With projects galore overwhelming my time and leaving this site lacking, I’ve decided to open up a new string of geeky lists. One of the themes of one project has been violence and if we portray violence, do we glorify it? My opinion? Simply, no.

Everyone loves a bit of action and violence. We can all be morally superior, some elitists say wrestling is disgusting for it family friendly contest (more so than boxing, which… is a can of worms in itself) but whether it’s you’re nightly entertainment on the levels of Ian Beale punching Masood or the destruction of Coronation Street to the much loved Die Hard, everyones primal side loves to see the bad guy get a punch in the mouth.

It’s simply the most primal side of justice. So, I’ve decided to look at my favourite action moments and fight scenes. And if you don’t see your favourite, don’t fret. This is only the first of several installments…

It’s a weird collection of scenes, but these… are the most memorable. And hey, I haven’t even made a dent yet! So until part two, tell me what action, fights and general violence you love most.

Quite an eclectic post title, but… I haven’t written anything for a while, I’ve been snowed under with work and now it seems I’m just plain snowed under. Even my daughters love of snow has faded now she’s knee deep in the stuff. So while I’m sitting around and thinking, researching and generally trying to make myself useful whilst in lockdown, here’s some stuff and general thoughts on what I’ve been watching lately.

True Blood. There’s a show I never thought I’d like. I was tempted at first when Channel 4 started showing ads and the positive reviews came through from the US, but with the Twilight and Vampire Diaries crap taking over the household decided to give it a miss. Until now…

When season 2 kicked off on Channel 4 we had been given a lot of good feedback from a trusted friend who runs this site – and if you’re a Michelle Forbes fan, I suggest giving it a visit. Which was tough, coming into a series in it;s second run and missing out on all the events of the first but there wasn’t too much emphasis on the past so that wasn’t much of a big deal. And the rest we could figure out for ourselves. It’s not a complex concept.

I was underwhelmed at first. The first couple of episodes were setting up the big plot, but they were plodding along at a pace that was dull and it seemed like nothing much was happening and there wasn’t much to fill in that stretched out time. But! It picked up.

It wasn’t the best of stories, nor the most complex, but it’s a show that seems to survive on characters. Thankfully, those characters are fun to watch – even if it is a little jarring to see Rogue from X Men with her chebs out. It had the right amount of fun, great little moments and some nudity. So whats not to like?

I’m not going to go on a huge analyzing rampage here, otherwise this blog would be huge and boring, but it was a fairly enjoyable show and at a time where I’m struggling to find something brilliant I can really delve into, it helped fill the gap.

Keeping the blood theme, for my wonderful other halves birthday I bought her Dexter season one. I’d shown her season 2 and she wanted more and often asked about what happened in the first season and how Harry developed Dexter, why Dexter is the way he is etc. So I thought it’d be a nice gift to get her and let her into the mind of Dexter Morgan and see for herself.

I love watching these things when I have someone watching with me who’s experiencing it for the first time, and it was great having her enjoy the season much like I did first time around. And there were a few things I forgot, like Doakes and Internal Affairs and Angel getting stabbed and the theme with his wife. Although the pilot was just not as I recalled, watching the story back was wonderful. And I’m glad Raven forgot the mention of Dexter and his brother from watching S2 because that reveal in itself was wonderful watching it through her eyes.

Other than those shows, the main feature in the house has been the soaps. Emmerdale is… well, it’s there. But Coronation Street and Eastenders are where the real gems are. Now, people question why I watch these but… these are the most talked about as well as some of the highest rated shows on British TV. They’re doing something right, and I love that about the shows. They can draw the audience in far easier, and in larger numbers, than a sophisticated, arsty masterpiece. Plus Coronation Streets good for the comedy and Eastenders often has a great theme – such as Siyed and Christian, or crackhead Phil Mitchel.

Though… I still don’t see why after all those years of being bald and hatless, Phil suddenly gets a junkie cap when he starts using.

Plus there was Die Hard with a Vengeance, which despite no one agreeing with me, is still my favourite of the lot. Possibly because of Samuel L Jackson. And last night I watched some Stargate – Window of Opportunity – and I still miss the charm that show had. Not the best of sci fi, but a certain fun quality to it.

Big Bang Theory is back on E4, so far not as good as previous seasons and the George Takei/Katee Sackhoff appearances were way too limited, and NCIS… which I still think is better than most crime drama’s due to the character building and interaction. And Pauley Perette who tends to steal scenes in her portrayal of Abby.

Aside from Raw – which has picked up in recent weeks – thats all I’ve been watching.

