27 February 2007
IT STARTED WITH A KISS ... SORT OF
Something's just occurred to me during the current Arthur 'n' Martha storyline in Coronation Street. Why didn't the kiss outside the nightclub really happen?
What we got was Sean facing the camera, and Sunny facing him. We saw the back of Sunny's head, and the stunted movement of the two bonces made it obvious there was no real lip-locking whatsoever going on.
Okay, so the story dictated that Steve wouldn't know it was Sunny until he recognised the shirt on his back later as he got into his taxi. But in the interests of drama, it would have made sense for the viewer to get a close-up, especially as Sean and Sunny had acted their own dramatic moment outside the nightclub just before the camera panned back and the faked tonsil hockey got underway. The actors surely can't have dictated what did and didn't happen.
Then I remembered the explosive reaction - of the not-good variety - the last time (and, indeed, the first time) Corrie decided to embrace man love. So we got Nick Tilsley clumsily molested by confused Todd Grimshaw - the former doing outrage a little too forcefully; the latter playing confused extremely well. And it was barely a brush of the lips before Nick jumped up and began his tirade at Todd. But the Daily Mail went berserk; the TV critics panned it for not going far enough or, in some cases, just made some very weak jokes; and retired Corrie stalwarts like Jean Alexander gave interviews about how it was all wrong and misguided and there was too much emphasis on youth issues.
After that, Todd met that nurse friend of Martin's in Manchester's gay village but never kissed him, before disappearing off down south. Sean has since filled the gay quota for one street but never actually seems to have any fun, and has struggled to get beyond mild flirtation when it comes to relationships. He has to be seen at the moment trying to rekindle former passions with Sunny, despite him being the beau of barmaid Michelle, his close friend. The storyline might end happily (I doubt it though) and as it includes Steve, will be often played for laughs, but ultimately the lack of kiss and the lack of direction for the likeable Sean - the sort of gay bloke straight guys like Jamie can feel some empathy with - means that Corrie has listened to the critics and lost its nerve.
What we got was Sean facing the camera, and Sunny facing him. We saw the back of Sunny's head, and the stunted movement of the two bonces made it obvious there was no real lip-locking whatsoever going on.
Okay, so the story dictated that Steve wouldn't know it was Sunny until he recognised the shirt on his back later as he got into his taxi. But in the interests of drama, it would have made sense for the viewer to get a close-up, especially as Sean and Sunny had acted their own dramatic moment outside the nightclub just before the camera panned back and the faked tonsil hockey got underway. The actors surely can't have dictated what did and didn't happen.
Then I remembered the explosive reaction - of the not-good variety - the last time (and, indeed, the first time) Corrie decided to embrace man love. So we got Nick Tilsley clumsily molested by confused Todd Grimshaw - the former doing outrage a little too forcefully; the latter playing confused extremely well. And it was barely a brush of the lips before Nick jumped up and began his tirade at Todd. But the Daily Mail went berserk; the TV critics panned it for not going far enough or, in some cases, just made some very weak jokes; and retired Corrie stalwarts like Jean Alexander gave interviews about how it was all wrong and misguided and there was too much emphasis on youth issues.
After that, Todd met that nurse friend of Martin's in Manchester's gay village but never kissed him, before disappearing off down south. Sean has since filled the gay quota for one street but never actually seems to have any fun, and has struggled to get beyond mild flirtation when it comes to relationships. He has to be seen at the moment trying to rekindle former passions with Sunny, despite him being the beau of barmaid Michelle, his close friend. The storyline might end happily (I doubt it though) and as it includes Steve, will be often played for laughs, but ultimately the lack of kiss and the lack of direction for the likeable Sean - the sort of gay bloke straight guys like Jamie can feel some empathy with - means that Corrie has listened to the critics and lost its nerve.
BACK IN THE TARDIS
Get ready to tune in your television sets for Saturday 31 March, for that is when the third series of the new Doctor Who is apparently going to start, despite what the new issue of Doctor Who Magazine says in four different places ...
22 February 2007
COURSE CORRECTION
If you haven't watched Sunday's episode of Lost yet then best not to read on...
With Heroes finally debuting in the UK last week (albeit on the Sci-Fi) channel, it was apposite that Sunday's episode of Lost managed to significantly freshen up that series' rather, by now bedraggled story arc. Being one of the seemingly few stragglers in the UK who still maintain a relationship with the series since it moved to Sky, it felt a little like payback time.
