Return to the Planet of the Apes (1975)
I recently found a DVD boxset of Return to the Planet of the Apes in a charity shop which I bought for £4, which is a ridiculously cheap price. I considered it an interesting find because it was a Region 1, US copy. However, that is not so unusual these days as most DVD players are now region free and Amazon (UK) sells media from all over the world. As for the show in question, I vaguely remember Return to the Planet of the Apes being shown on UK network TV when I was a child, probably circa 1976. Back then it would usually take a year or so before US shows made it onto UK television. From a commercial perspective, the entire Planet of the Apes franchise was beginning to run out of steam. I was 8 years old at the time so had missed most of the film releases. However, I enjoyed the live action TV show hence an animated follow up had obvious appeal to a child of my age.
I recently found a DVD boxset of Return to the Planet of the Apes in a charity shop which I bought for £4, which is a ridiculously cheap price. I considered it an interesting find because it was a Region 1, US copy. However, that is not so unusual these days as most DVD players are now region free and Amazon (UK) sells media from all over the world. As for the show in question, I vaguely remember Return to the Planet of the Apes being shown on UK network TV when I was a child, probably circa 1976. Back then it would usually take a year or so before US shows made it onto UK television. From a commercial perspective, the entire Planet of the Apes franchise was beginning to run out of steam. I was 8 years old at the time so had missed most of the film releases. However, I enjoyed the live action TV show hence an animated follow up had obvious appeal to a child of my age.
50 years on and I could recollect very little of Return to the Planet of the Apes. Usually specific episodes stand out from the various TV shows of my youth. Yesteryear from Star Trek: The Animated Series being a prime example of this. Yet after wracking my brain I could not recall much from this show beyond superficial details. Upon watching Return to the Planet of the Apes again, the reason for this became immediately clear. Instead of favouring just a story of the week approach, as so many shows did back then, this animated production attempted to sustain a wider continuous story arc spread across all 13 episodes as well. Something that makes the show quite unusual. After watching all episodes, it became quite clear that Return to the Planet of the Apes is quite a different beast from other animated shows from this era. I suspect that is why it may have struggled to find an audience with its target demographic.
Produced by DePatie–Freleng Enterprises, Return to the Planet of the Apes was creatively overseen by Doug Wildey. Wildey was a comic artist and had been involved in the creation of numerous popular animated TV shows. With regard to the plot, Return to the Planet of the Apes draws heavily from themes from the original Planet of the Apes feature film and its sequel Beneath the Planet of the Apes. Being an animated production, the scope of the ape dominated world is greatly expanded. The feature films depicted ape society as being predominantly agrarian and their culture having grown in a limited way from a wider world decline. Here, ape society is more advanced and is depicted as being comparable to post WWII America. There are automobiles, radio and television, modern weapons and a broadly democratic society. Ape City is exactly that. All of which is much closer to author Pierre Boulle’s original source text.
The animated style is interesting. Backgrounds are detailed and often depict notable vistas. The camera often pans across these to substantiate plot points. Character animation is minimal, even by TV standards of the time. In many ways watching the show is more akin to reading a graphic novel or watching flash animations from the early days of the internet. However, this works well within the scope of the show. Thematically Return to the Planet of the Apes explores some interesting ideas and although accessible to children, has some quite dark and cerebral ideas contained with the ongoing plot. There are hints of a policy of genocide, driven by the Gorilla Military towards the residual human population. The Underdwellers, the cult of mutants who live in the Forbidden Zone, are depicted as religious zealots and it implied that the US was indeed the belligerent party that started the nuclear war that devastated the world.
The voice acting is adequate as is the musical score. A lot of the criticisms of Return to the Planet of the Apes at the time stemmed from the show’s modest budget, which imposed a great many restrictions upon the production. At first glance many viewers may simply see Return to the Planet of the Apes as being a cheap and cynical animated show, designed to squeeze whatever financial gain was left from a declining franchise. If you look a little harder, there is some creativity and innovation to be found over the 13 episodes. Sadly, the show was cancelled and the planned conclusion to the story arc was never produced. It allegedly explored the idea of rights being extended to humans within ape society which is a bold and somewhat adult concept to have in a children’s TV show. As it stands Return to the Planet of the Apes is an interesting curiosity and as such will appeal to those who find such things appealing.
It is not unusual for Disney to change film titles when marketing them outside of the US. In 2016 they renamed the animated feature film Zootopia to Zootropolis in the UK and Europe to avoid trademark conflicts with other existing businesses. For example there is a Danish zoo which already holds the “Zootopia” name. Similarly, in Germany there is a children’s book which caused copyright conflict, which led to the film being released under the title Zoomania. Such changes, although practical for legal reasons, can sometimes cause a degree of confusion. Especially as there are numerous, low budget productions companies that go out of their way to produce similarly titled “mockbusters” whenever there are big, tentpole, releases. So for clarity, Zootopia 2 has been released in the UK as Zootropolis 2.
With the proliferation of lore driven, franchise movies in recent years, a culture of analysis has developed online. Hence you will find a lot of YouTube videos that claim to “explain” the ending of specific films or provide clarification of their respective themes and subtexts. While critical debate and discussion about cinema is welcome, I think it is a mistake to always look for a specific meaning in cinema. Even clearly narrative films can be ambiguous. Art is ultimately a very subjective field of expression open to personal interpretation. Which brings me neatly to Flow, an animated feature film which tells a compelling story but raises more questions than it answers. It leaves the viewer to fill in a lot of the blanks themselves and the film is all the better for this approach. Flow is an extraordinary example of animation and a fascinating example of innovative, thought provoking filmmaking. Quite the rarity these days.
For those unfamiliar with Dav Pilkey’s graphic novel character Dog Man, he’s a half-dog, half-human police officer. This comic chimaera is the result of a surgical procedure carried out after Officer Knight and his trusty dog Greg are blown up while defusing a bomb. Greg’s head is grafted to Officer Knight's body. Post surgery, Dog Man (Peter Hastings) remains an officer of the law and continues to track his nemesis, Petey (Pete Davidson), an orange cat and criminal genius. However, despite positive media coverage and a high arrest rate, Dog Man incurs the ire of his Chief (Lil Rel Howery) who is jealous of his success. Furthermore, Dog Man becomes depressed due to the loss of his owner, girlfriend and former home. Meanwhile, Petey decides to clone himself in an attempt to find a worthy assistant and also plots to resurrect a deceased super villain, Flippy, who is an evil telekinetic fish.
I have always found it curious that there haven't been more feature films set in Middle-earth, after the success of Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy. However, a little research shows a very complex set of rights regarding Tolkien’s work, with different material being controlled and administered by different bodies. Hence, the market has not been saturated with officially licensed material. Thus, when The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim was announced to be in production, it aroused a great deal of curiosity both among fans and those with an interest in the wider film industry. To base an entire feature film on something that is effectively just a few paragraphs in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings is quite intriguing. The producers claimed it afforded them greater artistic freedom not to be constrained by an excess of lore. Industry pundits theorised that the film was being produced solely to ensure that wider rights were retained.
Whenever I feel that mainstream filmmaking is becoming increasingly bland and I grow despondent with it, along comes an animated film to prove that there is still greatness and art to be found through the medium of cinema. Robot Dreams begins as a tale of loneliness and then quickly becomes a eulogy to friendship and participating in life. The story then turns things on its head as it explores loss and finally concludes with a profoundly beautiful resolution, as it muses upon accepting change and new friends. Robot Dreams succeeds where so many other films fail by being honest, candid and sincere. Hence the emotions expressed by what is essentially a simple story are genuine and palpable. The film’s lack of dialogue is a blessing, with music doing a great deal of the narrative heavy lifting. This allows audiences to focus on the main characters without unnecessary distraction. The animation is uncomplicated but very specific in its style and setting. It utterly suits the tale being told.
Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio is a bold and inventive take on Carlo Collodi's classic story of the puppet that aspires to be a “real boy”. As you would expect from the director, it is a far cry from Disney’s 1940 version, taking a more bleak and sinister tone. Despite songs and exuberant set pieces, Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio is an exploration of grief, death and even fascism. The screenplay by Guillermo del Toro and Patrick McHale also tackles the complexities of the relationship between parent and child. It is a remarkable example of stop motion animation and is visually very striking. However, it is a somewhat niche market adaptation and is not exactly easily accessible to children or the furiously hard of thinking. It comes as no surprise that this cinematic venture was green lit by Netflix, which appears to be the new home of the experimental, rather than a mainstream studio.
George A. Romero’s Night of the Living Dead is a true genre milestone that is praised not only by horror film fans but mainstream critics alike. If you are interested in watching an intelligent, well researched and entertaining documentary about the film’s provenance and cultural impact then I thoroughly recommend Birth of the Living Dead (2013) by Rob Kuhn. It tells you pretty much all you need to know about why this classic film is so important. As for Night of the Living Dead itself, it still holds up well after 53 years. It is the immediacy and relatability of the premise and overall story that still makes the film relevant. The zombies are purely a “MacGuffin” and the real focus of the plot is how people behave under pressure in life threatening situations. It’s a film about how we can react to the same situation differently and how cultural baggage and the need for people to be “right”, hinders co-operation and thwarts progress.
It would appear that there is a Minions 2, although it’s release around the world has been staggered due to the pandemic. So I thought I’d revisit the original movie for a second viewing. Spin-off movies can be a risky venture. Side characters may work well in a supporting role within a successful movie but may not necessarily find an audience in their own vehicle. However this is most definitely not the case with Minions. The movie is ninety one minutes of exquisitely crafted cinema. From the opening Universal fanfare (which the Minions sing-a-long to) to the post credit rendition of Revolution, the film is consistently funny and perfectly paced. The production design and overall aesthetic is beautifully realised and the central characters of Kevin, Stuart and Bob are thoroughly engaging. Actually, forget "engaging ''. They are genuinely loveable. Directors Pierre Coffin and Kyle Balda barely put a foot wrong.
Although I have a passing interest in the franchise per se, I'm not a consummate fan of all things Batman. Hence a lot of content passes me by or I catch up with it years later. So it came as a great surprise when I discovered Batman: Return of the Caped Crusaders; a 2016 release in the ever growing catalogue of DC themed direct to DVD animated films. The movie is a de facto continuation of the sixties TV series, with the original actors reprising their roles (where possible). The cast includes Adam West as Batman, Burt Ward as Robin and Julie Newmar as Catwoman. Due to the death of actors Cesar Romero, Burgess Meredith and Frank Gorshin the voices for The Joker, The Penguin and The Riddler have been provided by Jeff Bergman, William Salyers and Wally Wingert. All of whom do their best to recreate the tone and idiom of the original artists.
There are three key elements to Disney’s 2009 3D computer-animated adaptation of A Christmas Carol. Firstly, director Robert Zemeckis clearly seeks authenticity and hence includes a lot of original dialogue from the novel, as well as a bleaker depiction of the period. Secondly, he uses the digital production tools at his disposal to create sweeping vistas of 19th century London as well as highly stylised caricatures of the central characters. Thirdly, as this is a Disney production, there is an occasional lapse visual humour and levity that is required by their business model. Sadly all of these aspects of the production make for strange bedfellows that are at odds with each other. The result is a visually sumptuous film that loses its way as it lurches between bleak drama, odd humour and CGI driven spectacle.
Upon its theatrical release, Mickey’s Christmas Carol was the first animated film to star Mickey Mouse for thirty years. It was therefore accompanied with a large amount of hype and a wave of nostalgia. The US marketing stated “He’s Back. Mickey Mouse in his first new motion picture” which was somewhat misleading, as the actual animated film was just 26 minutes long. It was shown theatrically along with a re-release of The Rescuers in the US and The Jungle Book in the UK and other territories, in late December 1983. And despite his name being in the title, Mickey doesn’t have a lot of screen time as he plays Bob Cratchit. This is very much a vehicle for Scrooge McDuck as Ebenezer Scrooge. Overall, it’s a succinct distillation of the plot of Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, filled with cameo appearances by classic Disney characters. Naturally it is replete with the humour and sentiment that is inherent in the process known colloquially as Disneyfication. However, does this mitigate the book’s message?
At first glance, there is not much to distinguish this low budget production by Burbank Films Australia, from any of the other adaptations that were ubiquitous during the seventies and eighties. However, attentive viewers will discover a few details that lift this particular version above the mundane. Firstly, this is the second animated adaptation to feature the voice acting of Ron Haddrick as Ebenezer Scrooge. He had previously voiced the character in Air Programs International's shorter version of A Christmas Carol in 1969, thirteen years earlier. Secondly, despite the modest production values, there are a few additional scenes taken from the source text by Dickens, that don’t usually make it most film and TV adaptations. It is these minor embellishments that compensate for the simplicity of the animation (during the opening scene, some background characters do not move).
Scoob! is one of several movies that was slated for a theatrical release this summer but ended up being premiering on VOD instead due to the global pandemic. As a result, it is difficult to ascertain exactly how successful this animated film has been. A lot of trade newspapers have indicated that rentals have been high and that the film has proven more popular than Tom Hardy’s new movie Capone. Some industry sources have estimated a gross of $100,000,000 in a two week period. I suspect that the current lockdown has provided a market of children craving new entertainment and parents happy to pay for 90 minutes of peace and quiet. Hence Scoob! appears to have been in the right place at the right time. Whether that popular success would have happened if the movie had been released theatrically is another matter.
The first I found out about Top Cat: The Movie was when I received an email from an events company that was handling promotional screenings, prior to the film’s UK release in the summer of 2012. For some reason I missed the usual pre-production publicity that comes with the rebooting of a popular franchise. One of the benefits of this was that I didn't have time to fret or fuss about this reimagining of an integral part of my childhood. I must admit I was flummoxed that this 50-year-old franchise was subject to a makeover and was even more discombobulated to find out that the original show was a massive hit in Mexico and had garnered a huge cult following. This was why Warner Bros. subcontracted this production to Mexico's Anima and Argentina's Illusion studios. Subsequently Don Gato y Su Pandilla (Top Cat and His Gang) opened on 16th September 2011 in Mexico to weekend box office returns of 41m pesos ($2.9m). It subsequently became the highest-grossing independent animated films released in the United States that year.
It’s interesting that so many adaptations of Charles Dickens’ iconic seasonal story are brought to us via the medium of animation. Naturally, this is a far more economical means of depicting the story with its period detail and supernatural elements, compared to a live action production. However, for an animated version of A Christmas Carol to work successfully, it needs three things. An innovative and striking production design, robust voice acting and a screenplay that keeps the core themes while offering significance difference compared to prior adaptations. You’ll find all of these elements in Richard Williams’ 1971 animated short. Sadly they’re conspicuously absent from the 1997 version. Despite the presence such talents as Tim Curry, Ed Asner and Whoopi Goldberg, this is a distinctly arbitrary animated film. Considering that the screenplay was written by Jymn Magon who has years of experience working for Disney, I had hoped this would be better endeavour.
There’s a degree of hubris implicit in such a definitive title. At the very least the inference is that this is a notable adaptation of Charles Dickens’ classic book. And at first glance, it is perfectly reasonable to assume just that. Jimmy Murakami was an animator of note with such unique movies as The Snowman and When the Wind Blows to his credit. Hence it is reasonable to expect a similar quirky and experimental treatment of this well know yuletide story. However, what audiences actually get is a rather bold adaptation that substantially embellishes upon the established narrative. Veering between sinister and borderline psychedelic imagery, this is a very inconsistent version that tries to be too many things at once. Just as you think you’ve got a handle on the film approach it takes an abrupt turn in the opposite direction. Comedy, drama and even power ballads are thrown into the mix. Sadly, all these elements do not hang well together.
The Hobbit (1977) is a curious beast. It’s a made for television animated film, which despite its budgetary constraints, strives to comprehensively adapted one of the most beloved children’s books of the last century. I remember reading an article about this television adaptation of The Hobbit, in Starburst Magazine during the late seventies. There were rumours that this Rankin/Bass production, which had already premièred on US network television, would gain a European cinema release. This was presumably to cash in on the success of Ralph Bakshi's animated feature film adaptation of The Lord of The Rings. However, this never happened to my knowledge. In fact, The Hobbit was not commercially available in the UK until 2001, when Warner Bros. released it on DVD to capitalise on the success of Peter Jackson’s The Fellowship of the Ring.
Over the last few years I’ve reviewed several adaptations of Charles Dickens seasonal story A Christmas Carol. As I stated previously one of the stories greatest strength is that it lends itself perfectly to multiple interpretations. I recently had the good fortune to rediscover the animated version from 1969 by Air Programs International. I remember seeing this animated short as a child but could not recollect sufficient details to allow me to track it down via the IMDB. Then by complete chance, I stumbled across it again on You Tube while doing some research.
I have a great deal of affection for Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol, not only because it’s a fine piece of literature but because it lends itself so well to dramatisation. I therefore have a keen interests in all the respective adaptation, of which there are many. Over the years there has been a trend to focus excessively on the sentimental aspect of the plot, resulting in a rather nauseating Disneyfication of the story. Although the redemption of the main protagonist is central to the narrative, the poverty and deprivations of the time are still very pertinent themes, especially in today's economic climate. I was therefore very gratified to rediscover the 1971 version of Charles Dickens' classic story which was originally shown on ABC. This short 25 minute animated feature realises the story superbly, capturing the tone of the book and accurately reflecting the darker aspects. Remember that A Christmas Carol is fundamentally a ghost story.
A Year in TV
I have not watched as much TV as I usually do, this year. Mainly because I have become a little weary of the ways contemporary TV is produced, especially with regards to streaming shows. Due to the costs, shows such as Star Trek: Strange New Worlds only have 10 episodes per season. Simply put, the season begins to hit its stride and then is abruptly over. This problem (if you see it as such) is then further compounded by there being a significant wait between seasons. In the case of STSNW it was two years between season two and season three. Not all shows fall foul of this. Apple TV produces two seasons of the excellent espionage drama Slow Horses at a time, ensuring a prompt release schedule. However, even this has issues. Due to the complexity of the plots of many contemporary TV shows, something that is a marketing point, some viewers cannot remember the plot after a twelve month hiatus. Network TV shows seldom have these issues with each season being 20 plus episodes long and story arcs that are seldom as complex.
I have not watched as much TV as I usually do, this year. Mainly because I have become a little weary of the ways contemporary TV is produced, especially with regards to streaming shows. Due to the costs, shows such as Star Trek: Strange New Worlds only have 10 episodes per season. Simply put, the season begins to hit its stride and then is abruptly over. This problem (if you see it as such) is then further compounded by there being a significant wait between seasons. In the case of STSNW it was two years between season two and season three. Not all shows fall foul of this. Apple TV produces two seasons of the excellent espionage drama Slow Horses at a time, ensuring a prompt release schedule. However, even this has issues. Due to the complexity of the plots of many contemporary TV shows, something that is a marketing point, some viewers cannot remember the plot after a twelve month hiatus. Network TV shows seldom have these issues with each season being 20 plus episodes long and story arcs that are seldom as complex.
I find the formula of the obligatory cliffhanger ending for each season, to keep viewers “keen”, rather wearisome. Again, each season of Slow Horses is a self contained story, based on a specific novel. I wish more shows took this approach. I don’t relish having to watch summary videos on YouTube to refresh my memory. However, I think this is symptomatic of a wider malady that is affecting modern TV. Despite high production values, adult themes and complex narratives, many feel to me as well crafted contrivances but contrivances no less. Essentially big budget and immaculately made curate’s egg. There have been several shows that I have started watching and have been broadly entertained by, yet I have at some point abandoned them simply because on some level I just couldn’t be bothered to continue. Furthermore, I didn’t see my abandonment to be a loss. I stopped watching The Last of Us season 2 for this very reason.
Another thing that has come to my notice is the gulf between what shows get written about in the online press and what the public actually watch. For example Succession was dissected in great detail by critics and had praise heaped upon it. However, despite respectable viewing figures, it is not by any means the most popular show on TV. NCIS and Tracker have far more substantive audiences but seem to be more written about on entertainment websites rather than formal online newspapers. This to me is evidence of the ever increasing cultural divide that is becoming apparent in western culture. People not only live and work in their own bespoke bubbles but can also have separate viewing habits. Another growing factor is “TV poverty”. Succession is a cable/streaming show whereas NCIS and Tracker are available on digital terrestrial TV. The cost of subscribing to multiple “premium content” platforms is simply too prohibitive.
I won’t list all the shows that I have enjoyed this year but I will name a few. Dept. Q was a very absorbing contemporary crime drama. Mark Gatiss was excellent in Bookish, channeling a great deal of Agatha Christie and sporting a handsome post WWII production design. Season 2 of Andor totally nailed the zeitgeist with its sociopolitical commentary. Alien Earth was far better than I was expecting and worked well within its canonical restrictions. Murder Before Evensong found the sweet spot between cozy drama and grim murder mystery. Season 2 of NCIS Origins is also maintaining a high standard of writing that is sadly lacking in its long running predecessor. Dark Winds continued to be a solid police drama, following two Navajo Tribal Police officers in the seventies. There were several popular shows that I decided not to watch for various reasons. I chose not to get on the hype train with regard to The Traitors and Pluribus.
Finally, I have noticed that I do not seem to watch comedy anymore. Apart from the occasional standup special by a comedian that I like, I don’t really watch any comedy panel shows anymore, such as Would I Lie To You, or entertainment shows such as Taskmaster. My granddaughters like US sitcoms such as Young Sheldon and Georgie & Mandy’s First Marriage but I find them incredibly bland. Safe, non-controversial entertainment that is amusing but no more. I like satire and sadly, it appears to be running scared at the moment for obvious reasons. However, I did watch The Franchise in late 2024 and was hoping for a second season of its excellent dissection of a film studio that definitely isn’t Disney. Sadly, it’s been cancelled. Which brings me back to my original point about annoying foibles of modern TV production. Add great shows being cancelled to the list.
I don’t really celebrate New Year’s Eve anymore. By that I mean, I don’t go to the pub or any other social gatherings. Nor do we have guests ourselves. Mrs P often doesn’t stay up to midnight. Mainly because she tends to go to bed relatively early, by default. One year changing to another seems a somewhat arbitrary excuse for a celebration to me. However, I realise that New Year is a big deal for some. I used to work with someone who said, very philosophically, that Christmas was for the children and New Year was for the adults. He was of Scottish antecedents and so New Year’s Eve was of more cultural significance to him. Also if you’ve had a difficult, problematic or traumatic 2025, then I fully understand that you may well be happy to see the back of 2025 and look to 2026 to be a significantly better year. Or at least, not to be as shit.
I have not watched as much TV as I usually do, this year. Mainly because I have become a little weary of the ways contemporary TV is produced, especially with regards to streaming shows. Due to the costs, shows such as Star Trek: Strange New Worlds only have 10 episodes per season. Simply put, the season begins to hit its stride and then is abruptly over. This problem (if you see it as such) is then further compounded by there being a significant wait between seasons. In the case of STSNW it was two years between season two and season three. Not all shows fall foul of this. Apple TV produces two seasons of the excellent espionage drama Slow Horses at a time, ensuring a prompt release schedule. However, even this has issues. Due to the complexity of the plots of many contemporary TV shows, something that is a marketing point, some viewers cannot remember the plot after a twelve month hiatus. Network TV shows seldom have these issues with each season being 20 plus episodes long and story arcs that are seldom as complex.
It is customary in a post such as this to list the various games that I’ve played over the last twelve months and share my thoughts on them. Wider analysis of the video game industry is also de rigeur. Unfortunately, I don’t really feel disposed to do either of those two things. My thoughts on the games I’ve played have already been published and can easily be accessed via the links at the bottom of this post. As for the video game industry, it suffers the same flaws as music, TV and cinema. There is creativity and innovation out there but it is often drowned out by mainstream products which are demonstrably inferior due to their inherent mediocrity. As for the business side of things, we once again clearly see the failings of the corporate management class. Sadly, they do not face the consequences of the mistakes that they make.
I began 2025 with a fairly strong writing streak, publishing posts about games, technology and even air fryers. Sadly, this burst of enthusiasm gradually tailed off between April and June. I can’t even recollect if there was any particular “real world” reason for this or whether it was just a case of I wasn’t especially motivated. Fortunately, I started writing again in July in preparation for Blaugust: Festival of Blogging and subsequently wrote throughout the entirety of August. Revamping my blog in September and moving it to the latest version of Squarespace proved a positive move and since then I have kept up a writing schedule of posting to Contains Moderate Peril every second day. At present I have a lot of draft posts pending and I am not struggling to come up with ideas and write in general. I intend to nurture this positive approach and see if I can build upon it in 2026.
Looking back at my various posts regarding “technology” this year, a recurring theme has been my ongoing attempts to replace certain mainstream products with alternatives that do the job in-hand better, don’t require constant updates, aren’t bloated by superfluous functionality and are more cost effective or even ethical. Needless to say, this has proven quite hard. Hence I was unable to find a suitable replacement email client for Microsoft Outlook and end my subscription to Microsoft 365 Personal. The main problem is that most alternative software won’t support my email archive due to differences in the mailbox format. One possible work around is to install an older and therefore, non-subscription version of Outlook but this raises support and compatibility issues. It would be a lot easier to divest myself of a lot of mainstream software if I was starting from scratch.
I created a Bluesky account a little over a year ago. I was initially somewhat sceptical of adopting a third social media messaging platform, because I had become quite comfortable using Mastodon as a replacement for Twitter/X. However, certain individuals that I wished to continue to follow were migrating to Bluesky, so I followed suit. It has always been my long term goal to pick one of these two newer services and make it my sole point of presence in social media terms. So far that hasn’t happened. Hence a year on I find myself juggling three such platforms. Twitter/X, Mastodon and Bluesky. I post links to my blog posts on all of these services. To be honest none of them generate any tangible traffic but this is how you promoted your website or blog 15 years ago and old habits die hard.
In my teenage years, there was a social obligation to go out on New Year’s Eve. This often meant congregating in some dismal pub, queuing at the bar for 30 minutes to get a drink, then trying to find a corner where you could stand and struggle to have a conversation with your friends, above the noise of the crowd. The evening was dull, noisy and often ended in a fight. Then, around 1:00 AM we were summarily turfed out into the street and had to make our way home. Buses always run at this time of year to serve a public need but the “drunk express” was never a pleasant means of transportation. Quite frankly the whole experience was shit but the hubris of youth meant we deluded ourselves that we were having a good time. If someone suggested something similar today, I would laugh in their face. I am happy to spend New Year’s Eve indoors and away from it all.
It is customary for me to write an end of year summary of my gaming activities but I suspect that on this occasion it will be somewhat short. For me, 2024 has really hammered home the notion of the ephemeral nature of video games as well as their commercial ubiquity. The moment a game fails to satisfy for whatever reason, rather than complain or worry about it, I just move on to something else. It’s not as if there’s a shortage of games out there. I have a substantial back catalogue of games that Epic and Amazon prime regularly giveaway. I have bought numerous discounted bundles in the past, in the pious hope that I’ll play one of the games included, at some point in the future. Games may well be enjoyable and engaging but many are also disposable. That’s not to say they’re bad. While playing them you are indeed “entertained”. However, when you’re “done”, it’s amazing how you quickly find another and forget what you were previously playing.
The last time I wrote A Year in Movies post was back in 2020. That was naturally an unusual year and it certainly had a radical impact upon the film industry and the way new movies are distributed. In many ways the pandemic accelerated the inevitable move towards cross platform, same day releases. 4 years on and it is quite usual for films to have a short cinema release before becoming available on streaming media. They often appear on physical media at the same time. Effectively you can go to the cinema, or simply watch at home on the platform of your choice if you prefer. Rent, buy or subscribe, the film studios still get their pound of flesh and everyone is happy. Sometimes if a film has failed to gain sufficient traction at the cinema, its release will be cut short and it will go to streaming even quicker. Direct to video from the eighties and nineties has been superseded with direct to streaming.
It is fair to say that we live in an age where we do not lack quality TV. There are numerous shows that have garnered critical acclaim or a strong word of mouth following that are deemed “must see” viewing. No doubt you, like myself, have a long “to do” list of programs that you need to “get round to watching” on top of those shows which are staples of your viewing regime. If you didn’t have enough programmes already to catch up with, we all have friends and family telling us about a “great show” that’s on a platform we don’t subscribe to, that we really need to see. It is quite extraordinary and a far cry from my youth when the UK simply had three terrestrial channels until satellite TV became popular in the late eighties. To paraphrase the former Prime Minister Harold Macmillan “we’ve never had it so good”.
This post is not intended to be a comprehensive review of music per se in 2024. It is simply a few thoughts on what I’ve been listening to over the course of the year and my ever changing relationship with the Terpsichorean muse. As a man in his fifties who has always enjoyed multiple genres of music and it is a comforting presence in day-to-day life. Up to a year ago, I relied upon my own music collection on my PC as the source of music to which I listened. Yet, this meant that I was somewhat locked into my own existing tastes and there was limited scope for me to find new material. This changed last December when I started subscribing to Spotify and since then it has become my primary source of music. It caters to my tastes, which at times are quite niche and it gently introduces me to new material without being too invasive. This has proven most beneficial.
This is my third attempt at writing this post. The first was a little too philosophical, tackling the nature of adult life and how it is a far cry from the childish notions I had about being a “grown up” when I was seven. The second was just a list of the various shit that has gone down in my life over the last twelve months and it felt far too much like whinging. Hopefully this one is more succinct and even handed. 2022 was not a good year, personally speaking. My family and I experienced a lot of health issues and my mother died after a rapid decline. Hence there has been a lot of stress and anxiety which has left me feeling tired and somewhat jaded. Due to the subsequent changes in my personal circumstances, I now find myself at somewhat of a “loose end”. I feel the need to channel my energies into something but I’m not sure exactly what at present.
So far I have written 135 blog posts in 2022. Not much compared to previous years, but frankly I’ve become a little despondent with writing in recent months (I shall expand more upon that in a moment). Hence, since October I have been enjoying a break from regular blogging. I have written sparingly and pursued other leisure activities. Given that my post output has gone down, it would be logical to assume that there has been a commensurate drop in web traffic to Contains Moderate Peril, but this is not the case. Overall, my monthly statistics have remained the same, proving once again that most of my readership find my written content via Google searches, rather than reading new material on a daily basis. This has given me much food for thought and added to my ongoing reflection upon my writing activities.
When I wrote Goodbye 2020 a year ago, I endeavoured to be philosophical and sanguine in my approach. It was a challenging year for all of us and for me it was further compounded by a bereavement. However, I strove to keep matters in perspective and tried to look at things in a broader context. I cannot be as even handed this time. 2021 has been a very difficult year for myself and my family and I will be glad to see the back of it. Nationally speaking, things haven’t been much better. I feel that we’ve squandered the initial progress that the COVID-19 vaccines offered. Obviously, I cannot do anything about the problems that the UK faces in 2022. However, I certainly intend to address some of the issues that I and my immediate family are facing. I am going to tackle some specific problems that need to be laid to rest and set myself some tangible goals to achieve. 2022 isn’t going to be something that just happens and I passively sit back and watch.
Getting older does have a few benefits. One of them, if you are fortunate enough to embrace the concept, is a degree of self awareness and the ability to be honest with yourself. Over the years I have tried to adjust my technological habits but ultimately I am a creature of habit. My use of technology and consumption of content has been determined by the decades I grew up in. Therefore, I am a PC user and prefer to sit in my office where I write, play games and peruse the internet. I have my desk set up in a way that suits my needs and I can go about my business in comfort. When away from my office, I rely heavily on my phone as an alternative platform. In some instances phone based apps offer a superior experience to the desktop or browser based PC alternatives. Banking being one example. For better or for worse this is how I do things and I am comfortable with these choices.
Usually in a post such as this, my primary focus would be writing about the games that I’ve played over the last twelve month and what it was about them that I specifically enjoyed. However, this year I feel that I must address the wider issues that have dominated the news regarding the video games industry. Simply put, several very high profile and successful triple A video game companies have been beset by scandals over the last twelve months. And these have been of such a nature that they have finally laid to rest the myth that some still cling to, that working “in video games” is somehow different from working in more traditional industries because it’s “cool”. It turns out that it has all the same failings as TV, music and film. The people at the top are abusive and broken and maltreat those at the coalface who do all the real work for precious little reward.
I can’t speak for others but my relationship with social media has certainly changed over the last two years. Whenever new internet technologies emerge, there is a brief period when it feels like some sort of new frontier. Often such innovations become a means of empowering the marginalised and the voiceless. For a while new platforms can even be a force for good. But eventually commercial interests creep in along with rules and regulations. Hence, it all inevitably takes a turn for the worst. The frontier is finally tamed and ends up being just another corporate space. Social media is certainly not a forum for discussing social issues or politics, instead being a medium for tribalism and rancour. Because of these factors and others, I have moderated my use of social media and it has proven extremely beneficial to my state of mind.
A very wise Vulcan once said “change is the essential process of all existence”. 2020 has demonstrated that unequivocally. How our privileged, pampered lives have altered over the last twelve months. We’ve had to stay at home, curtail our social interactions and reflect upon the meaning of existence. I appreciate that things are relative, so it’s not helpful to compare the concerns that discombobulate people today with the realities that folk had to endure during World War II for example. I won’t trivialise the sense of isolation and desperation some folk have felt over the lockdown. From my own perspective, my life as a carer is regimented and focused, so 2020 hasn’t really “cramped my style” to use an old fashioned phrase. However, several things happened over the course of the year that have had an impact upon myself and my family.
Let it suffice to say that due to current “circumstances”, Mrs P and I have watched a lot more TV this year. However, rather than just reiterate what we’ve viewed, which is already covered in my recurring blog post The Idiot Box, I thought I’d take the time to reflect upon some wider issues. TV has become a major source not only of entertainment but psychological support during this year’s social restrictions. The closure of cinemas for the majority of the past twelve months has meant that TV has had little or no competition. Furthermore, many of the films that may well have drawn audiences away, have come to the smaller screens a lot quicker. Never has so much TV been voraciously consumed. There’s also been a degree of nostalgia as viewers have watched popular shows at broadly similar times, reviving that sense of a shared experience that was so common in the seventies and eighties. However, the pandemic has also caused a slow down in TV production. Will the shortage of new content that many have predicted finally manifest itself next year?
In 2019, I went to the cinema just once to see Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker. I didn’t write a summary of the films I’d seen throughout that year, as I felt that mainstream releases had become far too formulaic and dull. 2020 has done little to change my perspective. The global pandemic has meant that Cinemas have spent most of the time closed and therefore many of this year’s major film releases have ended up on video on demand services. A few titles remain indefinitely postponed, such as the latest Bond movie No Time to Die, while Sony Pictures wait to see if “normality” resumes. But a film that is sitting on the shelf is not a film making money. Hence, Warner Bros. have announced that all their major releases for 2021 will be across multiple platforms simultaneously, thus ensuring a broader flow of revenue. This has not pleased director’s such as Christopher Nolan who argue passionately regarding the merits of cinema. But I doubt Mr. Nolan has ever had to endure an out of focus screening in the wrong aspect ratio at Cineworld, Rochester, where audiences talk and mess with their phones continuously.
Retrospective posts such as this can be a sprawling mess. There is also potential to cover the same old ground that I’ve covered in my monthly summaries “A Month in Gaming”. So I’ll try to be as succinct as I can. Firstly I won’t dwell too much on the iniquities of the video game industry as I’ve covered that elsewhere. Let it suffice to say that the notion of the “rock star developer” and the ethical publisher have proven false. Buying a triple A mainstream game is as morally compromised as buying a pair of jeans made by child labour. But let’s not get caught up in ethics. That’s another post. The pandemic meant that I, like many others, had far more leisure time this year and hence I spent that time gaming. It’s been a good year for video games publishers and the revenue has rolled in. Have I had fun while playing more games? Yes. The games have proven engaging and they also provide a lot to write about, so it’s a win, win scenario from my perspective.
In my lifetime technology has always been promoted as something that improves our lives, especially at a domestic level. The VCR in the eighties is a prime example of this. It liberated us from having to watch TV at a specific time and place. Then there the personal computer, which brought into our own homes tools, that until that point, had been exclusive to the office. And for all the ill that it brings, the internet has certainly made the world demonstrably smaller. It’s revolutionised shopping and has improved the administration of services. So overall, I still feel that technology is a force for good. However there have been changes. In recent years technology on a domestic level has ceased to be quite as transformative and become more of a disposable commodity. Tech is now a fashion accessory, with a distinct lifecycle and upgrade treadmill. It is fast becoming just another form of superfluous crap to fill your home with.
Despite the tumultuous events of the last twelve months and the accompanying emotional fallout that has followed in their wake, I’ve managed to keep writing throughout 2020. My output has been somewhat inconsistent this year and I’ve noticed some changes in what I write about. This is inevitable as one’s tastes and focus changes naturally change over time. I’m finding it tougher to write enthusiastically about the video games industry per se, as it has hardly covered itself in glory this year. However, I still enjoy writing film reviews although I haven’t set foot inside a cinema for over a year. I suspect that this will remain the case for much of 2021. My writing has broadened in its scope and I find myself writing social commentary about various aspects of life, rather than just posting articles about my hobbies. Sharing my thoughts on the pandemic itself and “caring for the elderly” has proven very cathartic. But as I’ve stated many times before, writing is one of the ways in which I make sense of the world around me.
Last year I tried to write a measured and balanced post about the passing of the year. Sadly this time round my attitude toward the departing 12-month period is somewhat binary. Yes there were a couple of highlights to 2019 but most of it was an uphill struggle and therefore not worth celebrating. It can frankly sod off and won’t be missed. The two high points were my son’s wedding in August and my renewed enthusiasm for blogging that came about due to the Blaugust writing event. But overall 2019 was a repetitive and somewhat depressing grind having to continuously deal with multiple family illnesses, numerous hospital visits and then at the end of the year a bereavement. Yes, these are things that happened to us all eventually and there is no escaping them but I appear to be trapped in this facet of the “circle of life”. Furthermore, until certain situations resolve themselves, I cannot make or implement any long-term plans. 2019 has been in many ways about just treading water.
Life is often cyclical, if you don’t believe me go watch The Lion King. I started 2018 playing The Lord of the Rings Online and by writing a post about how gamers collectively seem to repeat the same mistakes. And as the year and indeed the decade ends, I find myself once again playing the Yule Festival in LOTRO and reflecting upon how some games that garnered criticism over their egregious business models, have ended up as huge hits. It would appear that gamers are their own worst enemy. I shall leave the psychological analysis of paradox to others. From my perspective, irrespective of the iniquities of the video game industry and certain quarters of the gaming community, it has been a good year, gaming wise. I have enjoyed my time playing MMOs such as Star Trek Online, The Elder Scrolls Online and the aforementioned LOTRO. These and other titles have entertained me, provided me with an opportunity to unwind as well as affording me some much-needed social interaction. I particularly enjoy Wednesday evenings when I log into my Discord server and then chat and play collaboratively with longstanding gaming friends.
One of the benefits that comes with age (for some people at least), if the gift of realistic expectations. Having reached 51 years, I no longer harbour thoughts that each year will be a rollercoaster ride of excitement, mirth and personal gain. Nor do I count on the stars aligning so that I make my fortune and retire peacefully to the Cayman Islands, to live the life of a tax exile. If New Year’s Eve rolls round and no one has died, I’m not looking at being tried for murder and there’s still gin in the drinks cabinet, then I usually deem the previous twelve months an acceptable year. However, despite even these fairly lose and undemanding criteria I feel compelled to say that 2018 was bollocks and that I won’t be sad to see the back of it.
I did not manage to maintain my writing schedule this year and have not posted everyday as I would’ve liked. I have produced over two hundred and seventy posts but still feel I could have done more. Blaugust was a welcome burst of enthusiasm that I managed to sustain for September and October, but I lost momentum in the run up to Christmas. At least I know what the root cause is which puts me a step nearer to resolving it. Having written several posts in the past about “writers block” and the other perennial excuse of not having anything to write about, I seem to have squarely fallen into both those traps. At present I find that motivating myself is the key problem. If I haven’t started writing something by midday, then it more than often gets left for the day. If I intend to escape this malaise, then I shall have to establish a far stricter writing schedule for 2019 and endeavour to do my writing first thing in the morning, when I am most focused.
Throughout my adult life I have always gone to the cinema as a leisure activity. 2018 has been of note in this regard as it’s the year I’ve been to the cinema the least. I have visited my local multiplex just three times over the last twelve months. It’s not that good quality movies are not made anymore. Far from it. It’s just that they don’t always get released theatrically. Furthermore, the cost to entertainment ratio has simply become too much of a gamble. Standard tickets are priced between £12 to £15 locally and I resent such an outlay for a film that may only be adequate or worse. Perhaps my outlook on pricing is unreasonable but I am not going to pay such money for mediocre entertainment. I don’t expect every movie I see to be a cinematic milestone or genre classic but nor do I expect it to be an exercise in indifference. If I had paid such ticket prices to see The Predator or Death Wish at my local Cineworld, then I would have been singularly annoyed. Mercifully I saw them both at home and therefore at a much lower cost.
The term social media is a broad church. For me it primarily means Twitter as that is the only platform of that ilk that I use regularly. I maintain a presence on Facebook simply to stay in touch with friends who have emigrated to the US. We have a private page where we catch up instead of using the traditional medium of emails. It is more immediate but also more frivolous. If it weren’t for need that it serves, I would have long closed my Facebook account. 2018 was also the year where I tried to continue using Instagram but failed. I don’t tend to catalogue and display my life in the manner that this medium tends to demand and use it mainly to see what my granddaughters have been up to. For me Twitter is the social media platform I feel most comfortable using and feel that I have mastered. I use it to promote my writing and for quips, banter and social interaction. Beyond that I think its benefits are both limited and even questionable.
My relationship with technology has changed over the years and my enthusiasm has tempered greatly. Having worked in the IT field for 25 years (up until 2016), I have been immersed in technological advancement and due to my age have seen a great deal change. I was at one time an early adopter of anything I considered to be potentially beneficial to me and at times have been guilty of acquiring something “new and shiny” simply for its own sake. I have even flirted with that dubious notion of tech as a fashion accessory. But sometimes age does bring wisdom, so nowadays, I’m a firm believer in finding the sweet spot between “the right tool for the job” and “if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it”. Subsequently, 2018 has not seem me acquire a great deal of new technology. However, what I have bought this year or started using has been well received and useful.
Strictly Come Dancing 2025: The Thomas Skinner Controversy
Strictly Come Dancing remains the BBC’s flagship light entertainment show for Autumn. Despite controversy and scandal, the show bounced back last year and firmly re-established itself as the “feel good, family show” it has always claimed to be. Blind comedian Chris McCausland becoming the 2024 champion certainly validated the show’s commitment to diversity and inclusion and helped place Strictly (as it is known to its fans) back on its cultural pedestal. I’m sure those involved in the production of the show breathed a sigh of relief when the season ended on such a positive note, eclipsing the negative press that had been ever present last summer. Second chances and opportunities for a “course correction” are few and far between these days. Especially when you have elements of the UK press waiting with bated breath and hoping that you’ll fail.
Strictly Come Dancing remains the BBC’s flagship light entertainment show for Autumn. Despite controversy and scandal, the show bounced back last year and firmly re-established itself as the “feel good, family show” it has always claimed to be. Blind comedian Chris McCausland becoming the 2024 champion certainly validated the show’s commitment to diversity and inclusion and helped place Strictly (as it is known to its fans) back on its cultural pedestal. I’m sure those involved in the production of the show breathed a sigh of relief when the season ended on such a positive note, eclipsing the negative press that had been ever present last summer. Second chances and opportunities for a “course correction” are few and far between these days. Especially when you have elements of the UK press waiting with bated breath and hoping that you’ll fail.
For those who live outside of the UK or who do not watch Strictly, it is worth taking a few moments to consider the significance of the show, its importance to the BBC and its place in UK pop culture. Strictly has grown from its humble origins in 2004 as a celebrity dance talent show, to a national institution and a text book example of “feel-good TV”. It champions dancing, fitness, inclusivity and celebrity re-invention. It regularly has an audience of over 7 million viewers and has been licensed to over 60 other countries under the title Dancing With the Stars. The show has a broadly wholesome reputation and as such has proven accessible to a wide audience. It appeals to wide eyed fans, families, casual viewers and even cynical old curmudgeons like myself, as learning to dance is a prodigious undertaking requiring dedication and fortitude. Strictly is also a great way for actors, artists and media personalities to revitalise their careers.
Bearing this all in mind, the fact that Strictly is a big deal in entertainment terms and that it has bounced back after a problematic year, let us address the elephant in the room that manifested itself in late summer when this year’s contestants were announced. Why did the BBC decide to include Thomas Skinner in this year’s line up? For those who are unfamiliar with Mr Skinner, he is a UK businessman and TV personality who is best known for appearing on The Apprentice. At first glance, this is hardly controversial. However, if you look further Thomas Skinner has clear political affiliations with the likes of J.D. Vance and Robert Jenrick, has spoken out publicly on several issues such as crime in London and the performance of Mayor Sadiq Khan and is potentially seeking a political career with either the Conservative Party or Reform UK. He has been offered support by Dominic Cummings.
Strictly has always been a bastion of inclusivity. Straight, gay, able bodied, disabled, all are welcome on the show. The show has even included former politicians, such as Anne Widdecombe and Ed Balls. However, these were individuals who were no longer directly involved in frontline politics at the time of their appearance. It can be argued that this is not the case with Thomas Skinner. Furthermore, Mr Skinner is linked to a type of popular politics that has specific views regarding diversity and inclusion. Things they perceive as being “woke” or the province of the left. A percentage of the UK electorate and thus Strictly viewers, see the sort of politics and ideology that Mr Skinner is affiliated to as populist, nationalist and even racist. Hence his inclusion in this year’s show was not well received by all. Others see it as a politically useful Trojan Horse.
If you peruse the in-depth musings on Strictly by its hard core fans on such platforms as Reddit, Instagram and TikTok, you’ll find several recurring complaints regarding Thomas Skinner. Firstly, that he potentially contradicts the show’s inclusivity philosophy with his personal views and political outlook. Secondly, his very presence diminishes the feel good factor inherent in Strictly by dragging real world politics into the show. Something that fans wish to escape. Thirdly, the inclusion of a person with clear right wing leanings will further exacerbate the tabloid press frenzy regarding the show, as much of the UK print media is owned and edited by figures of a similar political disposition. Hence, a show designed to bring audiences together may potentially become a vehicle for bi-partisan politics and a further bridgehead in the ongoing culture war.
The BBC has long been a target for the political right, being seen as institutionally biased against them and a platform for all the political and cultural ideas that they are mainly against. The BBC in its naivete continues to seek balance in all things and thus ultimately giving a platform and possibly an excess of air time to those who would happily see it brought to heel or closed. It can be argued that in principle, Thomas Skinner should be able to participate in a show such as Strictly Come Dancing and be treated the same as anyone else. He is competing in a dance based reality show and no more. However, the reality of the situation is quite the opposite. Television of this kind is about more than just entertainment. It is a platform for messaging and promoting a media persona. Look at what appearing on a few episodes of the comedy panel show Have I Got News For You did for Boris Johnson’s career.
It was inevitable that the inclusion of a person such as Thomas Skinner on a high profile TV show such as Strictly, would result in a political bunfight. The BBC cannot claim surprise at this? Perhaps they chose to do so as a way of declaring to their opponents, “look we aren’t biased. Here’s one of your people”. An act of appeasement or the extending of an olive branch, perhaps? However, such a move never works. As any child will tell you, you can’t befriend your bully. Which means that for however long Thomas Skinner remains on the show, the wider coverage will be about his politics and him personally, as opposed to his dancing prowess. More cynical viewers believe that he has been partnered with Amy Dowden, a much loved professional dancer who has been battling multiple illnesses, as a means to negate the negative optics. If that is the case I doubt it will work.
This Saturday’s second episode of this year’s Strictly will see the first couple voted off the show. Someone has to go and it usually is the celebrity with the least skill. However, the participation of Mr Skinner and the media circus that follows means that whatever happens, the situation will be portrayed negatively for the show and what it represents, in the tabloid press. No doubt there will be plenty of political capital to be gained. If Thomas is eliminated, it will be because the liberal elite establishment conspired against him and if he endures, then it will be a triumph of British traditionalism over the woke cultural Marxism. The right wing media headlines effectively write themselves, the BBC scores a massive own goal and the viewing public are left with an unpleasant aftertaste as their favourite pop culture safe place is dragged through the sewer of contemporary politics.
Keep dancing.
Strictly Come Dancing remains the BBC’s flagship light entertainment show for Autumn. Despite controversy and scandal, the show bounced back last year and firmly re-established itself as the “feel good, family show” it has always claimed to be. Blind comedian Chris McCausland becoming the 2024 champion certainly validated the show’s commitment to diversity and inclusion and helped place Strictly (as it is known to its fans) back on its cultural pedestal. I’m sure those involved in the production of the show breathed a sigh of relief when the season ended on such a positive note, eclipsing the negative press that had been ever present last summer. Second chances and opportunities for a “course correction” are few and far between these days. Especially when you have elements of the UK press waiting with bated breath and hoping that you’ll fail.
At the beginning of April, Mrs P and I went to the Churchill Theatre in Bromley to see Speakeasy, a dance show starring Karen Hauer and Gorka Marquez (of Strictly Come Dancing Fame). It was 100 minutes of Mamba, Salsa, Charleston, Foxtrot and Samba dance numbers and it was very well received by the audience. I don’t usually go to such shows but I enjoyed it because it was focused, dynamic and “did exactly what it said on the tin”, to invoke a cliché. As a result, we promptly booked tickets for a similar show that was scheduled for July. This one, Dianne & Vito: Red Hot and Ready, features Vito Coppola and Dianne Buswell, another two of the professional dancers from Strictly (as the cool kids call it). Once again the show was at the Churchill Theatre, which is proving to be quite a good local venue.
Tonight’s results for week 5 of Strictly Come Dancing (season 22) have once again demonstrated that this show is more than just a dancing competition to UK viewers. If it were just a case of determining who are the best dancers, then JB Gill would not have been in the dance off. The judges may well see things exclusively in such terms but the public clearly do not. I last wrote about this phenomenon in 2019 and I think it appropriate to raise the subject again as this season of Strictly seems to be bucking past trends and I suspect we may be in for further upsets in the run up to the season finale. Broadly speaking, the public usually tends to vote in a manner similar to the official leaderboard. Hence, those who score the lowest usually end up in the dance off. Occasionally an underdog will be championed and kept on the show but that trend seems to have lost its novelty in recent years. This season appears to be quite different.
I make no bones about the fact that I watch Strictly Come Dancing every year. For those who live outside of the UK, this is the original version of the dancing reality show that you probably know as Dancing With the Stars in your country. It is still a big deal in the UK as far as TV ratings go, getting audiences on average of 6.6 million viewers. There are many aspects of the show that are textbook examples of prime time, popular entertainment but I like it because the “celebrities” that take part are ultimately learning a skill that is genuinely difficult. The latest season of Strictly, as it is known to its fans, is especially interesting as the BBC had a major PR problem earlier in the year, where several previous participants made allegations of bullying and abuse about their pro-dancer partners. An investigation is still ongoing and in the meantime, the two professional dancers that were named have withdrawn from the show. Hence everyone involved with the latest season are all on message, stating that it’s “all about having fun”.
Rather than continue to analyse each week’s show, which after all is a somewhat over saturated field, I thought it would be more interesting to write about the different facets of Strictly Come Dancing. The one I particularly wish to focus upon this time is the voting system and how it often highlights a differing of opinion between the professional judges on the show and the British public. For the past two weeks now there have been several celebrity dancers in the dreaded dance off who are far from the weakest performers. This has led to competent individuals leaving the show unexpectedly early. In many ways the voting system and the fact that no one can be considered safe is one the key factors that keeps Strictly popular and in the media spotlight. However, it also provides some pause for thought. The judges broadly mark and assess the celebrity dancers based upon their talent and performance. If they do not like a routine but still appreciate its technical merits, then they reflect that in their scores. However, the public seem to approach things quite differently.
Strictly Come Dancing is now over halfway through the season and there’s no room for mistakes or relying on past successes. The judges will now penalise technical errors and the public votes have now become less predictable. With Blackpool on the horizon, there was a lot at stake last night. Karim Zeroual and Amy Dowden danced the Viennese Waltz to Give Me Love by Ed Sheeran. However, he did make several errors during the routine and was noticeably rattled by the end. Subsequently, he scored lower than last week. On a positive note, Saffron made a major comeback. Her Waltz with AJ was outstanding, lacking the excesses of her previous dance. This was a focused and traditional routine and it was very well received. Kelvin an Oti’s Samba was a success with the audiences but the judges still found some minor mistakes, so they dropped a few marks. Michelle Visage excelled with a slick American Smooth. Her professional partner Giovanni Pernice always fines the right balance between the theatrics and traditional dance content. At present, these four couples are the frontrunners in the show.
Saturday was week 7 of Strictly Come Dancing and it definitely showed. This is the stage in the series where the judges take the gloves off and start getting picky, even with those who are clearly at the top of the leaderboard. Hence, Kelvin Fletcher and Oti Mabuse's Viennese Waltz along with Michelle Visage and Giovanni Pernice who danced the Paso Doble, didn’t score as highly as you’d expect. The judges pointed out technical aspects that were wanting in both routines. But that’s what they’re supposed to do so I have no issues with these criticisms. We are also at the point where certain dances can throw a lifeline to some celebrity dancers. Hence Chris Ramsey and Karen Hauer’s Street/Commercial dance really played to their core fanbase and more importantly, Chris’s dancing strengths. I doubt he’ll better this routine and it should keep him in the show a little longer.
Although Saturday night provided yet another excellent show, Strictly Come Dancing was notable for the absence of audience favourite Will Bayley. The Paralympian injured himself during training after he jumped from a table whilst practising his jive routine. According to Will “I jumped off a table. And as I landed, I landed with straightened legs,” he explained. “I thought I broke my leg because I never felt anything like it before. To hear the words I absolutely can’t dance was just really gutting for me. But I need to recover now and come back even stronger next week”. Thankfully, the comprehensive rules that govern Strictly allows for a week’s absence due to injury. However, if Will cannot resume dancing for next Saturday’s show, then he may have to retire from the entire series. If this does unfortunately happen, then it will also require the show’s producers to revise the schedule with regard to future eliminations, so that Strictly continues to follow the pre-set timetable.
Week 5 of Strictly Come Dancing once again saw some significant improvement among the celebrity dancers. Most notable were Alex Scott and Neil Jones who delivered a very enthusiastic Charleston. For the first time it appeared that both the technical and performance aspects of dancing “clicked” for Alex. After being saved by the judges in last week’s dance-off, Emma Weymouth and Aljaž Škorjanec's put on a beautiful display with their Viennese Waltz. The judge’s marks reflected their progress respectively by all awarding 9 marks out of 10. Then there was Will Bayley and Janet Janette Manrara whose emotional contemporary dance left judges Motsi Mabuse and Alfonso Ribeiro in tears. Will said before this year’s series that he was taking part in Strictly to “inspire people with a disability”. He certainly seems to be doing so and his commitment to the show and his constant training have earned him a strong fan base among viewers.
Well Saturday night’s show was an utter revelation. Many of the celebrity dancers who have been previously at the lower end of the leaderboard and therefore at risk of being in the dance off, decided to significantly up their game. Not only did this make for great entertainment, it also succinctly reiterated one of the fundamental aspects of what makes Strictly Come Dancing so popular; the “journey”. Yes, it is an incredibly cliched phrase but its something that seems to resonate with viewers. If the UK does have any national characteristics, then one of them is an appreciation of dogged determination. We tend to warm towards plucky underdogs who improve through hard work and dedication. And that is what we were treated to on last night’s show.