And so, I end the boring post here. Everything above is good, the rest of TV is crap. Aside from Wagner.

Heading back to the world of science fiction before returning with the comedy run (mainly because I made a shitload of notes and haven’t went through them yet) my Enterprise mini-rant inspired me to look towards the leaders in sci fi. The men who are often the central focus of the show, the decision makers and the men who sit in the big chair (if they get a chair) making all the tough choices.

Oh yes, the captains. Thinking of Enterprise and how Captain Archer seemed weak, uninspiring and so downplayed that he bored my super-sexy Batman pants of me, I began to think of all those characters which were truly captivating through the writing, the performance and transitioned from being mere characters on a screen, to men of legend.

It’s a tough choice. But much like Marty Michael’s Top Ten Sci Fi Heroes these choices are based on my view (as always really, my site and all that) and oddly, we have two of the same men in the list. Enough babble. Kicking off with number five…

Kicking off at number five, we have…

Most importantly, the reason he’s on a non SW fans list is that he’s portrayed by Indiana Jones himself; Harrison Ford. Unlike Mark Hamil, Ford was cool. so cool that he outshines Luke Skywalker in every way and became the icon for all the young men who wanted to be just like him.

He’s also got a big hairy man slave.

Mal Reynolds is captain of the Serenity, an old cargo ship with a crew desperate enough to work for him as they live out a life of crime, struggling to survive as they live outside the controlling government. Mal once tried to fight that government in civil war and found himself on the losing side in a battle which he’s not overly bitter about, his side lost and he’s keeping out of their way. There’s no great plan, or mission of morals with Mal. Nor is there any malice in any crime he commits. He’s just a man trying to get by.

He’s not all about robbing and shooting people either. He’s somewhat of a nice guy which showed when he defended a brothel against an angry sheriff type for little reward, helped an Alliance captain against Reavers and helped an old war buddy when he found himself in peril. When it comes to the Serenity spin off movie he shows some more kindness when he realises he can’t turn his back on troubled young River, the sister of his ships doctor which again finds him up against the Alliance once again as an Agent tracks River down for knowing too much.

It helps that he’s portrayed by Nathan Fillion, who not only has wonderful comedic timing that works incredibly well with a Joss Whedon project, but he has a wonderful presence that makes him watchable in any role.

Out of all the Next Gen era of Trek captains, Sisko had a lot more going on. From his initial struggles to calm the people of Bajor when he takes command of their only outpost after they were occupied by Cardassia, to his reluctance to accept the role as their Emmisary to the Prophets due to obvious conflicts it causes with his government, to raising Jake in an unsafe enviroment and eventually heading to war with the Dominion, Sisko seemed to have a lot on his plate in comparison to other captains who pretty much had no social life. Yet Sisko carries on, makes friends and enemies and at times, controversial decisions.

Far away from the comfortable bridge of Captain Picards Enterprise and the bizarre calm office of Captain Janeways lost Voyager, Sisko seems to grow and change through the seasons, gaining a more commending presence over his crew through the war, breaking the rules and creating situations to bring in allies and even putting his own girlfriend in prison when she aids a terrorist group.

Lets look at Picards evolution through seven years of the Next Generation; Cup o’ tea, cup o’ tea, almost got shagged, cup o’ tea.

Exactly.

When the colonies were attacked and the fleet collapsed, Adama found himself on the last known Battlestar left and with the forced advice of the new president, did a runner with the remaining civilians before leading them on a quest to find the mythical 13th tribe, colonists who left centuries past for a planet called Earth.

This role couldn’t be played by anyone but the acting powerhouse that is Edward James Olmos. Through the four years of BSG we saw Adama’s highs and lows. Not just the public figure who was a strong leader, but the man who would break down and cry when things got tough, who struggled to maintain a relationship with his only surviving son, protect his dead sons ex fiancee and struggle to do the right thing. Often making bad choices and finding himself on the verge of giving up.

Adama’s faith was tested more than most in sci fi and two of his greatest moments showed a truly loving connection to his command. One is where he free’d the doomed colonists of New Caprica which left his ship in ruins before he accepted the fate that he and his ship were ready to die. Until Lee Adama jumped in for the save…

The other came when his ship finally did pack in. All the abuse from the Cylon attacks in both wars had left the ship in tatters. When it was time to move his flag elsewhere, he snapped. Everything he’d been through piled up hit him hard and we saw the brave, commanding Admiral curled up in a ball crying his eyes out over everything he’d lost.

How many of our heroes had such emotion? And how many of them seemed stronger for it? More importantly, how many of them could pull of that ‘stache?

