So, the festive season is now officially over and we are firmly within the new year. 2010, and all its potential, lay before us and this can mean only one thing. Yep, Dancing on Ice is back.
Dancing on Ice is very much a guilty pleasure of mine, and one of the few things that ITV produce that I will watch live. I am not sure what it is about the show that attracts me to it. It could be the lovely male ice skaters with their delightfully tight pants and revealing costumes. It could be the combination of music and dance to produce delightfully entertaining routines. Or it could be the fact that we have celebrities on ice with razor sharp blades on their feet - it is literally dancing with death.
First week is over and it was ladies night, with the lads strutting their stuff next week. From what I have seen so far I think that it will be a very tight competition. 2009 gave us the wonderful Ray Quinn, who from his first performance was clearly far superior to any of the other contestants. This year I am not sure that we have a presumptive champion. There are a couple that have the potential, but as will anything they could be cut down before their prime (just like Sinitta this week).
Hopefully after the lads premiere performances next week I shall be able to make some predictions on who I think will be in this years final.
Showing posts with label tv. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tv. Show all posts
Monday, 11 January 2010
Monday, 7 December 2009
The Prisoner (2009)
I have finally gotten around to watching the 2009 version of The Prisoner. I have resisted doing so for a fair few weeks now, mainly because of the profound affect that the original series had on me.
The first thing that does strike me about the new version is that it is definitely not the original. Like so much in the modern world, we require answers. This was something which, even to this day, the original series refuses to give us definitively. We may have theories, but no definitive answers about it.
This is something that the new series does not provide us with; the new series gives us the answers. It gives us a fully coherent explanation for what is going on. We know what the Village is; we know why it exists, and what the purpose of the Village is.
I think that the reason why the new series does this is because the modern viewing public, in general, would not accept anything like the original series in its enigmaticness. Today, we demand answers, we demand explanations. We are not prepared to accept something that does not have a rationale that we can get from the programme alone. We demand TV that explains rather than TV which makes us think.
I think for this reason alone, I am going to be looking upon the new series as just a tele-visual event which uses the toolbox of the original, the trappings and scenery so to speak, to tell a completely different story. This is probably the better way of looking on it. To fundamentally compare it to the original would be unfair.
So, what did I think of The Prisoner (2009) as a tele-visual event in its own right? Overall, I enjoyed it. For what it is, it is enjoyable.
The first thing that I would recommend is that it is watched, as best as possible, back to back. In doing so I think it is easier to accept it as being one complete story, rather than an episodic adventure. The Prisoner (2009) is basically just one, very long, story with a clearly defined narrative.
With the entire story in mind, the look of The Village made sense. Something like the original location would not have worked the same way that the modern set does. The modern Village makes senses when you get to the resolution in the Checkmate, the last instalment. You can see why they went with the set that they did.
The story itself is interesting. It is very much one persons quest to find the truth about what is going on, the truth behind what he uncovers. However, unlike the original, the quest is complete by the end of the last instalment.
It is hard to talk about the actually story itself without spoiling it for those that have not watched it, and this is something that I would not want to do.
I would recommend watching it, for the unfolding story. However, I would suggest that it is watched on the understanding that it is not the original series nor does it attempt to do what the original series did. The Prisoner (2009) is very much its own beast, with its own story to tell. It uses the trappings of the original but that is all it has in common with the original. Watch it for what it has got to tell, the story it wants to portray, rather than a reimagining of what the original series was.
The first thing that does strike me about the new version is that it is definitely not the original. Like so much in the modern world, we require answers. This was something which, even to this day, the original series refuses to give us definitively. We may have theories, but no definitive answers about it.
This is something that the new series does not provide us with; the new series gives us the answers. It gives us a fully coherent explanation for what is going on. We know what the Village is; we know why it exists, and what the purpose of the Village is.
I think that the reason why the new series does this is because the modern viewing public, in general, would not accept anything like the original series in its enigmaticness. Today, we demand answers, we demand explanations. We are not prepared to accept something that does not have a rationale that we can get from the programme alone. We demand TV that explains rather than TV which makes us think.
I think for this reason alone, I am going to be looking upon the new series as just a tele-visual event which uses the toolbox of the original, the trappings and scenery so to speak, to tell a completely different story. This is probably the better way of looking on it. To fundamentally compare it to the original would be unfair.