As I’ve mentioned before, the one piece of reality TV that I avidly watch is Strictly Come Dancing. I’ve been a regular viewer since 2005. Once you’ve got your head around the format and have fully understood what the show is and is not, it makes for entertaining viewing. Strictly is not a pure dance competition by any shakes. If it were, then the public wouldn’t have any say in who remained on the show and it would all be left to the professional judges. But such a show would have very limited appeal. Hence, we have audience participation and all the theatrics of reality television. Talent and ability can be trumped by popularity and frequently is. Over the last fifteen years, the shows formula has been finely tuned and we now find ourselves with a very controlled format. The broad spectrum of celebrities fulfil the role of various archetypes and the judges all have distinct roles to play. But at its heart the show is still about people learning to dance (or not) and that is a difficult skill to master. For me therein lies the entertainment.
There really is an excess of genuine talent in this year’s show. It’s week three and the standard has been raised yet again. Michelle Visage and Giovanni Pernice delivered a smouldering Quickstep to Cabaret, proving once again that it is unwise to write anyone off based purely on age. Furthermore actress Catherine Tyldesley dancing with Johannes Radebe stunned the audience and judges alike with a Rumba to the ballad Shallow from the film A Star is Born. The Rumba is a notoriously difficult dance to perform and to pull off such a feat so early on in the season was quite incredible. And we were also treated to our first Street Dance, with Dev Griffin and Diane Buswell performing an outstanding Aladdin themed routine. Considering that Diane had an accident during the week, it made such an assured performance even more remarkable. And let us not forget Kelvin Fletcher and Oti Mabuse’s robust Charleston.
There is obviously some sort of psychological comfort in being spoon fed the same content, again and again and again. Because that is what Strictly Come Dancing, the BBC’s flagship Autumn entertainment show, definitely does. And I don’t mean that in a derogatory way, because once again, I am one of the 8 million viewers avidly watching this seasonal ritual. But is must be said, that the show is incredibly formulaic and that the production team are expert at playing upon all the foibles of the format. Hence every September we get a wide spectrum of “celebrities” eager to learn how to dance. All of whom fall neatly into the various categories that have been established over the last 15 years. There are those who display an innate ability right from the start. Then there are the determined improvers. We also have wild cards whose content wildly changes in quality. Another favourite are the rhythmically challenged whose embarrassing failures are deemed “entertaining”. And let us not forget those who are just hopelessly out of their depth and you know are going to fall at the very first hurdle.
Series 16 of Strictly Come Dancing has been in many ways the most predictable season to date. It became clear within a matter of weeks as to which couples were the front runners, who had potential to grow and who would only go so far. Apart from the slight anomaly of Vick Hope going out early in week 5 due to a poorly conceived dance (blame Graziano for that), the show has followed a fairly unsurprising route. Therefore, it really comes as no shock to find Joes and Diane, Stacey and Kevin, Ashley and Pasha as well as Faye and Giovanni are going through to next week’s final. Nor should we be astonished by the subtle distinction between the judge’s favourites, and the couples that the public related to and take to their hearts.
The upbeat social media buzz around popular reality TV show Strictly Come Dancing took a turn for the worse this week, after celebrity contestant Seann Walsh was photographed kissing his professional partner Katya Jones. To the casual observer, this is simply standard fare for the tabloid press; a storm in a tea cup and nothing of note. However, four days after publication the story has grown from celebrity tittle-tattle to a major topic of national debate. This is because of several reasons. Mr Walsh was at the time when the picture was taken, in a long-term relationship. Katya Jones is married to fellow Strictly Come Dancing professional dancer, Neil Jones. Subsequently, actress Rebecca Humphries split up with Seann Walsh and released a statement online citing deficiencies in the five-year relationship and alluding to “controlling” behaviour. It is this later aspect, rather than just faux prurient outrage by the tabloids about the celebrity indiscretion, which has made this “story” persist. It links into the ongoing debate over “toxic masculinity” and the #MeToo movement.
With each successive season of Strictly Come Dancing there appears to be more and more celebrity participants who seem to be “good”, right from the get-go. For many years now there have been ongoing debates about whether those from certain backgrounds, IE music, acting and possibly even sport, have an advantage over the usual chefs, astrologers and ageing minor celebrities. Although I can see the initial sense of such arguments, I don’t think they hold up to close scrutiny. Having performed a few arbitrary dance moves whilst touring or having done a stilted routine for a TV drama or play is not the same as the rigour and scrutiny that comes with Strictly Come Dancing. However, setting aside this perennial question, despite only being three weeks into series sixteen, we saw some extremely strong movie themed performances last night and the potential emergence of several dark horses. Subsequently tonight’s results were interesting.
In recent week’s Joe McFadden has been widely tipped to win Strictly Come Dancing 2017, having crept up the leader board with a series technically polished and spirited performances. Labelled by head judge Shirley Ballas as a “dark horse” he has quickly become a thoroughbred in the eyes of most bookies’ to become this evenings favourite to win. Joes has proven not only to be a consistently good performer but a popular one too, as he was the only one of tonight’s finalist never to have been in the bottom two. He has in many ways been a classic example of the celebrity that embarks upon the “Strictly journey” and this evening, all the hard work paid off as he lifted the glitterball trophy for this years show. Let us not forget that this is also Katya Jones night as well. She has choreographed some incredible artistic and intelligent routines this season and has clearly understood what works best for her partner.
Singer Mollie King went into this week’s semi-final as the bookies' favourite to be voted off the show, and it has proven so. I appreciate that Mollie has been training hard and applied herself to the advice given to her by the judges. However, it would appear that she has plateaued with regard to her level of skill and performance several weeks agao. Sadly, nerves and the pressure of the night got the better of her on Saturday and her Samba was not well received. It was hesitant and lacked polish. She partially redeemed herself with an elegant waltz, although it is fair to say that she simply wasn’t in the same league as the other celebrity dancers. The judges seemed to be a little too generous with their marks for this dance, possibly to spare her any further distress because Mollie was visibly upset.
Strictly Come Dancing 2017 is proving to be quite the rollercoaster ride. Each week it seems that there is potential for an upset and Saturday night proved no different. The fact that Davood and Nadiya scored poorly with their Argentine Tango was quite a surprise. The relatively low spread of points put them squarely at the bottom of the leader board and made them prime candidates for the dance off. Personally, I thought this was a damn shame because Davood has significantly improved in recent weeks and has embraced the Strictly journey. However, it was a shock to see Alexandra and Gorka fighting to stay on the show once again. Sadly, the outcome of the dance off was a forgone conclusion. Alexandra was technically outstanding and gave a spirited performance. She had something to prove after last week's difficult Rhumba and I thought she came back with a vengeance. Sadly, the public thought otherwise. I’m sure being in the dance off yet again will be a disappointment for her. However, for the present she is safe.
No one is safe. I’m sure it’s a thought that all remaining contestants on Strictly Come Dancing are currently thinking. Week 10 has been and gone and found front runner Alexandra Burke in the dance off against the delightful Susan Calman. Obviously, the moment this was announced, the outcome was a forgone conclusion. But it proves as I said last week that the spread of public votes may not be that wide and if a celebrity finds themselves in the middle of the linerboard then they are at serious risk. There can be no “bad weeks for the remaining contestants, from now on. Every dance now has to be undertaken with as much confidence and technical accuracy as possible. I suspect that unless Gemma raises her game and Mollie continues to improve they too may be potential dance off candidates next week. As for Alexandra, I would hazard a guess that she will focus very much on ironing out any technical issues and will return with a show stopping performance, next Saturday. The lady is extremely motivated and competitive.
Blackpool always brings out the best in the celebrity dancers, due to its immense entertainment heritage and standing within the world of professional dancers. So, it wasn’t surprising to see some couples raise their game and make significant improvements with their routines. Gemma showed that she had listened to the judges’ comments and delivered a polished and elegant performance. She also appeared to have noticeably rediscovered her confidence. Mollie also delivered a far better routine which corrected many of the issues that have plagued her in previous weeks. I would argue that it was her best dance of the series. And once again, Susan poured her heart and soul into her time on the dance floor, delivering another spirited performance that found favour once again with the public, if not the judges.
Well I said it last week that there was scope for a surprise elimination from Strictly Come Dancing and surely enough it has happened. Aston Merrygold, despite being tipped as a contender for the final, scored poorly with the judges last night and also failed to garner sufficient public support. He subsequently found himself in the dance off with Mollie King and despite correcting some of the technical issues that were present in his initial performance, he failed to sway the majority of the judges in his favour. Darcey and Bruno both voted to save him but Craig and Shirley (who as head judge has the casting vote) opted to save Mollie. Hence, bookies favourite Aston Merrygold has left the show, proving that no one can rest on the laurels. As you’d expect, there were vocal complaints from fans and supporters who felt that the judges had been unfair with their marks. However, I believe if anyone is to blame then it is Aston’s professional partner Janette Manrara.
I could be very philosophical about Strictly Come Dancing and describe how the judges scrutinise and mark the contestants on technique, viewing their performances through the prism of their own professional experiences. Conversely, the public react and elect to support the celebrities far more emotively; championing potential underdogs and showing solidarity with those they feel have been poorly treated. However, such Janusian analogies are unnecessary and ultimately pointless, because the show is primarily for entertainment and not a dancing competition, although the professional dancers may not see it that way. Also, as we saw demonstrated once again tonight, Strictly Come Dancing is a popularity contest and the only thing that really matters is convincing the public to vote for you.
Yes, we’re three weeks into this year’s season of the BBC’s flagship entertainment show, Strictly Come Dancing (that’s the UK version of Dancing with the Stars for the benefit of US readers). The tabloid press has already started obsessing, dissecting and outright lying about the antics of a handful of minor celebrities as they struggle with the rigours of learning to dance. From now until Christmas, prime time Saturday night viewing on the Beeb will be suffused with the superficial glamour of showbiz, a barrage of camp innuendo and a mixture of well-honed muscles and wayward flesh as well as far too much make-up. You also get to choose whether to laugh along with heavily scripted and contrived comments from the professional judges. If we’re particularly fortunate we may even be blessed with a professional dancer meltdown as they balk at a “ill deserved” poor score (yes, we’re looking at you Brendan Cole).
Treasure Island in Outer Space (1987)
Treasure Island In Outer Space is a curious Italian television production from 1987 starring Anthony Quinn and Ernest Borgnine. It also features numerous international actors better known for their work in cult and exploitation films, such as Bobby Rhodes, David Warbeck and John Morghan. Directed by Antonio Margheriti (AKA Anthony Dawson), famous for such films as Killer Fish (a cash in on Piranha) and The Last Hunter (a Vietnam exploitation epic), Treasure Island In Outer Space is a faithful adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson’s classic novel. The screenplay by Renato Castellani and Lucio De Caro draws heavily from the source text, maintaining character names and original dialogue. However in updating the material to a futuristic setting, the script is littered with the worst kind of eighties sci-fi clichés. We are subjected to sonic trains, anti-gravity rays and the usual buzzword driven faux science.
Treasure Island In Outer Space is a curious Italian television production from 1987 starring Anthony Quinn and Ernest Borgnine. It also features numerous international actors better known for their work in cult and exploitation films, such as Bobby Rhodes, David Warbeck and John Morghan. Directed by Antonio Margheriti (AKA Anthony Dawson), famous for such films as Killer Fish (a cash in on Piranha) and The Last Hunter (a Vietnam exploitation epic), Treasure Island In Outer Space is a faithful adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson’s classic novel. The screenplay by Renato Castellani and Lucio De Caro draws heavily from the source text, maintaining character names and original dialogue. However in updating the material to a futuristic setting, the script is littered with the worst kind of eighties sci-fi clichés. We are subjected to sonic trains, anti-gravity rays and the usual buzzword driven faux science.
As in most of Antonio Margheriti’s films, there are a lot of traditional visual effects. The miniatures are efficiently realised, given the budgetary restrictions, by the late Emilio Ruiz del Rio (Pan’s Labyrinth, Dune, Conan The Barbarian). There are also some solid matte paintings, in-camera visual effects and simple composite shots. However, not all the visual effects are up to the standards of the time. The most obvious explanations for this are possibly the budget running out of the strictures of the shooting schedule. The quality of the set designs are also variable. Some are again somewhat obvious, leaning into standard tropes of the decade. Hence we see random arrays of flashing lights and banks of switches and dials that serve no particular purpose. Others, such as the bone graveyard at the film’s climax, are quite striking visually and have clearly been given some thought.
The lead performances from both Quinn and Borgnine are acceptable, delivering measured interpretations of their characters. Both avoid the standard cliched tropes associated with the depiction of pirates on film. Quinn attempts a more paternalistic approach to the character of Long John Silver. Itaco Nardulli is a somewhat generic Jim Hawkins. Like most Italian productions, the actors speak their lines in their native language while filming and are dubbed accordingly in post production. The main cast have subsequently re-recorded their own dialogue but some of the Italian cast have been dubbed in a somewhat incongruous fashion. Treasure Island In Outer Space features a traditional musical score by composer Gianfranco Plenizio, avoiding the usual synthesizer based approach to the science fiction genre, which was common at the time.
What makes Treasure Island In Outer Space a somewhat frustrating experience to watch is the ways that some aspects of the production have been given attention and others have been handled poorly. The cinematography by Sandro Messina is quite creative by television standards, with some scenes being shot from low angles or behind objects. Sadly the action scenes and fight choreography is somewhat theatrical and lacks any sense of momentum or kinetic energy. At seven episodes, each with a running time of 50 minutes, the English language version of Treasure Island In Outer Space is a somewhat lengthy adaptation. Perhaps a little too long. These deficiencies highlight the fact that this show is very much a product of its time and as such should be judged accordingly. There are better adaptations of Treasure Island and there are worse. For those who are curious, Treasure Island in Outer Space can be found on YouTube.
NB. Treasure Island in Outer Space was shown in 5 episodes, each running 75 minutes on Italian television in 1987. There are no major differences between this and the English language version which ran for 7 episodes of 50 minutes. However, there was also a theatrical version of the show, which was common practice at the time. This has a running time of 150 minutes and was released under the title Space Island.
David Koepp is no stranger to genre cinema, having written the screenplay for such films as Jurassic Park, Spider-man and War of the Worlds. Where these titles are big budget, major studio productions, Cold Storage is a far more modest production with a smaller scope. Adapted from his own novel, the screenplay is by David Koepp and the film is directed by British film-maker Jonny Campbell. At first glance, Cold Storage seems a somewhat derivative science fiction horror film with a relatively modest budget, financed through a convoluted US and French co-production. Lurid green and red colours feature heavily in the marketing artwork and it is easy, after a cursory look, to write the film off as cheap, generic, direct-to-streaming filler. However, Cold Storage is prime example of why you should not judge a book by it’s cover, or in this case, a film by its posters and online advertising. It is in fact an amusing and fun endeavour that can fill an evening.
Treasure Island In Outer Space is a curious Italian television production from 1987 starring Anthony Quinn and Ernest Borgnine. It also features numerous international actors better known for their work in cult and exploitation films, such as Bobby Rhodes, David Warbeck and John Morghan. Directed by Antonio Margheriti (AKA Anthony Dawson), famous for such films as Killer Fish (a cash in on Piranha) and The Last Hunter (a Vietnam exploitation epic), Treasure Island In Outer Space is a faithful adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson’s classic novel. The screenplay by Renato Castellani and Lucio De Caro draws heavily from the source text, maintaining character names and original dialogue. However in updating the material to a futuristic setting, the script is littered with the worst kind of eighties sci-fi clichés. We are subjected to sonic trains, anti-gravity rays and the usual buzzword driven faux science.
After the success of Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981, filmmakers scrambled to find existing intellectual properties that they could use for similar films. Hence archaic heroes such as Alan Quatermain were hastily given a modern makeover and thrust into generic movies, in a vague attempt to replicate Steven Spielberg’s successful formula. Which brings us neatly on to James Charles Bigglesworth AKA “Biggles”, a fictional pilot and adventurer from a series of books written by W. E. Johns between 1932 and 1968. Several attempts had been made in the past to bring this character to the silver screen, including one by Disney but they all failed. However, the commercial and critical success of Indiana Jones provided sufficient impetus to greenlight a new film. However, due to some curious production choices, when Biggles was finally released it was far from just a period set, action movie.
The seventies was an interesting time for UK genre television. Despite small budgets and often low key visual effects, there was no shortage of good ideas and creativity. Sapphire & Steel is a prime example of a show couched in a high concept, produced on a shoestring. It also credits its audiences with some degree of intelligence. Rather than spoon feeding the narrative in a didactic manner, it hints and implies, then leaves the rest to its viewers imagination. Created by Peter J. Hammond, a veteran TV writer, Sapphire & Steel centres on a pair of interdimensional operatives named Sapphire and Steel. They are two of a number of elements that assume human form. Over the course of three seasons little is revealed about the pair but they appear whenever there is any anomalous temporal activity. Time itself is portrayed as a sentient and malignant force that seeks to make incursions into the present reality, through weaknesses in the fabric of space.
The Humanoid is one of many international Star Wars knock-offs that flooded cinemas in the late seventies and early eighties. Like so many others, it is derivative (even to the extent of replicating specific scenes from George Lucas’ movie), replete with awful dialogue and has somewhat basic production values. However, it does have an interesting cast including Richard Kiel, Barbara Bach, Arthur Kennedy and Corinne Cléry. Kiel gained a lot of media attention after his appearance as the steel-toothed villain Jaws in the 1977 Bond film, The Spy Who Loved Me. His stature made him the perfect fit for the titular character in this Italian science fiction production. Sadly, beyond a curious lineup of actors, The Humanoid has little to distinguish it from so many similar movies. For example, if you’ve seen Starcrash then you’ll be adequately prepared for this film.
Some films are made with the intention of starting a franchise, others evolve into one after a surprise box office success and lucrative sequels. Alien (1979) falls into the latter category. A mid-budget science fiction horror film that was well crafted and then benefited immensely by being released at just the right time. Sadly, many franchises become derailed and enter into a death spiral due to competing artistic visions, cynical studio politics and cinematic ignorance. This has certainly afflicted all subsequent Alien films after James Cameron’s magnificent Aliens (1986). Sometimes, a franchise can correct its course and do something fresh with the source material. Prey (2022) is a fine example of this with director Dan Trachtenberg bringing fresh vigour and intelligence back to the Predator movies. I believe that was the intention with Alien Romulus (2024). Sadly, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Event Horizon is a curious movie hybrid, mixing plot elements from classic sci-fi and horror genres. It has been labelled “Hellraiser in Space” by some lazy critics, although I think there's far more to it than that. Perhaps a more apt description would be a Gothic horror story set in space. The movie has garnered a cult reputation since its release in 1997, mainly due to its graphic imagery and troubled production history. It does indeed have some quite shocking sequences but the lightning editing does not show as much as some would think. Paramount forced director Paul W S Anderson to reduce the original one hundred and thirty minute running time down to a more manageable ninety, after unfavourable test screenings. Much of the violence was allegedly removed as a result of that process. Sadly nothing survives of the removed material other than a VHS workprint. Hence a restored director’s cut is therefore unlikely.
I recently watched the first trailer for the new Obi-Wan Kenobi television show that is premiering on Disney + in May. I am interested in this latest instalment in the Star Wars franchise and curious as to whether Liam Neeson will make an appearance. I also watched a 20 minute fan video in which they “analysed” the entire trailer. They discussed the content of this 2 minute preview and then did a great deal of speculating about potential themes and characters that may feature in the show. They were clearly enthusiastic about what they had seen and were very knowledgeable about the subject. This resonated with me, as I like to be well versed about the things I enjoy. However, it is worth remembering that fandom can tip into obsession and gatekeeping. Hence I feel there is a subject to explore here.
On paper Finch has little originality. The moment I read the plot synopsis and saw the first trailer I instantly thought of other such films as Silent Running, Short Circuit and Chappie. However, irrespective of its derivative concept and the fact it channels many of the major tropes of the genre, it does have three cards to play. Namely strong performances by Tom Hanks, Caleb Landry Jones and canine actor Seamus. Although not a genre milestone, Finch is a curiously pleasant post apocalyptic road movie. Despite travelling through the sun bleached vistas of a ravaged America, the story focuses on the three protagonists and their relationship. It is no small feat to find genuine sentiment in such a harsh environment and indeed in such a genre but Finch proves to be an engaging emotional journey. Once again the most effective explorations of the human condition are often through characters who are conspicuously not.
I wanted to watch Source Code for a second time before I wrote about it. This is because numerous internet debates have arisen regarding the plausibility of the film’s ending. I find this a somewhat curious stance considering that the story, written by Ben Ripley, deals with temporal travel and multiple timelines. All of which are purely theoretical and not currently subject to singular, definitive interpretations. I would further add that the science of the film is simply a plot device and is not its raison d'être. But that’s movies for you. People love to discuss them and more recently we have seen the rise of “explanation” videos on YouTube. However, the latter is a separate debate and something I may write about in the future. As for Source Code, I enjoyed it even more the second time round, as I had the time to focus on the minor details rather than trying to stay abreast with the main plot, as I did on my first viewing.
I revisited M Night Shyamalan's The Happening recently to try and determine whether he is indeed suffering from Orson Welles syndrome. IE that he has made all his best work at the beginning of his career. Because he’s never quite recaptured the critical or artistic success of The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs. I was one of the few that actually liked The Lady in The water but I could see why viewers would assume that he had become a victim of his own style and technique with that particular movie. Casting yourself as an author whose work will reshape society and change the course of history is at the very least, a little egotistical and at worst an act of immense hubris. Then in recent years we have had The Last Airbender and After Earth, both of which have performed poorly. However I thought I'd give The Happening another chance as it remains the directors only R rated movie to date.
I wrote an article back in 2009 as to why I felt a remake of The Thing was a bad idea. At that time, the project was in development hell and didn’t look like getting off the ground. Subsequently, the production evolved into a prequel and managed to find financial support, culminating in a theatrical release in late 2011. Like many interested parties, I watched the initial teaser trailer with a mixture of curiosity and trepidation. Then when the red band trailer arrived I felt that the shark was well and truly jumped. Too much was shown (a common problem with modern trailers) and there the internet was awash with discontented mutterings from John Carpenter purists. Hence I refrained from watching this movie for several years. When I finally got round to doing so, I was not well disposed towards it. However, over the Christmas holidays, I decide to give this prequel a second viewing and see if I could approach it with a less partisan mindset.
Cloverfield (2008) was a surprise hit, earning $172 million worldwide at the box office against a $25 million budget. Paramount Pictures naturally wanted a sequel but director Matt Reeves and writer Drew Goddard struggled to find a suitable narrative means to progress the original story. Both eventually left the project and the production descended into development hell. The subsequent success of Godzilla and Pacific Rim saw the Kaiju genre becoming oversaturated and so the decision to make a direct sequel was re-evaluated. Eventually a “speculative screenplay” called The Cellar was purchased and repurposed to include some additional science fiction elements and became 10 Cloverfield Lane. Despite being a curious genre hybrid which only tenuously links to the original movie, this too fared well at the box office. Therefore it was inevitable that a third movie in the so-called “Cloververse” would follow.
In many ways the story behind The McPherson Tape is a lot more interesting than the film itself. This early found footage movie from 1989, was shot on home video on a virtually non-existent budget. The director Dean Alioto eventually found a distributor but on the eve of the movie’s home video release, the warehouse burned down and allegedly destroyed the master tape and all the promotional artwork. Yet this was not the end of the story. It was common practice in the eighties for small distributors to send advance copies to local independent video stores. Hence The McPherson Tape found its way into the pirate video ecosystem. It then migrated to the UFO community where it was circulated as being a video of a legitimate alien abduction. Dean found himself in the unusual position of having to debunk his own work. Three decades later due to the intriguing tale associated with The McPherson Tape, it has been remastered from the newly rediscovered 3/4" tape and re-released.
Last month, I tried a 30 day free trial of the streaming service BritBox. One of the main selling points was that the platform has an extensive back catalogue of Classic Doctor Who. Although I initially tried to keep up with the reboot of the franchise in 2005 my interest waned after several seasons. I am not opposed to any of the changes made and I am very pleased that the show has found a new audience. However, it doesn’t resonate with me so much anymore and I find that there is too much human drama for my liking. So I decided to revisit my youth and watch some classic Doctor Who; episodes that I haven’t seen in over forty years (yes, I’m that old). Now I’m fully aware of the potential issues that can come from returning to things that you enjoyed in one’s youth, so I believe I did my best in managing my expectations. However, the results of my nostalgia trip were interesting. The things I thought would be a problem nowadays weren’t so and the things I expected to hold up well despite the passage of time, didn’t always succeed. It’s been a curious experience.
I was 12 years old when I first saw Battle Beyond the Stars during its UK theatrical release. I remember that I enjoyed it and thought it was an action packed movie. Being young, lacking the critical faculties that come with age and exposure to a wider variety of cinematic material, a lot of the films plus points were lost on me. I recollect that I did pick up on the fact that this film was more ghoulish than the other “Space Operas” that flooded theatres at the time. But beyond that, all I saw was a fun and enjoyable science fiction movie. I cheered when the Malmori were defeated and was saddened when Space Cowboy died. It is only after subsequent viewing over the years, that I’ve realised that this film is a microcosm of all the things that made Roger Corman productions so successful and unique. Despite its low budget, the visual effects were good and innovative for the times. There was more sex and violence present, than in comparable productions. And the crew is a veritable who’s who of talent that went on to wider success.
Contrary to the endorsement on the above poster, Riddick was not "the most entertaining action movie of the year" in 2013. It was just an adequate third instalment in a rather ambitious franchise, that has failed to grab the wider public's attention. That’s not to say that they didn’t make money. This is after all the third movie. Writer and Director David Twohy has done his best to try and make the character of Riddick (Vin Diesel) more than the sum of his parts and I admire both of them for their persistence. Unfortunately, Riddick just isn't engaging or complicated enough a protagonist to sustain a franchise of this nature. The anti-hero was sufficient to drive the original Pitch Black back in 2000 which had some good ideas but just couldn't sustain the overarching and overblown Chronicles of Riddick in 2004. This instalment is competently made but ultimately superfluous.
Sequels and reboots are hardly a new concept and have been a part of Hollywood culture since the 1930s. The success of the Universal Horror movies from that era being a prime example of direct follow ups and retconned movies. However, there is one fundamental rule that distinguishes a good sequel from a bad one. You should never mitigate, undermine or make irrelevant the events of the previous movie, just to provide your new film with a raison d'être. For example, the events of Aliens do not contradict or trivialise those that happened in Alien. In fact with that franchise there is a very clear logical progression between the two movies. The same is true for Mad Max and Mad Max 2 or Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. The key is to progress a story, enhance it or explore things from an alternative angle and bring something new to the cinematic table. Sadly this philosophy is all too often lost on corporate film making. Which means that many sequels are just tedious replays of prior films. Terminator: Dark Fate falls squarely into this category.
In the near future, a series of mysterious power surges strike the Solar System, endangering all human life. Astronaut Major Roy McBride, is selected by U.S. Space Command (SpaceCom) to investigate their source near Neptune. The surges are linked to the "Lima Project", a failed experiment from 26 years earlier, that was intended to search for intelligent life outside of our solar system. The ship’s antimatter drive is potentially malfunctioning and responsible for the energy surges. Roy’s investigation is further complicated by the fact his Father H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones), led the "Lima Project" and has not been heard from for 16 years after reaching Neptune. Having been told that Clifford may still be alive, Roy is joined by his father's old associate Colonel Pruitt (Donald Sutherland) whose loyalties remain ambiguous. Roy, who is noted for remaining calm under pressure, shows little emotional reaction to the news about his Father. As he and Pruitt travel covertly from Earth, to the moon and then onto Mars, it becomes clear that there is more to the mission than meets the eye. Will Roy remain emotionally detached or will old wounds impair his judgement?
I was very surprised when I saw a trailer for a fourth instalment on the MiB franchise, based on Lowell Cunningham’s 1990 comic book series about secret government agents battling alien infiltration of earth. The third movie from 2012 managed to keep its head above water despite a very troubled production. At the time of its release, I like everyone else, pretty much thought that the series had run its course. Yet we live in the age of belated sequels as well as hard and soft reboots. And although Will Smith’s star may well be waning, Chris Hemsworth is still box office gold. Hence, we saw the release of Men in Black: International this summer. The basic concept of the franchise remains the same but this time the action begins in the London Office and then takes a more international journey with such locations as Marrakesh and Naples. Emma Thompson returns as Agent O and Liam Neeson joins the cast as agent High T.
The original Men in Black movie hit our screens back in 1997. It was a box office success and was therefore followed by a mediocre sequel in 2002. It took a decade before we got a third instalment in the franchise. However, the popularity of the two lead actors contributed greatly to the success of this series and so despite well documented production problems Men in Black III was released in 2012. However, the delay between movies did have consequences. Will Smith, despite being an Oscar winner and box office star, had lost his way during this time and was not as popular with audiences. Men in Black III was a timely opportunity to reconnect with his core fans. So to ensure that the film hit all the required beats and stand a better chance of being a success, the Columbia Pictures brought back previous director Barry Sonnenfeld, in hopes of warding off the Hollywood curse of third movie instalments.
Fellow blogger and all round good guy Murf, posted an ode to Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure today. It is clearly a movie that he enjoys (Go read his review). He references how due to this movie (along with others), as well as being a decent person in real life, that actor Keanu Reeves enjoys a great deal of goodwill from fans and pop culture cognoscenti. Which is a good thing for Mr Reeves, because goodwill often means that folk are prepared to overlook past transgressions and misdemeanours. And in cinematic terms, Keanu has had a few. The Day the Earth Stood Still is definitely one of them. Now I’ve questioned before the wisdom and merits of writing a predominantly negative film review and believe me my thoughts on The Day the Earth Stood Still are most definitely so. However, I think that something positive can still be gained from scrutinising this film. It can be held up as a textbook example of how not to remake a classic.
Every now and then, a mainstream film studio employs an artisan director to helm some sort of experimental or vanity project. The studio executives often have very little understanding of the film maker or their body of work, beyond that their artistically respected by their peers. Hence there is the corporate hope that the resulting production will be both critically acclaimed and financially successful. However, what all too often happens is that the said director goes off and indulges themselves, or simply does what they’re hired to do and delivers a finished picture that is beyond the intellectual horizons of the studio. Sphincter’s subsequently tighten among executives; the director is denied final cut and the film is taken a way and re-edited in the hope of rendering it more commercially viable. In the worse cases, a second director is brought onboard and new material shot in the hope of “saving” the picture. The net result is usually acrimony among all involved parties and a film that fails to make its money back at the box office.
For anyone with a passing interest in literary science fiction, Arthur C. Clarke’s Childhood’s End is a seminal novel and considered an essential read. The story of humanity being shepherded into a utopian golden age by allegedly benevolent alien Overlords and the consequences it has upon society, was a radical departure from prevailing science fiction norms of the time. Over the years several film makers have expressed interest in adapting the story, but it has proven difficult to come to grips with. Stanley Kubrick initially wished to develop the novel but his subsequent collaboration with the author eventually lead to the making of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Since then there have been radio adaptations and audiobook versions, all of which seem to be a better medium for this episodic and contemplative tale. In late 2015 US cable and satellite channel Syfy broadcast a three-part miniseries based upon the 1953 story; something that past me by at the time. I recently caught up with this adaptation which seems to have provoked very mixed reactions among viewers. As ever, the controversy seems to stem from purists who favour a more slavish interpretation of the book.
I always cringe when I hear the phrase re-imagining. It's yet another contrived expression created by marketing bodies to justify the somewhat arbitrary process of remaking an established title. Often the re-imagined product has little to do with the source material and was chosen simply because of brand awareness. If you want a textbook example of a recent example of this somewhat cynical process then look no further than last year’s Death Wish reboot. It had nothing new to say on the subject and simply trotted out a generic and bland revenge thriller. So, when I discovered that Robert Wise's classic science fiction film, The Andromeda Strain had been remade as a TV miniseries (that had completely passed me by), I had great reservations as to whether this would be worth watching. However, the involvement of Tony and Ridley Scott piqued my interest, so I decided to take a calculated risk and give this 2008 A&E Network production a go.
Time is quite literally money in the movie In Time, starring Amanda Seyfried and Justin Timberlake. Written and directed by Andrew Niccol, who previously wrote Gattaca and S1m0ne which both had similar dystopian themes, we are presented with a chilling scenario. What if you had to spend minutes or hours or perhaps days of your life in the same way you spend money? The movie offers a future where the population is genetically programmed to stop aging at twenty-five. If you're rich enough, you can purchase and trade this commodity, adding time to your life, making you effectively immortal. For the poor, the future is a far bleaker with most dying within a year of this hardcoded end date. Every transaction comes with a price in minutes and seconds.
Many years ago, I use to rush home from school to watch Project UFO. Based loosely on the real-life Project Blue Book, this show from 1978 featured two U.S. Air Force investigators, Maj. Jake Gatlin (William Jordan) and Staff Sgt. Harry Fitz (Caskey Swaim) and their subsequent investigation into alleged UFO sightings. Sometimes there would be rational explanations and on other occasions, there was clearly extraterrestrial involvement. By the second season out protagonists experienced a close encounter of their own. It wasn’t the most densely plotted of dramas and was produced and presented in the idiom of mainstream television of the time. However, for a ten-year-old boy it had some excellent miniature work (Brick Price Movie Miniatures) and anything about UFOs was always a source of interest. There was also a great and very seventies theme tune by Nelson Riddle. So when I discovered that History (formerly The History Channel) had produced a science fiction drama series called Project Blue Book, I became somewhat nostalgic and equally intrigued.
Director Steven Soderbergh is no stranger to complex narratives, shot in a near documentary style. And this is exactly this approach that he brings to bear upon Contagion. A movie that beneath its contemporary trappings, still has the air of an all-star disaster movie. Unlike so many current films which suffer from underdeveloped characters due to poor writing, Soderbergh makes conscious decision to focus more upon the mechanics and nature of a global pandemic than the main protagonists. This somewhat detached approach may not be to all viewers liking. But the format starkly scrutinises and catalogues events in an honest fashion and doesn’t shy away from the realities of the situation or get side tracked by the emotional aspects of the ongoing human tragedy.
The unfolding apocalypse and the unseen forces that bring it about are never fully explained in Bird Box. The movies also eschews overblown, CGI driven set pieces and spectacle. The scenario is simply the MacGuffin which director Susanne Bier uses to facilitate her exploration of the angst of motherhood and societal decay. This is superficially a genre movie but it’s mainly about people, performances and ideas. There have been some comparisons to A Quiet Place, but this movie is actually closer to The Mist. The film is at its best during the first act, when setting up its premise and at the start of “the event”. The second act remains above average mainly due to the strength of the cast, as they weather the ongoing storm. The denouement is somewhat functional and is possibly the weakest aspect of the film. Yet, the strength of what has gone before and as ever the robust nature of Sandra Bullock’s performance keeps things on track.
A lot was written about Joe Cornish's Attack the Block upon its release back in May 2011. I'll let you know right now that I have no intention of contradicting the popular consensus. This is an innovative, thoughtful, violent and very British Sci-Fi horror film. The contemporary inner London setting, and urban protagonists provide a very interesting take on a tried and tested subject. Do not be misled by certain journalists who try to make political capital out of claiming that the film endorses hoodie culture. It does not. There is no validation or glamorisation of that kind present. It’s simply an alternative setting for a somewhat formulaic story. As ever the devil is in the detail, which is subsequently supplied in the screenplay.
The Idiot Box
Thoughts on TV shows and my current viewing habits.
I last wrote a blog post in this series back in February 2022. Then for various reasons, I stopped. Possibly because my relationship with TV has changed in recent years. It’s fair to say at present that viewers are spoilt for choice. There are lots of very good shows around. Conversely, there is also a lot of bland, generic, filler as well. I appreciate that not every television series has to be an industry milestone and there are times when I’m content to watch undemanding content. However, I am very protective of how I spend my leisure time at present. I am not prepared to sink 6 or 8 hours into a show that is just “okay”. Hence I’m becoming very particular about what I watch. If something isn’t working for me in any fashion then I just abandon it and am happy to do so.
Thoughts on TV shows and my current viewing habits.
I last wrote a blog post in this series back in February 2022. Then for various reasons, I stopped. Possibly because my relationship with TV has changed in recent years. It’s fair to say at present that viewers are spoilt for choice. There are lots of very good shows around. Conversely, there is also a lot of bland, generic, filler as well. I appreciate that not every television series has to be an industry milestone and there are times when I’m content to watch undemanding content. However, I am very protective of how I spend my leisure time at present. I am not prepared to sink 6 or 8 hours into a show that is just “okay”. Hence I’m becoming very particular about what I watch. If something isn’t working for me in any fashion then I just abandon it and am happy to do so.
NCIS: Origins. The first season of this prequel to NCIS has been a proverbial breath of fresh air. Where NCIS has become a cartoonish caricature of itself, NCIS: Origins is the polar opposite. The characters are well defined, plausible and interesting. The cast is good and the stories are centred around everyday cases, rather than hyperbolic “let’s save the world” scenarios. It really is a case of less is more. Mercifully, CBS have had the sense to renew the show for a second season. As for NCIS, it continues its slow decline, as it gradually morphs from a military police procedural drama into something akin to Murder She Wrote.
Teacup. Loosely based upon the novel Stinger by Robert R. McCammon, Teacup centres around a group of neighbours in rural Georgia who are trapped on a farm and forced to confront a mysterious and deadly threat. As they struggle to survive, they must overcome rising tensions and uncover the truth behind the strange occurrences. Teacup has a strong start and then continues the pace over its subsequent 8 episodes. The shorter 30 minute episode format works to the show’s advantage. There are some solid jump scares and a fair amount of gore. I like the idea of a horror film turned into an episodic TV show but commissioning network Peacock obviously didn’t and cancelled the show.
Dept. Q. Every now and then, someone makes a police procedural drama which takes a different approach to the genre. Based on a series of books by Danish writer Jussi Adler-Olsen, Dept. Q relocates the stories from Copenhagen to Edinburgh. Detective Chief Inspector Carl Morck (Matthew Goode), a disliked but talented detective, returns to police work after being shot and is given a cold case unit to run. It is naturally a “poison chalice”, set up for political reasons. He is assisted by enigmatic, civilian employee Akram (Alexej Manvelov) who may have worked for the Syrian Police prior to moving to Scotland. This nine part Netflix drama is well written, with an involving plot and compelling characters. It doesn’t pull its punches and the language is ripe. Its inherent differences to standard genre fodder is what makes it such good viewing. Akram is also one of the most enigmatic characters I’ve seen in a drama for a while.
Bookish. Set in London after WWII, Bookish is a beautiful distillation of the classic detective and whodunnit genres. Blending Sherlock Holmes, Poirot and Miss Marple (and much more) Bookish is written and stars Mark Gatiss. In lesser hands this could have ended up a rather self congratulatory fan service but, here it is a multifaceted drama that blends the cosy, with the classic detective tropes. It also alludes to wider social commentary, with the lead character, Gabriel Book, being in "lavender marriage” with his wife Trottie. Beautifully shot in both the UK and Belgium and sporting an interesting modern take on period music, Bookish has all the hallmarks of a genuine hit show.
Star Trek: Strange New Worlds. I am very pleased to see this iteration of Star Trek return for a third season. It’s nearly been two years since the last episode was broadcast. Despite being set in a time period where large swathes of the existing, canonical lore can potentially hem the show in, it still manages to innovate and expand in a very creative way. Furthermore it does this without crossing too many lines with its retconning. There are several standout characters, especially Doctor M’Benga, played by the superb Babs Olusanmokun. I am also happy with the return of classic crew members such as Spock and Scotty and the opportunity to explore their past more. I feel this show totally eclipsed Star Trek: Discovery, from which it was a spinoff. I look forward to watching the remainder of the season.
Thoughts on TV shows and my current viewing habits.
I last wrote a blog post in this series back in February 2022. Then for various reasons, I stopped. Possibly because my relationship with TV has changed in recent years. It’s fair to say at present that viewers are spoilt for choice. There are lots of very good shows around. Conversely, there is also a lot of bland, generic, filler as well. I appreciate that not every television series has to be an industry milestone and there are times when I’m content to watch undemanding content. However, I am very protective of how I spend my leisure time at present. I am not prepared to sink 6 or 8 hours into a show that is just “okay”. Hence I’m becoming very particular about what I watch. If something isn’t working for me in any fashion then I just abandon it and am happy to do so.
Thoughts on TV shows and my current viewing habits
Last November, CBS chose not to make season 4 of Star Trek Discovery available on Netflix. Netflix has been the home of this show outside of the US, for the past four years. This is due to Paramount + being launched in Europe sometime in 2022 and CBS wants to keep such a popular franchise on their own streaming platform. Naturally fans were unhappy. Then to add insult to injury CBS pulled all prior seasons of Star Trek Discovery from Netflix. However, due to the negative feedback, a last minute deal was made with Pluto TV; a streaming service which offers 110+ live TV channels on its UK platform and hundreds of on-demand films and TV episodes. It’s a free service supported by adverts and it lacks the polish and presentation of Netflix. I don’t consider it an optimal way to watch a show such as Star Trek Discovery. This is a timely reminder how licensed content can “vanish” from your platform of choice.
Thoughts on TV shows and my current viewing habits.
The last instalment of The Idiot Box was back in March. Since then Mrs P and I have watched several new shows and tried to diversify our viewing. She has had better luck than I. The issue for me is one of narrative complexity and genre saturation. Some popular shows are very straightforward in both their structure and their intellectual scope. A great deal of “police procedurals” fall into this category. The weekly stories essentially come down to “who is the murderer” with a side helping of the protagonist's ongoing “personal life”. I am currently watching the latest season of NCIS and it struck me how little credible investigative work the team now does. In the last episode that I watched, one of the central character’s mother-in-law was witness to a murder on a cruise ship. The plot was contrived, convoluted and more like that of a soap opera. Such content can be fun but it’s somewhat unsatisfying if viewed to excess.
Thoughts on TV shows and my current viewing habits.
Things have not returned to normal here in the UK. The first lockdown ended last July but restrictions remained in place. Then we had lockdown 2.0 in November and are currently enduring a third which started in December. Hence I have watched a great deal more TV than usual and not at the expense of any other leisure activity. Mrs P even went so far as to catch up with 11 seasons of NCIS: Los Angeles. A prodigious feat. As ever there is a great deal of quality TV available to choose from. Thankfully, I am now perfectly comfortable in abandoning any show that doesn't keep me engaged. Hence what I’ve listed are shows that I’ve enjoyed and found entertaining. Furthermore, the extra viewing time I’ve had available has also allowed me to give a few shows a second chance.
Thoughts on TV shows and my current viewing habits.
The last instalment of The Idiot Box was back in February, just before the lockdown started here in the UK. Since then, like so many people, my leisure time has increased dramatically due to being confined at home and the constraints placed upon my real world activities. Hence our household has watched a lot more TV than usual as a means of occupying ourselves. In some respects this has been a boon, being presented with an opportunity to catch up with our viewing. All those miscellaneous programmes that you record on your DVR “for some particular reason” and swear blind that “you’ll get round to watching”, have finally been cleared. I’ve also started working my way through my “to do” list of movies and TV shows that I’m supposed to be reviewing. But there have also been some curious downsides as a result of the quarantine restrictions.
Thoughts on TV shows and my current viewing habits.
The last instalment of Idiot Box was back in September 2019. Despite the Christmas holidays and being very busy in general, I have managed to watch some good TV shows over the last five month. As ever, there has been plenty of quality material to choose from and I still have an ever growing “watchlist” for all the content I cannot currently accommodate. It is interesting to note that most of the shows I watch are via streaming services. Out of the various titles I discuss in this post, only one was viewed via digital terrestrial network television. Furthermore, we started watching an hour after the broadcast commenced, so that we could bypass the commercial breaks. Watching anything in this fashion is my least favourite means of viewing television and because it happens so infrequently, it is quite jarring when it occurs.
Thoughts on TV shows and my current viewing habits.
In August Elementary finally came to an end after seven years. The last season spanned a tighter than usual 13 episodes and introduced a new and very contemporary archnemesis; tech giant Odin Reichenbach (James Frain). Although it can be argued that the story arc was very formulaic, it also drew upon many elements of Conan Doyle’s original stories. Holmes realises that he may have to sacrifice himself to take down a foe and protect those nearest to him. Then there is the issues of his “death”. For many viewers such as myself, the final season wasn’t so much about a clever narrative but simply seeing what happened to all the major cast members. Broadly, it was all very satisfactory. Spoiler Alert. Captain Gregson retired and Marcus remained at the NYPD instead of taking his position with the US Marshal service. Joan finally adopted a child and Morland was killed while trying to broker one of his high-level deals. All story lines were brought to a neat and acceptable end. Furthermore the door was clearly left open for a future revival of the show if required.
Thoughts on TV shows and my current viewing habits.
Our Planet is the first major wildlife documentary to be made by Netflix. Presented and narrated by David Attenborough the series is produced by Silverback Films, who also created BBC documentary series Planet Earth, Frozen Planet and The Blue Planet. As you would expect with such outstanding credentials, Our Planet is a visually impressive, thought provoking exploration of our world’s respective ecosystems and a damning indictment of how we as a species are causing immense damage. If you watch this show and are still in denial afterwards about climate change, then “you need your bumps felt”. The show doesn’t shy away from showing the reality of nature. Something that some viewers struggle to come to terms, due to the ongoing infantilization of our relationship with pets and wild life. Netflix went so far as to produce a list of scenes to skip for the feint hearted. However, the sight of the Walruses plummeting to their death from a cliff was genuinely shocking. However given the nature of the show and its underlying message, this was totally justified.
Thoughts on TV shows and my current viewing habits.
Broadly speaking I think season 2 of Star Trek: Discovery has been an improvement on season1, and I didn’t think that was a dog’s dinner. There were some very good ideas in the first series but it did stray a little too far canonically speaking in both some major and minor aspects of the production. The second season seems to be reining some of these issues in and I love the continuity the writers have shown with Captain Christopher Pike’s back story. There are times when the need to expedite the narrative comes at the expense of character development. For example it would have it would have been nice to have had an extra episode of two to get to know Airiam (Hannah Cheesman) a little better. It would have heightened the emotional impact of her death a little more. But this propensity to rush is hardly unique to Star Trek: Discovery. I am curious to see where the story is going as I like many other viewers suspect this may be an origin story for a major Federation nemesis. We shall have to see. I’m always cautious about plot devices that explain away an “enigma”. There is the risk that you rob it of its narrative potency.
Thoughts on TV shows and my current viewing habits.
Tonight’s season finale of Endeavour was possibly the best episode to date. All the outstanding plot lines were resolved and despite my concerns that a tragedy may occur with regards to one of the central characters, the ending saw the prevailing status quo of previous seasons restored. This series has been exceedingly creative with regard to the subjects and themes it has explored and there have been some exceptional performances from Anton Lesser and Roger Allam. Writer Russell Lewis (a very interesting person in his own right) continues to embellish the proceeding with “metatextuality” which is always a source of joy for me. Recent references to Gordon Murray’s Trumpton, Camberwick Green and Chigley were exceeding droll, yet if the causal viewer missed them, there is still plenty of practical story and historical referencesfor all to get their teeth into. I also thought that the final episodes exploration of a tower block collapse was particularly brave and relevant, considering that the Grenfell Tower Inquiry is still proceeding.
There are many aspects of TV and film that I wish to discuss here on Contains Moderate Peril, but they don’t all require and in-depth post or detailed review. Therefore, it seems practical to create a recurring editorial piece in which I can address these more concise and conversational pieces. Hence you are reading “The Idiot Box” which is my new means to quickly summarise and touch upon what I’m currently watching. Because I do the bulk of my film viewing at home now via VOD and no longer that much at the cinema, this recurring post will deal with movies as well as television. I’ll still be producing long form reviews because I enjoy doing so and they also constitutes a substantial percentage of traffic to this site. This virtual column is more of a “friendly chat” about my viewing habits as well as what’s popular, as you would have with your friends down the pub. So, let us begin with a few thoughts about some of the shows I’m currently enjoying.
Sapphire & Steel (1979-1982)
The seventies was an interesting time for UK genre television. Despite small budgets and often low key visual effects, there was no shortage of good ideas and creativity. Sapphire & Steel is a prime example of a show couched in a high concept, produced on a shoestring. It also credits its audiences with some degree of intelligence. Rather than spoon feeding the narrative in a didactic manner, it hints and implies, then leaves the rest to its viewers imagination. Created by Peter J. Hammond, a veteran TV writer, Sapphire & Steel centres on a pair of interdimensional operatives named Sapphire and Steel. They are two of a number of elements that assume human form. Over the course of three seasons little is revealed about the pair but they appear whenever there is any anomalous temporal activity. Time itself is portrayed as a sentient and malignant force that seeks to make incursions into the present reality, through weaknesses in the fabric of space.
The seventies was an interesting time for UK genre television. Despite small budgets and often low key visual effects, there was no shortage of good ideas and creativity. Sapphire & Steel is a prime example of a show couched in a high concept, produced on a shoestring. It also credits its audiences with some degree of intelligence. Rather than spoon feeding the narrative in a didactic manner, it hints and implies, then leaves the rest to its viewers imagination. Created by Peter J. Hammond, a veteran TV writer, Sapphire & Steel centres on a pair of interdimensional operatives named Sapphire and Steel. They are two of a number of elements that assume human form. Over the course of three seasons little is revealed about the pair but they appear whenever there is any anomalous temporal activity. Time itself is portrayed as a sentient and malignant force that seeks to make incursions into the present reality, through weaknesses in the fabric of space.
Shot on video like many UK TV productions at the time, the main appeal of Sapphire & Steel lies in the thought provoking scripts and the relationship between its two lead characters. Sapphire (Joanna Lumley) is graceful, empathetic and flirtatious in her relationship with Steel (David McCallum). He in turn is somewhat curt and focused. Both can communicate telepathically. Sapphire can discern data from objects such as their age and can also manipulate time, usually backwards for short periods. Steel can lower his body temperature and freeze “ghosts” and any other rogue fragments of time. He also has telekinetic abilities, such as opening locked doors or paralysing people with a look. All these powers are never depicted in a bravura manner, mainly due to the technical limitations of the production. Like so many other aspects of the show, they are done in a subtle manner.
Although most of Peter J. Hammond’s stories are effectively science fiction, many of the recurring plot devices, such as old objects and locations being temporal triggers, imbue the proceedings with a supernatural feel. There are often ghosts which turn out to be time related echoes. Several of the protagonists throughout the three seasons are beings that exist outside of our reality “at the beginning and end of time”. There’s a faceless entity that exists in all photographs and a non-corporeal force called “Darkness” that feeds on human resentment and other negative emotions. Like other shows from this TV era, Sapphire & Steel is often quite sinister and somewhat bleak. Unlike modern shows that frequently feel disposed to champion modern idealistic sensibilities, this one does no such things. Characters die, sometimes unjustly.
The main weakness of Sapphire & Steel is its pacing. TV productions from the seventies and eighties ran at a much slower pace. Each episode is 25 minutes long and the first 2 to 3 minutes of each instalment is a recap of the previous cliffhanger ending. Some of the stories are 8 episodes long and it does feel somewhat dragged out. The fourth story is a near perfect 4 episodes long and it’s a shame more weren’t written so economically. The acting from the support cast is very much of its time. Although it seems a little unfair to criticise the chroma key driven visual effects, they are a weakness when viewed with a contemporary eye. The production both then and now relies heavily on the charisma of its two leads, especially Joanna Lumley who has a natural screen presence. It is interesting to see David McCallum play such a dour character.
Sapphire & Steel has some very interesting recurring themes. It clearly champions modernity and through its various stories, strongly implies metaphorically that clinging to the past is potentially dangerous. This certainly was a subject of wider debate in the UK in the late seventies when the country was in economic decline due to outdated socioeconomic practices. The science fiction elements of the various plots also share themes with those common in the works of writer Nigel Kneale, with malign, energy based, cosmic entities and ghosts that are in fact a curious form of recording, held within the fabric of an environment. The show also shares a similar dark tone to that of Doctor Who from the same era. A sense of decay and a fear of old institutions is present in the scripts.
Despite gaining a loyal audience, Sapphire & Steel was beset with issues that impacted upon its production. Its two main stars’ existing film and TV commitments made the shooting schedule erratic and the commissioning TV company, ATV, was acquired and became Central Independent Television. There was also industrial action during the show’s original run which disrupted its broadcasting. Hence Sapphire & Steel was eventually cancelled, leaving the final story on a cliffhanger ending that has yet to be canonically resolved. It’s a shame because the show had great promise, due to its interesting premise and refusal to simplify itself to gain a wider audience. Sapphire & Steel may still prove entertaining to those who are at ease with material from the same time, such as classic Doctor Who or Blake’s Seven. The original three seasons are currently available on Amazon Prime and on the ITV Retro YouTube channel.
David Koepp is no stranger to genre cinema, having written the screenplay for such films as Jurassic Park, Spider-man and War of the Worlds. Where these titles are big budget, major studio productions, Cold Storage is a far more modest production with a smaller scope. Adapted from his own novel, the screenplay is by David Koepp and the film is directed by British film-maker Jonny Campbell. At first glance, Cold Storage seems a somewhat derivative science fiction horror film with a relatively modest budget, financed through a convoluted US and French co-production. Lurid green and red colours feature heavily in the marketing artwork and it is easy, after a cursory look, to write the film off as cheap, generic, direct-to-streaming filler. However, Cold Storage is prime example of why you should not judge a book by it’s cover, or in this case, a film by its posters and online advertising. It is in fact an amusing and fun endeavour that can fill an evening.
Treasure Island In Outer Space is a curious Italian television production from 1987 starring Anthony Quinn and Ernest Borgnine. It also features numerous international actors better known for their work in cult and exploitation films, such as Bobby Rhodes, David Warbeck and John Morghan. Directed by Antonio Margheriti (AKA Anthony Dawson), famous for such films as Killer Fish (a cash in on Piranha) and The Last Hunter (a Vietnam exploitation epic), Treasure Island In Outer Space is a faithful adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson’s classic novel. The screenplay by Renato Castellani and Lucio De Caro draws heavily from the source text, maintaining character names and original dialogue. However in updating the material to a futuristic setting, the script is littered with the worst kind of eighties sci-fi clichés. We are subjected to sonic trains, anti-gravity rays and the usual buzzword driven faux science.
After the success of Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981, filmmakers scrambled to find existing intellectual properties that they could use for similar films. Hence archaic heroes such as Alan Quatermain were hastily given a modern makeover and thrust into generic movies, in a vague attempt to replicate Steven Spielberg’s successful formula. Which brings us neatly on to James Charles Bigglesworth AKA “Biggles”, a fictional pilot and adventurer from a series of books written by W. E. Johns between 1932 and 1968. Several attempts had been made in the past to bring this character to the silver screen, including one by Disney but they all failed. However, the commercial and critical success of Indiana Jones provided sufficient impetus to greenlight a new film. However, due to some curious production choices, when Biggles was finally released it was far from just a period set, action movie.
The seventies was an interesting time for UK genre television. Despite small budgets and often low key visual effects, there was no shortage of good ideas and creativity. Sapphire & Steel is a prime example of a show couched in a high concept, produced on a shoestring. It also credits its audiences with some degree of intelligence. Rather than spoon feeding the narrative in a didactic manner, it hints and implies, then leaves the rest to its viewers imagination. Created by Peter J. Hammond, a veteran TV writer, Sapphire & Steel centres on a pair of interdimensional operatives named Sapphire and Steel. They are two of a number of elements that assume human form. Over the course of three seasons little is revealed about the pair but they appear whenever there is any anomalous temporal activity. Time itself is portrayed as a sentient and malignant force that seeks to make incursions into the present reality, through weaknesses in the fabric of space.
