In the 90's, I loved watching Quantum Leap. In one 60 minute episode, Dr Samuel Beckett (assisted by his hologram companion Al) would leap about in time, inhabiting someone else's body, to put right what once went wrong.
Sometimes, it could be as trivial as helping Buddy Holly with the lyrics to 'Peggy Sue' but other episodes would touch on hard-hitting subjects such as rape, racism and attitudes to disability. The endings weren't always 'happy' but everything would be resolved in that episode. There would always be an ending.
There was one episode where Sam encounters an 'Evil Leaper', a woman who was also jumping about through time but making everything wrong. There were three episodes in total with the Evil Leapers admittedly but all loose-ends tied up in the end and these sort of arcs were rare in the shows run.
It is my belief, that if Quantum Leap were made today that would be the whole series. An evil organisation is messing around with history and Sam has to track them down and keep history in its right place.
Sam meets an Evil Leaper
That isn't to say that series would necessarily be bad but it would be a marked contrast from the original. With few exceptions, you could watch any episode of Quantum Leap without having to worry about missing previous episodes. The trend in modern television however is everything show has an over-arching season narrative and multiple characters all with their own sub-plots. You can't miss an episode because you will almost certainly have missed something important. You can jump into any episode of the original Star Trek, you can't do the same for Star Trek: Discovery.
There is no room apparently for episodic dramas in modern TV, where everything needs to be connected to a greater story. That doesn't mean those kind of shows are bad, Breaking Bad, The Sopranos, Game of Thrones (for the most part) are all excellent programmes. Isn't there something nice however about being able to sit back and watch something without having to remember all the different plot lines and character arcs? Some programmes this can be particularly difficult when it becomes clear the writers weren't really expecting to get past season 1 and don't have a clear end goal in sight (otherwise known as 'Lost syndrome').
Star Trek: Discovery - not instantly accessible
It is possible to combine the two however as successfully demonstrated by Russell T. Davies while he was Doctor Who show runner. Each episode was it's own story but with subtle hints of a greater threat running through the series. In the first season, no particular attention was given to words 'Bad Wolf' that followed The Doctor and Rose on their travels but turned out to be of vital importance. Episodic drama and under-lying season plot combined perfectly.
Comedies remain largely unaffected as enduring popularity of Friends and US version of The Office amongst others on Netflix demonstrates (https://www.vox.com/2018/12/21/18139817/netflix-most-popular-shows-friends-office-greys-anatomy-parks-recreation-streaming-tv). For drama series however, it's not so rosy.
There are still some holdouts, NCIS, CSI, Law and Order (in their various guises) are still going strong but this type of episodic, self-contained, easily accessible storytelling is becoming increasingly rare.
Like most of the world, I'm a big fan of Game of Thrones. So I tuned in to watch the most recent episode with the much hyped 'Battle of Winterfell'.
There was questionable military tactics on display, character deaths, spectacular set pieces (though sometimes hard to see) but ultimately, I found it disappointing. And that is because of the death of the Night King.
So in case you have been living under a rock, the Night King was killed by Arya Stark. It was a spectacular moment: Arya leaping from nowhere, caught by the NK but one cool trick with her knife and thrust to the chest later the Night King, the Big Evil of the show, is down with his armies decimated. Westeros is saved! A cool moment but once the euphoria has died down, the thought that comes is 'Wait, what?'
I like the Arya character, I have enjoyed the journey she's been on (for the most part, the less said about the House of Black and White the better) but should she have been the one to kill the Night King? I don't think so.
Before the episode, everything pointed to Jon Snow being the one to take down the Night King. Jon Snow's whole story line throughout all the seasons had been about the White Walkers. He spent the best part of seven seasons trying to convince the rest of the world the White Walkers existed; broke the rules of his ancient order to bring Wildlings south of the wall to save them from the Long Night; had two confrontations with the Night King himself and literally came back from the dead to fight them. But show runners David Benioff and D.B Weiss decided they weren't going to pay any of that off because it was 'too obvious'.
Here is the problem: the Night King is not a nobody in the Game of Thrones world. He is the Big Evil (episode order is also an issue with this last season but that's for another time), who gets to kill him matters. Once you have decided you are going to deny fans the showdown they have all been waiting for, you need to have very good narrative justification for the character you give that kill to. This is where Arya is sorely lacking.
