Dominic Messier's Blog

Posted by Dominic Messier

If you're a regular reader of Suite101 (of course you are, don't be silly), you may have noticed my conspicuus absence of the last few months.

As it turns out, what with a new job starting up (writing movie reviews for a big-ticket outlet), some travelling, and some major life changes, the writing suffered as a result.

and so, I want to say I'm So Sorry With Cherry On Top, if any of you have felt neglected.

Rest assured, I have been working on acquiring new material, and so in the coming days and weeks, you should be seeing a very steady influx of reviews, as I am currently screening new TV show DVDs, such as NBC's Kings (which explores an alternate reality where our modern day society functions under an absolute monarchy), as well as the British show Primeval, some more news and reviews about Stargate, Heroes, Smallville, and hopefully a comprehensive review of each new Sci-Fi show as they surface in the next few months.

And so, take a seat, set phasers on stun, and enjoy the ride, won't you?

Posted by Dominic Messier

As I read the latest trades online, vis-a-vis the Sci-Fi shows out and about, I found myself wondering what it is that makes studios consider remaking everything under the sun.

This past year has seen its share of such, what with the Knight Rider revamp starring Justin Bruener as the son of Michael Knight, and Val Kilmer as the new voice of KITT ( I guess William Daniels was too busy awaiting word of a Boy Meets World TV movie); our small screens have also seen recent attempts at cashing in on the latest crazes (vampire chic of late gave us Moonlight -- cancelled after one season), with superheroics in theatres giving us access to the hit that is Heroes, a show yet to face cancellation, yet under constant scrutiny from its fanbase.

So there comes a time when an audience must commit itself to a show, supporting it one hundred percent, lest the studios (obsessed with their bottom lines -- gotta answer to them shareholders, you know) decide to end yet another potential hit, replete with syndicated possibilities, not to mention the DVD sales which can only logically follow.

So why is it that these Sci-Fi beauties suffer a larger share of cancellations than others? I've given this some thought, and came up with a few possibilities:

1) Sometimes a particular sub-genre is just too particular

Don't get me wrong, I'm a pretty easy demographic to satisfy (white male aged 18-35), so any genre will do, when faced with 90210 as the only viable alternative. That having been said, I often scratch my head at why some studios (Sci-Fi, or SyFy as they want to be known nowadays) decide to invest in outdated concepts, for the sake of exploiting any remnants of its potential audience, for nostalgia's sake.

Take the very short-lived Flash Gordon for example. I mean, sure, everyone should know the name, just as easily as anyone (regardless of background) would have a basic concept of who Superman and Batman are. That being said, Flash Gordon was a marginal hit in the golden age, and didn't exactly shine in its myriad interpretations throughout the last decades (though that Queen song still gets stuck in my head from time to time......Flash! Ahhh-ahhhhhhhh!). So why expect more support nowadays?

So, rather than expect a fringe group of oceanographers to start a petition in favor of bringing about a new incarnation of Seaquest DSV, try and think up concepts that will really encompass as many demographiccs as possible, and ensure a renewal fan base.

2) Concepts are cool. Expecting writers to sustain plausible storylines over five season is not.

I get goosebumps every spring, when I surf the major news sites, looking for the networks' fall schedules. Why is that, you ask? Well, because in all likelihood, I am in dire need of being taken aside, and be reassured that something, anything, will replace that once cool sci-fi series that had finally hooked me in, until the network unceremoniously cans said show, without so much as a chance to tie up its stories' loose ends.

This has become commonplace in recent television history. With the exception of the post-Heroes influx of sci-fi shows which permeated most of the 2007-2008 TV season (before the Writer's Strike hit, and killed them all very slowly), most smaller sci-fi/fantasy concepts are lucky to get a full season order, and most usually these decisions are based on the strength of the first 6 or 7 episodes alone.

I think the reason those shows don't last, is because the shiny quality of their original concept, dies down once the writers have exhausted their original ideas, pitched to the network for a go.

Those shows that do manage to live out a healthy four or five season run, end up repeating themselves, and jump the ever popular shark. Alias was fun, no doubt, but how many times can the same 6 characters coincidentally work together, under 3 or 4 different shadow organizations? And why not stick to the original Rambaldi mystery? But i digress...

Producers should therefore have at least one good long-term storyline already well established, before considering the long-term viability of their product. Many detractors stated two years back, that Lost was slowly losing its steam, and the castaways of The Island had nowhere left to go. Then, a media announcement is made which confirms that Mr. Abrams and company, have set a series end date, two years down the line.

The result? Fans come back in droves, knowing their time investment will be paid back to them in spades, and the assurance that the show is going somewhere.

A show which I was a fan of for a while, but which quickly turned into a mostly soap operatic mess, is Smallville. Sometimes, when half your top cast moves on to other projects, it's usually a good sign to leave well enough alone, before you start having to dig into really old back issues, to try and locate obscure villais yet utilized in the series. I mean, Doomsday? Come on, sirs.

Heroes fares quite well in terms of retaining its audience from week to week (those addictive cliffhangers work really well), however it won't be long until we ask ourselves how many new storylines can come of this large cast, until it starts repeating itself. Also, some characters quickly outlive their popularity -- the online boards filled with hateful Anti-Cheerleader posts, is a sign of this strain.

There are many more possibilities as to why these great ideas die off more quickly than others, but I thought I'd put in my two cents about some of the more obvious signs, I leave it to you, my good reader, to think on this, while you say your goodbyes to this year's batch.

I love Val Kilmer as a talking car, but it seems that a show can't go on without The Hoff. Sad, but true.

Posted by Dominic Messier

If you're like myself, you're probably one of those folks who engages in playful discussion on the morning following the latest Lost episode.