Through the run of Star Trek, Kirk was bold, dashing, courageous, clever and while his right hand man, Spock, gained more fan mail, Kirk got all the girls on the show. When the movies hit the big screen, we saw this character evolve. At first into a man who had given up his life of adventure for a desk job and hated it. But it wasn’t until the far superior sequel, The Warth of Khan, that we saw this older Kirk become something new when the aging Admiral found himself in a battle against an old adversary and the character was reborn.

Shatner’s legendary Kirk survived another five Star Trek films, getting killed off in Generations, and has remained an icon. Although Shatner’s become a self aware self parody, he’s still awesome.

When Star Trek was brought back to the big screen with a new cast and new direction, it was no surprise that they opted to go back to day one. While Picard, Sisko and Janeway (not so much Archer) had their fanbase, not one of them matched up to Jimmy T.

Honorable mentions go to Commander Sheridon of Babylon 5, Colonel Jack O’Neil and despite hims not really being a captain… The Doctor (hey, he has a ship!)

Disagree? Have someone better in mind? Say something.

It’s been over a month since I started the funnies thread of the geeky list thing, and it’s time I move forward with some of the classic movie funny men. For me, I looked back at those characters which have stayed with me all these years and made a lasting impression in my mind.

Some of them may not give the hardest laughs, some of them might not come from the best actors in the world, but they’ve all stuck with me for more than a few seconds of giggling. So to start of, I have to go back to 1955…

Doc Brown wouldn’t have worked if anyone else was playing the part. Sometimes it’s odd to think of Lloyd as a shy man when performances like there are wonderfully over the top. He could make one single facial expression funny, and he did many times in the movies. Despite Michael J Fox getting a lot of comedy moments, for some reason Christopher Lloyd always steals the show for me.

Anchorman is like a bad wank. You start off well, it’s really good, but when that moment comes it’s so good that you want to keep going, so you slow down, push on… and when it’s finished you realised you went on ten minutes too long and feel ashamed.

But! The comedy moments were worth it. In the movie, I don’t tell jokes while I masturbate, not after that incident in the park. Brick’s one liners are worth the movie alone, but the arrogance and stupidity brought to life by Will Ferrel’s usual tone makes you love the over the top character.

He’s an idiot, but he’s a competent one who gets the job done despite only worrying about the major problems too late in the game. Hes also a wonderful sadist who doesn’t think twice about his actions and just seems to run on instinct. The performance is so… weird as well as wonderful that Otto is the sole reason I watch this movie.

And so should you.

A graduate of Evil Medical School and hailing from the mean streets of Bruges, Dr. Evil traveled from the 60′s to the nineties as part of an evil plan to overtake the world. And then hilarity ensues. He’s the guy that doesn’t quite get things right, has to struggle with his rebellious son and is just not connected to the world at all. He’s the worst villian ever created. And it’s fun.

Murray wasn’t the initial choice for the movie, but in all honesty I don’t think it would have worked well without him. Venkman is a bit of an oddball sleaze and had the potential to fall into the goofy or cringe worthy categories, but Murray seemed to bring a charm that made Venkman a character to connect with in the land of geeks. even though Winston was the teams every man, Murray was far easier to relate to and took the lead in a way that made the movies classics.

His quirky personality covers the hints of arrogance and greed. In the first movie he’s got a few great moments, but in the second his character grows more than the others when the sleaze is put to rest somewhat with his re-taking of Ellen Ripleys heart.

Unfortunately Bill Murray seems to be taking himself too seriously to reprise the role and quite frankly, he’s too old to do the same gimmick in the never-to-happen-but-rumored-lots Ghostbusters 3. But this was Murray in his prime and without him… I doubt this would have ever got to the level of success and cult love it has.

There are hundreds of great comedy characters in movies, not all from the comedy genre either. But out of all the movies I’ve seen – which sadly, is a ridiculous high number – it’s the above characters which have the full package. Whether that be something to relate to or something that’ll make you laugh out loud. These actors and characters are irreplaceable.

But then, everyone’s got a different opinion and a different taste. So, who’s in your list?

After a recent conversation with Barry Miller at the recent Battlezone event, and seeing a post by the always wonderfully minded Obsolete Toaster on GBBS, I’ve decided to re-evaluate something I evaluated here before. The Treks. Arguably it’s one of the most successful franchise and one that’s survived several incarnations.

But, while I’m a trek fan – the new name of this site should be a clue – I can still see the bad as well as the good and with the discussion coming up more than once lately, I decided I was bored enough to take another bash at looking back on the franchise.