In a nutshell Desmond, the mad Scottish bloke who's been running around the island for the last three series, was seen in flashback in 1996 going through the usual torturous Lost "relationship"-type back story. However, what transpired was that it wasn't actually a flashback at all, but rather Desmond (and by extension the whole cast) have been travelling back in time to re-experience key events in their lives - only now Desmond has developed an awareness of this (in fact his time on the island, ie. the fictional present for us, is being experienced "back in time" by his perception). As such it would appear that all those flashback moments are actually taking place in the characters' present personal time lines. Or maybe. As is the way with Lost none of this was made too explicit.
But there was a really great "What the??" moment in this episode when Desmond (back in 1996 and in a terribly realised London complete with American spelling of words on bill posters) wandered into a jewellers to buy his fiance an engagement ring. Having struggled with some semblance of a notion that he'd lived these moments before, Des was confronted by a jeweller who after first offering him a ring, then proclaimed "No, you're not supposed to take it", and went on to reveal that Desmond's destiny was to end up on the island. Apparently it doesn't matter how much he tries to fight against it, time has a way of "course correcting".
Then just to keep things ticking along nicely, the episode ended with Desmond telling Charlie (he's the Lord Of The Rings chappy, remember?) that he has foreseen that Charlie will die. What's more apparently Desmond's random behaviour over the last few eps (such as erecting a seemingly meaningless pole to catch a lightning bolt) have all been attempts to try and save Charlie's life.
Apparently, all of this stuff is an appetizer for a major plot revelation that is come later in this third series, and will (supposedly) totally change our perception of what the series is actually about. Oh and the programme makers intend to reveal some time soon just how many eps Lost will run for.
With Heroes finally debuting in the UK last week (albeit on the Sci-Fi) channel, it was apposite that Sunday's episode of Lost managed to significantly freshen up that series' rather, by now bedraggled story arc. Being one of the seemingly few stragglers in the UK who still maintain a relationship with the series since it moved to Sky, it felt a little like payback time.
In a nutshell Desmond, the mad Scottish bloke who's been running around the island for the last three series, was seen in flashback in 1996 going through the usual torturous Lost "relationship"-type back story. However, what transpired was that it wasn't actually a flashback at all, but rather Desmond (and by extension the whole cast) have been travelling back in time to re-experience key events in their lives - only now Desmond has developed an awareness of this (in fact his time on the island, ie. the fictional present for us, is being experienced "back in time" by his perception). As such it would appear that all those flashback moments are actually taking place in the characters' present personal time lines. Or maybe. As is the way with Lost none of this was made too explicit.
But there was a really great "What the??" moment in this episode when Desmond (back in 1996 and in a terribly realised London complete with American spelling of words on bill posters) wandered into a jewellers to buy his fiance an engagement ring. Having struggled with some semblance of a notion that he'd lived these moments before, Des was confronted by a jeweller who after first offering him a ring, then proclaimed "No, you're not supposed to take it", and went on to reveal that Desmond's destiny was to end up on the island. Apparently it doesn't matter how much he tries to fight against it, time has a way of "course correcting".
Then just to keep things ticking along nicely, the episode ended with Desmond telling Charlie (he's the Lord Of The Rings chappy, remember?) that he has foreseen that Charlie will die. What's more apparently Desmond's random behaviour over the last few eps (such as erecting a seemingly meaningless pole to catch a lightning bolt) have all been attempts to try and save Charlie's life.
Apparently, all of this stuff is an appetizer for a major plot revelation that is come later in this third series, and will (supposedly) totally change our perception of what the series is actually about. Oh and the programme makers intend to reveal some time soon just how many eps Lost will run for.
20 February 2007
IF YOU CAN'T STAND THE HEAT, ETC ETC
This is exciting. Just issued by ITV ...
MARCO PIERRE WHITE TO TURN UP THE HEAT IN HELL'S KITCHEN
Britain’s first rock star chef Marco Pierre White will step back into the kitchen for the first time in seven years when he takes over the reigns at TV’s most exclusive restaurant and puts a team of celebrities through their paces.
Hell's Kitchen is back. And the first ever British chef to achieve three Michelin stars - before handing them back - is in charge.
Marco, described as the ‘Godfather of British cooking,’ will use his considerable talents to turn a group of celebrities into chefs in just two weeks.
