Television Archive

1

Predictions on CBS’ New Season

Let’s play a game, shall we? I’m going to go through the press release on CBS’ new 2013-14 primetime series, as pillaged from TV Line.com, and make some predictions on how I think they will do. Ready? Here goes.

Crazy Ones (Comedy)
EP | David E. Kelley (Harry’s LawAlly McBeal)
DIRECTOR | Jason Winer (Modern Family)
CAST | Robin Williams (Mork & Mindy), James Wolk (Political Animals), Sarah Michelle Gellar (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Ringer), Hamish Linklater (The New Adventures of Old Christine), Amanda Setton (Mindy Project)

Log line: A father/daughter workplace comedy set in the world of advertising.

Prediction: So we’re getting a lighter hearted version of Mad Men, interesting. Buffy fans are going to go ape shit for this series because OMG BUFFY! ZOMFG! Meanwhile, Boomers will hail the return of Robin Williams to television. Williams won’t be quite as manic (or funny) as people would hope for, but he’ll be good enough to get the show picked up for a second season within nine episodes.

The Millers (Comedy)
EP | Greg Garcia (Raising Hope)
DIRECTOR | James Burrows
CAST | Will Arnett (Up All Night), Margo Martindale (The Americans), Beau Bridges (My Name Is Earl), JB Smoove (Curb Your Enthusiasm), Mary Elizabeth Ellis (It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia), Michael Rapaport (The Mob Doctor)

Log line: The multi-cam project revolves around a recently divorced man living with his parents.

Prediction: On paper, this should work. This is a talented cast with no shortage of Emmy pedigree. James Burrows has been directing smart TV comedies for longer than I’ve been alive. The problem, as I see it, is that ABC already beat CBS to the punch on this one with the dreadful Sarah Chalke comedy, How to Live With Your Parents (For the Rest of Your Life). The comparisons will be inevitable, and The Millers won’t do nearly as well as it would have under other circumstances. They’ll make it to the finish line of their first season, but not even a Will Arnett chicken dance will see it to a second season.

Mom (Comedy)
EPs | Chuck Lorre, Eddie Gorodetsky and Gemma Baker (Two and a Half Men)
DIRECTOR | Pam Fryman (How I Met Your Mother)
CAST | Anna Faris (The House Bunny), Allison Janney (The West Wing), Nate Corddry (Harry’s Law), Matt Jones (Breaking Bad), French Stewart (3rd Rock From the Sun), Spencer Daniels (The Office), Sadie Calvano (J. Edgar), Blake Garrett Rosenthal

Log line: A newly sober single mom tries to pull her life together in Napa Valley in the multi-cam sitcom.

Prediction: French Stewart in a Chuck Lorre series? No good can come from this. I foresee maudlin pathos grabs in every episode, ultimately leading to “feel good” comedy. Despite the fact that anybody with half a brain will see through Mom as dim witted schmaltz, it will get picked up for a million seasons and become the new Two and a Half Men.

We Are Men (Comedy)
EP | Rob Greenberg (How I Met Your Mother)
CAST | Jerry O’Connell (The Defenders), Kal Penn (House), Tony Shalhoub (Monk), Chris Smith (Paranormal Activity 3)

Log Line: A ditched groom moves into a short-term housing complex and makes friends with some older, divorced dudes in the single-cam sitcom.

Prediction: Brosplosion! Part of me, the very dark part that feeds on the misery of others, wants to watch Jerry O’Connell-Romijn sad-sack it up. Though there will be lots of potential for smart writing, I foresee a cloud of Kirk Van Houten oafishness and some wholesale misogyny poisoning the show for anybody who isn’t a bro. It will get cancelled before it has a chance to get to the back nine.

Hostages (Drama)
EPs | Jerry Bruckheimer (CSI), Rick Eid (CSI, Dark Blue)
CAST | Dylan McDermott (American Horror Story), Toni Collette (United States of Tara), Tate Donovan (Deception), Sandrine Holt (House of Cards), Rhys Coiro (Entourage), Billy Brown (The Following), James Naughton (Gossip Girl), Mateus Ward, Quinn Shephard

Log Line: Based upon the Israeli format, the project centers on a family caught in the middle of a grand political conspiracy and a righteous FBI agent at the center of said conspiracy whose role will come as a surprise.