The 1960′s show was, obviously, the show that started it all, a colourful science fiction drama with a bold captain, a cold alien scientist and a grumpy old country doctor. I do view this through rose tinted glasses and I do forgive some flaws as it was a style of the time thing. You can’t bitch at Citizen Kane for not being in HD. But this show was built around that trio, had some good supporting characters and was very exciting and imaginative for it’s time.

As I said, it was imaginative. Sure, there wer ebudget restraints and looking back it’s cheap and cheesy. But even with those labels it’s still appealing, it’s still good. The science and the look might be dated but the shows speak volumes. A lot of people like to remember it for having strong messages, sometimes it did, but for me the key was giving a bright and hopeful idea of the future wrapped up as an adventure story with all the drama and silliness thrown in.

Sometimes the siliness worked, Tribbles are still good fun and worked a charm in DS9′s re-visiting the episode in an anniversary special. But sometimes there was Spocks Brain. And that wasn’t so good.

The discussion with Barry was interesting. He’s no big Star Trek fan, but he liked Voyager as he said ‘it had a purpose’. We both talked about that problem with TNG – there is no point. Exploring strange new worlds? No they don’t, they go around, have a chat with world’s they’ve known for years and drink tea. Deep Space Nine (my favourite of the lot) to him was a bunch of people sitting around. I get that too, partly.

Voyager had a twist, it had purpose. But as has been mentioned, they didn’t follow through with that purpose. They mentioned their dilemma for several years, tossed in the word ‘rations’ and we even saw them do deals to buy supplies and weapons we never saw again. Supposedly they had little supplies, yet rebuilding the two or three shuttles they had was fine and when they needed to, they built the Delta Flyer. Where did those resources come from?

The Borg… they seemed boring and I got fed up of them. The obvious casting of Jeri ‘doesn’t she look hot in this tight lycra’ Ryan and her taking on the role of not evolving and being very cliche was just dull. It felt as if it became all about her at times and with each Borg appearance, they seemed to become less of a threat.

Add to that Janeway… one week she’d be a by the book captain enforcing the law, the next she’d be changing her mind and being a rebel. Why not just stick with the Starfleet/Maquis command split and have Chakotay push the rebellious, out of the box actions and have Janeway try to stick by the book. That conflict alone adds more story conflict, shows both sides being strong and weak depending on the story, it shows vulnrability and all sorts of new doors could have been opened that, throughout the show, were closed leaving Chakotay being left as a calm, boring and unseen character who could have been so much more, and Janeway comes off as somewhat of a mental.

Then there was Enterprise… there were many factors against it.

Timing. Star Trek had been running solidly on TV in one shape or another since 1987, for seven years there were two on at the same time. The TNG movies, bar one, weren’t doing that well. The product was becoming stale and uninteresting and instead of giving it time, putting it on the shelf for a while and letting it rest – Star trek came back! Again. There just wasn’t enough time to let the audience rest and build interest in the name again.

Casting. I’m sure many people love the memories of Quantum Leap and Scott Bakula has been moderately good in a few TV movies I’ve seen. His interpenetration of Archer ws so bland and so dull, I felt like he may as well have skipped learning the lines and just read from the script on camera. It felt as if there was nothing in that performance, no interest, no passion – just say the words and go to the bank at the end of the week.

Characters. The blatant attempt to revive the TOS trio was awful. Other characters which could have had interesting personas were put aside and there were attempts to spice them up that didn’t make sense.

Writing. It was awful. Sure, there are some episodes I enjoy just like there are some with Voyager. Some are better in retrospect, others are better with lowered expectations. Re-watching the Xindi arc, that was better than remembered (still not great) and just like Voyager it felt like all the challenges made in the plot were swept aside.

When Barry said to me DS9 was just people sitting around, although I could see that (they rarely do any actual work) it was a character driven show, with involvement, that had a story line that wasn’t interesting – so they changed it and brought on the war which was interesting. But it stemmed from that initial plot.

Like anything, there were flaws – but seeing interesting characters, a good cast, good stories and arcs that seem gripping despite knowing the Federation would never lose the war… it just seemed to have the flow, story logic, development and characters that Enterprise and Voyager were scared to do.

I see DS9 as having a new beginning in it’s fourth season with the third building to it. The Bajoran stuff was good, but it wasn’t interesting enough to carry a show and there are only so many times you can write about aliens coming through the wormhole – part of Voyagers problem was ‘how many variations of bumpy forehead can we do?’ – so they rebooted and focused on one mighty civilization, the threat they posed and how that changed everything. With Voyager far away, DS9 had control of the Federation and how it would evolve.

