Television Reviews
Created | Updated May 17, 2007
Please excuse the impromptu absence last issue — I went on holiday and forgot to inform the editorial staff. Sorry guys, and sorry to any readers of The Post out there who missed me! Well, I'm back this issue, but things aren't quite going to be as they were. You see, I've had a little think. This issue I'm not going to deal with individual programmes, but the state of TV in general.
You see, I've heard a phrase bandied about lately: 'the golden age of sci-fi'. I've stumbled across this phrase several times in the last few weeks, and the consensus is that we are living in such an age. For American TV, perhaps, but I fail to see the British side of the equation.
I mean, sure, we've got Doctor Who back, which is perhaps the biggest chip in our favour. It's one of the most critically and commercially successful television programmes of the last few years. Yet it's not ushered in the programmes everyone assumed it would. I can think of three programmes that started in the last few years: one good, one all right and one bad. They would be Life on Mars, Torchwood and Primeval, respectively.
Life on Mars is one of the best and most important shows of the last twenty years, capturing a wide audience. If anything, this is the true response to Doctor Who. I don't mean that the two programmes are anything alike, mainly that Life on Mars got produced because of the ratings figures for Who.
Torchwood — the Doctor Who spin-off — seems the obvious choice here. If anything, Torchwood expresses the growing Americanisation — not that this is a bad thing, necessarily — of our TV industry due to the increasing predominance of Spin-offs. For the most part, Torchwood is decent enough TV. Yeah, some of the 'adult' content actually seems childish and some of the episodes lack direction, but episodes like 'Small Worlds' convince me that Torchwood could actually get there one day.
Primeval, on the other hand, often touted as ITV's answer to Who, is a show we could have done without. It' silly, overblown and pointless, with little artistic merit. Since British sci-fi is such slim pickings I know I shouldn't complain, but I couldn't make myself watch it beyond the first episode.
So there, folks, is our so-called British 'golden age': four shows in the last three years. I for one don't quite think that it's the renaissance we were promised. No doubt I've overlooked something minor, but for the most part I think the four shows thing stands.
The Americans, on the other hand, have loads! The obvious examples are Lost and Heroes, neither of which I’m a follower of — I don't do well with shows that refuse to give answers. Heroes just never grew on me. It's hard to pinpoint why exactly, but after five episodes I gave up. The less obvious example is perhaps the most effective: good old Battlestar Galactica. Now that's sci-fi done properly. Great cast, great scripts with a deep relevance to the world we live in today. Some will tell you that it's over-depressing but I think the tone suits the situation, myself. Sci-fi, in my mind, has never been as political and relevant since The Prisoner.
So does this so-called 'golden age' apply? I don't think so. For every good show, your Battlestar Galacticas and Doctor Whos, you've got five Primevals and (I'm sorry to say this) Dresden Files. Not necessarily bad shows, but not astounding, with perhaps more to condemn them than praise them. In essence, then, an increase in quantity does not mean an increase in quality.