Prediction: This sounds like a network equivalent to Homeland. The cast is solid. Moreover, Bruckheimer’s reputation as an EP speaks for itself. Where ABC tried and failed with smart, high-stakes geopolitical drama in Last Resort, I anticipate Hostages will pull back a bit and let the audience latch on to individual character conflicts rather than selling the politics outright. I think this one will finish its first season, and likely get picked up for a second, if only because it will attract a following from fans of CSI and The Practice.

Intelligence (Drama)
EPs | Michael Seitzman, David Semel (No Ordinary Family), Tripp Vinson, Rene Echevarria (Terra Nova)
DIRECTOR | David Semel (No Ordinary Family)
CAST | Josh Holloway (Lost), Marg Helgenberger (CSI), Meghan Ory (Once Upon a Time), Michael Rady (Emily Owens, M.D.), James Martinez (Breaking Bad), John Billingsley (True Blood)

Log line: Centered at US Cyber Command, and focuses on a unit that has been created around one agent with a very special gift, a microchip that has been implanted in his brain that allows him to access the entire electromagnetic spectrum.

Prediction: Much as it pains me to say it, I don’t think the only show that remotely qualifies as SF in CBS’ lineup will make the cut. While I blame Brandon Braga for most of Terra Nova’s failures, Echevarria’s association will be something of a poison pill. Despite featuring that guy from Lost, the pitch sounds a lot like 24 meets The Six Million Dollar Man. Genre fans will give it a go but I doubt a man with (insert ray) vision will attract enough of a broad audience to lock down a second season, at least not when people can watch Person of Interest. CBS will try to ride it out, but I expect a quiet cancellation after the finale.

And there we have it. Now to sit back and bask in my prescience, or suffer the jeers of my readers when I get everything totally wrong. Tell you what, let’s make this interesting. If I don’t bat at least .500 on this one, I shall make some sort of act of contrition, to be named by my readers, on a future podcast. My fate is in your hands.


0

The Odd Legacy of Star Trek TNG’s The High Ground

If Captains’ Logs: The Unauthorized Complete Trek Voyages is to believed then The High Ground is one of TNG’s most internally lamented episodes. For those who don’t recall this third season story, it’s the one where Doctor Crusher gets kidnapped by space terrorists, who then hold her captive in exchange for aid from the Federation in securing their country’s sovereignty from planet Rutia’s world government.

Ron Moore called the episode “an abomination.” Moore goes on to say,

“We didn’t have anything interesting to say about terrorism except that it’s bad and Beverly gets kidnapped – ho hum. They take her down to the caves and we get to have nice, big preachy speeches about terrorism and freedom, fighting and security forces versus society. It’s a very unsatisfying episode and the staff wasn’t really happy with it.”

Michael Piller, credited as The High Ground’s co-executive producer, questioned the overall statement the story made about terrorism.

“Was it the point where the boy puts down the gun and says, ‘Maybe the end of terrorism is when the first child puts down his gun?’ It was effective in the context of that show, but is certainly not a statement that provides any great revelation.”

Given that the IRA crisis was far from resolved when the episode went to air in 1990, it is understandable why The High Ground was seen as a milquetoast affair in the face of a real social issue. The closest the episode comes to making an actual statement on terrorism is during a conversation between Data and Picard. Data cites Mexican independence from Spain as a precedent in support of violent insurgency as a last resort when attempting to bring about political change. Picard’s reaction to Data’s android innocence is to fall back on the series’ stock answer: “Well that’s just human nature and these are big questions for which there is no easy answer.” No wonder the writers were unhappy with the episode. At least when TNG married the prime directive with the war on drugs it came with the benefit of Lt. Yar admitting to the allure of chemical intoxication; albeit Wesley’s subsequent “I’ll never do drugs” comment was positively stomach churning.

 

Nearly a quarter of a century after The High Ground went to air, it’s interesting to note how closely the episode’s themes mirror our own contemporary dialogues on terror. Twenty-three years might have given us real world analogues to Star Trek’s PADDs, tricorders, phasers, and even a theoretical model for a warp drive, but clearly our sociology has lagged behind the science.

