Thursday, 25 April 2013

Doctor Who: New Series 1.1 - 'Rose'

Plot: Rose Tyler - a regular 19 year old girl living in 21st Century London - has her whole world flipped upside down when she meets an enigmatic man named the Doctor. Her encounter with this mysterious traveler takes place when the store she works in is attacked by a group of living dummies; controlled by an alien species known as the nestene consciousness.


I was born in the year 1990, which meant that I grew up during the years that Doctor Who was off the airwaves. During the sixteen years that the show was essentially 'dead', numerous fans-turned-writers tried in vein to revive it. This was often attempted through the use of Doctor Who novels and radio-plays. Here, a variety of writers tried with great effort to come up with a modernized style and format which could help to bring the show to a new generation of viewers. Despite such noble efforts, not one person could come up with a formula that everyone could agree on, and the show remained in book and radio format; unable to make its way back into the mainstream public consciousness.

The closest that it came to making its way back onto the small screen was in the mid-1990s. Universal Studios and BBC Films formed a co-production. They decided to try and create a backdoor pilot for the program, so in the summer of 1996, Doctor Who: The Movie was born.

Unfortunately, the film was a complete and utter clanger and received criticism on a universal level. The entire production turned out to be a mess, and the version which made it on to screen was riddled with flaws and soul-destroying dissapointment.

As a result, producers concluded that this dog had quite clearly had its day and the planned series was axed indefinitely.

But in 2003, something wonderful happened for Doctor Who fans.

At this point, the BBC had become concerned with the ever growing success from competing commercial competitors from both terrestrial and digital broadcasters. They decided that the past decade had experienced a rapid decline in the quantity and quality of in-house produced BBC dramas.

To try and return to their so called golden years, the BBC decided to hire a team of critically acclaimed producers and writers to help spark some life back into their productions. Amongst the list of individuals was the highly popular Russel T Davies.

Davies was praised by many during this point for his work on such sublime shows as Queer as Folk (Channel 4, 1999), Bob & Rose (ITV, 2001) and The Second Coming (ITV, 2003). For these projects alone, the BBC just had to have him.

Davies made it quite clear that they could only have him on board if the BBC promised to let him help bring back Doctor Who. Despite it being labelled as a dead show, the BBC took a gamble and by early 2004, production for a revamped (and direction continuation of) Doctor Who kicked into gear. 

When the pilot episode for this new era of Doctor Who aired on the 26th April 2005, the program was more or less alien to me. I mean ok, I saw the 90s movie when I was a very young kid, and my grandparents had bought me an episode of the classic series on VHS for my 8th birthday. But I wasn't all that interested, as Doctor Who didn't really mean anything more to me other than "that zany old show which had a telephone box and those shouty, Nazi-like pepper pot creatures in it".

I had zero interest in the 2005 series upon its release, and really had no intention of watching it. But my dad told me to give it a go (which is funny, as he has next to no interest in the show these days). I finally came to the conclusion that I might as well check it out, even if it was just to see what the media's hullabaloo surrounding the whole program was all about.

When I first saw the pilot (titled Rose), I wasn't all to sure of what to make of it. Throughout the entire 45 minutes, my opinion kept switching from "oh wow, now that's quite impressive" to "what the heck is this suppose to be?"

The first episode is a real roller coaster of a pilot. So to explain what made me go "wow" and  what made me go "huh?", it is probably best for me to start from the beginning.

It started off to a fine start. The opening titles were a stylishly colorful race through what I would later learn was the time vortex (a time corridor through time and space). A CGI version of the iconic Tardis hurtles through the vortex, followed by the names of the cast - Billie Piper and Christopher Eccleston - bursting onto our screen in a brassy bold font. An epic, modernized version of the highly recognizable theme accompanies this grand spectacle. It was contemporary, exciting and was trying to ambitiously exhibit to its viewers what sort of a show it was aiming to be.

I was considerably impressed. At the time, I was not a viewer of mainstream British drama; so such a visually audacious introduction to a television program took me pleasantly by surprise.

