The Aerie
Okay, so I have no idea where that came from. Sat down to write about something else entirely, and suddenly this gigantic screed jumped out of my fingers and onto the web. I usually eschew politics on here, because frankly the world needs another political blog about as much as New Orleans needs another hurricane.
But... nope. Won't say it. Don't get me started.
No, we'll just talk about TV.
To segue to the completely banal, I've been catching up on back-episodes of "Lost" recently. During time that I should have been using for constructive purposes.
I had no interest in "Lost" when it aired last year, but then someone described it to me as "the best science-fiction show on television," so I had to look into it. I had no idea it had any science-fiction elements, I thought it was just a drama about survivors of a plane crash.
I find it... nice. Pleasant. Not terribly compelling, but certainly palatable. In some senses it suffers from the inevitable predictability of the TV genre, in other senses it is pleasantly innovative. The episodes vary from 'serious' episodes which chase down The Mystery of the Island, to 'character' episodes which chase down The Mystery of Character X's Background, to 'break' episodes, in which all such serious stuff is set aside and we get to see a bit of character development and interaction. In that way it is similar to other "long story" programs that have evolved since 'Babylon 5' and its multi-year plot arc.
I can't say it strictly qualifies as 'science fiction.' While mysterious events happen on this island, there are no "science fiction' elements to them. At least not yet. So far it's a mystery with elements of the fantastic, but it doesn't seem to have any elements to make it 'science fiction.' I suppose I could devote a whole different blog entry to what makes science fiction rather than occult or fantasy. That would probably be more interesting than this one!
But it suffers by association with "Survivor," because as an old Survivor fan, it's easy to see that the characters on 'Lost' do not get grimy or hungry enough for realism. After watching 20 episodes of 'Lost,' I find myself balking. Why is everyone just sitting around? Why aren't their clothes filthy? How does the Rough Handsome Devil always have exactly the same length of beard stubble? By Day 20 of 'Survivor,' the castaways look like sunburned hobos: the 'Lost' castmembers look like a prep school vacation.
Speaking of 'Babylon 5,' I was very pleasantly surprised to see Mira Furlan guest-starring as Ben Gunn. On 'Babylon 5' Mira played Delenn, an alien who undergoes a transformation to half-human. I hadn't followed her career since then, and it was nice to see that she had a role in a successful mainstream program like 'Lost'. Inasmuch as one can tell from talk-show appearances and Internet comments, Furlan seemed to be a nice person and a hardworking actress.
Unlike 'Lost,' watching episodes of the first season of '24' are not "nice" or "pleasant." They're very upsetting. Not to say it isn't an interesting and exciting program - it's just that I'm tense enough without watching a series of seven-minute cliffhangers followed by a 41-minute cliffhanger. The first season didn't seem to have totally hit its stride: the series seems to wrap up after 14 of the 24 hours, and then starts over again with some really implausible nonsense like a case of "dissociative amnesia," and a seemingly never-ending supply of sinister Serbian assassins.
My favorite scenes are those in which a character is resting after being awake for 36 hours and they are awakened. I've been there, done that. If I was awakened after one hour of sleep following 36 awake, I wouldn't be fighting or even running from sinister Serbian assassins. I'd be laying there hoping they'd shoot me.
'Lost' premieres Wednesday, by which time I hope to have caught up on the program. '24' doesn't debut until January, so I'm thinking by then I may have been able to slog through four seasons of the show (or is it five?) I'm not sure if I can actually STAND to watch five seasons of '24,' but at least at this point I get the idea of what the show is about.
The other program I've been watching is the new 'Battlestar Galactica' from the Sci Fi channel. Wow, talk about a difference. The old TV series, starring Lorne Greene, was the epitome of crap, with horrid effects, scenes shot in basements, and actresses in disco outfits. Worst was this kid called "Boxy" and his robotic dog. Even in my science-fiction-starved adolescence, I couldn't stomach the program.
So I had no expectations at all for a remade "Battlestar Galactica." I figured it was just Boomers re-treading their pasts.
Wow, was I wrong.
This "Battlestar Galactica" takes the basic plot of the original - a 12-planet human civilization overthrown by its robotic servants - and actually takes it seriously. The new series has its flaws, but many of them are endemic to series programming - episodic pacing, fluffy 'break' episodes, etc - but by and large it's grim, it's uncompromising, and it really looks hard at the question of how desperate the refugees in such circumstances would be. It's really about as good as science fiction TV can get.
I haven't watched this much TV in years, but then I've been on vacation for almost three months now, so I guess I'm due. Pretty soon I'll be working again, and then TV will return to its dusty back shelf... for now, I guess, just enjoy...