REMEMBRANCE OF THE DALEKS

Why 

REMEMBRANCE OF THE DALEKS

Sucked Ass  

Remembrance was pretty shit basically. So bad it was only transmitted in the London region only, so I had to wait and get it on video.

Not that I was having any sleepless nights waiting. I had already consigned my Dr Who membership to the dustbin, the moment Sylvester McCoy in his first story, decided to hang off a large icy crevice (by his umbrella) for no apparent reason what-so-ever .

Not that it was his fault. McCoy and Aldred were hampered by underhanded BBC directives to bin the series.

This meant ill-thought-out plot-lines and ropey acting. Thus the series became a condescending parody of itself, to appease the Telly-Tubby generation.

FASHION DISASTER

So now our heroes had to wear these terrible outfits: McCoy with his gay-as-fuck sweaters with Question Marks and dumb-ass Umbrella. I just wanted to punch him in the face. But it wasn't his fault. Actually I should have punched JNT in the face, as this was entirely his idea. AGAIN.

John Nathan Turner was producer of Dr Who throughout the 1980s. He also pretty much had the last say on what the characters attire should be.

As a result Peter Davison ended up in cricket attire. Not entirely practicable by any means. A sort of middle finger to the previous incarnations cosmic hobo dandy in a scarf.

But then it went really wild with Colin Bakers multi-coloured dream coat. And by McCoys era it just went off the rails entirely.

Sophie at least got to wear combats.

HAMMY ACTING & NEAR-DEATH EXPERIENCES

Everything about McCoys tenure always felt rushed and half-baked.

Not to mention their performances. Bonnie Langford, straight out of Panto, just screamed at everything. In fact, every one is in panto-mode. Even the Master, cackling over his latest devious schemes.

One half expects Madam Twanky to rock-up as the latest nemeses.

    'There was simply no time' Recalled McCoy. 'They were always rushing things'.

So much so that in the episode 'Battlefield' Sophie almost died when the water tank she was placed in began to bulge and crack.

It was only her co-stars quick diligence that saved her life, when McCoy immediately ordered the film crew to yank her to safety.

UNMEMORABLE

For a story called Remembrance I couldn't recall anything terribly memorable. At least not for any good reasons. In fact I can only remember how terribly cheesy it all was.

The Daleks come across like stereotypes. The Supreme just spins around and promptly self-destructs at the news that the script-writers have blown up Skaro.

The only thing holding it all together is Terry Molly really. But even he has to suffer the indignity of a half-baked emperors new clothes.

DARK TIMES

This was the darkest period the series had ever known. BBC 1 Controller Micheal Grade had essentially stabbed the series in the back several times already. He would rather see the money go to more befitting programs such as Gardners World & East Enders. 

By this point the show was dead already. JNT was merely flogging a dead horse, kept animated by dodgy special FX.

Thus the Grade'ites began gathering and lurking in the shadows, waiting to feed on the corpse of Dr Who, now reduced to being broadcast in London only, as regional Tv networks wouldn't touch it with a barge-pole. 

It wasn't long before the show finally got the axe. By 1989, the end of an era had come. By which point it seemed nobody really cared anyway. Clearly the show needed a rest. It had run out of ideas and enthusiasm. Time to move on. 

LEGACY 

It would be seven long years before we saw Dr Who return again as a TV movie in 1996. Planting new seeds. Sylvester returns and gives the performance of his career. And by 2004, the series rockets into the stratosphere once again. 

As a result Gardners World & East Enders get their funding cut. 

Looking back, it surprises me how many peeps still enjoyed McCoys tenure as Dr Who. And look back at Remembrance with fond memories.

Where they high? Probably.

WAR OF THE WORLDS: THE SERIES

 WHY 

WAR OF THE WORLDS: THE SERIES 

SUCKED ASS 

1988: I was really looking forward when this Tv show first came out. But was left feeling rather disappointed. Like I felt something was missing.