Immediately following this sequence, planet earth fades on screen. The camera hurtles toward it, down toward Europe, toward Great Britain, toward London, and finally into a young woman's bedroom. An alarm clock buzzes into life, awakening the room's owner; 19-year-old Rose Tyler (Billie Piper).

This scene is followed by a montage of Rose's day-to-day life. This is a montage which hurtles at a racy pace; telling the story of her world as hastily as possible. She lives with her mother, she has a boyfriend - named Mickey Smith - and she works in a clothes store. The point of Rose's life is blatantly transparent; she lives an incredibly normal life. This normality is flipped on its head during the next scene, however.

Rose heads down to the basement of the store she works in, where she is to deliver an envelope to the company electrician - Wilson  Instead, she is greeted by a group of shop manikins which have mysteriously sprang to life. As the living plastic homes in on Rose, a man in a leather jacket and a massive grin grabs her hand, telling her to "run!".

And from here, the plot takes off like a rocket into orbit; giving the viewer hardly a moment to breathe during the remaining 40 minutes of the episode. During this time, shop dummies invade the city of London, Rose's boyfriend is cloned by a wheelie bin (I'll explain in a minute to those who haven't seen it) and the Doctor invites Rose to join him on his adventures through time and space.

So as I mentioned earlier, this episode had a collection of "wow" moments and "huh?" moments which both impressed and baffled me.

So lets begin with the wow's first.

One of those would be the introduction of Christopher Eccleston as the 9th incarnation of the Doctor. Aesthetically, Eccleston was not how I had envisioned the character of the Doctor. I had the image of Tom Baker burnt into my mind; so when Eccleston appears with his leather jacket and his short hair and his massive smirk, I was slightly taken aback.

But then he spoke and instantly I knew they had found the right man for the job. His persona was eccentric, his mannerisms were enigmatically alien and his dialogue was delivered like lightening from a storm.

Eccleston was not only a grossly entertaining Doctor, but he was also a man filled to the brim with mystery. This became clear to me after he delivered this sizzling piece of dialogue:

Do you know like we were saying? About the Earth revolving? It's like when you're a kid. The first time they tell you that the world's turning and you just can't quite believe it because everything looks like it's standing still. I can feel it. {he grabs Rose's hand} The turn of the Earth. The ground beneath our feet is spinning at a thousand miles an hour. And the entire planet is hurtling around the sun at sixty-seven thousand miles an hour and I can feel it. We're falling through space, you and me. Clinging to the skin of this tiny little world and if we let go... {he drops her hand}. That's who I am. Now forget me, Rose Tyler. Go home.

The delivery of this line was truly perfect. It was so extraterrestrial, so melancholic, yet also so full of human emotion. It was a gorgeous piece of dialogue, amplified in its beauty by a fine bit of acting.

What i also loved about this episode was its pacing. Many of the old  fans were rather miffed about the episode's speed (mainly because they ere use to the classic era's format, which frequently laid its episodes out in a more serialized format. Each episode was 25 minutes in length and were spread out over a number of between four to twelve episodes). yet despite the disappointment of some old school whovians, I thought the 45 minute blockbuster format worked a charm (there were one or two issues I had with it, however, which I shall elaborate further on in a moment). 

What the pacing managed to achieve was it threw the audience into a very unusual and out-of-this-world story, managing to immerse themselves into this world before they had time to bail from the story. From the moment that the Autons (aka living shop window dummies) appear on our screens, the plot refused to stop for a moment's breath. It grabbed the viewer (and Rose for that matter, who is a character designed for the audience to identity with) and pulled them right through to the other end of the story.

As a result of this hasty pace, Russel T Davies was able to give the audience a taste of what Doctor Who was in just under 45 minutes. Because this episode contains absolutely everything which makes Doctor Who was it is. There was the Tardis, the companion, the other-worldly premise and an alien invasion.

It was also bloody entertaining.

As for the "huh?" moments, well there were a couple.

First things first, let us get the whole 'Mickey-cloned-by-a-dustbin' out the way shall we?