Arya has been on a tough journey no doubt and she has the scars to prove it. None of it however, involved the White Walkers or the Night King. She has no history with them. Right up until the Battle of Winterfell, she had never seen a member of the Army of the Dead. She had never lost anything because of them. The narrative case for Arya to be the one to to take down the Night King is no stronger than any other character and in some cases weaker. Gilly, not even a B player in the show, has a stronger narrative case than Arya having seen her sisters children be sacrificed to the Night King.
In the real world, the reason its Arya is because actress Maisie Williams is the shows break out star (though if Dark Phoenix does well, maybe Sophie Turner could eclipse her?) but also because writers Benioff and Weiss put 'shocking the audience' above good story telling. On You Tube now, there are loads of videos trying to explain why Arya was the right person to kill the Night King. The irony being that the very existence of these videos proves the opposite and that the writers didn't do a good enough job in justifying it. Nobody will ever need to make a video explaining why it was Luke and not Leia that blew up the Death Star because the narrative can stand up for itself.
A twist ending can work but it needs to be both logical and narratively justified. Arya has the skills but not the justification. Game of Thrones isn't the only show guilty of nonsensical twists but none are so high profile as most recent one. It feels as if writers are conditioned to think everything needs to have a twist now when there is nothing shameful in following the expected path every now and then. If it had been Jon Snow to kill the Night King, nobody would have complained too hard about it.
'Subverting the audiences expectations' is a fine thing to do from time to time. But not every time. It's not always clever, sometimes its just dumb.
(off topic but how much like an old man does Maisie Williams look like in that picture?)
The great thing about the IMDB Bottom 100 is that it is constantly in
flux. I went through the Bottom 100 a few years ago but the list has changed
dramatically since then.
I thought maybe I should watch some other films that have now entered
the Bottom 100. Then I saw it, sitting at number 63 (as of 07/02/2019), Superman IV. It was providence. Why?
Because Superman IV: The Quest for Peace was
the first film I ever saw at the cinema.
Superman, we all know about him, don’t we? The original superhero. The
last son of Krypton who has been around for over 80 years. His popularity has
gone through peaks and troughs but he is undeniably an enduring figure.
In 1978, he got his own movie starring Christopher Reeves (this was not
the first feature-length Superman movie however, that honour goes to 1951’s Superman and the Mole Men) in the
titular role. Dodgy flying scene with Lois Lane aside, the film was a massive
success. That was followed up by the superior sequel Superman II with the awesome General Zod.
That’s when it started to go wrong for the franchise. Superman III was distinctly
underwhelming despite Richard Pryors best efforts and lacked a good villain.
Christopher Reeves was said to be getting tired of putting his
underwear on the outside (he turned down a cameo in the Supergirl movie) and producers Alexander and Ilya Salkind had had
their fill of Superman. Enter Cannon Films to buy the rights.
Cannon have a reputation for making lots and lots of very bad films for
not very much money and mostly stuff nobody has ever heard of. Though in their
defence they did also make Highlander,
Masters of the Universe and Bloodsport
(not much of a defence I admit).
They did manage to keep the old crew together: Reeves (who has a
writing credit), Gene Hackman back as Lex Luthor, Margot Kidder (Lois Lane),
even Jimmy Olsen and Perry White were back (only in small roles though). Sidney
Furie was in the Director’s chair, his most notable previous work being The Ipcress File. What could go wrong?
Right from the opening credits, you can see it is already going wrong.
The graphics are cheap, really cheap. If this was a student film project, it
might be acceptable but not for a supposedly major picture production.
Our pre-amble has Clark Kent (and if you don’t know who he really is,
God help you) is selling his old family farm but will only sell to a real
farmer. That’s not important though as its never mentioned again and it’s just
an excuse for Clark to pick up a macguffin that becomes important later on.
Back in Metropolis, Lois gets on a subway train causing the driver to
have a sudden bout of death. Superman saves the day. Oh, and the driver has a
miraculous recovery.
