« April 2008 | Main | June 2008 »
Yes?
Click this button then...
NSFW.
And this is why it's called FanBOYgeek...
Ever felt a pang of guilt when something happens that you've been hoping for?
Russell T. Davies is stepping down as lead writer of Doctor Who after his four specials next year, and Steven Moffat is taking over the róle for a new series in Spring 2010.
Fantastic. I couldn't have hoped for a better result to my post last week! (Because it was obviously down to me...).
Here's what no-one else has thought of, though...
This means that David Tennant must be stepping down too. Do the math.
Unless Tennant plans to be filming Who for the entirety of 2009, he's not going to be The Doctor in Moffat's series (unless there's a mid-season handover...).
The new Doctor speculation starts here.
FanboyGeek Keir suggests Julian Rhind-Tutt. I think he ticks all the right boxes...
Stu ;-)
A very highly placed inside source told me that he thought the pilot script was "crap" quite some time ago, and he told me that he'd told David E. Kelley so. He'd hoped they'd have done something a bit different with the idea.
Well, I don't know if the script has been re-written, or if it now has his seal of approval, but the trailer for the US version of "Life on Mars" didn't exactly get my spine tingling, and ABC have now pressed ahead with a series commission.
ABC appear to have turned a quirky (and very British) programme into something that looks rather bland. Instead of standing out from the crowd saying "this is going to be a bit different" it just looks like another Journeyman, or Day Break (and we know what happened to them) or any other procedural on TV (but a bit more orange).
Will all the characters smoke? Remember Fitz, the American version of Cracker? Robert Pastorelli as the titular character never lit a cigarette once in any of the 16 episodes. Will the characters swear (on ABC?!), and will any of the 1972 characters display the sexism and rascism they did in the British original?
And, where is the David Bowie music? (Life on Mars - it was playing on the radio when lead character Sam Tyler was run over, geddit?). Oh, and why is it 1972 in the States when it was 1973 over here?
Ashes to Ashes, which was basically series 3 of the British version of Life on Mars had a problem when it placed itself in the 1980s, because there wasn't really a strong cultural template for what a 1980s police show was - unlike in the 1970s where The Sweeney defined it. Instead it had to borrow from Miami Vice, leading to a quite out-of-place speedboat chase in episode 1.
America certainly had Starsky and Hutch, but that didn't actually start until 1975, so a bit of retconning may be required. It'll take more than just putting Sam into a brown leather jacket with big lapels to lend it authenticity.
I'm a huge fan of Kelley's returning series Boston Legal and the safe hands of Aaron Sorkin's buddy Thomas Schlamme directed the US Mars' pilot so I'll give it a chance, but as with Coupling and Men Behaving Badly, mainstream American TV needs to learn that if a programme is good because of it's risquéness, grit and rough edges, remaking it won't work if you take these elements out.
Stu ;-)
Electrical retailer DSG International is shutting 77 of its 177 store Currys.digital in the UK.
John Browett, DSG's new Chief Executive said, "customers have become increasingly promotion and deal driven, impacting margins".
I think he's wrong.
(1) Currys historically sold washing machines, vaccuum cleaners and such. Sister company Dixons sold TVs, videos, camcorders, computers etc. In April 2006, DSG axed the Dixons brand and renamed the whole group Currys.digital. Now, I was never a big fan of Dixons, but they knew what their niche was and they sometimes attracted the odd geeky store assistant whose opinion you could trust (indeed in 1989 I was one over the Christmas holidays..).
Who in their right mind, though, wants to buy a computer in a store where they sell washing machines? I often pay a premium to buy an item in a store as opposed to online if I can get some good advice I trust (eg Micro Anvika). How can a customer possibly believe that the minimum-wage, disinterested teenage sales assistant is an expert on DV camcorders as well as dishwashers?
(2) DSG took the low-rent "Currys" name, then added ".digital" in a lime green italicised Arial font and placed it against an unfeasibly bright-red background. It is by a very long way the worst logo I have ever had the misfortune to cast my eyes upon.
I cannot imagine any reason why, given a choice, I would ever entrust this retailer with my custom.
And clearly I'm not alone.
Stu ;-)
Don't get me wrong, there are few people living or dead that *love* Doctor Who more than me. And, in the New-Who canon, episodes such as "Dalek", "The Empty Child", "The Girl in the Fireplace" and "Blink" have been truly wonderful television.
But, in general, New-Who, and particularly this current series, is a bit pants. It's not for the want of good acting talent - Eccleston, Tennant, Piper, Agyeman and Tate have been terrific. Add some classy supporting actors and a terrific technical team and and it should be great telly. But it's not. It's at best patchy. Why is this?
It's obviously the writing. New-Who is shallow; derivative; inconsequential; lacking in subtext and internal consistency; and it awkwardly lurches from kitchen-sink drama to fantasy, never managing to be good science fiction (sometimes not even managing to be good drama). The damn annoying thing, though, is that the episodes mentioned above prove that New-Who *is* capable of being great television, and certainly not *just* children's television which is what it currently seems to have resigned itself to have become. And that is what frustrates me.
Let's take a look at who's writing Who and what they wrote before Who to qualify for the job. Then we'll look at the outstanding re-imagining of Battlestar Galactica and *their* writers:
DOCTOR WHO
Helen Raynor
Doctors
Stephen Greenhorn
River City, Where the Heart Is, The Bill
Gareth Roberts
Swiss Toni, Brookside, Emmerdale
Tom MacRae
Lewis, Marple, Mayo
and of course,
Russell T. Davies
Linda Green, Bob and Rose, Queer as Folk, The Grand, Children's Ward, Chucklevision
BATTLESTAR GALACTICA
Ronald D. Moore
Carnivále, Roswell, Star Trek (NG, DSN, Voyager)
Michael Angeli
Medium, Twighlight Zone, Monk, Dark Angel
Anne Cofell Saunders
Chuck, Eureka, 24
Michael Taylor
The Dead Zone, Star Trek (DSN, Voyager)
Jane Espenson
Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Firefly, Angel
Jeff Vlaming
Reaper, Numbers, Keen Eddie, NCIS, Xena: Warrior Princess, Lois and Clark, Weird Science, X Files
Toni Graphia
Carnivále, VR5, Quantum Leap
My point is not just to slag off a group of British writers, I'm sure they're all very talented and well respected in their field. And, I'm very aware that we don't have the breadth of fantasy TV writers in Britain to choose from (such is the blandness of British television), but come on, what makes an Emmerdale writer qualified to write Britain's showcase sci-fi series? Who shortlisted this group of writers? Any by the way, with few exceptions, the list of Directors has the very same problem.
I've been saying it for a long time, Russell T. Davies cannot write sci-fi. He's due a great deal of thanks for using his clout to bring the series back, but as Executive Producer and Lead Writer, he must take the blame for not only his own appalling writing, but for his poor decisions in green-lighting and overseeing other below-standard episodes, and for letting the show become kids TV, which it's always been more than.
Doctor Who is taking a break after the current series in order that both Russell T. Davies and David Tennant can work on other projects. Basically the BBC is oblivious to the problem, believing that Doctor Who IS Davies and Tennant, because the current ratings are good.
In two weeks Steven Moffat gets his series two-parter. If it's as good as his previous work, it will further justify the call I made half-way through the last series for Moffatt to take the róle of Lead Writer and for Russell T. to let his Fanboy fantasy job go.
Stu ;-)
Some advertising is inaccurate and some advertising is broken. Some advertising, though, goes beyond wrong and is plain evil. By evil, what I mean is that it is misleading in a deliberate, knowing and deeply cynical way.
McCain are currently advertising their "Rustic Oven Chips" with the slogan "Eat your greens". What the slogan is referring to is the four FSA green lights that the product has on its packaging. What the clear implication is, though, is that oven chips are "greens".
Let's be clear. It does not matter if McCain have not added the usual fat, sugar and salt to their "premium" convenience food. They're still just potatoes. They're not one of your "five-a-day". They're pure starch. They're not by any stretch of the imagination "greens".
Let's also be honest here, McCain oven chips are not served in my household, or any household where parents care about their children's nutrition - or are educated enough to know about nutrition.
McCain and their advertising agency Beattie McGuinness Bungay know exactly what they're implying and they should be utterly ashamed.
If the Advertising Standards Agency don't rebuke McCain for this (as they did with Walkers Crisps) they too should be ashamed.
Stu
Recent Comments