So for those who haven't seen the 2005 pilot, Rose's boyfriend - Mickey Smith - is swallowed by a dustbin, which extracts information from his biology and builds a plastic doppelganger of him in order to trick Rose into trapping the Doctor.

When I first saw this scene, I hated it. I thought it was awfully childish (even for a show essentially designed for kids) and I wasn't quite sure if I could really invest my emotions in a show were dustbin monsters could eat people make make plastic copies of them. It just felt like it was one step too far; even for a show of this nature.

Plus the plastic Mickey was far too unconvincing. It was clearly made of plastic, it constantly stuttered and it spent the entire duration of its on-screen time smiling in the most bizarre manner imaginable. This would have been fine, if only Rose picked up on it. However she hasn't the foggiest. She does not pick up on the fact that her boyfriend is now made of plastic until the Doctor gallops on screen and fires a cork into its head. Rose is suppose to be an intelligent character, however it can be a little difficult to believe this when she cannot spot this incredibly obvious situation; regardless of how implausible such a scenario may be.

When I watched this episode a few years on, my hatred toward this scene had subsided somewhat. By this point, I had been exposed to a lot more of the show and its history  and was fully aware that barmy moments like this are prevalent throughout its entire existence.

Nevertheless, I still cannot help thinking that the plastic Mickey sequence was a little too much madness for this opening episode.

My second "huh?" moment in this episode may seem a tad contradictory at first, but please hear me out. I say this because it has to do with the episode's actual plot. Something which I have so far praised.

So I said earlier that the plot's speed and electric execution were engrossing and entertaining. I stick to my word on this, however, at the same time, I also felt that it tried to do a tad too much. It wanted to establish as much as it possibly could before it potentially lost any of its viewers. It felt almost like a teacher, frantically trying to wheel out all sorts of interesting facts about a specific subject before the students began to pull out their mobiles phones. Davies wanted to reveal to a new generation what Doctor Who was and he wanted to do it as quickly as was humanly possible.

But he was 100% right for doing this. Remember, the show had been dead for over fifteen years. It was cancelled and there was the general opinion amongst most that this was a show which had long out welcomed its stay. 

So not only was Davies trying to introduce Doctor Who to an entire new generation, he was also attempting to prove to all the skeptics that it could work and that it could be sparked back into existence in just a single episode.

The main reason why I found this fast introduction a little too much in some ways, was simply because it made the show feel a little insecure about itself. It was a brave execution no doubt, but still felt a little nervous despite the audacity it was displaying. Its approach to try and justify itself so rapidly made me suspicious and cynical. Why was something which was this entertaining trying to prove itself in such a hurried manner? I wondered if maybe it wasn't as good as it initially seemed, that maybe the speed was hiding a grand vista of plot holes and flaws that existed within the concept.

So apart from the wobbly-yet-bold execution and that bizarre Mickey doppelganger scene, the 2005 Doctor Who pilot was off to an energetically promising start.

I was not totally won over by the pilot, but the energetic story, marvelous acting from Eccleston & Piper and exceptional production values had intrigued me. It made me want to tune in the following week; which I guess is the over all aim of any pilot episode.



Tuesday, 23 April 2013

Star Trek's Time Travel Reboot is Sheer Excellence



I am madly in love with time travel plots. It is a narrative which manages to frequently be riddled with plot holes, yet still manages to present itself as a work of unfathomable genius all at the same time.

Most time travel stories will contradict themselves on one point or another. The more you think about the logical sides of these tales, the more their flaws begin to boil your mind. These types of stories are often teeming with paradoxes; making the whole story entirely implausible. But then none of that really matters,  because on the surface, an entire maze of a story can be unraveling itself in all kinds of weird and wonderful ways.

These types of nonsensical magic can be the perfect canvas to try out all kinds of bizarre and unique concepts.

The words above may sound as though I'm accusing time travel plots to be nothing more than superficial crap. That I'm claiming that such stories are the fables of sheer brainless idiocy; sugar coated in a quirky manner which is designed to fool its audience. However nothing could be further from the truth.