Whether it's an erudite argument on the intricacies of time travel and paradoxes, or whether it makes any arcane sense to be able to move an island using what amounts to nothing more than an aged donkey wheel wedged into a rock surface, each fan has his and her theories as to the latest goings on.

However, given the small dosage we are oh so generously granted each week, shedding new light on the web of relationships (past and present), it's very difficult to maintain a rational, moderate discussion with a friend or colleague, when half the pieces of the overall puzzle are missing.

I find myself having this weekly ritual with a good friend of mine (for the sake of anonymity, I shall only say his real name rhymes with Beacon), and slowly my brain starts to misfire, at the latest of his theories and how they relate to the island, its original inhabitants, and the Oceanic 815 survivors.

At first I dismissed his ideas, calling them far fetched and baseless, until he began to point out the smallest tidbits of information and factoids (i.e. why is Charles Widmore so interested in the 1700's wrecked ship's first mate's logbook, at auction?), and soon thereafter I couldn't take those crazy ideas out of my head.

Now, understand, I am somewhat allergic to the ill-conceived idea of SPECULATION by design. In fact I downright hate the word. Especially when it comes to fiction. I mean, most of us (those of us old enough to remember) enjoyed the great hospital show St-Elsewhere in the early 80's. How is it that all of these great stories might have turned out to be nothing more than the imaginations of an autistic child, staring at a snow globe? The lazy writing or a showrunner unable to find proper closure to an otherwise great series? A royal mindjob designed to create gossip? Or even worse? SPECULATION?

The aforementioned conversations are slowly bringing back these notions of a frustrated teen who couldn't understand why a show would turn so sharply into another direction, Newhart-like, explaining that the past several years' worth of tales are nothing more than a really long dream Bob Newhart had, on his previous series.

And so, when Beacon (yeah, good pseudonym, no one will know) gives me about 15 different possibilities as to who Richard Alpert really is, I start shutting off, asking myself whether I'm willing to invest myself emotionally, in what could be nothing more than a red herring, destined to prove false three episodes from now.

True, I could write a dozen blog entries a week, just elaborating on the endless possibilities the show is providing us with, as to its logical conclusion. Word has it that out of the entire show's cast of actors, only Matthew Fox has been entrusted with the true ending of the show, by the producers and creator Abrams.

That lucky bugger. I betcha he's a lot of fun around the watercooler. Mind you, his lips are probably swen shut at the thought of a lawsuit brought on by a bad case of the spoilers.

And so, in any case, I will continue to humor Beacon (brilliant moniker, I tell ya! Gold!) and his zany crackpot theories, in that they may very well come true, and until Misters Abrams, Cuse and Lindelof come forth with more answers than questions, I'll have to enjoy the possibilities, as they turn out to be as much fun as the show itself.

Despite all this, I still hate SPECULATION.

Now to sit back and watch last week's episode again...I swear I found a few more relevant answers...

Posted by Dominic Messier

Now don't get me wrong: I'm a hardcore fan of any decent sci-fi show that tries hard enough to survive in today's harsh ratings environment, said ratings system having racked up more victims than a kid playing Doom 3 or World of Warcraft.

As much of the last season's sci-fi based shows mostly fell under the dreaded axe of cancellation, primetime sci-fi in the 2008-2009 season has become dangerous, uneven ground.

Take Knight Rider, one of the few shows to get a full season order from NBC. Despite having gotten a great start to their series (thanks to decent action sequences, spellbiding visuals, and an arse-kicking revamped KITT for the 21st Century (with a voice by Val Kilmer to boot), NBC has decided to eliminate several cast members, in order to trim the fat, from what I must agree in some respects is a very cast-heavy series.

Unlike Lost, which boasts an impressive cast of over 16 fully developed characters, Knight Rider has the main guy, Michael Knight (really Mike Traceur, but having to die to officially stay off the books, he adopts his father's -- yup, the Hoff -- identity, that of Michael Knight.

However, whereas His Royal Hoffness traveled the roads of America, "a young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless" (you guys remember the opening credits of the original '82 show), this Michael Knight is but one cog in a much larger wheel, which operates on a much larger scale than that of the back of a semi trailer.

Based in an underground lair staffed by unseen dozens, perhaps hundreds, the foundation has the car's original designer, Charles Graiman (Bruce Davison), his genius daughter Sarah (Deanna Russo), savvy techs Billy and Zoe (Paul Campbell and Smith Cho), as well as government agents Torres and Rivai (Yancy Arias and Sydney Tamiia Poitier -- yeah she's that Poitier's kid). Oh, and there's KITT of course, duh.

Being the main core group of characters of the show, the producers must have felt that there was way too much of a supporting group for the tale of one champion and his way cool gadget car. As such, NBC has decided to get rid of the car's creator, and the feds working in the background.

That being said, those poor folks had little more to do in the shows than Uhura did in most old Trek episodes , and so either for simplicity's sake or just to shave a few thousands on wht must be an already considerable budget, the NBC brass opted to revert to the old formula, and have the hero and his possible love interest (Mike and Sarah were once lovers, and now play the silly game of lookyloo), along with the youthful techies, assisting people all over the country.

Since most of the plotlines so far involved highly classified devices, or dangerous high level government rogues, the new storylines will likely reflect much of the original series, with lower villains bent on thievery, fraud, terror, or what not. It remains to be seen whether they'll operate out of the back of a semi (though the movie pilot back in February '08 did have Kitt exiting a large cargo plane in reverse, old style), but the writers and producers will need to inject the show with much more exciting storylines, and more dynamic writing.

My suggestion? Bring in some comic book writers, and have them take stabs at the characters. Hey, it worked for the most recent season on Lost!