So, what did I think of The Prisoner (2009) as a tele-visual event in its own right? Overall, I enjoyed it. For what it is, it is enjoyable.
The first thing that I would recommend is that it is watched, as best as possible, back to back. In doing so I think it is easier to accept it as being one complete story, rather than an episodic adventure. The Prisoner (2009) is basically just one, very long, story with a clearly defined narrative.
With the entire story in mind, the look of The Village made sense. Something like the original location would not have worked the same way that the modern set does. The modern Village makes senses when you get to the resolution in the Checkmate, the last instalment. You can see why they went with the set that they did.
The story itself is interesting. It is very much one persons quest to find the truth about what is going on, the truth behind what he uncovers. However, unlike the original, the quest is complete by the end of the last instalment.
It is hard to talk about the actually story itself without spoiling it for those that have not watched it, and this is something that I would not want to do.
I would recommend watching it, for the unfolding story. However, I would suggest that it is watched on the understanding that it is not the original series nor does it attempt to do what the original series did. The Prisoner (2009) is very much its own beast, with its own story to tell. It uses the trappings of the original but that is all it has in common with the original. Watch it for what it has got to tell, the story it wants to portray, rather than a reimagining of what the original series was.
Friday, 20 November 2009
Everything old is new again
There seems to be a trend these days in the world of TV to reinvent/reboot/re-imagine the classic shows of old for a modern audience. This usually means a more glossy portrayal with better production values and effects. This also usually meets with cries that our childhoods are being raped and that the premise of the original series is being betrayed.
A good example of where this as been done well would be the recent Battlestar Galactica series. Visually, this series outstripped the original series. But in addition to this was the way it approached the story. Instead of the standalone/double-parters of the the original narrative there was an over-arching story arc. The new BSG was very much an ongoing saga, a journey following the rag tag fugitive fleet's quest to find Earth. I personally found it to be a very rewarding series.
A good example of where old and new collides would be the new Doctor Who. It is very much more stylish. The original format as been ditched in favour of stand alone episodes that form an overarching narrative which pays of with the finale. However, opinion is very much split. There are those who hate the Nu Who because it is not the old. There are those who are just fans of Nu Who and cannot stand the "slowness" of the four-part episode format of old.
For me, my heart will always belong to old Who because it was the programme of my childhood. I grew up with it. However, I can still enjoy Nu Who for what it is - which is very much entertainment. I find the episodes a joy to watch, including those that are traditionally panned by "fandom" (then again, I also enjoy Time and the Rani so what do I know).
When I look at the debate that rages within Whodom over the new series I sometimes think that some people are missing the point. For me, Nu Who is not written for me. I am not the target audience. Nu Who is targeted to the 10 years old of today, just as classic Who was targeted to the 10 year olds of my generation. I feel lucky that I am able to enjoy it for what it is. I find it entertaining. But I also remember that it is the modern generation, the 10 year olds of today, who it belongs to.
It is just the same with the other revivals. Knight Rider, 90210, Melrose Place, the new V. These are all shows for a new audience, and they are not for the audience of old. I think this is why I like the term re-imagining to describe them. They are taking the original premise and giving it a new spin, a modern spin, for hopefully a new audience to enjoy.
Now, I am concerned with this at the moment for a reason. I firmly believe in what I have said. These re-imaginings are not written with me in mind. Yes, I enjoyed the originals but these new shows are for the present generation, and I hope that they will enjoy their version of the shows as much as I enjoyed the originals.
However, there is something that I have waiting for me to watch. It is a series that as been re-imagined. It is a TV show that the words iconic, cult, and classic were made for. I am talking about Prisoner. The original was just a thing of beauty, and if you have not seen it then I heartedly recommend it. It is thought provoking. Actually, it is very thought provoking. I also consider it to be perfection in itself. I cannot understand why there was a need for it to be re-imagined.
So, I very much expect that when I watch it at some point this week I am going to be screaming at the screen that my childhood as been raped. I do not have high hopes for the "televisual event". I cannot see how it can live up to the original in any way, shape, or form. But, I am going to give it a go. I might be surprised. It might actually capture the essence of the original. It might capture the spirit and soul. I really hope that it does and that I am proved wrong. But if not I must remember that it is a new show, for a new audience,just using a premise from a TV show that I enjoyed in my youth.