Take Doctor Who [the new] series six for example. The story arc for this series is based around an event that spans across countless time periods; filled with all sorts of different character's timeline's overlapping and running in the opposing directions of one another. In this arc, a mother is known to be younger than their daughter for a majority of their on-screen time; characters form core relationships despite them forever meeting in reverse orders; and narratives manage to flow from beginning to end whilst simultaneously jumping all over time and space.

This is a series of pure chaos and contradiction, yet the story starts to slide fittingly into place throughout its 13 episode run; making this one of the most engrossing science fiction thrillers of 21st century television. It is a story that has been built and executed meticulously. To construct such a structure as the one seen here requires a mind of rare brilliance and creativity.

It's a sort of like William Shakespeare on speed.

Labyrinth style epics such as this one are not the only kinds of time travel stories which exist out there, as there are also story structures which are known to tweak the rules of a preexisting universe; allowing a series or franchise to both evolve into something completely new whilst simultaneously acknowledging its own history.

A marvelous example of this is J.J. Abram's 2009 Star Trek reboot.

A reboot - in its traditional sense - is naturally carried out as a business maneuver in the film and television industry. If a franchise is beginning to run out of steam, then the studio with the rights to that said film/tv show will take that entire concept back to the drawing boards and start from scratch.

Most often, a new creative force will be employed to help reinvent and redesign the concept. It is in the interest of the studio to find new angles and styles to apply to this series in order to revive interest amongst the viewers of the earth's nations.

When I say start from scratch, I mean this in the most literal sense imaginable. Reason being because reboots more or less erase the entire existence of all previously established material; setting the story in a completely segregated reality all together.

Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins, for example, is set in a completely different universe to Tim Burton's and Joel Schumacher's previous four Batman flicks. Everything about Nolan's reboot is 100% incompatible with the previous film series. The narrative, aesthetics, character development and gravitas function on an alternative plain to that of the gothically camp Burton/Schumacher portrayal.

Star Trek (2009), on the other hand, is set in the exact same universe as the original series (well, as close as a reboot can get to a previous universe at the very least). The only difference with the 2009 version is that the Trek universe timelines have been perverted by the film's villain - Nero.

The story in the 2009 version of Star Trek revolves around Nero - a member of the Romulan species - traveling back in time to enact revenge upon [the original] Spock. Spock, at some point after the events of the original TV/film lineup inadvertently destroyed Nero's home world. As of this, Nero decides to wipe out Spock's home world  at an earlier point in Spock's personal time stream.  

During Nero's mission of vengeance, he comes into contact with an earlier version of the enterprise that is then captained by George Kirk - father of James T. Kirk. Nero destroys this version of the enterprise and murders Kirk Sr. in the process; re-writing the time stream of Kirk Jr.

In essence, from 2009 onward, Star Trek takes place in a tangent universe. Instead of belonging to a reality that had no contact with the previous, it is simply a branched off timeline that runs loosely alongside the original.

Despite any flaws which habitually crop up in the 2009 feature, this is an excellent concept which can serve to help out both the fans of the new and old sagas.

Those who loved the original, yet loathed the reboot, can simply write of these new events as a potential-yet-nonexistent string of events. They can stick to the classic 'un-meddled' universe; identifying the 2009 version of events as a hypothetically aborted timeline which never was. To them, the reboot can exist in a dead universe, whilst the events of their beloved original can live on in their primary time frame. 

For contemporary fans, on the other hand, Star Trek 2009 can allow a new generation to jump on board; learning to admire and understand the Star Trek legacy from an alternative (and potentially, dare I say it, up-to-date) perspective.

Finally, for the fans of both versions, each universe can happily co-exist alongside one another; both having had happened at one stage or another. These fans can watch both the classic and the new, viewing them as Star Trek stories of a primary and a secondary universe.

Say what you will about this film, but in my opinion, this is an incredible creative move which helps to semi-revolve the messy situation of punching that emergency reset button on a massively successful and iconic franchise.




Sunday, 21 April 2013

When Should A Franchise Die?

Hollywood thrives off franchises in today's world. Reboots and sequels to superhero films and iconic 80's/90's heroes are all the rage these days.