This gets us to the Daily Planet office which has come under the
control of new owner Mr Warfield (Sam Wanamaker). I can’t say for sure if he’s
based on anyone in particular but his vision for the Planet is to make it more
tabloid, sensationalist and titillating. This is all too much for editor Perry
White who resigns. Mr Warfield describes Lois as a ‘useless’ writer. Much has
been said of the Lois Lane character over the years but in Universe at least,
she is a Pulitzer Prize winner. Why would you want one of those on your staff?
He also brings his daughter Lacey on board who is a new love interest but
for Clark and not Superman. You can get why women would fall instantly for
Superman but not so much for bumbling, clutz Clark Kent. Which is a testament
to how well Christopher Reeves plays the character (how could someone like that
be Superman?) but a detriment to the film as a whole as its hard to see what
the instant attraction is for Lacey.
The main plot than wades into proceedings. There has been a world peace
conference on nuclear arms and it went badly. So badly in fact that the major
powers are increasing production. A small boy who has been watching the news in
class (like always happens in schools) writes a letter to Superman asking him
to get rid of the world’s nuclear weapons. This creates a crisis of conscience
for the Man of Steel as he has been forbidden by the Old Kryptonians to
interfere in Earth’s politics. This is a bit like the Prime Directive in Star
Trek (the Federation isn’t supposed to interact with less advanced races) and
is only ever brought up so it can immediately be broken. Supes takes all the
worlds nuclear weapons and hurls them into the Sun. Because who’s going to stop
him?
In the real world, there would be questions about Superman’s unilateral
decision to rid the world of all nuclear weapons. If you are Israel for
example, arguably the only reason you haven’t been overran by your enemies on
all sides is your nuclear deterrent.
But Wait! Superman has been duped. Lex Luthor, the Greatest Criminal
Mind of our Age, Ruler of Australia has escaped prison with help from his
none-too-bright nephew Lenny (Jon Cryer). He has stolen a strand of Superman’s
hair and put it on one of the nuclear missiles. This is all so he can make a
clone of Superman, born from the Sun. Enter Nuclear Man. Though as a clone he
doesn’t make a lot of sense: he doesn’t look like Superman and has Gene Hackman’s
voice. Actor Mark Pillow must have been really bad. From what I can tell, his
only other acting work was in a German TV series shortly after this and has
never done anything else since.
It's not long before Supes and Nuclear Man go at it, in a battle that
goes all over the world. They destroy and rebuild the Great Wall of China; some
top notch model work for an erupting volcano the Doctor Who special effects team in the 70’s would have been proud
of and moving the Statue of Liberty (but putting it back again). Nuclear Man
beats Superman by giving him a scratch. For realises. I think he’s supposed to
have radiation poisoning. I’m not sure radiation would actually have an effect
on Superman but lets go with it.
Clark lays low for a couple weeks to recuperate with the Macguffin he
got at the start. Lois turns up to give him Superman’s cape which I believe is
supposed to imply she knows Clark’s real identity.
The second battle between Nuclear Man and Superman happens after
Nuclear Man sees a picture of Lacey Warfield and becomes instantly obsessed
with her. Superman cuts him off outside the Planet building and tells us he’ll
never have her, which he couldn’t possibly know because he hadn’t said anything
about her and the only reason the audience knows is because we saw him looking
at a picture of her.
This fight is special as they fight on the moon, an obvious dummy of
Superman is bashed into the surface. Lacey is brought into space as apparently
air isn’t something humans need. Superman moves the moon’s orbit (which I’m
sure would do some ecological damage) and defeats Nuclear Man by dumping him
inside a nuclear reactor, which I’m certain wouldn’t work. He was born in the
Sun, already a giant ball of atomic energy.
Perry White buys back the Planet and Superman gives a Cold War speech
(think Rocky IV).
The good: Christopher Reeves. He had the perfect balance as goofy Clark
Kent and serious Superman. Even in a mediocre film such as this that shines
through. And Gene Hackman. His Lex Luthor was always too goofy to take
seriously but even so, his interactions with Reeves are always a highlight. And
John Williams score is still there.
The bad: everything else. Silly story, silly supporting characters. A
shall we say, liberal approach to science and the way the world works. Bad
special effects. And I’ve never particularly liked Margot Kidder’s Lois Lane.
A poor film but as my first cinematic experience, Superman IV will always have a special place in my heart.