A good example of where this as been done well would be the recent Battlestar Galactica series. Visually, this series outstripped the original series. But in addition to this was the way it approached the story. Instead of the standalone/double-parters of the the original narrative there was an over-arching story arc. The new BSG was very much an ongoing saga, a journey following the rag tag fugitive fleet's quest to find Earth. I personally found it to be a very rewarding series.
A good example of where old and new collides would be the new Doctor Who. It is very much more stylish. The original format as been ditched in favour of stand alone episodes that form an overarching narrative which pays of with the finale. However, opinion is very much split. There are those who hate the Nu Who because it is not the old. There are those who are just fans of Nu Who and cannot stand the "slowness" of the four-part episode format of old.
For me, my heart will always belong to old Who because it was the programme of my childhood. I grew up with it. However, I can still enjoy Nu Who for what it is - which is very much entertainment. I find the episodes a joy to watch, including those that are traditionally panned by "fandom" (then again, I also enjoy Time and the Rani so what do I know).
When I look at the debate that rages within Whodom over the new series I sometimes think that some people are missing the point. For me, Nu Who is not written for me. I am not the target audience. Nu Who is targeted to the 10 years old of today, just as classic Who was targeted to the 10 year olds of my generation. I feel lucky that I am able to enjoy it for what it is. I find it entertaining. But I also remember that it is the modern generation, the 10 year olds of today, who it belongs to.
It is just the same with the other revivals. Knight Rider, 90210, Melrose Place, the new V. These are all shows for a new audience, and they are not for the audience of old. I think this is why I like the term re-imagining to describe them. They are taking the original premise and giving it a new spin, a modern spin, for hopefully a new audience to enjoy.
Now, I am concerned with this at the moment for a reason. I firmly believe in what I have said. These re-imaginings are not written with me in mind. Yes, I enjoyed the originals but these new shows are for the present generation, and I hope that they will enjoy their version of the shows as much as I enjoyed the originals.
However, there is something that I have waiting for me to watch. It is a series that as been re-imagined. It is a TV show that the words iconic, cult, and classic were made for. I am talking about Prisoner. The original was just a thing of beauty, and if you have not seen it then I heartedly recommend it. It is thought provoking. Actually, it is very thought provoking. I also consider it to be perfection in itself. I cannot understand why there was a need for it to be re-imagined.
So, I very much expect that when I watch it at some point this week I am going to be screaming at the screen that my childhood as been raped. I do not have high hopes for the "televisual event". I cannot see how it can live up to the original in any way, shape, or form. But, I am going to give it a go. I might be surprised. It might actually capture the essence of the original. It might capture the spirit and soul. I really hope that it does and that I am proved wrong. But if not I must remember that it is a new show, for a new audience,just using a premise from a TV show that I enjoyed in my youth.
Thursday, 12 November 2009
V (2009)
Last week saw the launch of the re-imagining and updating of V, the classic early 80's mini series, on American TV.
The premise of the original series was very simple. Aliens arrive offering peace and hope but with sinister motives. It is a story of resistance, as a rag-tag team of humans fight against the alien "invasion".
The original mini series, whilst very good, was definitely a product of its time and based firmly in the tradition of fear. There is the fear of the things that are not like us, of ways of doing things that are different to our own. Different philosophies, different cultures. Or to put it in the traditional way, fear of Communism.
For me, this is what the original V was about. The hidden menace of Communism. Communists can look like us but believe in things alien to us, and to work toward their own ends which are fundamentally opposed to our own. This is very much a 50's view but it does seem to resonate in the original series.
But that was then. We are now in 2009 and Communism was defeated by Capitalism. The Soviet Union collapsed and the Berlin Wall came crumbling down.
The new V is very stylish in design, but the basis of the original series is still there. We have the Visitors coming in peace and offering technological advancement in return for some natural resources which we have in abundance. The Visitors look like us, albeit very attractive, but we also know as an audience that beneath that attractive exterior lies something truly alien in nature.