Back in the old days, when something became unpopular or financially unsuccessful, that franchise would simply shrivel up and die. Today, things are somewhat different.

If the latest sequel to a film bombs, then the business mentality is to either reinvent or begin the entire story from scratch.

When Batman & Robin failed, we received Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins reboot; when Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines was critically slammed, we had the prequel/sequel/reboot hybrid that was Terminator Salvation; when Alien Resurrection killed off the Alien anthology for the second time round, we had Alien Versus Predator; when Alien Versus Predator Requiem turned out to be a nightmarish failure, Prometheus made its way onto the silver screen; once Superman Returns became an internationally boycotted feature, Warner Bros started dreaming up Man of Steel; and when Sam Raimi's Spider-man 3 went off the narrative rails, Paramount studios said hello to Marc Webb's The Amazing Spider-man.

You get the picture. Hollywood lives off of these names. This is what works for them these days and it appears to be a business model which isn't going away anytime soon

Last Thursday afternoon's news about Disney's plans to release a Star Wars film every single year from 2015 onward establishes this. Despite many claiming that Star Wars died back in 1999 with The Phantom Menace, Disney have differing ideas; essentially turning the Star Wars name into a continuous and never ending production line of feature films. If Disney stick to their word, then there will constantly be a Star Wars movie in production from next year onward; without any gaps between their releases.

But if we ignore the business model of franchise movie making for a moment - focusing instead on personal admiration for a series - how long can a franchise really survive in terms of quality?

From my own personal taste, I have come to an average conclusion of two feature films before an idea begins growing stale. It seems that it is not uncommon for the first sequel of a film to be of good quality; sometimes even out performing its predecessor.

Some of my favorite films of the past 30 years are first time sequels; examples being Terminator 2: Judgement Day, Aliens, Spider-man 2, and The Dark Knight. These features have been fantastic movie-going experiences; expanding the themes, characters and universes of their respected franchises in a number of fascinating and creative ways (a claim which I intend to try and justify when I move on to review them in future posts).  Some (but not necessarily all) of the films mentioned above have also gone on to make way to second sequels which have done nothing more than make a mockery of their predecessors.

Alien3, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines and Spider-man 3 all went on to become absolute disasters . After excellent sequels, these features came along and soiled all over the excellence of their predecessors. The only film with the number 3 in its title which I actually found to be superior than its proceeding film is Toy Story 3 (again, I shall justify in a future post).

So what about reboots? Are they as damaging to film sagas as frequently as sequels containing the number 3 in them?

Well, from what I've seen so far, not as much.

Although The Amazing Spider-man was more or less a lazy revise of Sam Raimi's first 2002 film, I still found it to be a highly entertaining romp which helped me to forget about Toby Maguire's previous (and final) outing as Peter Parker. Nolan's revamp of Batman managed to save the franchise from the shambolic abyss that was Batman & Robin; creating one of  the greatest origin stories that I've ever had the privilege of viewing. Casino Royal managed to take a series which had out welcomed it's stay somewhat and breathed a new and interesting lease of life into it.

Even though I have not seen a grand deal of reboots, the ones I have seen I've enjoyed and are reboots which appear to have helped resurrect some stories which I was beginning to grow tired of.

But then rebooting may never always be the perfect solution; as there are several series which I simply cannot see being saved by the concept of an emergency reset button. Films such as the Alien, Terminator (although it was sort of loosely rebooted - in terms of its narrative format - with Salvation) or Harry Potter series. Though saying this, I'm sure all of these films will have their reset buttons pushed at some point or another.

The point in which a franchise becomes deceased and dried up is entirely dependent upon the taste of an individual. For me, a saga can seldom survive past two films (three at a push); prequels often do more harm than good (The Phantom Menace being the definitive example); and I'm sure there's only so many times you can restart a series before all that can be explored and exploited in that universe is done so.

But then again, Star Wars Episode VII might be good with J.J. Abrams manning the wheel and as much as I hate Zack Snyder, Man of Steel may very well turn out to be the film which is successful at bringing Clark Kent back to the silver screen.

Only time will tell.