Maybe it will be the show with people sitting around or not doing their actual jobs, I watched one the other day where Dax seemed to be pissed at having to do some actual work, and maybe Voyager and Enterprise had a plot closer to the original one that got everyone interested.

But both for me were a whole heap of undiscovered potential. Voyager in particular was trumped by the BSG re-imagining where, despite having more resources than Voyager, did run into problems. Hell, the entire fleet ate recycled goop because there was nothing else to eat and everyone felt the effects of losing their home and being trapped in their jobs.

With such let downs, is it any surprise the new movie went back to Star Treks roots?

Or have I just put undue pressure on a concept and hoped for more?

There was a comment somewhere about old movies and how Godfather didn’t count as old as it was made in 1974. I didn’t realise it was that old, and when I opened my Google Reader today, I realised time had passed by more quickly than I thought.

While I was busy dealing with some stuff at Battlezone and having an intellectual debate with Eric Canyon, one of my favourite artists in the world of sci fi, John Eaves, was posting this. For those too lazy to click, Back to the Future… it turned twenty five on Saturday.

I remember watching this film when I was a kid and loved every moment of it. It’s weird to think it’s almost as old as I am. For those who are ridiculous enough to have missed out, Back to the Future is the story of Marty McFly traveling back in time by accident after hijacking his mentor’s new invention after some Libyans get all shooty. He ends up in the 50′s, causes some havoc in the space time continuum by bumping into his parents, stopping the event that makes them fall in love.

With help from the 1950′s version of his mentor, Doc Brown, Marty struggles to repair the time line, the time machine and history as he knows it to avoid his family getting deleted from time.

The film had it’s struggles with Zemeckis having two big flops under his belt, the miscasting of Eric Stoltz being rectified by recasting him with their first choice, Michael J Fox and studios not wanting to touch it due to the fact that Marty finds himself in a situation where his teenager mother in the 50′s find him pumpable. But still, it became one of the most iconic and most loved movies of all time and was the biggest money maker in it’s release in 1985.

Casting Fox while he was still in Family Ties was a tough move for the young actor. He’d film for the TV show during the day then work on the movie at night and weekends, probably feeling like a Zombie with the lack of sleep but still pulling off an amazing performance. He wasn’t the only one working around the clock as the film was edited and rushed with crew working 24/7 to make it’s deadline.

Initially the film was going to be based around Marty being a video pirate, the time machine being a fridge and the climax of the movie being set in Nevada but budget concerns and some bizarre safety concerns helped put together some of the best elements of the film. Mainly placing it in a small town and making it revolve around the personal experiences of the cast of characters, which led to a set piece of the town square being built in 1950′s style before being trashed for the run down 80′s scenes.

…but the most iconic change was to switch the refrigerator into something a little more mobile.

Partly due to a joke in the revised script about a farmer mistaking the mode of transport for a flying saucer and partly with the logic that if you had a time machine, you’d want to be able to move around in it, the fridge was ditched in place of a Delorean. The bizarre gull winged extinct car which is somewhat of a collectors item these days, and the work on creating one of these lovely machines was so exact to the actual car that the builders were offered jobs working on future Delorean models.

Anyway, enough of factoids. The movie was considered too light by most studios, not good enough, too risque with the Marty-Lorraine angle and one of the producers was a head case who wanted the movie named Spaceman from Pluto. But now it’s still considered a most-own classic and has been one of the best and most loved movie of the past few decades.

The film was unleashed into cinemas on July 3rd 1985 and it’s success brought on two sequels with Part 2 featuring Marty and the Doc fixing the future, fixing the past and finding themselves in an alternate dimension while Part 3 saw Marty hunting down the Doc after he gets lost in time. Did I mention it had a cartoon too?

It’s astonishing that this twenty-five year old film still hold sup to this day and even the 80′s style doesn’t overshadow as it does in other movies of the time. I seriously don’t doubt this movie will be around for another twenty five years.

You know what I hate? Midgets. But almost as much as those creepy little stalking bastards, I hate TV executives that cancel something because all they want is the next best thing and if the ratings aren’t spanktastic to start with they lose interest. Nothing gets a chance any more and it’s irritating to watch Big Brother continue to thrive beyond it’s due time when Firefly couldn’t even get it’s last episodes aired.

It’s a horrible sign of humanity when something that good gets punted for some idiot, probably called Wayne or Velatorious the Grand Wizard of Cockmunchery, sitting in the Big Brother house acting like a wank while the nation wonders if he can get whatever idiot bimbo type is in there to get her tits out so the men in the audience can have a quick fiddle over three seconds of blurry footage.