The Humanoid is one of many international Star Wars knock-offs that flooded cinemas in the late seventies and early eighties. Like so many others, it is derivative (even to the extent of replicating specific scenes from George Lucas’ movie), replete with awful dialogue and has somewhat basic production values. However, it does have an interesting cast including Richard Kiel, Barbara Bach, Arthur Kennedy and Corinne Cléry. Kiel gained a lot of media attention after his appearance as the steel-toothed villain Jaws in the 1977 Bond film, The Spy Who Loved Me. His stature made him the perfect fit for the titular character in this Italian science fiction production. Sadly, beyond a curious lineup of actors, The Humanoid has little to distinguish it from so many similar movies. For example, if you’ve seen Starcrash then you’ll be adequately prepared for this film.
Some films are made with the intention of starting a franchise, others evolve into one after a surprise box office success and lucrative sequels. Alien (1979) falls into the latter category. A mid-budget science fiction horror film that was well crafted and then benefited immensely by being released at just the right time. Sadly, many franchises become derailed and enter into a death spiral due to competing artistic visions, cynical studio politics and cinematic ignorance. This has certainly afflicted all subsequent Alien films after James Cameron’s magnificent Aliens (1986). Sometimes, a franchise can correct its course and do something fresh with the source material. Prey (2022) is a fine example of this with director Dan Trachtenberg bringing fresh vigour and intelligence back to the Predator movies. I believe that was the intention with Alien Romulus (2024). Sadly, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Event Horizon is a curious movie hybrid, mixing plot elements from classic sci-fi and horror genres. It has been labelled “Hellraiser in Space” by some lazy critics, although I think there's far more to it than that. Perhaps a more apt description would be a Gothic horror story set in space. The movie has garnered a cult reputation since its release in 1997, mainly due to its graphic imagery and troubled production history. It does indeed have some quite shocking sequences but the lightning editing does not show as much as some would think. Paramount forced director Paul W S Anderson to reduce the original one hundred and thirty minute running time down to a more manageable ninety, after unfavourable test screenings. Much of the violence was allegedly removed as a result of that process. Sadly nothing survives of the removed material other than a VHS workprint. Hence a restored director’s cut is therefore unlikely.
I recently watched the first trailer for the new Obi-Wan Kenobi television show that is premiering on Disney + in May. I am interested in this latest instalment in the Star Wars franchise and curious as to whether Liam Neeson will make an appearance. I also watched a 20 minute fan video in which they “analysed” the entire trailer. They discussed the content of this 2 minute preview and then did a great deal of speculating about potential themes and characters that may feature in the show. They were clearly enthusiastic about what they had seen and were very knowledgeable about the subject. This resonated with me, as I like to be well versed about the things I enjoy. However, it is worth remembering that fandom can tip into obsession and gatekeeping. Hence I feel there is a subject to explore here.
On paper Finch has little originality. The moment I read the plot synopsis and saw the first trailer I instantly thought of other such films as Silent Running, Short Circuit and Chappie. However, irrespective of its derivative concept and the fact it channels many of the major tropes of the genre, it does have three cards to play. Namely strong performances by Tom Hanks, Caleb Landry Jones and canine actor Seamus. Although not a genre milestone, Finch is a curiously pleasant post apocalyptic road movie. Despite travelling through the sun bleached vistas of a ravaged America, the story focuses on the three protagonists and their relationship. It is no small feat to find genuine sentiment in such a harsh environment and indeed in such a genre but Finch proves to be an engaging emotional journey. Once again the most effective explorations of the human condition are often through characters who are conspicuously not.
I wanted to watch Source Code for a second time before I wrote about it. This is because numerous internet debates have arisen regarding the plausibility of the film’s ending. I find this a somewhat curious stance considering that the story, written by Ben Ripley, deals with temporal travel and multiple timelines. All of which are purely theoretical and not currently subject to singular, definitive interpretations. I would further add that the science of the film is simply a plot device and is not its raison d'être. But that’s movies for you. People love to discuss them and more recently we have seen the rise of “explanation” videos on YouTube. However, the latter is a separate debate and something I may write about in the future. As for Source Code, I enjoyed it even more the second time round, as I had the time to focus on the minor details rather than trying to stay abreast with the main plot, as I did on my first viewing.
I revisited M Night Shyamalan's The Happening recently to try and determine whether he is indeed suffering from Orson Welles syndrome. IE that he has made all his best work at the beginning of his career. Because he’s never quite recaptured the critical or artistic success of The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs. I was one of the few that actually liked The Lady in The water but I could see why viewers would assume that he had become a victim of his own style and technique with that particular movie. Casting yourself as an author whose work will reshape society and change the course of history is at the very least, a little egotistical and at worst an act of immense hubris. Then in recent years we have had The Last Airbender and After Earth, both of which have performed poorly. However I thought I'd give The Happening another chance as it remains the directors only R rated movie to date.
I wrote an article back in 2009 as to why I felt a remake of The Thing was a bad idea. At that time, the project was in development hell and didn’t look like getting off the ground. Subsequently, the production evolved into a prequel and managed to find financial support, culminating in a theatrical release in late 2011. Like many interested parties, I watched the initial teaser trailer with a mixture of curiosity and trepidation. Then when the red band trailer arrived I felt that the shark was well and truly jumped. Too much was shown (a common problem with modern trailers) and there the internet was awash with discontented mutterings from John Carpenter purists. Hence I refrained from watching this movie for several years. When I finally got round to doing so, I was not well disposed towards it. However, over the Christmas holidays, I decide to give this prequel a second viewing and see if I could approach it with a less partisan mindset.
Cloverfield (2008) was a surprise hit, earning $172 million worldwide at the box office against a $25 million budget. Paramount Pictures naturally wanted a sequel but director Matt Reeves and writer Drew Goddard struggled to find a suitable narrative means to progress the original story. Both eventually left the project and the production descended into development hell. The subsequent success of Godzilla and Pacific Rim saw the Kaiju genre becoming oversaturated and so the decision to make a direct sequel was re-evaluated. Eventually a “speculative screenplay” called The Cellar was purchased and repurposed to include some additional science fiction elements and became 10 Cloverfield Lane. Despite being a curious genre hybrid which only tenuously links to the original movie, this too fared well at the box office. Therefore it was inevitable that a third movie in the so-called “Cloververse” would follow.
In many ways the story behind The McPherson Tape is a lot more interesting than the film itself. This early found footage movie from 1989, was shot on home video on a virtually non-existent budget. The director Dean Alioto eventually found a distributor but on the eve of the movie’s home video release, the warehouse burned down and allegedly destroyed the master tape and all the promotional artwork. Yet this was not the end of the story. It was common practice in the eighties for small distributors to send advance copies to local independent video stores. Hence The McPherson Tape found its way into the pirate video ecosystem. It then migrated to the UFO community where it was circulated as being a video of a legitimate alien abduction. Dean found himself in the unusual position of having to debunk his own work. Three decades later due to the intriguing tale associated with The McPherson Tape, it has been remastered from the newly rediscovered 3/4" tape and re-released.
Last month, I tried a 30 day free trial of the streaming service BritBox. One of the main selling points was that the platform has an extensive back catalogue of Classic Doctor Who. Although I initially tried to keep up with the reboot of the franchise in 2005 my interest waned after several seasons. I am not opposed to any of the changes made and I am very pleased that the show has found a new audience. However, it doesn’t resonate with me so much anymore and I find that there is too much human drama for my liking. So I decided to revisit my youth and watch some classic Doctor Who; episodes that I haven’t seen in over forty years (yes, I’m that old). Now I’m fully aware of the potential issues that can come from returning to things that you enjoyed in one’s youth, so I believe I did my best in managing my expectations. However, the results of my nostalgia trip were interesting. The things I thought would be a problem nowadays weren’t so and the things I expected to hold up well despite the passage of time, didn’t always succeed. It’s been a curious experience.
I was 12 years old when I first saw Battle Beyond the Stars during its UK theatrical release. I remember that I enjoyed it and thought it was an action packed movie. Being young, lacking the critical faculties that come with age and exposure to a wider variety of cinematic material, a lot of the films plus points were lost on me. I recollect that I did pick up on the fact that this film was more ghoulish than the other “Space Operas” that flooded theatres at the time. But beyond that, all I saw was a fun and enjoyable science fiction movie. I cheered when the Malmori were defeated and was saddened when Space Cowboy died. It is only after subsequent viewing over the years, that I’ve realised that this film is a microcosm of all the things that made Roger Corman productions so successful and unique. Despite its low budget, the visual effects were good and innovative for the times. There was more sex and violence present, than in comparable productions. And the crew is a veritable who’s who of talent that went on to wider success.
Contrary to the endorsement on the above poster, Riddick was not "the most entertaining action movie of the year" in 2013. It was just an adequate third instalment in a rather ambitious franchise, that has failed to grab the wider public's attention. That’s not to say that they didn’t make money. This is after all the third movie. Writer and Director David Twohy has done his best to try and make the character of Riddick (Vin Diesel) more than the sum of his parts and I admire both of them for their persistence. Unfortunately, Riddick just isn't engaging or complicated enough a protagonist to sustain a franchise of this nature. The anti-hero was sufficient to drive the original Pitch Black back in 2000 which had some good ideas but just couldn't sustain the overarching and overblown Chronicles of Riddick in 2004. This instalment is competently made but ultimately superfluous.
Sequels and reboots are hardly a new concept and have been a part of Hollywood culture since the 1930s. The success of the Universal Horror movies from that era being a prime example of direct follow ups and retconned movies. However, there is one fundamental rule that distinguishes a good sequel from a bad one. You should never mitigate, undermine or make irrelevant the events of the previous movie, just to provide your new film with a raison d'être. For example, the events of Aliens do not contradict or trivialise those that happened in Alien. In fact with that franchise there is a very clear logical progression between the two movies. The same is true for Mad Max and Mad Max 2 or Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. The key is to progress a story, enhance it or explore things from an alternative angle and bring something new to the cinematic table. Sadly this philosophy is all too often lost on corporate film making. Which means that many sequels are just tedious replays of prior films. Terminator: Dark Fate falls squarely into this category.
In the near future, a series of mysterious power surges strike the Solar System, endangering all human life. Astronaut Major Roy McBride, is selected by U.S. Space Command (SpaceCom) to investigate their source near Neptune. The surges are linked to the "Lima Project", a failed experiment from 26 years earlier, that was intended to search for intelligent life outside of our solar system. The ship’s antimatter drive is potentially malfunctioning and responsible for the energy surges. Roy’s investigation is further complicated by the fact his Father H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones), led the "Lima Project" and has not been heard from for 16 years after reaching Neptune. Having been told that Clifford may still be alive, Roy is joined by his father's old associate Colonel Pruitt (Donald Sutherland) whose loyalties remain ambiguous. Roy, who is noted for remaining calm under pressure, shows little emotional reaction to the news about his Father. As he and Pruitt travel covertly from Earth, to the moon and then onto Mars, it becomes clear that there is more to the mission than meets the eye. Will Roy remain emotionally detached or will old wounds impair his judgement?
I was very surprised when I saw a trailer for a fourth instalment on the MiB franchise, based on Lowell Cunningham’s 1990 comic book series about secret government agents battling alien infiltration of earth. The third movie from 2012 managed to keep its head above water despite a very troubled production. At the time of its release, I like everyone else, pretty much thought that the series had run its course. Yet we live in the age of belated sequels as well as hard and soft reboots. And although Will Smith’s star may well be waning, Chris Hemsworth is still box office gold. Hence, we saw the release of Men in Black: International this summer. The basic concept of the franchise remains the same but this time the action begins in the London Office and then takes a more international journey with such locations as Marrakesh and Naples. Emma Thompson returns as Agent O and Liam Neeson joins the cast as agent High T.
The original Men in Black movie hit our screens back in 1997. It was a box office success and was therefore followed by a mediocre sequel in 2002. It took a decade before we got a third instalment in the franchise. However, the popularity of the two lead actors contributed greatly to the success of this series and so despite well documented production problems Men in Black III was released in 2012. However, the delay between movies did have consequences. Will Smith, despite being an Oscar winner and box office star, had lost his way during this time and was not as popular with audiences. Men in Black III was a timely opportunity to reconnect with his core fans. So to ensure that the film hit all the required beats and stand a better chance of being a success, the Columbia Pictures brought back previous director Barry Sonnenfeld, in hopes of warding off the Hollywood curse of third movie instalments.
Fellow blogger and all round good guy Murf, posted an ode to Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure today. It is clearly a movie that he enjoys (Go read his review). He references how due to this movie (along with others), as well as being a decent person in real life, that actor Keanu Reeves enjoys a great deal of goodwill from fans and pop culture cognoscenti. Which is a good thing for Mr Reeves, because goodwill often means that folk are prepared to overlook past transgressions and misdemeanours. And in cinematic terms, Keanu has had a few. The Day the Earth Stood Still is definitely one of them. Now I’ve questioned before the wisdom and merits of writing a predominantly negative film review and believe me my thoughts on The Day the Earth Stood Still are most definitely so. However, I think that something positive can still be gained from scrutinising this film. It can be held up as a textbook example of how not to remake a classic.
Every now and then, a mainstream film studio employs an artisan director to helm some sort of experimental or vanity project. The studio executives often have very little understanding of the film maker or their body of work, beyond that their artistically respected by their peers. Hence there is the corporate hope that the resulting production will be both critically acclaimed and financially successful. However, what all too often happens is that the said director goes off and indulges themselves, or simply does what they’re hired to do and delivers a finished picture that is beyond the intellectual horizons of the studio. Sphincter’s subsequently tighten among executives; the director is denied final cut and the film is taken a way and re-edited in the hope of rendering it more commercially viable. In the worse cases, a second director is brought onboard and new material shot in the hope of “saving” the picture. The net result is usually acrimony among all involved parties and a film that fails to make its money back at the box office.
For anyone with a passing interest in literary science fiction, Arthur C. Clarke’s Childhood’s End is a seminal novel and considered an essential read. The story of humanity being shepherded into a utopian golden age by allegedly benevolent alien Overlords and the consequences it has upon society, was a radical departure from prevailing science fiction norms of the time. Over the years several film makers have expressed interest in adapting the story, but it has proven difficult to come to grips with. Stanley Kubrick initially wished to develop the novel but his subsequent collaboration with the author eventually lead to the making of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Since then there have been radio adaptations and audiobook versions, all of which seem to be a better medium for this episodic and contemplative tale. In late 2015 US cable and satellite channel Syfy broadcast a three-part miniseries based upon the 1953 story; something that past me by at the time. I recently caught up with this adaptation which seems to have provoked very mixed reactions among viewers. As ever, the controversy seems to stem from purists who favour a more slavish interpretation of the book.
I always cringe when I hear the phrase re-imagining. It's yet another contrived expression created by marketing bodies to justify the somewhat arbitrary process of remaking an established title. Often the re-imagined product has little to do with the source material and was chosen simply because of brand awareness. If you want a textbook example of a recent example of this somewhat cynical process then look no further than last year’s Death Wish reboot. It had nothing new to say on the subject and simply trotted out a generic and bland revenge thriller. So, when I discovered that Robert Wise's classic science fiction film, The Andromeda Strain had been remade as a TV miniseries (that had completely passed me by), I had great reservations as to whether this would be worth watching. However, the involvement of Tony and Ridley Scott piqued my interest, so I decided to take a calculated risk and give this 2008 A&E Network production a go.
Time is quite literally money in the movie In Time, starring Amanda Seyfried and Justin Timberlake. Written and directed by Andrew Niccol, who previously wrote Gattaca and S1m0ne which both had similar dystopian themes, we are presented with a chilling scenario. What if you had to spend minutes or hours or perhaps days of your life in the same way you spend money? The movie offers a future where the population is genetically programmed to stop aging at twenty-five. If you're rich enough, you can purchase and trade this commodity, adding time to your life, making you effectively immortal. For the poor, the future is a far bleaker with most dying within a year of this hardcoded end date. Every transaction comes with a price in minutes and seconds.
Many years ago, I use to rush home from school to watch Project UFO. Based loosely on the real-life Project Blue Book, this show from 1978 featured two U.S. Air Force investigators, Maj. Jake Gatlin (William Jordan) and Staff Sgt. Harry Fitz (Caskey Swaim) and their subsequent investigation into alleged UFO sightings. Sometimes there would be rational explanations and on other occasions, there was clearly extraterrestrial involvement. By the second season out protagonists experienced a close encounter of their own. It wasn’t the most densely plotted of dramas and was produced and presented in the idiom of mainstream television of the time. However, for a ten-year-old boy it had some excellent miniature work (Brick Price Movie Miniatures) and anything about UFOs was always a source of interest. There was also a great and very seventies theme tune by Nelson Riddle. So when I discovered that History (formerly The History Channel) had produced a science fiction drama series called Project Blue Book, I became somewhat nostalgic and equally intrigued.
Director Steven Soderbergh is no stranger to complex narratives, shot in a near documentary style. And this is exactly this approach that he brings to bear upon Contagion. A movie that beneath its contemporary trappings, still has the air of an all-star disaster movie. Unlike so many current films which suffer from underdeveloped characters due to poor writing, Soderbergh makes conscious decision to focus more upon the mechanics and nature of a global pandemic than the main protagonists. This somewhat detached approach may not be to all viewers liking. But the format starkly scrutinises and catalogues events in an honest fashion and doesn’t shy away from the realities of the situation or get side tracked by the emotional aspects of the ongoing human tragedy.
The unfolding apocalypse and the unseen forces that bring it about are never fully explained in Bird Box. The movies also eschews overblown, CGI driven set pieces and spectacle. The scenario is simply the MacGuffin which director Susanne Bier uses to facilitate her exploration of the angst of motherhood and societal decay. This is superficially a genre movie but it’s mainly about people, performances and ideas. There have been some comparisons to A Quiet Place, but this movie is actually closer to The Mist. The film is at its best during the first act, when setting up its premise and at the start of “the event”. The second act remains above average mainly due to the strength of the cast, as they weather the ongoing storm. The denouement is somewhat functional and is possibly the weakest aspect of the film. Yet, the strength of what has gone before and as ever the robust nature of Sandra Bullock’s performance keeps things on track.
A lot was written about Joe Cornish's Attack the Block upon its release back in May 2011. I'll let you know right now that I have no intention of contradicting the popular consensus. This is an innovative, thoughtful, violent and very British Sci-Fi horror film. The contemporary inner London setting, and urban protagonists provide a very interesting take on a tried and tested subject. Do not be misled by certain journalists who try to make political capital out of claiming that the film endorses hoodie culture. It does not. There is no validation or glamorisation of that kind present. It’s simply an alternative setting for a somewhat formulaic story. As ever the devil is in the detail, which is subsequently supplied in the screenplay.
Thoughts on Andor
Season 2 of Andor has received praise from both critics and fans alike. It finally seems to have put to bed the common argument that Star Wars as a franchise has traditionally been light on narrative depth, character development and the exploration of the themes that its main story is predicated upon. Andor shows the realities of opposing authoritarian regimes and exists within shades of grey, rather than purille, binary positions. Many have drawn parallels with the current state of geopolitics, especially that of the United States. I certainly found the second season of Andor to be engaging and thought provoking. I also enjoyed the performances of many of the British actors who by default are cast in all the major Empire roles. I thought Anton Lesser was especially noteworthy as a senior officer in the Imperial Security Bureau.
Season 2 of Andor has received praise from both critics and fans alike. It finally seems to have put to bed the common argument that Star Wars as a franchise has traditionally been light on narrative depth, character development and the exploration of the themes that its main story is predicated upon. Andor shows the realities of opposing authoritarian regimes and exists within shades of grey, rather than purille, binary positions. Many have drawn parallels with the current state of geopolitics, especially that of the United States. I certainly found the second season of Andor to be engaging and thought provoking. I also enjoyed the performances of many of the British actors who by default are cast in all the major Empire roles. I thought Anton Lesser was especially noteworthy as a senior officer in the Imperial Security Bureau.
Setting aside for a moment the praise for Andor, I do think there is a rather interesting fact that has contributed to the show’s mainstream and critical success. For this iteration of Star Wars to be embraced by a wider and possibly more cerebral audience, it appears to have shed many of the science fantasy tropes that have been integral to the franchise’s appeal for decades. Namely, the Jedi Knights, the Sith and the force. Andor leans into the technological aesthetic that is synonymous with Star Wars but ignores the quasi religious presence of the Jedi and the Sith. Their theological battles are conspicuously absent. What you are left with is a clever parable about an authoritarian regime, and the resistance against it. Although very entertaining Andor is far more akin to the BBC show Secret Army from 1977, than being just more Star Wars. There are also shades of John le Carré.
George Lucas dealt in clear archetypes and the medium of high adventure when he conceived and originally wrote Star Wars. I don’t believe he ever intended the source material to be anything more than “modern legends”. A vehicle for traditional morality tales. I do not doubt that he drew upon contemporary sociopolitical events for inspiration but I in no way think that Star Wars was intended to be a indepth exploration of them. Which is why Andor is such a different beast. It is a good show but it is effectively using the aesthetic and lore of Star Wars to pitch to an alternative audience and in a very different way. Just as Christopher Nolan’s Batman films took a stylised property with a broad spectrum of prior interpretations and crashed it headlong into “reality”. Andor is very much Star Wars evolved. However, will that ongoing process eventually be to the detriment of the original content?
There has been a resurgence of people playing Star Wars Battlefront II recently. Possibly because the game was discounted on many outlets on May 4th and may be due to the success of Andor season 2. There’s a lot more people streaming it as well as videos on YouTube. Whatever the reason, it is always good to see a deserving game enjoying a renaissance. Star Wars Battlefront II was blighted at launch, back in November 2017 by some egregious business decisions and it took nearly a year for the game to recover from the negative publicity and player animosity. Setting this historical debacle aside for one moment, there was always a handsome and engaging game to be found. One that used the licensed intellectual property well. Which is why I recently reinstalled the game and resumed playing its multiplayer mode.
Season 2 of Andor has received praise from both critics and fans alike. It finally seems to have put to bed the common argument that Star Wars as a franchise has traditionally been light on narrative depth, character development and the exploration of the themes that its main story is predicated upon. Andor shows the realities of opposing authoritarian regimes and exists within shades of grey, rather than purille, binary positions. Many have drawn parallels with the current state of geopolitics, especially that of the United States. I certainly found the second season of Andor to be engaging and thought provoking. I also enjoyed the performances of many of the British actors who by default are cast in all the major Empire roles. I thought Anton Lesser was especially noteworthy as a senior officer in the Imperial Security Bureau.
We all knew it had to happen sooner or later. According to reports, Lucasfilm is planning to reduce its Star Wars related output on Disney+. Specifically, from 2025 there will be only one live-action television series per year. For comparison, Disney+ commissioned three shows in 2022 and two shows in both 2023 and 2024. It should be noted that this reduced output doesn’t include animated shows. It would appear that senior management at Disney have finally figured out something most of us have known for a while. That saturating the market with content based upon a specific intellectual property, is ultimately detrimental to its popularity and financial viability. To use an old adage “familiarity breeds contempt”. At present, hardcore fans are “unhappy” with the way the IP is being developed, while casual fans are somewhat burned out by the excess of content and its varying quality.
Andor is not like other entries in the Star Wars canon. It explores the human, social and political consequences of rebelling against an oppressive, totalitarian regime. The writing is intelligent and well observed, choosing to focus on the average citizens of the Empire and the nature of their daily lives. Andor also explores the ineffectual politicians and the way the senate are self serving and ultimately impotent. The Emperor is remote and instead we see how Imperial colonialism works at a grassroots level. It is an all too familiar depiction, born out of historical fact, such as Vichy France during World War II. Petty thugs and aspiring psychopaths happily align themselves with their Imperial overlords and actively oppress their own people. As for the Empire, and in particular the ISB (Imperial Security Bureau) it is rife with infighting, personal fiefdoms and all the flaws of similar institutions from the real world.
I recently watched the first trailer for the new Obi-Wan Kenobi television show that is premiering on Disney + in May. I am interested in this latest instalment in the Star Wars franchise and curious as to whether Liam Neeson will make an appearance. I also watched a 20 minute fan video in which they “analysed” the entire trailer. They discussed the content of this 2 minute preview and then did a great deal of speculating about potential themes and characters that may feature in the show. They were clearly enthusiastic about what they had seen and were very knowledgeable about the subject. This resonated with me, as I like to be well versed about the things I enjoy. However, it is worth remembering that fandom can tip into obsession and gatekeeping. Hence I feel there is a subject to explore here.
As of today, the final episode of The Book of Boba Fett has aired on Disney + and this spinoff show from The Mandalorian has finished its first season. It has been a curious seven part story and not at all what I was expecting. Initially focusing upon the trials and tribulations of the iconic Bounty Hunter Boba Fett as he fights for Jabba the Hutt’s former territory, the story creatively explained what happened to him after he was swallowed by the Sarlacc. However, the plot took an unexpected turn focusing upon the fate of Din Djarin and Grogu from The Mandalorian, before the climatic final instalment. It’s certainly been an entertaining ride but the show’s somewhat eclectic nature has been a little confusing. Having a dedicated story about Boba Fett and then undermining it by focusing upon other iconic characters seems somewhat contradictory. Thankfully, the final episode put both shows back on track.
In my youth, I took my fandom very seriously. I would brook no criticism of the various objects of my affection. I would robustly defend them in lengthy forum comments, filled with the sort of detail and lack of self awareness that only an ardent fan can bring to bear. Nowadays, it’s a different story altogether (insert Airplane gag here). I still enjoy Thunderbirds, Star Trek, The Lord of the Rings but I do not consider them unassailable, sacred cows. If other’s scorn them, that is their prerogative. Age not only brings you more keys and things that require charging, it also grants the realisation that it doesn’t matter what others think. Furthermore, reboots, reimaginings and revivals cannot harm your memories or “ruin your childhood”. Has Gus Van Sant’s ill conceived 1998 remake of Psycho harmed in any way Hitchcock’s classic original. Any answer other than “no” is at the least spurious and at worst naval gazing bullshit, served on a platter of hyperbole and attention seeking.
Over the years, I have had what I would describe as an ever diminishing relationship with Star Wars as a franchise. I grew up with the original trilogy, seeing them all when they were originally released. Those three films were a wonderful, self-contained story. I also broadly enjoyed aspects of the Expanded Universe, as it was confined to other mediums such as books or comics. Hence it was an optional extra, as it were. Sadly, over the years, the additional film trilogies proved to be inferior products that suffered under the weight of their own ever expanding lore. The fetishisation of the hardware, actions scenes and overall aesthetic by both the filmmakers and the fans, came at the expense of good narrative content and character development. The one film that tried to take the franchise in a more mature and thoughtful direction, The Last Jedi, proved controversial and divisive. Overall it was the animated TV show Rebels that best showed an understanding of the franchise.
Two years ago The Last Jedi was released to mixed reviews. A vocal percentage of fans complained bitterly about various aspects of the movie. Some of their assertions such as the episodic pacing of parts of the story had merit. While other criticisms regarding diversity and gender categorically did not. However, Disney were cognisant of the fact that Star Wars fans were not universally enthralled by the movie although it turned a healthy profit. And then the following Easter Solo “underperformed” at the box office and journalists started talking about how the franchise had overreached itself and was in decline. Alarm bells obviously went off at board level and something had to be done. It would appear that The Rise of Skywalker is very much a movie designed to put the franchise back on track and wrap up the narrative proceedings of the last 42 years. However, there is a cost in offering such a colossal “fan service”. The latest instalment starts at a breakneck pace and continues in that idiom for over two hours. Action scenes, canonical references and homages are piled on, one after another. But narratively things are somewhat thin, recycling ideas and concepts from earlier movies. Some of the plot devices are never explained and therefore seem somewhat contrived. The Rise of Skywalker is most certainly entertaining. But it requires its core audience to be forgiving and to a degree complicit in its indulgences and failings.
I will try and keep this post as brief as possible because rants and tirades aren’t as funny as many writers think they are. Rather than “frothing at the mouth” I think a more accurate description of my feelings can be summed up just by a deep sigh and a shake of the head. So, where to begin? Well during the course of the day, several memes, humorous quips and oblique references appeared in my Twitter timeline featuring the phrase “Maclunkey”. As the joke didn’t immediately become apparent and I couldn’t reference the phrase (I initially thought it was about the band Mclusky) I took to Google to find out what this was all about. I like to keep abreast as to what are the current talking points online and I don’t want to be that old guy who doesn’t understand “the kids of today” or “that there interweb”. Fortunately, a brief internet search provided a clear answer. I shall now attempt to distil the relevant facts for the benefit of those who are still in the dark.
Peter Mayhew was working as an Orderly in the radiology department of King's College Hospital, London in 1976 when he was “discovered” by George Lucas. Lucas was looking to find someone suitably tall to play the Wookie Chewbacca in Star Wars. Legend has it that Mayhew simply stood up from his seat to great Lucas and immediately clinched the part. The rest they say is history. Peter Mayhew went on to play the role in another five movies, and despite not gaining the immediate fame of regular actors, became a firm favourite among fans at conventions. He was also held in very high regard by his professional acting peers. As for the role of Chewbacca, he made it his own and approached the character seriously and with genuine love. Despite a lack of conventional dialogue, Mayhew imbued Chewbacca with a personality and a distinctive sense of style. No mean achievement for a man who never intended for any of this to happen.
I was perusing the net recently and came across a story about how a Star Wars fan film that had built up a head of steam online, has been slapped with a copyright strike from Disney. Nothing unusual there as the company is virtually legendary with respect to its litigious proclivities. However, someone over a Lucasfilm interceded and got the strike lifted, because the fan film creator had allegedly sought prior permission and supposedly received it. George Lucas has always maintained an equitable attitude towards fan usage of the Star Wars IP, something he tried to impress upon Disney when he sold the rights to them back in 2012. But it is very difficult to have a balanced discussion about George Lucas as the man is such a paradox. On one hand he is possibly one of the greatest contributors to twentieth century pop culture and has influenced a generation of film makers, writers and fans. On the other he is the man who single headedly has managed to queer his own pitch, with the way he has continuously tinkered with his body of work and appended it with supplemental material that many deemed substandard or to the detriment of the original. He is also still vilified in some quarters for his business arrangement with Disney.
Naïve (adjective): (of a person or action) showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgement. I have chosen this word over delusional, foolish or puerile in an attempt to keep this post measured and level headed. Because this is a discussion about fandom and it’s a subject that is seldom driven by cool, even handed, mature reflection. Fandom is about passion, strong emotional connections and a sense of community. These can be and often are positive things. Yet fandom can also be about myopia, zealotry and gate-keeping. Something that that is supposed to bring people together can degenerate into a “them and us” scenario. Just another binary, tribal, world view that screams at anyone or anything that is not “the same”. And in recent years, due to the internet and social media, fandom has now developed an erroneous sense of ownership. By loving something and venerating it, you (allegedly) have an inherent stake in it and a right to say how it evolves. Which leads me neatly on to “Remake the Last Jedi” movement and the staggering naivety that underpins it.
Star Wars Begins is a detailed documentary by film maker Jamie Benning that explores the creation of what is now considered to be the most iconic movie of the seventies; namely Star Wars. It features a wealth of deleted scenes, alternate takes, behind-the-scenes footage, bloopers, original on set audio recordings and a great deal of commentary by the original cast and crew. As far as I’m concerned, it is the most thorough and in-depth analysis of Star Wars I have yet to see. Frankly it beats hands down, any of the officially sanctioned documentaries that have appeared over the year on the various DVD and Blu-ray releases of the trilogy.
Certain groups just lend themselves to ridicule from the media and in popular culture in general, irrespective of whether they deserve it or not. Star Wars fans are a prime example of this. Their love of the lore, predilection for cosplay and hunger for collectables at first glance makes them an easy target. Film maker Mark Edlitz, takes a decidedly different approach in his documentary Jedi Junkies. Instead of finger-pointing and making cheap jokes, Jedi Junkies puts a very human face on a group of enthusiasts, showing their passion to be in essence, no different to that of sports fans or other more mainstream hobbies and pastimes.
Star Wars has always been about high adventure. The franchise has been outstanding in its creative vision, as well as eminently enjoyable but it has never been as deep as some of the themes and ideas that it has touched upon. George Lucas tried to provide a more complex narrative with his prequels, but it became lost in the clumsy screenplays. Instead of creating political intrigue and complexity, it all seemed somewhat incoherent and naive. Finally, Star Wars: The Last Jedi manages to achieve something that we saw briefly in Episode V. Thematic depth. The latest movie takes a franchise that has primarily been about spectacle as well as entertainment and re-invigorates it with a far greater narrative scope. There are real performances from Mark Hamill and Adam Driver, as well as complex philosophical musings on weighty themes. Finally, Star Wars like a fine wine, has matured and can now provide fans with a more substantial and nuanced story. Simply put, Star Wars has grown up and hence forward it can be more than just a space opera.
On the eve of the launch of Star Wars Battlefront II last Friday, DICE General Manager Oskar Garbrielson released a statement stating that paid microtransactions were to be disabled in the game for the immediate future. It was a major reverse of policy after several weeks of increasing debate and acrimony about the subject from Star Wars fans and wider gamers. It has now come to light that the decision was due to pressure from the rights holders themselves. Disney Head of Consumer Products and Interactive Media Jimmy Pitaro is apparently the driving force behind this U-turn. Naturally with a major movie release only weeks away and the prospect of huge merchandise sales over the holiday season, no one at Disney wanted to see a media circus that could impact upon their bottom line. What happens in the new year when the controversy has died down and the movie leaves the cinemas, remains to be seen. I suspect we have not seen the back of the loot crate issue but for the meantime the problem has been side-lined.
Back in 2008, I discovered a fan edit of George A. Romero’s iconic Dawn of The Dead and was very impressed with the way that enthusiasts can now re-edit and re-imagine any film of their choice, using commonly available tools. I subsequently spent some time looking into this entire sub-genre further and found that one of the most popular franchises to be fan edited was naturally Star Wars. One of the first fans edits of this kind I watched was a "Grindhouse" version of A New Hope that had been retitled The War of The Stars. It was fun and tried to be different but overall it was simply an amusing diversion. Something that could viewed as a in joke among fans. Not all of the fan edits out there are particularly good and as a genre it can be very uneven. Yet through word of mouth it became quite apparent that one particular Star Wars fan edit seemed to be getting a great deal of attention and praise from both the fan and wider community. Namely Star Wars Revisited by Adywan.
Having completed my ten-hour Play First Trial of Star Wars Battlefront 2, I wanted to elaborate further upon my initial thoughts of the game. It should be noted that the demo that EA offers via Origin Access, comes with several caveats. Only the first three missions of the campaign are available, although these are sufficient to give to the you a good handle on the game’s various combat mechanics. You play as Imperial Special Forces Agent Iden Versio, the leader of Inferno Squad. The story starts during the Battle of Endor and addresses the fate of the Empire, after the Emperor’s demise. Unlike many games from this genre, the single player campaign is well written and engaging. When this part of the demo ended I found myself wanting to play more and see where the narrative went. Out of the ten hours given for the demo, I spent about three on the campaign. The rest of the time I spent in multiplayer, which is the game’s raison d'être.
Star Wars Battlefront II looks superb, even on an ageing PC such as mine. It absolutely exudes Star Wars ambience, with its aesthetics and sound design. If you are looking for a game that show cases the cutting edge of game graphics, then look no further. However, I cannot praise the game play and mechanics in the same ways as its visuals. Star Wars Battlefront II is hobbled by a progression system that is tied and potentially undermined by its loot crate mechanic. Furthermore, I won’t say “this is a real shame” as if it’s something that just happened by accident because it patently isn’t. The game was design this way. EA elected to block player progression and then provide a means to circumnavigate it, through the spending of additional funds.
Over the years I have been a participant in several fan based communities. These have ranged from running film clubs, to creating and publishing fanzines in the pre-internet days. More recently this has included running websites, blogging and creating podcasts. It’s a curious thing the way fandom is cyclical and one’s involvement with such communities seems to ebb and flow. It’s something I’ve been thinking about a lot of late. Several of the You Tube channels I enjoy have reduced their output or stopped due, to changes in advertising policy and monetisation. The Newbie Blogger Initiative failed to manifest itself this year and many of my immediate colleagues in blogging and podcasting have also begun to fade away or moved on to pastures new. The sad thing is, the true value of many community contributors is never really realised until after they’ve gone.
After watching Rogue One earlier today, I was suitably impressed. Once again Disney have used all the knowledge they've amassed from successfully running major franchises and applied it here, resulting in a finely tuned and polished entry into the Star Wars pantheon. The concept of standalone movies released in-between instalments of the classic story has now proven viable opens up a wealth of possibilities. Rogue One works well narratively and provides the spectacle that fans expect from the series. The continuity and attention to detail is outstanding continuously keeping viewers on their toes. Furthermore, the story itself is credible, dovetailing nicely into the lore.
Contrary to my expectation Star Wars: The Force Awakens is an extremely entertaining and enjoyable movie. It manages to balance the needs of all interested parties. Fans get epic battles, iconic hardware and dependable performances from established and cherished characters. The new cast dovetail into the story with ease and are engaging. The torch is past from old to new seamlessly. There is humour, pathos and genuine tragedy to be found in Star Wars: The Force Awakens and it’s there because all involved clearly love and respect the franchise but also understand what makes good cinema. Fandom tempered by professional film making. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive.
A reoccurring theme in both my writing and podcasting at present is how age changes one’s personal perspective. This is something that particularly manifests itself with regard to gaming. A decade ago I would have been extremely enthusiastic about a title such as Star Wars Battlefront. I would have pre-ordered the most lavish version available, then waxed lyrical about the beta test and thrown myself wholeheartedly in to the game upon its release. Despite the fact that I’m notoriously poor at the FPS genre, I would have sunk hours in to such a game and done my up most to convince myself and others that I’d had a good time.
The seventies were a very curious time, especially in the UK. The post war world with its sensibilities, culture and etiquette was slowly slipping away. Sadly the future had not quite lived up to its scientific and cultural potential. Political, industrial and economic turmoil were rife. Even as a child I was aware that all was not right with the world. Then Star Wars was released and very quickly became a cultural phenomenon. I embraced it like many others and took it to my heart. It offered not only spectacle but a boundless galaxy filled with stories and possibilities, which captivated a child’s imagination. It had not only a strong sense of morality but a wider philosophical subtext. It provided a modern mythology just as George Lucas intended. Its optimism was in some ways an antidote to the prevailing cynicism of the times.
TV in the UK Part 2
If you don’t want to pay for streaming services, or premium digital satellite and cable content, then your choice in the UK is somewhat limited. You can receive all “free to air channels”, IE the ones that have advertising, via the digital terrestrial platform Freeview. Most UK televisions have Freeview access built in. Alternatively, the same selection of channels are available via the digital satellite platform Freesat. You can also buy either Freeview or Freesat digital video recorders and require only a rooftop aerial or satellite dish respectively to access these platforms. Most DVRs come with additional IPTV functionality built in along with the most popular streaming apps, so additional subscription services can be added if the viewer so desires. Freeview and Freesat carry a mixture of high definition and standard definition channels. Internet based services offer 4K content.
Freeview and Freesat provide digital terrestrial TV access in the UK
If you don’t want to pay for streaming services, or premium digital satellite and cable content, then your choice in the UK is somewhat limited. You can receive all “free to air channels”, IE the ones that have advertising, via the digital terrestrial platform Freeview. Most UK televisions have Freeview access built in. Alternatively, the same selection of channels are available via the digital satellite platform Freesat. You can also buy either Freeview or Freesat digital video recorders and require only a rooftop aerial or satellite dish respectively to access these platforms. Most DVRs come with additional IPTV functionality built in along with the most popular streaming apps, so additional subscription services can be added if the viewer so desires. Freeview and Freesat carry a mixture of high definition and standard definition channels. Internet based services offer 4K content.
Until recently, our household has used Freeview, along with some additional IPTV channels and streaming apps for our television requirements. However, it has not been especially good value for money. The DVR that is supplied by our broadband provider, performs poorly and the extra channels we pay for are only in standard definition. So we have chosen not to renew our contract. We have moved over to Freesat, which broadly offers the same channels as Freeview, although more are in HD. Beyond the initial hardware costs, Freesat incurs no further charges. I recently changed my cell phone contract and received a year’s subscription to Netflix. As a regular Amazon Prime customer, we also have access to Prime Video. For the present these services are to be our main source of television content. We regularly avail ourselves on free trials, discount codes and other promotional opportunities so we can access other platforms. Thus we do not face “TV poverty”.
Freesat 4K Recordable TV Box
I spent some time researching what TV services are available in the UK, prior to changing from Freeview to Freesat. What I learned was quite discouraging. Television has changed its business model, just like the music industry and those changes are not beneficial to the customer. The dominance of streaming services has led to a decline in DVR production. Streaming services run on a subscription model, whereas digital terrestrial and satellite services rely on a hybrid of advertising and paid for content. TV is now a compartmentalised industry and although there is still a substantial audience in the UK, it is spread over a wider variety of platforms. Hence advertising reaches a smaller audience. DVRs further compound the problems, allowing viewers to bypass adverts. Thus there are less new DVRs coming to market, because user control of content is not good for business.
There is also a broader decline in physical media sales, again because streaming services appear to negate the need for it. Sadly, the reality is about removing customer choice and placing control in the hands of the vendor. Disney is reducing the availability of a lot of its classic content on physical media to drive customers to its streaming service. However, a lot of material from Disney’s back catalogue remains absent from its streaming service and a lot of content is being altered to make it compliant with what Disney consider to be “modern sensibilities”. Looking at streaming services from a wider perspective, a lot of content is licensed from third parties, to supplement original material. This means that content can come and go quickly once licensing arrangements expire. At one point, Netflix in the UK had access to all respective Star Trek shows. An arrangement that ended once Paramount Plus launched.
Apps available on Freesat
We are now living in an age where the entertainment industry (along with others) have decided that ownership or at least paying once to access material is not an adequate business model. Streaming, be it audio or video content, addresses this offering a service where the customer pays continuously for continuing access but has no direct control beyond that. Choice is very much dependent upon what the streaming platforms currently have licensed and there is always scope for material to be removed from access when licensing arrangements change or end. Due to a finite customer base being divided among an ever increasing group of vendors, subscription services are proving an “inadequate” revenue stream. Hence we are now seeing advertising being introduced on lower tiers of subscription. If the customer objects they can pay to remove it.
Due to the cost of producing content for streaming services, many platforms are now opting to release material in a weekly schedule to maximise audience retention and return on investment. Hence, we are currently experiencing a return to “appointment television”, although for a much more compartmentalised audience. Shows such as Reacher and Severance are released weekly and immediately become the focus of intense online debate on subreddits and the like. For those who think this is in some way a return to the viewing habits of the seventies, it comes with a substantial loss of agency. Adverts are forced upon viewers, where they could in the past be bypassed via a VCR. Furthermore, if you wish to avoid spoilers then you have to eschew all social media until you have watched the program in question. Once again it would seem that “choice” and “progress” are not as beneficial as they first appear.
I recently found a DVD boxset of Return to the Planet of the Apes in a charity shop which I bought for £4, which is a ridiculously cheap price. I considered it an interesting find because it was a Region 1, US copy. However, that is not so unusual these days as most DVD players are now region free and Amazon (UK) sells media from all over the world. As for the show in question, I vaguely remember Return to the Planet of the Apes being shown on UK network TV when I was a child, probably circa 1976. Back then it would usually take a year or so before US shows made it onto UK television. From a commercial perspective, the entire Planet of the Apes franchise was beginning to run out of steam. I was 8 years old at the time so had missed most of the film releases. However, I enjoyed the live action TV show hence an animated follow up had obvious appeal to a child of my age.
I have not watched as much TV as I usually do, this year. Mainly because I have become a little weary of the ways contemporary TV is produced, especially with regards to streaming shows. Due to the costs, shows such as Star Trek: Strange New Worlds only have 10 episodes per season. Simply put, the season begins to hit its stride and then is abruptly over. This problem (if you see it as such) is then further compounded by there being a significant wait between seasons. In the case of STSNW it was two years between season two and season three. Not all shows fall foul of this. Apple TV produces two seasons of the excellent espionage drama Slow Horses at a time, ensuring a prompt release schedule. However, even this has issues. Due to the complexity of the plots of many contemporary TV shows, something that is a marketing point, some viewers cannot remember the plot after a twelve month hiatus. Network TV shows seldom have these issues with each season being 20 plus episodes long and story arcs that are seldom as complex.
Strictly Come Dancing remains the BBC’s flagship light entertainment show for Autumn. Despite controversy and scandal, the show bounced back last year and firmly re-established itself as the “feel good, family show” it has always claimed to be. Blind comedian Chris McCausland becoming the 2024 champion certainly validated the show’s commitment to diversity and inclusion and helped place Strictly (as it is known to its fans) back on its cultural pedestal. I’m sure those involved in the production of the show breathed a sigh of relief when the season ended on such a positive note, eclipsing the negative press that had been ever present last summer. Second chances and opportunities for a “course correction” are few and far between these days. Especially when you have elements of the UK press waiting with bated breath and hoping that you’ll fail.
Treasure Island In Outer Space is a curious Italian television production from 1987 starring Anthony Quinn and Ernest Borgnine. It also features numerous international actors better known for their work in cult and exploitation films, such as Bobby Rhodes, David Warbeck and John Morghan. Directed by Antonio Margheriti (AKA Anthony Dawson), famous for such films as Killer Fish (a cash in on Piranha) and The Last Hunter (a Vietnam exploitation epic), Treasure Island In Outer Space is a faithful adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson’s classic novel. The screenplay by Renato Castellani and Lucio De Caro draws heavily from the source text, maintaining character names and original dialogue. However in updating the material to a futuristic setting, the script is littered with the worst kind of eighties sci-fi clichés. We are subjected to sonic trains, anti-gravity rays and the usual buzzword driven faux science.
Thoughts on TV shows and my current viewing habits.
I last wrote a blog post in this series back in February 2022. Then for various reasons, I stopped. Possibly because my relationship with TV has changed in recent years. It’s fair to say at present that viewers are spoilt for choice. There are lots of very good shows around. Conversely, there is also a lot of bland, generic, filler as well. I appreciate that not every television series has to be an industry milestone and there are times when I’m content to watch undemanding content. However, I am very protective of how I spend my leisure time at present. I am not prepared to sink 6 or 8 hours into a show that is just “okay”. Hence I’m becoming very particular about what I watch. If something isn’t working for me in any fashion then I just abandon it and am happy to do so.
The seventies was an interesting time for UK genre television. Despite small budgets and often low key visual effects, there was no shortage of good ideas and creativity. Sapphire & Steel is a prime example of a show couched in a high concept, produced on a shoestring. It also credits its audiences with some degree of intelligence. Rather than spoon feeding the narrative in a didactic manner, it hints and implies, then leaves the rest to its viewers imagination. Created by Peter J. Hammond, a veteran TV writer, Sapphire & Steel centres on a pair of interdimensional operatives named Sapphire and Steel. They are two of a number of elements that assume human form. Over the course of three seasons little is revealed about the pair but they appear whenever there is any anomalous temporal activity. Time itself is portrayed as a sentient and malignant force that seeks to make incursions into the present reality, through weaknesses in the fabric of space.
Season 2 of Andor has received praise from both critics and fans alike. It finally seems to have put to bed the common argument that Star Wars as a franchise has traditionally been light on narrative depth, character development and the exploration of the themes that its main story is predicated upon. Andor shows the realities of opposing authoritarian regimes and exists within shades of grey, rather than purille, binary positions. Many have drawn parallels with the current state of geopolitics, especially that of the United States. I certainly found the second season of Andor to be engaging and thought provoking. I also enjoyed the performances of many of the British actors who by default are cast in all the major Empire roles. I thought Anton Lesser was especially noteworthy as a senior officer in the Imperial Security Bureau.
If you don’t want to pay for streaming services, or premium digital satellite and cable content, then your choice in the UK is somewhat limited. You can receive all “free to air channels”, IE the ones that have advertising, via the digital terrestrial platform Freeview. Most UK televisions have Freeview access built in. Alternatively, the same selection of channels are available via the digital satellite platform Freesat. You can also buy either Freeview or Freesat digital video recorders and require only a rooftop aerial or satellite dish respectively to access these platforms. Most DVRs come with additional IPTV functionality built in along with the most popular streaming apps, so additional subscription services can be added if the viewer so desires. Freeview and Freesat carry a mixture of high definition and standard definition channels. Internet based services offer 4K content.
When I started writing this post it was intended to be about changing from one UK TV provider to another. However, I became concerned that there was a need to provide some sort of historical context, because I wasn’t sure whether all readers would be familiar with how television is provided here. The next thing I know, I’ve written a potted history of public and commercial broadcasting in the UK and the resulting post has become somewhat lengthy. So I have decided to split the text into two halves. The first being a summary of how the provision of television has changed in the UK over the course of the last fifty plus years. The second focuses more upon changes to the TV industry’s business model, consumer habits and the present status quo.
It is fair to say that we live in an age where we do not lack quality TV. There are numerous shows that have garnered critical acclaim or a strong word of mouth following that are deemed “must see” viewing. No doubt you, like myself, have a long “to do” list of programs that you need to “get round to watching” on top of those shows which are staples of your viewing regime. If you didn’t have enough programmes already to catch up with, we all have friends and family telling us about a “great show” that’s on a platform we don’t subscribe to, that we really need to see. It is quite extraordinary and a far cry from my youth when the UK simply had three terrestrial channels until satellite TV became popular in the late eighties. To paraphrase the former Prime Minister Harold Macmillan “we’ve never had it so good”.
Music by John Williams is a documentary celebration of the famous composer and his illustrious body of work. It provides some interesting biographical background information as to how the man was born into a family of talented musicians. It then traces his rise from pianist for hire to the most well known film composer today. Along the way, anyone who is anyone in film and music appears to heap justifiable praise upon him and his body of work. It also features a continuous medley of John Williams’ greatest hits, as it catalogues his work in broadly chronological order. Music by John Williams is an upbeat and positive love letter to the composer and exactly what you would expect, when you consider that the documentary was produced by his friends and peers.
Tonight’s results for week 5 of Strictly Come Dancing (season 22) have once again demonstrated that this show is more than just a dancing competition to UK viewers. If it were just a case of determining who are the best dancers, then JB Gill would not have been in the dance off. The judges may well see things exclusively in such terms but the public clearly do not. I last wrote about this phenomenon in 2019 and I think it appropriate to raise the subject again as this season of Strictly seems to be bucking past trends and I suspect we may be in for further upsets in the run up to the season finale. Broadly speaking, the public usually tends to vote in a manner similar to the official leaderboard. Hence, those who score the lowest usually end up in the dance off. Occasionally an underdog will be championed and kept on the show but that trend seems to have lost its novelty in recent years. This season appears to be quite different.
I make no bones about the fact that I watch Strictly Come Dancing every year. For those who live outside of the UK, this is the original version of the dancing reality show that you probably know as Dancing With the Stars in your country. It is still a big deal in the UK as far as TV ratings go, getting audiences on average of 6.6 million viewers. There are many aspects of the show that are textbook examples of prime time, popular entertainment but I like it because the “celebrities” that take part are ultimately learning a skill that is genuinely difficult. The latest season of Strictly, as it is known to its fans, is especially interesting as the BBC had a major PR problem earlier in the year, where several previous participants made allegations of bullying and abuse about their pro-dancer partners. An investigation is still ongoing and in the meantime, the two professional dancers that were named have withdrawn from the show. Hence everyone involved with the latest season are all on message, stating that it’s “all about having fun”.
Watching TV was a far more communal activity in my youth. Families sat and watched specific shows or sports together. “Appointment TV” had its benefits not only for TV ratings but for advertising revenue. Although audiences may have grown over the years, they have also become more fragmented and compartmentalised. Smaller market shares have therefore made advertising far more pervasive. Even big streaming platforms are feeling the squeeze with declining subscribers and therefore introducing advertising on lower tier tariffs. Many catch up services also rely on advertising. However, viewers can always pay a fee if they wish to dispense with it. Another foible of modern digital television is poor picture quality Many smaller digital channels broadcast in standard definition. The source material has often been converted between different picture formats and has been cropped to suit a 16:9 screen. This results in low definition picture quality, with weak colours and a lot of digital artefacts.
I recently visited my local branch of the British Heart Foundation. This is a chain of UK charity shops that sell previously owned furniture and electrical goods, all of which are certified to be in good working order. It’s one of the few places where you’ll still find old school CRT televisions. These mainly come from house clearances. On this occasion, a particularly bulky model from the early 2000s was on display and despite its age, it still had a good, clear picture. I spoke to a member of staff and apparently these TVs are still popular with gamers who buy them for use with retro video games consoles. I felt especially nostalgic for this particular ageing Sony TV, because Mrs P and I had once owned a similar model. We bought it from a local department store (which no longer exists) and I remember it took two robust gentlemen to deliver it and install it.
We all knew it had to happen sooner or later. According to reports, Lucasfilm is planning to reduce its Star Wars related output on Disney+. Specifically, from 2025 there will be only one live-action television series per year. For comparison, Disney+ commissioned three shows in 2022 and two shows in both 2023 and 2024. It should be noted that this reduced output doesn’t include animated shows. It would appear that senior management at Disney have finally figured out something most of us have known for a while. That saturating the market with content based upon a specific intellectual property, is ultimately detrimental to its popularity and financial viability. To use an old adage “familiarity breeds contempt”. At present, hardcore fans are “unhappy” with the way the IP is being developed, while casual fans are somewhat burned out by the excess of content and its varying quality.
Two years ago, The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power premiered on Amazon Prime to mixed reviews and a tedious and predictable internet brouhaha. I have no interest in that debacle as I consider it spurious, to say the least. Representation is a commercial imperative for any big budget television production. As for any deviation from the established canon, that’s due to the show being an “adaptation” of Tolkien’s work. At no point were viewers promised a literal interpretation of the source text. Therefore I am only interested in legitimate critiques of the show based upon its production, writing and acting. As far as I’m concerned, the first season was broadly entertaining and had outstanding production values. Overall I enjoyed The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power as an exciting and inventive take on Tolkien’s legendarium. Hence, I have been looking forward to the second season, which began today.
Ghostwatch is a controversial British horror “mockumentary” produced by the BBC that was first broadcast on October 31st 1992. Written by Stephen Volk and produced by Ruth Baumgarten it is now considered a milestone in UK broadcasting. This was mainly due to the strong reaction it provoked from the public, many of whom failed to grasp that it was a drama. At the time it raised serious questions about responsible programming and caused a furore in the British press. It has curiously never been shown since by the BBC. Ghostwatch remains a talking point to this day and is a text book example of the power of television as well as the publics enduring belief in the supernatural.
Ronald Erle Grainer (11 August 1922 – 21 February 1981) was a prolific Australian composer who is best remembered for his work in the United Kingdom during the sixties and seventies. He wrote numerous notable scores and theme music for several iconic television shows such as Doctor Who, Steptoe and Son and Tales of the Unexpected. He also composed the soundtrack for several major motion pictures such as Some People (1962), The Assassination Bureau (1969) and The Omega Man (1971). Grainer relocated to London from Australia in 1952 but it was not until 1960 that he gained critical success after writing the music for the popular TV show Maigret. He subsequently received an Ivor Novello award for “Outstanding Composition for Film, TV or Radio”.
Anyone who writes regularly, sooner or later will have the following epiphany. The realisation that the post you consider your best work seldom finds an audience. Furthermore, the most inconsequential, disposable things that you have written on a whim, will often end up being the one article that gets a big response. It can be very frustrating but it is a reality of writing. It is with that idea in mind, I wish to move on to the matter of “Walter Watches”. In late March 2019, I took a picture of Walter sitting in his chair, watching a classic episode of The Twilight Zone. I subsequently Tweeted this image along with a descriptive caption. This gained a number of “likes” and retweets, so a day later I posted another. This time Walter was watching the film Krull (1983) and I added a humorous caption. Let’s just say I got more of a response for that one Tweet than I had for anything else I had posted over the previous nine years when promoting a blog post.
