTD way of capping a series off! I'm not knocking it! It worked beautifully and I've loved them all, but if Journey's End didn't call take things up as far as theycould go as regards invading alien armies, The End Of Time definately did....right...?!
...or am I...!?!? Could you have taken more...? And what are you expecting this time out from either this or the 2nd episode next Saturday..?
I'm still expecting something BIG in spectacle, but with something noticeably different at the epicentre. Then there's all the horses, stone circles and smoke in the trailer. All points towards something less George Lucas and the "SAGA" favoured by RTD and more British. Douglas Adams crossed with JRR Tolkien...? Plenty of Steven Moffat's "fairy tale" angle, tapping into mythology, reflected in the very word "pandorical".
It's doubly delicious that the Radio Times, sacred organ of the DW enthusiast, hasn't printed a cast list. A few suprises, and perhaps some dead certs, will be present later on. Not just the glorious River Song! Talking of whom, I wonder what little bread crumbs the Moff will slip out regarding her..? We know that the Pandorical happens for her chronologically BEFORE The Time Of Angels, and of course before Silence in the Library, but the character twists and turns with each appearance. In a way, I'd like something nailed down before the credits roll on episode 13.....but another part of me could watch Kingston exchange quips with incarnation after incarnation of the last of the Time Lords!
The nation waits with baited breath and you can smell the tension as tens of thousands of us happy anoraks simultaneously touch-cloth. Whatever happens it's guaranteed to be more fun than England V Algeria....!
Incidentally, I am not remotely interested in spoilers. So by all means let's here some theories, what you enjoyed and what you didn't, but any little nugets of info, just keep tucked away to yourself like a Squirrel does his nuts.
Otherwise, Happy Pandorica Day, wherever you are and whenever you're reading this....!