Archive for TV

“By Public Demand”

Posted in Bollocks, TV, Unwanted Comebacks with tags , , , , , , on October 16, 2010 by drawingdad

So Hey Hey It’s Saturday returns to our televisions screens tonight. “Ask and you shall receive!” says Channel 9’s advertising, because this time, the show is actually on Saturday night. Was I the only one shaking my head in bewilderment when they put the show on Wednesday nights earlier this year? (Which fuckknuckle at Channel 9 was responsible for that one?) Was I the only one then, and the only one now thinking “why the fuck is this steaming pile of old manure back on TV in the first place?!?”

Eleven years. We had eleven years of Saturday nights free of this crap. By the time it was finally, oh-so-belatedly axed in 1999, the show was as tired and bloated as a beached whale with PMS. Host Daryl Somers was at least 10 years past his prime, finding it necessary to over-explain his lame retread jokes to the audience just in case we didn’t get them. We got them, Daryl. They just weren’t funny. I’ve found funnier jokes in Christmas crackers. By the end, the man had become a parody of himself. But that wasn’t funny either, it was just sad.

And after the, in my opinion, disastrous reunion specials last year, apparently made due to “public demand”, the show came back on an ongoing basis. Did Somers and his crew take the opportunity to improve upon the worn-out old format? Hell no, it’s all exactly the same as it was back in 99. How else can you explain the infamous blackface skit that made worldwide headlines for all the wrong reasons? Somers and co seem to think there was nothing wrong with it, and apologised only because of pressure from international guest Harry Connick Jr. It’s a different world these days, Daryl.

Who really wants to see this shite all over again? There are good reasons the show was given the chop in 99. The public didn’t want to watch anymore! So why now does this same public apparently want the show back?

One word: Nostalgia.

Look, I’m as nostalgic as anyone but I’m at least smart enough to know that having happy memories of something from bygone years probably won’t translate into that something being any good today. Just look, for example, at the recent crop of TV remakes that failed because they were pathetic attempts to recapture old glories: 90210, Bionic Woman, Knight Rider, Melrose Place… Thank god they haven’t tried to bring back Baywatch yet.

Enough already! Why waste our time with this bullshit? Why not think of something new, something original? Something worth watching?

The current series of Hey Hey is supposed to run for 7 episodes, I believe. Let’s all hope that it doesn’t come back after that.


Speaking of unwanted comebacks, John Farnham has returned with a new album, Jack. Wasn’t he retiring in the early 2000’s? Yet here he is yet again, rising like some wailing phoenix to pollute the airwaves with bland middle-of-the-road elevator music. Note the title Jack – an allusion to Farnham’s most successful album, Whispering Jack. Hoping to recapture old glories too, are we John? Who would listen to you anymore, aside, maybe,  from menopausal women? And for fuck’s sake, your mullet may be shorter these days, but it’s still a fucking mullet! Hit the road Jack, and don’t you come back no more no more no more no more.*

*Perhaps ironically, Farnham actually sings this song on the new album. Wish he’d take his own advice.


How I loved then hated then loved Star Trek

Posted in Movies, Sci-Fi with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 13, 2010 by drawingdad

So, I saw the new Star Trek movie recently. As a life-long Trek fan, I loved it. Loved it so much because it was so cool, in fact, that it brought into sharp relief just how limp so much of what came before is. This new movie, this reboot, had so much more guts and emotion and life than most episodes of any of the five TV series. Don’t get me wrong, there are some excellent TV episodes out there. And I’m sure I missed a lot of good ones too. But I think it’s been a very long time since any of them were made.

Let me backtrack a little. Star Trek, the original series, captured my imagination when I was a very young child. I can’t remember when I first saw it, but I know that at eight years of age I named it as my favourite TV show. I had seen The Empire Strikes Back when I was five which kicked off an insatiable appetite for space adventures that Star Trek filled well. Sure, even then I could see how fake it all looked, but  just didn’t care. Spock was one of my childhood heroes. I learned how to lift one eyebrow and separate my fingers into the Vulcan salute just because he did those things.

When I first heard about Star Trek: The Next Generation I was very excited with only a hint of trepidation. It was announced to me by a magazine article that I cut out and kept. And when I saw the series, I loved it. It soon surpassed the original series as my favourite. Picard and Data took their place as heroes during my teenage years. And I was enamoured with Deanna Troi, even though she hardly ever did anything on the show.

Even though it hooked me, I could see some pretty big flaws with the show. In most cases it was (no) thanks to the writing. The season two episode Skin Of Evil is the epitome of just how lame the show could be sometimes. On an alien planet the crew of the Enterprise are confronted by a sentient oil slick. Regular crew member Tasha Yar was killed by this malevolent goo in one of the most pathetically weak death scenes ever. It was so poorly done, in fact, that the next year Yar was brought back and killed off properly in the time-travelling cracker Yesterday’s Enterprise.