And he is already promising to take no prisoners as he attempts to turn the famous trainees into fully fledged chefs.
Marco is sure to feel the heat as he steps back up to the serving plate and he could employ some of his old school tactics to knock both the trainees and celebrity diners into shape. In the past his legendary temper has resulted in him throwing irritating staff into the bin and dumping customers out on the street.
His bid for perfection may have earned him three Michelin stars but how will he cope in the ultimate celebrity diner? Will the customers go hungry and who will feel the heat and be forced out of the kitchen should the trainee celebrity chefs fail to meet his exacting standards?
"I won't be thinking of the trainees as celebrities,” says Marco. “What I'll be looking for is talent. I want to see tears, I want to hear laughter, I want to see people fight and I want to see people learn.
“I might be the hardest person they'll have ever met but I've got a heart just as big. It's about picking people up off the floor and inspiring them to want to carry on ‘til the end.”
Head of factual entertainment Richard Cowles said: “Marco Pierre White is a kitchen legend and we are very excited to have coaxed him out of retirement and into Hell's Kitchen.
“He is the man responsible for teaching some of the country’s greatest chefs –Gordon Ramsay and Heston Blumenthal both worked in his kitchens. Now a group of celebrities will get the chance to be taught by the original super chef.
“It’s going to be fascinating to see whether, after seven years away from the kitchen, Marco’s fiery passion still burns bright – I suspect that time hasn’t mellowed him.”
Hell's Kitchen is an ITV Production. It was commissioned by controller of alternative programmes Layla Smith. The executive producers are Beth Hart and Katie Rawcliffe.
MARCO PIERRE WHITE TO TURN UP THE HEAT IN HELL'S KITCHEN
Britain’s first rock star chef Marco Pierre White will step back into the kitchen for the first time in seven years when he takes over the reigns at TV’s most exclusive restaurant and puts a team of celebrities through their paces.
Hell's Kitchen is back. And the first ever British chef to achieve three Michelin stars - before handing them back - is in charge.
Marco, described as the ‘Godfather of British cooking,’ will use his considerable talents to turn a group of celebrities into chefs in just two weeks.
And he is already promising to take no prisoners as he attempts to turn the famous trainees into fully fledged chefs.
Marco is sure to feel the heat as he steps back up to the serving plate and he could employ some of his old school tactics to knock both the trainees and celebrity diners into shape. In the past his legendary temper has resulted in him throwing irritating staff into the bin and dumping customers out on the street.
His bid for perfection may have earned him three Michelin stars but how will he cope in the ultimate celebrity diner? Will the customers go hungry and who will feel the heat and be forced out of the kitchen should the trainee celebrity chefs fail to meet his exacting standards?
"I won't be thinking of the trainees as celebrities,” says Marco. “What I'll be looking for is talent. I want to see tears, I want to hear laughter, I want to see people fight and I want to see people learn.
“I might be the hardest person they'll have ever met but I've got a heart just as big. It's about picking people up off the floor and inspiring them to want to carry on ‘til the end.”
Head of factual entertainment Richard Cowles said: “Marco Pierre White is a kitchen legend and we are very excited to have coaxed him out of retirement and into Hell's Kitchen.
“He is the man responsible for teaching some of the country’s greatest chefs –Gordon Ramsay and Heston Blumenthal both worked in his kitchens. Now a group of celebrities will get the chance to be taught by the original super chef.
“It’s going to be fascinating to see whether, after seven years away from the kitchen, Marco’s fiery passion still burns bright – I suspect that time hasn’t mellowed him.”
Hell's Kitchen is an ITV Production. It was commissioned by controller of alternative programmes Layla Smith. The executive producers are Beth Hart and Katie Rawcliffe.
17 February 2007
"THERE IS LOTS OF NOSTALGIA ON THE SITE"
Off The Telly was mentioned in The Guardian's The Guide today: "Rallying against the BBC's attempts to "sex up" Ski Sunday, bothered by the scheduling of Doctor Who and still angry over the axing of the Wheeltappers and Shunters Social Club 30 years ago, this is for people who take unserious TV seriously."
14 February 2007
HYDE 2612 - SLIGHT RETURN
After some internet snooping it transpires that "Hyde 2612" - the telephone number that may prove crucial in unlocking the mystery surrounding Life on Mars is actually, the telephone number for a San Francisco Barbers from 1903, specifically "Serpa & Content, Barbers, 419 Larkin.Hyde 2612".