I was seven when The Six Million Dollar Man was first broadcast in the UK in late 1974. As a young and impressionable child, who was already fascinated by Doctor Who, Star Trek (TOS) and the films of Ray Harryhausen, this show was essential weekly viewing. I believe for the first couple of seasons, we sat and watched it as an entire family. Television was less sophisticated back then and dominated by sitcoms, police procedurals and traditional dramas. So a weekly show blending the espionage genre with science fiction themes was revolutionary. It also inspired a generation of school kids to run around the playground in “slow motion” and give themselves hernias as they attempted to lift heavy objects. And don’t get me started on the range of Steve Austin toys. One had a “bionic eye” which meant it had a lens in the front of the action figure’s face and you could look through the back of his head like a telescope. What a time to be alive!
Despite being an analysis of the past there is a portentous air about Ken Burns and Lynn Novick’s Prohibition. A fascinating five-and-a-half-hour documentary produced for PBS in 2011. The history of this disastrous experiment, the banning of alcoholic beverages, is a textbook example of how the transactional nature of US politics can be effectively used upon “wedge” issues. Prohibition follows the format and style of Burns previous documentaries such as the Civil War (1990) and The War (2007) with the wider subject broken down and analysed according to protagonists, events and the political background. Specific historical figures and key players are followed throughout the documentary’s narrative, giving viewers a sense of focus. Hence we meet the hatchet-wielding Carrie Nation, Wayne Wheeler from the Anti-Saloon League and media savvy gangsters like Al Capone. It is interesting to note that some themes continue from Burns’ previous work, such as the political and cultural conflict between native-born Americans and European immigrants. The rural heartlands versus the big cities.
Andor is not like other entries in the Star Wars canon. It explores the human, social and political consequences of rebelling against an oppressive, totalitarian regime. The writing is intelligent and well observed, choosing to focus on the average citizens of the Empire and the nature of their daily lives. Andor also explores the ineffectual politicians and the way the senate are self serving and ultimately impotent. The Emperor is remote and instead we see how Imperial colonialism works at a grassroots level. It is an all too familiar depiction, born out of historical fact, such as Vichy France during World War II. Petty thugs and aspiring psychopaths happily align themselves with their Imperial overlords and actively oppress their own people. As for the Empire, and in particular the ISB (Imperial Security Bureau) it is rife with infighting, personal fiefdoms and all the flaws of similar institutions from the real world.
Having watched the first two episodes of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power, I wish to express my thoughts on what I’ve seen and my overall impressions so far. I do not think it would be fair to frame this post as a review as the two episodes only constitute 25% of the show’s total content. A formal review of the first season seems more appropriate when I have seen it in its entirety. Before I begin commenting on specific points about the two premier episodes, I wish to point out that I have no problem with “representation” and have expressed my thoughts on this matter in a previous post. It also covers the matter of “adaptation” and how complex texts can at times require augmenting to be made accessible to wider audiences. Hence those viewers who want 100% canonical purity are unrealistic in their expectations. Objections based in racism and sexism can simply be ignored. NB I shall endeavour to keep my thoughts spoiler free.
The last time I wrote about our home entertainment system was six years ago. Back then I was hoping to upgrade our TV from HD to UHD. However, unless you are fortunate to have a surfeit of cash, most of us tend to soldier on with the hardware we already have until it breaks. Then at least we can justify replacing it. And that is exactly what happened to us last week. It would appear that both the TV and the powerline internet adapters which are in our lounge, suffered electrical induction damage during a recent thunderstorm. One of the powerline adapters was completely dead and the HDMI sockets on the television ceased to function. This meant we had no access to streaming services, the Blu-ray player or our BT TV DVR. We could access a selection of free, terrestrial digital channels via the aerial, but could not pause or record anything. Furthermore all of these were in standard definition.
The Eurovision Song Contest is a lot of things but it is never dull. Even if the songs that make it through to the final are a little lacklustre, there’s always drama to be found in the scoring. The first round of votes come from national juries made up of professionals from the music industry. Hence there is a propensity to judge songs on their technical and marketing merits. This often means that the juries favour songs that don’t necessarily appeal to the public. However, this is addressed in the second round in which the viewers can vote. The only caveat is that you cannot vote for your own country. Hence things can really change after the professional jury votes are counted and the public votes are added to the overall score. And that is what happened last night. There was a massive public vote for Ukrainian entry Stefania by the Kalush Orchestra and they subsequently won the contest.
Benjamin Franklin is in many ways the most interesting of the American Founding Fathers. A self taught man who went on to become a polymath. An inventor, accomplished writer and publisher. A diplomat who successfully held multiple public offices. A loyalist who went on to become a “reluctant revolutionary”. A slave owner who eventually became an abolitionist. A questionable parent who favoured specific children over others, as well as a negligent husband. Franklin was all these things, as Ken Burns’ documentary takes great pains to highlight. A broad cross section of historians tackle these foibles and contradictions from multiple perspectives. As Joseph J. Ellis states, Benjamin Franklin was “a Nobel-calibre scientist, the greatest prose stylist of his generation, and probably the greatest diplomat in American history”. His legacy is chronologically analysed over four hours in two distinct episodes.
Gerry Anderson: A Life Uncharted is a documentary that focuses specifically on the man, rather than the shows that he created. If you are more interested in the latter then you would be better off watching Filmed in Supermarionation (2014), which provides a comprehensive overview of all productions, wrapped in a cosy blanket of nostalgia and fandom. Gerry Anderson: A Life Uncharted offers a more challenging viewing experience due to its honesty and candour. Gerry Anderson had a difficult childhood and suffered a bereavement early in life. During the course of this 88 minute exploration of his life it becomes clear that these traumas both drove his creativity as well as marred his own personal life. Furthermore, this documentary is also about a son looking for answers, as Jamie Anderson attempts to learn more about his father’s past.
Star Trek documentaries are very much like Bruce Lee documentaries, in so far as they’re both a saturated market and more often than not, new content frequently ends up covering the same ground. However, fans tend to watch anything new in the hope that they will find a few new nuggets of information. Brian Volk-Weiss’ new 11 part series, The Center Seat: 55 years of Star Trek, not only covers established facts about the iconic show but also expands upon them as well as providing a wealth of new information. Volk-Weiss has previously explored popular culture with documentaries such as The Toys That Made Us and The Movies That Made Us. The Center Seat: 55 years of Star Trek is an in-depth chronological study of the Star Trek franchise, from its creation at Desilu Productions in 1965 all the way through to the latest iterations, Star Trek: Picard and Star Trek: Discovery.
I recently watched the first trailer for the new Obi-Wan Kenobi television show that is premiering on Disney + in May. I am interested in this latest instalment in the Star Wars franchise and curious as to whether Liam Neeson will make an appearance. I also watched a 20 minute fan video in which they “analysed” the entire trailer. They discussed the content of this 2 minute preview and then did a great deal of speculating about potential themes and characters that may feature in the show. They were clearly enthusiastic about what they had seen and were very knowledgeable about the subject. This resonated with me, as I like to be well versed about the things I enjoy. However, it is worth remembering that fandom can tip into obsession and gatekeeping. Hence I feel there is a subject to explore here.
TV in the UK Part 1
When I started writing this post it was intended to be about changing from one UK TV provider to another. However, I became concerned that there was a need to provide some sort of historical context, because I wasn’t sure whether all readers would be familiar with how television is provided here. The next thing I know, I’ve written a potted history of public and commercial broadcasting in the UK and the resulting post has become somewhat lengthy. So I have decided to split the text into two halves. The first being a summary of how the provision of television has changed in the UK over the course of the last fifty plus years. The second focuses more upon changes to the TV industry’s business model, consumer habits and the present status quo.
Philips CRT TV circa 1980
When I started writing this post it was intended to be about changing from one UK TV provider to another. However, I became concerned that there was a need to provide some sort of historical context, because I wasn’t sure whether all readers would be familiar with how television is provided here. The next thing I know, I’ve written a potted history of public and commercial broadcasting in the UK and the resulting post has become somewhat lengthy. So I have decided to split the text into two halves. The first being a summary of how the provision of television has changed in the UK over the course of the last fifty plus years. The second focuses more upon changes to the TV industry’s business model, consumer habits and the present status quo.
In the seventies and eighties, television in the UK was a singularly uncomplicated affair. You would buy a TV, connect it to a rooftop or indoor aerial/antenna and set the channel buttons to the four analogue stations that were broadcasting at the time. You then watched your favourite programmes at the time that they were broadcast and discussed them the following day at either school or work. Hence the viewing figures for popular shows were large with popular soap operas such as East Enders and sitcoms like Only Fools and Horses regularly achieving audiences of over 20,000,000. Over a third of the population at the time. Although video cassette recorders became ubiquitous during the eighties, the culture of “appointment TV” (IE watching stuff when it was shown), persisted. Analogue terrestrial television, introduced in the UK in 1936, remained the predominant source of TV in homes until 2012.
UK analogue aerial and satellite dish circa the mid-eighties
During the eighties, changes in TV regulation saw the emergence of analogue satellite and cable services. However, cable was not readily available in rural and most suburban areas due to the logistics of installing the infrastructure. Similarly, satellite TV required a dish which added to the set up costs for new customers. Plus due to the prevailing UK class culture of the time, there was a great deal of snobbery regarding “unsightly dishes” and commercial television programming that was perceived as “low rent”. However, in the early 2000s (noughties), the UK was getting ready to decommission analogue terrestrial TV broadcasting and replace it with a digital terrestrial service. Hence a lot of new commercial television services began to appear as the public became more comfortable with the business model of paying a subscription for quality programmes, rather than free TV paid by advertising.
The noughties were a time of major change for UK television. Many new commercial services, such as OnDigital (digital terrestrial) and NTL (digital cable) came to market and ultimately failed. However, other industry changes proved successful, such as the transition from 4:3 to 16:9 aspect ratio and from standard definition to high definition. Tests are currently underway for ultra high definition digital terrestrial broadcasts and 4K streaming content is becoming more widespread. There was a period of a few decades, when Sky was king and digital satellite TV was the dominant premium service in the UK with a fifth of the population as customers. The provision of major sporting events and franchises, especially premier league football, was a major factor in Sky’s success. However, over time other services have begun to compete and steadily eroded
A selection of UK streaming services
In 2025, we find ourselves in a TV market dominated by streaming services. Major streaming providers have the budgets to produce high quality shows and the remaining UK broadcasters dependent on advertising revenue, struggle to compete. The main problem with streaming services, is that if you want to keep abreast of all the most popular shows then you have to subscribe to 4 or 5 services. Sport in the UK is still mainly carried on digital satellite (and now streaming) via Sky, so if you want access to that as well you’re going to have to subscribe to their services as well. The monthly cost of all of these is somewhere north of £75, which is no small beer and a reason why so many people share logon credentials for streaming services. Subsequently, there is now a societal divide regarding TV access. “TV poverty” has emerged as a term describing those excluded from premium content due to its cost.
I recently found a DVD boxset of Return to the Planet of the Apes in a charity shop which I bought for £4, which is a ridiculously cheap price. I considered it an interesting find because it was a Region 1, US copy. However, that is not so unusual these days as most DVD players are now region free and Amazon (UK) sells media from all over the world. As for the show in question, I vaguely remember Return to the Planet of the Apes being shown on UK network TV when I was a child, probably circa 1976. Back then it would usually take a year or so before US shows made it onto UK television. From a commercial perspective, the entire Planet of the Apes franchise was beginning to run out of steam. I was 8 years old at the time so had missed most of the film releases. However, I enjoyed the live action TV show hence an animated follow up had obvious appeal to a child of my age.
I have not watched as much TV as I usually do, this year. Mainly because I have become a little weary of the ways contemporary TV is produced, especially with regards to streaming shows. Due to the costs, shows such as Star Trek: Strange New Worlds only have 10 episodes per season. Simply put, the season begins to hit its stride and then is abruptly over. This problem (if you see it as such) is then further compounded by there being a significant wait between seasons. In the case of STSNW it was two years between season two and season three. Not all shows fall foul of this. Apple TV produces two seasons of the excellent espionage drama Slow Horses at a time, ensuring a prompt release schedule. However, even this has issues. Due to the complexity of the plots of many contemporary TV shows, something that is a marketing point, some viewers cannot remember the plot after a twelve month hiatus. Network TV shows seldom have these issues with each season being 20 plus episodes long and story arcs that are seldom as complex.
Strictly Come Dancing remains the BBC’s flagship light entertainment show for Autumn. Despite controversy and scandal, the show bounced back last year and firmly re-established itself as the “feel good, family show” it has always claimed to be. Blind comedian Chris McCausland becoming the 2024 champion certainly validated the show’s commitment to diversity and inclusion and helped place Strictly (as it is known to its fans) back on its cultural pedestal. I’m sure those involved in the production of the show breathed a sigh of relief when the season ended on such a positive note, eclipsing the negative press that had been ever present last summer. Second chances and opportunities for a “course correction” are few and far between these days. Especially when you have elements of the UK press waiting with bated breath and hoping that you’ll fail.
Treasure Island In Outer Space is a curious Italian television production from 1987 starring Anthony Quinn and Ernest Borgnine. It also features numerous international actors better known for their work in cult and exploitation films, such as Bobby Rhodes, David Warbeck and John Morghan. Directed by Antonio Margheriti (AKA Anthony Dawson), famous for such films as Killer Fish (a cash in on Piranha) and The Last Hunter (a Vietnam exploitation epic), Treasure Island In Outer Space is a faithful adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson’s classic novel. The screenplay by Renato Castellani and Lucio De Caro draws heavily from the source text, maintaining character names and original dialogue. However in updating the material to a futuristic setting, the script is littered with the worst kind of eighties sci-fi clichés. We are subjected to sonic trains, anti-gravity rays and the usual buzzword driven faux science.
Thoughts on TV shows and my current viewing habits.
I last wrote a blog post in this series back in February 2022. Then for various reasons, I stopped. Possibly because my relationship with TV has changed in recent years. It’s fair to say at present that viewers are spoilt for choice. There are lots of very good shows around. Conversely, there is also a lot of bland, generic, filler as well. I appreciate that not every television series has to be an industry milestone and there are times when I’m content to watch undemanding content. However, I am very protective of how I spend my leisure time at present. I am not prepared to sink 6 or 8 hours into a show that is just “okay”. Hence I’m becoming very particular about what I watch. If something isn’t working for me in any fashion then I just abandon it and am happy to do so.
The seventies was an interesting time for UK genre television. Despite small budgets and often low key visual effects, there was no shortage of good ideas and creativity. Sapphire & Steel is a prime example of a show couched in a high concept, produced on a shoestring. It also credits its audiences with some degree of intelligence. Rather than spoon feeding the narrative in a didactic manner, it hints and implies, then leaves the rest to its viewers imagination. Created by Peter J. Hammond, a veteran TV writer, Sapphire & Steel centres on a pair of interdimensional operatives named Sapphire and Steel. They are two of a number of elements that assume human form. Over the course of three seasons little is revealed about the pair but they appear whenever there is any anomalous temporal activity. Time itself is portrayed as a sentient and malignant force that seeks to make incursions into the present reality, through weaknesses in the fabric of space.
Season 2 of Andor has received praise from both critics and fans alike. It finally seems to have put to bed the common argument that Star Wars as a franchise has traditionally been light on narrative depth, character development and the exploration of the themes that its main story is predicated upon. Andor shows the realities of opposing authoritarian regimes and exists within shades of grey, rather than purille, binary positions. Many have drawn parallels with the current state of geopolitics, especially that of the United States. I certainly found the second season of Andor to be engaging and thought provoking. I also enjoyed the performances of many of the British actors who by default are cast in all the major Empire roles. I thought Anton Lesser was especially noteworthy as a senior officer in the Imperial Security Bureau.
If you don’t want to pay for streaming services, or premium digital satellite and cable content, then your choice in the UK is somewhat limited. You can receive all “free to air channels”, IE the ones that have advertising, via the digital terrestrial platform Freeview. Most UK televisions have Freeview access built in. Alternatively, the same selection of channels are available via the digital satellite platform Freesat. You can also buy either Freeview or Freesat digital video recorders and require only a rooftop aerial or satellite dish respectively to access these platforms. Most DVRs come with additional IPTV functionality built in along with the most popular streaming apps, so additional subscription services can be added if the viewer so desires. Freeview and Freesat carry a mixture of high definition and standard definition channels. Internet based services offer 4K content.
When I started writing this post it was intended to be about changing from one UK TV provider to another. However, I became concerned that there was a need to provide some sort of historical context, because I wasn’t sure whether all readers would be familiar with how television is provided here. The next thing I know, I’ve written a potted history of public and commercial broadcasting in the UK and the resulting post has become somewhat lengthy. So I have decided to split the text into two halves. The first being a summary of how the provision of television has changed in the UK over the course of the last fifty plus years. The second focuses more upon changes to the TV industry’s business model, consumer habits and the present status quo.
It is fair to say that we live in an age where we do not lack quality TV. There are numerous shows that have garnered critical acclaim or a strong word of mouth following that are deemed “must see” viewing. No doubt you, like myself, have a long “to do” list of programs that you need to “get round to watching” on top of those shows which are staples of your viewing regime. If you didn’t have enough programmes already to catch up with, we all have friends and family telling us about a “great show” that’s on a platform we don’t subscribe to, that we really need to see. It is quite extraordinary and a far cry from my youth when the UK simply had three terrestrial channels until satellite TV became popular in the late eighties. To paraphrase the former Prime Minister Harold Macmillan “we’ve never had it so good”.
Music by John Williams is a documentary celebration of the famous composer and his illustrious body of work. It provides some interesting biographical background information as to how the man was born into a family of talented musicians. It then traces his rise from pianist for hire to the most well known film composer today. Along the way, anyone who is anyone in film and music appears to heap justifiable praise upon him and his body of work. It also features a continuous medley of John Williams’ greatest hits, as it catalogues his work in broadly chronological order. Music by John Williams is an upbeat and positive love letter to the composer and exactly what you would expect, when you consider that the documentary was produced by his friends and peers.
Tonight’s results for week 5 of Strictly Come Dancing (season 22) have once again demonstrated that this show is more than just a dancing competition to UK viewers. If it were just a case of determining who are the best dancers, then JB Gill would not have been in the dance off. The judges may well see things exclusively in such terms but the public clearly do not. I last wrote about this phenomenon in 2019 and I think it appropriate to raise the subject again as this season of Strictly seems to be bucking past trends and I suspect we may be in for further upsets in the run up to the season finale. Broadly speaking, the public usually tends to vote in a manner similar to the official leaderboard. Hence, those who score the lowest usually end up in the dance off. Occasionally an underdog will be championed and kept on the show but that trend seems to have lost its novelty in recent years. This season appears to be quite different.
I make no bones about the fact that I watch Strictly Come Dancing every year. For those who live outside of the UK, this is the original version of the dancing reality show that you probably know as Dancing With the Stars in your country. It is still a big deal in the UK as far as TV ratings go, getting audiences on average of 6.6 million viewers. There are many aspects of the show that are textbook examples of prime time, popular entertainment but I like it because the “celebrities” that take part are ultimately learning a skill that is genuinely difficult. The latest season of Strictly, as it is known to its fans, is especially interesting as the BBC had a major PR problem earlier in the year, where several previous participants made allegations of bullying and abuse about their pro-dancer partners. An investigation is still ongoing and in the meantime, the two professional dancers that were named have withdrawn from the show. Hence everyone involved with the latest season are all on message, stating that it’s “all about having fun”.
Watching TV was a far more communal activity in my youth. Families sat and watched specific shows or sports together. “Appointment TV” had its benefits not only for TV ratings but for advertising revenue. Although audiences may have grown over the years, they have also become more fragmented and compartmentalised. Smaller market shares have therefore made advertising far more pervasive. Even big streaming platforms are feeling the squeeze with declining subscribers and therefore introducing advertising on lower tier tariffs. Many catch up services also rely on advertising. However, viewers can always pay a fee if they wish to dispense with it. Another foible of modern digital television is poor picture quality Many smaller digital channels broadcast in standard definition. The source material has often been converted between different picture formats and has been cropped to suit a 16:9 screen. This results in low definition picture quality, with weak colours and a lot of digital artefacts.
I recently visited my local branch of the British Heart Foundation. This is a chain of UK charity shops that sell previously owned furniture and electrical goods, all of which are certified to be in good working order. It’s one of the few places where you’ll still find old school CRT televisions. These mainly come from house clearances. On this occasion, a particularly bulky model from the early 2000s was on display and despite its age, it still had a good, clear picture. I spoke to a member of staff and apparently these TVs are still popular with gamers who buy them for use with retro video games consoles. I felt especially nostalgic for this particular ageing Sony TV, because Mrs P and I had once owned a similar model. We bought it from a local department store (which no longer exists) and I remember it took two robust gentlemen to deliver it and install it.
We all knew it had to happen sooner or later. According to reports, Lucasfilm is planning to reduce its Star Wars related output on Disney+. Specifically, from 2025 there will be only one live-action television series per year. For comparison, Disney+ commissioned three shows in 2022 and two shows in both 2023 and 2024. It should be noted that this reduced output doesn’t include animated shows. It would appear that senior management at Disney have finally figured out something most of us have known for a while. That saturating the market with content based upon a specific intellectual property, is ultimately detrimental to its popularity and financial viability. To use an old adage “familiarity breeds contempt”. At present, hardcore fans are “unhappy” with the way the IP is being developed, while casual fans are somewhat burned out by the excess of content and its varying quality.
Two years ago, The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power premiered on Amazon Prime to mixed reviews and a tedious and predictable internet brouhaha. I have no interest in that debacle as I consider it spurious, to say the least. Representation is a commercial imperative for any big budget television production. As for any deviation from the established canon, that’s due to the show being an “adaptation” of Tolkien’s work. At no point were viewers promised a literal interpretation of the source text. Therefore I am only interested in legitimate critiques of the show based upon its production, writing and acting. As far as I’m concerned, the first season was broadly entertaining and had outstanding production values. Overall I enjoyed The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power as an exciting and inventive take on Tolkien’s legendarium. Hence, I have been looking forward to the second season, which began today.
Ghostwatch is a controversial British horror “mockumentary” produced by the BBC that was first broadcast on October 31st 1992. Written by Stephen Volk and produced by Ruth Baumgarten it is now considered a milestone in UK broadcasting. This was mainly due to the strong reaction it provoked from the public, many of whom failed to grasp that it was a drama. At the time it raised serious questions about responsible programming and caused a furore in the British press. It has curiously never been shown since by the BBC. Ghostwatch remains a talking point to this day and is a text book example of the power of television as well as the publics enduring belief in the supernatural.
Ronald Erle Grainer (11 August 1922 – 21 February 1981) was a prolific Australian composer who is best remembered for his work in the United Kingdom during the sixties and seventies. He wrote numerous notable scores and theme music for several iconic television shows such as Doctor Who, Steptoe and Son and Tales of the Unexpected. He also composed the soundtrack for several major motion pictures such as Some People (1962), The Assassination Bureau (1969) and The Omega Man (1971). Grainer relocated to London from Australia in 1952 but it was not until 1960 that he gained critical success after writing the music for the popular TV show Maigret. He subsequently received an Ivor Novello award for “Outstanding Composition for Film, TV or Radio”.
Anyone who writes regularly, sooner or later will have the following epiphany. The realisation that the post you consider your best work seldom finds an audience. Furthermore, the most inconsequential, disposable things that you have written on a whim, will often end up being the one article that gets a big response. It can be very frustrating but it is a reality of writing. It is with that idea in mind, I wish to move on to the matter of “Walter Watches”. In late March 2019, I took a picture of Walter sitting in his chair, watching a classic episode of The Twilight Zone. I subsequently Tweeted this image along with a descriptive caption. This gained a number of “likes” and retweets, so a day later I posted another. This time Walter was watching the film Krull (1983) and I added a humorous caption. Let’s just say I got more of a response for that one Tweet than I had for anything else I had posted over the previous nine years when promoting a blog post.
I was seven when The Six Million Dollar Man was first broadcast in the UK in late 1974. As a young and impressionable child, who was already fascinated by Doctor Who, Star Trek (TOS) and the films of Ray Harryhausen, this show was essential weekly viewing. I believe for the first couple of seasons, we sat and watched it as an entire family. Television was less sophisticated back then and dominated by sitcoms, police procedurals and traditional dramas. So a weekly show blending the espionage genre with science fiction themes was revolutionary. It also inspired a generation of school kids to run around the playground in “slow motion” and give themselves hernias as they attempted to lift heavy objects. And don’t get me started on the range of Steve Austin toys. One had a “bionic eye” which meant it had a lens in the front of the action figure’s face and you could look through the back of his head like a telescope. What a time to be alive!
Despite being an analysis of the past there is a portentous air about Ken Burns and Lynn Novick’s Prohibition. A fascinating five-and-a-half-hour documentary produced for PBS in 2011. The history of this disastrous experiment, the banning of alcoholic beverages, is a textbook example of how the transactional nature of US politics can be effectively used upon “wedge” issues. Prohibition follows the format and style of Burns previous documentaries such as the Civil War (1990) and The War (2007) with the wider subject broken down and analysed according to protagonists, events and the political background. Specific historical figures and key players are followed throughout the documentary’s narrative, giving viewers a sense of focus. Hence we meet the hatchet-wielding Carrie Nation, Wayne Wheeler from the Anti-Saloon League and media savvy gangsters like Al Capone. It is interesting to note that some themes continue from Burns’ previous work, such as the political and cultural conflict between native-born Americans and European immigrants. The rural heartlands versus the big cities.
Andor is not like other entries in the Star Wars canon. It explores the human, social and political consequences of rebelling against an oppressive, totalitarian regime. The writing is intelligent and well observed, choosing to focus on the average citizens of the Empire and the nature of their daily lives. Andor also explores the ineffectual politicians and the way the senate are self serving and ultimately impotent. The Emperor is remote and instead we see how Imperial colonialism works at a grassroots level. It is an all too familiar depiction, born out of historical fact, such as Vichy France during World War II. Petty thugs and aspiring psychopaths happily align themselves with their Imperial overlords and actively oppress their own people. As for the Empire, and in particular the ISB (Imperial Security Bureau) it is rife with infighting, personal fiefdoms and all the flaws of similar institutions from the real world.
Having watched the first two episodes of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power, I wish to express my thoughts on what I’ve seen and my overall impressions so far. I do not think it would be fair to frame this post as a review as the two episodes only constitute 25% of the show’s total content. A formal review of the first season seems more appropriate when I have seen it in its entirety. Before I begin commenting on specific points about the two premier episodes, I wish to point out that I have no problem with “representation” and have expressed my thoughts on this matter in a previous post. It also covers the matter of “adaptation” and how complex texts can at times require augmenting to be made accessible to wider audiences. Hence those viewers who want 100% canonical purity are unrealistic in their expectations. Objections based in racism and sexism can simply be ignored. NB I shall endeavour to keep my thoughts spoiler free.
The last time I wrote about our home entertainment system was six years ago. Back then I was hoping to upgrade our TV from HD to UHD. However, unless you are fortunate to have a surfeit of cash, most of us tend to soldier on with the hardware we already have until it breaks. Then at least we can justify replacing it. And that is exactly what happened to us last week. It would appear that both the TV and the powerline internet adapters which are in our lounge, suffered electrical induction damage during a recent thunderstorm. One of the powerline adapters was completely dead and the HDMI sockets on the television ceased to function. This meant we had no access to streaming services, the Blu-ray player or our BT TV DVR. We could access a selection of free, terrestrial digital channels via the aerial, but could not pause or record anything. Furthermore all of these were in standard definition.
The Eurovision Song Contest is a lot of things but it is never dull. Even if the songs that make it through to the final are a little lacklustre, there’s always drama to be found in the scoring. The first round of votes come from national juries made up of professionals from the music industry. Hence there is a propensity to judge songs on their technical and marketing merits. This often means that the juries favour songs that don’t necessarily appeal to the public. However, this is addressed in the second round in which the viewers can vote. The only caveat is that you cannot vote for your own country. Hence things can really change after the professional jury votes are counted and the public votes are added to the overall score. And that is what happened last night. There was a massive public vote for Ukrainian entry Stefania by the Kalush Orchestra and they subsequently won the contest.
Benjamin Franklin is in many ways the most interesting of the American Founding Fathers. A self taught man who went on to become a polymath. An inventor, accomplished writer and publisher. A diplomat who successfully held multiple public offices. A loyalist who went on to become a “reluctant revolutionary”. A slave owner who eventually became an abolitionist. A questionable parent who favoured specific children over others, as well as a negligent husband. Franklin was all these things, as Ken Burns’ documentary takes great pains to highlight. A broad cross section of historians tackle these foibles and contradictions from multiple perspectives. As Joseph J. Ellis states, Benjamin Franklin was “a Nobel-calibre scientist, the greatest prose stylist of his generation, and probably the greatest diplomat in American history”. His legacy is chronologically analysed over four hours in two distinct episodes.
Gerry Anderson: A Life Uncharted is a documentary that focuses specifically on the man, rather than the shows that he created. If you are more interested in the latter then you would be better off watching Filmed in Supermarionation (2014), which provides a comprehensive overview of all productions, wrapped in a cosy blanket of nostalgia and fandom. Gerry Anderson: A Life Uncharted offers a more challenging viewing experience due to its honesty and candour. Gerry Anderson had a difficult childhood and suffered a bereavement early in life. During the course of this 88 minute exploration of his life it becomes clear that these traumas both drove his creativity as well as marred his own personal life. Furthermore, this documentary is also about a son looking for answers, as Jamie Anderson attempts to learn more about his father’s past.
Star Trek documentaries are very much like Bruce Lee documentaries, in so far as they’re both a saturated market and more often than not, new content frequently ends up covering the same ground. However, fans tend to watch anything new in the hope that they will find a few new nuggets of information. Brian Volk-Weiss’ new 11 part series, The Center Seat: 55 years of Star Trek, not only covers established facts about the iconic show but also expands upon them as well as providing a wealth of new information. Volk-Weiss has previously explored popular culture with documentaries such as The Toys That Made Us and The Movies That Made Us. The Center Seat: 55 years of Star Trek is an in-depth chronological study of the Star Trek franchise, from its creation at Desilu Productions in 1965 all the way through to the latest iterations, Star Trek: Picard and Star Trek: Discovery.
I recently watched the first trailer for the new Obi-Wan Kenobi television show that is premiering on Disney + in May. I am interested in this latest instalment in the Star Wars franchise and curious as to whether Liam Neeson will make an appearance. I also watched a 20 minute fan video in which they “analysed” the entire trailer. They discussed the content of this 2 minute preview and then did a great deal of speculating about potential themes and characters that may feature in the show. They were clearly enthusiastic about what they had seen and were very knowledgeable about the subject. This resonated with me, as I like to be well versed about the things I enjoy. However, it is worth remembering that fandom can tip into obsession and gatekeeping. Hence I feel there is a subject to explore here.
A Year in TV
It is fair to say that we live in an age where we do not lack quality TV. There are numerous shows that have garnered critical acclaim or a strong word of mouth following that are deemed “must see” viewing. No doubt you, like myself, have a long “to do” list of programs that you need to “get round to watching” on top of those shows which are staples of your viewing regime. If you didn’t have enough programmes already to catch up with, we all have friends and family telling us about a “great show” that’s on a platform we don’t subscribe to, that we really need to see. It is quite extraordinary and a far cry from my youth when the UK simply had three terrestrial channels until satellite TV became popular in the late eighties. To paraphrase the former Prime Minister Harold Macmillan “we’ve never had it so good”.
It is fair to say that we live in an age where we do not lack quality TV. There are numerous shows that have garnered critical acclaim or a strong word of mouth following that are deemed “must see” viewing. No doubt you, like myself, have a long “to do” list of programs that you need to “get round to watching” on top of those shows which are staples of your viewing regime. If you didn’t have enough programmes already to catch up with, we all have friends and family telling us about a “great show” that’s on a platform we don’t subscribe to, that we really need to see. It is quite extraordinary and a far cry from my youth when the UK simply had three terrestrial channels until satellite TV became popular in the late eighties. To paraphrase the former Prime Minister Harold Macmillan “we’ve never had it so good”.
Yet there are downsides. The most obvious one is the fact that most people cannot subscribe to all the platforms they would like to and that there are simply too many competing services. So we all make tough choices based on what permutation of subscriptions offers us the most choice and then use other family member’s login details to cover the shortfall. Then there is the concept of “TV poverty” for those on low incomes who have no other recourse other than what is available for free. Internet access is still poor in some regions of the UK, meaning that streaming is not always the best option available. It has been mooted that the UK government intends to phase out digital terrestrial television by 2030 and replace it with streaming exclusively but until the internet divide is addressed i cannot see this being viable.
Freely, the proposed streaming replacement for UK digital terrestrial TV
TV has always had a curious relationship with cinema. In many ways they have been opposites at different periods of time. In the fifties and sixties cinema was considered the cerebral medium and TV was the poor, populist relation. At present it is the opposite. Film is driven by franchise spectacles, where TV is the home of complex, well written dramas. That being said, TV is not averse to creating franchises with an eye on long term longevity. This can come with its own set of problems. I started watching From on the understanding that this complex sci-fi horror drama would not make the same mistakes as the TV show Lost. Sadly the plot is dragging and there is little progression. One cannot escape the feeling that this show with its interesting premise and strong cast, is deliberately being dragged out for obvious financial reasons at the risk of the public just getting bored and switching off.
Another issue is time that elapses between seasons of a popular show. If more than a year goes by then it can be a struggle to recollect all nuances of the plot. Sometimes, I will have to rewatch the final episode of the previous season to jog my memory. On a few occasions, I have watched YouTube summaries of the previous series to bring me back up to speed. I find it kills your interest in a show if you have to do homework to keep on top of it. Sadly, some shows just drag on too long and end up diminishing their brand. It is argued that the optimal number of seasons is between five and seven. NCIS is a prime example of a popular show that has just gone on for too long. The most beloved characters have gone and it currently suffers from very poor writing. Conversely, its recent spinoff show, NCIS Origins, is the complete opposite with tightly written, well conceived and minimalist episodes.
NCIS Origins is a far better written show than NCIS
I enjoy good television but if left unchecked it could totally monopolise all my leisure time. Therefore I will make the decision to not watch some shows as I would rather spend the time on some other hobby. Unfortunately, just like the film industry, the current business model for television has an element of “fear of missing out” built into its marketing. Do you want to be one of the “cool kids” discussing the latest episode of a show and thus be part of a shared cultural moment, or will you watch it a couple of years later and discover that none of your mates want to talk about it anymore as they’ve moved on? Another cultural change is whether we “accept” that YouTube is a form of TV? I regularly watch YouTube on my lounge TV and for many, this is what they watch instead of “old school” TV. I suspect that 2025 will have more changes in store for us and will therefore be an equally interesting year in television.
I don’t really celebrate New Year’s Eve anymore. By that I mean, I don’t go to the pub or any other social gatherings. Nor do we have guests ourselves. Mrs P often doesn’t stay up to midnight. Mainly because she tends to go to bed relatively early, by default. One year changing to another seems a somewhat arbitrary excuse for a celebration to me. However, I realise that New Year is a big deal for some. I used to work with someone who said, very philosophically, that Christmas was for the children and New Year was for the adults. He was of Scottish antecedents and so New Year’s Eve was of more cultural significance to him. Also if you’ve had a difficult, problematic or traumatic 2025, then I fully understand that you may well be happy to see the back of 2025 and look to 2026 to be a significantly better year. Or at least, not to be as shit.
I have not watched as much TV as I usually do, this year. Mainly because I have become a little weary of the ways contemporary TV is produced, especially with regards to streaming shows. Due to the costs, shows such as Star Trek: Strange New Worlds only have 10 episodes per season. Simply put, the season begins to hit its stride and then is abruptly over. This problem (if you see it as such) is then further compounded by there being a significant wait between seasons. In the case of STSNW it was two years between season two and season three. Not all shows fall foul of this. Apple TV produces two seasons of the excellent espionage drama Slow Horses at a time, ensuring a prompt release schedule. However, even this has issues. Due to the complexity of the plots of many contemporary TV shows, something that is a marketing point, some viewers cannot remember the plot after a twelve month hiatus. Network TV shows seldom have these issues with each season being 20 plus episodes long and story arcs that are seldom as complex.
It is customary in a post such as this to list the various games that I’ve played over the last twelve months and share my thoughts on them. Wider analysis of the video game industry is also de rigeur. Unfortunately, I don’t really feel disposed to do either of those two things. My thoughts on the games I’ve played have already been published and can easily be accessed via the links at the bottom of this post. As for the video game industry, it suffers the same flaws as music, TV and cinema. There is creativity and innovation out there but it is often drowned out by mainstream products which are demonstrably inferior due to their inherent mediocrity. As for the business side of things, we once again clearly see the failings of the corporate management class. Sadly, they do not face the consequences of the mistakes that they make.
I began 2025 with a fairly strong writing streak, publishing posts about games, technology and even air fryers. Sadly, this burst of enthusiasm gradually tailed off between April and June. I can’t even recollect if there was any particular “real world” reason for this or whether it was just a case of I wasn’t especially motivated. Fortunately, I started writing again in July in preparation for Blaugust: Festival of Blogging and subsequently wrote throughout the entirety of August. Revamping my blog in September and moving it to the latest version of Squarespace proved a positive move and since then I have kept up a writing schedule of posting to Contains Moderate Peril every second day. At present I have a lot of draft posts pending and I am not struggling to come up with ideas and write in general. I intend to nurture this positive approach and see if I can build upon it in 2026.
Looking back at my various posts regarding “technology” this year, a recurring theme has been my ongoing attempts to replace certain mainstream products with alternatives that do the job in-hand better, don’t require constant updates, aren’t bloated by superfluous functionality and are more cost effective or even ethical. Needless to say, this has proven quite hard. Hence I was unable to find a suitable replacement email client for Microsoft Outlook and end my subscription to Microsoft 365 Personal. The main problem is that most alternative software won’t support my email archive due to differences in the mailbox format. One possible work around is to install an older and therefore, non-subscription version of Outlook but this raises support and compatibility issues. It would be a lot easier to divest myself of a lot of mainstream software if I was starting from scratch.
I created a Bluesky account a little over a year ago. I was initially somewhat sceptical of adopting a third social media messaging platform, because I had become quite comfortable using Mastodon as a replacement for Twitter/X. However, certain individuals that I wished to continue to follow were migrating to Bluesky, so I followed suit. It has always been my long term goal to pick one of these two newer services and make it my sole point of presence in social media terms. So far that hasn’t happened. Hence a year on I find myself juggling three such platforms. Twitter/X, Mastodon and Bluesky. I post links to my blog posts on all of these services. To be honest none of them generate any tangible traffic but this is how you promoted your website or blog 15 years ago and old habits die hard.
In my teenage years, there was a social obligation to go out on New Year’s Eve. This often meant congregating in some dismal pub, queuing at the bar for 30 minutes to get a drink, then trying to find a corner where you could stand and struggle to have a conversation with your friends, above the noise of the crowd. The evening was dull, noisy and often ended in a fight. Then, around 1:00 AM we were summarily turfed out into the street and had to make our way home. Buses always run at this time of year to serve a public need but the “drunk express” was never a pleasant means of transportation. Quite frankly the whole experience was shit but the hubris of youth meant we deluded ourselves that we were having a good time. If someone suggested something similar today, I would laugh in their face. I am happy to spend New Year’s Eve indoors and away from it all.
It is customary for me to write an end of year summary of my gaming activities but I suspect that on this occasion it will be somewhat short. For me, 2024 has really hammered home the notion of the ephemeral nature of video games as well as their commercial ubiquity. The moment a game fails to satisfy for whatever reason, rather than complain or worry about it, I just move on to something else. It’s not as if there’s a shortage of games out there. I have a substantial back catalogue of games that Epic and Amazon prime regularly giveaway. I have bought numerous discounted bundles in the past, in the pious hope that I’ll play one of the games included, at some point in the future. Games may well be enjoyable and engaging but many are also disposable. That’s not to say they’re bad. While playing them you are indeed “entertained”. However, when you’re “done”, it’s amazing how you quickly find another and forget what you were previously playing.
The last time I wrote A Year in Movies post was back in 2020. That was naturally an unusual year and it certainly had a radical impact upon the film industry and the way new movies are distributed. In many ways the pandemic accelerated the inevitable move towards cross platform, same day releases. 4 years on and it is quite usual for films to have a short cinema release before becoming available on streaming media. They often appear on physical media at the same time. Effectively you can go to the cinema, or simply watch at home on the platform of your choice if you prefer. Rent, buy or subscribe, the film studios still get their pound of flesh and everyone is happy. Sometimes if a film has failed to gain sufficient traction at the cinema, its release will be cut short and it will go to streaming even quicker. Direct to video from the eighties and nineties has been superseded with direct to streaming.
It is fair to say that we live in an age where we do not lack quality TV. There are numerous shows that have garnered critical acclaim or a strong word of mouth following that are deemed “must see” viewing. No doubt you, like myself, have a long “to do” list of programs that you need to “get round to watching” on top of those shows which are staples of your viewing regime. If you didn’t have enough programmes already to catch up with, we all have friends and family telling us about a “great show” that’s on a platform we don’t subscribe to, that we really need to see. It is quite extraordinary and a far cry from my youth when the UK simply had three terrestrial channels until satellite TV became popular in the late eighties. To paraphrase the former Prime Minister Harold Macmillan “we’ve never had it so good”.
This post is not intended to be a comprehensive review of music per se in 2024. It is simply a few thoughts on what I’ve been listening to over the course of the year and my ever changing relationship with the Terpsichorean muse. As a man in his fifties who has always enjoyed multiple genres of music and it is a comforting presence in day-to-day life. Up to a year ago, I relied upon my own music collection on my PC as the source of music to which I listened. Yet, this meant that I was somewhat locked into my own existing tastes and there was limited scope for me to find new material. This changed last December when I started subscribing to Spotify and since then it has become my primary source of music. It caters to my tastes, which at times are quite niche and it gently introduces me to new material without being too invasive. This has proven most beneficial.
This is my third attempt at writing this post. The first was a little too philosophical, tackling the nature of adult life and how it is a far cry from the childish notions I had about being a “grown up” when I was seven. The second was just a list of the various shit that has gone down in my life over the last twelve months and it felt far too much like whinging. Hopefully this one is more succinct and even handed. 2022 was not a good year, personally speaking. My family and I experienced a lot of health issues and my mother died after a rapid decline. Hence there has been a lot of stress and anxiety which has left me feeling tired and somewhat jaded. Due to the subsequent changes in my personal circumstances, I now find myself at somewhat of a “loose end”. I feel the need to channel my energies into something but I’m not sure exactly what at present.
So far I have written 135 blog posts in 2022. Not much compared to previous years, but frankly I’ve become a little despondent with writing in recent months (I shall expand more upon that in a moment). Hence, since October I have been enjoying a break from regular blogging. I have written sparingly and pursued other leisure activities. Given that my post output has gone down, it would be logical to assume that there has been a commensurate drop in web traffic to Contains Moderate Peril, but this is not the case. Overall, my monthly statistics have remained the same, proving once again that most of my readership find my written content via Google searches, rather than reading new material on a daily basis. This has given me much food for thought and added to my ongoing reflection upon my writing activities.
When I wrote Goodbye 2020 a year ago, I endeavoured to be philosophical and sanguine in my approach. It was a challenging year for all of us and for me it was further compounded by a bereavement. However, I strove to keep matters in perspective and tried to look at things in a broader context. I cannot be as even handed this time. 2021 has been a very difficult year for myself and my family and I will be glad to see the back of it. Nationally speaking, things haven’t been much better. I feel that we’ve squandered the initial progress that the COVID-19 vaccines offered. Obviously, I cannot do anything about the problems that the UK faces in 2022. However, I certainly intend to address some of the issues that I and my immediate family are facing. I am going to tackle some specific problems that need to be laid to rest and set myself some tangible goals to achieve. 2022 isn’t going to be something that just happens and I passively sit back and watch.
Getting older does have a few benefits. One of them, if you are fortunate enough to embrace the concept, is a degree of self awareness and the ability to be honest with yourself. Over the years I have tried to adjust my technological habits but ultimately I am a creature of habit. My use of technology and consumption of content has been determined by the decades I grew up in. Therefore, I am a PC user and prefer to sit in my office where I write, play games and peruse the internet. I have my desk set up in a way that suits my needs and I can go about my business in comfort. When away from my office, I rely heavily on my phone as an alternative platform. In some instances phone based apps offer a superior experience to the desktop or browser based PC alternatives. Banking being one example. For better or for worse this is how I do things and I am comfortable with these choices.
Usually in a post such as this, my primary focus would be writing about the games that I’ve played over the last twelve month and what it was about them that I specifically enjoyed. However, this year I feel that I must address the wider issues that have dominated the news regarding the video games industry. Simply put, several very high profile and successful triple A video game companies have been beset by scandals over the last twelve months. And these have been of such a nature that they have finally laid to rest the myth that some still cling to, that working “in video games” is somehow different from working in more traditional industries because it’s “cool”. It turns out that it has all the same failings as TV, music and film. The people at the top are abusive and broken and maltreat those at the coalface who do all the real work for precious little reward.
I can’t speak for others but my relationship with social media has certainly changed over the last two years. Whenever new internet technologies emerge, there is a brief period when it feels like some sort of new frontier. Often such innovations become a means of empowering the marginalised and the voiceless. For a while new platforms can even be a force for good. But eventually commercial interests creep in along with rules and regulations. Hence, it all inevitably takes a turn for the worst. The frontier is finally tamed and ends up being just another corporate space. Social media is certainly not a forum for discussing social issues or politics, instead being a medium for tribalism and rancour. Because of these factors and others, I have moderated my use of social media and it has proven extremely beneficial to my state of mind.
A very wise Vulcan once said “change is the essential process of all existence”. 2020 has demonstrated that unequivocally. How our privileged, pampered lives have altered over the last twelve months. We’ve had to stay at home, curtail our social interactions and reflect upon the meaning of existence. I appreciate that things are relative, so it’s not helpful to compare the concerns that discombobulate people today with the realities that folk had to endure during World War II for example. I won’t trivialise the sense of isolation and desperation some folk have felt over the lockdown. From my own perspective, my life as a carer is regimented and focused, so 2020 hasn’t really “cramped my style” to use an old fashioned phrase. However, several things happened over the course of the year that have had an impact upon myself and my family.
Let it suffice to say that due to current “circumstances”, Mrs P and I have watched a lot more TV this year. However, rather than just reiterate what we’ve viewed, which is already covered in my recurring blog post The Idiot Box, I thought I’d take the time to reflect upon some wider issues. TV has become a major source not only of entertainment but psychological support during this year’s social restrictions. The closure of cinemas for the majority of the past twelve months has meant that TV has had little or no competition. Furthermore, many of the films that may well have drawn audiences away, have come to the smaller screens a lot quicker. Never has so much TV been voraciously consumed. There’s also been a degree of nostalgia as viewers have watched popular shows at broadly similar times, reviving that sense of a shared experience that was so common in the seventies and eighties. However, the pandemic has also caused a slow down in TV production. Will the shortage of new content that many have predicted finally manifest itself next year?
In 2019, I went to the cinema just once to see Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker. I didn’t write a summary of the films I’d seen throughout that year, as I felt that mainstream releases had become far too formulaic and dull. 2020 has done little to change my perspective. The global pandemic has meant that Cinemas have spent most of the time closed and therefore many of this year’s major film releases have ended up on video on demand services. A few titles remain indefinitely postponed, such as the latest Bond movie No Time to Die, while Sony Pictures wait to see if “normality” resumes. But a film that is sitting on the shelf is not a film making money. Hence, Warner Bros. have announced that all their major releases for 2021 will be across multiple platforms simultaneously, thus ensuring a broader flow of revenue. This has not pleased director’s such as Christopher Nolan who argue passionately regarding the merits of cinema. But I doubt Mr. Nolan has ever had to endure an out of focus screening in the wrong aspect ratio at Cineworld, Rochester, where audiences talk and mess with their phones continuously.
Retrospective posts such as this can be a sprawling mess. There is also potential to cover the same old ground that I’ve covered in my monthly summaries “A Month in Gaming”. So I’ll try to be as succinct as I can. Firstly I won’t dwell too much on the iniquities of the video game industry as I’ve covered that elsewhere. Let it suffice to say that the notion of the “rock star developer” and the ethical publisher have proven false. Buying a triple A mainstream game is as morally compromised as buying a pair of jeans made by child labour. But let’s not get caught up in ethics. That’s another post. The pandemic meant that I, like many others, had far more leisure time this year and hence I spent that time gaming. It’s been a good year for video games publishers and the revenue has rolled in. Have I had fun while playing more games? Yes. The games have proven engaging and they also provide a lot to write about, so it’s a win, win scenario from my perspective.
In my lifetime technology has always been promoted as something that improves our lives, especially at a domestic level. The VCR in the eighties is a prime example of this. It liberated us from having to watch TV at a specific time and place. Then there the personal computer, which brought into our own homes tools, that until that point, had been exclusive to the office. And for all the ill that it brings, the internet has certainly made the world demonstrably smaller. It’s revolutionised shopping and has improved the administration of services. So overall, I still feel that technology is a force for good. However there have been changes. In recent years technology on a domestic level has ceased to be quite as transformative and become more of a disposable commodity. Tech is now a fashion accessory, with a distinct lifecycle and upgrade treadmill. It is fast becoming just another form of superfluous crap to fill your home with.
Despite the tumultuous events of the last twelve months and the accompanying emotional fallout that has followed in their wake, I’ve managed to keep writing throughout 2020. My output has been somewhat inconsistent this year and I’ve noticed some changes in what I write about. This is inevitable as one’s tastes and focus changes naturally change over time. I’m finding it tougher to write enthusiastically about the video games industry per se, as it has hardly covered itself in glory this year. However, I still enjoy writing film reviews although I haven’t set foot inside a cinema for over a year. I suspect that this will remain the case for much of 2021. My writing has broadened in its scope and I find myself writing social commentary about various aspects of life, rather than just posting articles about my hobbies. Sharing my thoughts on the pandemic itself and “caring for the elderly” has proven very cathartic. But as I’ve stated many times before, writing is one of the ways in which I make sense of the world around me.
Last year I tried to write a measured and balanced post about the passing of the year. Sadly this time round my attitude toward the departing 12-month period is somewhat binary. Yes there were a couple of highlights to 2019 but most of it was an uphill struggle and therefore not worth celebrating. It can frankly sod off and won’t be missed. The two high points were my son’s wedding in August and my renewed enthusiasm for blogging that came about due to the Blaugust writing event. But overall 2019 was a repetitive and somewhat depressing grind having to continuously deal with multiple family illnesses, numerous hospital visits and then at the end of the year a bereavement. Yes, these are things that happened to us all eventually and there is no escaping them but I appear to be trapped in this facet of the “circle of life”. Furthermore, until certain situations resolve themselves, I cannot make or implement any long-term plans. 2019 has been in many ways about just treading water.
Life is often cyclical, if you don’t believe me go watch The Lion King. I started 2018 playing The Lord of the Rings Online and by writing a post about how gamers collectively seem to repeat the same mistakes. And as the year and indeed the decade ends, I find myself once again playing the Yule Festival in LOTRO and reflecting upon how some games that garnered criticism over their egregious business models, have ended up as huge hits. It would appear that gamers are their own worst enemy. I shall leave the psychological analysis of paradox to others. From my perspective, irrespective of the iniquities of the video game industry and certain quarters of the gaming community, it has been a good year, gaming wise. I have enjoyed my time playing MMOs such as Star Trek Online, The Elder Scrolls Online and the aforementioned LOTRO. These and other titles have entertained me, provided me with an opportunity to unwind as well as affording me some much-needed social interaction. I particularly enjoy Wednesday evenings when I log into my Discord server and then chat and play collaboratively with longstanding gaming friends.
One of the benefits that comes with age (for some people at least), if the gift of realistic expectations. Having reached 51 years, I no longer harbour thoughts that each year will be a rollercoaster ride of excitement, mirth and personal gain. Nor do I count on the stars aligning so that I make my fortune and retire peacefully to the Cayman Islands, to live the life of a tax exile. If New Year’s Eve rolls round and no one has died, I’m not looking at being tried for murder and there’s still gin in the drinks cabinet, then I usually deem the previous twelve months an acceptable year. However, despite even these fairly lose and undemanding criteria I feel compelled to say that 2018 was bollocks and that I won’t be sad to see the back of it.
I did not manage to maintain my writing schedule this year and have not posted everyday as I would’ve liked. I have produced over two hundred and seventy posts but still feel I could have done more. Blaugust was a welcome burst of enthusiasm that I managed to sustain for September and October, but I lost momentum in the run up to Christmas. At least I know what the root cause is which puts me a step nearer to resolving it. Having written several posts in the past about “writers block” and the other perennial excuse of not having anything to write about, I seem to have squarely fallen into both those traps. At present I find that motivating myself is the key problem. If I haven’t started writing something by midday, then it more than often gets left for the day. If I intend to escape this malaise, then I shall have to establish a far stricter writing schedule for 2019 and endeavour to do my writing first thing in the morning, when I am most focused.
Throughout my adult life I have always gone to the cinema as a leisure activity. 2018 has been of note in this regard as it’s the year I’ve been to the cinema the least. I have visited my local multiplex just three times over the last twelve months. It’s not that good quality movies are not made anymore. Far from it. It’s just that they don’t always get released theatrically. Furthermore, the cost to entertainment ratio has simply become too much of a gamble. Standard tickets are priced between £12 to £15 locally and I resent such an outlay for a film that may only be adequate or worse. Perhaps my outlook on pricing is unreasonable but I am not going to pay such money for mediocre entertainment. I don’t expect every movie I see to be a cinematic milestone or genre classic but nor do I expect it to be an exercise in indifference. If I had paid such ticket prices to see The Predator or Death Wish at my local Cineworld, then I would have been singularly annoyed. Mercifully I saw them both at home and therefore at a much lower cost.
The term social media is a broad church. For me it primarily means Twitter as that is the only platform of that ilk that I use regularly. I maintain a presence on Facebook simply to stay in touch with friends who have emigrated to the US. We have a private page where we catch up instead of using the traditional medium of emails. It is more immediate but also more frivolous. If it weren’t for need that it serves, I would have long closed my Facebook account. 2018 was also the year where I tried to continue using Instagram but failed. I don’t tend to catalogue and display my life in the manner that this medium tends to demand and use it mainly to see what my granddaughters have been up to. For me Twitter is the social media platform I feel most comfortable using and feel that I have mastered. I use it to promote my writing and for quips, banter and social interaction. Beyond that I think its benefits are both limited and even questionable.
My relationship with technology has changed over the years and my enthusiasm has tempered greatly. Having worked in the IT field for 25 years (up until 2016), I have been immersed in technological advancement and due to my age have seen a great deal change. I was at one time an early adopter of anything I considered to be potentially beneficial to me and at times have been guilty of acquiring something “new and shiny” simply for its own sake. I have even flirted with that dubious notion of tech as a fashion accessory. But sometimes age does bring wisdom, so nowadays, I’m a firm believer in finding the sweet spot between “the right tool for the job” and “if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it”. Subsequently, 2018 has not seem me acquire a great deal of new technology. However, what I have bought this year or started using has been well received and useful.
Music by John Williams (2024)
Music by John Williams is a documentary celebration of the famous composer and his illustrious body of work. It provides some interesting biographical background information as to how the man was born into a family of talented musicians. It then traces his rise from pianist for hire to the most well known film composer today. Along the way, anyone who is anyone in film and music appears to heap justifiable praise upon him and his body of work. It also features a continuous medley of John Williams’ greatest hits, as it catalogues his work in broadly chronological order. Music by John Williams is an upbeat and positive love letter to the composer and exactly what you would expect, when you consider that the documentary was produced by his friends and peers.
Music by John Williams is a documentary celebration of the famous composer and his illustrious body of work. It provides some interesting biographical background information as to how the man was born into a family of talented musicians. It then traces his rise from pianist for hire to the most well known film composer today. Along the way, anyone who is anyone in film and music appears to heap justifiable praise upon him and his body of work. It also features a continuous medley of John Williams’ greatest hits, as it catalogues his work in broadly chronological order. Music by John Williams is an upbeat and positive love letter to the composer and exactly what you would expect, when you consider that the documentary was produced by his friends and peers.
