16 posts tagged “us”

Life on Mars USA—well, let’s say it’s little wonder ABC wants it reshot and the leak is a great way to get comments from fans, many of whom have downloaded the unscreened pilot as made by David E. Kelley and directed by Thomas Schlamme.
   The storyline is identical to the original, which is not a bad thing, but the British media comments about the American version lacking something are not far off the mark. They are not being anti-American or unduly negative.
   First, some neutral comments: the LA setting does not annoy me. To me, New York City, especially Manhattan, is not different enough between 1972 and 2008 unless one heads down to Battery Park and some of the reclaimed-land bits. It should also shut up all those who moaned about the Bowie song not being on the TVCs (a “duh moment”—of course it would be in the programme but not in ads, and since when was the song in the British ads?).
   Now, the good points:

• the second half does draw you in, even when you know what is happening;
• re-elect Nixon posters on the high street;
• no Nelson, replaced by a waitress pouring coffee at a cafeteria—good character, but Sam needs someone whom he can chat to;
• a reference by Colm Meaney to Klingons;
• Annie being a detective actually works; and Rachelle Lefèvre gives a good performance;
• the briefing scene with Sam and Annie and the camera going around the performers;
• sexism by a detective during Sam’s briefing (responding, ‘Her titties’);
• the musical score (by Edmund Butt?);
• Sam’s realization that Colin Raimes lives next door to Kenmore—well acted and directed;
• final shot of Sam and Annie on the hotel roof with ‘Life on Mars’ playing is a different take on the original—and is quite nicely done.

   And the bad points:

• dull first act;
• Sam tells everyone in the police station that he’s from 2007 so it gives no reason for him to have a closer relationship with Annie;
• bad special effects for 1972 Los Angeles (though I assume these are temporary) and I can see modern cars in the high street scene where Sam goes into the record store;
• Stephanie Chaves-Jacobsen is very pretty but I felt no chemistry between her and Jason O’Mara—while they are meant to be distant, I never felt Jason’s Sam Tyler cared for Maya before her abduction;
• Gene Hunt is not foul-mouthed and not even politically incorrect except for the orientation (punching Sam) and abusing a woman helping with police enquiries;
• generally no sexism other than the scene mentioned earlier—contrast this to, say, the movie The Taking of Pelham One Two Three, from 1974;
• no racism (an Obama-for-president reference might be interesting if it’s remade);
• Gene Hunt asking Sam nicely to join him for an interrogation—and lack of tension between the two beyond unconvincingly trading a few punches;
• absence of humour;
• no Chris and Ray, and Lenny Clarke is no substitute (I expect he will be recast);
• not much in the way of contrasting 1972 and 2007 methods;
• Sam’s 1972 arrival does not seem particularly tormenting to him and I was not drawn in to his feeling any confusion. Jason O’Mara almost seems too rigid and suffers in comparison to John Simm;
• bland performances from O’Mara and Meaney—watch the scene when Beryl Raimes tells them about the music next door ceasing to annoy her and contrast it to the original—which can be blamed in part on direction;
• certain lines copied verbatim from the original.

   I know the majority of people who will see the US one will not have seen the original. However, I believe it lacks a lot of sparkle and even cohesiveness and it could harm the series’ chances Stateside. The comparisons do need to be made: the success of Life on Mars was based on how deeply we were drawn in to Sam Tyler’s predicament. The American producers need to understand (if they don’t already) that it is possible to create that effect, but possibly with another director (with respect to Mr Schlamme).
   This first US version lacks that depth—and it is nothing to do with it being American.
   A remake prior to the fall début in ABC might not be a bad idea because there is room for improvement, especially for the underdeveloped Gene Hunt character and O’Mara’s rigidity.

Dabysan has a few interesting observations about Moment of Truth, the game show airing on a Murdoch Press network in the US and, God help us, TV2 in New Zealand.
   The good news is that this show has reached the end of its run in New Zealand as of this Friday and let’s hope it doesn’t return.
   It’s basically a game show that paints a highly negative image of United States and the decline in taste and responsibility of New Zealand television programmers. The cancellation may be a sign that the Kiwis have found some sense again (as is the return of Life on Mars and the airing of Jekyll). The only reason it ever aired, as far as I can tell, is that it must be dirt, dirt cheap.
   Dabysan wrote: ‘The show is a sure sign of the coming of the apocalypse.’ How right that is.
   On Dabysan’s blog is a clip of one of the episodes:

   That is the sum total of the show but somehow through “editing” (which means using the same footage over and over again, and having really long and repetitive previews telling TV audiences to come back after the break) it lasts the full 46 minutes (i.e. a commercial television hour).
   If it were shown in this shortened format I might not think so ill of it, but for it to occupy an hour of some viewers’ lives is daft.
   I wrote in the comments:

I can’t see the entertainment value in Moment of Truth. The contestant knows what questions will be asked so she should not be surprised. She was obviously not ashamed to reveal his or her answers to a total stranger, so why should millions of strangers be a problem? As for their loved ones, the contestant obviously has no shame to have engaged in embarrassing conduct so she shouldn’t be ashamed now. If she is potentially ashamed, she should not have gone on. I am glad this show is getting killed off after this Friday’s episode in New Zealand after a very short run.

   What I did not write is that this sort of show, displaying the lax morals of certain US citizens, is an insult to decent Americans—but it has a secondary effect. There is a very real danger that all Americans are grouped in our minds as being like those idiots on the show.
   When you see this and news about how many sexual partners a typical New York woman has had or that one in one hundred adult Americans are in jail, you begin to form a very negative image indeed: sleep around, cheat, lie, dis your parents, be unfaithful, commit crimes. Meanwhile, the American newsmedia, as broadcast internationally, play down things such as Sen. John McCain’s military record or provide us with exemplary behaviours (exceptions of US shows that do include the little-watched Real Life Heroes).
   The blogs are good in that they give voice to some normal folks—but most people are still influenced by the stereotypes and the sensationalism caused by biased editing in the old media.
   It is the same effect as the casting of Middle Eastern actors as terrorists in US shows, which groups them into a negative bunch and propagates a false stereotype.
   A second danger is that young people watching this show—I forget what time it airs in New Zealand but it is not that late—might think that such behaviour is acceptable.
   The message is: you can engage in any behaviour, from sexual deviancy to outright deception, and be rewarded for it if you have no sense of shame.
   I can think of a few people already who act this way and am delighted at the distance I have from them.
   It is not dissimilar to some reality TV shows which show that connivance and arrogance are the keys to winning major cash prizes.
   The world simply does not work this way, and if it ever came to that, then civilization is in deep, deep crap.
   When some people point out conspiracy theories about Communists seizing the media, promoting a value-destroying ideology and showing that emotionally harmful behaviours are normal, it’s easy to laugh at them. Then you see just what the media are propagating and you have to really think: jeez, they have a point, regardless of what Snopes might say.
   It might not be Commies doing the dirty work, as some citizens are quite happy to go down a destructive path, exhibiting behaviours that every experience tells them is bad. There are enough of us whose lives have been rendered so valueless by our own governments or corporations that Schadenfreude pushes us to enjoy seeing others’ shame and controversy.
   A good society, a decent, honest, progressive one, would never have the time or inclination to indulge in shows such as Moment of Truth or, for that matter, gossip tabloids that depend on a declining society for their success.

For my American friends sick of hearing from the British on how ABC will mess up the remake of Life on Mars in the US or how NBC destroyed The Office, it’s payback time.
   The British are remaking Bewitched.
   No, no, not Will Ferrell. Not even Lisa Hartman. The British. A pilot in anticipation of a series has been commissioned by the BBC and, from what I understand, filmed.
   Despite the failures of the remakes of Married with Children and Who’s the Boss?, Sony is letting the Brits have another go.
   Sheridan Smith is in the Elizabeth Montgomery role.
   Let abuse hurl eastward across the Atlantic for the sake of fairness and balance.

The following is a comment in response to the exchange from my earlier blog post on gay marriage in California. I believe it is important (for my own ego!) to address charges that I am prejudiced against gays or am a bigot. It is a pity that while I am open to seeing the other side of the argument in favour of gay marriage in California, as a heterosexual man I am already labelled (prejudged) as being incapable of that.
   I am going to Lawcrawler to see if I can find this controversial judgement and will give my thoughts on it later.

T. G. C., I am reading your extract short of seeing the full judgement, and I find it somewhat unconvincing.
   Let me address one point: the article I posted is an article I posted. Simple. I do find it somewhat offensive that you and Madonna would attribute its position to me when even I have not done so. Yes, you may feel it has a personal endorsement by its mere appearance here. In that case your opinion of me is forgiveable. I can understand that the article inflames certain passions. However, it is my opinion that if the article were fair, then the judges in this case do not understand their jobs.
   A bit about my history, so at least we can get on the same page here. I have a fairly good grasp of the law as I am qualified with an LL B. I live in a country that was an early pioneer in homosexual law reform and has a proud tradition of embracing lifestyles that traditionalists would be appalled at. I could probably even find you two gay couples who would attest to my views on the subject that I would say most gays (here) would believe are reasonable and fair.
   My posting an article is for promoting understanding, certainly my own, and certainly, too, to contrast the way your country handles legal positions against the way my one does.
   Let me take one of your highlighted points:

we disagree with the Attorney General and the Governor to the extent they suggest that the traditional or long-standing nature of the current statutory definition of marriage exempts the statutory provisions embodying that definition from the constraints imposed by the California Constitution, or that the separation-of-powers doctrine precludes a court from determining that constitutional question

   Obviously without reading the statute I am less informed, but this is fairly true: in general, in most common law jurisprudence, courts to interpret laws in line with (state or federal) constitutions.
   Then, however, we have a conflict if the definition of marriage is codified, and this is perhaps the stem of the conflict more than anything.
   Traditionally, even when legislation is interpreted in the spirit of a constitutional document—a familiar argument here given the Treaty of Waitangi—it is not done by completely violating the wording of that legislation.
   To you and Madonna, it may be an issue of what the public wants, but if you have a Governor who keeps vetoing such bills, then I find it unconvincing that we rely on those bills in legal interpretation. In fact, this fact alone illustrates the law’s insufficiency at this present stage for those supporting gay marriage.
   The judicial task when faced with wanting to respect the will of the people and equal-rights doctrines in a constitution is to find third ways, clever exceptions that provide citizens with what they want without violating the legislation before them. This is a given in common law.
   While this means that gay marriage will take far longer to be recognized if this is the prevailing trend, law is something that takes decades to remould, but it should not be short-circuited.
   The law of negligence is a classic example in tort: probably most law students will recall this took decades before the landmark Donahue v. Stevenson case in 1928 and Lord Atkin’s classic judgement.
   Laws are slow, they are often reactive, but it is the system we are laboured with. An ideal world would be one without laws and with self-regulation between people acting with their complete free wills. I hold this to be an ideal and it matters, at the end of the day, little what definitions state about this word or that—but it does matter to me that while we have our current system, it is conducted fairly until the people decide on another system again.
   You bring up Perez v. Lippold. You are right that this is actually highly convincing and I thank you for reminding me of it. I do know a little about this case but there are some distinctions based on religion, the Fourteenth Amendment and constitutional interpretation, and these really helped the couple there. The respondent also presented some heavily biased opinion that the court saw through.
   There was indeed a law written in statute that barred the marriage of the couple in that case, one that was, admittedly, steadily eroded by the courts as it expanded the definition of marriage to increasingly more races.
   The court held (inter alia) that the sections in that legislation were too vague especially when it came to racial classifications—which was how ultimately it got around the interracial ban.
   You see, there was no legislating from the bench: the judge in Perez showed how lacking the legislation was, how it offended the basic tenets of the requirements of American law, and it was effectively a challenge to the legislature that: if you want to block us, revisit the law and redraft it if you dare. This I accept as this fight goes on all the time in a democracy.
   This is why I asked you and Madonna to find me the judgement, though since I haven’t heard back, I’ll have a trawl through Lawcrawler myself in a sec.
   Without clever methods of finding a way around fairly strictly worded statutes, I do believe from what little I know (yes, maybe I shall accept the ignorance charge) the judges crossed the line here.
   Contrary to your and Madonna’s biased views of me, I retain an open mind.

First there was Kath & Kim, the US version, for NBC. Now, ABC brings you … from the maker of Veronica Mars … the American version of Outrageous Fortune!
   I can see OF work in the US though no doubt the hard-out Kiwi fans of the show will join all the Brits (who have had their fair share of American remakes), and moan. We will say what an inferior version the American one is and how it misses all our Newzild subtexts.
   The American Outrageous Fortune will join the American Life on Mars and the American Kath & Kim on American TV screens this autumn, I mean the American version of autumn, which is called fall. 
   We are certainly not immune from taking someone else’s concept and running with it, what with the New Zealand version of two British shows, Strictly Come Dancing and Pop Idol, and a Danish show that is now called Sensing Murder here. It’s only notable because aside from Popstars, New Zealand shows have not made it hugely overseas in licensed format.
   And the Dutch can get angry about the British versions of some of their shows like Big Brother and The Generation Game.
   Actually, I welcome our trans-Pacific transplanting and I hope the creators of Outrageous Fortune can bring in some useful royalty income into New Zealand.
   The irony is that this is probably the sort of show TV2 would air here in an effort to beat TV3, which shows the original OF.
   If we are all licensing each other’s shows, then how about a local version of Alarm für Cobra 11 but with a Māori guy and a white guy?

There are a lot of connections between myself, Stanley Moss, Pierre d’Huy, Lucire and the Medinge Group. Rather than explain things too much, I’d like to share some photos that won’t be in a future Lucire from Stanley, who serves as its travel editor. This was from a road trip in Arizona, passing the red rocks at Sedona, back in the late summer and early autumn.

   The last shot is Pierre with Hopi chief Allen Pooyouma. Pierre is not freakishly tall: the Mustang is a good indicator.

I hope Bret and Jemaine become bigger and bigger stars. These two blokes, from Wellington, are the duo Flight of the Conchords, who, domestically, suffered from under-promotion—until they scored their radio and TV series outside New Zealand. Now, of course, their TV show is arguably Prime TV’s biggest hit. It’s a story that’s very familiar to New Zealanders and even Canadians.
   However, before the series took off here—and while Americans were lapping up the Flight of the Conchords show on HBO—there was this documentary as the lads went to Austin, Texas, airing on TV3 in New Zealand a while back. Slightly different flavour to the series, but this is a documentary—the lads’ first. The obligatory dead-pan humour is there and fans should enjoy this.
   The third part starts off with “man in the street” interviews, with folks not knowing things about New Zealand.
   In case any US readers are asking, yes, we find them funny, too, and their tone is intentionally dead-pan and naïve even by our standards.
   Unlike songs such as ‘Mutha Ucker’, the f word does come up here.

There’s the petition, and now there’s an online grass roots’ effort: Dennis West suggests that Americans watch Journeyman next Monday, December 3, on nbc.com. It’s when the 11th episode was meant to be on, but NBC is trialling Life in its timeslot.
   I realize few are going to watch 10 hours’ worth of a single series, but if you haven’t caught it before, I heartily recommend it. At least try the pilot and see if you enjoy it. The high production values are, for the most part, continued, and the writing and acting actually get better.
   If you wish for a two-parter, then the ninth and tenth episodes (eighth and ninth if you don’t count the pilot) are a good choice. Each can exist as an individual story, but the two link together very well.
   And let me dispel one myth: this is not a Quantum Leap rip-off. The fictional Dan Vasser does time travel and does not know why, but it explores his relationship with his wife—especially as Dan encounters his dead fiancée in his travels. But each week, he manages to put right the life of someone he is tracking.
   Those Americans who liked the journey through our recent years in Forrest Gump might get the same emotions watching Journeyman. If you hate reality TV and want to take a stand against its bitchiness and smut, then this is a good remedy. And those sci-fi buffs into time travel shows will love it, because it does touch on paradoxes. It’s far less straightforward than Quantum Leap. Anyone into really well written character-driven drama, remember that Journeyman is from the guys who made The West Wing and it has even more depth. 
   Brits can begin enjoying the series on Sky One. If you are Stateside, please consider giving Dennis’s suggestion a shot.

The news that Journeyman fans did not want to hear has come: there will be no more after the 12 episodes that have been made. NBC has not asked for more, and the chances of the show’s return in 2008 are tiny.
   I wrote on the unofficial Journeyman Blog today:

This news sucks big time. This is a consistently well written show and what American networks do not realize is that it discourages us foreigners from getting suckered in to US-made series. As a result, I never slavishly followed the US into Lost, Heroes or many of those so-called “hits” after consistent disappointments surrounding premature cancellations or network tinkering. Journeyman managed to break that for me because it truly was excellent.
   I know NBC must look at its domestic market first, but I would have thought the prospect of strong international sales would be considered. In the US, 10 p.m. is probably a tad late, but you can totally have seen this airing at 8.30 p.m. in Britain, Australia or New Zealand. (It probably won’t now, because it’s been labelled a flop and programmers in other countries will be too scared or lazy to determine otherwise.)
   So thanks, NBC, for building an audience for an excellent show despite its lousy timeslot, and for being so daft that you don’t see that this does the network’s credibility some damage. After all, who gets the blame? Fox, for making it, or NBC, for not having the intelligence to see there were other factors at play with the poor ratings?
   The only consolation is that I only have to buy a single season’s worth of DVDs rather than the seven I plan to fork out for Mission: Impossible. Ah, remember those days when networks stuck with shows?

   An American (I assume) fan called Wes wrote on the official blog and makes an excellent point about Seinfeld:

NBC are you listening (or at least reading)? You have to give Journeyman a chance and give it time to find an audience. This could be a great show for years. It may have been mentioned here already, but several of the past "best TV shows ever" were almost canceled and took time to find an audience. Seinfeld sound familiar? How much money did it make for NBC? It's not just the about the money either. It takes time for word of mouth to spread the news and maybe a little luck for a TV show to jump up to the top 20 in weekly ratings. People will stop watching serial type shows all together if every time one doesn't instantly become a barn burner, you cancel it. And the networks wonder why viewership is down. Maybe you should take cue from HBO and Showtime. Make a good show (you have) and people will come, it just takes time.

   Even the writers’ strike could not save it. The ratings were actually beginning to head north after people stopped watching The Bachelor, but not enough to get NBC to see sense.
   I certainly won’t be in a hurry to start watching any other new American series of this ilk and have successfully stayed away from Heroes and The Nine after disappointments with The Pretender, John Doe and others. I watched maybe 10 episodes of Lost despite the addition of Elizabeth Mitchell, a Lucire interviewee. You just never know when they disappear. The Brits may do fewer shows, but at least they see them through to a natural conclusion more often. The British networks respect their viewers.
   The networks no longer remember how The Dick van Dyke Show was cancelled, was brought back, and lasted for years—and from memory, JAG went through the same thing. If the writing is as good as it is on Journeyman, a second season is all a show needs to become a long-running classic. Killing Journeyman is a way of covering up NBC’s own inadequacies of putting it into a too-late timeslot.
   I will watch the new Life on Mars when or if it starts, based on the goodwill of the British original, and because I know the secret behind Sam Tyler, so I won’t be as hurt if it’s pulled. 

I spotted the Australian Travel & Leisure when in Sydney and I’ve noticed now the word Australia has become the words Australia & New Zealand very quietly. And being an American Express card member here (wank factor time: Platinum) I am going to be getting these babies free for the next year.
   The funny thing is, being a big (American) T&L fan, I can’t bring myself to like the localized edition as much. Maybe my travel habits are more American—I have been checking out some places long before they were fashionable among my peers here. The other issue is that the best articles are re-runs from the original. I like the mixture in the American Travel & Leisure, the tips, the awards, the top 500—stuff like that.
   I feel like a tosser writing this because what is localized and brought to you by John Fairfax in Aussie T&L is actually really good, and I am on good terms with many folks at Fairfax on both sides of the Tasman. However, I’ll still be supplementing my freebie Aussie editions with the American ones.
   The big winner is American Express Publishing in the States and all the advertisers as I have been suckered into twice as many ads.