What does this all mean? Did they have telephones in San Francisco in 1903? What's going on here? Is it just a coincidence?
As you can probably guess, I am loving trying to crack this mystery.
What does this all mean? Did they have telephones in San Francisco in 1903? What's going on here? Is it just a coincidence?
As you can probably guess, I am loving trying to crack this mystery.
"CHICKEN, NOODLES AND ... LEMON CURD?"
The 21st century Masterchef is the first cookery programme on television I've ever liked. It's informal, competitive and doesn't have Loyd Grossman sniffing near the saucepans.
However, I'm still not convinced by judge Gregg Wallace. Even though his narrative tag in each episode has been changed to "food writer and ingredients expert", the man is still essentially a greengrocer. He supplies fruit and vegetables to the catering industry, as was pointed out by the narrator throughout the last series. He is, at face value at least, only different to my local fruiterer in terms of the scale at which he flogs his wares.
How does this make him qualified as to whether a chicken breast cooked in mustard and peppercorns is any good or not? I genuinely don't get it.
However, I'm still not convinced by judge Gregg Wallace. Even though his narrative tag in each episode has been changed to "food writer and ingredients expert", the man is still essentially a greengrocer. He supplies fruit and vegetables to the catering industry, as was pointed out by the narrator throughout the last series. He is, at face value at least, only different to my local fruiterer in terms of the scale at which he flogs his wares.
How does this make him qualified as to whether a chicken breast cooked in mustard and peppercorns is any good or not? I genuinely don't get it.
13 February 2007
IDENTITY THEFT?
I quite like the new BBC2 idents, but does anybody else think that they seem to have taken their lead from the impressive Channel 4 ones?
LLOYD THE INVISIBLE
Coronation Street has just experienced its own equivalent of the infamous and much-reported time in Crossroads when a character went out to get a spanner and never came back. The character in question this time is Lloyd Mullaney, played by one-time Red Dwarf star Craig Charles.
Last summer Charles was suspended by the show following a series of tabloid revelations about drug taking. As a result, Lloyd abruptly disappeared with absolutely no explanation whatsoever as to where he had gone. No other characters seemed to notice he wasn't there any more, and for over six months Lloyd simply wasn't referred to. Not mentioning the fact that a main character wasn't around was like trying to ignore an elephant in the corner of a room with a lampshade on its head.
Last night, however, Lloyd returned as suddenly as he had gone following Charles' reinstatement. No acknowledgment was made of the fact that he had not been on the Street for so long. It was quite ridiculous of the programme makers to think people would not find this unusual, particularly as viewers of Corrie were well aware that Charles had been suspended. But Lloyd was back in his element, talking normally to characters that we had never seen him meet and running his cab firm as if all was perfectly normal.
The ridiculous thing is that it would have been so simple to have covered the character's absence by writing in somebody mentioning that Lloyd had, say, had to go away to look after an ill relative or gone on a long holiday. One simple line would have been enough to make such a lengthy period of leave seem credible. Emmerdale has had a similar problem recently due to the situation surrounding Ben Freeman, but they successfully put in a couple of lines to deal with the fact that his character was no longer around - why couldn't the writers of Corrie have done something similar?
Last summer Charles was suspended by the show following a series of tabloid revelations about drug taking. As a result, Lloyd abruptly disappeared with absolutely no explanation whatsoever as to where he had gone. No other characters seemed to notice he wasn't there any more, and for over six months Lloyd simply wasn't referred to. Not mentioning the fact that a main character wasn't around was like trying to ignore an elephant in the corner of a room with a lampshade on its head.
Last night, however, Lloyd returned as suddenly as he had gone following Charles' reinstatement. No acknowledgment was made of the fact that he had not been on the Street for so long. It was quite ridiculous of the programme makers to think people would not find this unusual, particularly as viewers of Corrie were well aware that Charles had been suspended. But Lloyd was back in his element, talking normally to characters that we had never seen him meet and running his cab firm as if all was perfectly normal.
The ridiculous thing is that it would have been so simple to have covered the character's absence by writing in somebody mentioning that Lloyd had, say, had to go away to look after an ill relative or gone on a long holiday. One simple line would have been enough to make such a lengthy period of leave seem credible. Emmerdale has had a similar problem recently due to the situation surrounding Ben Freeman, but they successfully put in a couple of lines to deal with the fact that his character was no longer around - why couldn't the writers of Corrie have done something similar?