So I choose to ignore the waves of absolute shite and look back at shows that never should have been canceled, shows that were written with thoughts and ideas with potential to entertain, enlighten, tell a story and most importantly – not fill out screen with thirteen wankers with the only redeeming quality being that they’re puny human flesh can’t stop bullets.

This makes my list as it used to be part of my Saturday morning routine. Doctor Who, Earth 2, WWF (not the E). It was also intriguing at the time to see a group of flawed characters including thieves, liars, murderers and the guy from Shawshank Redemption and watch the mystery of previously doomed colonists unfold.

Unfortunately it all ended with a cliffhanger. A cliffhanger that was never resolved. Fuckers.

This wasn’t the best animated show, but it was one with a lot of heart and geeky humour. Better than what the Simpsons had become, maybe not as laugh out loud as the inconsistent Family Guy, but it was too good to be given the shaft. But fuck it, it’s coming back. So yay.

It was one of the most fun and different shows out there and had a lot of potential to go further. The movie Serenity, made after cancellation, proved it had potential to go somewhere pretty damn good. Especially with Nathan Fillion, Adam Baldwin, Summer Glau and Allan Tudyk on board.

Alas, Fox disagreed and Whedon seemed to be getting canceled on every show he was working on so.. the chop was foolishly made when ratings bombed after some idiotic scheduling and promotion.

I’ve mentioned this in a recent blog so I don’t want to retread it all again, but it pisses me off that this shows been damned to the irritating modern TV practice of going on a break to fix it if it doesn’t draw as well as you hoped. Putting a show up against established programming with strong fanbases and refusing to give anything a chance doesn’t help – but just like anything in modern society, the networks have no patience anymore.

If one of my favourite TV shows, Deep Space Nine, was aired today it’d go on a break by the sixth episode, come back with some explosions, lose it’s audience and be canceled by episode 18.

As it happened, DS9 was given room to breath and after two shaky seasons and finding their feet in the third, had an outstanding run from their fourth season onwards. Today… that’d never happen.

Arrested Development was the BSG of the comedy world. It was raved about, it was loved, critics – the people who just moan about shit – couldn’t say enough good things. It won awards, it was placed on a pedistal, it was the best thing since we discovered the penis could go in the vagina and make happy time. Yet Fox didn’t like the ratings and it was shitcanned.

Arrested Development was great. It had a good strong cast and always, always, delivered. Yet because it wasn’t on the Friends level of ratings it was given the Firefly treatment. Well, slightly better than Firefly. At least Fox had the courtesy to actually show the finale of Arrested Development.

What upsets me about this list is that these are five shows with the potential to go on to become something brilliant. And these are only five of dozens of good shows that died too soon for one reason or another outwith quality.

And yet… Hollyoaks is still on TV. Seriously, which rabid monkey is Phil Redmond fucking to keep that shit alive?

I don’t mind the odd remake. While some are awful and rape your eyes, you get others like the BSG remake which was great and brought something different to the table and movies like Clash of the Titans look better when you have better technology to work with.

But some are just bad. Even the concepts are bad. So bad it makes me wonder who is in charge of such an idiotic decision and why they can’t see why it’s a bad idea from the start. The latest I’ve heard of is Shameless USA and aside from just being Roseanne with drugs, it’s a stupid idea all together.

Sometimes when a US team remake a British format, it can be good. The American version of the Office was pretty good. I preferred the British style and mentality, but the American version was just as good as the British. But for every success there are a dozen stupid failures.

One of he UK’s most popular sitcoms, One Foot in the Grave, was funny, had great casting and was essentially about an irritable old man finding himself in irritable situations. One of the best of the lot being an episode set in a doctors waiting room. That was it. One room, one long moment and a great episode.

Then the Americans got their filthy hands on it and made Cosby, or whatever it was called. Which starred, to no surprise, Bill Cosby in his latest vehicle ad that guy from Cool Runnings. The irritable old man turned soft, the stations became more feel good laughing with the stars rather than at them and we ended up with a light, boring TV show that was canned.

The less said about Life on Mars and the attempted Spaced remakes the better.

Sometimes something is too British to be made from the point of view of another culture. Thats true of any culture, we can’t immitate the American style very well and out of all the Oldboy reakes – including one from Bollywood and a planned Hollywood remake – no ones going to make that film as perfectly fraked up as the Koreans. That’s just how it is. Korean cinema has a certain quality others cant capture, Americans are the same and with us… it’s mostly the humour. It can’t be replicated.

