shadowkat: (sci-fi)
You know, I'm beginning to wonder if I'm watching a different Torchwood than everyone else online saw last spring/winter, because I'm really not getting the negative critiques of it. Or maybe it's because I read all the negative critiques prior to seeing the episodes, so went in to the whole thing with extremely low expectations? (Unlike Doctor Who - which I went into with high expectations?) OR maybe, I've seen more crappy tv shows than most of the folks on my flist?

I did grow up in the 70's and 80's after all - and trust me, you haven't seen bad television until you've sat through a couple of episodes of The Love Boat, Fantasy Island, Charlie's Angels, Three's Company, Laverne and Shirley, Happy Days, and The Brady Bunch. TV sucked beans up until the mid-80's, we are in TV's Golden Age. As Momster explained a while back in another of our endless telephone conversations - "people didn't watch tv back then (meaning the 1950's up until maybe the mid 60's) because it was entertaining so much as because it was novelty. My mother (Granny) didn't like any of the shows on, she just watched them because it was odd to have a tv set." Sort of like watching "YouTube" now, I suppose.

Also, you didn't have that many choices - just two or three networks, and everything ended at ten o'clock. When I was a kid, the tv went to static after the Tonight Show, we'd have the Star Spangeled Banner end the evening - which was around midnight and it would start up again around 6 the next morning with the early news. This was portrayed to startling effect in the film Poltergeist, which premiered on the big screens in the early 80's when I was 14. Anyone under the age of 37, probably wouldn't get that bit - since HBO and cable changed all of that around 1985.

People talk about how bad Bionic Woman, Six Million Dollar Man and BattleStar Galatica were, but they were actually not that bad in comparison to some of the other stuff on back then. And really sort of innovative and different at the time. I mean come on - have you ever sat through an episode of the Ropers? Or Joanie Loves Chiachi? Or how about the Kroft Super Hour with Dyno Girl and Electro Woman? Or better yet, Isis? And then there was Manimal, Knight Rider and Wonder Woman. There was some real crap on back then...Bionic Woman was actually sort of decent, not that I ever got to watch it at it's normal time (it was on too late and from my parents point of view, too old for me when it premiered) - I watched in reruns in the afternoons when I got home from school. Up until that point - I got the synopsis from my best friend on the way to school each morning. She'd fill me in on what happened with Jamie Sommers and Lee Majors. In retrospect her synopsis and retelling of the story was much better than the actual television program. So were my mother's synopsis and retelling of the soaps that she watched and I missed being at school. (This was before VCR's and DVD's - you miss an episode? You MISSED that episode and had to rely on someone who saw it to fill you in.)

I think today's tv audience is extreemly spoiled. They have too many choices, the ability to tape and/or rent missed episodes - even buy them on DVD and watch them repeatedly without commercials. Not to mention watch "movie theater quality" television shows on Cable without commericial interruptions and extraordinary budgets. Even HBO has changed since I was a kid. I remember when it was just a bunch of recently released movies shown over and over and over again with several stupid comedy spots and an occassional made for HBO film or theater presentation - I saw several filmed theater presentations on HBO that were quite good. It was worth it for that alone. Don't see that much any more though.

At any rate - I saw tonight's episode of Torchwood on BBC America entitled The Ghost Machine and it was one of the most innovative things I've seen in a long time. The actors - I really appreciate on the series - particularly the female actresses, who aren't skinny, right off the fashion mag babes. But actually look like ordinary women, with full figures, bad skin, bad hair days, and frumpy outfits. Very comforting. The men are actually prettier here than the women, nice change of pace that. But in Torchwood, they've cast a normal looking guy/bloke as Gwen, the main character's boyfriend. He's not only a nice contrast to John Barrowman's handsome Captain Jack, but he's exactly who I'd envision with Gwen.
Torchwood S1, Episode 3, Spoilers )

The US critics, who have mostly praised Torchwood, compare it to the X-Files. I actually prefer it to the X-Files - which took itself too seriously at times and was too scarey, focusing more on the horror and the monsterous than on the human emotion. I did like several stand-alone episodes, but grew tired of the alien conspiracy plot fairly quickly. Torchwood's alien sub-plot is more innovative in my opinion and more optimistic. Of course I'm only three episodes in.

Spent most of tonight, while watching the series, perplexed by the online critiques of it. Okay, thought I, are we watching the same show here? Because this is actually a whole lot better than I was expecting it to be or lead to believe. Maybe there's something to be said for coming into it with LOW expectations?? From the reviews I read online I expected the acting to be wooden or way over the top, to see cardboard sets, lots of cheesy makeup, stilted dialogue, wooden direction, and cliche ridden plots. So far the only off-kilter acting I've seen is from Barrowman, who like Tennant comes across as initially uncomfortable in the role...but also like Tennant Barrowman has grown on me and is getting better with each passing episode. So it's not that obvious or really a problem nor is it any different than the problem I had with Doctor Who. Granted the production quality is not up to say HEROES, BSG or Prime Suspect's standards, but Buffy didn't have that quality either nor did Angel - both, if you think about it, were incredibly cheesy at times - since like Torchwood, they had about a quarter or maybe an eighth of those shows budgets. So, I did not expect that. I expected something below Buffy standards, and it is actually better than Buffy and Star Trek when it comes to special effects and production values. Also a tad better than Doctor Who come to think of it. I'm pleasantly surprised by the whole thing.
shadowkat: (Default)
Just watched a really good episode of Boston Legal - which has been surprising me this season, because up until this season, I'd more or less lost interest in David E. Kelly's writing. But assorted people talked me into giving it another chance.