12 February 2007
"I THINK SOMETHING SHOULD GO WRONG WITH MAY'S AIR CONDITIONING ..."
I can already guess just how much sanctimonious, over-sensitive complaining will have hit the BBC Duty Log over the last 12 hours or so since the latest episode of Top Gear aired on BBC2.
Clarkson, Hammond and May headed to the States (Miami, initially) to see if they could buy a car for less money than a fortnight's rental (the budget was $1,000) and then had to undertake a series of challenges, as ever. Unusually, the amount of worthy footage made the programme into a "special", with the regular turns (Star in a Reasonably Priced Car, Cool Wall, etc) all ditched for the week, and the three wise men merely doing a link in the hangar at the start, playing the tape, and then saying goodnight to tumultuous applause.
So, would you complain about a show which constantly derided the folk of good ol' US of A as fat, gun-toting, prejudicial, rude ignorami with no ability to make a good car or get a joke? Would you complain about the prospect of three men having to eat a dead cow found as roadkill by Clarkson, who then transported it to the camp via his roof? Would you complain at three Englishmen who drove their vehicles through Christian far-right Alabama with pro-gay, pro-Democrat and anti-Country & Western slogans emblazoned on their vehicles? I'll leave it with you. However, the ending in New Orleans - where plans to flog the cars and fly home were shelved when they saw the unresolved destruction caused a year earlier by Katrina and just gave the cars to needy families via the local mission - showed the heart and soul of Top Gear. Petrolheadedness and stereotype doesn't ever equal inhumanity, and even Clarkson - the most rabid anti-American in our media - was devastated by what he saw.
It's the best programme on television. And if you want me to apologise for that view, tough ...
Clarkson, Hammond and May headed to the States (Miami, initially) to see if they could buy a car for less money than a fortnight's rental (the budget was $1,000) and then had to undertake a series of challenges, as ever. Unusually, the amount of worthy footage made the programme into a "special", with the regular turns (Star in a Reasonably Priced Car, Cool Wall, etc) all ditched for the week, and the three wise men merely doing a link in the hangar at the start, playing the tape, and then saying goodnight to tumultuous applause.
So, would you complain about a show which constantly derided the folk of good ol' US of A as fat, gun-toting, prejudicial, rude ignorami with no ability to make a good car or get a joke? Would you complain about the prospect of three men having to eat a dead cow found as roadkill by Clarkson, who then transported it to the camp via his roof? Would you complain at three Englishmen who drove their vehicles through Christian far-right Alabama with pro-gay, pro-Democrat and anti-Country & Western slogans emblazoned on their vehicles? I'll leave it with you. However, the ending in New Orleans - where plans to flog the cars and fly home were shelved when they saw the unresolved destruction caused a year earlier by Katrina and just gave the cars to needy families via the local mission - showed the heart and soul of Top Gear. Petrolheadedness and stereotype doesn't ever equal inhumanity, and even Clarkson - the most rabid anti-American in our media - was devastated by what he saw.
It's the best programme on television. And if you want me to apologise for that view, tough ...
10 February 2007
THE YEAR OF SKIPPING
The slow way. The bizarre tradition of serial dramas and sitcoms is the attempt to mimic real life even though they're clearly set in some alternate reality; so the ensemble cast of The West Wing, ER, Dawson's Creek, Gilmore Girls, Friends, Babylon 5, even Alias, drift onward on a yearly basis for the length of their run, as we watch five to 10 years in the life of the characters, countless Christmases and birthdays. There's no reason for this really - and you can see each series trying desperately trying to fill the time, coming up with decent drama to fill in the gaps between the really exciting stuff. This is the time when most shows fail, because there's a feeling of going through the motions.
The new Battlestar Galactica doesn't do that and unless you've seen up to the end of season two I'd skip the rest of this post. Every now and then a month will drift by between episodes and I've just watched the season two finale on DVD and in a really, exciting audacious move they've skipped a whole year in the middle of a scene.
Cylon collaborator Baltar is sworn in as president, the remaining dregs of humanity have been ordered to settle on a planet that can barely support life, he drops his head to the table, there's a crossfade and a caption reads "One year later". I don't like captions. They tend to be quite distracting and too much of a short hand for lazy programme makers trying all too quickly to set the scene when a bit of dialogue, or I don't know, everything else on screen should suffice.