So the Shameless rumour has pissed me right off.

Shameless, if you don’t know, is based on benefit fraud, drugs and lazy people with no jobs doing pretty much nothing but living out their own fucked up lives. It all revolves around the job shy alcoholic neglectful father and general failure in life Frank who occasionally see’s a more philosophical view in his drunkenness, but is generally lazy and cowardly.

We have his neighbours who are thugs leading a life of crime, a brothel, a pub that hands out ecstasy and others who all have a very British underclass feel to them. It’s all based on the British perception of the benefit stereotype and scarily, these types exist.

To do an effective American remake, you’d have to cancel out everything about the show and find the qualities within the American underclass lifestyle which would end up being a mix of Trailer Park Boys, Roseanne and probably a few other shows that have fallen under the radar.

Just like The Italian Job remake, there’d be very little point in calling it Shameless as the plot would be so radically different you’d be better off saving your money and listing it as an inspiration, rather than buying the concept.

Whats the point?

I’ve noticed a lot of debate on reality versus fantasy recently and with SyFy promoting Caprica as more accessible by hiding the fact it’s a science fiction show, it prompted me to ask a question when Majik made a comment to the Galaxy Quest post.

With the theme of the Geeky List thing here, it’s no great secret that these days I’m all about the drama aspect of science fiction. Watching Ben Sisko struggle with a controversial decision, Adama giving Tigh chance after chance despite his mistakes and addiction, Sam Tyler (good name) trying to understand if he’s time travelling or going insane… or even a more mainstream idea of Marty McFly going back in time and trying to make sure his parents kiss on that dance floor…

But what about the science element of science fiction? Lost was officially bundled into the science fiction category once the survivors began to shift throughout time. When Desmond shifted there was a ‘sort of’ explanation. When they began jumping through time at random intervals, there was no explanation whatsoever. Is just having a time travel element enough? Or should there be a more logical explanation to it for it to be properly science fiction?

The thing that turns me off Science Fiction is the fiction element. I’m one of the seeming minority that just can’t watch Dr Who without wanting to chew the power cable of the TV in the hope that silence and death arrive at the same time to save me from evil Wheelie bins, Daleks that weigh just over 30 lbs and a screwdriver that seems to have inherited the “Superman effect”. Give me something based on science boundaries being pushed, and I’m fascinated – the moment reality is a dot on the horizon, I’m lost…
-Majik

And I see where he’s coming from entirely. Me, I’m more interested in the dramatic opportunities. Voyager had a character that was a hologram. There was a technical explanation and often technical episodes where there was a problem to be fixed which would give a more in depth look at how this sophisticated piece of science theory would come together… but the key t the episodes would be heavily based on ‘how does this effect the character’? Which is a valid point thats been around in sci fi for ages.

Is the machine alive? Can a machine have consciousness? The Next Generation really hit home on this with Measure of a Man – an episode which questioned the very being of a machine – but has there been too much focus on the emotional elements and not enough on the hard science?

The science was in part what dragged me into Trek in the first place. The technomagic was often unobtainable bullshit but it was all based on actual theory that people were either working on, or have worked on since. I’m still amazed they’ve came up with Geordies Visor and the Tricorder – even though both are extremely low tech in comparison.

Unfortunately they went too far by the time of Voyager and it was swaying to the side of bullshit more than theory and ‘Borg Nanoprobes’ became the same magic wand the sonic screwdriver had when RTD was writing Who. That made me appreciate the Who-isms more, I suddenly loved the anti-technobabble that some shows had user as overkill and dealing with transdimensional residue by calling it ’stuff’ and the ‘timey wimey detector, goes ding when there’s stuff’ type lines just began to amuse me.

When I’m writing it I have my own limited knowledge and reference books from some brilliant authors and scientists, one of whom does Trek science books which is brilliant for my time killing hobby, but I always try and put that in a realistic setting. In Next Gen, LeVar Burton tried to make the technobabble realistic by saying it as fast as he possibly could, as if he was speeding through the thoughts in his mind instead of making the words sound complex and awe inspiring. I like to remind myself of an engineer I know… he doesn’t spout off technobabble or lose you in thought, he knows what he’s doing… and thats all that matters to him.

I think theres room for both hard science and magical fantasy in sci fi – but more recently I’ve been interested in story and character more than challenging concepts. They’re good for the odd film or episode – Se7en was a good film, for example, but not every production could be like that and the less there are, the more special the film is – but overkill on something that’ll make you think is not enough to keep the audience emotionally interested, which is the main key to the current generation of TV – which is somewhat a sad thing to say.