“How does he do it”? This is a question that is continuously raised throughout the documentary’s 105 minute running time, by the various talking heads such as J.J. Abrams, Chris Columbus and Seth McFarlane. Naturally, this is a perfectly logical question considering the composer’s ability to continuously write outstanding music for film after film. However, it becomes clear after a while that this particular documentary doesn’t really intend to answer this question, preferring to simply reflect on the composer’s work and frame his skills in enigmatic terms. It is a perfectly valid approach and ensures that Music by John Williams remains very accessible to viewers who may well have no background in musical theory. But it is a little disappointing to those who have a genuine interest in Mr Williams technical skills.
We are briefly given a rare insight as to John Williams thought processes, when he discusses his famous five note motif for Close Encounters of the Third Kind. He draws a grammatical analogy stating that the five note motif is akin to a conjunctive sentence and that it ends in a questioning fashion. The motif raises an expectation with the fifth degree of the scale. Contextually, it is a “but”, rather than a definitive statement. Within the parameters of the film, that is an important point and taps into the themes of the story with its cosmic questions. I would have liked to have seen far more examples of Mr Williams’ reasoning because it shows that he doesn’t just write from the heart but there is a great deal of technical literacy at work as well. It adds an additional cerebral dimension to his music as well as its inherent emotional content.
There is still much to recommend Music by John Williams. Director Laurent Bouzereau asks pertinent questions in a casual and disarming way. Steven Spielberg’s home movies are an invaluable source of information and insight as he has recorded numerous studio sessions of Mr Williams’ conducting the score for his films. The documentary also does a good job of highlighting John Williams’ work for the Boston Pops and how he did much to bring orchestral music to a wider audience. There was a surprising amount of snobbery and pushback to this in the mid eighties. However, if you are seeking the rigour and scrutiny of Ennio, Giuseppe Tornatore’s sprawling documentary about Ennio Morricone, you won’t find it. Music by John Williams is not intended to be such an exploration, preferring to be an ode to the composer and a much deserved veneration.
Music by John Williams is a documentary celebration of the famous composer and his illustrious body of work. It provides some interesting biographical background information as to how the man was born into a family of talented musicians. It then traces his rise from pianist for hire to the most well known film composer today. Along the way, anyone who is anyone in film and music appears to heap justifiable praise upon him and his body of work. It also features a continuous medley of John Williams’ greatest hits, as it catalogues his work in broadly chronological order. Music by John Williams is an upbeat and positive love letter to the composer and exactly what you would expect, when you consider that the documentary was produced by his friends and peers.
Despite being an analysis of the past there is a portentous air about Ken Burns and Lynn Novick’s Prohibition. A fascinating five-and-a-half-hour documentary produced for PBS in 2011. The history of this disastrous experiment, the banning of alcoholic beverages, is a textbook example of how the transactional nature of US politics can be effectively used upon “wedge” issues. Prohibition follows the format and style of Burns previous documentaries such as the Civil War (1990) and The War (2007) with the wider subject broken down and analysed according to protagonists, events and the political background. Specific historical figures and key players are followed throughout the documentary’s narrative, giving viewers a sense of focus. Hence we meet the hatchet-wielding Carrie Nation, Wayne Wheeler from the Anti-Saloon League and media savvy gangsters like Al Capone. It is interesting to note that some themes continue from Burns’ previous work, such as the political and cultural conflict between native-born Americans and European immigrants. The rural heartlands versus the big cities.
Joel Allen Schroeder's documentary Dear Mr. Watterson is a curious beast insofar that it takes some time before it decides exactly what it wants to focus upon. It begins by examining the cultural impact of the hugely popular comic strip “Calvin & Hobbes” and what it means to people around the world. However, little information is given about the creator, Bill Watterson beyond a very simple biography. Joel Allen Schroeder’s also makes no attempt to contact and interview the reclusive Mr. Watterson to find out more about the man and his iconic work. Instead, the documentary eventually settles into an assessment of Watterson’s work by other industry luminaries and a broader accounting of the overall decline of the newspaper cartoon as a social institution. The presentation is bright, stylish and there’s a lot of love for the subject but it takes some time before it commits to a specific approach.
“Kurt Vonnegut: Unstuck in Time” is a sprawling, non-linear eulogy to the to the life of writer Kurt Vonnegut, by Emmy-winning director Robert B. Weide (“Curb Your Enthusiasm”), who was a friend of Vonnegut's throughout the last 25 years of his life. Weide himself features heavily throughout the two hour running time, which is something Weide says he usually hates in documentaries. However, what unfolds is a story of a documentary maker who wanted to film his idol and was granted an opportunity to do so in the early eighties. The project was never completed and both Weide and Vonnegut continuously returned to it over the years as their friendship grew, leading to Weide eventually becoming Vonnegut’s personal archivist. However, despite this curious relationship, this is still very much a film about Kurt Vonnegut, the author, the social commentator and the man. It becomes quite clear why he is considered one of the most important writers of the 20th century.
Benjamin Franklin is in many ways the most interesting of the American Founding Fathers. A self taught man who went on to become a polymath. An inventor, accomplished writer and publisher. A diplomat who successfully held multiple public offices. A loyalist who went on to become a “reluctant revolutionary”. A slave owner who eventually became an abolitionist. A questionable parent who favoured specific children over others, as well as a negligent husband. Franklin was all these things, as Ken Burns’ documentary takes great pains to highlight. A broad cross section of historians tackle these foibles and contradictions from multiple perspectives. As Joseph J. Ellis states, Benjamin Franklin was “a Nobel-calibre scientist, the greatest prose stylist of his generation, and probably the greatest diplomat in American history”. His legacy is chronologically analysed over four hours in two distinct episodes.
Giuseppe Tornatore’s sprawling documentary Ennio, is a finely detailed and absorbing exploration of prolific and iconic Italian composer Ennio Morricone. Despite its very traditional approach to its subject matter, looking at Morricone’s career chronologically, intercut with celebrity talking heads, it still manages to convey the unorthodox, innovative and experimental nature of the composer. The 156 minute running time is not necessarily the impediment that one expects. Rather it is the sheer weight of the emotional impact that comes from Morricone’s music that is at times overwhelming. Archival footage and a new and comprehensive interview recorded just prior to the composer’s death in 2020 is intercut with a wealth of audio cues and concert footage from a broad cross section of his work. The result is most illuminating with regard to the man and his approach to composing. The conclusion backed by many of those interviewed is that Ennio Morricone has shaped the nature of film music and elevated it to an artform.
Gerry Anderson: A Life Uncharted is a documentary that focuses specifically on the man, rather than the shows that he created. If you are more interested in the latter then you would be better off watching Filmed in Supermarionation (2014), which provides a comprehensive overview of all productions, wrapped in a cosy blanket of nostalgia and fandom. Gerry Anderson: A Life Uncharted offers a more challenging viewing experience due to its honesty and candour. Gerry Anderson had a difficult childhood and suffered a bereavement early in life. During the course of this 88 minute exploration of his life it becomes clear that these traumas both drove his creativity as well as marred his own personal life. Furthermore, this documentary is also about a son looking for answers, as Jamie Anderson attempts to learn more about his father’s past.
Star Trek documentaries are very much like Bruce Lee documentaries, in so far as they’re both a saturated market and more often than not, new content frequently ends up covering the same ground. However, fans tend to watch anything new in the hope that they will find a few new nuggets of information. Brian Volk-Weiss’ new 11 part series, The Center Seat: 55 years of Star Trek, not only covers established facts about the iconic show but also expands upon them as well as providing a wealth of new information. Volk-Weiss has previously explored popular culture with documentaries such as The Toys That Made Us and The Movies That Made Us. The Center Seat: 55 years of Star Trek is an in-depth chronological study of the Star Trek franchise, from its creation at Desilu Productions in 1965 all the way through to the latest iterations, Star Trek: Picard and Star Trek: Discovery.
Shatner in Space is a 45 minute documentary about the 90 year old actor, William Shatner and his recent foray into space via Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin sub-orbital spaceflight service. Considering the provenance of this entire undertaking, attitudes in general towards billionaires and the obvious publicity seeking hubris of sending a cultural icon into space, it’s easy to dismiss Shatner in Space as nothing more than a very, very expensive infomercial. However, the quiet dignity of Mr Shatner whose age and experience means that he draws a very different conclusion from his space flight than his fellow passengers, is utterly compelling and possibly a little profound. If you can endure the soulless polish of the scenes with an immaculately staged managed Jeff Bezos, then you’ll be rewarded with the philosophical musings of a man approaching the end of his life who is naturally curious about his own mortality.
I am not a fan of conspiracy theories, nor those who are heavily invested in them. There are many reasons to repudiate such ideas but for me the main one is just a simple observation on human nature. Any major conspiracy, plot or cover up requires large swaths of people to participate and remain quiet about the facts. Yet one of the most common attributes of the human condition is peoples total inability to shut up. Simply put, most conspiracy theories don’t hold water because someone would have blabbed. Hence, documentaries about how the moon landings were faked or how 9/11 was an “inside job” tend not to “butter any parsnips” with me. However, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass is a surprisingly different beast. I was surprised by its measured approach and its inferred conclusion. Has old age mellowed the filmmaker Oliver Stone?
Television programmes that deal with the so-called supernatural, mysterious and the unexplained are commonplace these days. They fill the schedules of channels that used to broadcast quality wildlife, historical and scientific documentaries. All too often these shows focus on the sensational nature of their subject matter and lack any real objectivity, analysis and scientific rigour. The idea is not to impartially explore a subject to determine its veracity but to simply provide a degree of spectacle for as broad a viewing demographic as possible. However, that was not always the case. Back in 1980, Yorkshire Television produced Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World. A high profile exploration thirteen-part British television series looking at unexplained phenomena from around the world. The presence of Clarke, who introduced and book-ended the various subjects the show explored, brought a degree of impartiality and credibility to the proceedings.
Over the years I have seen many documentaries about World War II. Although I do not claim in any way to be an expert, I believe I have a good grasp on the causes and the course of that six year conflict. However, it recently struck me that I could not say the same about World War I. In my youth I watched a repeat showing of the BBC documentary series The Great War (1964) but I remember very little of its prodigious 26 episodes. The one thing that stood out were the interviews with veterans. So I was very pleased when perusing BritBox over the weekend to find the 2003 documentary The First World War, based upon the book of the same name by Professor Hew Strachan. This ten part analysis takes a global view of the conflict, rather than excessively focusing upon the Western Front and also debunks a lot of the apocryphal ideas and notions that have persisted over the years. I found it so compelling that I binged watched the entire thing over two evenings.
The music business is a strange, interesting and broad church. A spectrum of musical styles and personalities all fulfilling the needs of different markets. There are pop stars who are buoyant but ephemeral. Then there are singer/songwriters who take their work seriously as they express their critique of the human condition via their music. There are also style icons, novelty acts, indie bands, lounge crooners and a myriad of other niche acts, all doing their own thing. And occasionally there are enigmas. Artists and bands that fly in the face of prevailing trends and commercial interest, who do consider their work to be an artistic endeavour and an expression of themselves and as such, do not see the virtue of personal compromise or corporate interests. Esoteric musicians who reinvent themselves continuously as they grow and age. Constantly defying the expectations of both their own fans and naysayers. Sparks are such a musical entity and the subject of a fascinating documentary by director Edgar Wright.
Carl Sagan's seminal science documentary Cosmos: A Personal Voyage was initially broadcast in the US between 28th September and 21st December 1980. Six months later it was shown in the UK on BBC One throughout the summer of 1981. I was thirteen years old at the time and this science documentary series had a tremendous impact upon not only me but an entire generation. The complexity of some of the subjects explored and discussed by Carl Sagan often left me perplexed. However, I knew that there was something special about this show and the way it presented science in such a personal manner. Therefore, I found myself going to both my local and school library to further read about the topics raised in each episode. But perhaps the most standout aspect of the show was Sagan himself. His commentary delivered directly to the camera was both enthralling and lyrical. His love and enthusiasm was palpable and clearly bled through into every aspect of the show. His ability to communicate clearly, complex and at times esoteric ideas, was a revelation and in many ways a gift. Similar to that of Jacob Bronowski and David Attenborough.
There was a time when film making was seen as an artistic endeavour and the idea of the auteur director pursuing a vision was considered a romantic and even noble undertaking. Big multi-million-dollar productions were welcomed when they filmed on location, providing work and glamour to the local population. The might of the dollar would often grease the wheels of industry, making the impossible possible. Egos were massaged, and actors were indulged and treated like minor deities. Huge sets would appear in the middle of nowhere, like Victorian follies and luxury items would be flown around the world to placate the capricious nature of the various Hollywood stars. Money would flow like water, much to the dismay of the producers, sitting back in the offices in the US or Europe. But this era has now past. Big budget movies are still made but it is now driven by corporate accounting and artistic vision is no longer a primary consideration. It is now a rather soulless business process. Hence a movie such as Apocalypse Now would never be made today in the same manner that it was back in 1976 when the production started.
MR James: Ghost Writer is a sixty-minute documentary written and presented by Mark Gatiss, exploring the life of Britain's foremost ghost story writer. Gatiss, a long-time admirer of James, delves in to the life of the author from his devout Anglican upbringing and close-knit family life, through to his ascent to the summit of academia at King's college, Cambridge. The program seeks to discover what motivated this scholarly bachelor to create some of the most iconic and chilling ghost stories in English literature. By following in James’s footsteps, the documentary attempts to gain a greater insight in to the enigmatic author.
Wisconsin Death Trip is a strange, enigmatic, non-linear docudrama and that makes for compelling viewing for the open minded. It is based upon the 1973 non-fiction book Wisconsin Death Trip by Michael Lesy, which explores a collection of late 19th century photographs by Jackson County, photographer Charles Van Schaick. These are mainly taken in the city of Black River Falls. The authentic black and white pictures are further embellished by local news reports from the same period, predominantly taken from the Black River Falls newspaper. These articles emphasise the harsh aspects of Midwestern rural life under the pressures of crime, disease, mental illness, and urbanization. The book has been a source of influence over the years, with authors such as Stephen King and Rod Jones citing the impact its had upon their respective work. Film maker James Marsh has subsequently taken this curious microcosm of rural life and death and extrapolated it a compelling reflection upon mortality and the fragility of human existence.
Dean Haglund is best known for playing Richard Langly, one of the Lone Gunmen on The X-Files. In recent years has capitalised upon that role and has become closely identified with the realm of the paranormal and the world of conspiracy theories. The documentary The Truth Is Out There follows Dean as he travels the US and attempts to discover just what it means to search for the truth in a world where conspiracies theories, untruths and fake news abound. The documentary directed by Phil Leirness, humorously takes the viewer on a journey of discovery, talking to those who believe that the world is not what it seems.
Once again Jamie Benning has created a filmumentary that is pretty much a definitive exploration of its subject matter. Inside Jaws contains a staggering amount of facts, details, insight and commentary about one of the greatest films ever made. Yet despite a wealth of information, it is presented in a way that is easily digestible and enhances the movie, rather than overwhelms it. As with Star Wars Begins, the original movie is annotated with on-screen text, commentary tracks and behind the scenes footage, which provide incisive overview into the movies production.
Star Wars Begins is a detailed documentary by film maker Jamie Benning that explores the creation of what is now considered to be the most iconic movie of the seventies; namely Star Wars. It features a wealth of deleted scenes, alternate takes, behind-the-scenes footage, bloopers, original on set audio recordings and a great deal of commentary by the original cast and crew. As far as I’m concerned, it is the most thorough and in-depth analysis of Star Wars I have yet to see. Frankly it beats hands down, any of the officially sanctioned documentaries that have appeared over the year on the various DVD and Blu-ray releases of the trilogy.
Indie Game: The Movie is a genuinely fascinating documentary not only about the machinations video games industry but also the blood, sweat and tears that go into any creative process. It is a film that really does give you pause for thought and encourages you to reflect upon what you may want in life. It clearly shows the true cost and the star reality of any labour of love. It should be required viewing in schools and colleges for any wannabe who dreams of being on a reality shows and achieving a fast path to their perceived heart’s desire. Such is the impact of the documentary’s message.
Despite having played a broad spectrum of games in my time, I've never really had much dealings with the Blizzard. Beyond owning Overwatch, a game I’ve long stopped playing and trying a free trial of both World of Warcraft and Hearthstone, I have little personal experience of their games. However, I am fully aware of their product range and their reputation within the gaming industry. Overwatch has taught me how well-conceived and polished their games can be. Blizzard may not be incredibly innovative, but they learn from others and produce titles with all the elements that work well. Sadly, I have no real affinity to their flagship MMORPG, as my point of entry with that genre was LOTRO. My interest in World of Warcraft mainly stems from a business perspective and the place it holds in gaming history. Overall my curiosity about the game, its community and culture is mainly academic. So, I finally got around to watching the documentary World of Warcraft: Looking for Group that showcased at Blizzcon in 2014 and was subsequently released on You Tube thereafter.
Certain groups just lend themselves to ridicule from the media and in popular culture in general, irrespective of whether they deserve it or not. Star Wars fans are a prime example of this. Their love of the lore, predilection for cosplay and hunger for collectables at first glance makes them an easy target. Film maker Mark Edlitz, takes a decidedly different approach in his documentary Jedi Junkies. Instead of finger-pointing and making cheap jokes, Jedi Junkies puts a very human face on a group of enthusiasts, showing their passion to be in essence, no different to that of sports fans or other more mainstream hobbies and pastimes.
After watching several hours of the documentary, The Vietnam War, one has to wonder at the utter inability of the US government of the time, to think outside the box during the period of that conflict. Seldom does a military, political, and social analysis of an historical event go this deep. During its eighteen hour running time directors Ken Burns and Lynn Novick cover a wealth of issues associated with this conflict, exploring it from multiple perspectives. Not only do they shine a light upon the hubris and folly of both respective governments, they manage to keep a very intimate and human perspective. Personal stories from both sides are told and if there is a common theme, it is sadly one of tragedy and regret.
Considering the mainstream popularity of gaming, there is a distinct lack of related content on television. Journalist, writer and social commentator Charlie Brooker attempted to address this in 2009 with Gameswipe but the show remained a one-off production. Then again in late 2013, he had another crack at the subject with the documentary How Videogames Changed the World, providing a broad overview on the genre, exploring key events and titles from the past forty years. As ever with Mr. Brooker, the commentary was intelligent and acerbic. There was also an interesting and diverse selection of talking heads who spoke from personal experience, rather than the usual scripted garrulous inanities.
Constance Marks’ documentary explores the story of Kevin Clash, the man who effectively "was" Seasame Street's Elmo until 2014. The film charts Kevin Clash's rise from his modest beginnings in Baltimore to his success as a globally famous character and a major player in the Henson family of puppeteers. The documentary manages to maintain a good balance between examining the mechanics of puppetry and focusing on the human impact of Kevin's work. Like so many documentaries of these type, it clearly shows that achieving your dreams always comes with a cost and is often immensely arduous. It also reveals the complexity of something we take for granted and possibly trivialise, namely puppetry. Filmed in 2011 the documentary does not cover Kevin Clash’s resignation from “Seasame Workshop” three years later.
Documentaries about the fans and fandom often lack any impartiality and frequently have their own agenda, be it positive or negative. Looking at the names associated with Comic-Con Episode IV: A Fan's Hope, it’s fairly clear from the outset that this is not going to be an overtly critical undertaking. Director Morgan Spurlock follows five attendees during San Diego Comic-Con 2010 as they endeavour to fulfil their ambitions. The fans are immediately presented in a fairly positive way and as the documentary proceeds the viewer gets the opportunity to form their own opinion about the lifestyles, choices and philosophies. The documentary is also interspersed with talking heads from known genre luminaries such a Joss Wheedon, Kevin Smith and Stan Lee, who provide some interesting and quite frank views on Comic-Con as well as the wider fan scene.
The documentary Mifune: The Last Samurai is both an exploration and celebration of the Japanese actor Toshiro Mifune (1920-1997), narrated by Keanu Reeves. Over the course of seventy minutes his life and body of work is critiqued by his industry peers as well as several cinematic luminaries such as Martin Scorsese and Steven Speilberg. The focus is very much upon the man himself, as his personality was integral to his acting technique. For those unfamiliar with classic Japanese cinema during its golden age, the documentary provides a broad and practical overview. It also includes a brief history of the chanbara (sword fighting) genre, as well as a concise and honest analysis of Mifune’s career.
Becoming Bond is a curious documentary in so far as it’s totally dependent on whether the viewer believes the story that George Lazenby tells. Because George is obviously a well-practised raconteur one gets the impression that many of the anecdotes and vignettes he recounts have been embellished for artistic effect. He has that easy going, informal Australian charm and frequently smiles ironically, as director Josh Greenbaum, quizzes him off camera over the voracity of his tale. Mr. Lazenby also treads that fine line between being a likeable rogue and a bit of a dick, especially when he focuses on his youth. Yet he broadly keeps to the right side of this and maintains the audiences’ good will.
Trying to encapsulate any artists body of work is a difficult enough task in itself. To then attempt to distil all associated anecdotes, vignettes and legends, while dispensing with the apocrypha, complicates matters further. Yet that's exactly what film maker Stephen La Rivière has done. The documentary Filmed in Supermarionation, is possibly the definitive history of the work of Gerry Anderson from 1957 to 1968. This insightful, meticulously researched exploration charts the rise of AP Films from its humble beginnings, to the halcyon days of Thunderbirds and the studios transition to Century 21 Productions. It also sheds some light into how things rather rapidly came to an end in the late sixties..
Strictly Come Dancing: The Fickle Nature of the Public Vote
Tonight’s results for week 5 of Strictly Come Dancing (season 22) have once again demonstrated that this show is more than just a dancing competition to UK viewers. If it were just a case of determining who are the best dancers, then JB Gill would not have been in the dance off. The judges may well see things exclusively in such terms but the public clearly do not. I last wrote about this phenomenon in 2019 and I think it appropriate to raise the subject again as this season of Strictly seems to be bucking past trends and I suspect we may be in for further upsets in the run up to the season finale. Broadly speaking, the public usually tends to vote in a manner similar to the official leaderboard. Hence, those who score the lowest usually end up in the dance off. Occasionally an underdog will be championed and kept on the show but that trend seems to have lost its novelty in recent years. This season appears to be quite different.
Tonight’s results for week 5 of Strictly Come Dancing (season 22) have once again demonstrated that this show is more than just a dancing competition to UK viewers. If it were just a case of determining who are the best dancers, then JB Gill would not have been in the dance off. The judges may well see things exclusively in such terms but the public clearly do not. I last wrote about this phenomenon in 2019 and I think it appropriate to raise the subject again as this season of Strictly seems to be bucking past trends and I suspect we may be in for further upsets in the run up to the season finale. Broadly speaking, the public usually tends to vote in a manner similar to the official leaderboard. Hence, those who score the lowest usually end up in the dance off. Occasionally an underdog will be championed and kept on the show but that trend seems to have lost its novelty in recent years. This season appears to be quite different.
The departure of Tom Dean in week 2 (the first week the public could vote) was a shock as Tom was patently a better dancer than Toyah Willcox and much higher on the leaderboard. Last week (the 4th in the series) it came as a surprise to see Shayne Ward in the dance off as he was 9 points ahead of Nick Knowles. However, there has been a degree of viewer pushback against The X Factor winner from 2005. On the first episode of this season, Shayne stated he was “in to win it”. A remark that was interpreted by some viewers as being somewhat arrogant, although it may have been an honest statement of intent to work hard. Hence, he seems to have failed to gain much public support and suffered as a result. On this occasion he was saved by the judges and injured Nick Knowles was voted off. Again, in the past a celebrity who has missed a show due to injury, is usually given some latitude by the public. Nick was not, in spite of his wider popularity. He was simply deemed as “lacking” and shown the door.
Which brings me to this evening’s debacle in which JLS vocalist JB Gill found himself in the dance off with ex-professional footballer Paul Merson. JB has consistently scored well over the last 5 weeks and is considered by some pundits to be a “shoo-in” for the final. However, despite having a 11 point lead over Paul, still found himself having to dance again to remain on the show. There is a school of thought that suggests that celebrities who are consistently good can lose public votes because everyone assumes they’ll be alright and someone else will vote for them. Another theory is that the viewers get bored with those who are good, right from the start of the show, as they prefer those who get better over time and thus go on the Strictly “journey”. Let us also take a moment to ponder the fate of Paul Merson, who appeared up to tonight, to have sufficient support to stay out of the dance off. If such a fanbase exists, where was it this week?
I am beginning to wonder if all the talk about mobilising fan bases and tactical voting that we have taken as read over the last 22 seasons of Strictly is spurious. Are fans always wedded to particular celebrities or do they simply vote on a week by week basis? Are the current voting patterns associated with Strictly, in any way similar to those that have recently emerged in contemporary politics, post 2016, where people are no longer loyal to specific causes and are far more volatile in the way in which they vote? If only we could get voting expert, Professor John Curtice, on the show and have the benefit of his insight. In the meantime JB Gill was saved but I suspect that the message from tonight is abundantly clear to all remaining celebrities. No matter how good you are and wherever you may be on the leaderboard, no one is safe. I expect to see an increase in social media output next week, from the remaining contestants, as they actively try and woo the British public.
Strictly Come Dancing remains the BBC’s flagship light entertainment show for Autumn. Despite controversy and scandal, the show bounced back last year and firmly re-established itself as the “feel good, family show” it has always claimed to be. Blind comedian Chris McCausland becoming the 2024 champion certainly validated the show’s commitment to diversity and inclusion and helped place Strictly (as it is known to its fans) back on its cultural pedestal. I’m sure those involved in the production of the show breathed a sigh of relief when the season ended on such a positive note, eclipsing the negative press that had been ever present last summer. Second chances and opportunities for a “course correction” are few and far between these days. Especially when you have elements of the UK press waiting with bated breath and hoping that you’ll fail.
At the beginning of April, Mrs P and I went to the Churchill Theatre in Bromley to see Speakeasy, a dance show starring Karen Hauer and Gorka Marquez (of Strictly Come Dancing Fame). It was 100 minutes of Mamba, Salsa, Charleston, Foxtrot and Samba dance numbers and it was very well received by the audience. I don’t usually go to such shows but I enjoyed it because it was focused, dynamic and “did exactly what it said on the tin”, to invoke a cliché. As a result, we promptly booked tickets for a similar show that was scheduled for July. This one, Dianne & Vito: Red Hot and Ready, features Vito Coppola and Dianne Buswell, another two of the professional dancers from Strictly (as the cool kids call it). Once again the show was at the Churchill Theatre, which is proving to be quite a good local venue.
Tonight’s results for week 5 of Strictly Come Dancing (season 22) have once again demonstrated that this show is more than just a dancing competition to UK viewers. If it were just a case of determining who are the best dancers, then JB Gill would not have been in the dance off. The judges may well see things exclusively in such terms but the public clearly do not. I last wrote about this phenomenon in 2019 and I think it appropriate to raise the subject again as this season of Strictly seems to be bucking past trends and I suspect we may be in for further upsets in the run up to the season finale. Broadly speaking, the public usually tends to vote in a manner similar to the official leaderboard. Hence, those who score the lowest usually end up in the dance off. Occasionally an underdog will be championed and kept on the show but that trend seems to have lost its novelty in recent years. This season appears to be quite different.
I make no bones about the fact that I watch Strictly Come Dancing every year. For those who live outside of the UK, this is the original version of the dancing reality show that you probably know as Dancing With the Stars in your country. It is still a big deal in the UK as far as TV ratings go, getting audiences on average of 6.6 million viewers. There are many aspects of the show that are textbook examples of prime time, popular entertainment but I like it because the “celebrities” that take part are ultimately learning a skill that is genuinely difficult. The latest season of Strictly, as it is known to its fans, is especially interesting as the BBC had a major PR problem earlier in the year, where several previous participants made allegations of bullying and abuse about their pro-dancer partners. An investigation is still ongoing and in the meantime, the two professional dancers that were named have withdrawn from the show. Hence everyone involved with the latest season are all on message, stating that it’s “all about having fun”.
Rather than continue to analyse each week’s show, which after all is a somewhat over saturated field, I thought it would be more interesting to write about the different facets of Strictly Come Dancing. The one I particularly wish to focus upon this time is the voting system and how it often highlights a differing of opinion between the professional judges on the show and the British public. For the past two weeks now there have been several celebrity dancers in the dreaded dance off who are far from the weakest performers. This has led to competent individuals leaving the show unexpectedly early. In many ways the voting system and the fact that no one can be considered safe is one the key factors that keeps Strictly popular and in the media spotlight. However, it also provides some pause for thought. The judges broadly mark and assess the celebrity dancers based upon their talent and performance. If they do not like a routine but still appreciate its technical merits, then they reflect that in their scores. However, the public seem to approach things quite differently.
Strictly Come Dancing is now over halfway through the season and there’s no room for mistakes or relying on past successes. The judges will now penalise technical errors and the public votes have now become less predictable. With Blackpool on the horizon, there was a lot at stake last night. Karim Zeroual and Amy Dowden danced the Viennese Waltz to Give Me Love by Ed Sheeran. However, he did make several errors during the routine and was noticeably rattled by the end. Subsequently, he scored lower than last week. On a positive note, Saffron made a major comeback. Her Waltz with AJ was outstanding, lacking the excesses of her previous dance. This was a focused and traditional routine and it was very well received. Kelvin an Oti’s Samba was a success with the audiences but the judges still found some minor mistakes, so they dropped a few marks. Michelle Visage excelled with a slick American Smooth. Her professional partner Giovanni Pernice always fines the right balance between the theatrics and traditional dance content. At present, these four couples are the frontrunners in the show.
Saturday was week 7 of Strictly Come Dancing and it definitely showed. This is the stage in the series where the judges take the gloves off and start getting picky, even with those who are clearly at the top of the leaderboard. Hence, Kelvin Fletcher and Oti Mabuse's Viennese Waltz along with Michelle Visage and Giovanni Pernice who danced the Paso Doble, didn’t score as highly as you’d expect. The judges pointed out technical aspects that were wanting in both routines. But that’s what they’re supposed to do so I have no issues with these criticisms. We are also at the point where certain dances can throw a lifeline to some celebrity dancers. Hence Chris Ramsey and Karen Hauer’s Street/Commercial dance really played to their core fanbase and more importantly, Chris’s dancing strengths. I doubt he’ll better this routine and it should keep him in the show a little longer.
Although Saturday night provided yet another excellent show, Strictly Come Dancing was notable for the absence of audience favourite Will Bayley. The Paralympian injured himself during training after he jumped from a table whilst practising his jive routine. According to Will “I jumped off a table. And as I landed, I landed with straightened legs,” he explained. “I thought I broke my leg because I never felt anything like it before. To hear the words I absolutely can’t dance was just really gutting for me. But I need to recover now and come back even stronger next week”. Thankfully, the comprehensive rules that govern Strictly allows for a week’s absence due to injury. However, if Will cannot resume dancing for next Saturday’s show, then he may have to retire from the entire series. If this does unfortunately happen, then it will also require the show’s producers to revise the schedule with regard to future eliminations, so that Strictly continues to follow the pre-set timetable.
Week 5 of Strictly Come Dancing once again saw some significant improvement among the celebrity dancers. Most notable were Alex Scott and Neil Jones who delivered a very enthusiastic Charleston. For the first time it appeared that both the technical and performance aspects of dancing “clicked” for Alex. After being saved by the judges in last week’s dance-off, Emma Weymouth and Aljaž Škorjanec's put on a beautiful display with their Viennese Waltz. The judge’s marks reflected their progress respectively by all awarding 9 marks out of 10. Then there was Will Bayley and Janet Janette Manrara whose emotional contemporary dance left judges Motsi Mabuse and Alfonso Ribeiro in tears. Will said before this year’s series that he was taking part in Strictly to “inspire people with a disability”. He certainly seems to be doing so and his commitment to the show and his constant training have earned him a strong fan base among viewers.
Well Saturday night’s show was an utter revelation. Many of the celebrity dancers who have been previously at the lower end of the leaderboard and therefore at risk of being in the dance off, decided to significantly up their game. Not only did this make for great entertainment, it also succinctly reiterated one of the fundamental aspects of what makes Strictly Come Dancing so popular; the “journey”. Yes, it is an incredibly cliched phrase but its something that seems to resonate with viewers. If the UK does have any national characteristics, then one of them is an appreciation of dogged determination. We tend to warm towards plucky underdogs who improve through hard work and dedication. And that is what we were treated to on last night’s show.
As I’ve mentioned before, the one piece of reality TV that I avidly watch is Strictly Come Dancing. I’ve been a regular viewer since 2005. Once you’ve got your head around the format and have fully understood what the show is and is not, it makes for entertaining viewing. Strictly is not a pure dance competition by any shakes. If it were, then the public wouldn’t have any say in who remained on the show and it would all be left to the professional judges. But such a show would have very limited appeal. Hence, we have audience participation and all the theatrics of reality television. Talent and ability can be trumped by popularity and frequently is. Over the last fifteen years, the shows formula has been finely tuned and we now find ourselves with a very controlled format. The broad spectrum of celebrities fulfil the role of various archetypes and the judges all have distinct roles to play. But at its heart the show is still about people learning to dance (or not) and that is a difficult skill to master. For me therein lies the entertainment.
There really is an excess of genuine talent in this year’s show. It’s week three and the standard has been raised yet again. Michelle Visage and Giovanni Pernice delivered a smouldering Quickstep to Cabaret, proving once again that it is unwise to write anyone off based purely on age. Furthermore actress Catherine Tyldesley dancing with Johannes Radebe stunned the audience and judges alike with a Rumba to the ballad Shallow from the film A Star is Born. The Rumba is a notoriously difficult dance to perform and to pull off such a feat so early on in the season was quite incredible. And we were also treated to our first Street Dance, with Dev Griffin and Diane Buswell performing an outstanding Aladdin themed routine. Considering that Diane had an accident during the week, it made such an assured performance even more remarkable. And let us not forget Kelvin Fletcher and Oti Mabuse’s robust Charleston.
There is obviously some sort of psychological comfort in being spoon fed the same content, again and again and again. Because that is what Strictly Come Dancing, the BBC’s flagship Autumn entertainment show, definitely does. And I don’t mean that in a derogatory way, because once again, I am one of the 8 million viewers avidly watching this seasonal ritual. But is must be said, that the show is incredibly formulaic and that the production team are expert at playing upon all the foibles of the format. Hence every September we get a wide spectrum of “celebrities” eager to learn how to dance. All of whom fall neatly into the various categories that have been established over the last 15 years. There are those who display an innate ability right from the start. Then there are the determined improvers. We also have wild cards whose content wildly changes in quality. Another favourite are the rhythmically challenged whose embarrassing failures are deemed “entertaining”. And let us not forget those who are just hopelessly out of their depth and you know are going to fall at the very first hurdle.
Series 16 of Strictly Come Dancing has been in many ways the most predictable season to date. It became clear within a matter of weeks as to which couples were the front runners, who had potential to grow and who would only go so far. Apart from the slight anomaly of Vick Hope going out early in week 5 due to a poorly conceived dance (blame Graziano for that), the show has followed a fairly unsurprising route. Therefore, it really comes as no shock to find Joes and Diane, Stacey and Kevin, Ashley and Pasha as well as Faye and Giovanni are going through to next week’s final. Nor should we be astonished by the subtle distinction between the judge’s favourites, and the couples that the public related to and take to their hearts.
The upbeat social media buzz around popular reality TV show Strictly Come Dancing took a turn for the worse this week, after celebrity contestant Seann Walsh was photographed kissing his professional partner Katya Jones. To the casual observer, this is simply standard fare for the tabloid press; a storm in a tea cup and nothing of note. However, four days after publication the story has grown from celebrity tittle-tattle to a major topic of national debate. This is because of several reasons. Mr Walsh was at the time when the picture was taken, in a long-term relationship. Katya Jones is married to fellow Strictly Come Dancing professional dancer, Neil Jones. Subsequently, actress Rebecca Humphries split up with Seann Walsh and released a statement online citing deficiencies in the five-year relationship and alluding to “controlling” behaviour. It is this later aspect, rather than just faux prurient outrage by the tabloids about the celebrity indiscretion, which has made this “story” persist. It links into the ongoing debate over “toxic masculinity” and the #MeToo movement.
With each successive season of Strictly Come Dancing there appears to be more and more celebrity participants who seem to be “good”, right from the get-go. For many years now there have been ongoing debates about whether those from certain backgrounds, IE music, acting and possibly even sport, have an advantage over the usual chefs, astrologers and ageing minor celebrities. Although I can see the initial sense of such arguments, I don’t think they hold up to close scrutiny. Having performed a few arbitrary dance moves whilst touring or having done a stilted routine for a TV drama or play is not the same as the rigour and scrutiny that comes with Strictly Come Dancing. However, setting aside this perennial question, despite only being three weeks into series sixteen, we saw some extremely strong movie themed performances last night and the potential emergence of several dark horses. Subsequently tonight’s results were interesting.
In recent week’s Joe McFadden has been widely tipped to win Strictly Come Dancing 2017, having crept up the leader board with a series technically polished and spirited performances. Labelled by head judge Shirley Ballas as a “dark horse” he has quickly become a thoroughbred in the eyes of most bookies’ to become this evenings favourite to win. Joes has proven not only to be a consistently good performer but a popular one too, as he was the only one of tonight’s finalist never to have been in the bottom two. He has in many ways been a classic example of the celebrity that embarks upon the “Strictly journey” and this evening, all the hard work paid off as he lifted the glitterball trophy for this years show. Let us not forget that this is also Katya Jones night as well. She has choreographed some incredible artistic and intelligent routines this season and has clearly understood what works best for her partner.
Singer Mollie King went into this week’s semi-final as the bookies' favourite to be voted off the show, and it has proven so. I appreciate that Mollie has been training hard and applied herself to the advice given to her by the judges. However, it would appear that she has plateaued with regard to her level of skill and performance several weeks agao. Sadly, nerves and the pressure of the night got the better of her on Saturday and her Samba was not well received. It was hesitant and lacked polish. She partially redeemed herself with an elegant waltz, although it is fair to say that she simply wasn’t in the same league as the other celebrity dancers. The judges seemed to be a little too generous with their marks for this dance, possibly to spare her any further distress because Mollie was visibly upset.
Strictly Come Dancing 2017 is proving to be quite the rollercoaster ride. Each week it seems that there is potential for an upset and Saturday night proved no different. The fact that Davood and Nadiya scored poorly with their Argentine Tango was quite a surprise. The relatively low spread of points put them squarely at the bottom of the leader board and made them prime candidates for the dance off. Personally, I thought this was a damn shame because Davood has significantly improved in recent weeks and has embraced the Strictly journey. However, it was a shock to see Alexandra and Gorka fighting to stay on the show once again. Sadly, the outcome of the dance off was a forgone conclusion. Alexandra was technically outstanding and gave a spirited performance. She had something to prove after last week's difficult Rhumba and I thought she came back with a vengeance. Sadly, the public thought otherwise. I’m sure being in the dance off yet again will be a disappointment for her. However, for the present she is safe.
No one is safe. I’m sure it’s a thought that all remaining contestants on Strictly Come Dancing are currently thinking. Week 10 has been and gone and found front runner Alexandra Burke in the dance off against the delightful Susan Calman. Obviously, the moment this was announced, the outcome was a forgone conclusion. But it proves as I said last week that the spread of public votes may not be that wide and if a celebrity finds themselves in the middle of the linerboard then they are at serious risk. There can be no “bad weeks for the remaining contestants, from now on. Every dance now has to be undertaken with as much confidence and technical accuracy as possible. I suspect that unless Gemma raises her game and Mollie continues to improve they too may be potential dance off candidates next week. As for Alexandra, I would hazard a guess that she will focus very much on ironing out any technical issues and will return with a show stopping performance, next Saturday. The lady is extremely motivated and competitive.
Blackpool always brings out the best in the celebrity dancers, due to its immense entertainment heritage and standing within the world of professional dancers. So, it wasn’t surprising to see some couples raise their game and make significant improvements with their routines. Gemma showed that she had listened to the judges’ comments and delivered a polished and elegant performance. She also appeared to have noticeably rediscovered her confidence. Mollie also delivered a far better routine which corrected many of the issues that have plagued her in previous weeks. I would argue that it was her best dance of the series. And once again, Susan poured her heart and soul into her time on the dance floor, delivering another spirited performance that found favour once again with the public, if not the judges.
Well I said it last week that there was scope for a surprise elimination from Strictly Come Dancing and surely enough it has happened. Aston Merrygold, despite being tipped as a contender for the final, scored poorly with the judges last night and also failed to garner sufficient public support. He subsequently found himself in the dance off with Mollie King and despite correcting some of the technical issues that were present in his initial performance, he failed to sway the majority of the judges in his favour. Darcey and Bruno both voted to save him but Craig and Shirley (who as head judge has the casting vote) opted to save Mollie. Hence, bookies favourite Aston Merrygold has left the show, proving that no one can rest on the laurels. As you’d expect, there were vocal complaints from fans and supporters who felt that the judges had been unfair with their marks. However, I believe if anyone is to blame then it is Aston’s professional partner Janette Manrara.
I could be very philosophical about Strictly Come Dancing and describe how the judges scrutinise and mark the contestants on technique, viewing their performances through the prism of their own professional experiences. Conversely, the public react and elect to support the celebrities far more emotively; championing potential underdogs and showing solidarity with those they feel have been poorly treated. However, such Janusian analogies are unnecessary and ultimately pointless, because the show is primarily for entertainment and not a dancing competition, although the professional dancers may not see it that way. Also, as we saw demonstrated once again tonight, Strictly Come Dancing is a popularity contest and the only thing that really matters is convincing the public to vote for you.
Yes, we’re three weeks into this year’s season of the BBC’s flagship entertainment show, Strictly Come Dancing (that’s the UK version of Dancing with the Stars for the benefit of US readers). The tabloid press has already started obsessing, dissecting and outright lying about the antics of a handful of minor celebrities as they struggle with the rigours of learning to dance. From now until Christmas, prime time Saturday night viewing on the Beeb will be suffused with the superficial glamour of showbiz, a barrage of camp innuendo and a mixture of well-honed muscles and wayward flesh as well as far too much make-up. You also get to choose whether to laugh along with heavily scripted and contrived comments from the professional judges. If we’re particularly fortunate we may even be blessed with a professional dancer meltdown as they balk at a “ill deserved” poor score (yes, we’re looking at you Brendan Cole).
Strictly Come Dancing: A Controversial Decision
I make no bones about the fact that I watch Strictly Come Dancing every year. For those who live outside of the UK, this is the original version of the dancing reality show that you probably know as Dancing With the Stars in your country. It is still a big deal in the UK as far as TV ratings go, getting audiences on average of 6.6 million viewers. There are many aspects of the show that are textbook examples of prime time, popular entertainment but I like it because the “celebrities” that take part are ultimately learning a skill that is genuinely difficult. The latest season of Strictly, as it is known to its fans, is especially interesting as the BBC had a major PR problem earlier in the year, where several previous participants made allegations of bullying and abuse about their pro-dancer partners. An investigation is still ongoing and in the meantime, the two professional dancers that were named have withdrawn from the show. Hence everyone involved with the latest season are all on message, stating that it’s “all about having fun”.
I make no bones about the fact that I watch Strictly Come Dancing every year. For those who live outside of the UK, this is the original version of the dancing reality show that you probably know as Dancing With the Stars in your country. It is still a big deal in the UK as far as TV ratings go, getting audiences on average of 6.6 million viewers. There are many aspects of the show that are textbook examples of prime time, popular entertainment but I like it because the “celebrities” that take part are ultimately learning a skill that is genuinely difficult. The latest season of Strictly, as it is known to its fans, is especially interesting as the BBC had a major PR problem earlier in the year, where several previous participants made allegations of bullying and abuse about their pro-dancer partners. An investigation is still ongoing and in the meantime, the two professional dancers that were named have withdrawn from the show. Hence everyone involved with the latest season are all on message, stating that it’s “all about having fun”.
Season 22 of Strictly began in earnest last Saturday 21st September. The 15 celebrities and their professional dancer partners all performed live on TV and were marked accordingly by the judges. As always, there were some contestants who showed ability and talent, straight out of the gate, such as model and TV presenter Tasha Ghouri. Hardly surprising as she has had dance experience in the past. Then there were other competitors who showed potential and may well improve in the weeks to come, as they go on their Strictly journey. Viewers like these individuals as they are the epitome of what audiences want from the show. Strictly has in recent years become a torchbearer for inclusion, with many disabled contestants. This year’s celebrity line up includes blind standup comedian Chris McCausland. The show has also pioneered the partnering of same sex couples, despite complaints from the usual suspects.
Another essential part of the Strictly formula are celebrity contestants with little or no dancing ability. Sometimes, such individuals are championed by viewers, especially if the judges have been especially harsh with their comments. But this is not always the case. Sometimes the less talented participants are dismissed from the show by the public vote, quickly and ruthlessly. And talking of the judges, their opinions are often at odds with the public’s. Viewers tend to vote with their hearts and don’t maintain the same objectivity of the judges, who tend to score purely on technical ability. Furthermore, there is no consensus among the judges regarding this, as they all come from different dancing disciplines. Hence, scoring can be very inconsistent at times. And then, from time to time, the judges make a decision that appears patently absurd and results in controversy. It would appear that season 22 of Strictly has just had its first tonight, which is very early on in the season.
Yesterday, Saturday 28th September, the second show of the season was broadcast. Again the couples were marked by the judges and this week’s scores were combined with last week’s. The public were allowed to vote this time and through a complex mathematical formula, this was combined with the judges scores to produce a simple results table. The bottom two couples then have to performa “dance off” and the judges (not the public) decide who stays and who goes. It came as no surprise to anyone that singer and actor, Toyah Willcox partnered with pro-dancer Neil Jones, was bottom of the leaderboard. Toyah performed two exuberant but technically lacking dances. A Tango and a Jive respectively. I suspect that all future dances will always be through the prism of her unique personal style. However, what came as a surprise was the inclusion of Olympic swimmer and nice guy, Tom Dean. He was ten points ahead on the leaderboard and also had the advantage of being partnered with pro-dancer Nadiya Bychkova, who is well regarded by fans.
Hence many viewers thought that the dance off was all over, bar the shouting. Yet surprisingly, both celebrities didn’t improve their performances. Three of the Judges, including head judge Shirley Ballas, Motsi Mabuse and Craig Revel Horwood, were focused on Tom being out of time with the music, although it didn’t seem immediately obvious.Thus they voted to keep Toyah on the show. Only Anton Du Beke, former pro-dancer from the show turned judge, voted to keep Tom. However, the decision was made and Tom got his marching orders. To say that fans of Strictly were peeved, is a massive understatement. It has become very clear over the course of this evening that many regard this as an utterly wrong decision. Social media erupted into an angry and restless lynch mob and the tabloid newspaper websites have already joined the passing bandwagon.
Now it can be argued that this sort of brouhaha goes hand in glove with reality TV and is part of its fundamental appeal. However, I believe it is in fact symptomatic of several problems arising from the show. Each year, Strictly ups the ante and the overall standard of dancing produced by contestants goes up. Surely, this reduces the potential pool of contestants that the BBC can draw upon? Furthermore, a decade ago, viewers were not quite so demanding in their expectations and possibly more tolerant of those contestants with less ability. This accommodating mindset seems to have diminished. Then there is the wider societal decline of the public being equipped to deal with not getting their own way. A subjective choice that goes against your preference isn’t seen as “bad luck” or “just the way the cookie crumbles”. It is deemed an act of sabotage, a plot and a personal slight. Remember, the internet is where nuance goes to die.
This controversial decision may blow over. The BBC may not even see it in such terms. But as the broadcaster is feeling very protective of the show at present and averse to pad press, it may well make some sort of statement about the situation. This will more than likely take place during tomorrow’s episode of Strictly Come Dancing: It Takes Two. The daily sister show of Strictly that follows all news, gossip and progress of the celebrities and their partners. The couple that were voted off the show over the weekend, always get interviewed on the following Monday and I’m curious to see if there will be any animosity from Tom Dean or Nadiya Bychkova. Time will tell. I’ve been watching Strictly since 2005 and this season seems different in some way that I can’t quite quantify. I think we may be in for an unusual season this year. It has been argued that the format needs revising to bring some fresh ideas to the proceedings. Perhaps this and other controversial decisions may be the catalyst to shake things up.
Strictly Come Dancing remains the BBC’s flagship light entertainment show for Autumn. Despite controversy and scandal, the show bounced back last year and firmly re-established itself as the “feel good, family show” it has always claimed to be. Blind comedian Chris McCausland becoming the 2024 champion certainly validated the show’s commitment to diversity and inclusion and helped place Strictly (as it is known to its fans) back on its cultural pedestal. I’m sure those involved in the production of the show breathed a sigh of relief when the season ended on such a positive note, eclipsing the negative press that had been ever present last summer. Second chances and opportunities for a “course correction” are few and far between these days. Especially when you have elements of the UK press waiting with bated breath and hoping that you’ll fail.
At the beginning of April, Mrs P and I went to the Churchill Theatre in Bromley to see Speakeasy, a dance show starring Karen Hauer and Gorka Marquez (of Strictly Come Dancing Fame). It was 100 minutes of Mamba, Salsa, Charleston, Foxtrot and Samba dance numbers and it was very well received by the audience. I don’t usually go to such shows but I enjoyed it because it was focused, dynamic and “did exactly what it said on the tin”, to invoke a cliché. As a result, we promptly booked tickets for a similar show that was scheduled for July. This one, Dianne & Vito: Red Hot and Ready, features Vito Coppola and Dianne Buswell, another two of the professional dancers from Strictly (as the cool kids call it). Once again the show was at the Churchill Theatre, which is proving to be quite a good local venue.
Tonight’s results for week 5 of Strictly Come Dancing (season 22) have once again demonstrated that this show is more than just a dancing competition to UK viewers. If it were just a case of determining who are the best dancers, then JB Gill would not have been in the dance off. The judges may well see things exclusively in such terms but the public clearly do not. I last wrote about this phenomenon in 2019 and I think it appropriate to raise the subject again as this season of Strictly seems to be bucking past trends and I suspect we may be in for further upsets in the run up to the season finale. Broadly speaking, the public usually tends to vote in a manner similar to the official leaderboard. Hence, those who score the lowest usually end up in the dance off. Occasionally an underdog will be championed and kept on the show but that trend seems to have lost its novelty in recent years. This season appears to be quite different.
I make no bones about the fact that I watch Strictly Come Dancing every year. For those who live outside of the UK, this is the original version of the dancing reality show that you probably know as Dancing With the Stars in your country. It is still a big deal in the UK as far as TV ratings go, getting audiences on average of 6.6 million viewers. There are many aspects of the show that are textbook examples of prime time, popular entertainment but I like it because the “celebrities” that take part are ultimately learning a skill that is genuinely difficult. The latest season of Strictly, as it is known to its fans, is especially interesting as the BBC had a major PR problem earlier in the year, where several previous participants made allegations of bullying and abuse about their pro-dancer partners. An investigation is still ongoing and in the meantime, the two professional dancers that were named have withdrawn from the show. Hence everyone involved with the latest season are all on message, stating that it’s “all about having fun”.
Rather than continue to analyse each week’s show, which after all is a somewhat over saturated field, I thought it would be more interesting to write about the different facets of Strictly Come Dancing. The one I particularly wish to focus upon this time is the voting system and how it often highlights a differing of opinion between the professional judges on the show and the British public. For the past two weeks now there have been several celebrity dancers in the dreaded dance off who are far from the weakest performers. This has led to competent individuals leaving the show unexpectedly early. In many ways the voting system and the fact that no one can be considered safe is one the key factors that keeps Strictly popular and in the media spotlight. However, it also provides some pause for thought. The judges broadly mark and assess the celebrity dancers based upon their talent and performance. If they do not like a routine but still appreciate its technical merits, then they reflect that in their scores. However, the public seem to approach things quite differently.
Strictly Come Dancing is now over halfway through the season and there’s no room for mistakes or relying on past successes. The judges will now penalise technical errors and the public votes have now become less predictable. With Blackpool on the horizon, there was a lot at stake last night. Karim Zeroual and Amy Dowden danced the Viennese Waltz to Give Me Love by Ed Sheeran. However, he did make several errors during the routine and was noticeably rattled by the end. Subsequently, he scored lower than last week. On a positive note, Saffron made a major comeback. Her Waltz with AJ was outstanding, lacking the excesses of her previous dance. This was a focused and traditional routine and it was very well received. Kelvin an Oti’s Samba was a success with the audiences but the judges still found some minor mistakes, so they dropped a few marks. Michelle Visage excelled with a slick American Smooth. Her professional partner Giovanni Pernice always fines the right balance between the theatrics and traditional dance content. At present, these four couples are the frontrunners in the show.
Saturday was week 7 of Strictly Come Dancing and it definitely showed. This is the stage in the series where the judges take the gloves off and start getting picky, even with those who are clearly at the top of the leaderboard. Hence, Kelvin Fletcher and Oti Mabuse's Viennese Waltz along with Michelle Visage and Giovanni Pernice who danced the Paso Doble, didn’t score as highly as you’d expect. The judges pointed out technical aspects that were wanting in both routines. But that’s what they’re supposed to do so I have no issues with these criticisms. We are also at the point where certain dances can throw a lifeline to some celebrity dancers. Hence Chris Ramsey and Karen Hauer’s Street/Commercial dance really played to their core fanbase and more importantly, Chris’s dancing strengths. I doubt he’ll better this routine and it should keep him in the show a little longer.
Although Saturday night provided yet another excellent show, Strictly Come Dancing was notable for the absence of audience favourite Will Bayley. The Paralympian injured himself during training after he jumped from a table whilst practising his jive routine. According to Will “I jumped off a table. And as I landed, I landed with straightened legs,” he explained. “I thought I broke my leg because I never felt anything like it before. To hear the words I absolutely can’t dance was just really gutting for me. But I need to recover now and come back even stronger next week”. Thankfully, the comprehensive rules that govern Strictly allows for a week’s absence due to injury. However, if Will cannot resume dancing for next Saturday’s show, then he may have to retire from the entire series. If this does unfortunately happen, then it will also require the show’s producers to revise the schedule with regard to future eliminations, so that Strictly continues to follow the pre-set timetable.
Week 5 of Strictly Come Dancing once again saw some significant improvement among the celebrity dancers. Most notable were Alex Scott and Neil Jones who delivered a very enthusiastic Charleston. For the first time it appeared that both the technical and performance aspects of dancing “clicked” for Alex. After being saved by the judges in last week’s dance-off, Emma Weymouth and Aljaž Škorjanec's put on a beautiful display with their Viennese Waltz. The judge’s marks reflected their progress respectively by all awarding 9 marks out of 10. Then there was Will Bayley and Janet Janette Manrara whose emotional contemporary dance left judges Motsi Mabuse and Alfonso Ribeiro in tears. Will said before this year’s series that he was taking part in Strictly to “inspire people with a disability”. He certainly seems to be doing so and his commitment to the show and his constant training have earned him a strong fan base among viewers.
Well Saturday night’s show was an utter revelation. Many of the celebrity dancers who have been previously at the lower end of the leaderboard and therefore at risk of being in the dance off, decided to significantly up their game. Not only did this make for great entertainment, it also succinctly reiterated one of the fundamental aspects of what makes Strictly Come Dancing so popular; the “journey”. Yes, it is an incredibly cliched phrase but its something that seems to resonate with viewers. If the UK does have any national characteristics, then one of them is an appreciation of dogged determination. We tend to warm towards plucky underdogs who improve through hard work and dedication. And that is what we were treated to on last night’s show.