Maybe it was the distinct lack of Martians and War Machines. That said, we get to see both fleetingly in the first episode before one and all are all blown to hell in some A-Team style bullshit.

Any cannon went out the broken window, by that first episode. Then it became this sorta generic aliens disguised as humans trope. Basically a rip-off of 1960s series The Invaders with no attempt to up the game.

Around this time, we already had this trope up and running with excellent Tv series 'V', which was by far a much more original premise and tons more money spent on it. Where as the WOTW show was shot on video and looked really cheap.

It merely used the original movie as a spring board and fell flat on its face after two seasons. There was just no effort to explore the original movie at all.

To explore the martian war machines and how they worked, the missiles they came in, or any conjecture about Mars. Nope. Nuthin.

The same could be said for Friday The 13th: The Series which capitalised on the Jason franchise. Except. THERE WAS NO JASON IN IT! 

It was like watching Halloween III and wondering where the fuck Micheal Myers was at. At least Robert England was Freddy in the Night Mare on Elm Street Tv series. But again it was shot on video and looked pretty cheap. 

I could go on. 

All that said, looking back at these shows, with an adults mind, it could have been worse. We could have not had any Sci-fi /horror /fantasy shows at all. What with most Tv channels taken up with Dynasty, Dallas, Falcons Crest and The Colbys. 

TV SHOWS TODAY 

Today, it seems like we've finally got into the swing of things. The Mandalorian and the Book of Boba Fett are (in my humble opinion) not only stick to the Star Wars cannon like glue but also honour and worship it. 

We get to see more of Tattooine, explore the Sand people's culture, Jawas and their Sand Crawlers. Heck we even get to look inside the Sarlacc pit and they even use that long metal rod thing, that Han Solo used in the trash compactor.  Now thats dedication to the source. 

Basically its just great fun for kids and brings out the kids in most adults. What I would say, catching the triple balance of Nowness, Pastiche and Nostalgia. 

NOWNESS, PASTICHE & NOSTALGIA 

This is why most remakes and Tv shows (based on old movies) fail miserably. They ignore these three inherent rules. Think of them like the three laws of robotics, Robo Cops prime directives or holy commandments. Ignore them at your peril. 

Nowness refers to the Zeitgeist of our times. The language we use or the technology we refer to. The politics and social graces of what is happening right now. Just look at any 80s Tv show: Shoulder Pads, synth music, crew cuts and buzz words like 'Excellent' or 'Totally.' This is Nowness in a nutshell. Apply this to the 90s with Nirvana and the Grunge scene or the naughties with its political correctness and screaming snow-flake liberals. 

Pastiche refers to the actual body of work being imitated or alluded to. Whereby the original material is acknowledged and reflected upon heavily in the rework. 

Finally Nostalgia: whereby the source material is referred back to with due care and fondness. Much like 'the good ole days'. Recapturing that nostalgia for a Tv show or movie is a tricky thing. 

Point in case, Rob Zombies The Munsters remake. I've only seen a few clips and it looks pretty dull. Yep its got tons of nostalgia and pastiche alright but no nowness to it.  If they had updated the costumes it might have worked. But sticking to the original done-to-death aesthetics, was in my humble opinion a hug mistake. But who am I to tell Rob Zombie? 

THE FUTURE 

Who knows. So long as we got the balance then all is right with the world of Tv shows and remakes. So if you see some remake or re-imagined Tv show that really sucks. Well, now you know. 

DEATH OF CINEMA

REMAKES:  

THE DEATH OF CINEMA

Remakes have become the death of Cinema. And here’s why.

MINDLESS REMAKES 

Despite public outcry, the 1980s Terry Gilliam classic Time Bandits is the latest to fall under the stream-roller of executive plumbing. 

Gone are all the unpalatable un-PC bits that we all loved. Thus no more Dwarfs because that’s racist.

The reason they plough ahead with such stupid remakes, regardless of civil unrest is because they do the number-crunching and come out with an absurd profit margin.