Life on Mars is a good example. There was a sci fi element, but it wasn’t obvious… the story was more about the man and his struggle with the changes around him. BSG was less about the science and more about the personal struggles and overall story of being the last of humanity on the run. So I think I’m leaning towards the SF Drama more than anything these days…

But again, what about the science? Is it important to a story how the Doctor manages to regenerate? Or how the warp drive works? Does it really matter to the plot? Not often.

But how much bullshit can you spout before science fiction becomes science fantasy? Is the concept of time travel or the setting of a space ship enough to carry the science element, or is it important for the writers to know, or at least convey some sense of knowledge of how these things work and make us open our mind and question it – as Star Trek has done to many kids who are now scientists – or wave a magic screwdriver and just say ‘it works because it does’.

Arthur C Clarke said you can’t write science fiction without knowing anything about science. More recently shows have focused on personal elements and our own lead sci fi, Doctor Who, often see’s it’s science as magic that will be dull if delved into.

I know there’s a lot of you out there who are sci fi fans, have wonderful minds better than my own when it comes to how things work (like Maj) and those of you who just love to be entertained. And I’m in the middle of fantasy versus reality, so…

Who’s right? Who’s wrong? Does it even matter anymore? What do you think?

I haven’t done a retro-review type thing in a while and so I’m going to focus on a film that’s probably one of the best Star Trek movies made, this one features Tim Allen in the captains chair as he finds himself in the middle of an intergalactic incident. Yes, Tim Allen. No, not really Star Trek.

The film is based around a group of actors from a dead TV Show. Much like the real stars of sci fi television they’re doing the convention circuits and just like the Shatners and Hamils couldn’t escape their cult fame, neither can this fictional cast who are ever to be known as the guys in funny suits on that space ship from that TV show people used to watch and now laugh at.

Problem is, not everyone knows their stories are works of fiction and some nearby aliens in distress have come to Earth to search for the crew believing that their TV show was reality. So they head to a convention to take the captain to a replica of his ship they’ve built for him so that he’ll speak to their enemies and end a brutal war on them.

With only a superfan to help guide them from the ground, the actors muddle through their mission and try to save the day – this time for real.

The casting for this was brilliant. Despite me not being a fan of his comedic endeavers most of the time, Allen nailed this role taking the piss out of William Shatner, who mentioned years later on Raw Nerve that he loved the parody. And he’s he full parody. The character he plays, Captain Taggart, is a womaniser who’s shirt will fall off with the slghtest scrape and he immerses himself in his fans who see him as a joke of his former self.

Alien star Sigourney Weaver joined the fun as the fictional shows Uhural but for me the standout performance is Alan Rickman’s portrayal of Sir Alexander Dane/Dr. Lazerus, the Spock of the show. A classically trained actor who resents his television role and how it’s typecast him since the show was cancelled.

Like most other Rickman role’s he’s just absolutely wonderful at the comedic and witty bitterness and steals any scene he’s in. But considering the Shatner-Nimoy rivalry, I’m not entirely sure that’s an accident.

The film was one of the best parodies I’ve ever seen. Not only that, it was just plain fun. But let’s look at the opinions of the objects of the affectionate humour…

I had originally not wanted to see Galaxy Quest because I heard that it was making fun of Star Trek and then Jonathan Frakes rang me up and said “You must not miss this movie! See it on a Saturday night in a full theatre”. And I did and of course I found it was brilliant. Brilliant. No one laughed louder or longer in the cinema than I did, but the idea that the ship was saved and all of our heroes in that movie were saved simply by the fact that there were fans who did understand the scientific principles on which the ship worked was absolutely wonderful. And it was both funny and also touching in that it paid tribute to the dedication of these fans
-Patrick Stewart

I think it’s a chillingly realistic documentary ! The details in it, I recognized every one of them. It is a powerful piece of documentary filmmaking. And I do believe that when we get kidnapped by aliens, it’s going to be the genuine, true Star Trek fans who will save the day. … I was rolling in the aisles. And Tim Allen had that Shatner-esque swagger down pat. And I roared when the shirt came off, and Sigourney rolls her eyes and says, ‘There goes that shirt again.’ … How often did we hear that on the set?
-George Takei

If you’re a fan of Star Trek – or sci fi in general – whether you’re a convention goer or a casual watcher, or are even caught up in the nostalgic novelty of old productions, you’ll get the inside gags. If not, you’ll be entertained by it all anyway.

So go watch it…

…or I’ll send Worf out to eat you.