The new series also works on the paranoia that was present in the original series, but just updated for a modern generation. In the first episode there are a lot of reveals. One of the chief ones is that The Visitors have not just arrived but they have been here for a while, working in the background and positioning themselves into position within Society.
It is this that leads to the paranoia. If this Visitors can look like us then who can you trust? If you do not know who you trust then all you can do is trust no one.
One of the main players on the human team is Erica, an FBI agent and therefore very much part of the establishment. However, from what she learns in the first episode she goes very much from being part of the establishment to being a loner within the machine, unable to trust anyone in case that person should turn out to be a Visitor in disguise.
Like BSG before it, the new V is not just a redoing of the original series. It takes the toolbox of the original series but it then puts a spin on it so that it fits into the modern world. Just like the original mini series was a product of its time, so the new series is a product of our times.
It will be interesting to see where it goes from here but I do think that we will be in for an enjoyable ride with it.
The premise of the original series was very simple. Aliens arrive offering peace and hope but with sinister motives. It is a story of resistance, as a rag-tag team of humans fight against the alien "invasion".
The original mini series, whilst very good, was definitely a product of its time and based firmly in the tradition of fear. There is the fear of the things that are not like us, of ways of doing things that are different to our own. Different philosophies, different cultures. Or to put it in the traditional way, fear of Communism.
For me, this is what the original V was about. The hidden menace of Communism. Communists can look like us but believe in things alien to us, and to work toward their own ends which are fundamentally opposed to our own. This is very much a 50's view but it does seem to resonate in the original series.
But that was then. We are now in 2009 and Communism was defeated by Capitalism. The Soviet Union collapsed and the Berlin Wall came crumbling down.
The new V is very stylish in design, but the basis of the original series is still there. We have the Visitors coming in peace and offering technological advancement in return for some natural resources which we have in abundance. The Visitors look like us, albeit very attractive, but we also know as an audience that beneath that attractive exterior lies something truly alien in nature.
The new series also works on the paranoia that was present in the original series, but just updated for a modern generation. In the first episode there are a lot of reveals. One of the chief ones is that The Visitors have not just arrived but they have been here for a while, working in the background and positioning themselves into position within Society.
It is this that leads to the paranoia. If this Visitors can look like us then who can you trust? If you do not know who you trust then all you can do is trust no one.
One of the main players on the human team is Erica, an FBI agent and therefore very much part of the establishment. However, from what she learns in the first episode she goes very much from being part of the establishment to being a loner within the machine, unable to trust anyone in case that person should turn out to be a Visitor in disguise.
Like BSG before it, the new V is not just a redoing of the original series. It takes the toolbox of the original series but it then puts a spin on it so that it fits into the modern world. Just like the original mini series was a product of its time, so the new series is a product of our times.
It will be interesting to see where it goes from here but I do think that we will be in for an enjoyable ride with it.
Friday, 6 November 2009
Favourite Things
Sorry for the delay in posting another entry. The last couple of weeks have been spent preparing for an undergoing the interview process in my continuing search for another job.
At my first interview this week, the topic turned to some of my favourite things and I thought that I would share them with you. Now, this is not going to be an exhaustive list of things but more of an indication.
Favourite Book
This is a relatively easy one to answer. The book in question is The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams. I still have on my book shelf the 1979 First Edition that cost me £1.95 at the time that it was published. The book is sadly not in the best condition but this is mainly because it as, over the years, been well read many many times.
Douglas Adam's writing style made it very easy for me, as an eight year old, to read the book. It almost felt like the book was talking to me, a gift that comes from the almost conversational style to his writing.
But this is nothing compared to the humour contained within the book. Sometimes playful, sometimes satirical, sometimes bizarre, and sometimes very cutting indeed. A book that starts off by talking about "an utterly insignificant little blue green planet who ape-descendants are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea" very mush impacted on me, especially since I was wearing the Casio digital watch that I had got as a present and thought was the height of cool.
I can still, to this day, recognise the impact that this piece of fiction had upon my life. It definitely informed by sense of humour, as much as Monty Pythons Flying Circus and The Goons Show did. It also informed the way that I view the world, and the bizarreness of normal everyday things if seen from a different angle.