But this caption was special. This caption made me shout "What?" indignantly. Yet it made absolute sense. Although watching a year's worth of people settling, dealing with a nuclear holocaust, the fleet being mothballed and the breaking up of civil order might have been pretty interesting, skipping it all is even more dramatic. For one thing it means that these characters and this story which we've all become quite comfortable with becomes a mystery again - the character dynamics have moved on and relationships that were settled are now in the air - I mean why, for example, aren't Apollo and Starbuck on speaking terms? So the chief and Callie are together now? Adama has moustache?
And the truly great thing about all this is that unlike Star Trek: Voyager which did much the same thing over two episodes in "The Year of Hell", there isn't going to be a reset switch. There are no helpful temporal anomalies in the Galactica universe, no benevolent nebula, things will never be completely the same again.
Creator Ron Moore and his staff have decided it's time to move the story on, treat the narrative as a much longer construct, and make it fascinatingly novelistic. People have been saying this is one of the best sci-fi shows ever and watching this past season I've begun to understand. This audacious move seals it. I only hope that it isn't all revealed to be a dream or some alternative reality. That would be disappointing. Roll on the DVD of season three.
The new Battlestar Galactica doesn't do that and unless you've seen up to the end of season two I'd skip the rest of this post. Every now and then a month will drift by between episodes and I've just watched the season two finale on DVD and in a really, exciting audacious move they've skipped a whole year in the middle of a scene.
Cylon collaborator Baltar is sworn in as president, the remaining dregs of humanity have been ordered to settle on a planet that can barely support life, he drops his head to the table, there's a crossfade and a caption reads "One year later". I don't like captions. They tend to be quite distracting and too much of a short hand for lazy programme makers trying all too quickly to set the scene when a bit of dialogue, or I don't know, everything else on screen should suffice.
But this caption was special. This caption made me shout "What?" indignantly. Yet it made absolute sense. Although watching a year's worth of people settling, dealing with a nuclear holocaust, the fleet being mothballed and the breaking up of civil order might have been pretty interesting, skipping it all is even more dramatic. For one thing it means that these characters and this story which we've all become quite comfortable with becomes a mystery again - the character dynamics have moved on and relationships that were settled are now in the air - I mean why, for example, aren't Apollo and Starbuck on speaking terms? So the chief and Callie are together now? Adama has moustache?
And the truly great thing about all this is that unlike Star Trek: Voyager which did much the same thing over two episodes in "The Year of Hell", there isn't going to be a reset switch. There are no helpful temporal anomalies in the Galactica universe, no benevolent nebula, things will never be completely the same again.
Creator Ron Moore and his staff have decided it's time to move the story on, treat the narrative as a much longer construct, and make it fascinatingly novelistic. People have been saying this is one of the best sci-fi shows ever and watching this past season I've begun to understand. This audacious move seals it. I only hope that it isn't all revealed to be a dream or some alternative reality. That would be disappointing. Roll on the DVD of season three.
HYDE 2612
I've been watching the previews discs for the first two episodes of Life on Mars series two. It's back on BBC1 on Tuesday, with a screening of next week's terrestrial ep following on BBC4.
I'd forgotten quite how much I love this show, and with everything being wrapped up this year, already there's a palpable sense of progression. Don't read on if you object to mild spoilers and theorising ...
MILD SPOILERS AND THEORISING ...
From episode one, Sam's relationship with the 21st century changes, as he receives a telephone call from the future, which he can interact with. In short, the person on the other end of the line can hear him. They also leave trace of a phone number - Hyde 2612 - and there's talk of pulling Sam out once his mission is complete.
Hyde 2612? Mission? Could Sam actually be from the year 2612, was seconded to 2006 for a job of work, and then back to 1973 for another gig? And he's just forgotten?
Anything that gets me speculating like this is must-viewing ...
I'd forgotten quite how much I love this show, and with everything being wrapped up this year, already there's a palpable sense of progression. Don't read on if you object to mild spoilers and theorising ...
MILD SPOILERS AND THEORISING ...
From episode one, Sam's relationship with the 21st century changes, as he receives a telephone call from the future, which he can interact with. In short, the person on the other end of the line can hear him. They also leave trace of a phone number - Hyde 2612 - and there's talk of pulling Sam out once his mission is complete.