One of the biggest weaknesses in both the original series and TNG was creator Gene Roddenberry’s decree that in the future, we are beyond interpersonal friction – everybody in Starfleet gets along. It’s only the hostile aliens like the Klingons, Romulans, Borg and oil slicks that the crew would have any conflict with. While this allowed the shows to focus more on the plot concepts (which really wasn’t always a good thing), the shows were often robbed of any real dramatic tension and the characters often came across as lacking in depth. The feeling of lack of depth was not helped by the flat lighting and sterile-looking sets. Sure, they were bound by budgeting constraints, but still, it doesn’t cost money to put out a few lights, or set them in a different position. And of course, the acting was not usually very impressive. Patrick Stewart as TNG’s Captain Jean-Luc Picard somehow made his performances tower above those of anyone else in the entire franchise.

With the third series, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, interpersonal conflicts were allowed by placing Starfleet personnel alongside alien race the Bajorans (along with Ferengi and all sorts of other species) on the eponymous space station. Watching early seasons, I thought it got off to a slow start, but it did get better and was certainly more consistent than either of its predecessors. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen any of the last two or three seasons of the show, which are reportedly the best and may well make my argument here moot. It changed into a serialised story as opposed to the episodic format it started with, and the darker tone would have made it a lot more interesting.

DS9 overlapped with TNG for it’s first two seasons, and the fourth series, Star Trek: Voyager, for its latter five. It’s thanks to Voyager (along with lacklustre TNG feature films Insurrection and Nemesis) that I became disillusioned with Star Trek overall and stopped watching. Because they were slipping so badly, I possibly missed out on all the best of DS9. Grr. Thankfully, there are boxed set DVDs.

Voyager spoiled it for me because it absolutely squandered its promising premise. Each Star Trek series took a different angle – TNG on an exploratory starship, DS9 on a space station at the gateway to unknown space – so Voyager had a starship lost on the other side of the galaxy, far from known planets and species, out of touch with Starfleet, trying to find their way home. The Starfleet crew were also forced to share their ship with a rebellious terrorist group known as the Maquis, another opportunity to generate some dramatic tension between characters. Yet, within a few episodes, the members of the Maquis were pretty much fully integrated into the Starfleet crew and one of the first unknown alien species encountered, the Kazon, are basically a piss-weak rip-off of the Klingons. Voyager didn’t boldly go where no-one has gone before.

One of the biggest problems with the show was summed up by writer/producer Ronald D Moore (who served very briefly on the staff of Voyager after successful runs on TNG and DS9):

The premise has a lot of possibilities. Before it aired, I was at a convention in Pasadena, and Sternbach and Okuda were on stage, and they were answering questions from the audience about the new ship. It was all very technical, and they were talking about the fact that in the premise this ship was going to have problems. It wasn’t going to have unlimited sources of energy. It wasn’t going to have all the doodads of the Enterprise. It was going to be rougher, fending for themselves more, having to trade to get supplies that they want. That didn’t happen. It doesn’t happen at all, and it’s a lie to the audience. I think the audience intuitively knows when something is true and something is not true. Voyager is not true. If it were true, the ship would not look spic-and-span every week, after all these battles it goes through. How many times has the bridge been destroyed? How many shuttlecrafts have vanished, and another one just comes out of the oven? That kind of bullshitting the audience I think takes its toll. At some point the audience stops taking it seriously, because they know that this is not really the way this would happen. These people wouldn’t act like this.

Spot-on, Ron. Moore went on to address these issues brilliantly with his magnificent recreation of Battlestar Galactica.

Meanwhile, the fifth series, originally just called Enterprise, started up. This one went out of its way to be different, dropping Star Trek from it’s title and set chronologically before the original series. Okay, sure, I appreciate that they were trying not to do the same thing over and over. But they took it too far with that disgustingly awful Diane Warren-penned power-ballad over the very American-centric opening titles. Oh my fucking god. I could barely stand to watch the show itself after that. Interestingly, and surely due to poor ratings, the Star Trek returned to the title in season three but that didn’t save the show from being axed in season four.

The TV trek was over. All for the best, I think. The trek universe is a big one, to be sure, but given the formulaic and frankly stodgy way they made most of the series, there was nothing more to be done there.

But then J.J. Abrams came along to bring Trek back to life, and thank fuck he did. It was a pretty ballsy thing to do, a prequel to the original series, with those iconic characters being played by a bunch of actors who weren’t even alive when the original series was being made. But Abrams and his writers cleverly made a movie that is right in all the right ways, and changes things by creating an alternate universe for the sequels to take place in. Brilliant.


Sure, it wasn’t a cerebral as many older Trek stories, nor did it wrestle with some of the moral dilemmas that the many series tackled, but it brought Star Trek back from the dead with an exciting story well told and invested it with more energy and resonance than all but a mere handful of episodes ever captured. This movie justifies my fandom and has revived it. Now I think I need to seek out the DS9 DVDs to see if I’m wrong about all this…

A substantial post concerning a lack of substance.

Posted in Bollocks with tags , , , , , , on October 1, 2010 by drawingdad

So early yesterday morning, I found myself in a comfy armchair browsing through a copy of the latest issue of Cosmopolitan magazine while Channel 7’s irritating breakfast show Sunrise played quietly in the background. Not my usual morning and Cosmo certainly isn’t my usual reading material.

As I flipped through the mag I found myself alternately laughing and shaking my head in disbelief at the utter rubbish contained therein. Then, as I was reading some absurdly inane fiction-disguised-as-advice article, perhaps “Why you’ll never eat lunch at your desk again” or “The Perfect One-liner For Every Occasion”, Sunrise host David “Kochie” Koch announced a segment entitled “Which milkshake are you?”

According to Kochie, new research (by the Institute of Complete Bollocks, no doubt) has found that your favourite flavour of milkshake says a lot about your personality. Those who drink chocolate shakes, for instance, are ‘friendly, punctual and obedient’, while caramel drinkers are ‘conscientious and responsible’. One member of a panel that Kochie was discussing this with wisely pointed out that between the milkshake research and the “Which coffee are you?” findings and the “Which handbag are you?” findings and so on, she’s pretty confused.

I was dumbfounded. I already knew, of course, that the show has, for the most part, the substance of a ball of fairy floss. But this, on top of the magazine I had in my hands, was just too much.

Which milkshake are you? Seriously? This warrants expensive airtime on national television?! Based on research? Perhaps their own research, looking up time-sucking quizzes on Facebook. You know the ones: Which fruit/Teletubbie/Smurf/human organ/Bejewelled jewel are you? All of these made up, of course, by vampiric morons with nothing better to do with their time than leech off yours.

Cosmo, meanwhile, was sucking my time and lowering my IQ with journalistic gems like “50 things to try… just because you can!” This article, written by one Katherine Bebo, seems to be composed of a mish-mash of the bucket lists of perhaps half a dozen different women, four of whom are of the Eat Pray Love ilk. The other two would be aged somewhere between 13 and 18. The Carpe Diem-encouraging article contains such sage advice as:

11. Get a map of the world, close your eyes and point to a place. Wherever your finger lands, book a holiday there. [Never mind if it’s, say, Baghdad.]
30. Kiss a celebrity. If you really can’t find one, anyone who has ever tried out for Australian Idol counts.
34. Blag your way into a VIP party and say “Don’t you know who I am?”

I suggest number 51. See a doctor for your mental diahorrea.

While reading Cosmo, of course, you can’t escape reading the sex advice. This issue promised “Sex Moves That’ll Rattle His Thoughts For Days!” What you actually find inside is “The real reason it’s called making love” which is a mild article based on a pop-biologist’s understand of body chemistry. The apparently long-awaited return of the famous Sealed Section contains no more than a match the face to the boobs/bum activity and some advice on oral sex. The front of the sealed section promises “The new oral sex techniques that’ll keep a good man down!” New oral sex techniques? Wow! Alas, the piece itself is a page of Q&A with a panel of four sex “experts” who do not impart any advice you won’t have read before if you’ve ever read Cosmo or, indeed, ever given or received oral sex.

The real kicker for me was the horoscopes. Dodgy and unreliable at the best of times, but Cosmo has ditched the vague platitudes that can cover a great variety of events in favour of some very specific predictions. At the same time, they have ditched all pretence at any kind of authority or authenticity. Take, for instance, this month’s predictions for Gemini (my sign). Bear in mind these are written for women…

The social Moon has you organising a black light party near the 23rd. Replace your bulbs with black lights, hand out highlighters and cheap white tees, and let guests write messages on each other’s shirts.
>>Dating tip: Put your seductions skills to use after the 17th, when Venus sends an onslaught of male attention your way.
>>Love advice: Passionate Saturn compels you to treat him to a commercial-break BJ on the couch around the 8th.

Other planets apparently will urge other signs to so all sorts of naughty things. That’s urge though, as opposed to being compelled like Gemini. What. The. Fuck?!?

More and more, I’m finding that entertainment is becoming even more vapid. A mag such as Cosmo, which claims to be offering good advice on all matters love/sex/fashion/health/cosmetics is as convincing as Weekly World News. At least with that tabloid, you know what you’re getting.

The proliferation of completely meaningless programs and periodicals is increasing faster than the locust population that is apparently going to blight most of Australia this summer. And like locusts obliterate crops, they eat away at your time and intelligence. And we accept it. We promote it. We tell the people who make and peddle this bollocks that it’s okay, we like it, we want more! How else can Cosmo continue to be published, month after month? How else could a show like Australia’s Funniest Home Videos have survived for 20 years? How else could a show like 20 To 1 exist at all?

How else would the Wayans family be able to make a shitload of money for making such shithouse movies?

We should demand better. I know entertainment is mostly for the purposes of escapism. Believe me, I do like my escapism. However, does that mean it has to be so utterly devoid of substance? And so fucking condescending? Because that’s what it comes down to. We are being treated like idiots and for buying into it all, we are idiots.