Remakes typically do this. Its far more economical to do a remake and let it fail, rather than go to all the trouble of an original idea and having to spend tons of money promoting it.

We all loved Schwarzenegger in Total Recall. But who the hell remembers the remake? And more to the point, what the hell was the point of making it?

It’s a no brainer. Even if the film flops, at least the suits didn’t lose out on too much money. And its always floggable in some format or other. 

But it also shows how desperate Hollywood has become.

The remake has become the norm. If George Lucas tried to get Star Wars made today, it would likely never happen. It very nearly didn't happen back in 1976.

Ironically Star Wars opened the floodgates for quirky films to get made. Including Time Bandits. 

And the reason it almost got cancelled was due to studio interference, from the cleaners who kept cleaning all the sets, to the head of the lighting department who kept telling george off about his lighting choices. 

Even the actors vetoed the film. And why? Because Star Wars wasn’t the norm.

Nobody had ever heard of it before. Nobody gave a shit. 

CATCH 22 TRENDING 

We follow trends. Its as simple as that. What everyone wanted in the 1970s was gritty cop thrillers. Dirty Harry, Serpico, The French Connection.

So it was kinda a Catch 22 trending situation to get an original idea to work. 

In order for an original idea to float, there has to be a wave of other original ideas floating about as well, that have made some profit.

Sooner or later, somebody has to near dam kill themselves just to push that boundary. And Lucas became very ill due to all the stress, trying to get Star Wars made.

Ultimately it’s all about the funding. To break free of the remake cycle, film makers still need money, they need studio backing, but also be free of executive interference, and be somewhat of a thick-skinned maverick.

Like Lucas, Terry Gilliam had his fair share of studio interference and stressful film making experiences. His first attempt at making Don Quixote (with Jonny Depp) was eventually abandoned after the film set was washed away in a rain storm. It would take him like 17 years to finally get that movie made.

EXTORTIONATE PRICES 

To be honest, Cinemas are no longer places of engagement. Unlike traditional theatre, (where there is at least a intermission and bar and thus discussion about the arts), a cinema has become a fast-food joint, with patrons coerced into buying over-priced food and beverages to justify the (lack of) a cinema experience. 

I once bought a bag of mixed penny sweets at a cinema. It cost FIVE POUNDS. Which is insane. I had the staff member weigh each sweet, which worked out 20pence a sweet. Jesus.  They're supposed to be penny sweets! 

Dont get me started with the drinks. 

Then another time we saw a film and it was actually out of focus for the entire two hour movie. 

NO INTERMISSIONS 

Plus theres no breaks! No intermission. You are literally stuck in that room for whatever the length of the film.  If the movie is ten hours long. Tough luck buddy. You gotta sit thru it, to the bitter end. 

Case in point was sitting thru a good three hours of Avatar 2, in the worlds most uncomfortable cinema seats. I then complained to the staff. They shrugged and didn't care. 

I told them to put all the adds in the middle of the movie. And call it something like I dunno an "INTERMISSION" maybe? I doubt they'll take that advice on. 

Thus cinemas are dying off.  The fast-food mentality isnt helping. 

ONLINE STREAMING 

Now its all online. Why bother paying to see a movie in a cinema? When you can sit in the comfort of your own home, in your jim-jams, in your fave comfy sofa with a ton of cheap-ass snacks and drinks?  

Thus the days of cinema are extremely numbered. Hosting plafforms such as Netflix and Disney will eventually supersede the cinema altogether. 

Which might actually encourage original film-making but all at a price.

And that price is the death of community cinema. A place where people went out on dates and friends met and talked about the movie afterwards.

AI MOVIES 

Anyone with a half-decent computer and software can make a movie these days. Better still, if you use things like Mid-Journey AI, you can basically use prompts and the computer will make the film for you. 

If you've seen the short AI clips on offer already, you'll know that the quality of most is exquisite and also quite worrying. 