In the episode’s first act, Alexana Devos (Kerrie Keane), the head of Rutia’s security condemns the Ansata terrorist organization as a group of animals. She further paints the Ansata as “…fanatics who kill without remorse or conscience.” Please to note the othering of terrorists as sub-humans.

Devos’ attempts to ferret out the Ansata portray Rutia as a near police-state. Suspects with even the slightest ties to the Ansata are rounded up in mass arrests and questioned without formal charge or the benefit of legal counsel. Rutian methods extend so far as to arrest children and teenagers as potential Ansata sympathizers. Though nobody comes out and says it, the episode clearly implies that Rutia is a place where the average citizen is either with the government or the Ansata.

Meanwhile the Ansata view themselves as freedom fighters struggling against an oppressive regime. Kyril Finn (Richard Cox), leader of the Ansata, rationalizes himself to Dr. Crusher as a 24th century George Washington. When Crusher reminds Finn that Washington was a general and not a terrorist, Finn retorts that the difference between terrorists and generals is the difference between history’s winners and losers. This leads to an interesting point wherein Finn asks Doctor Crusher how much violence is buried in the Federation’s past? In terms of canon, quite a lot: The Eugenics Wars, World War 3, the Earth-Romulus war, and a century of cold war with the Klingon Empire. Finn throws the idealized world of the Federation in Doctor Crusher’s face to demonstrate the selective memory governments often utilize in the prosecution of terror while simultaneously ignoring their own “legitimate” uses of force.

When Finn takes Captain Picard hostage after a failed attempt to destroy the Enterprise, Doctor Crusher questions the difference between a mad man and a committed man willing to die for his principles. Picard, however, is utterly dismissive of the Doctor’s question. Having witnessed the Ansata murdering members of his crew, he is not inclined to entertain the broader issues of the Ansata conflict. Picard further marginalizes the Ansata position in his suggestion that Doctor Crusher’s entirely conceptual recognition of the Ansata cause is the product of Stockholm Syndrome.

Later in the episode a joint Starfleet-Rutian strike force assaults the Ansata compound. Picard and Crusher are liberated but Finn is assassinated in the process. Picard’s reaction to the kill is somewhere between indifference and tacit approval. Then, as if to wash the Federation’s hands of the entire situation, the Enterprise leaves Rutian security to deal with the aftermath of Finn’s martyrdom. At no point does anybody in a Starfleet uniform acknowledge the fact that the Federation has played an active part in making an unstable situation worse.

Given the way the word has changed over the last twelve years, it’s hard not to look at Rutia and see a blueprint for our world. Combatants turn each other into monsters to legitimize their respective actions. Disagreement is confused with dissent. Empathy is mistaken for sympathy. The High Ground may not have told the story that Melinda Snodgrass intended in 1990, a story which would have seen the Federation on the wrong side of history, but it does offer a clearly unexpected window into our own world.


2

SyFy’s Defiance: A Gamble in Transmedia Storytelling (and Marketing)

A few days ago my friend Will and I were talking about the upcoming SyFy original series Defiance. When we began speculating on why SyFy would opt for a transmedia approach to Defiance, releasing both the TV series and a tie-in video game at the same time, we defaulted to snark. “They like money, that’s why.”

But what if there is more to Defiance than a shameless cash grab?

Premise: The management at SyFy recognizes that their original programming (movies not withstanding) has more critical appeal than popular. Consider the recently cancelled superhero series Alphas as people’s exhibit A.

Exhibit B: The most recent trailer for Defiance (the series).

 

Assuming the trailer is an honest representation of the show, Defiance seems like the perfect series to win over critics. An alien channels Tony Soprano with his Mafioso rationalization, “I’m doing this for my children.” A single line of dialogue from Graham Greene manages to bring the entire conceptual framework of indigenous rights into a science fiction setting. What sort of savvy media consumer wouldn’t pay attention to the poignancy of having a native American actor paint humanity at large as a marginalized people in the face of a technologically superior colonial power? At the same time, I’m not so delusional to think that near future alien-human politics is universally appealing; we learned that lesson from Babylon 5. It sounds to me like Defiance is the perfect sort of show to win over critics while boring the broader audience with its weekly discussions of individual rights versus the collective good. Hey, I think we just re-invented Outcasts.