The episode I just saw featured footage from one of the two 1950's series - Playhouse 90 or
Kraft Theater Hour (or something along those lines, can't quite remember what the name of the other one was - my mother would probably know, I suspect - she was a huge fan of these programs - which were the equivalent of PBS's American Playhouse in latter years. Television in the 1950s and 1960s was actually quite good and high quality. There were not as many commericials back then, for one thing. Usally there was a corporate sponser who often paid to have their name in the title and the stars of the program would promote their products before, during a brief intermission, and after the program ended. The drawback was sponsors got a say in the content of the program, which is less the case nowadays. It was in some ways very similar to how programs are shown on premium channels such as HBO and Showtime and well PBS. But back then people only had three channels plus PBS. In the 1970's it was five. And in the eighties six until well HBO changed things. The reason I know all this is my mother - who was interested in it and remembers it. We do pick up habits from our parents like it or not.)
At any rate Boston Legal took snippets from the 1950's playhouse shows. This drama starred James Whitmore (best known for playing Mark Twain on stage, I believe) and a young William Shatner - it was, as is usually the case with these dramas - presented in play format. Not pricey sets. Shown live - not taped. And with a small cast. Shatner, despite what many people believe, was a trained theater actor, who had studied and performed Shakespeare - part of his theatrics in Trek is well due to the fact that he was used to projecting on the stage. Prior to Star Trek - Shatner, like many of his contempories, appeared in numerous anthology series such as Playhouse 90, The Outer Limits, Twilight Zone, Studio 60, The Kraft Hour, GE Hour...etc. (Apologies for getting some of the names wrong).

The selection of this footage fit the story beautifully - it showed us the disagreement between Denny and his father. How the two saw justice differently. Back then the morale was - do you provide someone with a fair trail? Do you give them the best defense you possibly can, regardless of their guilt? Or do you convict without impunity? It asked the question - but never quite answered it. Today - the story is a little more complicated. It's how does the victim handle it? What are the consequences of defending someone convicted of a crime?
How do you know who is quilty or innocent?

And one other thing - love. There were two threads - one with Shore and one with Crane, and both asked about love. I know what unconditional love feels like, in that I am blessed. My parents love me unconditionally. No matter what I do or how angry they get, I know that.
I wonder how many other people do? And how this effects them for good or ill?

Denny Crane's father disowns him because Denny took whatever steps necessary to defend a man he believed was innocent and still does. Shore tells Bird, a Senator who has just told his wife within Shore's hearing that he slept with a prostitute because he needs sex but hates his body and is uncomfortable revealing it to his wife, that he and his wife obviously love one another and not to give up on that.

Love isn't easy. It's not about sex. Or what someone can give you. Or provides. It's simply about caring, I think. The Denny Crane arc is interesting - his father states in the flashbacks, "you liked the law because I taught you to, I wanted you to become like me, but you are nothing like me, I don't know you at all." I don't understand this. Parents for some odd reason think their children are them, copies just because they share DNA. I was taught that children are their own people, gifts to us, but their own individuals. They aren't going to become us, they won't think like us, and they will do their own thing. Parents feel pride in what their kids accomplish - often seeing it as their accomplishment, when in truth it is the child's not the parents. What a child does may reflect on their parents, who invariably served as role models in the child's development, but it is not necessarily because of the parents or a direct result of them. There are too many other variables in play, too many other things influencing that child's development.

I look at some people who have children and wonder, why. Why did they choose to do it?
To feel immortal? To put a lasting impression on the world? Or was it for the reasons mine did, because they wanted to care for someone, wanted to raise a child, love the child, watch it grow, and see what it might become - like a writer does a story, without outlining it ahead of time or planning too much, just giving birth to it then letting it mix with the world to see what it becomes. And whatever it does become, is happy with it and proud.

My Dad has a saying:" Children are a gift, ours for just a short while. Then we let them go to find their own place in the world. We don't own them. They are not our possessions. They are their own selves."

I think unconditional love is the ability to love and let someone be their own self without judgement or criticism. Or control. Letting it go. Instead of keeping it caged within our expectations and dreams of what it should be. I think children who never get that from their parents, spend their lives hunting for it and are always unsatisfied. (Or for those fans of BTVS and ATS - it was not *approval* Angel desperately needed but *unconditional* love which he never got from his father. Spike on the other hand had it from his mother, who loved him regardless of what he did. It's not approval we crave, but the feeling that God, our parents love and forgive us no matter what. And it is that which Angel wanted to give his son Connor - and did with the memory wipe - he provided Connor with a family who would love him unconditionally - something Angel himself, knew he could not provide. )

Anywho...that's what I got from this episode.

Just figured out Dresden Files was rerun at 9. So watching Desperate Housewives.

Profile

shadowkat: (Default)
shadowkat

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated May. 25th, 2025 12:50 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios