Friday, September 14, 2007
Peter Horrocks: Everyone else's Madeleine McCann coverage is biased, the BBC's isn't
Link to story
You might have thought that Peter Horrocks would have steered clear of this story on his blog on the bbc.co.uk website. The previous time he brought the subject up, most of the comments were pretty negative (my comment is #19), but this time the response was even more so.
The BBC don't appear to be using my comment, so I'll make the same points here instead.
If Peter Horrocks really thinks the BBC's coverage of this story has been up to standards, then he should resign immediately as he clearly isn't up to the job. It might have been better than GMTV's, ITV's or Sky's, but that isn't saying much and being better than third-rate competition isn't good enough for me. The BBC should be aiming to be light years ahead of that lot.
He is also deluding himself if he thinks that the BBC's coverage hasn't been biased. My comment to his post of 10 August demonstrates this. Portuguese newspapers had been carrying stories that Gerry and Kate McCann (or simply "Gerry" and "Kate" as Jane Hill likes to refer to them) were involved in their daughter's death. The Portuguese police's official spokesman (or "head of the investigation" as Hill calls him) was interviewed and said that they were "at the moment, they are victims not suspects."
The clueless BBC completely failed to understand his comment and simply lead with a "we're glad we're not under suspicion" statement from Team McCann (obviously, "we're devastated at the possibility that our daughter might be dead" took second place to "phew, they don't think it was us then").
Let's look again:
"at the moment" - i.e. for now, the situation might change [as it did]
"victims and witness, not suspects" - this reflects the formal suspect ("arguido") status in Portuguese law. Until declared a suspect, anyone involved in a case is simply a witness. This is not the same as saying that the police didn't have their suspicions about the McCanns or that they weren't following certain lines of enquiry.
Basically, the police statement merely restated the McCanns position AT THAT MOMENT - witnesses, not arguidos.
Instead of having umpteen reporters topping up their tans in Portugal, the BBC might have been better off having kept one of them back in London to follow the case and explain what this statement meant. It certainly didn't mean that the Portuguese police didn't have their suspicions about the McCanns, although the spokesman was very careful with his words.
Unlike the BBC. What didn't appear on Peter Horrocks' blog this time around relates to shockingly bad reporting last weekend, that was either sheer incompetence or a desire to follow the McCanns' agenda.
On Friday night, BBC reporter Richard Bilton voiced over a report showing Kate McCann returning for questioning that morning before being made an arguido. "We now know," declared Bilton, "that she'd already been offered a deal - admit accidentally killing Madeleine and get a two year sentence."
Except that Bilton didn't know this at all. What he had was comments from Team McCann that a deal had been offered.
The story seemed to emerge as follows:
Early in the evening, Gerry McCann's sister Phil appeared on TV as part of the British media's policy of giving Team McCann free airtime to tell us what great parents he and Kate are (leaving their children alone in the apartment every night is apparently "responsible parenting"). During this broadcast on behalf of the Team McCann Party, it was claimed that Kate McCann had been offered the aforementioned deal. This was worked up a bit by Jon Corner, another member of the Party, into something approaching a plea bargain. Yet in interviews earlier that day Corner had made no mention of the alleged deal, despite later claiming that he'd heard from Kate McCann in the early hours of the morning.
What's that about "if you fail to mention something that you then rely on in your defence"?
Bilton ran with the deal story despite it being only a claim from a source who is far from impartial. Yet, according to him, it was a FACT.
At the very least, he should have made clear that this was only a claim, but Phil McCann's previous unreliable reporting on the story makes her not just a biased source, but an unreliable one.
During an appearance on The Richard & Judy Show a few weeks earlier, Phil McCann had claimed, without ambiguity, that one of the McCanns' friends had seen Madeleine "being abducted".
This appears to be either a deliberate distortion or a misunderstanding of the evidence given by the McCanns' friend Jane Tanner.
After initially not bothering to report anything unusual, Tanner had claimed to have seen a man carrying a bundle on the night of 3 May. After a couple of interim stages, this then becomes a man carrying a blonde child wearing pink pyjamas [although Madeleine's pyjama bottoms were actually white]. Again, this is unreliable evidence and not supported by anyone else, but Phil McCann had not only repeated it, but the sighting was now definitely of Madeleine.
Clearly any claim by Phil McCann should therefore have been treated with the utmost caution, but Bilton didn't bother with that, nor did he bother checking to see if plea bargains are possible under Portuguese law (it would appear that they are not).
Although I have no way of knowing whether or not the following is true, I believe the following COULD have happened:
During her questioning, the police told Kate McCann that the minimum penalty for negligent homicide was 2 years, and that any court would look favourably on a suspect pleading guilty rather than not guilty. The sort of thing we've all seen in dozens of cop shows - tell us you did it and the court will go easier on you than if you plead not guilty.
Phil McCann then either misunderstands this or deliberately exaggerates and the plea bargain story is born, worked up a bit by another member of Team McCann.
None of this appears to have occurred to anyone at the BBC, who were happy to run with Bilton's "we know there was a deal" report for hours.
On Sunday, the News24 ticker was still showing this story, although at least it was now attributing "I was offered a deal" to a quote from Kate McCann. But even this wasn't true, as the couple's lawyer was quoted in The Observer as saying this was a "misunderstanding" during the questioning.
The BBC continued to run this story until at least 7pm on Sunday, 20 hours or so after the lawyer's quote first appeared in print. I've yet to see them retract this story, despite running it for the best part of two days.
Obviously in a fast moving story, mistakes are made, but for the BBC to run a story based on no more than a claim from one party in a story (and an unreliable one at that) is, at the very least, a demonstration of its appalling journalistic standards in this story, with a complete acceptance of Team McCann PR pieces as FACT.
Too many reporters, including the BBC's, appear to have got too caught up with Team McCann and all its hangers on and seem to have forgotten that they should be reporting impartially. Instead we get "Kate" and "Gerry", whereas mentions of the only other arguido, Robert Murat, were accompanied by that old trick of slowed down footage to make him look more sinister.
I'm not sure whether the BBC's bias is deliberate or just shoddy journalism but once this story is over the BBC needs to take a long hard look at its coverage. In the meantime, Peter Horrocks would do well to remember a certain proverb about stones and glass houses before he starts criticising other broadcasters' coverage.
Theirs might have been worse, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't put his own house in order first.
Link to story
You might have thought that Peter Horrocks would have steered clear of this story on his blog on the bbc.co.uk website. The previous time he brought the subject up, most of the comments were pretty negative (my comment is #19), but this time the response was even more so.
The BBC don't appear to be using my comment, so I'll make the same points here instead.
If Peter Horrocks really thinks the BBC's coverage of this story has been up to standards, then he should resign immediately as he clearly isn't up to the job. It might have been better than GMTV's, ITV's or Sky's, but that isn't saying much and being better than third-rate competition isn't good enough for me. The BBC should be aiming to be light years ahead of that lot.
He is also deluding himself if he thinks that the BBC's coverage hasn't been biased. My comment to his post of 10 August demonstrates this. Portuguese newspapers had been carrying stories that Gerry and Kate McCann (or simply "Gerry" and "Kate" as Jane Hill likes to refer to them) were involved in their daughter's death. The Portuguese police's official spokesman (or "head of the investigation" as Hill calls him) was interviewed and said that they were "at the moment, they are victims not suspects."
The clueless BBC completely failed to understand his comment and simply lead with a "we're glad we're not under suspicion" statement from Team McCann (obviously, "we're devastated at the possibility that our daughter might be dead" took second place to "phew, they don't think it was us then").
Let's look again:
"at the moment" - i.e. for now, the situation might change [as it did]
"victims and witness, not suspects" - this reflects the formal suspect ("arguido") status in Portuguese law. Until declared a suspect, anyone involved in a case is simply a witness. This is not the same as saying that the police didn't have their suspicions about the McCanns or that they weren't following certain lines of enquiry.
Basically, the police statement merely restated the McCanns position AT THAT MOMENT - witnesses, not arguidos.
Instead of having umpteen reporters topping up their tans in Portugal, the BBC might have been better off having kept one of them back in London to follow the case and explain what this statement meant. It certainly didn't mean that the Portuguese police didn't have their suspicions about the McCanns, although the spokesman was very careful with his words.
Unlike the BBC. What didn't appear on Peter Horrocks' blog this time around relates to shockingly bad reporting last weekend, that was either sheer incompetence or a desire to follow the McCanns' agenda.
On Friday night, BBC reporter Richard Bilton voiced over a report showing Kate McCann returning for questioning that morning before being made an arguido. "We now know," declared Bilton, "that she'd already been offered a deal - admit accidentally killing Madeleine and get a two year sentence."
Except that Bilton didn't know this at all. What he had was comments from Team McCann that a deal had been offered.
The story seemed to emerge as follows:
Early in the evening, Gerry McCann's sister Phil appeared on TV as part of the British media's policy of giving Team McCann free airtime to tell us what great parents he and Kate are (leaving their children alone in the apartment every night is apparently "responsible parenting"). During this broadcast on behalf of the Team McCann Party, it was claimed that Kate McCann had been offered the aforementioned deal. This was worked up a bit by Jon Corner, another member of the Party, into something approaching a plea bargain. Yet in interviews earlier that day Corner had made no mention of the alleged deal, despite later claiming that he'd heard from Kate McCann in the early hours of the morning.
What's that about "if you fail to mention something that you then rely on in your defence"?
Bilton ran with the deal story despite it being only a claim from a source who is far from impartial. Yet, according to him, it was a FACT.
At the very least, he should have made clear that this was only a claim, but Phil McCann's previous unreliable reporting on the story makes her not just a biased source, but an unreliable one.
During an appearance on The Richard & Judy Show a few weeks earlier, Phil McCann had claimed, without ambiguity, that one of the McCanns' friends had seen Madeleine "being abducted".
This appears to be either a deliberate distortion or a misunderstanding of the evidence given by the McCanns' friend Jane Tanner.
After initially not bothering to report anything unusual, Tanner had claimed to have seen a man carrying a bundle on the night of 3 May. After a couple of interim stages, this then becomes a man carrying a blonde child wearing pink pyjamas [although Madeleine's pyjama bottoms were actually white]. Again, this is unreliable evidence and not supported by anyone else, but Phil McCann had not only repeated it, but the sighting was now definitely of Madeleine.
Clearly any claim by Phil McCann should therefore have been treated with the utmost caution, but Bilton didn't bother with that, nor did he bother checking to see if plea bargains are possible under Portuguese law (it would appear that they are not).
Although I have no way of knowing whether or not the following is true, I believe the following COULD have happened:
During her questioning, the police told Kate McCann that the minimum penalty for negligent homicide was 2 years, and that any court would look favourably on a suspect pleading guilty rather than not guilty. The sort of thing we've all seen in dozens of cop shows - tell us you did it and the court will go easier on you than if you plead not guilty.
Phil McCann then either misunderstands this or deliberately exaggerates and the plea bargain story is born, worked up a bit by another member of Team McCann.
None of this appears to have occurred to anyone at the BBC, who were happy to run with Bilton's "we know there was a deal" report for hours.
On Sunday, the News24 ticker was still showing this story, although at least it was now attributing "I was offered a deal" to a quote from Kate McCann. But even this wasn't true, as the couple's lawyer was quoted in The Observer as saying this was a "misunderstanding" during the questioning.
The BBC continued to run this story until at least 7pm on Sunday, 20 hours or so after the lawyer's quote first appeared in print. I've yet to see them retract this story, despite running it for the best part of two days.
Obviously in a fast moving story, mistakes are made, but for the BBC to run a story based on no more than a claim from one party in a story (and an unreliable one at that) is, at the very least, a demonstration of its appalling journalistic standards in this story, with a complete acceptance of Team McCann PR pieces as FACT.
Too many reporters, including the BBC's, appear to have got too caught up with Team McCann and all its hangers on and seem to have forgotten that they should be reporting impartially. Instead we get "Kate" and "Gerry", whereas mentions of the only other arguido, Robert Murat, were accompanied by that old trick of slowed down footage to make him look more sinister.
I'm not sure whether the BBC's bias is deliberate or just shoddy journalism but once this story is over the BBC needs to take a long hard look at its coverage. In the meantime, Peter Horrocks would do well to remember a certain proverb about stones and glass houses before he starts criticising other broadcasters' coverage.
Theirs might have been worse, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't put his own house in order first.
Labels: BBC, Madeleine McCann, Peter Horrocks
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Welcome back, Veronica
Veronica Mars: Welcome Wagon - The CW, 3 October
Contains spoilers
For me, Veronica Mars was the best series on American television last year, and easily the one whose new season I was looking forward to the most. And, with Welcome Wagon, Rob Thomas didn't disappoint.
This was no easy task as Thomas also had to try to introduce the series to an audience unfamiliar with the show, as well as moving things on for existing fans. Welcome Wagon might have been the first Veronica Mars episode for some viewers, but the majority will have watched Not Pictured back in May. This seems a harder task than Russell T Davies had when introducing Doctor Who to a new audience - with the last televised episode nine years earlier, the only established continuity he had to bother with was the Doctor and the TARDIS.
And I think Rob Thomas pulled it off. I've seen comments that the episode would have been too confusing for newbies, but it didn't really strike me as that at all.
Any viewer paying attention - and this is Veronica Mars so you need to - will have picked up the gist of the show. Veronica is a teenaged "detective" (to quote Piz) who solves mysteries for her friends (and others) and whose dad used to be sheriff. She's dating Logan, and has an established friendship with Mac and Wallace, while their room-mates Piz and Parker are both new characters. A new viewer could also make a decent stab at the cause of Mac's lack of libido - Dick's drunken exchange with Mac clearly suggests it's related to his brother, whose fate had previously been discussed by Logan and Veronica.
The Keith/Kendall/Cormac plot obviously ties into the end of Not Pictured, but even this didn't seem totally inaccessible to newbies. Without prior knowledge, wasn't this simply a case Keith was working on without telling Veronica, and which involves some double dealing on the part of Cormac (and, possibly, Liam Fitzpatrick, if Vinnie's bugging of Keith's briefcase is anything to go by). Obviously those of us who watched season 2 know the backstory here, but knowledge of it didn't seem required, and no doubt this will be filled in over the next couple of weeks anyway.
Season 3 also sees four new characters added to the credits. I'm pleased to see Mac is now a regular as she's certainly been one of my favourite characters over the last year, and while I want Keith to end up as sheriff by the end of the season, keeping Lamb as sheriff is certainly better for the series' dynamics until then.
We also meet two new characters - Parker and Piz, roommates to Mac and Wallace respectively. Despite Piz's comment about walking around the room naked, it seems to be Parker who has fewer qualms on this front, as she manages to change her top twice in five minutes in front of an embarrassed-looking Veronica.
Both seem interesting characters. However, despite Logan and Veronica arguably being better when they're off rather than on (although like Keith being sheriff, I hope that they are together when the series ends), I'm hoping that Piz and Veronica don't end up as a couple. Parker seems the complete opposite of Mac and not just because of her "new guy every night" tendency - the idea of Mac watching Top Model is hilarious, and the pair's reactions to Veronica's "Are we ready to rock?" question are completely different.
The series' move to three mini-arcs rather than one season-long one has been well publicised, as has the fact that the first one picks up the rapes at Hearst first mentioned in The Rapes of Graff. Newbies didn't need to know that, however, as the Take Back the Night demo which Dick gatecrashes (and I knew it was him when he started dancing) fills them in. That the victim is one of the regulars is a bit of a surprise, but being this close to home is bound to kickstart Veronica's investigation, especially since she was probably in the room at the same time. Parker's rather slutty behaviour means there are a load of suspects, although in true "Veronica Mars" style the real rapist probably hasn't even been seen yet.
A good start to the season, and it's still the best show on television. Fingers crossed the ratings are enough to keep it on the air...
Veronica Mars: Welcome Wagon - The CW, 3 October
Contains spoilers
For me, Veronica Mars was the best series on American television last year, and easily the one whose new season I was looking forward to the most. And, with Welcome Wagon, Rob Thomas didn't disappoint.
This was no easy task as Thomas also had to try to introduce the series to an audience unfamiliar with the show, as well as moving things on for existing fans. Welcome Wagon might have been the first Veronica Mars episode for some viewers, but the majority will have watched Not Pictured back in May. This seems a harder task than Russell T Davies had when introducing Doctor Who to a new audience - with the last televised episode nine years earlier, the only established continuity he had to bother with was the Doctor and the TARDIS.
And I think Rob Thomas pulled it off. I've seen comments that the episode would have been too confusing for newbies, but it didn't really strike me as that at all.
Any viewer paying attention - and this is Veronica Mars so you need to - will have picked up the gist of the show. Veronica is a teenaged "detective" (to quote Piz) who solves mysteries for her friends (and others) and whose dad used to be sheriff. She's dating Logan, and has an established friendship with Mac and Wallace, while their room-mates Piz and Parker are both new characters. A new viewer could also make a decent stab at the cause of Mac's lack of libido - Dick's drunken exchange with Mac clearly suggests it's related to his brother, whose fate had previously been discussed by Logan and Veronica.
The Keith/Kendall/Cormac plot obviously ties into the end of Not Pictured, but even this didn't seem totally inaccessible to newbies. Without prior knowledge, wasn't this simply a case Keith was working on without telling Veronica, and which involves some double dealing on the part of Cormac (and, possibly, Liam Fitzpatrick, if Vinnie's bugging of Keith's briefcase is anything to go by). Obviously those of us who watched season 2 know the backstory here, but knowledge of it didn't seem required, and no doubt this will be filled in over the next couple of weeks anyway.
Season 3 also sees four new characters added to the credits. I'm pleased to see Mac is now a regular as she's certainly been one of my favourite characters over the last year, and while I want Keith to end up as sheriff by the end of the season, keeping Lamb as sheriff is certainly better for the series' dynamics until then.
We also meet two new characters - Parker and Piz, roommates to Mac and Wallace respectively. Despite Piz's comment about walking around the room naked, it seems to be Parker who has fewer qualms on this front, as she manages to change her top twice in five minutes in front of an embarrassed-looking Veronica.
Both seem interesting characters. However, despite Logan and Veronica arguably being better when they're off rather than on (although like Keith being sheriff, I hope that they are together when the series ends), I'm hoping that Piz and Veronica don't end up as a couple. Parker seems the complete opposite of Mac and not just because of her "new guy every night" tendency - the idea of Mac watching Top Model is hilarious, and the pair's reactions to Veronica's "Are we ready to rock?" question are completely different.
The series' move to three mini-arcs rather than one season-long one has been well publicised, as has the fact that the first one picks up the rapes at Hearst first mentioned in The Rapes of Graff. Newbies didn't need to know that, however, as the Take Back the Night demo which Dick gatecrashes (and I knew it was him when he started dancing) fills them in. That the victim is one of the regulars is a bit of a surprise, but being this close to home is bound to kickstart Veronica's investigation, especially since she was probably in the room at the same time. Parker's rather slutty behaviour means there are a load of suspects, although in true "Veronica Mars" style the real rapist probably hasn't even been seen yet.
A good start to the season, and it's still the best show on television. Fingers crossed the ratings are enough to keep it on the air...
Sunday, September 18, 2005
With the new US TV season under way, there seems to be more series that I intend following than usual.
Heading the list must be last year's top two new series - "Lost" and "Veronica Mars", although the latter isn't even remotely sci-fi or fantasy based (although Kristen Bell is just great as well as being a real cutie). And, despite my usual dislike of hospital-based dramas, I did get quite into "Grey's Anatomy" last year, even though I did initially only watch it for Katherine Heigl. The other returning series I'll try to catch include "24", "Alias" and "Charmed", although my interest in the latter has diminished somewhat over the years (I think this is due to the prominence given to Alyssa Milano).
Of the non-network series, I've caught the first two episodes of HBO's "Rome" as I can't be bothered waiting for the BBC to get their arses into gear and schedule it over here.
I've already seen the pilots/screeners for "Supernatural", "The Night Stalker" and "Invasion", all of which were pretty enjoyable ("Supernatural" was probably the best, although I'd be surprised if "Invasion" has anywhere to go after the first few episodes). Other new series that I'll give a go include "Threshold" and "Surface".
Of course, we won't get any of these until next January at the earliest, and if the likes of LivingTV are involved, it'll probably be next summer. In many ways this is their loss but, as with LivingTV's muppet scheduling of "Veronica Mars" (Mon-Fri at 6pm is simply ridiculous), those viewers who have to rely on UK broadcasters are also getting a rubbish deal as well.
Obviously the US networks habit of running repeats as part of the season causes problems in the UK, but surely the UK broadcasters could make more of an effort? Particularly when they're late picking up the series in the first place and then proceed to bugger it up anyway (yes, LivingTV, I'm looking at you here).
Heading the list must be last year's top two new series - "Lost" and "Veronica Mars", although the latter isn't even remotely sci-fi or fantasy based (although Kristen Bell is just great as well as being a real cutie). And, despite my usual dislike of hospital-based dramas, I did get quite into "Grey's Anatomy" last year, even though I did initially only watch it for Katherine Heigl. The other returning series I'll try to catch include "24", "Alias" and "Charmed", although my interest in the latter has diminished somewhat over the years (I think this is due to the prominence given to Alyssa Milano).
Of the non-network series, I've caught the first two episodes of HBO's "Rome" as I can't be bothered waiting for the BBC to get their arses into gear and schedule it over here.
I've already seen the pilots/screeners for "Supernatural", "The Night Stalker" and "Invasion", all of which were pretty enjoyable ("Supernatural" was probably the best, although I'd be surprised if "Invasion" has anywhere to go after the first few episodes). Other new series that I'll give a go include "Threshold" and "Surface".
Of course, we won't get any of these until next January at the earliest, and if the likes of LivingTV are involved, it'll probably be next summer. In many ways this is their loss but, as with LivingTV's muppet scheduling of "Veronica Mars" (Mon-Fri at 6pm is simply ridiculous), those viewers who have to rely on UK broadcasters are also getting a rubbish deal as well.
Obviously the US networks habit of running repeats as part of the season causes problems in the UK, but surely the UK broadcasters could make more of an effort? Particularly when they're late picking up the series in the first place and then proceed to bugger it up anyway (yes, LivingTV, I'm looking at you here).
Sunday, August 21, 2005
In praise of "Veronica Mars"
It's not sci-fi, it's not fantasy, but I thought I'd just say how great UPN's "Veronica Mars" is. It was a toss up between it and "Lost" which was my favourite US series of the 2004/05 season.
Obviously Kristen Bell provides some great eye candy, but far more importantly, she makes Veronica a great character. Throw in a good cast and some ongoing mysteries - the Lily Kane murder, Veronica's supposed date rape and her paternity - and you've got a series that rises far above what appears to be an unimpressive premise: high school student helps out her PI dad after her mum runs out.
Despite less than stellar ratings it's been renewed for a second series, although yet again Sky One's acquisition bods have missed a gem (c.f. "Lost", "Firefly" and their decision to let "Alias" go) and we in the UK will have to put up with it on LivingTV. Apart from the lower audience it will undoubtedly get, it'll also be treated shabbily - almost certainly in 4:3 and probably plastered with logos plugging "Most Haunted" or some other nonsense. Let's just hope that they manage to give it a decent timeslot and *don't* strip it Monday to Friday.
For those unconvinced, Joss Whedon was certainly bigging it up recently:
My peeps and I just finished a crazed Veronica Marsathon, and I can no longer restrain myself. Best. Show. Ever. Seriously, I've never gotten more wrapped up in a show I wasn't making, and maybe even more than those. Crazy crisp dialogue. Incredibly tight plotting. Big emotion, I mean BIG, and charsimatic actors and I was just DYING from the mystery and the relationships and PAIN, this show knows from pain and no, I don't care, laugh all you want, I had to share this. These guys know what they're doing on a level that intimidates me. It's the Harry Potter of shows. There. I said it. People should do whatever they can to check out this first season so the second won't be a spoiler fest. I'm nutty.
I'm a little calmer now. Oh God, no I'm not! Wait. Wait. Okay. Some of you may already be all up on this, and some may disagree, but I'm urging peeps to check it out, 'cause there is great TV afoot, and who doesn't want that? Thank you for your time.
And another thing for "Buffy" fans - Alyson Hannigan guest starred in a couple of season 1 episodes and Charisma Carpenter will be in half a dozen in season 2.
It's not sci-fi, it's not fantasy, but I thought I'd just say how great UPN's "Veronica Mars" is. It was a toss up between it and "Lost" which was my favourite US series of the 2004/05 season.
Obviously Kristen Bell provides some great eye candy, but far more importantly, she makes Veronica a great character. Throw in a good cast and some ongoing mysteries - the Lily Kane murder, Veronica's supposed date rape and her paternity - and you've got a series that rises far above what appears to be an unimpressive premise: high school student helps out her PI dad after her mum runs out.
Despite less than stellar ratings it's been renewed for a second series, although yet again Sky One's acquisition bods have missed a gem (c.f. "Lost", "Firefly" and their decision to let "Alias" go) and we in the UK will have to put up with it on LivingTV. Apart from the lower audience it will undoubtedly get, it'll also be treated shabbily - almost certainly in 4:3 and probably plastered with logos plugging "Most Haunted" or some other nonsense. Let's just hope that they manage to give it a decent timeslot and *don't* strip it Monday to Friday.
For those unconvinced, Joss Whedon was certainly bigging it up recently:
My peeps and I just finished a crazed Veronica Marsathon, and I can no longer restrain myself. Best. Show. Ever. Seriously, I've never gotten more wrapped up in a show I wasn't making, and maybe even more than those. Crazy crisp dialogue. Incredibly tight plotting. Big emotion, I mean BIG, and charsimatic actors and I was just DYING from the mystery and the relationships and PAIN, this show knows from pain and no, I don't care, laugh all you want, I had to share this. These guys know what they're doing on a level that intimidates me. It's the Harry Potter of shows. There. I said it. People should do whatever they can to check out this first season so the second won't be a spoiler fest. I'm nutty.
I'm a little calmer now. Oh God, no I'm not! Wait. Wait. Okay. Some of you may already be all up on this, and some may disagree, but I'm urging peeps to check it out, 'cause there is great TV afoot, and who doesn't want that? Thank you for your time.
And another thing for "Buffy" fans - Alyson Hannigan guest starred in a couple of season 1 episodes and Charisma Carpenter will be in half a dozen in season 2.
Sunday, July 03, 2005
"Doctor Who" - season 27 (or, if you prefer, season 1)
Although it was great to finally see the Doctor back on our television screens, I was ultimately disappointed by the first season of the new series.
That's not to say that there wasn't a lot to enjoy. Several of the episodes - 'The Unquiet Dead', 'Dalek' and the 'The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances' two-parter - were highly enjoyable. It's probably too early to tag these as "classics" just yet, but they were certainly very good. There was also some solid support from the likes of 'Rose' (a flawed, but decent opener) and 'The End of the World'.
However, there were some real clunkers in there as far as I was concerned: 'Aliens of London' and 'World War Three' were dreadful, while 'Father's Day' just didn't work for me. The series' new monsters, the Slitheen (or whatever they're called, "Slitheen" being their family name) were poor, with an emphasis on farting to appeal to the youngest part of the audience.
Worryingly, all but one of the episodes I'd place at the bottom of the pile was written by the series' lead writer, main cheerleader and executive producer, Russell T Davies ('Father's Day' was the only non-RTD episode that really disappointed me).
RTD's insistence on retaining strong links to Earth (in the form of Rose's mum Jackie and her boyfriend Mickey) was understandable as the series didn't want to alienate casual viewers with an over-emphasis on sci-fi. But ultimately these ties were restrictive. Unless one or both characters joined the Doctor and Rose in the TARDIS then their presence required stories to be set on Earth and within one or two years of 2005. Not only that, but I found the characters annoying and Noel Clarke in particular was guilty of poor acting - something that, the human Slitheen characters aside, was virtually absent otherwise.
Even if including these characters throughout season 27 was deemed necessary, I would have liked the series to cut loose next year and feature them in at most one story. Constantly having them pop up whenever there's an contemporary Earth story is stretching credulity in the same way that Tegan's presence in Amsterdam during 'Arc of Infinity' did.
Other aspects of RTD's stories disappointed me, although he wasn't the only one guilty of some of the following problems. Too many stories seemed badly paced, with quick solutions that didn't seem to involve the Doctor doing anything much. In some ways the season was a learning curve, and it's to be hoped that problems of pacing will be ironed out next year, although plotting does seem to be one of RTD's weakness.
It's also to be hoped that the idea of giving the Doctor catchphrases ("fantastic!", "another stupid ape") and slipping (oo-err!) a sexual innuendo into every episode will be junked next year.
Having not been 100% taken with Christopher Eccleston's performance or character I would like to be more hopeful about next season, but I'm not sure.
With the season being successful, it would be easy for the production team to think "more of the same" is the way ahead. Personally, I'd disagree as catchphrases, Mickey and Jackie, easy solutions, and the lack of alien planets would be in danger of looking repetitive. The series has been successful, but the production team need to move it on for season 28, not simply serve up more of the same.
And, it's unlikely that ITV1 will put up such a poor fight for viewers next time around. "Who" might not have such an easy ratings ride next season.
Although it was great to finally see the Doctor back on our television screens, I was ultimately disappointed by the first season of the new series.
That's not to say that there wasn't a lot to enjoy. Several of the episodes - 'The Unquiet Dead', 'Dalek' and the 'The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances' two-parter - were highly enjoyable. It's probably too early to tag these as "classics" just yet, but they were certainly very good. There was also some solid support from the likes of 'Rose' (a flawed, but decent opener) and 'The End of the World'.
However, there were some real clunkers in there as far as I was concerned: 'Aliens of London' and 'World War Three' were dreadful, while 'Father's Day' just didn't work for me. The series' new monsters, the Slitheen (or whatever they're called, "Slitheen" being their family name) were poor, with an emphasis on farting to appeal to the youngest part of the audience.
Worryingly, all but one of the episodes I'd place at the bottom of the pile was written by the series' lead writer, main cheerleader and executive producer, Russell T Davies ('Father's Day' was the only non-RTD episode that really disappointed me).
RTD's insistence on retaining strong links to Earth (in the form of Rose's mum Jackie and her boyfriend Mickey) was understandable as the series didn't want to alienate casual viewers with an over-emphasis on sci-fi. But ultimately these ties were restrictive. Unless one or both characters joined the Doctor and Rose in the TARDIS then their presence required stories to be set on Earth and within one or two years of 2005. Not only that, but I found the characters annoying and Noel Clarke in particular was guilty of poor acting - something that, the human Slitheen characters aside, was virtually absent otherwise.
Even if including these characters throughout season 27 was deemed necessary, I would have liked the series to cut loose next year and feature them in at most one story. Constantly having them pop up whenever there's an contemporary Earth story is stretching credulity in the same way that Tegan's presence in Amsterdam during 'Arc of Infinity' did.
Other aspects of RTD's stories disappointed me, although he wasn't the only one guilty of some of the following problems. Too many stories seemed badly paced, with quick solutions that didn't seem to involve the Doctor doing anything much. In some ways the season was a learning curve, and it's to be hoped that problems of pacing will be ironed out next year, although plotting does seem to be one of RTD's weakness.
It's also to be hoped that the idea of giving the Doctor catchphrases ("fantastic!", "another stupid ape") and slipping (oo-err!) a sexual innuendo into every episode will be junked next year.
Having not been 100% taken with Christopher Eccleston's performance or character I would like to be more hopeful about next season, but I'm not sure.
With the season being successful, it would be easy for the production team to think "more of the same" is the way ahead. Personally, I'd disagree as catchphrases, Mickey and Jackie, easy solutions, and the lack of alien planets would be in danger of looking repetitive. The series has been successful, but the production team need to move it on for season 28, not simply serve up more of the same.
And, it's unlikely that ITV1 will put up such a poor fight for viewers next time around. "Who" might not have such an easy ratings ride next season.
Sunday, May 08, 2005
"Doctor Who" - 7 down, 6 to go
With last night's 'The Long Game', we've now reached the halfway point in Christopher Eccleston's tenure as the Doctor. From now on, he's got fewer episodes left than we've seen him in.
To be honest, I'm not that disappointed that he's going. While probably the best *actor* to play the Doctor since Troughton, his performance hasn't been as good as I'd expected - too much grinning for the camera for a start. Eccleston's repeated assertion that "Who" is a kids' show seems to be part of the problem - it's as if he looked at his CV, thought that he'd been playing too many dour northerners and thought a year as the Doctor would allow him to tick the "children's", "sci-fi" and "comedy" boxes to impress future directors. His decision to only play the part for a year for fear of "typecasting" is quite honestly bollocks, as a two or even three year stint as the Doctor wouldn't have harmed his career. Getting in an actor who *wants* to play the part and who knows what he's getting himself into, is almost certainly a positive development.
However, even putting Eccleston to one side, I can't help but feel disappointed by the season so far.
Worryingly, many of the problems seem to be with Russell T Davis' episodes and since he's writing the majority of the episodes (8 out of 13 this year and 6 out of 14 next year if you include the Xmas special), that's more than a casual concern.
So far, none of RTD's episodes have reached the highs of 'The Unquiet Dead' or 'Dalek', which wouldn't be a problem if he'd delivered some solid support to Mark Gatiss and Robert Shearman's episodes. Instead, we've had a half-decent opener in 'Rose', which did its job and the enjoyable if plot-thin 'The End of the World' and three poor to average episodes: 'Aliens of London', 'World War Three' and 'The Long Game'.
Equally worrying are some recurring failings, which may or may not be wholly Davies fault. However, as both lead writer and exec producer he's got to take some flak for the inconsistent characterisation of the Doctor, giving the Doctor a 'catchphrase' ("fantastic!" - err, no it isn't) and the obligatory sexual reference to Rose. It's also to be hoped that people such as Murray Gold are being used because they're the beest people for the job and not simply RTD's mates (although since the music has been pretty disappointing, that's debatable).
That Davies is scaling back his number of episodes next season is a good thing, but 6 out of 14 is still too high for me. The series has had a fairly easy ride this year - tons of press coverage, goodwill from the audience and (once Ant & Dec finished) some lacklustre competition on ITV1. Next year things might not be so forgiving. (It's also noticeable that the viewers who've deserted ITV1 since "Celebrity Wrestling" began haven't simply switched over to "Doctor Who").
"Doctor Who" might be back, but I just wish it was hitting more of my buttons than its missing.
With last night's 'The Long Game', we've now reached the halfway point in Christopher Eccleston's tenure as the Doctor. From now on, he's got fewer episodes left than we've seen him in.
To be honest, I'm not that disappointed that he's going. While probably the best *actor* to play the Doctor since Troughton, his performance hasn't been as good as I'd expected - too much grinning for the camera for a start. Eccleston's repeated assertion that "Who" is a kids' show seems to be part of the problem - it's as if he looked at his CV, thought that he'd been playing too many dour northerners and thought a year as the Doctor would allow him to tick the "children's", "sci-fi" and "comedy" boxes to impress future directors. His decision to only play the part for a year for fear of "typecasting" is quite honestly bollocks, as a two or even three year stint as the Doctor wouldn't have harmed his career. Getting in an actor who *wants* to play the part and who knows what he's getting himself into, is almost certainly a positive development.
However, even putting Eccleston to one side, I can't help but feel disappointed by the season so far.
Worryingly, many of the problems seem to be with Russell T Davis' episodes and since he's writing the majority of the episodes (8 out of 13 this year and 6 out of 14 next year if you include the Xmas special), that's more than a casual concern.
So far, none of RTD's episodes have reached the highs of 'The Unquiet Dead' or 'Dalek', which wouldn't be a problem if he'd delivered some solid support to Mark Gatiss and Robert Shearman's episodes. Instead, we've had a half-decent opener in 'Rose', which did its job and the enjoyable if plot-thin 'The End of the World' and three poor to average episodes: 'Aliens of London', 'World War Three' and 'The Long Game'.
Equally worrying are some recurring failings, which may or may not be wholly Davies fault. However, as both lead writer and exec producer he's got to take some flak for the inconsistent characterisation of the Doctor, giving the Doctor a 'catchphrase' ("fantastic!" - err, no it isn't) and the obligatory sexual reference to Rose. It's also to be hoped that people such as Murray Gold are being used because they're the beest people for the job and not simply RTD's mates (although since the music has been pretty disappointing, that's debatable).
That Davies is scaling back his number of episodes next season is a good thing, but 6 out of 14 is still too high for me. The series has had a fairly easy ride this year - tons of press coverage, goodwill from the audience and (once Ant & Dec finished) some lacklustre competition on ITV1. Next year things might not be so forgiving. (It's also noticeable that the viewers who've deserted ITV1 since "Celebrity Wrestling" began haven't simply switched over to "Doctor Who").
"Doctor Who" might be back, but I just wish it was hitting more of my buttons than its missing.
Thursday, April 07, 2005
"Withnail" star Grant tops "Doctor Who" poll
Okay, so it's just a harmless piece of "fun", but what planet are the people who vote in these things on?
Only seven actors appear to have been included in the poll, which makes it fairly pointless in the first place, but even so those voting appear to have been pretty clueless. Or Ant & Dec viewers, which pretty much amounts to the same thing.
Have the quarter of "fans" who voted for Grant not heard his appalling performance as the alternative ninth Doctor in the 'Scream of the Shalka' webcast? Whatever the reasons for Christopher Eccleston's departure were, the last thing the show needs is an actor phoning in his performance and just doing it for the money.
With the exception of David Tennant and possibly Bill Nighy, the actors listed are completed unsuitable for the role. Gervais has yet to be proved to be anything other than a one trick pony (and, yes, I do like "The Office") and his arseing about would outdo Tom Baker during the Graham Williams era.
And as for the inclusion of Robbie Williams (let alone his 4th place) - fuck off!
Okay, so it's just a harmless piece of "fun", but what planet are the people who vote in these things on?
Only seven actors appear to have been included in the poll, which makes it fairly pointless in the first place, but even so those voting appear to have been pretty clueless. Or Ant & Dec viewers, which pretty much amounts to the same thing.
Have the quarter of "fans" who voted for Grant not heard his appalling performance as the alternative ninth Doctor in the 'Scream of the Shalka' webcast? Whatever the reasons for Christopher Eccleston's departure were, the last thing the show needs is an actor phoning in his performance and just doing it for the money.
With the exception of David Tennant and possibly Bill Nighy, the actors listed are completed unsuitable for the role. Gervais has yet to be proved to be anything other than a one trick pony (and, yes, I do like "The Office") and his arseing about would outdo Tom Baker during the Graham Williams era.
And as for the inclusion of Robbie Williams (let alone his 4th place) - fuck off!