Enter Defiance (the game)

 

Other than the name and SyFy branding, is there anything to indicate these two things are related? The series looks like Mad Max meets Firefly featuring Farscape; whereas the game channels Lost Planet and Mass Effect. Even the cover girl for Defiance projects a FemShep vibe.

Left: Female Commander Sheppard as seen on the cover of BioWare's Mass Effect 3. Right: Promotional cover art red head pulled from Defiance's homepage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When we peel back the layers on Defiance’s video game it further seems to be positioning itself as an amalgam of everything that is popular in gaming.

“Join the futuristic online open-world shooter where thousands of players scour a transformed Earth competing for alien technology. Hunt alone or with others as you improve your skills and level up, unlocking powerful weapons that will help you survive the massive battles that await.”

So there’s the Borderlands franchise covered with just a hint of Planetside tossed into the fray.

“Fight for survival in a constantly evolving environment with regular content updates and dynamic events. Play solo, or join tens of thousands of simultaneous live players in a futuristic San Francisco Bay Area that’s a fully-realized open world. You’ve never imagined a 3rd-person shooter this huge.”

World of Warcraft? Check. Gears of War? Check. Now here comes the clincher.

“Experience dynamic missions, massive co-op battles, and endless exploration across a gigantic game environment. Plus, brought to you by Syfy, the Defiance TV series is a revolutionary weekly drama that impacts the game, and gives you the chance to change the show.”

Play the game, and change the show. Wasn’t that the slogan for Heroes’ terrible third season? Considering the game is set in San Francisco and the series in St. Louis, I expect the changes will probably be of the blink-and-miss-it variety. Otherwise, SyFy had best be prepared for a whole lot of 4chan inspired trolling.

This combination of television and gaming amounts to an interesting gamble on the part of SyFy. On a cable channel where a few hundred thousand viewers can make the difference between renewal and cancellation, a cross branded video game might just be enough to bring in an audience for a show which already looks to draw on conceptual themes from other one season wonders.

The down side of gambling is that the consequences can often be ugly. Case in point, it would not take much to turn Defiance into Captain Power and the Soldiers of the Future. Shitty light gun games built into Captain Power’s action sequences doomed an otherwise well written series after one season. If Defiance (the game) is anything but a masterpiece it’s going to make the show look bad in the eyes of gamers. And at a $60 price point – $100 for the deluxe edition – god help the series and everybody who works on it if the game turns out to be a turd. If SyFy thinks it has an image problem for its dedication to low cost reality TV and syndicated wrestling, imagine how bad it will get when the internet accuses the network of pandering to/plagiarizing from A-list of video games as a means of raising capital. The same problem emerges if the show is garbage and the game is great; TV wonks could accuse SyFy of throwing a series under the bus to leverage itself into the video game market. Though if SyFy was intent on making a fast buck they would have revisited the free to play model of Battlestar Galactica Online.

Whatever else it is, it’s hard to see Defiance’s transmedia experiment as anything but an all-in bet. Both the game and the series need to resonate with their respective audiences while also seeing some of the game’s following tune into the show. It’s a risky proposition on all fronts, but if it works Defiance could be at the forefront of a new evolution in genre entertainment. At the very least, April will see a renewed discussion in the ongoing “video games as art” debate.


0

Disney Buys Lucasfilm/Arts, Now Let’s All Calm Down

On the off chance you’ve been living under a rock on some distant extra-solar planet without access to television or the internet, you may not have heard that Disney bought Lucasfilm. The house of mouse secured Lucas’ brainchild for 4.05 billion dollars. The price is quite a steal considering Disney paid 7.4 billion for Pixar and 4.2 billion for Marvel. Disney’s acquisition includes LucasArts, Industrial Light and Magic, and Lucas Sound, making  the deal seem all the more like a fire sale on George Lucas’ life. And as if all that wasn’t enough to get the internet buzzing, Disney paired announcing the sale with news of a new Star Wars film to release in 2015: Details remain unreleased.

Apropos of Obi-Wan, millions of voices cried out in terror…and nerd rage. Scenes with Jar-Jar as a speaking character and Leia reduced to “Disney princess” status raced through people’s minds as Randy Newman played some tedious up-tempo song in the background.

People pleaded with the internet gods, “Please, no more. Why can’t they leave it alone? Nothing good will come from this? They’re going to do more crap from the expanded universe.”

Life rarely mirrors rage comics, but this announcement ushered in one of those infrequent moments of similarity.

You seem upset...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now that the dust has settled, and fury morphed to quiet discontent I feel it is my duty to say the following. Good people of the internet, I feel your frustration but it’s time to calm the hell down.

Yes, not many among us liked the new trilogy. There was too much green screen, questionable writing, and no real depth to any of the characters. Would that George Lucas’ story telling abilities matched his technical acumen, I too would lament his departure from the Star Wars universe.

However let us explore the idea that some of the best Star Wars stuff has little to do with George Lucas, other than via his role as the progenitor of a mythic cycle, and scant direct tie-in to the canonical movies. In fact, I would go so far as to say that since Return of the Jedi the popularity of Star Wars, as a contemporary mythology, is so far removed from film that even if the next trilogy proves as bad as the last, it wouldn’t really hurt the brand or the reason it is so beloved by its fans.

To illustrate this point I offer five first rate aspects of the expanded universe which would not have been possible if Lucasfilm/LucasArts had left Star Wars alone.

The Heir to the Empire Trilogy

Timothy Zahn published the first of these post-Jedi continuity novels in 1991. In doing so he rekindled interest in Star Wars after many years of creative drought. The first book, Heir to the Empire landed on the New York Times best seller list. It would later go on to be adapted into a graphic novel by Dark Horse Comics. In addition to giving Coruscant its name, Zahn also gave Star Wars one of its most enigmatic villains in the form of Grand Admiral Thrawn. Though Zahn’s novels may show their age, they did bring a new generation of fans into the zealous fold when they hungered for more in the aftermath of Return of the Jedi.

Tie Fighter

Published by LucasArts but developed by the now defunct Totally Games, Tie Fighter is a name spoken with awed reverence among gamers. Though not the first game to put players in the cockpit of a star fighter, Tie Fighter set multiple benchmarks for space combat simulation. In terms of sound, graphics, and mission complexity, it was leaps and bounds beyond its predecessor X-Wing. TF also managed to change the news cycle of the Star Wars universe. For the first time the rebels were cast not as heroes but violent insurgents bent on disrupting the life of innocent imperial citizens. In shifting perspectives, players saw a more pragmatic and practical side to the empire and less of an evil oppressor.

 

Star Wars Jedi Knight: Dark Forces 2

The name might be a mouthful but Dark Forces 2 offered the first ever post-Jedi live action glimpse of life in the Star Wars universe. Like so many games of the late 90s, Dark Forces 2 bookended each level with a full motion video cut scene. As a precursor to Bioshock, a player’s decisions in-game dictated clear consequences for lead character Kyle Katarn, a former imperial officer turned smuggler turned Jedi. But more important than that, DF2 gave Star Wars fans what they really wanted: an opportunity to cut down storm troopers with a light saber in a first person shooter.

 

 

Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic

Because the only thing better than Dungeons and Dragons is a Star Wars RPG governed by D20 rules. KOTOR, and its sequel KOTOR 2, wound back the clock on the decadent, and possibly illiterate, civilization that is the Star Wars universe. Set thousands of years before the Battle of Yavin, KOTOR set the galaxy on fire with a war between the Republic and the Sith empire. As with any good RPG, decisions on the part of the player created multiple paths to stopping the Sith lord Darth Malak. Although far removed from the source material, KOTOR was widely praised by critics and earned multiple awards including the first ever BAFTA Games Award for best X-Box game of the year.

The Clone Wars

Perhaps the most controversial of the expanded universe settings, The Clone Wars follows the exploits of Anakin Skywalker and company during the “fade to black” conflict that occurs during Episode 2 and 3. While the story telling can fall flat with respect to certain characters whose fates are known, the series is at its best when chronicling the war stories of the clone troopers. Indeed, if this series proves anything, it’s that even the worst executed ideas (Star Wars Ep. 2) can lead to better things when fresh eyes get to work within a well established mythology.

So while Disney may own LucasArts/Films, it doesn’t necessarily follow that Star Wars is going to get neutered like so many scruffy looking Nerf Herders. Disney owns Marvel, yet Tony Stark is still an egomaniacal booze swilling playboy. The Hulk still has anger problems, even if they are a little inconsistent. Wall-E, for all its cutesy-poo robot stuff, was a story about unabashed capitalism gone wrong, wrapped in a criticism of the inherent sloth built into a western lifestyles, all told through the lens of ecological catastrophe.

Indeed, if the new trilogy, as well as these examples, prove anything, it’s that Star Wars can often be at its best when it is far removed from the man who created it.

So relax already. Everything is going to be fine.

1

Who is Captain Power, and Why Does He Deserve a Reboot?

The year was 1987. Transformers was all the rage, and Hasbro was filling dump trucks with money having successfully paired a line of toys with a fantastically addictive children’s cartoon. Enter Gary Goddard and Tony Christopher. They had an idea for a post-apocalyptic science fiction series that would pit man against sentient robots without any of the space Mormon BS of Battlestar Galactica. Enter Mattel. Mattel’s executives were frothing at the mouth with envy over Hasbro’s Transformers revenue. So they came up with a plan to insinuate light gun based interactivity into Goddard and Christopher’s series. Thus was born, Captain Power and the Soldiers of the Future: a series meant to cater to the whole family, but in doing so appealed to nobody…well nobody except me and a few other loyal resistors. Seriously, I took a beat down for bringing my XT-7 Powerjet toy to school for show and tell.

So what went wrong? Captain Power’s story was dark. I mean Ron Moore Battlestar dark. Set in the 22nd century, it saw a scientist named Lyman Taggart (David Hemblen) take control of the world’s robot armies by linking his mind to that of a sentient computer. The scientist came away from the encounter seeing “machine life” as the next phase in human evolution. Therein he began a pogrom against humanity, digitizing humans into computer code so they might be reconstituted into machine bodies at a later date. Taggart’s machines nearly wiped the planet clean of life save for small bands of refugees, scavengers, and resistors. Just picture all the worst parts of the future as depicted in Terminator and Terminator 2 and you’ll be in the right ball park.

Enter “Captain” Jonathan Power (Tim Dunigan) and his father Dr. Stuart Power (Bruce Grey). Stuart was working on a secret weapons project within a hidden base in the Rocky Mountains. “Project Phoenix” would have turned the tides in the “Metal Wars” in that it transformed a single human soldier into a mobile weapons platform capable of resisting digitization.

Sadly Pap Power died before the “Power Suits” could go into mass production. Vowing revenge for his father, Jonathan and a band of four other resistors took up a campaign of asynchronous warfare to bring down Lord Dredd and his machine Reich.

In concept, it’s fantastic. Dread was the embodiment of every nasty bit of 20th century nationalism, only in a cyborg body and commanding legions of machine soldiers. The language of hegemony, empire, and resistance permeated each episode. Characters had back stories which gradually unfolded throughout the season allowing for some great narrative depth. In particular, the youngest member of the team Jennifer “Pilot” Chase was a former “Dread Youth” stooge, liberated by the Captain. The series was even a little avant-garde in its treatment of genetically engineered soldiers, biological weapons, WMDs, and the Internet. Of course with Joe Straczynksi, who would later go on to write and show run Babylon 5, posting writing credits for half the episodes such quality long-arc story telling is hardly unexpected.

Ultimately, the show’s biggest strength proved to be its undoing. Children, except bookish power nerds like me, were not apt to catch-on to the subtleties of the story. Meanwhile parents, including my own, had a problem with plopping their kids down in front of a show where the bad guy espoused his plans for a new order. Say nothing for the dubious image of certain human antagonists walking about in regalia reminiscent of a certain German political association. Also, the toy’s “shoot at the bad guys on TV” selling  point barely worked.

After one season the series was canned and Landmark Entertainment, Captain Power’s production company, began a slow fade into the ether. Until recently, this was the end of the story for Captain Power. Now it seems the Captain may be on the brink of a renaissance.

Via Topless Robot and Ain’t it Cool News we’ve learned that Gary Goddard’s new production company has entered negotiations with former Paramount executive Jeffrey Hayes to resurrect Captain Power as Phoenix Rising, a one-hour weekly drama. Noted Star Trek writers Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens have signed on as both developers and writers for the new series.

With the promise of details to come, it’s hard not to speculate based on a single press release and a lone promotional video. Which network/cable channel will have the stones to pick this up? When the original series cost $1,000,000 per episode in 1987 money, can the new show look good on a manageable budget? What does Joe Straczynksi think about this, and is he going to get involved with the project?