Hyde 2612? Mission? Could Sam actually be from the year 2612, was seconded to 2006 for a job of work, and then back to 1973 for another gig? And he's just forgotten?
Anything that gets me speculating like this is must-viewing ...
09 February 2007
"YOU DO SOMETHING TO ME"
"You take them home, and all you see is the death of everything."
Recovery, Tony Marchant's latest effort, goes out on BBC1 on February 25. Following his pretty dismal Family Man, I reckon this is a real return to form. David Tennant plays a - er - family man struggling to come to terms with brain damage following a road accident.
The story, in the main, is told from the point-of-view of his wife (former squeeze Sarah Parish), who now becomes his carer. "I keep looking at people and thinking, 'Why didn't it happen to them?'" she says at one point. And it's heartbreaking stuff, as the couple seek to redefine their relationship, at one stage positing a continued existence as a kind of brother and sister, rather than man and wife. Both leads excel in their roles, Tennant very withdrawn and unresponsive through much of the drama, while Parish is great - she doesn't just mine every line for sympathy, and finds other cadences to play.
It's not all perfect, though. That typical Marchant surly teen crops up here, declaring at moments of high emotion, "By the way, my A levels start tomorrow". Plus, with a tale like this, progression is difficult. To have the brain damage suddenly go away would be stupid ... so a hell of a lot of it is more-of-the-same.
Oh, and Who fans note, we get to see Tennant in the nude, having sex and pooing into a bucket. Peter Davison never did that on telly to the best of my knowledge.
Recovery, Tony Marchant's latest effort, goes out on BBC1 on February 25. Following his pretty dismal Family Man, I reckon this is a real return to form. David Tennant plays a - er - family man struggling to come to terms with brain damage following a road accident.
The story, in the main, is told from the point-of-view of his wife (former squeeze Sarah Parish), who now becomes his carer. "I keep looking at people and thinking, 'Why didn't it happen to them?'" she says at one point. And it's heartbreaking stuff, as the couple seek to redefine their relationship, at one stage positing a continued existence as a kind of brother and sister, rather than man and wife. Both leads excel in their roles, Tennant very withdrawn and unresponsive through much of the drama, while Parish is great - she doesn't just mine every line for sympathy, and finds other cadences to play.
It's not all perfect, though. That typical Marchant surly teen crops up here, declaring at moments of high emotion, "By the way, my A levels start tomorrow". Plus, with a tale like this, progression is difficult. To have the brain damage suddenly go away would be stupid ... so a hell of a lot of it is more-of-the-same.
Oh, and Who fans note, we get to see Tennant in the nude, having sex and pooing into a bucket. Peter Davison never did that on telly to the best of my knowledge.
07 February 2007
DOCTORIN' THE SCHEDULES
When will Doctor Who be back on telly? Well, there are a few possible dates floating around - but none of them seem to be Easter. This week, TV Times has stuck its neck out declared it'll defo be March. I'm going to try and be more specific than that and predict March 24. This is based on various bits of gossip that have come my way and, er, some guesswork.
March 17 has to be out, for two reasons. The mighty Dancing on Ice will reach its finale that night (if my sums are right), something Who doesn't want to cross. And, so I'm informed, Wales take on England in the rugby that evening, with a 5.30pm kick off.
I had heard a rumour that, yes, the 17th was the original plan, meaning the two-part Dalek story (which is third in the running-order, isn't it?) would play out as a double-bill over the Easter weekend. Where a 24th start date would leave that notion, then, I'm not sure.
Have you heard anything?
March 17 has to be out, for two reasons. The mighty Dancing on Ice will reach its finale that night (if my sums are right), something Who doesn't want to cross. And, so I'm informed, Wales take on England in the rugby that evening, with a 5.30pm kick off.
I had heard a rumour that, yes, the 17th was the original plan, meaning the two-part Dalek story (which is third in the running-order, isn't it?) would play out as a double-bill over the Easter weekend. Where a 24th start date would leave that notion, then, I'm not sure.
Have you heard anything?
01 February 2007
HERE IS A PHOTOGRAPH OF VARIOUS PEOPLE LOOKING AT SOMETHING OVER OUR RIGHT SHOULDER.
Further to Graham's post about the Comic Relief launch yesterday, PopJustice has photographs.