As I’ve mentioned before, the one piece of reality TV that I avidly watch is Strictly Come Dancing. I’ve been a regular viewer since 2005. Once you’ve got your head around the format and have fully understood what the show is and is not, it makes for entertaining viewing. Strictly is not a pure dance competition by any shakes. If it were, then the public wouldn’t have any say in who remained on the show and it would all be left to the professional judges. But such a show would have very limited appeal. Hence, we have audience participation and all the theatrics of reality television. Talent and ability can be trumped by popularity and frequently is. Over the last fifteen years, the shows formula has been finely tuned and we now find ourselves with a very controlled format. The broad spectrum of celebrities fulfil the role of various archetypes and the judges all have distinct roles to play. But at its heart the show is still about people learning to dance (or not) and that is a difficult skill to master. For me therein lies the entertainment.
There really is an excess of genuine talent in this year’s show. It’s week three and the standard has been raised yet again. Michelle Visage and Giovanni Pernice delivered a smouldering Quickstep to Cabaret, proving once again that it is unwise to write anyone off based purely on age. Furthermore actress Catherine Tyldesley dancing with Johannes Radebe stunned the audience and judges alike with a Rumba to the ballad Shallow from the film A Star is Born. The Rumba is a notoriously difficult dance to perform and to pull off such a feat so early on in the season was quite incredible. And we were also treated to our first Street Dance, with Dev Griffin and Diane Buswell performing an outstanding Aladdin themed routine. Considering that Diane had an accident during the week, it made such an assured performance even more remarkable. And let us not forget Kelvin Fletcher and Oti Mabuse’s robust Charleston.
There is obviously some sort of psychological comfort in being spoon fed the same content, again and again and again. Because that is what Strictly Come Dancing, the BBC’s flagship Autumn entertainment show, definitely does. And I don’t mean that in a derogatory way, because once again, I am one of the 8 million viewers avidly watching this seasonal ritual. But is must be said, that the show is incredibly formulaic and that the production team are expert at playing upon all the foibles of the format. Hence every September we get a wide spectrum of “celebrities” eager to learn how to dance. All of whom fall neatly into the various categories that have been established over the last 15 years. There are those who display an innate ability right from the start. Then there are the determined improvers. We also have wild cards whose content wildly changes in quality. Another favourite are the rhythmically challenged whose embarrassing failures are deemed “entertaining”. And let us not forget those who are just hopelessly out of their depth and you know are going to fall at the very first hurdle.
Series 16 of Strictly Come Dancing has been in many ways the most predictable season to date. It became clear within a matter of weeks as to which couples were the front runners, who had potential to grow and who would only go so far. Apart from the slight anomaly of Vick Hope going out early in week 5 due to a poorly conceived dance (blame Graziano for that), the show has followed a fairly unsurprising route. Therefore, it really comes as no shock to find Joes and Diane, Stacey and Kevin, Ashley and Pasha as well as Faye and Giovanni are going through to next week’s final. Nor should we be astonished by the subtle distinction between the judge’s favourites, and the couples that the public related to and take to their hearts.
The upbeat social media buzz around popular reality TV show Strictly Come Dancing took a turn for the worse this week, after celebrity contestant Seann Walsh was photographed kissing his professional partner Katya Jones. To the casual observer, this is simply standard fare for the tabloid press; a storm in a tea cup and nothing of note. However, four days after publication the story has grown from celebrity tittle-tattle to a major topic of national debate. This is because of several reasons. Mr Walsh was at the time when the picture was taken, in a long-term relationship. Katya Jones is married to fellow Strictly Come Dancing professional dancer, Neil Jones. Subsequently, actress Rebecca Humphries split up with Seann Walsh and released a statement online citing deficiencies in the five-year relationship and alluding to “controlling” behaviour. It is this later aspect, rather than just faux prurient outrage by the tabloids about the celebrity indiscretion, which has made this “story” persist. It links into the ongoing debate over “toxic masculinity” and the #MeToo movement.
With each successive season of Strictly Come Dancing there appears to be more and more celebrity participants who seem to be “good”, right from the get-go. For many years now there have been ongoing debates about whether those from certain backgrounds, IE music, acting and possibly even sport, have an advantage over the usual chefs, astrologers and ageing minor celebrities. Although I can see the initial sense of such arguments, I don’t think they hold up to close scrutiny. Having performed a few arbitrary dance moves whilst touring or having done a stilted routine for a TV drama or play is not the same as the rigour and scrutiny that comes with Strictly Come Dancing. However, setting aside this perennial question, despite only being three weeks into series sixteen, we saw some extremely strong movie themed performances last night and the potential emergence of several dark horses. Subsequently tonight’s results were interesting.
In recent week’s Joe McFadden has been widely tipped to win Strictly Come Dancing 2017, having crept up the leader board with a series technically polished and spirited performances. Labelled by head judge Shirley Ballas as a “dark horse” he has quickly become a thoroughbred in the eyes of most bookies’ to become this evenings favourite to win. Joes has proven not only to be a consistently good performer but a popular one too, as he was the only one of tonight’s finalist never to have been in the bottom two. He has in many ways been a classic example of the celebrity that embarks upon the “Strictly journey” and this evening, all the hard work paid off as he lifted the glitterball trophy for this years show. Let us not forget that this is also Katya Jones night as well. She has choreographed some incredible artistic and intelligent routines this season and has clearly understood what works best for her partner.
Singer Mollie King went into this week’s semi-final as the bookies' favourite to be voted off the show, and it has proven so. I appreciate that Mollie has been training hard and applied herself to the advice given to her by the judges. However, it would appear that she has plateaued with regard to her level of skill and performance several weeks agao. Sadly, nerves and the pressure of the night got the better of her on Saturday and her Samba was not well received. It was hesitant and lacked polish. She partially redeemed herself with an elegant waltz, although it is fair to say that she simply wasn’t in the same league as the other celebrity dancers. The judges seemed to be a little too generous with their marks for this dance, possibly to spare her any further distress because Mollie was visibly upset.
Strictly Come Dancing 2017 is proving to be quite the rollercoaster ride. Each week it seems that there is potential for an upset and Saturday night proved no different. The fact that Davood and Nadiya scored poorly with their Argentine Tango was quite a surprise. The relatively low spread of points put them squarely at the bottom of the leader board and made them prime candidates for the dance off. Personally, I thought this was a damn shame because Davood has significantly improved in recent weeks and has embraced the Strictly journey. However, it was a shock to see Alexandra and Gorka fighting to stay on the show once again. Sadly, the outcome of the dance off was a forgone conclusion. Alexandra was technically outstanding and gave a spirited performance. She had something to prove after last week's difficult Rhumba and I thought she came back with a vengeance. Sadly, the public thought otherwise. I’m sure being in the dance off yet again will be a disappointment for her. However, for the present she is safe.
No one is safe. I’m sure it’s a thought that all remaining contestants on Strictly Come Dancing are currently thinking. Week 10 has been and gone and found front runner Alexandra Burke in the dance off against the delightful Susan Calman. Obviously, the moment this was announced, the outcome was a forgone conclusion. But it proves as I said last week that the spread of public votes may not be that wide and if a celebrity finds themselves in the middle of the linerboard then they are at serious risk. There can be no “bad weeks for the remaining contestants, from now on. Every dance now has to be undertaken with as much confidence and technical accuracy as possible. I suspect that unless Gemma raises her game and Mollie continues to improve they too may be potential dance off candidates next week. As for Alexandra, I would hazard a guess that she will focus very much on ironing out any technical issues and will return with a show stopping performance, next Saturday. The lady is extremely motivated and competitive.
Blackpool always brings out the best in the celebrity dancers, due to its immense entertainment heritage and standing within the world of professional dancers. So, it wasn’t surprising to see some couples raise their game and make significant improvements with their routines. Gemma showed that she had listened to the judges’ comments and delivered a polished and elegant performance. She also appeared to have noticeably rediscovered her confidence. Mollie also delivered a far better routine which corrected many of the issues that have plagued her in previous weeks. I would argue that it was her best dance of the series. And once again, Susan poured her heart and soul into her time on the dance floor, delivering another spirited performance that found favour once again with the public, if not the judges.
Well I said it last week that there was scope for a surprise elimination from Strictly Come Dancing and surely enough it has happened. Aston Merrygold, despite being tipped as a contender for the final, scored poorly with the judges last night and also failed to garner sufficient public support. He subsequently found himself in the dance off with Mollie King and despite correcting some of the technical issues that were present in his initial performance, he failed to sway the majority of the judges in his favour. Darcey and Bruno both voted to save him but Craig and Shirley (who as head judge has the casting vote) opted to save Mollie. Hence, bookies favourite Aston Merrygold has left the show, proving that no one can rest on the laurels. As you’d expect, there were vocal complaints from fans and supporters who felt that the judges had been unfair with their marks. However, I believe if anyone is to blame then it is Aston’s professional partner Janette Manrara.
I could be very philosophical about Strictly Come Dancing and describe how the judges scrutinise and mark the contestants on technique, viewing their performances through the prism of their own professional experiences. Conversely, the public react and elect to support the celebrities far more emotively; championing potential underdogs and showing solidarity with those they feel have been poorly treated. However, such Janusian analogies are unnecessary and ultimately pointless, because the show is primarily for entertainment and not a dancing competition, although the professional dancers may not see it that way. Also, as we saw demonstrated once again tonight, Strictly Come Dancing is a popularity contest and the only thing that really matters is convincing the public to vote for you.
Yes, we’re three weeks into this year’s season of the BBC’s flagship entertainment show, Strictly Come Dancing (that’s the UK version of Dancing with the Stars for the benefit of US readers). The tabloid press has already started obsessing, dissecting and outright lying about the antics of a handful of minor celebrities as they struggle with the rigours of learning to dance. From now until Christmas, prime time Saturday night viewing on the Beeb will be suffused with the superficial glamour of showbiz, a barrage of camp innuendo and a mixture of well-honed muscles and wayward flesh as well as far too much make-up. You also get to choose whether to laugh along with heavily scripted and contrived comments from the professional judges. If we’re particularly fortunate we may even be blessed with a professional dancer meltdown as they balk at a “ill deserved” poor score (yes, we’re looking at you Brendan Cole).
Watching TV Part 2
Watching TV was a far more communal activity in my youth. Families sat and watched specific shows or sports together. “Appointment TV” had its benefits not only for TV ratings but for advertising revenue. Although audiences may have grown over the years, they have also become more fragmented and compartmentalised. Smaller market shares have therefore made advertising far more pervasive. Even big streaming platforms are feeling the squeeze with declining subscribers and therefore introducing advertising on lower tier tariffs. Many catch up services also rely on advertising. However, viewers can always pay a fee if they wish to dispense with it. Another foible of modern digital television is poor picture quality Many smaller digital channels broadcast in standard definition. The source material has often been converted between different picture formats and has been cropped to suit a 16:9 screen. This results in low definition picture quality, with weak colours and a lot of digital artefacts.
A modern Smart TV menu
Watching TV was a far more communal activity in my youth. Families sat and watched specific shows or sports together. “Appointment TV” had its benefits not only for TV ratings but for advertising revenue. Although audiences may have grown over the years, they have also become more fragmented and compartmentalised. Smaller market shares have therefore made advertising far more pervasive. Even big streaming platforms are feeling the squeeze with declining subscribers and therefore introducing advertising on lower tier tariffs. Many catch up services also rely on advertising. However, viewers can always pay a fee if they wish to dispense with it. Another foible of modern digital television is poor picture quality Many smaller digital channels broadcast in standard definition. The source material has often been converted between different picture formats and has been cropped to suit a 16:9 screen. This results in low definition picture quality, with weak colours and a lot of digital artefacts.
Yet despite these commercial pressures, TV is still a major form of entertainment, although the manner in which we view it has changed substantially. We don’t necessarily watch the same shows together and at the same time. However, the social aspect that surrounds popular shows still exists. Rather than talking about last night’s episode at work in the break room, we now discuss it online. Or we recommend a particular show to a friend and wait for them to binge watch enough, before enjoying a lengthy analysis of what has happened so far. Dramas have become more complex and in many ways, more like cinema. It can be argued we live in a golden age of TV. However, some aspects have declined. I find that historical and science based documentaries lack the intellectual rigour of those produced in the seventies and nineties. News coverage has also become simpler, risk averse and reticent to show the realities of modern life.
Returning to the matter of the old CRT television I saw in the charity shop window (from the previous part of this post), seeing that old set did make me nostalgic for a time when I felt that TV was more special. I can remember when the BBC first broadcast Life on Earth. This major wildlife show had taken years to collate and felt like a significant milestone. This was the very definition of event television. A decade later, popular shows such as The X-Files became a highlight of the week. Something to look forward to. We now live in an age where high quality shows abound. Yet does their abundance diminish their value? I’m not sure. I still look forward to certain shows starting a new season. But not quite in the same way as I did 20 years ago. Perhaps that’s because there were real stakes back then. You could miss a show or your VCR could fail to record it. These are no longer factors. Shows may go from streaming platforms due to licensing changes but they never truly vanish. They can be “found”.
Is YouTube the same as regular TV?
Finally, how does YouTube fit into all of this? Many younger people do not watch traditional TV. Yet they spend comparable amounts of time watching various YouTube channels. Technically, you can argue that YouTube content isn’t the same as regular TV because it is not made to the same technical standard, does not have any kind of editorial oversight and is not subject to independent regulation standards. But not every YouTube channel is made on the fly. Many professional establishments have channels that they run along traditional lines. I think the distinction between YouTube and TV is not so clear. I also think that the ability to watch YouTube on your lounge TV makes a difference as well. It garners a sense of legitimacy. Furthermore, YouTube channels can gain substantial audiences and become very influential. These numbers make them relevant. So does their clout.
TV has proven a resilient medium over its seventy year lifespan. It adapts to the latest trends and embraces new technology. There was a time when the TV industry thought the advent of the VCR would kill commercial televsion. It didn’t. Similarly, the growth of Netflix a decade ago, caused panic among traditional television networks. Then multiple streaming platforms emerged and split the market. Due to a need to create more and more content, many of these companies have over extended themselves and are now finding that there are consequences to growing too fast. However, the traditional outlets, weather the storm and continue on, as they always have. So all things considered, let’s not write off television just yet. I have no idea what the next trend or innovation may be but I’m confident that most people still want to be able to enjoy quality entertainment from the comfort of their own home. Until that changes, TV is safe.
I recently found a DVD boxset of Return to the Planet of the Apes in a charity shop which I bought for £4, which is a ridiculously cheap price. I considered it an interesting find because it was a Region 1, US copy. However, that is not so unusual these days as most DVD players are now region free and Amazon (UK) sells media from all over the world. As for the show in question, I vaguely remember Return to the Planet of the Apes being shown on UK network TV when I was a child, probably circa 1976. Back then it would usually take a year or so before US shows made it onto UK television. From a commercial perspective, the entire Planet of the Apes franchise was beginning to run out of steam. I was 8 years old at the time so had missed most of the film releases. However, I enjoyed the live action TV show hence an animated follow up had obvious appeal to a child of my age.
I have not watched as much TV as I usually do, this year. Mainly because I have become a little weary of the ways contemporary TV is produced, especially with regards to streaming shows. Due to the costs, shows such as Star Trek: Strange New Worlds only have 10 episodes per season. Simply put, the season begins to hit its stride and then is abruptly over. This problem (if you see it as such) is then further compounded by there being a significant wait between seasons. In the case of STSNW it was two years between season two and season three. Not all shows fall foul of this. Apple TV produces two seasons of the excellent espionage drama Slow Horses at a time, ensuring a prompt release schedule. However, even this has issues. Due to the complexity of the plots of many contemporary TV shows, something that is a marketing point, some viewers cannot remember the plot after a twelve month hiatus. Network TV shows seldom have these issues with each season being 20 plus episodes long and story arcs that are seldom as complex.
Strictly Come Dancing remains the BBC’s flagship light entertainment show for Autumn. Despite controversy and scandal, the show bounced back last year and firmly re-established itself as the “feel good, family show” it has always claimed to be. Blind comedian Chris McCausland becoming the 2024 champion certainly validated the show’s commitment to diversity and inclusion and helped place Strictly (as it is known to its fans) back on its cultural pedestal. I’m sure those involved in the production of the show breathed a sigh of relief when the season ended on such a positive note, eclipsing the negative press that had been ever present last summer. Second chances and opportunities for a “course correction” are few and far between these days. Especially when you have elements of the UK press waiting with bated breath and hoping that you’ll fail.
Treasure Island In Outer Space is a curious Italian television production from 1987 starring Anthony Quinn and Ernest Borgnine. It also features numerous international actors better known for their work in cult and exploitation films, such as Bobby Rhodes, David Warbeck and John Morghan. Directed by Antonio Margheriti (AKA Anthony Dawson), famous for such films as Killer Fish (a cash in on Piranha) and The Last Hunter (a Vietnam exploitation epic), Treasure Island In Outer Space is a faithful adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson’s classic novel. The screenplay by Renato Castellani and Lucio De Caro draws heavily from the source text, maintaining character names and original dialogue. However in updating the material to a futuristic setting, the script is littered with the worst kind of eighties sci-fi clichés. We are subjected to sonic trains, anti-gravity rays and the usual buzzword driven faux science.
Thoughts on TV shows and my current viewing habits.
I last wrote a blog post in this series back in February 2022. Then for various reasons, I stopped. Possibly because my relationship with TV has changed in recent years. It’s fair to say at present that viewers are spoilt for choice. There are lots of very good shows around. Conversely, there is also a lot of bland, generic, filler as well. I appreciate that not every television series has to be an industry milestone and there are times when I’m content to watch undemanding content. However, I am very protective of how I spend my leisure time at present. I am not prepared to sink 6 or 8 hours into a show that is just “okay”. Hence I’m becoming very particular about what I watch. If something isn’t working for me in any fashion then I just abandon it and am happy to do so.
The seventies was an interesting time for UK genre television. Despite small budgets and often low key visual effects, there was no shortage of good ideas and creativity. Sapphire & Steel is a prime example of a show couched in a high concept, produced on a shoestring. It also credits its audiences with some degree of intelligence. Rather than spoon feeding the narrative in a didactic manner, it hints and implies, then leaves the rest to its viewers imagination. Created by Peter J. Hammond, a veteran TV writer, Sapphire & Steel centres on a pair of interdimensional operatives named Sapphire and Steel. They are two of a number of elements that assume human form. Over the course of three seasons little is revealed about the pair but they appear whenever there is any anomalous temporal activity. Time itself is portrayed as a sentient and malignant force that seeks to make incursions into the present reality, through weaknesses in the fabric of space.
Season 2 of Andor has received praise from both critics and fans alike. It finally seems to have put to bed the common argument that Star Wars as a franchise has traditionally been light on narrative depth, character development and the exploration of the themes that its main story is predicated upon. Andor shows the realities of opposing authoritarian regimes and exists within shades of grey, rather than purille, binary positions. Many have drawn parallels with the current state of geopolitics, especially that of the United States. I certainly found the second season of Andor to be engaging and thought provoking. I also enjoyed the performances of many of the British actors who by default are cast in all the major Empire roles. I thought Anton Lesser was especially noteworthy as a senior officer in the Imperial Security Bureau.
If you don’t want to pay for streaming services, or premium digital satellite and cable content, then your choice in the UK is somewhat limited. You can receive all “free to air channels”, IE the ones that have advertising, via the digital terrestrial platform Freeview. Most UK televisions have Freeview access built in. Alternatively, the same selection of channels are available via the digital satellite platform Freesat. You can also buy either Freeview or Freesat digital video recorders and require only a rooftop aerial or satellite dish respectively to access these platforms. Most DVRs come with additional IPTV functionality built in along with the most popular streaming apps, so additional subscription services can be added if the viewer so desires. Freeview and Freesat carry a mixture of high definition and standard definition channels. Internet based services offer 4K content.
When I started writing this post it was intended to be about changing from one UK TV provider to another. However, I became concerned that there was a need to provide some sort of historical context, because I wasn’t sure whether all readers would be familiar with how television is provided here. The next thing I know, I’ve written a potted history of public and commercial broadcasting in the UK and the resulting post has become somewhat lengthy. So I have decided to split the text into two halves. The first being a summary of how the provision of television has changed in the UK over the course of the last fifty plus years. The second focuses more upon changes to the TV industry’s business model, consumer habits and the present status quo.
It is fair to say that we live in an age where we do not lack quality TV. There are numerous shows that have garnered critical acclaim or a strong word of mouth following that are deemed “must see” viewing. No doubt you, like myself, have a long “to do” list of programs that you need to “get round to watching” on top of those shows which are staples of your viewing regime. If you didn’t have enough programmes already to catch up with, we all have friends and family telling us about a “great show” that’s on a platform we don’t subscribe to, that we really need to see. It is quite extraordinary and a far cry from my youth when the UK simply had three terrestrial channels until satellite TV became popular in the late eighties. To paraphrase the former Prime Minister Harold Macmillan “we’ve never had it so good”.
Music by John Williams is a documentary celebration of the famous composer and his illustrious body of work. It provides some interesting biographical background information as to how the man was born into a family of talented musicians. It then traces his rise from pianist for hire to the most well known film composer today. Along the way, anyone who is anyone in film and music appears to heap justifiable praise upon him and his body of work. It also features a continuous medley of John Williams’ greatest hits, as it catalogues his work in broadly chronological order. Music by John Williams is an upbeat and positive love letter to the composer and exactly what you would expect, when you consider that the documentary was produced by his friends and peers.
Tonight’s results for week 5 of Strictly Come Dancing (season 22) have once again demonstrated that this show is more than just a dancing competition to UK viewers. If it were just a case of determining who are the best dancers, then JB Gill would not have been in the dance off. The judges may well see things exclusively in such terms but the public clearly do not. I last wrote about this phenomenon in 2019 and I think it appropriate to raise the subject again as this season of Strictly seems to be bucking past trends and I suspect we may be in for further upsets in the run up to the season finale. Broadly speaking, the public usually tends to vote in a manner similar to the official leaderboard. Hence, those who score the lowest usually end up in the dance off. Occasionally an underdog will be championed and kept on the show but that trend seems to have lost its novelty in recent years. This season appears to be quite different.
I make no bones about the fact that I watch Strictly Come Dancing every year. For those who live outside of the UK, this is the original version of the dancing reality show that you probably know as Dancing With the Stars in your country. It is still a big deal in the UK as far as TV ratings go, getting audiences on average of 6.6 million viewers. There are many aspects of the show that are textbook examples of prime time, popular entertainment but I like it because the “celebrities” that take part are ultimately learning a skill that is genuinely difficult. The latest season of Strictly, as it is known to its fans, is especially interesting as the BBC had a major PR problem earlier in the year, where several previous participants made allegations of bullying and abuse about their pro-dancer partners. An investigation is still ongoing and in the meantime, the two professional dancers that were named have withdrawn from the show. Hence everyone involved with the latest season are all on message, stating that it’s “all about having fun”.
Watching TV was a far more communal activity in my youth. Families sat and watched specific shows or sports together. “Appointment TV” had its benefits not only for TV ratings but for advertising revenue. Although audiences may have grown over the years, they have also become more fragmented and compartmentalised. Smaller market shares have therefore made advertising far more pervasive. Even big streaming platforms are feeling the squeeze with declining subscribers and therefore introducing advertising on lower tier tariffs. Many catch up services also rely on advertising. However, viewers can always pay a fee if they wish to dispense with it. Another foible of modern digital television is poor picture quality Many smaller digital channels broadcast in standard definition. The source material has often been converted between different picture formats and has been cropped to suit a 16:9 screen. This results in low definition picture quality, with weak colours and a lot of digital artefacts.
I recently visited my local branch of the British Heart Foundation. This is a chain of UK charity shops that sell previously owned furniture and electrical goods, all of which are certified to be in good working order. It’s one of the few places where you’ll still find old school CRT televisions. These mainly come from house clearances. On this occasion, a particularly bulky model from the early 2000s was on display and despite its age, it still had a good, clear picture. I spoke to a member of staff and apparently these TVs are still popular with gamers who buy them for use with retro video games consoles. I felt especially nostalgic for this particular ageing Sony TV, because Mrs P and I had once owned a similar model. We bought it from a local department store (which no longer exists) and I remember it took two robust gentlemen to deliver it and install it.
We all knew it had to happen sooner or later. According to reports, Lucasfilm is planning to reduce its Star Wars related output on Disney+. Specifically, from 2025 there will be only one live-action television series per year. For comparison, Disney+ commissioned three shows in 2022 and two shows in both 2023 and 2024. It should be noted that this reduced output doesn’t include animated shows. It would appear that senior management at Disney have finally figured out something most of us have known for a while. That saturating the market with content based upon a specific intellectual property, is ultimately detrimental to its popularity and financial viability. To use an old adage “familiarity breeds contempt”. At present, hardcore fans are “unhappy” with the way the IP is being developed, while casual fans are somewhat burned out by the excess of content and its varying quality.
Two years ago, The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power premiered on Amazon Prime to mixed reviews and a tedious and predictable internet brouhaha. I have no interest in that debacle as I consider it spurious, to say the least. Representation is a commercial imperative for any big budget television production. As for any deviation from the established canon, that’s due to the show being an “adaptation” of Tolkien’s work. At no point were viewers promised a literal interpretation of the source text. Therefore I am only interested in legitimate critiques of the show based upon its production, writing and acting. As far as I’m concerned, the first season was broadly entertaining and had outstanding production values. Overall I enjoyed The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power as an exciting and inventive take on Tolkien’s legendarium. Hence, I have been looking forward to the second season, which began today.
Ghostwatch is a controversial British horror “mockumentary” produced by the BBC that was first broadcast on October 31st 1992. Written by Stephen Volk and produced by Ruth Baumgarten it is now considered a milestone in UK broadcasting. This was mainly due to the strong reaction it provoked from the public, many of whom failed to grasp that it was a drama. At the time it raised serious questions about responsible programming and caused a furore in the British press. It has curiously never been shown since by the BBC. Ghostwatch remains a talking point to this day and is a text book example of the power of television as well as the publics enduring belief in the supernatural.
Ronald Erle Grainer (11 August 1922 – 21 February 1981) was a prolific Australian composer who is best remembered for his work in the United Kingdom during the sixties and seventies. He wrote numerous notable scores and theme music for several iconic television shows such as Doctor Who, Steptoe and Son and Tales of the Unexpected. He also composed the soundtrack for several major motion pictures such as Some People (1962), The Assassination Bureau (1969) and The Omega Man (1971). Grainer relocated to London from Australia in 1952 but it was not until 1960 that he gained critical success after writing the music for the popular TV show Maigret. He subsequently received an Ivor Novello award for “Outstanding Composition for Film, TV or Radio”.
Anyone who writes regularly, sooner or later will have the following epiphany. The realisation that the post you consider your best work seldom finds an audience. Furthermore, the most inconsequential, disposable things that you have written on a whim, will often end up being the one article that gets a big response. It can be very frustrating but it is a reality of writing. It is with that idea in mind, I wish to move on to the matter of “Walter Watches”. In late March 2019, I took a picture of Walter sitting in his chair, watching a classic episode of The Twilight Zone. I subsequently Tweeted this image along with a descriptive caption. This gained a number of “likes” and retweets, so a day later I posted another. This time Walter was watching the film Krull (1983) and I added a humorous caption. Let’s just say I got more of a response for that one Tweet than I had for anything else I had posted over the previous nine years when promoting a blog post.
I was seven when The Six Million Dollar Man was first broadcast in the UK in late 1974. As a young and impressionable child, who was already fascinated by Doctor Who, Star Trek (TOS) and the films of Ray Harryhausen, this show was essential weekly viewing. I believe for the first couple of seasons, we sat and watched it as an entire family. Television was less sophisticated back then and dominated by sitcoms, police procedurals and traditional dramas. So a weekly show blending the espionage genre with science fiction themes was revolutionary. It also inspired a generation of school kids to run around the playground in “slow motion” and give themselves hernias as they attempted to lift heavy objects. And don’t get me started on the range of Steve Austin toys. One had a “bionic eye” which meant it had a lens in the front of the action figure’s face and you could look through the back of his head like a telescope. What a time to be alive!
Despite being an analysis of the past there is a portentous air about Ken Burns and Lynn Novick’s Prohibition. A fascinating five-and-a-half-hour documentary produced for PBS in 2011. The history of this disastrous experiment, the banning of alcoholic beverages, is a textbook example of how the transactional nature of US politics can be effectively used upon “wedge” issues. Prohibition follows the format and style of Burns previous documentaries such as the Civil War (1990) and The War (2007) with the wider subject broken down and analysed according to protagonists, events and the political background. Specific historical figures and key players are followed throughout the documentary’s narrative, giving viewers a sense of focus. Hence we meet the hatchet-wielding Carrie Nation, Wayne Wheeler from the Anti-Saloon League and media savvy gangsters like Al Capone. It is interesting to note that some themes continue from Burns’ previous work, such as the political and cultural conflict between native-born Americans and European immigrants. The rural heartlands versus the big cities.
Andor is not like other entries in the Star Wars canon. It explores the human, social and political consequences of rebelling against an oppressive, totalitarian regime. The writing is intelligent and well observed, choosing to focus on the average citizens of the Empire and the nature of their daily lives. Andor also explores the ineffectual politicians and the way the senate are self serving and ultimately impotent. The Emperor is remote and instead we see how Imperial colonialism works at a grassroots level. It is an all too familiar depiction, born out of historical fact, such as Vichy France during World War II. Petty thugs and aspiring psychopaths happily align themselves with their Imperial overlords and actively oppress their own people. As for the Empire, and in particular the ISB (Imperial Security Bureau) it is rife with infighting, personal fiefdoms and all the flaws of similar institutions from the real world.
Having watched the first two episodes of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power, I wish to express my thoughts on what I’ve seen and my overall impressions so far. I do not think it would be fair to frame this post as a review as the two episodes only constitute 25% of the show’s total content. A formal review of the first season seems more appropriate when I have seen it in its entirety. Before I begin commenting on specific points about the two premier episodes, I wish to point out that I have no problem with “representation” and have expressed my thoughts on this matter in a previous post. It also covers the matter of “adaptation” and how complex texts can at times require augmenting to be made accessible to wider audiences. Hence those viewers who want 100% canonical purity are unrealistic in their expectations. Objections based in racism and sexism can simply be ignored. NB I shall endeavour to keep my thoughts spoiler free.
The last time I wrote about our home entertainment system was six years ago. Back then I was hoping to upgrade our TV from HD to UHD. However, unless you are fortunate to have a surfeit of cash, most of us tend to soldier on with the hardware we already have until it breaks. Then at least we can justify replacing it. And that is exactly what happened to us last week. It would appear that both the TV and the powerline internet adapters which are in our lounge, suffered electrical induction damage during a recent thunderstorm. One of the powerline adapters was completely dead and the HDMI sockets on the television ceased to function. This meant we had no access to streaming services, the Blu-ray player or our BT TV DVR. We could access a selection of free, terrestrial digital channels via the aerial, but could not pause or record anything. Furthermore all of these were in standard definition.
The Eurovision Song Contest is a lot of things but it is never dull. Even if the songs that make it through to the final are a little lacklustre, there’s always drama to be found in the scoring. The first round of votes come from national juries made up of professionals from the music industry. Hence there is a propensity to judge songs on their technical and marketing merits. This often means that the juries favour songs that don’t necessarily appeal to the public. However, this is addressed in the second round in which the viewers can vote. The only caveat is that you cannot vote for your own country. Hence things can really change after the professional jury votes are counted and the public votes are added to the overall score. And that is what happened last night. There was a massive public vote for Ukrainian entry Stefania by the Kalush Orchestra and they subsequently won the contest.
Benjamin Franklin is in many ways the most interesting of the American Founding Fathers. A self taught man who went on to become a polymath. An inventor, accomplished writer and publisher. A diplomat who successfully held multiple public offices. A loyalist who went on to become a “reluctant revolutionary”. A slave owner who eventually became an abolitionist. A questionable parent who favoured specific children over others, as well as a negligent husband. Franklin was all these things, as Ken Burns’ documentary takes great pains to highlight. A broad cross section of historians tackle these foibles and contradictions from multiple perspectives. As Joseph J. Ellis states, Benjamin Franklin was “a Nobel-calibre scientist, the greatest prose stylist of his generation, and probably the greatest diplomat in American history”. His legacy is chronologically analysed over four hours in two distinct episodes.
Gerry Anderson: A Life Uncharted is a documentary that focuses specifically on the man, rather than the shows that he created. If you are more interested in the latter then you would be better off watching Filmed in Supermarionation (2014), which provides a comprehensive overview of all productions, wrapped in a cosy blanket of nostalgia and fandom. Gerry Anderson: A Life Uncharted offers a more challenging viewing experience due to its honesty and candour. Gerry Anderson had a difficult childhood and suffered a bereavement early in life. During the course of this 88 minute exploration of his life it becomes clear that these traumas both drove his creativity as well as marred his own personal life. Furthermore, this documentary is also about a son looking for answers, as Jamie Anderson attempts to learn more about his father’s past.
Star Trek documentaries are very much like Bruce Lee documentaries, in so far as they’re both a saturated market and more often than not, new content frequently ends up covering the same ground. However, fans tend to watch anything new in the hope that they will find a few new nuggets of information. Brian Volk-Weiss’ new 11 part series, The Center Seat: 55 years of Star Trek, not only covers established facts about the iconic show but also expands upon them as well as providing a wealth of new information. Volk-Weiss has previously explored popular culture with documentaries such as The Toys That Made Us and The Movies That Made Us. The Center Seat: 55 years of Star Trek is an in-depth chronological study of the Star Trek franchise, from its creation at Desilu Productions in 1965 all the way through to the latest iterations, Star Trek: Picard and Star Trek: Discovery.
I recently watched the first trailer for the new Obi-Wan Kenobi television show that is premiering on Disney + in May. I am interested in this latest instalment in the Star Wars franchise and curious as to whether Liam Neeson will make an appearance. I also watched a 20 minute fan video in which they “analysed” the entire trailer. They discussed the content of this 2 minute preview and then did a great deal of speculating about potential themes and characters that may feature in the show. They were clearly enthusiastic about what they had seen and were very knowledgeable about the subject. This resonated with me, as I like to be well versed about the things I enjoy. However, it is worth remembering that fandom can tip into obsession and gatekeeping. Hence I feel there is a subject to explore here.
Watching TV Part 1
I recently visited my local branch of the British Heart Foundation. This is a chain of UK charity shops that sell previously owned furniture and electrical goods, all of which are certified to be in good working order. It’s one of the few places where you’ll still find old school CRT televisions. These mainly come from house clearances. On this occasion, a particularly bulky model from the early 2000s was on display and despite its age, it still had a good, clear picture. I spoke to a member of staff and apparently these TVs are still popular with gamers who buy them for use with retro video games consoles. I felt especially nostalgic for this particular ageing Sony TV, because Mrs P and I had once owned a similar model. We bought it from a local department store (which no longer exists) and I remember it took two robust gentlemen to deliver it and install it.
A Widescreen Panasonic CRT TV
I recently visited my local branch of the British Heart Foundation. This is a chain of UK charity shops that sell previously owned furniture and electrical goods, all of which are certified to be in good working order. It’s one of the few places where you’ll still find old school CRT televisions. These mainly come from house clearances. On this occasion, a particularly bulky model from the early 2000s was on display and despite its age, it still had a good, clear picture. I spoke to a member of staff and apparently these TVs are still popular with gamers who buy them for use with retro video games consoles. I felt especially nostalgic for this particular ageing Sony TV, because Mrs P and I had once owned a similar model. We bought it from a local department store (which no longer exists) and I remember it took two robust gentlemen to deliver it and install it.
For much of my life, televisions have been expensive, bulky devices that no matter where you put them, always became the focal point of the room. During the seventies TVs were the primary source of household entertainment and most families did not have any additional devices connected to them. It was not until the eighties that VCRs and games consoles grew in popularity and became more commonplace peripheral devices. Today in contrast, a TV is usually part of a wider home entertainment system, potentially consisting of some sort of DVR, a games console, a DVD/Blu-ray player and a surround sound system. The TV and some of these other devices will all be connected to the internet and provide access to streaming services. It is no longer even considered essential to have access to a cable, satellite or digital terrestrial source. Some households are happy to rely purely on the internet.
Anyone remember Tivo?
Returning to the title of this post, I think we are all fully aware that we watch TV in a much different manner to how we did thirty years ago. So this is not the central point of this article, although I may come back to it. On this occasion I am curious not so much about peoples specific viewing habits but rather the medium they use to watch. For example, I remember working with someone who due to their constant travelling, watched primarily via their tablet. My granddaughters used to do the same, until they got TVs in their bedrooms. For them, family viewing is a rarity. Furthermore, they tend to watch specific shows via streaming or YouTube Kids. If memory serves, I don’t think their home has a roof aerial, satellite dish or cable service. Conversely, my neighbours have gone all in on digital satellite services, mainly due to the sports coverage on offer. They also watch as a family on large TV in their lounge. You may do the same or something completely different. The fact is there is no standard way of watching TV anymore.
In our home, we have a wall mounted 4K TV in our lounge. Despite it being equipped with various apps for streaming as well as a terrestrial digital tuner, it ultimately serves as nothing more than a high end monitor. There are various other devices attached including a new DVR (a BT TV Box Pro) supplied by our ISP. This provides digital terrestrial channels as well as subscription based IPTV services. It can record three different channels while watching a fourth and can output streaming content in 4K HDR and Dolby Atmos. It currently has eight on demand and “catch up” services that we are actively logged into. Despite all its functionality, Mrs P uses it mainly for recording from a handful of mainstream UK TV channels. If there is ever a viewing conflict between Mrs P and I, then I will watch streaming services via my PC. It also has a TV tuner installed in case there’s an issue with internet services.
BT TV Box Pro
One of the benefits of TV today is that there’s no shortage of choice as to what to watch. Mrs P and I will frequently watch TV shows together as we broadly have similar tastes. If we want to watch a specific show, we determine what platform it is available on and whether we have existing access to it. We continuously make use of free trials to various streaming services. We seldom buy physical media anymore, although I will buy a Blu-ray copy of a film if it is difficult to source anywhere else. Overall we can usually access what we wish to watch. Some shows we’re happy to watch weekly but others we prefer to binge watch. By default we always have the subtitles on, which is no reflection upon our hearing but is mainly due to the way sound mixing is conducted these days. As I have stated before, I prefer to watch in either HD or UHD, without adverts as well as on screen graphics and logos.
Despite the technological changes that have happened over the years, not everything associated with watching televisions is an improvement. For example, I recently installed a new DVR. The process required me to choose the power management settings, connect the box to the internet, tune the various TV stations and hide any I didn’t want. I then had to set a PIN for content control, log into multiple streaming services using multiple log on credentials and set the remote control to operate our existing TV as well. Furthermore the new remote doesn’t have appropriate buttons to shut down the TV, only the DVR. Fortunately, the remote for the old DVR is still compatible, so we’re using that one instead. And speaking of remote controls, it would appear I now have six lying around the lounge to operate four devices? How is this easier?
I recently found a DVD boxset of Return to the Planet of the Apes in a charity shop which I bought for £4, which is a ridiculously cheap price. I considered it an interesting find because it was a Region 1, US copy. However, that is not so unusual these days as most DVD players are now region free and Amazon (UK) sells media from all over the world. As for the show in question, I vaguely remember Return to the Planet of the Apes being shown on UK network TV when I was a child, probably circa 1976. Back then it would usually take a year or so before US shows made it onto UK television. From a commercial perspective, the entire Planet of the Apes franchise was beginning to run out of steam. I was 8 years old at the time so had missed most of the film releases. However, I enjoyed the live action TV show hence an animated follow up had obvious appeal to a child of my age.
I have not watched as much TV as I usually do, this year. Mainly because I have become a little weary of the ways contemporary TV is produced, especially with regards to streaming shows. Due to the costs, shows such as Star Trek: Strange New Worlds only have 10 episodes per season. Simply put, the season begins to hit its stride and then is abruptly over. This problem (if you see it as such) is then further compounded by there being a significant wait between seasons. In the case of STSNW it was two years between season two and season three. Not all shows fall foul of this. Apple TV produces two seasons of the excellent espionage drama Slow Horses at a time, ensuring a prompt release schedule. However, even this has issues. Due to the complexity of the plots of many contemporary TV shows, something that is a marketing point, some viewers cannot remember the plot after a twelve month hiatus. Network TV shows seldom have these issues with each season being 20 plus episodes long and story arcs that are seldom as complex.
Strictly Come Dancing remains the BBC’s flagship light entertainment show for Autumn. Despite controversy and scandal, the show bounced back last year and firmly re-established itself as the “feel good, family show” it has always claimed to be. Blind comedian Chris McCausland becoming the 2024 champion certainly validated the show’s commitment to diversity and inclusion and helped place Strictly (as it is known to its fans) back on its cultural pedestal. I’m sure those involved in the production of the show breathed a sigh of relief when the season ended on such a positive note, eclipsing the negative press that had been ever present last summer. Second chances and opportunities for a “course correction” are few and far between these days. Especially when you have elements of the UK press waiting with bated breath and hoping that you’ll fail.
Treasure Island In Outer Space is a curious Italian television production from 1987 starring Anthony Quinn and Ernest Borgnine. It also features numerous international actors better known for their work in cult and exploitation films, such as Bobby Rhodes, David Warbeck and John Morghan. Directed by Antonio Margheriti (AKA Anthony Dawson), famous for such films as Killer Fish (a cash in on Piranha) and The Last Hunter (a Vietnam exploitation epic), Treasure Island In Outer Space is a faithful adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson’s classic novel. The screenplay by Renato Castellani and Lucio De Caro draws heavily from the source text, maintaining character names and original dialogue. However in updating the material to a futuristic setting, the script is littered with the worst kind of eighties sci-fi clichés. We are subjected to sonic trains, anti-gravity rays and the usual buzzword driven faux science.
Thoughts on TV shows and my current viewing habits.
I last wrote a blog post in this series back in February 2022. Then for various reasons, I stopped. Possibly because my relationship with TV has changed in recent years. It’s fair to say at present that viewers are spoilt for choice. There are lots of very good shows around. Conversely, there is also a lot of bland, generic, filler as well. I appreciate that not every television series has to be an industry milestone and there are times when I’m content to watch undemanding content. However, I am very protective of how I spend my leisure time at present. I am not prepared to sink 6 or 8 hours into a show that is just “okay”. Hence I’m becoming very particular about what I watch. If something isn’t working for me in any fashion then I just abandon it and am happy to do so.
The seventies was an interesting time for UK genre television. Despite small budgets and often low key visual effects, there was no shortage of good ideas and creativity. Sapphire & Steel is a prime example of a show couched in a high concept, produced on a shoestring. It also credits its audiences with some degree of intelligence. Rather than spoon feeding the narrative in a didactic manner, it hints and implies, then leaves the rest to its viewers imagination. Created by Peter J. Hammond, a veteran TV writer, Sapphire & Steel centres on a pair of interdimensional operatives named Sapphire and Steel. They are two of a number of elements that assume human form. Over the course of three seasons little is revealed about the pair but they appear whenever there is any anomalous temporal activity. Time itself is portrayed as a sentient and malignant force that seeks to make incursions into the present reality, through weaknesses in the fabric of space.
Season 2 of Andor has received praise from both critics and fans alike. It finally seems to have put to bed the common argument that Star Wars as a franchise has traditionally been light on narrative depth, character development and the exploration of the themes that its main story is predicated upon. Andor shows the realities of opposing authoritarian regimes and exists within shades of grey, rather than purille, binary positions. Many have drawn parallels with the current state of geopolitics, especially that of the United States. I certainly found the second season of Andor to be engaging and thought provoking. I also enjoyed the performances of many of the British actors who by default are cast in all the major Empire roles. I thought Anton Lesser was especially noteworthy as a senior officer in the Imperial Security Bureau.
If you don’t want to pay for streaming services, or premium digital satellite and cable content, then your choice in the UK is somewhat limited. You can receive all “free to air channels”, IE the ones that have advertising, via the digital terrestrial platform Freeview. Most UK televisions have Freeview access built in. Alternatively, the same selection of channels are available via the digital satellite platform Freesat. You can also buy either Freeview or Freesat digital video recorders and require only a rooftop aerial or satellite dish respectively to access these platforms. Most DVRs come with additional IPTV functionality built in along with the most popular streaming apps, so additional subscription services can be added if the viewer so desires. Freeview and Freesat carry a mixture of high definition and standard definition channels. Internet based services offer 4K content.
When I started writing this post it was intended to be about changing from one UK TV provider to another. However, I became concerned that there was a need to provide some sort of historical context, because I wasn’t sure whether all readers would be familiar with how television is provided here. The next thing I know, I’ve written a potted history of public and commercial broadcasting in the UK and the resulting post has become somewhat lengthy. So I have decided to split the text into two halves. The first being a summary of how the provision of television has changed in the UK over the course of the last fifty plus years. The second focuses more upon changes to the TV industry’s business model, consumer habits and the present status quo.
It is fair to say that we live in an age where we do not lack quality TV. There are numerous shows that have garnered critical acclaim or a strong word of mouth following that are deemed “must see” viewing. No doubt you, like myself, have a long “to do” list of programs that you need to “get round to watching” on top of those shows which are staples of your viewing regime. If you didn’t have enough programmes already to catch up with, we all have friends and family telling us about a “great show” that’s on a platform we don’t subscribe to, that we really need to see. It is quite extraordinary and a far cry from my youth when the UK simply had three terrestrial channels until satellite TV became popular in the late eighties. To paraphrase the former Prime Minister Harold Macmillan “we’ve never had it so good”.
Music by John Williams is a documentary celebration of the famous composer and his illustrious body of work. It provides some interesting biographical background information as to how the man was born into a family of talented musicians. It then traces his rise from pianist for hire to the most well known film composer today. Along the way, anyone who is anyone in film and music appears to heap justifiable praise upon him and his body of work. It also features a continuous medley of John Williams’ greatest hits, as it catalogues his work in broadly chronological order. Music by John Williams is an upbeat and positive love letter to the composer and exactly what you would expect, when you consider that the documentary was produced by his friends and peers.
Tonight’s results for week 5 of Strictly Come Dancing (season 22) have once again demonstrated that this show is more than just a dancing competition to UK viewers. If it were just a case of determining who are the best dancers, then JB Gill would not have been in the dance off. The judges may well see things exclusively in such terms but the public clearly do not. I last wrote about this phenomenon in 2019 and I think it appropriate to raise the subject again as this season of Strictly seems to be bucking past trends and I suspect we may be in for further upsets in the run up to the season finale. Broadly speaking, the public usually tends to vote in a manner similar to the official leaderboard. Hence, those who score the lowest usually end up in the dance off. Occasionally an underdog will be championed and kept on the show but that trend seems to have lost its novelty in recent years. This season appears to be quite different.
I make no bones about the fact that I watch Strictly Come Dancing every year. For those who live outside of the UK, this is the original version of the dancing reality show that you probably know as Dancing With the Stars in your country. It is still a big deal in the UK as far as TV ratings go, getting audiences on average of 6.6 million viewers. There are many aspects of the show that are textbook examples of prime time, popular entertainment but I like it because the “celebrities” that take part are ultimately learning a skill that is genuinely difficult. The latest season of Strictly, as it is known to its fans, is especially interesting as the BBC had a major PR problem earlier in the year, where several previous participants made allegations of bullying and abuse about their pro-dancer partners. An investigation is still ongoing and in the meantime, the two professional dancers that were named have withdrawn from the show. Hence everyone involved with the latest season are all on message, stating that it’s “all about having fun”.
Watching TV was a far more communal activity in my youth. Families sat and watched specific shows or sports together. “Appointment TV” had its benefits not only for TV ratings but for advertising revenue. Although audiences may have grown over the years, they have also become more fragmented and compartmentalised. Smaller market shares have therefore made advertising far more pervasive. Even big streaming platforms are feeling the squeeze with declining subscribers and therefore introducing advertising on lower tier tariffs. Many catch up services also rely on advertising. However, viewers can always pay a fee if they wish to dispense with it. Another foible of modern digital television is poor picture quality Many smaller digital channels broadcast in standard definition. The source material has often been converted between different picture formats and has been cropped to suit a 16:9 screen. This results in low definition picture quality, with weak colours and a lot of digital artefacts.
I recently visited my local branch of the British Heart Foundation. This is a chain of UK charity shops that sell previously owned furniture and electrical goods, all of which are certified to be in good working order. It’s one of the few places where you’ll still find old school CRT televisions. These mainly come from house clearances. On this occasion, a particularly bulky model from the early 2000s was on display and despite its age, it still had a good, clear picture. I spoke to a member of staff and apparently these TVs are still popular with gamers who buy them for use with retro video games consoles. I felt especially nostalgic for this particular ageing Sony TV, because Mrs P and I had once owned a similar model. We bought it from a local department store (which no longer exists) and I remember it took two robust gentlemen to deliver it and install it.
We all knew it had to happen sooner or later. According to reports, Lucasfilm is planning to reduce its Star Wars related output on Disney+. Specifically, from 2025 there will be only one live-action television series per year. For comparison, Disney+ commissioned three shows in 2022 and two shows in both 2023 and 2024. It should be noted that this reduced output doesn’t include animated shows. It would appear that senior management at Disney have finally figured out something most of us have known for a while. That saturating the market with content based upon a specific intellectual property, is ultimately detrimental to its popularity and financial viability. To use an old adage “familiarity breeds contempt”. At present, hardcore fans are “unhappy” with the way the IP is being developed, while casual fans are somewhat burned out by the excess of content and its varying quality.
Two years ago, The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power premiered on Amazon Prime to mixed reviews and a tedious and predictable internet brouhaha. I have no interest in that debacle as I consider it spurious, to say the least. Representation is a commercial imperative for any big budget television production. As for any deviation from the established canon, that’s due to the show being an “adaptation” of Tolkien’s work. At no point were viewers promised a literal interpretation of the source text. Therefore I am only interested in legitimate critiques of the show based upon its production, writing and acting. As far as I’m concerned, the first season was broadly entertaining and had outstanding production values. Overall I enjoyed The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power as an exciting and inventive take on Tolkien’s legendarium. Hence, I have been looking forward to the second season, which began today.
Ghostwatch is a controversial British horror “mockumentary” produced by the BBC that was first broadcast on October 31st 1992. Written by Stephen Volk and produced by Ruth Baumgarten it is now considered a milestone in UK broadcasting. This was mainly due to the strong reaction it provoked from the public, many of whom failed to grasp that it was a drama. At the time it raised serious questions about responsible programming and caused a furore in the British press. It has curiously never been shown since by the BBC. Ghostwatch remains a talking point to this day and is a text book example of the power of television as well as the publics enduring belief in the supernatural.
Ronald Erle Grainer (11 August 1922 – 21 February 1981) was a prolific Australian composer who is best remembered for his work in the United Kingdom during the sixties and seventies. He wrote numerous notable scores and theme music for several iconic television shows such as Doctor Who, Steptoe and Son and Tales of the Unexpected. He also composed the soundtrack for several major motion pictures such as Some People (1962), The Assassination Bureau (1969) and The Omega Man (1971). Grainer relocated to London from Australia in 1952 but it was not until 1960 that he gained critical success after writing the music for the popular TV show Maigret. He subsequently received an Ivor Novello award for “Outstanding Composition for Film, TV or Radio”.
Anyone who writes regularly, sooner or later will have the following epiphany. The realisation that the post you consider your best work seldom finds an audience. Furthermore, the most inconsequential, disposable things that you have written on a whim, will often end up being the one article that gets a big response. It can be very frustrating but it is a reality of writing. It is with that idea in mind, I wish to move on to the matter of “Walter Watches”. In late March 2019, I took a picture of Walter sitting in his chair, watching a classic episode of The Twilight Zone. I subsequently Tweeted this image along with a descriptive caption. This gained a number of “likes” and retweets, so a day later I posted another. This time Walter was watching the film Krull (1983) and I added a humorous caption. Let’s just say I got more of a response for that one Tweet than I had for anything else I had posted over the previous nine years when promoting a blog post.
I was seven when The Six Million Dollar Man was first broadcast in the UK in late 1974. As a young and impressionable child, who was already fascinated by Doctor Who, Star Trek (TOS) and the films of Ray Harryhausen, this show was essential weekly viewing. I believe for the first couple of seasons, we sat and watched it as an entire family. Television was less sophisticated back then and dominated by sitcoms, police procedurals and traditional dramas. So a weekly show blending the espionage genre with science fiction themes was revolutionary. It also inspired a generation of school kids to run around the playground in “slow motion” and give themselves hernias as they attempted to lift heavy objects. And don’t get me started on the range of Steve Austin toys. One had a “bionic eye” which meant it had a lens in the front of the action figure’s face and you could look through the back of his head like a telescope. What a time to be alive!
Despite being an analysis of the past there is a portentous air about Ken Burns and Lynn Novick’s Prohibition. A fascinating five-and-a-half-hour documentary produced for PBS in 2011. The history of this disastrous experiment, the banning of alcoholic beverages, is a textbook example of how the transactional nature of US politics can be effectively used upon “wedge” issues. Prohibition follows the format and style of Burns previous documentaries such as the Civil War (1990) and The War (2007) with the wider subject broken down and analysed according to protagonists, events and the political background. Specific historical figures and key players are followed throughout the documentary’s narrative, giving viewers a sense of focus. Hence we meet the hatchet-wielding Carrie Nation, Wayne Wheeler from the Anti-Saloon League and media savvy gangsters like Al Capone. It is interesting to note that some themes continue from Burns’ previous work, such as the political and cultural conflict between native-born Americans and European immigrants. The rural heartlands versus the big cities.
Andor is not like other entries in the Star Wars canon. It explores the human, social and political consequences of rebelling against an oppressive, totalitarian regime. The writing is intelligent and well observed, choosing to focus on the average citizens of the Empire and the nature of their daily lives. Andor also explores the ineffectual politicians and the way the senate are self serving and ultimately impotent. The Emperor is remote and instead we see how Imperial colonialism works at a grassroots level. It is an all too familiar depiction, born out of historical fact, such as Vichy France during World War II. Petty thugs and aspiring psychopaths happily align themselves with their Imperial overlords and actively oppress their own people. As for the Empire, and in particular the ISB (Imperial Security Bureau) it is rife with infighting, personal fiefdoms and all the flaws of similar institutions from the real world.
Having watched the first two episodes of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power, I wish to express my thoughts on what I’ve seen and my overall impressions so far. I do not think it would be fair to frame this post as a review as the two episodes only constitute 25% of the show’s total content. A formal review of the first season seems more appropriate when I have seen it in its entirety. Before I begin commenting on specific points about the two premier episodes, I wish to point out that I have no problem with “representation” and have expressed my thoughts on this matter in a previous post. It also covers the matter of “adaptation” and how complex texts can at times require augmenting to be made accessible to wider audiences. Hence those viewers who want 100% canonical purity are unrealistic in their expectations. Objections based in racism and sexism can simply be ignored. NB I shall endeavour to keep my thoughts spoiler free.
The last time I wrote about our home entertainment system was six years ago. Back then I was hoping to upgrade our TV from HD to UHD. However, unless you are fortunate to have a surfeit of cash, most of us tend to soldier on with the hardware we already have until it breaks. Then at least we can justify replacing it. And that is exactly what happened to us last week. It would appear that both the TV and the powerline internet adapters which are in our lounge, suffered electrical induction damage during a recent thunderstorm. One of the powerline adapters was completely dead and the HDMI sockets on the television ceased to function. This meant we had no access to streaming services, the Blu-ray player or our BT TV DVR. We could access a selection of free, terrestrial digital channels via the aerial, but could not pause or record anything. Furthermore all of these were in standard definition.
The Eurovision Song Contest is a lot of things but it is never dull. Even if the songs that make it through to the final are a little lacklustre, there’s always drama to be found in the scoring. The first round of votes come from national juries made up of professionals from the music industry. Hence there is a propensity to judge songs on their technical and marketing merits. This often means that the juries favour songs that don’t necessarily appeal to the public. However, this is addressed in the second round in which the viewers can vote. The only caveat is that you cannot vote for your own country. Hence things can really change after the professional jury votes are counted and the public votes are added to the overall score. And that is what happened last night. There was a massive public vote for Ukrainian entry Stefania by the Kalush Orchestra and they subsequently won the contest.