Its only a matter of time before a fully articulate AI movie is made by a bunch of ten year olds in their bedrooms. And bye-bye Hollywood. 

CELLS WITHIN CELLS 

The line between reality and fiction is getting so blurred that I doubt anyone can really tell the difference anymore. 

Is that really Trump on Tv or is that AI?  This is danger. 

So this is what passes for the cinema experience today. 

Now we’ve become compartmentalised. Put into boxes. Staring at boxes. Cells within cells. 

Perhaps one day we really will be living in the Matrix. But by then, I guess we wont even care. 

ALIEN 3

  THE PROBLEM WITH 

ALIEN 3 

There is nothing hopeful or redeeming about this film. But in itself is a compelling narrative. Great atmospheric lighting, fantastic grimy as hell set-pieces and a stella cast. However, compared to the previous kick-ass instalment, this sequel aint much fun.

Rather, its like a form of cinematic voyeurism or watching a car crash, or children burning alive in a house, and you cant take your eyes off it because its got that creepy-ass dont-go-in-the-basement kinda vibe about it.

In fact, the prison in which this film is set, is essentially one big huge basement. And as much as you want your favourite characters not to go down in there and get butchered, its out of your hands.

UNRAVELLING CHARACTERS 

I guess the ultimate problem with this movie is the producers seemed hell-bent on unravelling the nicely self contained arc of the previous movie.

In other words, they didn't have any respect for what had been achieved in Cameron's Aliens, whereby Ripley had a second chance at a family. I mean, she started off in that film, a broken lost soul, 57 years passed her time, unable to sleep, forever having nightmares etc. On top of all this, then she finds out her daughters died of old age. Just when she thinks things couldn't be any worse, she's facing a court martial if she doesn't go back into the Aliens lair on LV-426.

It sucks. And we the audience feel for her loss and root for her journey ahead.

Through that journey, she learns how to fight back. She faces her demons, she even faces the Alien Queen herself. She kicks her ass and saves Newt and by the end of that movie I left that cinema feeling uplifted and totally entertained.

WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN

Following that, any sequel including Sigourney Weaver would have been pointless. Ripleys character was done. End of story.

If anything, she wakes up safe and sound, six months later back at that Earth space station, fresh and breezy and despite another tiresome inquiry and debrief, she & Hicks get a flat together and live out their lives a happy couple, looking after Newt, while Bishop probably becomes their butler or something. Who knows, even Jonesy the cat, is the family pet.

Wouldn't that have been nice?

Meanwhile let someone else take on the pesky Aliens. Like Arnold Schwarzenegger. Or Dolph Lungren. Or even Yaphet Koto playing Parkers twin brother, a military grunt looking for pay-back. And maybe said grunts phone Ripley up occasionally for advice on Xenomorph pest control.

But nope. Alien 3 literally undid Cameron's Aliens by executive order. Fuck happy endings.

NEW HOUSE, NEW RULES

Its the same I guess when you acquire a new house. You want to re-decorate. And in a way, thats how directors approach movies. They want to infuse their individual stamp on it. Sometimes for the better (as in Jim Cameron with Aliens) but more often for the worse.

I guess thats what happens when no two directors stick with a franchise. Just look at the Friday the 13th Movies. Some are pretty good but invariably an uneven patchwork of a series. But thats just the nature of film making. Make a good a film, become sick to death with it and move onto the next project.

LEGACY CLAUSE

From a legal standpoint, there should be a "legacy-clause" put in place, so that subsequent film makers cant just piss all over previous instalments unless said previous instalment sucked in the first place. So no killing off previous characters should be top of that list.

The Mummy sequels of the 1950s killed off everyone from the previous movies, wether we liked them or not.

It becomes less about preserving a happy ending and more about bums on seats.

Don't get me wrong, I love a good sequel. Its just the whole killing off previous characters I have a problem with. Particularly when as a viewer, one becomes invested in the characters, rooting for their salvation against impossible odds.