Big Sexy. Big Daddy Cool Diesel. Oz. Call him what you will but there is no denying Kevin Nash has been one of the biggest and most influential names in professional wrestling over the last 20 years.
Some people love his straight-forward honesty (he was in it for the money and makes no attempt to hide it). He has no qualms about using the 'f' word to describe the wrestling business. Others loathe him for his selfish attitude and cite him as one of the key factors in the demise of WCW.
A controversial figure then. His quads also tear easily.
That's by the by for this blog though as we will be delving into his not particularly glittering film career.
The first point of call is the one most people know about: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: Secret of the Ooze. After the turtles give Shredder a kicking to the sounds of Vanilla Ice, they end up under a dock where Shredder takes the ooze to become 'Super Shredder'. This is where Nash steps in as Shredder gains a foot in height (Nash is a legitimate 6'10"). He bashes some supports until the dock collapses on him. And that's it.
That was in 1991. You have to wait until 2004 to find his next significant film role. He had played a couple background roles in between but nothing of any real note. He had also been smart enough not to get involved in WCW's Ready to Rumble debacle.
He came back in Marvel's The Punisher movie as The Russian. Marvel hadn't quite worked out their movie format yet but this was ok. The Russian is just a big brute who dresses as a 1930's sailor, turns up to kill The Punisher, fails and is killed falling down stairs.
2005 though and Nash is back in the Adam Sandler remake of The Longest Yard (which also featured fellow wrestlers Bill Goldberg, 'Stone Cold' Steve Austin and The Great Khali). It's a chance for Big Sexy to bust his comedy chops. He plays a prison guard who has his steroids replaced with oestrogen pills before the big game. He becomes a lot more effeminate as a result (make of that what you will). To be fair to Nash, he is one of the funnier performers in the movie. On the other hand, this is an Adam Sandler movie so the competition isn't fierce.
Video game movies, they are always good aren't they? Kevin Nash took one on in 2006 when he starred in the adaptation of fighting game, Dead or Alive. His character is an interesting one as Bass Armstrong is clearly based on Nash's friend Hulk Hogan. More specifically, 'Hollywood' Hulk Hogan from the NWO-era of which Nash was a founding member. I guess the real Hogan was unavailable. The Dead or Alive games were chiefly known for their shapely female characters (yes, they were. Don't even try to deny it. Dead or Alive: Beach Volleyball, anyone?) and the film is no different. Nash's role is to get his ass kicked by on-screen daughter Tina, played by Jaime Pressly. It's not a good film, though he takes his beating well.
For the next few years, Nash done some independent movies. Most notably, River of Darkness (oh, we will get to that one day). Couple of background roles. He's done some TV work, appearing in episodes of Sabrina, the Teenage Witch and The Love Boat amongst other things. And nothing else.
What's that? Ok, fine. Kevin Nash is also in both Magic Mike movies. So, if you have a desire to see Nash as a male stripper, there you go. It's quite funny actually because he has no dancing ability...not that I've seen them of course. Oh look, he's done another of his shoot interview things...
Part One: http://badmoviehq.blogspot.com/2018/06/fifa-world-cup-intro-wars-bbc-vs-itv.html
Part Two: http://badmoviehq.blogspot.com/2018/06/fifa-world-cup-intro-wars-bbc-vs-itv_3.html
The final part of the ongoing battle between World Cup rivals BBC and ITV.
Germany 2006
ITV:
BBC:
Looking at the two, the title sequence for ITV is possibly better than BBC's but it really lets itself down with its music choice, a cover of David Bowie's 'Heroes' by Kasabian. The BBC had returned to its artsy roots with shots of German landmarks, ethereal players and Handel's 'See, the Conqueroring Hero Comes!'. No offence to Kasabian but the intro package should really show something to give a flavour of the host nation. As former ITV commentator Andy Townsend would say, 'Not for me, Clive.'
Winner: BBC
Overall: BBC 4-3 ITV
South Africa 2010
ITV:
BBC:
South Africa 2010 and not a vuvuzela in sight. Bliss. This was a damn tough one to call as both organisations 'got it.' This World Cup was more than just South Africa, this World Cup was for all of Africa. After rewatching both several times, I'm going to go with ITV as Vusi Mahlasela's 'When You Come Back' is just a bit more memorable than 'Rainbow Nation' on the BBC. Sing, sing Africa indeed.