Benjamin Franklin is in many ways the most interesting of the American Founding Fathers. A self taught man who went on to become a polymath. An inventor, accomplished writer and publisher. A diplomat who successfully held multiple public offices. A loyalist who went on to become a “reluctant revolutionary”. A slave owner who eventually became an abolitionist. A questionable parent who favoured specific children over others, as well as a negligent husband. Franklin was all these things, as Ken Burns’ documentary takes great pains to highlight. A broad cross section of historians tackle these foibles and contradictions from multiple perspectives. As Joseph J. Ellis states, Benjamin Franklin was “a Nobel-calibre scientist, the greatest prose stylist of his generation, and probably the greatest diplomat in American history”. His legacy is chronologically analysed over four hours in two distinct episodes.
Gerry Anderson: A Life Uncharted is a documentary that focuses specifically on the man, rather than the shows that he created. If you are more interested in the latter then you would be better off watching Filmed in Supermarionation (2014), which provides a comprehensive overview of all productions, wrapped in a cosy blanket of nostalgia and fandom. Gerry Anderson: A Life Uncharted offers a more challenging viewing experience due to its honesty and candour. Gerry Anderson had a difficult childhood and suffered a bereavement early in life. During the course of this 88 minute exploration of his life it becomes clear that these traumas both drove his creativity as well as marred his own personal life. Furthermore, this documentary is also about a son looking for answers, as Jamie Anderson attempts to learn more about his father’s past.
Star Trek documentaries are very much like Bruce Lee documentaries, in so far as they’re both a saturated market and more often than not, new content frequently ends up covering the same ground. However, fans tend to watch anything new in the hope that they will find a few new nuggets of information. Brian Volk-Weiss’ new 11 part series, The Center Seat: 55 years of Star Trek, not only covers established facts about the iconic show but also expands upon them as well as providing a wealth of new information. Volk-Weiss has previously explored popular culture with documentaries such as The Toys That Made Us and The Movies That Made Us. The Center Seat: 55 years of Star Trek is an in-depth chronological study of the Star Trek franchise, from its creation at Desilu Productions in 1965 all the way through to the latest iterations, Star Trek: Picard and Star Trek: Discovery.
I recently watched the first trailer for the new Obi-Wan Kenobi television show that is premiering on Disney + in May. I am interested in this latest instalment in the Star Wars franchise and curious as to whether Liam Neeson will make an appearance. I also watched a 20 minute fan video in which they “analysed” the entire trailer. They discussed the content of this 2 minute preview and then did a great deal of speculating about potential themes and characters that may feature in the show. They were clearly enthusiastic about what they had seen and were very knowledgeable about the subject. This resonated with me, as I like to be well versed about the things I enjoy. However, it is worth remembering that fandom can tip into obsession and gatekeeping. Hence I feel there is a subject to explore here.
Too Much Star Wars
We all knew it had to happen sooner or later. According to reports, Lucasfilm is planning to reduce its Star Wars related output on Disney+. Specifically, from 2025 there will be only one live-action television series per year. For comparison, Disney+ commissioned three shows in 2022 and two shows in both 2023 and 2024. It should be noted that this reduced output doesn’t include animated shows. It would appear that senior management at Disney have finally figured out something most of us have known for a while. That saturating the market with content based upon a specific intellectual property, is ultimately detrimental to its popularity and financial viability. To use an old adage “familiarity breeds contempt”. At present, hardcore fans are “unhappy” with the way the IP is being developed, while casual fans are somewhat burned out by the excess of content and its varying quality.
We all knew it had to happen sooner or later. According to reports, Lucasfilm is planning to reduce its Star Wars related output on Disney+. Specifically, from 2025 there will be only one live-action television series per year. For comparison, Disney+ commissioned three shows in 2022 and two shows in both 2023 and 2024. It should be noted that this reduced output doesn’t include animated shows. It would appear that senior management at Disney have finally figured out something most of us have known for a while. That saturating the market with content based upon a specific intellectual property, is ultimately detrimental to its popularity and financial viability. To use an old adage “familiarity breeds contempt”. At present, hardcore fans are “unhappy” with the way the IP is being developed, while casual fans are somewhat burned out by the excess of content and its varying quality.
In recent years, the Star Wars franchise has evolved an increasingly complex lore, as it attempts to codify into canon all things alluded to in the original films. This matter is further complicated as Disney picks and chooses what material from the expanded universe it wishes to use. Hence a reciprocal need has grown, requiring viewers to be au fait with this continuously growing mythology. Someone watching The Rise of Skywalker or season 2 of The Mandolorian with no prior knowledge of the franchise would struggle with much of the plot beyond the obvious. This growing interdependence may well be appealing to hardcore fans, but it can equally be off putting those just dipping their toes into the franchise. It’s a stark contrast to the first Star Wars movie which dealt in archetypes and addressed the themes of good and evil with broad brushstrokes.
From a business perspective, Disney’s decision is a sensible move. Star Wars remains the goose that lays the golden egg but it needs to be handled with care and consideration. Over the last 47 years, fans have gone from a lengthy period without new content, to an abundance of it in the last decade. I am reminded of the old aphorism regarding buses. You wait ages for one and then several turn up simultaneously. Furthermore, Star Wars is an intellectual property in transition at present. It was conceived during the seventies when the world was a very different place to how it is today. Its narrative simplicity was an antidote to the prevailing political and cultural cynicism of the time. However, Star Wars today has to appeal to a more diverse and sophisticated audience. Andor has shown that the source material can be updated to encompass more complex and adult themes. But this process is still a work in progress.
Which brings us to what is paradoxically the franchise’s greatest strength and sadly its most obvious Achilles’ heel; its fans. Star Wars fans are steadfast, engaged and passionate about that which they love. However, some are also possessive to the point of mania. They fail to see that fandom is not the same as ownership and that they are not the exclusive audience for this franchise. As to what happens next, now that Disney has made this decision, remains to be seen. Fans of all shades seem to agree that this is the right thing to do. Many think that Disney needs to reconsider what they do next with the franchise. I even saw one comment on a subreddit that simply said “make Star Wars great again”. The only flaw with this plea is that there is no clear consensus as to how you exactly achieve that. On mature reflection, perhaps owning the biggest pop culture franchise ever, isn’t as great as it sounds.
There has been a resurgence of people playing Star Wars Battlefront II recently. Possibly because the game was discounted on many outlets on May 4th and may be due to the success of Andor season 2. There’s a lot more people streaming it as well as videos on YouTube. Whatever the reason, it is always good to see a deserving game enjoying a renaissance. Star Wars Battlefront II was blighted at launch, back in November 2017 by some egregious business decisions and it took nearly a year for the game to recover from the negative publicity and player animosity. Setting this historical debacle aside for one moment, there was always a handsome and engaging game to be found. One that used the licensed intellectual property well. Which is why I recently reinstalled the game and resumed playing its multiplayer mode.
Season 2 of Andor has received praise from both critics and fans alike. It finally seems to have put to bed the common argument that Star Wars as a franchise has traditionally been light on narrative depth, character development and the exploration of the themes that its main story is predicated upon. Andor shows the realities of opposing authoritarian regimes and exists within shades of grey, rather than purille, binary positions. Many have drawn parallels with the current state of geopolitics, especially that of the United States. I certainly found the second season of Andor to be engaging and thought provoking. I also enjoyed the performances of many of the British actors who by default are cast in all the major Empire roles. I thought Anton Lesser was especially noteworthy as a senior officer in the Imperial Security Bureau.
We all knew it had to happen sooner or later. According to reports, Lucasfilm is planning to reduce its Star Wars related output on Disney+. Specifically, from 2025 there will be only one live-action television series per year. For comparison, Disney+ commissioned three shows in 2022 and two shows in both 2023 and 2024. It should be noted that this reduced output doesn’t include animated shows. It would appear that senior management at Disney have finally figured out something most of us have known for a while. That saturating the market with content based upon a specific intellectual property, is ultimately detrimental to its popularity and financial viability. To use an old adage “familiarity breeds contempt”. At present, hardcore fans are “unhappy” with the way the IP is being developed, while casual fans are somewhat burned out by the excess of content and its varying quality.
Andor is not like other entries in the Star Wars canon. It explores the human, social and political consequences of rebelling against an oppressive, totalitarian regime. The writing is intelligent and well observed, choosing to focus on the average citizens of the Empire and the nature of their daily lives. Andor also explores the ineffectual politicians and the way the senate are self serving and ultimately impotent. The Emperor is remote and instead we see how Imperial colonialism works at a grassroots level. It is an all too familiar depiction, born out of historical fact, such as Vichy France during World War II. Petty thugs and aspiring psychopaths happily align themselves with their Imperial overlords and actively oppress their own people. As for the Empire, and in particular the ISB (Imperial Security Bureau) it is rife with infighting, personal fiefdoms and all the flaws of similar institutions from the real world.
I recently watched the first trailer for the new Obi-Wan Kenobi television show that is premiering on Disney + in May. I am interested in this latest instalment in the Star Wars franchise and curious as to whether Liam Neeson will make an appearance. I also watched a 20 minute fan video in which they “analysed” the entire trailer. They discussed the content of this 2 minute preview and then did a great deal of speculating about potential themes and characters that may feature in the show. They were clearly enthusiastic about what they had seen and were very knowledgeable about the subject. This resonated with me, as I like to be well versed about the things I enjoy. However, it is worth remembering that fandom can tip into obsession and gatekeeping. Hence I feel there is a subject to explore here.
As of today, the final episode of The Book of Boba Fett has aired on Disney + and this spinoff show from The Mandalorian has finished its first season. It has been a curious seven part story and not at all what I was expecting. Initially focusing upon the trials and tribulations of the iconic Bounty Hunter Boba Fett as he fights for Jabba the Hutt’s former territory, the story creatively explained what happened to him after he was swallowed by the Sarlacc. However, the plot took an unexpected turn focusing upon the fate of Din Djarin and Grogu from The Mandalorian, before the climatic final instalment. It’s certainly been an entertaining ride but the show’s somewhat eclectic nature has been a little confusing. Having a dedicated story about Boba Fett and then undermining it by focusing upon other iconic characters seems somewhat contradictory. Thankfully, the final episode put both shows back on track.
In my youth, I took my fandom very seriously. I would brook no criticism of the various objects of my affection. I would robustly defend them in lengthy forum comments, filled with the sort of detail and lack of self awareness that only an ardent fan can bring to bear. Nowadays, it’s a different story altogether (insert Airplane gag here). I still enjoy Thunderbirds, Star Trek, The Lord of the Rings but I do not consider them unassailable, sacred cows. If other’s scorn them, that is their prerogative. Age not only brings you more keys and things that require charging, it also grants the realisation that it doesn’t matter what others think. Furthermore, reboots, reimaginings and revivals cannot harm your memories or “ruin your childhood”. Has Gus Van Sant’s ill conceived 1998 remake of Psycho harmed in any way Hitchcock’s classic original. Any answer other than “no” is at the least spurious and at worst naval gazing bullshit, served on a platter of hyperbole and attention seeking.
Over the years, I have had what I would describe as an ever diminishing relationship with Star Wars as a franchise. I grew up with the original trilogy, seeing them all when they were originally released. Those three films were a wonderful, self-contained story. I also broadly enjoyed aspects of the Expanded Universe, as it was confined to other mediums such as books or comics. Hence it was an optional extra, as it were. Sadly, over the years, the additional film trilogies proved to be inferior products that suffered under the weight of their own ever expanding lore. The fetishisation of the hardware, actions scenes and overall aesthetic by both the filmmakers and the fans, came at the expense of good narrative content and character development. The one film that tried to take the franchise in a more mature and thoughtful direction, The Last Jedi, proved controversial and divisive. Overall it was the animated TV show Rebels that best showed an understanding of the franchise.
Two years ago The Last Jedi was released to mixed reviews. A vocal percentage of fans complained bitterly about various aspects of the movie. Some of their assertions such as the episodic pacing of parts of the story had merit. While other criticisms regarding diversity and gender categorically did not. However, Disney were cognisant of the fact that Star Wars fans were not universally enthralled by the movie although it turned a healthy profit. And then the following Easter Solo “underperformed” at the box office and journalists started talking about how the franchise had overreached itself and was in decline. Alarm bells obviously went off at board level and something had to be done. It would appear that The Rise of Skywalker is very much a movie designed to put the franchise back on track and wrap up the narrative proceedings of the last 42 years. However, there is a cost in offering such a colossal “fan service”. The latest instalment starts at a breakneck pace and continues in that idiom for over two hours. Action scenes, canonical references and homages are piled on, one after another. But narratively things are somewhat thin, recycling ideas and concepts from earlier movies. Some of the plot devices are never explained and therefore seem somewhat contrived. The Rise of Skywalker is most certainly entertaining. But it requires its core audience to be forgiving and to a degree complicit in its indulgences and failings.
I will try and keep this post as brief as possible because rants and tirades aren’t as funny as many writers think they are. Rather than “frothing at the mouth” I think a more accurate description of my feelings can be summed up just by a deep sigh and a shake of the head. So, where to begin? Well during the course of the day, several memes, humorous quips and oblique references appeared in my Twitter timeline featuring the phrase “Maclunkey”. As the joke didn’t immediately become apparent and I couldn’t reference the phrase (I initially thought it was about the band Mclusky) I took to Google to find out what this was all about. I like to keep abreast as to what are the current talking points online and I don’t want to be that old guy who doesn’t understand “the kids of today” or “that there interweb”. Fortunately, a brief internet search provided a clear answer. I shall now attempt to distil the relevant facts for the benefit of those who are still in the dark.
Peter Mayhew was working as an Orderly in the radiology department of King's College Hospital, London in 1976 when he was “discovered” by George Lucas. Lucas was looking to find someone suitably tall to play the Wookie Chewbacca in Star Wars. Legend has it that Mayhew simply stood up from his seat to great Lucas and immediately clinched the part. The rest they say is history. Peter Mayhew went on to play the role in another five movies, and despite not gaining the immediate fame of regular actors, became a firm favourite among fans at conventions. He was also held in very high regard by his professional acting peers. As for the role of Chewbacca, he made it his own and approached the character seriously and with genuine love. Despite a lack of conventional dialogue, Mayhew imbued Chewbacca with a personality and a distinctive sense of style. No mean achievement for a man who never intended for any of this to happen.
I was perusing the net recently and came across a story about how a Star Wars fan film that had built up a head of steam online, has been slapped with a copyright strike from Disney. Nothing unusual there as the company is virtually legendary with respect to its litigious proclivities. However, someone over a Lucasfilm interceded and got the strike lifted, because the fan film creator had allegedly sought prior permission and supposedly received it. George Lucas has always maintained an equitable attitude towards fan usage of the Star Wars IP, something he tried to impress upon Disney when he sold the rights to them back in 2012. But it is very difficult to have a balanced discussion about George Lucas as the man is such a paradox. On one hand he is possibly one of the greatest contributors to twentieth century pop culture and has influenced a generation of film makers, writers and fans. On the other he is the man who single headedly has managed to queer his own pitch, with the way he has continuously tinkered with his body of work and appended it with supplemental material that many deemed substandard or to the detriment of the original. He is also still vilified in some quarters for his business arrangement with Disney.
Naïve (adjective): (of a person or action) showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgement. I have chosen this word over delusional, foolish or puerile in an attempt to keep this post measured and level headed. Because this is a discussion about fandom and it’s a subject that is seldom driven by cool, even handed, mature reflection. Fandom is about passion, strong emotional connections and a sense of community. These can be and often are positive things. Yet fandom can also be about myopia, zealotry and gate-keeping. Something that that is supposed to bring people together can degenerate into a “them and us” scenario. Just another binary, tribal, world view that screams at anyone or anything that is not “the same”. And in recent years, due to the internet and social media, fandom has now developed an erroneous sense of ownership. By loving something and venerating it, you (allegedly) have an inherent stake in it and a right to say how it evolves. Which leads me neatly on to “Remake the Last Jedi” movement and the staggering naivety that underpins it.
Star Wars Begins is a detailed documentary by film maker Jamie Benning that explores the creation of what is now considered to be the most iconic movie of the seventies; namely Star Wars. It features a wealth of deleted scenes, alternate takes, behind-the-scenes footage, bloopers, original on set audio recordings and a great deal of commentary by the original cast and crew. As far as I’m concerned, it is the most thorough and in-depth analysis of Star Wars I have yet to see. Frankly it beats hands down, any of the officially sanctioned documentaries that have appeared over the year on the various DVD and Blu-ray releases of the trilogy.
Certain groups just lend themselves to ridicule from the media and in popular culture in general, irrespective of whether they deserve it or not. Star Wars fans are a prime example of this. Their love of the lore, predilection for cosplay and hunger for collectables at first glance makes them an easy target. Film maker Mark Edlitz, takes a decidedly different approach in his documentary Jedi Junkies. Instead of finger-pointing and making cheap jokes, Jedi Junkies puts a very human face on a group of enthusiasts, showing their passion to be in essence, no different to that of sports fans or other more mainstream hobbies and pastimes.
Star Wars has always been about high adventure. The franchise has been outstanding in its creative vision, as well as eminently enjoyable but it has never been as deep as some of the themes and ideas that it has touched upon. George Lucas tried to provide a more complex narrative with his prequels, but it became lost in the clumsy screenplays. Instead of creating political intrigue and complexity, it all seemed somewhat incoherent and naive. Finally, Star Wars: The Last Jedi manages to achieve something that we saw briefly in Episode V. Thematic depth. The latest movie takes a franchise that has primarily been about spectacle as well as entertainment and re-invigorates it with a far greater narrative scope. There are real performances from Mark Hamill and Adam Driver, as well as complex philosophical musings on weighty themes. Finally, Star Wars like a fine wine, has matured and can now provide fans with a more substantial and nuanced story. Simply put, Star Wars has grown up and hence forward it can be more than just a space opera.
On the eve of the launch of Star Wars Battlefront II last Friday, DICE General Manager Oskar Garbrielson released a statement stating that paid microtransactions were to be disabled in the game for the immediate future. It was a major reverse of policy after several weeks of increasing debate and acrimony about the subject from Star Wars fans and wider gamers. It has now come to light that the decision was due to pressure from the rights holders themselves. Disney Head of Consumer Products and Interactive Media Jimmy Pitaro is apparently the driving force behind this U-turn. Naturally with a major movie release only weeks away and the prospect of huge merchandise sales over the holiday season, no one at Disney wanted to see a media circus that could impact upon their bottom line. What happens in the new year when the controversy has died down and the movie leaves the cinemas, remains to be seen. I suspect we have not seen the back of the loot crate issue but for the meantime the problem has been side-lined.
Back in 2008, I discovered a fan edit of George A. Romero’s iconic Dawn of The Dead and was very impressed with the way that enthusiasts can now re-edit and re-imagine any film of their choice, using commonly available tools. I subsequently spent some time looking into this entire sub-genre further and found that one of the most popular franchises to be fan edited was naturally Star Wars. One of the first fans edits of this kind I watched was a "Grindhouse" version of A New Hope that had been retitled The War of The Stars. It was fun and tried to be different but overall it was simply an amusing diversion. Something that could viewed as a in joke among fans. Not all of the fan edits out there are particularly good and as a genre it can be very uneven. Yet through word of mouth it became quite apparent that one particular Star Wars fan edit seemed to be getting a great deal of attention and praise from both the fan and wider community. Namely Star Wars Revisited by Adywan.
Having completed my ten-hour Play First Trial of Star Wars Battlefront 2, I wanted to elaborate further upon my initial thoughts of the game. It should be noted that the demo that EA offers via Origin Access, comes with several caveats. Only the first three missions of the campaign are available, although these are sufficient to give to the you a good handle on the game’s various combat mechanics. You play as Imperial Special Forces Agent Iden Versio, the leader of Inferno Squad. The story starts during the Battle of Endor and addresses the fate of the Empire, after the Emperor’s demise. Unlike many games from this genre, the single player campaign is well written and engaging. When this part of the demo ended I found myself wanting to play more and see where the narrative went. Out of the ten hours given for the demo, I spent about three on the campaign. The rest of the time I spent in multiplayer, which is the game’s raison d'être.
Star Wars Battlefront II looks superb, even on an ageing PC such as mine. It absolutely exudes Star Wars ambience, with its aesthetics and sound design. If you are looking for a game that show cases the cutting edge of game graphics, then look no further. However, I cannot praise the game play and mechanics in the same ways as its visuals. Star Wars Battlefront II is hobbled by a progression system that is tied and potentially undermined by its loot crate mechanic. Furthermore, I won’t say “this is a real shame” as if it’s something that just happened by accident because it patently isn’t. The game was design this way. EA elected to block player progression and then provide a means to circumnavigate it, through the spending of additional funds.
Over the years I have been a participant in several fan based communities. These have ranged from running film clubs, to creating and publishing fanzines in the pre-internet days. More recently this has included running websites, blogging and creating podcasts. It’s a curious thing the way fandom is cyclical and one’s involvement with such communities seems to ebb and flow. It’s something I’ve been thinking about a lot of late. Several of the You Tube channels I enjoy have reduced their output or stopped due, to changes in advertising policy and monetisation. The Newbie Blogger Initiative failed to manifest itself this year and many of my immediate colleagues in blogging and podcasting have also begun to fade away or moved on to pastures new. The sad thing is, the true value of many community contributors is never really realised until after they’ve gone.
After watching Rogue One earlier today, I was suitably impressed. Once again Disney have used all the knowledge they've amassed from successfully running major franchises and applied it here, resulting in a finely tuned and polished entry into the Star Wars pantheon. The concept of standalone movies released in-between instalments of the classic story has now proven viable opens up a wealth of possibilities. Rogue One works well narratively and provides the spectacle that fans expect from the series. The continuity and attention to detail is outstanding continuously keeping viewers on their toes. Furthermore, the story itself is credible, dovetailing nicely into the lore.
Contrary to my expectation Star Wars: The Force Awakens is an extremely entertaining and enjoyable movie. It manages to balance the needs of all interested parties. Fans get epic battles, iconic hardware and dependable performances from established and cherished characters. The new cast dovetail into the story with ease and are engaging. The torch is past from old to new seamlessly. There is humour, pathos and genuine tragedy to be found in Star Wars: The Force Awakens and it’s there because all involved clearly love and respect the franchise but also understand what makes good cinema. Fandom tempered by professional film making. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive.
A reoccurring theme in both my writing and podcasting at present is how age changes one’s personal perspective. This is something that particularly manifests itself with regard to gaming. A decade ago I would have been extremely enthusiastic about a title such as Star Wars Battlefront. I would have pre-ordered the most lavish version available, then waxed lyrical about the beta test and thrown myself wholeheartedly in to the game upon its release. Despite the fact that I’m notoriously poor at the FPS genre, I would have sunk hours in to such a game and done my up most to convince myself and others that I’d had a good time.
The seventies were a very curious time, especially in the UK. The post war world with its sensibilities, culture and etiquette was slowly slipping away. Sadly the future had not quite lived up to its scientific and cultural potential. Political, industrial and economic turmoil were rife. Even as a child I was aware that all was not right with the world. Then Star Wars was released and very quickly became a cultural phenomenon. I embraced it like many others and took it to my heart. It offered not only spectacle but a boundless galaxy filled with stories and possibilities, which captivated a child’s imagination. It had not only a strong sense of morality but a wider philosophical subtext. It provided a modern mythology just as George Lucas intended. Its optimism was in some ways an antidote to the prevailing cynicism of the times.
The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power Season 2
Two years ago, The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power premiered on Amazon Prime to mixed reviews and a tedious and predictable internet brouhaha. I have no interest in that debacle as I consider it spurious, to say the least. Representation is a commercial imperative for any big budget television production. As for any deviation from the established canon, that’s due to the show being an “adaptation” of Tolkien’s work. At no point were viewers promised a literal interpretation of the source text. Therefore I am only interested in legitimate critiques of the show based upon its production, writing and acting. As far as I’m concerned, the first season was broadly entertaining and had outstanding production values. Overall I enjoyed The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power as an exciting and inventive take on Tolkien’s legendarium. Hence, I have been looking forward to the second season, which began today.
Two years ago, The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power premiered on Amazon Prime to mixed reviews and a tedious and predictable internet brouhaha. I have no interest in that debacle as I consider it spurious, to say the least. Representation is a commercial imperative for any big budget television production. As for any deviation from the established canon, that’s due to the show being an “adaptation” of Tolkien’s work. At no point were viewers promised a literal interpretation of the source text. Therefore I am only interested in legitimate critiques of the show based upon its production, writing and acting. As far as I’m concerned, the first season was broadly entertaining and had outstanding production values. Overall I enjoyed The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power as an exciting and inventive take on Tolkien’s legendarium. Hence, I have been looking forward to the second season, which began today.
As I have only watched the first three episodes of Season 2, this is not a review. It is simply some initial thoughts. My opinion may change when I have seen all eight episodes. So far, relocation of the production from New Zealand to the UK does not appear to have had a detrimental impact on the show’s aesthetics or high quality. Weta FX and Industrial Light and Magic still continue to produce the lionshare of visual effects. Long term Tolkien illustrator John Howe, remains the main conceptual artist and although there has been changes in staff relating to costume and production design, there still appears to be a sense of visual continuity between this show and Peter Jackson’s feature films. Bear McCreary has also been retained to provide the score and has again provided some outstanding new themes. I was pleasantly surprised to see cast member Benjamin Walker singing “Golden Leaves” in Sindarin. Song is such an integral part of Tolkien’s work.
Narratively, Season 2 quickly resumes where the previous ended. Here are a few of the ongoing plot points. In an extended flashback we see why the transition of power from Morgoth to Sauron did not go well. We also get to see Sauron in an earlier physical guise played by Jack Lowden. The “meteor man” has reached Rhûn with Nori the Harfoot and it would appear that they are being tracked by the minions of a “Dark Wizard”. The unnamed sorcerer refers to the “meteor man” as an Istar, a Quenya term for “wise”. The Wizards of the Third Age were known as the Istari; “wise ones”. In Khazad-dûm, seismic activity caused by the eruption of Mount Doom leads to the collapse of many of the city’s light wells, disrupting the Dwarves’ means of food production. In Eregion, Sauron takes the guise of Annatar, Lord of Gifts and tricks Celebrimbor into making further rings of power.
So far it seems that show runners, J. D. Payne and Patrick McKay, are working more within the parameters of Tolkien’s legendarium than previously. This may be due to the story moving forward into more closely defined “history”. The addition of further canonical characters such as Narvi (Kevin Eldon) and Círdan (Ben Foster) certainly makes the proceedings feel more “Tolkienesque”. Adar, the Dark Elf chieftain of the Orcs, is played by a different actor to season one but due to the prosthetic makeup, it doesn’t make any significant difference. I am extremely curious to see Rory Kinnear as Tom Bombadil and I saw via the IMDb that Jim Broadbent is providing a voice for what may be an Ent. I find the presence of so many established UK actors reassuring. Also the fact that the show uses Hammer’s old studios at Bray, in Berkshire.
Season 2 of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power has gotten off to a good start. With five more episodes to go, it can still cover a lot of ground. At present it is the non canonical material that holds my interest the most. The introduction of a “Dark Wizard” in Rhûn is not an implausible plot element. The Blue Wizards travelled to that region and were ultimately lost. Saruman himself dwelt there at one point. And then there is the Dark Elf Adar, allegedly one of the first to be corrupted by Morgoth. In another bold choice, there is a brief appearance in episode three of a female Orc holding an Orc baby. Rather than being perturbed by the creative choices of the showrunners, I find them a source of fascination. If I want pure Tolkien, then there are the source texts and audio productions to enjoy. The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power is ultimately just one of many interpretations of Middle-earth. I suspect in the years to come there will be more. Not all will be to everyone’s tastes. However, if they introduce people to the original texts then that is no bad thing.
At the start of the 2001 film, The Fellowship of the Rings, director Peter Jackson has crafted a compelling and visual stunning prologue. It distils a great deal of Tolkien’s text and conveys the essential history of the One Ring succinctly. Cinematically it works extremely well but it is sadly far from canonical due to all the practical considerations a film maker has to make when adapting a lore dense text. I have often wondered exactly how Sauron was defeated at the end of the Second Age because Tolkien is somewhat vague in The Lord of the Rings. Gil-galad, Elendil and Isildur all seem to be involved in physically fighting the Dark Lord. Gil-galad died due to being burned by Sauron’s touch. Elendil also died in combat and his sword Narsil broke beneath him. Isildur claimed to have delivered the killing blow after his father was defeated. However, no character in the story provides a definite, linear account of these event.
Tolkien enthusiasts may recollect Athlon Games, a subsidiary of Leyou Technologies, announcing that it was developing a new MMORPG, based upon The Lord of the Rings, back in September 2018. The following summer, it was revealed that Amazon Game Studios was the partner developer for the project. In late 2020, Leyou Technologies (a Hong Kong-based company), was acquired by the Chinese conglomerate Tencent. This triggered a contract clause with the license holder, Middle-earth Enterprises, allowing them to terminate the existing arrangement if a new deal could not be met. Amazon and Tencent were unable to agree upon how to proceed with the project, leading Amazon to withdraw from negotiations. The project was subsequently scrapped. No details or images of the MMO have been released.
Song is a fundamental aspect of Tolkien's writing, serving the same role as it does in our own cultures. It is a means of documenting history, expressing cultural heritage and maintaining traditions for the people of Middle-earth. The Ents sing lists of lore. The Rohirrim sing of battle and heroic deeds and the Shire folk, of ale and frivolity. Let us not forget that Tolkien’s fictitious world, Arda, was effectively sung into existence via the Ainulindalë, the divine music of creation sung by the Ainur. The cultural significance of song is also a key element of Tolkien’s world building. The songs within the narrative bolster the authenticity of the various cultures of Middle-earth, embedding their history and heritage into the story. Music, rhymes and songs also help define characters. The lighter ones sung by hobbits, provide lighthearted moments, contrasting with the dark and dangerous tones of the larger narrative. It also reinforced their rustic heritage.
I have always found it curious that there haven't been more feature films set in Middle-earth, after the success of Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy. However, a little research shows a very complex set of rights regarding Tolkien’s work, with different material being controlled and administered by different bodies. Hence, the market has not been saturated with officially licensed material. Thus, when The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim was announced to be in production, it aroused a great deal of curiosity both among fans and those with an interest in the wider film industry. To base an entire feature film on something that is effectively just a few paragraphs in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings is quite intriguing. The producers claimed it afforded them greater artistic freedom not to be constrained by an excess of lore. Industry pundits theorised that the film was being produced solely to ensure that wider rights were retained.
Two years ago, The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power premiered on Amazon Prime to mixed reviews and a tedious and predictable internet brouhaha. I have no interest in that debacle as I consider it spurious, to say the least. Representation is a commercial imperative for any big budget television production. As for any deviation from the established canon, that’s due to the show being an “adaptation” of Tolkien’s work. At no point were viewers promised a literal interpretation of the source text. Therefore I am only interested in legitimate critiques of the show based upon its production, writing and acting. As far as I’m concerned, the first season was broadly entertaining and had outstanding production values. Overall I enjoyed The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power as an exciting and inventive take on Tolkien’s legendarium. Hence, I have been looking forward to the second season, which began today.
Having watched the first two episodes of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power, I wish to express my thoughts on what I’ve seen and my overall impressions so far. I do not think it would be fair to frame this post as a review as the two episodes only constitute 25% of the show’s total content. A formal review of the first season seems more appropriate when I have seen it in its entirety. Before I begin commenting on specific points about the two premier episodes, I wish to point out that I have no problem with “representation” and have expressed my thoughts on this matter in a previous post. It also covers the matter of “adaptation” and how complex texts can at times require augmenting to be made accessible to wider audiences. Hence those viewers who want 100% canonical purity are unrealistic in their expectations. Objections based in racism and sexism can simply be ignored. NB I shall endeavour to keep my thoughts spoiler free.
In February this year, I wrote a blog post about how Middle-earth Enterprises were seeking to auction off the various rights they hold for the works of J.R.R. Tolkien. Today the Embracer Group announced that it was buying these rights as part of an ongoing acquisition strategy. The Swedish video game and media holding company has also purchased Limited Run Games, Tripwire Interactive as well as Middle-earth Enterprises portfolio. They recently acquired premium titles such as Tomb Raider, Deus Ex, and Thief. The Embracer Group currently owns more than 100 studios including Borderlands developer Gearbox, Saber Interactive, and THQ Nordic. Saudi Arabia recently bought a $1 billion stake in Embracer, which is around 8% of the company’s total shares. Embracer’s recent purchasing spree comes months after it acquired Square Enix’s three major Western game studios. In a press release the cost of buying the right to Tolkien’s work is £653,000,000 ($786,000,000).
I was perusing my Twitter timeline last night and a tweet appeared from someone who doesn’t seem to care for the casting of Lenny Henry as a hobbit in the upcoming Amazon Prime TV show The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power. If you’re not familiar with Lenny Henry he’s a British comedian and actor of Jamaican heritage, who was one of first people of colour to establish himself as part of the cultural mainstream in the UK. He’s funny, smart and well respected. However, this particular individual on social media (we will not dignify them with a name check) was not happy about canonical authenticity being subject to the whims of representation. They tried to portray their objections as legitimate criticism based on a good faith argument, but some of the terminology they used clearly showed their true intent was passive aggressive dog whistle racism.
In 1969 J.R.R. Tolkien sold the motion picture, merchandising, stage and other rights to The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings and other literary works to United Artists. UA were riding high at the time with the success of In the Heat of the Night and The Graduate. Allegedly Tolkien made the deal to pay off a tax debt, although this may be apocryphal. He was paid £100,000 which is equivalent to £1,680,000 today. He also retained a 7.5% royalty interest that has now been transferred to the Tolkien Estate. UA toyed with the idea of adapting The Lord of the Rings and many cinematic luminaries were associated with the project. In the early seventies British film director John Boorman was tasked with writing a screenplay. Boorman, an established director with a track record of being experimental, set about developing a script with his long term collaborator, Rospo Pallenberg. However, the project was cancelled due to costs and the studio getting “cold feet”.
Finally the first teaser trailer for Amazon Prime’s forthcoming TV show set in the Second Age of Middle-earth has been released. The Lord Of The Rings: The Rings of Power will be released weekly on Amazon’s streaming service commencing September 2nd 2022. The first season consists of eight episodes. The series is a prequel to the events of The Lord of the Rings, depicting "previously unexplored stories" based on Tolkien's works. The show will include such iconic locations as the Misty Mountains, the elf-capital Lindon, and the island kingdom of Númenor. The Lord Of The Rings: The Rings of Power maintains the visual and design aesthetic of the existing Peter Jackson movies. Furthermore, composer Howard Shaw maintains his involvement as does artists and designer John Howe. Apparently, due to the Tolkien Estate being happy with the development of the show, Amazon had gained access to certain elements and passages from The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales to include in the narrative arc.
In December it will be the twenty year anniversary of the release of The Fellowship of the Ring. The first entry in Peter Jackson’s trilogy of film adaptations of Professor Tolkien’s iconic novel, The Lord of the Rings. I was utterly swept up in the hype and media frenzy that persisted for three years around these movies between 2001 and 2003. I certainly have fond memories of seeing each film on the first day of its release at the prestigious Leicester Square Odeon in London. Broadly speaking I was very impressed with all three films at the time of their release. However, over the years excitement and fandom has been tempered with a greater degree of critical analysis and appraisal. Having recently watched the Extended Editions of all three films, remastered in 4K, I now think it would be pertinent to revise my thoughts on them and repost them here on Contains Moderate Peril. This initial post is intended more as an overview on the trilogy. I shall write three new in depth reviews in due course.
I have reviewed several audio recordings of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings over the years. My personal favourite is the BBC Radio adaptation from 1981, which has a superb cast of British character actors and does a wonderful job of adapting the text without diminishing the scope of the narrative. This is a dramatisation, rather than a straightforward reading of the book. However, if the latter is what you are looking for then the go to version is 1990 recording by Robert Inglis. He provides unique voices for all characters and even sings the songs included in the source text. And then there is the quirky Mind’s Eye Production from 1979, which is another dramatisation. This is a flawed version with a focus upon the character dialogue with much of the lore removed. Yet it has its charm and includes the often omitted Tom Bombadil. However, quite recently I accidentally stumbled upon a fourth adaptation and was surprised not only by the quality of the production but the curious history associated with it.
In late 2018 it was announced that Amazon Game Studios and Leyou were collaborating on massively multiplayer online game for PC and consoles set in Middle-earth. Ongoing development is being handled by Athlon Games, a global developer and publisher of free-to-play console and PC games. The studio is a subsidiary of Leyou Technologies Holdings Limited. But beyond the fairly vague press releases that can be found on the Athlon Games website (the last was posted in July 2019), little detail has emerged about the project. There has been unsubstantiated rumours that the project may well tie-in with the forthcoming Amazon Prime TV show that is set in the Second Age of Middle Earth. However, there is little information at present in the public domain to fully substantiate this or any of the other ongoing speculation. Hence, the entire situation raises some interesting questions and I’m sure like me, you have probably pondered some of them. Here are just a few that have crossed my mind.
In recent years there has been a shift in position of both Middle-earth Enterprises and the Tolkien Estate. Saul Zaentz died in 2014 leading to a relaxing in licensing requirements and Christopher Tolkien stepped down as the director of his father’s estate in late 2017, further contributing to increased commercial use of Tolkien’s intellectual property. Since then we have learned that Athlon Games are developing a new MMORPG set in Middle-earth and that Amazon Prime is producing a major TV show set in the Second Age. It would appear that the firm grip that has prevailed over the last forty years is now waning and that Middle-earth Enterprises and the Tolkien Estate are more disposed towards expanding the reach and financial potential of the Tolkien franchise.
Ralph Bakshi’s 1978 adaptation of Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings often polarises fan opinion. There is much to admire and there is also much to dislike in this 133-minute animated feature film. However, for many of us, this was our first visual foray into Middle-earth and for good or ill, it had an impact. You’ll certainly see several homages to it in Peter Jackson’s trilogy. And like so many cinematic adaptations of iconic books, The Lord of the Rings journey to the big screen was far from easy. Here are ten anecdotes regarding the film and its production.
The Hobbit (1977) is a curious beast. It’s a made for television animated film, which despite its budgetary constraints, strives to comprehensively adapted one of the most beloved children’s books of the last century. I remember reading an article about this television adaptation of The Hobbit, in Starburst Magazine during the late seventies. There were rumours that this Rankin/Bass production, which had already premièred on US network television, would gain a European cinema release. This was presumably to cash in on the success of Ralph Bakshi's animated feature film adaptation of The Lord of The Rings. However, this never happened to my knowledge. In fact, The Hobbit was not commercially available in the UK until 2001, when Warner Bros. released it on DVD to capitalise on the success of Peter Jackson’s The Fellowship of the Ring.
There are and always will be books that have a clear political agenda or make a very particular statement. Orwell’s 1984 springs to mind as an obvious example. Then there are also books that attract political interpretations by the nature of their plot or the subjects that they explore. Whether the author intended such a debate about the work or not, is a secondary issue. I have always taken Tolkien’s work at face value and to be what he stated they were. Epic and intricate faux histories, free from allegory. Furthermore, I appreciate that the moral position and themes of his work stem from the authors world view, personal experiences as well as the prevailing social dogma of the time. I find it interesting how his work attracts praise and adulation from a wide variety of groups. Catholics will naturally gravitate towards Tolkien’s writings due to his faith and that is the prism through which they will critically view his work. There are of course other examples about how The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings appeals to different people in different ways. It is a common aspect of fandom.
Canon and lore are sacred cows to many fans. Any deviation from the clearly established is met with scepticism and on occasions outrage. It is the hill they are prepared to die, defending. In the past I have felt equally as strong about this matter as others but over the years I have become increasingly relaxed about such things. I guess once you realise that your childhood memories cannot be ruined, despite what some claim, then you cease to worry as much. If you do not like an adaptation, extrapolation or continuation beyond the canon of a particular IP, then you simply say, “it’s not for me” and move on. Not liking an idea or concept because it doesn’t conform your preconceptions and personal tastes does not give you the right to try and quash it. So overall, I don’t mind Tom Cruise being Jack Reacher. A female Doctor Who is fine with me. I even like the movie adaptation of Raise the Titanic.
When Peter Jackson finished filming The Hobbit trilogy, there was some idle speculation by fans as to the possibility of a movie adaptation of The Silmarillion. It was meant mainly as a talking point, rather than a serious proposition and there certainly was an enthusiastic response from some quarters. Three years on, the fantasy genre is still a commercially successful genre both at Cinemas and on TV. Furthermore, production studios are regularly looking to existing literary properties that they can convert into viable long term franchises. Bearing all this in mind, is it possible that Tolkien’s complex mythopoeic work could be adapted for either the big or little screen?
Tolkien's use of song and verse are an integral part of his writings. I am not musically talented myself, nor am I a scholar of song structure but I appreciate how he uses them for plot exposition and character development. In The Lord of the Rings, the medium of song is also used as a means of conveying the enormity of Middle Earth and the wealth of history therein. They give us a sense of the realms lore and heritage, stretching back over millennia. The respective sophistication of each song also reflects the culture that created them. Songs from The Shire are rustic and quaint. The songs of Men are bombastic and bold. Whereas Elven music is often melancholy and complex.
In a fit of nostalgia I recently found myself perusing several retro gaming websites, pondering on some of the titles that I use to play on the Super Nintendo Entertainment. During the early nineties when this platform was my primary source of gaming I use to meticulously research new titles before purchasing. This was the pre-internet age and console cartridges came at a premium price, so you did not want to waste valuable money on a poor game. Magazines featuring previews and in-depth reviews were the main source of information. The other would be your local gaming boutique where you could hang out and discuss such matters with fellow gamers. Broadly this system worked and I enjoyed most of the games I played on the SNES.
In 1981 BBC Radio 4 produced an ambitious adaptation of The Lord of the Rings, presenting Tolkien’s novel in twenty six, thirty minute episodes. As with all adaptations some material had to be removed, but overall the BBC production was not excessively abridged and followed the plot faithfully. The characterisations and dialogue were extremely well realised and music by composer Stephen Oliver was very much in the style and idiom of Tolkien. This was a production of the highest pedigree and a major event for the BBC at the time. The series was heavily promoted, receiving front page status in The Radio Times, the UK’s premier TV guide and bestselling magazine. Although initial reviews were varied, the series immediately gained a cult following with fans trading episodes recorded on cassette tape. Word of mouth and substantial listening figures soon lead to revised opinions from the press, along with the immortal slogan "Radio is Hobbit 4-ming".
n 1969 JRR Tolkien finally sold the film and merchandising rights of The Lord of the Rings to United Artists for approximately £104,000. A year later the studio asked director John Boorman if he could make the books into a viable film. Boorman, an established director with a track record of being experimental, set about developing a screenplay with his long term collaborator, Rospo Pallenberg. What emerged was a one hundred and fifty minute script and possibly the most radical adaptation of Tolkien's work. Some of the ideas and concepts it contained were extremely innovative but others where simply too radical a divergence from the source text. I’ve collated a few of these for your consideration. If you are familiar with Boorman's 1973 film Zardoz, then you will note both similarities and re-occurring themes.
When discussing the various audio dramatizations of J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, people often think of the BBC Radio adaptation by default. However it should be noted that it was not the first. An earlier version was made and broadcast in 1979 on US National Public Radio and was subsequently released as an audiobook. It was produced by The Mind's Eye, a company who were responsible for numerous adaptations of classic literature for radio at the time. The script written by Bernard Mayes is a somewhat abridged version of the book. The eleven hour running time focuses significantly on the dialogue, with much of the back history, lore and expositionary narration removed.
Ghostwatch (1992)
Ghostwatch is a controversial British horror “mockumentary” produced by the BBC that was first broadcast on October 31st 1992. Written by Stephen Volk and produced by Ruth Baumgarten it is now considered a milestone in UK broadcasting. This was mainly due to the strong reaction it provoked from the public, many of whom failed to grasp that it was a drama. At the time it raised serious questions about responsible programming and caused a furore in the British press. It has curiously never been shown since by the BBC. Ghostwatch remains a talking point to this day and is a text book example of the power of television as well as the publics enduring belief in the supernatural.
Ghostwatch is a controversial British horror “mockumentary” produced by the BBC that was first broadcast on October 31st 1992. Written by Stephen Volk and produced by Ruth Baumgarten it is now considered a milestone in UK broadcasting. This was mainly due to the strong reaction it provoked from the public, many of whom failed to grasp that it was a drama. At the time it raised serious questions about responsible programming and caused a furore in the British press. It has curiously never been shown since by the BBC. Ghostwatch remains a talking point to this day and is a text book example of the power of television as well as the public's enduring belief in the supernatural.
The 90 minute film is shot in a documentary style and appeared as part of BBC Drama’s Screen One series. While it is often incorrectly referred to as a hoax, it is more accurate to call it a “mockumentary”. In many ways it was a precursor to the supernatural reality shows that are prevalent today, such as Most Haunted and Ghost Hunters. Ghostwatch centres on a team of BBC reporters conducting a live, on-air investigation into alleged Poltergeist activity at a family home in Northolt, Greater London. Through the medium of a live broadcast the investigators discover the existence of a malevolent ghost nicknamed “Pipes”, as his banging and crashing were initially attributed to bad plumbing.
As the programme unfolds viewers learn that “Pipes” is the ghost of a psychologically disturbed man called Raymond Tunstill, who is believed to have been possessed by the spirit of a child killer from the 19th century. The manifestations became more intense and terrifying as the investigation progresses, until the frightened reporters realise that the broadcast itself is acting as a focus for a national séance through which “Pipes” is gaining more power. The program ends with poltergeist activity manifesting in the BBC TV studios themselves, before the screen fades to black.
One of the reasons Ghostwatch succeeds is through the use of known and trusted television personalities. Michael Parkinson and real life couple Mike Smith and Sarah Greene brought credibility and professionalism to the proceedings. All were firmly established television broadcasters at the time. The Crimewatch style format, complete with telephone phone in and hand held cameras is oddly prophetic of popular paranormal shows we see today. However the most interesting aspect of the original broadcast was the way the public assumed the show was a genuine investigation and not a drama. Despite the addition of brief credits by the BBC at the start of the broadcast, viewers watched events unfold for over ninety minutes before they began to question the authenticity of them. It also highlights how the supernatural remains an integral part of UK popular culture.
Twenty three years on Ghostwatch is still fascinating and disturbing to watch. The story unfolds in a leisurely manner focusing on a very credible family. Halfway through the proceedings there is a red herring which indicates the alleged phenomena at the house may be a hoax. However this bluff cunningly sets the audience up for further paranormal activity and an interesting plot twist. Having now watched Ghostwatch several times, its dramatic roots are more noticeable with references to Nigel Kneale and even a nod to Orson Welles’ famous broadcast of War of the Worlds. It is still fun to keep an eye out for all the allusive on screen appearances by “Pipes”. Overall Ghostwatch remains a prime example of the power of television and its ability to hoodwink the public. Although similar themes have been tackled in films such as Cannibal Holocaust and The Blair Witch Project, it is the immediacy and intimacy of TV that makes this production so successful.
As an addendum to this post, I've included a short podcast about Ghostwatch that I participated in. It was first published in October 2016, as part of the 31 Days of Scary Movies event at Totally Legit Publishing. I discuss the enigma of the mockumentary with the host Jessica.
David Koepp is no stranger to genre cinema, having written the screenplay for such films as Jurassic Park, Spider-man and War of the Worlds. Where these titles are big budget, major studio productions, Cold Storage is a far more modest production with a smaller scope. Adapted from his own novel, the screenplay is by David Koepp and the film is directed by British film-maker Jonny Campbell. At first glance, Cold Storage seems a somewhat derivative science fiction horror film with a relatively modest budget, financed through a convoluted US and French co-production. Lurid green and red colours feature heavily in the marketing artwork and it is easy, after a cursory look, to write the film off as cheap, generic, direct-to-streaming filler. However, Cold Storage is prime example of why you should not judge a book by it’s cover, or in this case, a film by its posters and online advertising. It is in fact an amusing and fun endeavour that can fill an evening.
Despite being considered by many as an original story, The Abominable Snowman (1957) is in fact a remake of a made for television play, The Creature, that was originally broadcast in the UK in 1955. Hammer Films would often purchase the rights of popular TV programs and subsequently re-work them for mainstream, international cinema. Larger production budgets and fewer censorship restrictions allowed them to make their cinematic interpretations more lurid, thus commercially viable. Hence The Quatermass Xperiment, Quatermass II and Quatermass and the Pit were all given a big screen makeover and were commercially successful. The Abominable Snowman was written by acclaimed writer Nigel Kneale, who also wrote the original television drama and the aforementioned Quatermass trilogy. Although ostensibly marketed as a horror film this production is actually an interesting blend of psychological thriller and science fiction.
The Haunted Dolls House is a short film based on a story by M.R. James about a unique antique that is subject to supernatural phenomenon. Adapted by Stephen Gray and David Lilley, this is the third of three short films based upon James’ work that the pair have made. It stars Steven Dolton as Mr. Dillet, a collector of antique dolls houses, who acquires a bargain only to discover that it harbours a ghostly secret. Made on an extremely modest budget over the course of 2012 this clever, innovative and rather sinister adaptation is a fine example of short film creativity. It manages to offer a unique visual depiction of M.R. James’ classic story whilst capturing the unsettling quality of the author’s work. Like so many independently made short films it is clearly a labour of love, made with modest resources. It succinctly captures the spirit of the author’s work and is both innovative and rewarding.
A lot of people may know Luke Evans from the live action version of Beauty and the Beast or Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit trilogy. With his matinee idol good looks, charming Welsh demeanour and his “smoky” tenor singing voice, he projects a sense of old school stardom. Which brings us to No One Lives; a film which is a radical departure from his previous work. His performance is disconcerting to say the least and the film is somewhat unhinged. Directed by Ryuhei Kitamura, who made an interesting adaptation of Clive Barker’s The Midnight Meat Train, this cinematic outing is similarly replete with robust shocks and gore. There are some interesting ideas about the nature of violence, Stockholm Syndrome and whether one should deny or embrace one’s nature. However, these are ultimately minor asides. Philosophical musings in between bouts of surprisingly striking unpleasantness.
In the near future, Kepler 822, a research and drilling facility located at the bottom of the Mariana Trench, suffers a sudden and catastrophic structural failure. There are only six survivors. Mechanical engineer Norah Price (Kristen Stewart), Captain Lucien (Vincent Cassel), biologist Emily Haversham (Jessica Henwick), engineer Liam Smith (John Gallagher Jr.) and crew members Rodrigo (Mamoudou Athie) and Paul (T.J. Miller). As all the functional escape pods have been used and they are unable to contact the surface, the Captain suggests using pressurized suits to walk one mile across the ocean floor to the Roebuck 641 drill installation. There they will find more escape pods. However, it soon becomes apparent that the disaster was not caused by an undersea earthquake and that they are not alone as they make their journey.
In Buenos Aires, Clara (Natalia Señorales) hears voices emanating from the plughole in her kitchen sink. The voices seem to be plotting against her. Her husband Juan (Agustín Rittano) says the sounds are coming from next door. That night, Juan finds Clara’s dead body levitating in their bathroom, slamming against the wall by an invisible force. Meanwhile their neighbour, Walter (Demián Salomón), is experiencing supernatural occurrences while he tries to sleep. An invisible force repeatedly shakes his bed. After using a video camera to film these events, he sees a tall, cadaverous figure emerging from under the bed, standing over him as he sleeps. Across the road, Alicia (Julieta Vallina) is grieving for her recently deceased son, who was run over outside Walter’s house. Alicia's ex-boyfriend, police commissioner Funes (Maximiliano Ghione) calls Jano (Norberto Gonzalo), a paranormal investigator and the pair soon discover more supernatural occurrences in the area.
Black Sabbath (AKA I tre volti della paura) is a 1963 horror anthology film directed by Mario Bava. Although an Italian production, the film was co-financed by American International Pictures and as such was conceived to appeal to US audiences. Hence, the English dialogue edit of the film which was released in America differs significantly to the original Italian version. Despite the presence of the legendary Boris Karloff and the popularity of both anthology and gothic horror at the time,the film was only a modest success at the US box office and did not do well in Italy. However, in more recent years there has been a critical reappraisal of Black Sabbath, especially the Italian dialogue version. Many aspects of the film which are standard genre tropes today, were in fact novel at the time. Also despite the production mainly being studio bound, the film oozes style and has a striking visual aesthetic.
During 1836, in the town of Darkness Falls, Maine, an elderly widow Matilda Dixon is adored by the town’s children as she gives them a gold coin whenever they lose a tooth. One day, after a house fire, Matilda is left burned and sensitive to sunlight, so she starts wearing a china mask. When two children are reported missing, Matilda is blamed by some locals, dragged from her home and hung. She curses the town, stating that whenever a child loses their last tooth, she would come for it. If the child looks at her, she will kill them. The missing children are subsequently found, so the citizens cover up their unjust lynching. In 1990, young Kyle Walsh awakes one night to find Matilda Walsh standing over him. Kyle’s mother is killed and he is blamed for her death and institutionalised. 12 years later, Kyle (Channey Kley) is released and tries to warn the town of the imminent danger when lightning disables the power supply. He is ignored by all until the deaths begin.
Osgood Perkins has a distinct visual style and tone to his films. It is why his previous film, Longlegs, was such a welcome change from standard genre outings. It was atmospheric both visually and tonally, demonstrating a keen understanding of horror cinema. Hence he is the perfect director to helm this adaptation of a Stephen King short story. The plot is greatly expanded and the screenplay takes a lot of liberties with the source material but the main themes of your past being inescapable and the power of guilt remain front and centre. Due to the extreme and bizarre nature of much of the onscreen deaths, the film wisely has a strong streak of gallows humour running through it which is extremely well handled. Comedy can often be used to defuse or mitigate violence which can be narratively dishonest (think Fred Krueger). Here it adds to the cruel and capricious nature of the random deaths.
When reviewing Sting, one critic stated that the small scale setting and thus, low stakes (IE only a few peoples lives are at risk), made the film not especially memorable. I consider this to be a somewhat spurious criticism. It is the very fact that Sting takes place in such a commonplace environment, with the main characters being everyday people that makes it different. There is a clear focus on well defined characters and their backstory. Unlike so many contemporary films, I actually gave a damn about the protagonists in Sting. An integral aspect of the horror genre is the ability to take a well known and familiar trope and provide a different and absorbing spin on it .It would appear that some audiences have been belaboured over the head by so many overblown and bombastic blockbusters, that the very notion of depicting small, localised and intimate events in a film, seems to bamboozle them.
Some films are made with the intention of starting a franchise, others evolve into one after a surprise box office success and lucrative sequels. Alien (1979) falls into the latter category. A mid-budget science fiction horror film that was well crafted and then benefited immensely by being released at just the right time. Sadly, many franchises become derailed and enter into a death spiral due to competing artistic visions, cynical studio politics and cinematic ignorance. This has certainly afflicted all subsequent Alien films after James Cameron’s magnificent Aliens (1986). Sometimes, a franchise can correct its course and do something fresh with the source material. Prey (2022) is a fine example of this with director Dan Trachtenberg bringing fresh vigour and intelligence back to the Predator movies. I believe that was the intention with Alien Romulus (2024). Sadly, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter is a popular entry among fans of the franchise. This is mainly due to the return of makeup artist, Tom Savini, who creates several notable death scenes and a bravura ending for Jason Voorhees. There is also an attempt by writer Barney Cohen to have a more involving story compared to previous entries in the series. Director Joseph Zito, who previously directed the above average slasher movie The Prowler AKA Rosemary’s Killer (1981), brings a harder edge to the proceedings, making Jason more menacing than in the previous instalment. As ever, the film was dismissed by the critics but performed well at the box office. Producer Frank Mancuso Jr fully intended for this film to be a definitive end to the series, as he was becoming increasingly concerned that his association with the franchise was having a negative impact upon his career.