And when I first saw Alien 3 at the cinema, I was so depressed to discover Newt & Hicks had been killed off.

And Bishop just ends up on a junk heap. Fucksake.

What a shitty way to treat those characters. But thats Hollywood folks.

ROCKY IV

THE FORGOTTEN MESSAGE OF 

ROCKY IV 

Don't you just hate it when some Gen-Beta + kid rocks up and totally disses your childhood memories? 

So I came across this "Writing Coach" Brandon McNulty on You Tube with his 134K subscription list, dishing out advice on "Bad Monologues vs Good Monologues"

This featured various speeches in famous Tv and Film, among them was the Rocky Speech in Rocky IV: 

During this "fight", I've seen a lot of changing, in the way you feel about me, and in the way I feel about you. In here, there were two guys killing each other, but I guess that's better than twenty million. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that if I can change, and you can change, everybody can change!

Come on, thats a great speech! You'd have to be some kinda robot to let that speech not get to you. And lets face it, most Russians had had it with the KG used to B. 

McNulty of course dismissed it as 'bad monologue' because it lacked realism but then praises a dwarf's speech in Game of Thrones because, well he's a dwarf. 

But then I forget no Gen-Beta + kid gives a shit about what I think. 

And alas it seems the older one gets, the less meaning yesterdays teachings have. And there lies the danger. 

Everything is a 'Dad Joke' these days. Something your Dad used to say that you never got. By default if you are old, you have no validity. Your words mean nothing. You have become nothing. 

That is what todays young people are being brain-washed into and Brandon McNulty seems to be living in a bubble, pandering to the Gen-Beta + kids who don't know any better. 

And ok, I admit that Rocky IV  is not the greatest movie ever made by any standard and on the face of it, the movie seems to entail two oversized muscle-bound-alpha-pricks cracking the hell out of one another. 

But if you actually watch the movie, you might get some context of what this film is about? 

Unfortunately no Gen-Beta + kid is ever gonna get that, unless they have a pretty good understanding of the movies context and what it was like to live under the threat of nuclear destruction. 

So to put things in context: when Rocky IV was made, our world was on the brink of NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION ?? What did Game of Thrones ever do??

Rocky IV "spent a total of six weeks as the number one film at the US box office, staying on top through the Christmas and New Years period, and grossed a total of $127.8 million in United States and Canada, and $300 million worldwide, the most of any Rocky film. It was the highest-grossing sports film of all time" (wiki).

Also when Rocky did that speech, Gorbachev was the new Premier of the USSR. Things were changing. The threat of nuclear destruction was still prevalent but Reagan had secured summit meetings with Gorbachev for nuclear disarmament. A lot of people breathed a huge sigh of relief.

So that Rocky speech y'all dissing here may seem like cheese pants today but its films like this that helped to ease relations between the two super-powers.

Otherwise we'd all be nuclear mutations scavenging around a wasteland by now, suckin on rocks...

just sayin.

BABY REINDEER: THE FUTURE OF TELEVISION?

BABY REINDEER: 

THE FUTURE OF TELEVISION? 

For those living under a rock, the Tv series Baby Reindeer became an instant television hit, resonating with one and all, who have ever experienced stalkers or the dark side of the entertainment industry.

A plot that entails a hapless stand-up comedian (Richard Gadd) and his turbulent journey to success, while trying to cope with a full-time stalker called Martha, who threatens that success.

What made the story even more intriguing was that it is ‘based on a true story’ of Richard Gadd’s struggle to succeed, whilst being harassed by a real life Martha.

And the press where quick to find out who that Martha really was. 58 year old Fiona Muir-Harvey has since denied the allegations against her, including stalking and sexual abuse.

Lately she appeared on Piers Morgan Uncensored and has sued Netflix for anything between $55 and $170million for defamation, negligence and violation of privacy. A case she might actually win.

Imagine Gadd rolling out of bed that morning, turning on the TV, only to see his arch-nemeses Fiona Muir-Harvey on television basically ruining his reputation and success, yet again. 

You couldn’t make it up. And that’s the thing. Life mirroring art and vice versa.

If she wins this case, it could not only effect Netflix and Gadds working relationship, but on how we approach drama as entertainment.

All this is going to have a knock-on effect on story telling. It could potentially make it impossible for writers to draw from their own experiences because Tv networks will cite the Martha Case and say no can do.

This could also mean that writers will have to be exceptionally metaphorical in their approach to the medium. 

One can no longer just write about childhood trauma and having that played out with actors. What if the relatives of Nazi criminals jump on this band-wagon and start suing holocaust survivors for defamation of character? 

We could be looking at a whole new sub-genre of coding, as hard issues are dumbed down to child-like innuendo, just to avoid another law suit. Or just ignored completely in favour of yet more Super Hero movies or other remakes.

That said, if Fiona Muir-Harvey loses this case, then I imagine Gadds follow up sequels to Baby Reindeer will reflect that. A sort of echo-chamber if you will: actors playing actors, Gadd recapping on the whole law-suit affair and overcoming the odds etc.

It could also mean the flood gates opening to a whole new genre of hyper-realism, a mish-mash of reality and fiction. Where reality, drama and reality Tv collide. 

One could ask does the real Fiona Muir-Harvey actually exist? Or is she an actor, just like her on-screen doppelgänger? Is this all just marketing?  

On that note, are we all to become doppelgängers in someone else's televised life story? 

In any event, it will be interesting to see how all this pans out. 

Stay Tuned.

 

DOLLYS BRACES ? 
THE MANDELA EFFECT !

There seems to be a major confusion over whether Blanche Ravalec's character Dolly actually ever wore braces in the original cinematic version of Moonraker or not. 

Yet no evidence of this exists, not on video or Dvd releases. Nevertheless, there are some out there in the internet world, who still remember the theatrical release, who insist that this was the case, despite Blanche Ravalec stating that she never did. 

Regardless of this, forums have cropped up all over the internet in the last few years with numerous individuals concurring that Dolly did in fact have Braces. 

And if you think about it, the scene where they first meet would certainly made more sense (and would have had tons more impact) if she did have braces: and playing back the scene in my own mind where they first meet, Jaws smiles first, revealing those glinting metal chops, then she smiles back with glinting braces but wait ! They're gone! WTF? Could this be the Mandela Effect?

The Mandela effect is supposed to be us remembering traces of alternate time lines, such as certain historical facts being altered (the idea that Nelson Mandela died in prison instead of becoming president) or famous logos like the VW sign that differ today to how we remember them, the changes are usually subtle but enough to make you stop and wonder...
Of course there could be
another reason: 

CENSORSHIP
That's right. Moonraker made tons of money for all concerned and in an age of ever growing paranoia stemming from terrorism and heavily funded witch-hunts over pedophilia, we've seen em bringing down the likes of Jimmy Saville,  Rolf Harris and various top brass at the BBC. 

So its a no brainier that the scene with Dolly and Jaws can only be twisted out of all context, into something conveniently suitable for yet another lawsuit.  

Just look at what happened to Micheal Jackson, yes he was a weirdo but there was not a shred of proof he fiddled those kids and yet he was bled dry in lawsuits.

And when it comes to a very large male hooking up with a very small young girl in pigtails and braces, this is all way too much for today's molly-coddled nanny state, ever too weary to punch the lawsuit button at any given opportunity. 

So it is quite possible that, at some point in the last few years, nervous executives trying to save the dwindling popularity of this movie, most likely had these scenes with Dolly digitally 'altered' for VHS, DVD releases, and later with Blu Ray. 

So roll on 1984. If anything the idea that our history is being erased is not far from the truth, but it is more to do with avoiding (and creating) law suites on a infinite monopoly board, set up by the rich to govern the poor.