If you have never picked up the book then I would seriously recommended it. Whilst it is a trilogy in five parts (or even six parts if you include the recent release of Eoin Colfer's And Another Thing which I am in the process of reading at the moment), for me the first part will always remain the best. I doubt that anything will ever trump this book in my eyes, and I very much expect that it will have a special place in my heart until the day I do, or the Earth gets blown up to make way for an intergalactic bypass - whichever comes first.
Favourite Film
Unlike favourite book, this is not as easy since I have a handful of films from different genres which I adore and can watch over and over again. But if I was to pick one film as my favourite of all time it would probably be the 1985 release Clue.
The film is on the face of it just a comedy inspired by the board game Cluedo. It is directed by Jonathan Lynn, who also wrote the script with John Landis, and starring people like Tim Curry, Eileen Brennan, Lesley Ann Warren, Christopher Lloyd, and Madeline Khan.
I think the greatness of this movie comes from the well written script and the performances delivered by all the cast. The comedy itself is a cross between the visual humour of slap stick and a cleaver use of the English Language. Above everything, it is the quick fire banter between the characters that really attracts me to this movie since this is the sort of humour that I like. However, it is more than just quick fire humour, it is also very cleaver humour. An example would be the following exchange, which is also one of my favourites:
Mrs. White: I don't want a scandal, do I? We had had a very humiliating public confrontation. He was deranged. He was a lunatic! He didn't actually seem to like me very much; he had threatened to kill me in public.
Miss Scarlet: Why would he wanna kill you in public?
Wadsworth: I think she meant he threatened, in public, to kill her.
This sort of word play appeals to my sense of humour very much, and when added to the comedic influences mentioned early when I was talking about HHGTTG earlier possibly explains my own sense of humour a lot.
Clue was, by all accounts, not well received when it was released and I personally have to thank a wet Sunday afternoon TV showing for my exposure to the film. Needless to say, the next time it was shown I made sure that there was a videotape in the recorder.
Clue is one of those films that I love to pass on to other people, people who I feel will appreciate the humour. I suppose we all have a similar film in our collection. The film that we want other people to enjoy as much as we do.
Favourite TV Series
To those that know me well this will not come as a surprise. I do like a lot of different types of television programmes, but there is one show that will always be special to me. It is a show that as been a part of my life for as long as I can remember. The show in question is Doctor Who. You may have heard of it. It kind of made a bit of a come back in 2005 to a lot of critical acclaim.
Now, I do not mind the new Who that is released and I will still try and arrange to be in front of a TV for when it airs. However, my true love is the classic series that ran from 1963 until the BBC decided to "rest it" in 1989.
As a child growing up, the appeal that Doctor Who had was that every story was different. The format meant that after four weeks a new story would begin, and this story was usually completely different to the one that came before. You could have a horror story, followed by a murder mystery, followed by a spy adventure. The possibilities were endless.
Then there is the Doctor himself, the hero of our story. For me, Tom Baker will always be my Doctor. He was the one that I grew up with, and would settle down and watch on a Saturday night. I am sure that the children of today will feel towards David Tennant just how I feel towards Tom.
Now, Doctor Who for me was never a social thing. It was just me and the television screen, just me and the Doctor. Even now, I have a slight problem watching the show with other people. It is hard to explain why really. I suppose it is because it was always something that I did alone. Sure, before my first portable television, I watched it with family. But considering that I spent most of the time hiding behind a cushion I would not class it as being a very social experience.
These days I do not watch as much Doctor Who as I should. I go through periods when I will watch a few stories over the space of the week. And then sometimes, I can go months without. However, I always know that it is there if I want to just escape for a couple of hours.
At my first interview this week, the topic turned to some of my favourite things and I thought that I would share them with you. Now, this is not going to be an exhaustive list of things but more of an indication.
Favourite Book
This is a relatively easy one to answer. The book in question is The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams. I still have on my book shelf the 1979 First Edition that cost me £1.95 at the time that it was published. The book is sadly not in the best condition but this is mainly because it as, over the years, been well read many many times.
Douglas Adam's writing style made it very easy for me, as an eight year old, to read the book. It almost felt like the book was talking to me, a gift that comes from the almost conversational style to his writing.
