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.