Winner: ITV
Overall: BBC 4-4 ITV
Brazil 2014
ITV:
BBC:
Forwarding on four years and the World Cup is back in South America for the first time since 1978 and once more both sides got what the World Cup was about. ITV's effort appears at first glance to be more minimalist. Nice editing on the split screen but not over elaborate. That theme song though, anyone who tells you they didn't go to bed humming 'Bra-zil,..Brazil,..Bra-zillll!' is a liar. BBC's is similar in terms of style but with the usual artsy touches. Steven Gerrard as a plastic figurine is just weird though. Stevie Wonder's 'Another Star' arguably means the BBC effort lacks some authenticity so I have to just about give the edge to ITV.
Winner: ITV
Overall: BBC 4-5 ITV
Russia 2018
BBC:
Obviously, I can't call a winner on this one as ITV haven't revealed their opening sequence yet but the BBC's will likely be based around the above in what the BBC are already calling their 'most ambitious' title sequence ever' involving the creation of a 1200m tapestry which was then animated. ITV will need pull out something special to beat that.
As long as there is a World Cup, a BBC and an ITV this war will continue. ITV may hold the lead for now but who knows what the future may bring.
Part one here: http://badmoviehq.blogspot.com/2018/06/fifa-world-cup-intro-wars-bbc-vs-itv.html
Welcome to the second part of my review of World Cup coverage by Britain's two leading broadcasters (opinions are my own).
USA 94
ITV:
BBC:
The efforts of both companies at Italia '90 were great so inevitably at USA '94 they were both abysmal.
BBC went with the uninspiring choice of 'America' from West Side Story (because it's good to be reminded of how poorly treated immigrants are in America) and ITV went with...what the fuck is that? No, really, what is that? BBC's intro package was bad but ITV found the new circle of Hell with theirs.
Winner: BBC
Overall: BBC 2-2 ITV
France 1998
ITV:
BBC:
Tough call this one as they are both fine efforts. Do you prefer the more sophisticated, cultured, operatic quality of the Beeb or ITV's Euro-synth-pop vibe? I've got to go with the BBC on this one as the overall presentation of their intro package was just that bit better than ITV's.
Winner: BBC
Overall: BBC 3-2 ITV
Japan/Korea 2002
ITV:
BBC:
The first World Cup tournament to be held in Asia (and in two countries), so Oriental vibes were the order of the day. This saw a role reversal from France '98 as the BBC went with 'Tarantula' by dance music royalty Faithless whilst ITV opted for 'Un Bel Di' ('One Fine Day') from the opera Madame Butterfly. I will give this one to ITV because their intro sequence does a better overall job of catching the Far Eastern flavour of the tournament.
The 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia is just 12 days away and excitement is hitting fever pitch.
A bit of a break from the norm on this blog, but with each World Cup it also brings the quadrennial battle between the BBC and ITV to have the best coverage. More specifically, the best theme and intro package. So why not take a look back at some and decide who was the winner?
Spain, 1982
Why start with Spain? No reason, its completely arbitrary but gotta start somewhere.
ITV:
BBC:
Both are pretty generic but I've got to give the edge to the Beeb for being slightly less generic in its imagery. However, there is no way my inner fanboy is ever going to let Andrew Lloyd Webber have the win over Jeff Wayne so I'm going with ITV.
Winner: ITV
Overall: BBC 0-1 ITV
Mexico 1986
ITV:
BBC:
A tough call this one. In terms of presentation, BBC wins hands down with all the Aztec imagery but the music is shite. Over on ITV though, it's hard to look past 'Aztec Gold', that would become the main theme tune for 'Saint and Greavise' until their run ended in 1992. I've got to give ITV the edge on this one too.
Winner: ITV
Overall: BBC 0-2 ITV
Italy 1990
ITV:
BBC:
No contest on this one. The ITV effort is actually pretty damn good but think of Italia '90 and almost immediately you can see Gazza's tears with Luciano Pavarotti singing 'Nessun Dorma' (translation: 'none shall sleep') over the top. A win for Auntie.