But this is nothing compared to the humour contained within the book. Sometimes playful, sometimes satirical, sometimes bizarre, and sometimes very cutting indeed. A book that starts off by talking about "an utterly insignificant little blue green planet who ape-descendants are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea" very mush impacted on me, especially since I was wearing the Casio digital watch that I had got as a present and thought was the height of cool.
I can still, to this day, recognise the impact that this piece of fiction had upon my life. It definitely informed by sense of humour, as much as Monty Pythons Flying Circus and The Goons Show did. It also informed the way that I view the world, and the bizarreness of normal everyday things if seen from a different angle.
If you have never picked up the book then I would seriously recommended it. Whilst it is a trilogy in five parts (or even six parts if you include the recent release of Eoin Colfer's And Another Thing which I am in the process of reading at the moment), for me the first part will always remain the best. I doubt that anything will ever trump this book in my eyes, and I very much expect that it will have a special place in my heart until the day I do, or the Earth gets blown up to make way for an intergalactic bypass - whichever comes first.
Favourite Film
Unlike favourite book, this is not as easy since I have a handful of films from different genres which I adore and can watch over and over again. But if I was to pick one film as my favourite of all time it would probably be the 1985 release Clue.
The film is on the face of it just a comedy inspired by the board game Cluedo. It is directed by Jonathan Lynn, who also wrote the script with John Landis, and starring people like Tim Curry, Eileen Brennan, Lesley Ann Warren, Christopher Lloyd, and Madeline Khan.
I think the greatness of this movie comes from the well written script and the performances delivered by all the cast. The comedy itself is a cross between the visual humour of slap stick and a cleaver use of the English Language. Above everything, it is the quick fire banter between the characters that really attracts me to this movie since this is the sort of humour that I like. However, it is more than just quick fire humour, it is also very cleaver humour. An example would be the following exchange, which is also one of my favourites:
Mrs. White: I don't want a scandal, do I? We had had a very humiliating public confrontation. He was deranged. He was a lunatic! He didn't actually seem to like me very much; he had threatened to kill me in public.
Miss Scarlet: Why would he wanna kill you in public?
Wadsworth: I think she meant he threatened, in public, to kill her.
This sort of word play appeals to my sense of humour very much, and when added to the comedic influences mentioned early when I was talking about HHGTTG earlier possibly explains my own sense of humour a lot.
Clue was, by all accounts, not well received when it was released and I personally have to thank a wet Sunday afternoon TV showing for my exposure to the film. Needless to say, the next time it was shown I made sure that there was a videotape in the recorder.
Clue is one of those films that I love to pass on to other people, people who I feel will appreciate the humour. I suppose we all have a similar film in our collection. The film that we want other people to enjoy as much as we do.
Favourite TV Series
To those that know me well this will not come as a surprise. I do like a lot of different types of television programmes, but there is one show that will always be special to me. It is a show that as been a part of my life for as long as I can remember. The show in question is Doctor Who. You may have heard of it. It kind of made a bit of a come back in 2005 to a lot of critical acclaim.
Now, I do not mind the new Who that is released and I will still try and arrange to be in front of a TV for when it airs. However, my true love is the classic series that ran from 1963 until the BBC decided to "rest it" in 1989.
As a child growing up, the appeal that Doctor Who had was that every story was different. The format meant that after four weeks a new story would begin, and this story was usually completely different to the one that came before. You could have a horror story, followed by a murder mystery, followed by a spy adventure. The possibilities were endless.
Then there is the Doctor himself, the hero of our story. For me, Tom Baker will always be my Doctor. He was the one that I grew up with, and would settle down and watch on a Saturday night. I am sure that the children of today will feel towards David Tennant just how I feel towards Tom.
Now, Doctor Who for me was never a social thing. It was just me and the television screen, just me and the Doctor. Even now, I have a slight problem watching the show with other people. It is hard to explain why really. I suppose it is because it was always something that I did alone. Sure, before my first portable television, I watched it with family. But considering that I spent most of the time hiding behind a cushion I would not class it as being a very social experience.
These days I do not watch as much Doctor Who as I should. I go through periods when I will watch a few stories over the space of the week. And then sometimes, I can go months without. However, I always know that it is there if I want to just escape for a couple of hours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