Set directly after the events of the previous film, Friday the 13th Part III is again about a group of friends staying near Crystal Lake who encounter Jason Voorhees as he embarks upon another killing spree. Shot in 3D the film has a less sleazy tone than its predecessors although the formula remains the same. The set pieces and death scenes are more elaborate and less clinical, taking advantage of the 3D picture format. The film marks the first appearance of Jason's signature hockey mask, which subsequently became a trademark of both the character and the franchise. Originally conceived to be an end to the series of films, Friday the 13th Part III performed extremely well at the box office, earning $36.7 million on a budget of $2.2 million. As a result, the franchise was given a stay of execution and a further sequel was commissioned.
Originally, Friday the 13th Part 2 was intended to be an anthology film based on the superstition associated with the date. However, after the popularity of the original film's surprise ending, the producers opted to continue the story and mythology surrounding Camp Crystal Lake. This eventually became the parameters which all future films would broadly work within. Friday the 13th Part 2 is a more polished production than the first movie, benefitting from twice the budget of the original. The quick turnaround meant that Paramount Pictures could continue to capitalise on the popularity of the slasher genre. However, there was growing social pushback against these types of films, from Christian lobby groups and other “concerned parties”. Hence, Friday the 13th Part 2 ran into problems with the MPAA ratings board and cuts were imposed. Something that would continuously plague the franchise over the years.
Writing any kind of review for the original Friday the 13th movie seems somewhat redundant, as it has been analysed and written about numerous times before. If you’re interested in the film’s production as well as its subsequent impact on US cinema at the time, then there is an excellent summary on Wikipedia. Having recently rewatched the entire franchise, courtesy of the Shout Factory’s Friday the 13th Collection Deluxe Edition, I have a few thoughts I’d like to share. The picture quality of all the films is very good, offering a lot more visual information compared to previous releases. The amount of “extras” included in the box set is prodigious. I suspect that these are the best versions that we’re ever likely to see. Fans hoping that one day all the cut footage will be found and re-integrated into each film are likely to remain disappointed. Some material has surfaced but sadly a lot of deleted and extended scenes have been destroyed.
George A. Romero's Day Of The Dead (1985) is a bleak and remorseless masterpiece. The final entry in his “Dead Trilogy”, its central theme is that in a world on the brink of destruction, man is still the biggest threat to his own existence. It is well scripted, clinically accurate in its observations on human nature and thought provoking, despite having its budget cut just weeks before production commenced. 40 years later it is revered as a genre milestone and is considered one of Romero’s finest works. Sadly, the 2008 “remake” directed by Steve Miner, who has a background in slasher and exploitation movies, takes a contrasting approach, to say the least. It certainly has very little to do with Romero’s film and one can’t help but assume that it is nothing more than a cynical cash in. Setting aside comparisons with the original, this is not in any way a standout zombie film in its own right.
Although I was unaware of it, there was a guerrilla marketing campaign for Longlegs which was focused on the internet rather than traditional television adverts. Hence the film gained a lot of interest prior to its release and as well as some some disproportionate expectations. Then immediately after its theatrical debut, the matter was further compounded by a possible excess of gushing praise as the film was “over reviewed”. Therefore I maintained a degree of scepticism about Longlegs and tempered my expectations prior to watching it. Any film that is hailed as the next Silence of the Lambs, featuring a “traumatising” performance by Nicholas Cage needs to be keenly scrutinised so that its cinematic merits can be carefully separated from the surrounding hyperbole. After viewing I found Longlegs to be a finely honed, atmospheric and precisely targeted horror thriller but not the genre milestone that some would claim.
As a rule, it is always a challenge to end a trilogy of films successfully. Writing a satisfying denouement to a standalone movie is hard enough. To be able to conclude all pertinent story arcs and themes that have been sustained over three feature films, to everyone’s liking is far harder to achieve. In the case of The Final Conflict (1981), the last instalment of The Omen trilogy, writer Andrew Birkin does manage to resolve all of the external, internal and philosophical stakes, which are the fundamental components of a cinematic screenplay. Unfortunately, it is done in an incredibly underwhelming manner, which left audiences feeling cheated. The last time good defeated evil evil in such an unspectacular fashion was in Hammer’s To the Devil a Daughter (1976). This is why, in spite of solid production values, The Final Conflict is the least popular of the films about the Antichrist, Damien Thorn.
Halloween III: Season of the Witch is a film that often provokes a strong reaction from genre fans. This is mainly due to it not having any direct connection to the previous two films. The absence of Michael Myers in such a franchise was a serious mistake and the subsequent poor box office returns endorsed this. Yet if this film had been released as a separate product it may not have performed so poorly. After re-examining Halloween III: Season of the Witch there are many aspects of interest. Despite a troubled production, the film is an intriguing anomaly that tried to be different during a decade where the established horror formula was “stalk n' slash”. It does have a very bleak tone and some consider it to be mean spirited as the cast are killed off one by one. Perhaps theme of child sacrifice caused audiences to balk?
Ghostwatch is a controversial British horror “mockumentary” produced by the BBC that was first broadcast on October 31st 1992. Written by Stephen Volk and produced by Ruth Baumgarten it is now considered a milestone in UK broadcasting. This was mainly due to the strong reaction it provoked from the public, many of whom failed to grasp that it was a drama. At the time it raised serious questions about responsible programming and caused a furore in the British press. It has curiously never been shown since by the BBC. Ghostwatch remains a talking point to this day and is a text book example of the power of television as well as the publics enduring belief in the supernatural.
Event Horizon is a curious movie hybrid, mixing plot elements from classic sci-fi and horror genres. It has been labelled “Hellraiser in Space” by some lazy critics, although I think there's far more to it than that. Perhaps a more apt description would be a Gothic horror story set in space. The movie has garnered a cult reputation since its release in 1997, mainly due to its graphic imagery and troubled production history. It does indeed have some quite shocking sequences but the lightning editing does not show as much as some would think. Paramount forced director Paul W S Anderson to reduce the original one hundred and thirty minute running time down to a more manageable ninety, after unfavourable test screenings. Much of the violence was allegedly removed as a result of that process. Sadly nothing survives of the removed material other than a VHS workprint. Hence a restored director’s cut is therefore unlikely.
The peace of tranquillity of Santa Ynes, Utah, is shattered when the town becomes the focus of several hit and run deaths, by a mysterious and apparently driverless, black car. After the Sheriff (John Marley) is run down, it is down to Captain Wade Parent (James Brolin) and his deputies to protect the town from this sinister threat. Is the car simply a driven by a mad man or is there a more supernatural explanation? When the car menaces a local school marching band, the teachers and students take refuge in the nearby cemetery. Does the cars inability to enter consecrated ground provide a clue to its otherworldly origins and offer a potential solution? As the death count increases and the population becomes more fearful, the Captain and his team of deputies form a desperate plan to see if they can lure the car into a trap.
The key to success in the horror genre is to try and find an innovative new angle on tried and tested themes and tropes. The Night Flier is an often-overlooked gem, that takes a unique perspective on vampirism and features strong performances as well as an intelligent and thoughtful screenplay. It builds a sense of foreboding during it’s first two acts and teases audiences with some unpleasant prosthetic effects, courtesy of KNB EFX Group. The climax of the movie is both thought provoking and suitably unpleasant. Furthermore, The Night Flier even manages to make a coherent criticism of tabloid culture and morals of those journalists working in the industry. It’s a damn shame that this modest but well-crafted genre movie didn’t get the attention it deserved when it was initially released in 1997.
Dr. Terror's House of Horrors was the first portmanteau horror movie by Amicus Productions. The small British studio was founded by producers and screenwriters Milton Subotsky and Max Rosenberg. As the horror genre grew in popularity due to the success of Hammer films, Amicus saw the potential in the portmanteau format. Subotsky in particular held Ealing Studios 1945 classic Dead of Night in very high regard. Although only a modest budget movie, Dr. Terror's House of Horrors proved to be financially successful and led to a series of similarly structured films over the next decade. These included Torture Garden (1967), The House That Dripped Blood (1970), Asylum (1972), Tales from the Crypt (1972), The Vault of Horror (1973), From Beyond the Grave (1974),
Ghost Story is a deliberately superficial adaptation of the novel by Peter Straub. If you’ve read the book and are expecting a verbatim retelling of the plot, then you will be disappointed. It’s complex narrative structure and the abundance of characters do not immediately lend themselves to mainstream film making. However, if you like tales of the supernatural and solid performances from Hollywood legends, then this may well be for you. John Irvin has always been a workman like director and has therefore often been overlooked. Films such as Hamburger Hill and When Trumpets Fade show a great deal of focus and a clear understanding of the mechanics of cinema.
The Ruins is similar to both The Mist and Cloverfield , which were released around the same time, in so far that it is rather bleak and unrelenting movie. And like the aforementioned films, its strength lies in the manner in which it tackles the subject of people facing their own death in a credible fashion. In The Ruins the protagonists when faced with the prospect of their own demise quickly descend in to panic and resolutely refuse to face facts. Although these are negative themes that may not be to everyone’s tastes, they make The Ruins both gripping and genuinely scary.
The arcane and esoteric works of author H P Lovecraft have often inspired horror directors. Sadly many of the films that have been made in homage to the Cthulhu Mythos have failed to capture its nightmarish mix of madness and mythology. John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness is not directly based on any of Lovecraft's specific works but screenwriter Michael De Luca draws his inspiration from many of this recurring ideas and concepts. He then adds a further homage to British writer Nigel Kneale, adding themes that are prevalent in his Quatermass series. Where others have failed, Carpenter successfully crafts a film that alludes to the baroque and eldritch qualities of the Cthulhu Mythos.
Since the late eighties Morgan Creek productions have dabbled with multiple genres whilst pursuing box office success. At times, they have been successful with such populist movies as Young Guns and Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. However, for every film that proved financially viable there were often two more that failed to gain an audience. Yet, despite having the business acumen to commission the best writing and directing talent available, co-founders James G. Robinson and Joe Roth have often been at odds with such creative individuals, resulting in many troubled productions. Horror writer and director Clive Barker endured an arduous experience while making Nightbreed, which was based upon his own novella. It was such a negative experience, resulting in a movie that was far from his initial vision, that Barker effectively quit film making. A similar experience befell William Peter Blatty when he was given an opportunity to film a direct sequel to The Exorcist based upon his novel Legion.
Murders in the Zoo was made towards the end of the first, post sound horror boom and just before the rigorous enforcement of The Motion Picture Production Code came into effect in 1934. The latter point is relevant because despite its age and being very much a product of its time, this movie has a grisly streak running through it. Had it entered production a year later I suspect it would have been a lot tamer both visually and thematically. Murders in the Zoo begins and ends with scenes that certainly leave an impact and stay with the viewer. Most casual movie viewers probably consider pre-war cinema to be theatrical in its acting style and somewhat tame, but that is not the case with Murders in the Zoo and many other movies from this time. Until tighter regulation was introduced, there was a brief period between 1928 and 1934 when movies were as violent and lurid (in principle) as contemporary cinema. All the things that are deplored today in certain quarters, where equally decried then.
When I first saw Mimic in 1997, I was impressed by the fact that it offered a different perspective on the monster movie genre and that it seemed to have moments of greater depth than you'd expect from such material. Later on when I became more aware of the works of writer, director Guillermo del Toro, I learned that this movie had had a troubled production and that Miramx had imposed specific requirements upon the final cut of the film. This explained some of the movies inconsistencies and hinted at a far more ambitious artistic endeavour by del Toro. Initially Mimic was conceived as a thirty minute short and part of a three part anthology movie. However it along with the sci-fi film Imposter were both deemed to be of sufficient merit to be developed into feature length productions.
Classic TV Themes: The Prisoner
Ronald Erle Grainer (11 August 1922 – 21 February 1981) was a prolific Australian composer who is best remembered for his work in the United Kingdom during the sixties and seventies. He wrote numerous notable scores and theme music for several iconic television shows such as Doctor Who, Steptoe and Son and Tales of the Unexpected. He also composed the soundtrack for several major motion pictures such as Some People (1962), The Assassination Bureau (1969) and The Omega Man (1971). Grainer relocated to London from Australia in 1952 but it was not until 1960 that he gained critical success after writing the music for the popular TV show Maigret. He subsequently received an Ivor Novello award for “Outstanding Composition for Film, TV or Radio”.
Ronald Erle Grainer (11 August 1922 – 21 February 1981) was a prolific Australian composer who is best remembered for his work in the United Kingdom during the sixties and seventies. He wrote numerous notable scores and theme music for several iconic television shows such as Doctor Who, Steptoe and Son and Tales of the Unexpected. He also composed the soundtrack for several major motion pictures such as Some People (1962), The Assassination Bureau (1969) and The Omega Man (1971). Grainer relocated to London from Australia in 1952 but it was not until 1960 that he gained critical success after writing the music for the popular TV show Maigret. He subsequently received an Ivor Novello award for “Outstanding Composition for Film, TV or Radio”.
By the mid-sixties Grainer was in demand and hence a logical choice to write the theme for a show such as The Prisoner. However, it was a competitive process and Grainer's theme was chosen after two other composers, Robert Farnon and Wilfred Josephs, had their material rejected by series executive producer and star, Patrick McGoohan. Farnon's theme was declined due to its similarity with the theme from The Big Country (1958) by Jerome Moross. However, Josephs' discordant and enigmatic theme was used in early edits of two episodes of The Prisoner before being replaced by Grainer’s material which was then used in all subsequent episodes. It should be noted that Grainer declined to score the incidental music for the entire series of 17 episodes, which was handled by Albert Elms.
Ron Grainer’s theme for The Prisoner is as iconic as the show mainly because it is such an integral part of the opening credits. These are a microcosm of themes and ideas that the show explores. Furthermore, the opening credits serve as visual summation of the plot of The Prisoner, with Patrick McGoohan resigning from his job as an agent for the UK security services, only to be gassed, kidnapped, and taken to a remote village where he is interrogated for “information”. Why did he resign? The brass, bass and timpani set the tone with a bombastic motif that reflects McGoohan’s volatile character. The music also reflects what is happening on screen with the drumbeats syncopated with McGoohan as he angrily walks down the concrete corridor into his superior’s office. This is a powerful piece reflecting the style of the time, with its bold brass and cool, electric guitar backing. It really sets the tone of the show.
The Planet of the Apes movie franchise took a radical change of course with its third entry in the series. The first two films were set in the future and benefited from high production values to help realise a post apocalyptic earth. However, due to a substantial reduction of budget, Escape from the Planet of the Apes uses a time travel plot device to bring the ape protagonists to present day Los Angeles (1971 in this case). The result is a film with a much smaller narrative scope. However, although it lacks the science fiction spectacle of its predecessors, it features an interesting satirical exploration of celebrity culture and ponders what it is like to be deemed an enemy of the state. As ever, Roddy McDowell and Kim Hunter provide exceptional lead performances as the Chimpanzees Cornelius and Zira. Escape from the Planet of the Apes also captures the pop culture vibe of seventies America.
Ronald Erle Grainer (11 August 1922 – 21 February 1981) was a prolific Australian composer who is best remembered for his work in the United Kingdom during the sixties and seventies. He wrote numerous notable scores and theme music for several iconic television shows such as Doctor Who, Steptoe and Son and Tales of the Unexpected. He also composed the soundtrack for several major motion pictures such as Some People (1962), The Assassination Bureau (1969) and The Omega Man (1971). Grainer relocated to London from Australia in 1952 but it was not until 1960 that he gained critical success after writing the music for the popular TV show Maigret. He subsequently received an Ivor Novello award for “Outstanding Composition for Film, TV or Radio”.
The following is about a cultural change. That is not to say that it’s a value judgement or one of those posts you so frequently read by bloggers of a certain age, that essentially boil down to “things were better in my day”. It is merely an observation and like all observations it is not 100% universal. There will always be exceptions to the rule. I am simply painting with broad strokes a general truism for your consideration. My point being that people listen, experience and enjoy music differently these days compared to how they did three to four decades ago. I’m not talking about the science of hearing or anything complex like that. I am merely highlighting the change in the way we choose to experience music and how that has an impact upon its creation and presentation. So like Anne Elk, presenting her theory on the Brontosaurus, here is the axiom at the heart of this post.
Allonsanfàn (1974) is an Italian historical drama film written and directed by Paolo and Vittorio Taviani. The title of the film derives from the first words of the French Revolutionary anthem La Marseillaise (Allons enfants, IE “Arise, children”). It is also the name of a character in the story. Set against the backdrop of the Italian Unification in early 19th-century Italy, Marcello Mastroianni stars as an ageing revolutionary, Fulvio Imbriani, who becomes disillusioned after the Restoration and endeavours to betray his companions, who are organising an insurrection in Southern Italy. Allonsanfàn is a complex film that is not immediately accessible to those unfamiliar with the intricacies of Italian political history nor the arthouse style of the Taviani brothers. However, it is visually arresting and features a rousing score by Ennio Morricone.
Jerry Goldsmith’s contribution to Star Trek is immense. Yet simply listing the films and TV episodes he wrote music for does not adequately encapsulate the significance of his contribution to the franchise. His majestic, thoughtful and uplifting musical scores provide an emotional foundation that reflects the core ethos of Star Trek. They also create an invaluable sense of continuity that spans multiple shows and movies. Perhaps the most obvious example of this is his iconic title music for Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) that was subsequently adopted as the theme tune for Star Trek: The Next Generation. His work was held in such high regard, when Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989) ran into production issues, it was thought that a Jerry Goldsmith soundtrack may well elevate the film. Sadly it didn’t but his work on that instalment was outstanding and among his best.
Halloween (1978) is both a genre and cinematic milestone. It made stars of Jamie Lee Curtis and director John Carpenter as well as kickstarting the slasher genre that dominated the box office for the next 15 years. Unlike many of the inferior imitations that followed in its wake, Halloween is not a gorefest but a far more suspenseful and unsettling film. It’s shocks and sinister atmosphere are the result of sumptuous panavision cinematography by Dean Cundey and inventive editing by Tommy Wallace and Charles Bornstein. Another invaluable asset to the film’s effectiveness is John Carpenter minimalistic synth and piano score which perfectly embellishes the film with an air of menace. After 33 years and various re-arrangements in subsequent sequels, the original Halloween Theme is still as effective today as it was when the film was first released.
Tenebrae (1982) is probably Dario Argento’s most accessible “giallo” for mainstream audiences. Although violent, it is not as narratively complex as Deep Red (1975) or as bat shit crazy as Phenomena (1985). The story centres on popular American novelist Peter Neal (Anthony Fanciosa) who is in Rome to promote his latest book. Events take a turn for the worst when a series of murders appear to have been inspired by his work. The plot twists and turns, the director explores themes such as dualism along with sexual aberration and blood is copiously spattered across the white walled interiors of modernist buildings. It is slick, disturbing and has a pounding synth and rock score by former Goblin members, Claudio Simonetti, Fabio Pignatelli, and Massimo Morante.
An American Werewolf in London is a genre milestone and one of the few horror films that successfully manages to balance humour and suspense without mitigating the overall tone of the story. 40 years on from its theatrical release it still holds up well with its bitter sweet love story, tragic themes and ground breaking transformation effects by Rick Baker. Director John Landis never really bettered this concise and effective genre outing. It hits the mark in virtually every part of the production. However, there is one aspect of the film that does suffer as a result of the director’s personal choices. Whether it is to the detriment of the overall film is debatable. The point in question is the film’s soundtrack and the director’s focus upon the song Blue Moon by Richard Rodgers and Lorenz Hart.
Before we start, no I am not writing about Alexander Courage’s classic main theme for the original Star Trek show. I can add nothing further to that particular discussion and it remains iconic and inspiring, even when distilled down to just the initial fanfare. In this post I want to draw your attention to another piece of music from Star Trek that has permeated its way into popular culture. A cue that when heard, if the listener is familiar with its provenance, will instantly conjure up images of flying drop kicks, ear claps and judo chops. A piece of music that can be added to pretty much any video footage and instantly make it more heroic. Yes, I am talking about what has become generically known as Star Trek “fight music”. Or more specifically, the "The Ancient Battle/2nd Kroykah" cue from Amok Time (S02E01) composed by Gerald Fried. The scene during the koon-ut-kal-if-fee ritual in which Spock fights Kirk on the planet Vulcan for complicated “reasons”.
Classical music has often been used to great effect in cinema since the advent of sound. It has certain advantages over bespoke compositions, in that it can imbue a scene with a sense of gravitas and emotionally connect with viewers who may already be familiar with the piece being played. Legendary director Stanley Kubrick famously rejected Alex North’s score for 2001: A space Odyssey after finding the classical tracks he used for the temporary soundtrack complement the visuals perfectly. Over the years, some particular pieces of classical music have proven to be very popular and flexible, thus appearing in a wide variety of films across multiple genres. Hence, I have chosen two well known tracks that demonstrate this. I would also like to highlight contemporary classical music and have also selected one example that I feel demonstrates how the genre sublimely compliments cinema.
If you mention The Pink Panther (1963) I’d hazard a guess that most people will instantly think of Inspector Clouseau (and possibly throw in a quote in faux French about “Minkeys”) or hum or whistle the iconic theme tune. It’s blend of cool sixties Jazz and Lounge is both classy and evocative. Henry Mancini’s contribution to the Pink Panther franchise is commensurate to that of Peter Sellers and Blake Edwards. If you removed his musical scores from any of the films they would be greatly diminished. In fact one can argue that the movies made in the eighties after Sellers’ death are greatly bolstered by Mancini’s intelligent and accomplished musical accompaniment. The franchise may have run out of steam but Mancini never did so.
Back in August 2018, I posted seven of my favourite tracks from various video games that I’ve played over the years. I thought recently that it was high time that I did the same again. So here are a further five musical cues that I especially enjoy. All of which contribute greatly to the respective games that they feature in. Unlike film composers, musicians that write for video games do not always enjoy comparable exposure or attention. Yet often they have a more complex remit, having to write material for dozens of hours of content, rather than just two or three. Furthermore, the complete soundtrack to many video games often remain conspicuously absent, with fans having to data mine the game client to find the tracks that they love. Which is why it is important for those that enjoy video game music to show their support. Perhaps then more publishers will release full and comprehensive game soundtracks for digital download.
It was Friday the 13th yesterday, so I thought it was about time that I added Harry Manfredini’s iconic score to the annals of Classic Movie Themes. The 1980 slasher movie Friday the 13th has become as legendary in the pantheon of cinematic horror history as John Carpenter’s Halloween. Although there are marked differences between these two films, both use minimalist musical scores extremely effectively to punctuate the proceedings and embellish the overall atmosphere. However, Manfedini did not want to provide viewers with obvious audio cues during scenes of building tension. He preferred to focus his score upon the activities of the franchise's iconic killer, Jason Voorhees, and hence have strong musical cues when he was on screen. This approach meant that he had to use a unique musical motif to denote potential tension, without diminishing its effect on the audience by excessive use of obvious and melodramatic cues.
Game of Death was Bruce Lee’s fourth Hong Kong martial arts movie. Due to the success of his previous films he found himself in a position where he could finally write and direct a project himself. Filmed in late 1972 and early 1973, the film was put on hold midway through production when Hollywood offered him a starring role in Enter the Dragon. He died shortly after completing the US backed movie that made him an international star, so Game of Death remained unfinished. Several years later the rights to the raw footage were sold and recycled for a new movie, that kept the name but bore little resemblance to Lee’s original vision. For most of Game of Death, Kim Tai-jong and Yuen Biao double for Bruce Lee and it is only in the final act that audiences actually get to see about 12 minutes of material that he shot himself. The 1978 release of Game of Death, directed by Robert Clouse, is a mess but remains a cinematic curiosity. The scenes which genuinely feature Bruce Lee are outstanding, even in an abridged form.
The Long Good Friday not only launched then career of Bob Hoskins but remains a uniquely British take on the gangster genre. Featuring authentic performances and a credible plot, the screenplay touches upon many of the social and political issues of the time; police corruption, the IRA, urban renewal and the decline of industry, along with EEC membership and the free-market economy. It’s a gritty and unrelenting drama that is still relevant today. Furthermore, the film is filled with quotable dialogue and has several stand out scenes that showcase Bob Hoskins’ smouldering performance. It’s also offers of “who’s who” of British character actors and there is one sequence still has the power to shock even today.
A few years ago, I wrote a post about cult movie soundtracks and how many of these movies are often blessed with a high quality score from an established composer. The subject came up again recently when I was visiting the British Film Institute with friends, and several other examples were discussed. Hence, I thought it would be prudent to write a follow up post with another selection of material, as it continues to amaze me how often the most appalling films can still have outstanding soundtracks. With this idea in mind I've collated five films that are for various reasons are labelled “cult” and have suffered the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” over the years. All have scores of interests and note, though for different reasons. I have chosen a track from each soundtrack which I think highlights the musical excellence and integrity of the composers involved. The genres are varied as are the musical styles and nuances of each piece. All clearly demonstrate how a well-conceived score can embellish and enhance a movie, effectively becoming a character in its own right.
Lords of the Fallen is an action role-playing game from 2014, played from a third-person perspective. It is broadly in the same idiom to Darksiders and Dark Souls with the emphasis on complex and challenging combat. And it is for that reason that I didn’t get on with this title when I bought it in a Steam sale a few years ago. I felt that the long, protracted fights were an impediment to the narrative, which I quite enjoyed. However, the game was designed this way to appeal to the combat focused gamer and “git gud” culture. But I think that it’s important to try different genres of games from time to time and to step occasionally out of your comfort zone. I would cite the Hand of Fate series as a positive example of this. Both of those titles are from a genre I wouldn’t usually consider and playing them turned out to be a very positive experience
Alien is a unique genre milestone. It challenged the established aesthetic created by 2001: A Space Odyssey of space travel being pristine, clinical and high tech and replaced it with a grimy, industrial quality. The space tug Nostromo is also a conspicuously “blue collar”, civilian venture, underwritten by a large corporation. As for H. R Giger’s xenomorph, it redefined the depiction of extraterrestrial life in movies. Director Ridley Scott brought visual style and atmosphere to particularly unglamorous and dismal setting. He also scared the hell out of audiences at the time with his slow burn story structure and editing style that hints, rather than shows. Overall, Alien is a text book example of how to make a horror movie and put a new spin on a classic and well-trodden concept.
James Horner was a prolific, yet consistently good composer with a broad range of styles. Consider his score for 48 Hrs with its Jazz under currents and then compare it to his grand swashbuckling approach to Krull. They are radically different soundtracks, but both are extremely effective in embellishing their respective motion pictures. That was James Horner great talent. He knew when to be theatrical and bombastic but could also dial it back and be subtle, gentle and delicate. It made his body of work very diverse and memorable.
James Horner, although possessing a very broad and eclectic musical range, was in many respects a very traditional composer. He was certainly au fait with works of such giants as Miklós Rózsa, Korngold and Bernard Herrmann and it often manifested itself in his music through his use of the leitmotif. Perhaps the reason James Horner was so consistently good and crafted so many outstanding pieces of music, is because he never saw his profession as just a means to an end. As he said in an interview once, “I don’t look at this as just a job. I see music as art”.
Star Trek: Enterprise was the first show in the Star Trek pantheon to have a song performed by an established artist play over the opening credits, rather than a traditional theme tune. Up until 2001, the franchise had maintained a more formal approach, established with the iconic introduction to the original series composed by Alexander Courage. Needless to say, such a radical departure from established practise brought about consternation and debate among fans. In some respects, you can argue that point about the entire show itself, but that as they say, is an entirely different blog post. Needless to say, the dislike and hatred that the song Where My Heart Will Take Me engendered in certain quarters, lead to a petition to have it removed. Needless to say, this movement failed, and the show continued using it for four seasons. Seventeen years on this particular debacle has now died down and the song is often just referenced ironically by fans as an amusing anecdote and piece of Trek trivia.
According to Wikipedia “Hawk the Slayer is a 1980 British sword and sorcery adventure film directed by Terry Marcel and starring John Terry and Jack Palance. The film has developed a cult following”. That doesn’t do the movie justice by any reckoning. Hawk the Slayer is a quirky, low budget, high camp fantasy movie that compensates for its budgetary shortcoming by being so preposterously silly. It is loaded with hard boiled, fantasy steeped dialogue that parodies well known genre tropes. It treads a fine line between utter bilge and stupid fun. It is very much a product of its time and is also filled with British character actors. Some viewers will see nothing more than a cheap and cheerful cash-in on the eighties Sword and Sorcery boom. Others will delight at this inventive, stylised and silly fantasy orientated outing. Such is the nature of cult movies.
Film producer Julian Blaustein had a long-standing desire to make a film that addressed the fears and concerns of the post war Atomic Age. With the backing from Fox Studio Executive Darryl F. Zanuck, he hired screenwriter Edmund North to adapt the short story Farewell to the Master by Harry Bates. The screenplay provided a moral commentary about the ongoing arms race and featured an alien visitor with Christ like qualities who delivers an apocalyptic message. Veteran director Robert Wise was brought in head the project and a fine cast of established characters actors such as Michael Rennie, Patricia Neal Hugh Marlowe and Sam Jaffe was assembled. The finished movie has proven to be one of the greatest science fiction movies ever; it is The Day the Earth Stood Still made in 1951.
King Solomon’s Mines is a 1985 Cannon Films production based on the pulp works of H. Rider Haggard. It was quickly made to cash in on the ongoing success of Indiana Jones franchise, although the finished movie bears little resemblance to the classic original novel. Like most Cannon movies from that boom era, it was a cheap and fast enterprise that superficially sported a good cast, but ultimately didn’t do much with them. Veteran director J. Lee Thompson favoured a light and comic approach to the material, as the film’s budget could hardly sustain any major notable set pieces. Yet, it proved popular enough at the box office to warrant a sequel the following year. Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold proved to be as equally silly but by then the public’s interest had waned.
A ten months ago, I wrote about the LOTRO soundtrack and listed some of my favourite tracks. This time round rather than just limit myself to music from one game, I thought it may be more interesting to broaden the remit. So, I have decided to upload seven of my favourite tracks and music cues from various games I have played over the last two decades. As with cinema, the soundtrack of a game plays a very important role. It can make a substantial impact on the players perceptions and enjoyment. The following tracks are examples that I feel have greatly enhanced a game. They’re also ones that I find particularly enjoyable. They are not in any order of preference.
Paul Verhoeven has seldom made a movie without some semblance of controversy associated with it, and his 1992 neo-noir Basic Instinct was no different. Even before its US release, Basic Instinct courted controversy due over its overt sexuality and graphic depiction of violence. It was strongly opposed by gay rights activists, who criticised the film's depiction of homosexual relationships and the portrayal of a bisexual woman as a homocidal narcissistic psychopath. The opening murder with an icepick is still shocking twenty six years later and is an excellent showcase for makeup FX artists Rob Bottin.
You can write pages on Gerry Anderson's 1968 Supermarionation series Joe 90. There's the morally ambiguous premise of giving an emotionally immature nine-year-old the experiences of an adult. Then the psychological effects of allowing him to kill at will. Then there's the perennial issue of scientists prostituting their skills to the intelligence community. One can also reflect upon the absence of any major female characters in the series and how that may impact upon Joe himself. Finally, when one finally arrives she's a gold-digging bitch who tries to exploit Joe’s Dad, Professor McClaine. Joe 90 is certainly a psychiatrist’s dream subject.
Despite the popularity of the TV show in 1965, the two spinoff Thunderbirds feature films were both box offices failures. This has often been attributed to the indifferently written screenplays that seem to have completely missed the sense of suspense that the fifty-minute episodes achieved. Both feature films feel rather slow and like extended episodes rather than big budget extravaganzas. They fail to do anything different with established characters and apart from showcasing more extensive miniature effects in a widescreen format, don’t really have much more to offer. It’s curious that the winning, character driven formula that worked on television was overlooked for these big screen outings.
I grew up during the seventies when network TV shows still put a lot of thought and effort into such things as their theme tune. It was a decade littered with memorable tracks that captured the essence of the shows they came from. Many have now become integral aspects of popular culture, leading to countless internet memes as well as becoming the ringtones of choice for many a fortysomething. However, things are very different now. You can have a staggeringly good theme for your show, but it can't possibly be longer than thirty seconds. And don’t think for a moment that viewers can listen to it again at the end, as it has now become standard practice to compress the credits into a third of the TV screen and preview what's coming next, while some link announcer spouts inanities. Mercifully, cable and streaming companies tend to treat their TV shows with greater respect. The lack of commercial advertising ensures a longer program duration and hence more focus on a theme tune. However, network TV still commands big audiences, yet hasn’t in recent years produced any TV show themes of note.
The Return of “Walter Watches”
Anyone who writes regularly, sooner or later will have the following epiphany. The realisation that the post you consider your best work seldom finds an audience. Furthermore, the most inconsequential, disposable things that you have written on a whim, will often end up being the one article that gets a big response. It can be very frustrating but it is a reality of writing. It is with that idea in mind, I wish to move on to the matter of “Walter Watches”. In late March 2019, I took a picture of Walter sitting in his chair, watching a classic episode of The Twilight Zone. I subsequently Tweeted this image along with a descriptive caption. This gained a number of “likes” and retweets, so a day later I posted another. This time Walter was watching the film Krull (1983) and I added a humorous caption. Let’s just say I got more of a response for that one Tweet than I had for anything else I had posted over the previous nine years when promoting a blog post.
Anyone who writes regularly, sooner or later will have the following epiphany. The realisation that the post you consider your best work seldom finds an audience. Furthermore, the most inconsequential, disposable things that you have written on a whim, will often end up being the one article that gets a big response. It can be very frustrating but it is a reality of writing. It is with that idea in mind, I wish to move on to the matter of “Walter Watches”. In late March 2019, I took a picture of Walter sitting in his chair, watching a classic episode of The Twilight Zone. I subsequently Tweeted this image along with a descriptive caption. This gained a number of “likes” and retweets, so a day later I posted another. This time Walter was watching the film Krull (1983) and I added a humorous caption. Let’s just say I got more of a response for that one Tweet than I had for anything else I had posted over the previous nine years when promoting a blog post.
Such are the origins of “Walter Watches”. I continued posting pictures until the end of May 2019. I resumed again in January 2020 and continued until the end of February. During these two “seasons”, I selected a variety of cult and famous films for Walter (and his nephew Finwë) to comment upon. Because of my love of cinema and filmmaking, I must admit I did find this process entertaining. And obviously so did others, because “Walter Watches” continued to receive “likes” and retweets while it was “a thing”, as the kids say. Which brings me to the point of this post. Things are far from peachy at present, if you take a step back and take a long hard look at the world. It’s all a bit depressing. Hence, I have decided to bring just a little bit of fun and mirth back to social media with a third “season” of “Walter Watches”.
There are to be no changes in the format. If something isn’t broken, then there is no requirement to fix it. However, as well as being posted on social media, there is now a designated “Walter Watches” page here on Contains Moderate Peril. Walter’s sage wisdom and keen insights will be available here to view and ponder. I shall also be reposting all previous instalments for continuity. It should also be noted that last year we upgraded the TV in our lounge, so Walter now has the luxury of watching in 4K UHD. Whether this has any significant impact upon his musings, remains to be seen. As does whether Walter will consider requests from readers to watch specific things. We shall have to wait and see. Season three should begin by the middle of September. As the saying goes, “watch this space”.
David Koepp is no stranger to genre cinema, having written the screenplay for such films as Jurassic Park, Spider-man and War of the Worlds. Where these titles are big budget, major studio productions, Cold Storage is a far more modest production with a smaller scope. Adapted from his own novel, the screenplay is by David Koepp and the film is directed by British film-maker Jonny Campbell. At first glance, Cold Storage seems a somewhat derivative science fiction horror film with a relatively modest budget, financed through a convoluted US and French co-production. Lurid green and red colours feature heavily in the marketing artwork and it is easy, after a cursory look, to write the film off as cheap, generic, direct-to-streaming filler. However, Cold Storage is prime example of why you should not judge a book by it’s cover, or in this case, a film by its posters and online advertising. It is in fact an amusing and fun endeavour that can fill an evening.
Despite being considered by many as an original story, The Abominable Snowman (1957) is in fact a remake of a made for television play, The Creature, that was originally broadcast in the UK in 1955. Hammer Films would often purchase the rights of popular TV programs and subsequently re-work them for mainstream, international cinema. Larger production budgets and fewer censorship restrictions allowed them to make their cinematic interpretations more lurid, thus commercially viable. Hence The Quatermass Xperiment, Quatermass II and Quatermass and the Pit were all given a big screen makeover and were commercially successful. The Abominable Snowman was written by acclaimed writer Nigel Kneale, who also wrote the original television drama and the aforementioned Quatermass trilogy. Although ostensibly marketed as a horror film this production is actually an interesting blend of psychological thriller and science fiction.
There are certain subjects that are notoriously uncinematic. These tend to be things that exist or are undertaken mainly in the mind, rather than expressed in an overtly physical way. Computing, science and mathematics are good examples. Writing code or working out complex equations does not immediately lend themselves to a visual medium such as cinema. Therefore, any film dealing with the world of corporate finance has its work cut out. Hence writer-director J C Chandor immediately deserves praise for making Margin Call, a film about the financial crash of 2008, as gripping and compelling as any political thriller. He does this by keeping the financial elements of the story to a minimum, choosing instead to focus upon those who have become aware of the imminent crisis and their reaction to it. However, the film remains a tough watch with regard to the some of the characters and their respective personal morality or lack there of.
The 1937 Hindenburg disaster has remained an enduring mystery over the years. The physical mechanics of how this airship filled with 7,000,000 cubic feet of hydrogen gas caught fire has been fully explored over the decades and there are now several extremely plausible theories as to how it may have happened. However, there remains the possibility of sabotage. As such an idea has more dramatic potential than mechanical failure, it was used as the central theme of the 1975 disaster movie The Hindenburg. Directed by Robert Wise, the screenplay by Nelson Gidding explores a German resistance against the Nazi regime. The airship is targeted as it is a powerful propaganda symbol for Hitler’s Germany. Sadly despite some interesting ideas, a strong cast and solid, old school optical effects, The Hindenburg is a slow and somewhat ponderous production. Although the final 20 minutes of the film recreate the infamous explosion meticulously, it doesn’t quite compensate for the uneventful, dialogue driven investigation of the previous 100 minutes.
On the Eastern Front in 1943, a German Tiger tank crew led by Lieutenant Philip Gerkens (David Schütter) is sent on a mission to rescue the missing officer Paul von Hardenburg (Tilman Strauss) from a top-secret bunker that is at risk of falling into enemy hands. As they make their way through an eerie no-man’s land, they have to avoid Russian armoured vehicles that seem to be aware of their mission. They also encounter a German unit taking punitive action against a peasant village, in reprisal for partisan activity in the area. The youngest crew member, Michel (Yoran Leicher), talks of the land being home to ghosts and spirits. As the tank penetrates further into contested territory the crew become increasingly disturbed by the uncanny nature of their mission and begin to fall prey to their own inner fears.
Robert Louis Stevenson’s classic novel has been adapted for cinema and television numerous times. Perhaps the most well known is the 1950 Disney version, starring Robert Newton as Long John Silver. His eye rolling performance and exaggerated West Country accent is credited with popularising the stereotypical form of “pirate speech" that has become the pop culture default. Although an enjoyable film, it does gloss over the more sinister aspects of both the source text and history, perpetuating the myth that pirates are just loveable scoundrels. Many subsequent adaptations have fallen into the same trap to a greater or lesser degree. However, that is not the case with the 1990 version of Treasure island, which was made for the TNT cable network and released theatrically outside of the US. This darker and notably more violent adaptation closely follows the source text and is widely considered the most faithful to the book.
The Planet of the Apes movie franchise took a radical change of course with its third entry in the series. The first two films were set in the future and benefited from high production values to help realise a post apocalyptic earth. However, due to a substantial reduction of budget, Escape from the Planet of the Apes uses a time travel plot device to bring the ape protagonists to present day Los Angeles (1971 in this case). The result is a film with a much smaller narrative scope. However, although it lacks the science fiction spectacle of its predecessors, it features an interesting satirical exploration of celebrity culture and ponders what it is like to be deemed an enemy of the state. As ever, Roddy McDowell and Kim Hunter provide exceptional lead performances as the Chimpanzees Cornelius and Zira. Escape from the Planet of the Apes also captures the pop culture vibe of seventies America.
I recently found a DVD boxset of Return to the Planet of the Apes in a charity shop which I bought for £4, which is a ridiculously cheap price. I considered it an interesting find because it was a Region 1, US copy. However, that is not so unusual these days as most DVD players are now region free and Amazon (UK) sells media from all over the world. As for the show in question, I vaguely remember Return to the Planet of the Apes being shown on UK network TV when I was a child, probably circa 1976. Back then it would usually take a year or so before US shows made it onto UK television. From a commercial perspective, the entire Planet of the Apes franchise was beginning to run out of steam. I was 8 years old at the time so had missed most of the film releases. However, I enjoyed the live action TV show hence an animated follow up had obvious appeal to a child of my age.
It is not unusual for Disney to change film titles when marketing them outside of the US. In 2016 they renamed the animated feature film Zootopia to Zootropolis in the UK and Europe to avoid trademark conflicts with other existing businesses. For example there is a Danish zoo which already holds the “Zootopia” name. Similarly, in Germany there is a children’s book which caused copyright conflict, which led to the film being released under the title Zoomania. Such changes, although practical for legal reasons, can sometimes cause a degree of confusion. Especially as there are numerous, low budget productions companies that go out of their way to produce similarly titled “mockbusters” whenever there are big, tentpole, releases. So for clarity, Zootopia 2 has been released in the UK as Zootropolis 2.
Stephen King’s dystopian story, The Running Man, was previously adapted very loosely in 1987, as a vehicle for Arnold Schwarzenegger. That version focused mainly on the “Battle Royale” element of the story and leaned heavily into Arnie’s personality, rather than the politics of the book. It also wasn’t well received by the author. Edgar Wright’s remake follows the source text a lot more closely and is far more interested in its political themes and wider social commentary. Furthermore, this version re-establishes the everyman quality of the hero of Ben Richards, rather than him being the muscle bound, ex-military hero as per Mr. Schwarzenegger’s prior interpretation. This time round, The Running Man uses a lot of the visual and narrative tropes of contemporary reality TV, making this forty three year old story very relevant to today’s viewers and couching the film in a style that is recognisable and accessible.
I have not watched as much TV as I usually do, this year. Mainly because I have become a little weary of the ways contemporary TV is produced, especially with regards to streaming shows. Due to the costs, shows such as Star Trek: Strange New Worlds only have 10 episodes per season. Simply put, the season begins to hit its stride and then is abruptly over. This problem (if you see it as such) is then further compounded by there being a significant wait between seasons. In the case of STSNW it was two years between season two and season three. Not all shows fall foul of this. Apple TV produces two seasons of the excellent espionage drama Slow Horses at a time, ensuring a prompt release schedule. However, even this has issues. Due to the complexity of the plots of many contemporary TV shows, something that is a marketing point, some viewers cannot remember the plot after a twelve month hiatus. Network TV shows seldom have these issues with each season being 20 plus episodes long and story arcs that are seldom as complex.
The Haunted Dolls House is a short film based on a story by M.R. James about a unique antique that is subject to supernatural phenomenon. Adapted by Stephen Gray and David Lilley, this is the third of three short films based upon James’ work that the pair have made. It stars Steven Dolton as Mr. Dillet, a collector of antique dolls houses, who acquires a bargain only to discover that it harbours a ghostly secret. Made on an extremely modest budget over the course of 2012 this clever, innovative and rather sinister adaptation is a fine example of short film creativity. It manages to offer a unique visual depiction of M.R. James’ classic story whilst capturing the unsettling quality of the author’s work. Like so many independently made short films it is clearly a labour of love, made with modest resources. It succinctly captures the spirit of the author’s work and is both innovative and rewarding.
A lot of people may know Luke Evans from the live action version of Beauty and the Beast or Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit trilogy. With his matinee idol good looks, charming Welsh demeanour and his “smoky” tenor singing voice, he projects a sense of old school stardom. Which brings us to No One Lives; a film which is a radical departure from his previous work. His performance is disconcerting to say the least and the film is somewhat unhinged. Directed by Ryuhei Kitamura, who made an interesting adaptation of Clive Barker’s The Midnight Meat Train, this cinematic outing is similarly replete with robust shocks and gore. There are some interesting ideas about the nature of violence, Stockholm Syndrome and whether one should deny or embrace one’s nature. However, these are ultimately minor asides. Philosophical musings in between bouts of surprisingly striking unpleasantness.
In the near future, Kepler 822, a research and drilling facility located at the bottom of the Mariana Trench, suffers a sudden and catastrophic structural failure. There are only six survivors. Mechanical engineer Norah Price (Kristen Stewart), Captain Lucien (Vincent Cassel), biologist Emily Haversham (Jessica Henwick), engineer Liam Smith (John Gallagher Jr.) and crew members Rodrigo (Mamoudou Athie) and Paul (T.J. Miller). As all the functional escape pods have been used and they are unable to contact the surface, the Captain suggests using pressurized suits to walk one mile across the ocean floor to the Roebuck 641 drill installation. There they will find more escape pods. However, it soon becomes apparent that the disaster was not caused by an undersea earthquake and that they are not alone as they make their journey.
Strictly Come Dancing remains the BBC’s flagship light entertainment show for Autumn. Despite controversy and scandal, the show bounced back last year and firmly re-established itself as the “feel good, family show” it has always claimed to be. Blind comedian Chris McCausland becoming the 2024 champion certainly validated the show’s commitment to diversity and inclusion and helped place Strictly (as it is known to its fans) back on its cultural pedestal. I’m sure those involved in the production of the show breathed a sigh of relief when the season ended on such a positive note, eclipsing the negative press that had been ever present last summer. Second chances and opportunities for a “course correction” are few and far between these days. Especially when you have elements of the UK press waiting with bated breath and hoping that you’ll fail.
One of the most common objections raised regarding the Jurassic Park/Jurassic World franchise is that the films are specifically made to obtain a PG-13 rating from the Motion Picture Association, for purely commercial reasons. Hence, in all films, there is little on screen violence and the dinosaurs are mainly portrayed as a threat and a means of providing jump scares. When a character is killed by a dinosaur it usually happens off screen, is obscured by something else in frame, or is shown in long shot with very little detail. The realities of being eaten alive by a predator are conspicuously absent. Hence, audiences looking for films featuring more graphic dinosaur attacks, have not been well catered for apart from some minor direct-to-video titles. Primitive War finally fills this gap in the market with a frenetic genre mashup that strives to punch above is budgetary weight.
During the seventies, cinema was not only a source of mass, commercial entertainment but was still perceived as a medium for intellectual and philosophical discourse. Television was a poor relation in terms of art and cultural significance. Film was where the so called auteur director could muse and ruminate upon the nature of the human condition and audiences could subsequently gush sycophantically about their work at dinner parties. Or something like that. Let it suffice to say that some film makers were still indulged by studios and financiers, who were still keen to cash in on the cultural sea change that came to Hollywood in the late sixties. It’s difficult to see how a film such as Emperor of the North (AKA Emperor of the North Pole) could have been made otherwise. A film set in the Great Depression about a hobo illegally travelling on freight trains and his feud with a ruthless conductor.
In Buenos Aires, Clara (Natalia Señorales) hears voices emanating from the plughole in her kitchen sink. The voices seem to be plotting against her. Her husband Juan (Agustín Rittano) says the sounds are coming from next door. That night, Juan finds Clara’s dead body levitating in their bathroom, slamming against the wall by an invisible force. Meanwhile their neighbour, Walter (Demián Salomón), is experiencing supernatural occurrences while he tries to sleep. An invisible force repeatedly shakes his bed. After using a video camera to film these events, he sees a tall, cadaverous figure emerging from under the bed, standing over him as he sleeps. Across the road, Alicia (Julieta Vallina) is grieving for her recently deceased son, who was run over outside Walter’s house. Alicia's ex-boyfriend, police commissioner Funes (Maximiliano Ghione) calls Jano (Norberto Gonzalo), a paranormal investigator and the pair soon discover more supernatural occurrences in the area.
Black Sabbath (AKA I tre volti della paura) is a 1963 horror anthology film directed by Mario Bava. Although an Italian production, the film was co-financed by American International Pictures and as such was conceived to appeal to US audiences. Hence, the English dialogue edit of the film which was released in America differs significantly to the original Italian version. Despite the presence of the legendary Boris Karloff and the popularity of both anthology and gothic horror at the time,the film was only a modest success at the US box office and did not do well in Italy. However, in more recent years there has been a critical reappraisal of Black Sabbath, especially the Italian dialogue version. Many aspects of the film which are standard genre tropes today, were in fact novel at the time. Also despite the production mainly being studio bound, the film oozes style and has a striking visual aesthetic.
Treasure Island In Outer Space is a curious Italian television production from 1987 starring Anthony Quinn and Ernest Borgnine. It also features numerous international actors better known for their work in cult and exploitation films, such as Bobby Rhodes, David Warbeck and John Morghan. Directed by Antonio Margheriti (AKA Anthony Dawson), famous for such films as Killer Fish (a cash in on Piranha) and The Last Hunter (a Vietnam exploitation epic), Treasure Island In Outer Space is a faithful adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson’s classic novel. The screenplay by Renato Castellani and Lucio De Caro draws heavily from the source text, maintaining character names and original dialogue. However in updating the material to a futuristic setting, the script is littered with the worst kind of eighties sci-fi clichés. We are subjected to sonic trains, anti-gravity rays and the usual buzzword driven faux science.
After the success of Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981, filmmakers scrambled to find existing intellectual properties that they could use for similar films. Hence archaic heroes such as Alan Quatermain were hastily given a modern makeover and thrust into generic movies, in a vague attempt to replicate Steven Spielberg’s successful formula. Which brings us neatly on to James Charles Bigglesworth AKA “Biggles”, a fictional pilot and adventurer from a series of books written by W. E. Johns between 1932 and 1968. Several attempts had been made in the past to bring this character to the silver screen, including one by Disney but they all failed. However, the commercial and critical success of Indiana Jones provided sufficient impetus to greenlight a new film. However, due to some curious production choices, when Biggles was finally released it was far from just a period set, action movie.
Setting aside the hubris of remaking a film such as Red Dawn, the 2012 reboot had a troubled production. Shot over the course of late 2009, on location in Michigan, MGM intended to release the film in September 2010. However, the studio’s financial problems became unsustainable over the course of that year and the film was shelved, while a financial solution was sought. Furthermore, while Red Dawn was in post production, there was a major economic shift within Hollywood due to the increasing importance of the Chinese market. This was a significant problem for MGM because the new version of Red Dawn had the Chinese invading the USA instead of Russia. Hence there were reshoots and the need for additional visual effects, so that the Chinese could be replaced with North Koreans. MGM eventually went bankrupt and the distribution rights to Red Dawn were sold off. The film was eventually released in 2012.
American music producer James William Guercio is primarily known for his work in the music industry. He was the producer of the band Chicago’s first eleven studio albums. In the mid-seventies he also managed the Beach Boys and was a member of their backing band. He was during this time, well known in his field and respected. In 1973, Guercio directed, produced and wrote the score for his first and only feature film, Electra Glide in Blue. He was 28 years old at the time. Upon release the film received mixed reviews from many traditional US newspapers, who were dismissive of its revisionist themes and poetical style. However, in Europe the film was received more favourably and was entered into the 1973 Cannes Film Festival. Fifty two years on and Electra Glide in Blue is now considered an overlooked cult classic and is analysed in a more measured fashion.
When I first saw the promotional trailer for Gangster Squad back in 2012, prior to its release, I wasn't especially impressed. I simply thought the film was another attempt to re-invent the gangster genre for a generation who were not especially familiar with it. I wasn't exactly overwhelmed with director Ruben Fleischer's resume either. I didn't particularly like Zombieland and haven't seen 30 Minutes Or Less. Then came the tragic mass shootings in Aurora, Colorado which led to the movie being delayed so that the original ending, which featured a shoot-out in a movie theatre, could be replaced. Hence when I finally watched this film recently, I wasn't expecting a movie up to the standards of say Once Upon A Time In America or Miller’s Crossing and it would seem that I was right do so. Gangster Squad is not especially noteworthy in any respect.
Fluke is a curious film about a man who is reincarnated as a dog and his subsequent realisation that he may have been murdered. It takes an adult novel by British author James Herbert, which is filled with philosophical musing and strives to adapt it in a far more family friendly fashion. The result is a somewhat bipolar production which thematically alternates between existential introspection and Buddhism. It then strives to deliver its message in a Disneyesque idiom. Children will potentially be confused and upset by what they see and adults will be wrongfooted by the continual shift in tone. Fluke was not a critical or commercial success upon release and the flaws that were identified by critics at the time still ring true today. That being said, Fluke is still an interesting and entertaining film, despite its faults.
Thoughts on TV shows and my current viewing habits.
I last wrote a blog post in this series back in February 2022. Then for various reasons, I stopped. Possibly because my relationship with TV has changed in recent years. It’s fair to say at present that viewers are spoilt for choice. There are lots of very good shows around. Conversely, there is also a lot of bland, generic, filler as well. I appreciate that not every television series has to be an industry milestone and there are times when I’m content to watch undemanding content. However, I am very protective of how I spend my leisure time at present. I am not prepared to sink 6 or 8 hours into a show that is just “okay”. Hence I’m becoming very particular about what I watch. If something isn’t working for me in any fashion then I just abandon it and am happy to do so.
The seventies was an interesting time for UK genre television. Despite small budgets and often low key visual effects, there was no shortage of good ideas and creativity. Sapphire & Steel is a prime example of a show couched in a high concept, produced on a shoestring. It also credits its audiences with some degree of intelligence. Rather than spoon feeding the narrative in a didactic manner, it hints and implies, then leaves the rest to its viewers imagination. Created by Peter J. Hammond, a veteran TV writer, Sapphire & Steel centres on a pair of interdimensional operatives named Sapphire and Steel. They are two of a number of elements that assume human form. Over the course of three seasons little is revealed about the pair but they appear whenever there is any anomalous temporal activity. Time itself is portrayed as a sentient and malignant force that seeks to make incursions into the present reality, through weaknesses in the fabric of space.
During 1836, in the town of Darkness Falls, Maine, an elderly widow Matilda Dixon is adored by the town’s children as she gives them a gold coin whenever they lose a tooth. One day, after a house fire, Matilda is left burned and sensitive to sunlight, so she starts wearing a china mask. When two children are reported missing, Matilda is blamed by some locals, dragged from her home and hung. She curses the town, stating that whenever a child loses their last tooth, she would come for it. If the child looks at her, she will kill them. The missing children are subsequently found, so the citizens cover up their unjust lynching. In 1990, young Kyle Walsh awakes one night to find Matilda Walsh standing over him. Kyle’s mother is killed and he is blamed for her death and institutionalised. 12 years later, Kyle (Channey Kley) is released and tries to warn the town of the imminent danger when lightning disables the power supply. He is ignored by all until the deaths begin.
I recently found a DVD boxset of Return to the Planet of the Apes in a charity shop which I bought for £4, which is a ridiculously cheap price. I considered it an interesting find because it was a Region 1, US copy. However, that is not so unusual these days as most DVD players are now region free and Amazon (UK) sells media from all over the world. As for the show in question, I vaguely remember Return to the Planet of the Apes being shown on UK network TV when I was a child, probably circa 1976. Back then it would usually take a year or so before US shows made it onto UK television. From a commercial perspective, the entire Planet of the Apes franchise was beginning to run out of steam. I was 8 years old at the time so had missed most of the film releases. However, I enjoyed the live action TV show hence an animated follow up had obvious appeal to a child of my age.