Here’s what we know.

Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens have said that their intent is to begin again the story of Captain Power, NOT to “fix Captain Power.” The new series will explore how the world of the Machine Age came into being, while delving into the rich history of the characters. Though the actors will likely be different, fixtures such as Jonathan Power, Pilot, Scout, Tank, and Lyman Taggart/Dread will all be in play. Former series star Tim Dunigan has also said that he is involved with the process “on some level.”

It may be early days on Phoenix Rising, and maybe I’m channeling a bit too much of the energy that I had as a sixteen year old writing a spec script for season 2 of Captain Power, even though I knew it was a fruitless exercise, but for fans of the series this is some pretty interesting news.

Here’s the promo video for Phoenix Rising.

Now to find a way to get Gary Goddard, Tim Dunigan, and/or Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens on the podcast.


0

Doctor Horrible’s TV Debut: Interesting, but not a Game Changer.

Last week Joss Whedon’s Dr. Horrible’s Sing Along Blog made its television debut on the CW Network. As I did indeed sing along to Captain Hammer’s (Nathan Fillion) character defining song A Man’s Gotta Do, musing on just how much money I’d spent on Horrible merch since 2008 (A Hammer shirt, an iTunes purchase of the series and soundtrack, and the DVD – you do the math) I began to wonder about the point of airing a quintessential web series on conventional television. I’ve since come to the conclusion that televising the unrequited love story of Billy (Neil Patrick Harris) and Penny (Felica Day) was in fact Joss Whedon blowing a raspberry in the face of the establishment.

Well, it’s either a raspberry or a way to get his name back on television as a warm-up to his upcoming S.H.I.E.L.D TV show. But if that’s the case then this blog post sort of falls apart. So for the moment, let us assume Dr. Horrible + TV = a very quiet middle finger to a dying medium.

As a cultural phenomenon, Dr. Horrible is old news. Unless you’re very new to the internet and its distinct culture (cat videos, Wil Wheaton, vlogs, memes, XKCD comics, web series, et cetera) the chances are good you already know the Hammer is not Nathan Fillion’s fists. This reality likely produced two sorts of people watching Dr. Horrible on TV: those who knew what the hammer is, and everybody else who was learning for the first time.

To the second group, the message is obvious; this is what you’ve been missing by not watching internet television. For the vast majority who were watching Horrible because they love it/because it was there/because Joss Whedon is their nerd lord and sovereign the message was different. To this particular in crowd, the subtext was more along the lines of “look how awful the viewing experience is on conventional television.”

And wow was it painful.

The roughly thirty minute runtime of Dr. Horrible was stretched out to fill a one hour block. Though I expected commercials at the end of each of the series’ three acts, the mid-act commercial breaks were jarring and unnatural. Remember, this is a series written for the internet. In-act scene transitions do not lend themselves to the act break commercial structure that goes with 42 to 44 minutes of narrative television.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, the CW treated the Doc just like they would any other piece of programming. Every couple of minutes there was a dancing “VD” for Vampire Dairies in the bottom right corner of the screen (notice me staying classy here and not going for the obvious joke about venereal disease). Sometimes the CW network watermark would get shot with an arrow as a promotion for Smallville redux Arrow. Where the internet empowers viewers with the option to close annoying crap like that, TV trapped me with its now flagrant in-program advertising.

But the worst crime was the CW’s decision to reformat Doctor Horrible out of 16:9 into a conventional 4:3 aspect ratio. I make a lot of concessions to the ancien regime of media when I turn on the television, but catering Dr. Horrible toward people who own old CRT tube sets crosses the line.

Everything about watching Dr. Horrible on TV made me long for the low budget honesty of the web series. A world where a viewer can watch something in whatever format they want, at whichever resolution their net connection can support, and where commercials may intro and extro a video, but they don’t interrupt the flow of the story. Nowhere was I more acutely aware that I was watching television than when I was watching something not meant for television. And through it all I could hear Whedon blowing his raspberry, not at me, but at the network itself. For he had insinuated something meant for one medium into another and in doing so proved just how unsuited conventional media is for assimilating new media into its pantheon.

Therefore, our take away from having Dr. Horrible on the CW should not be a thesis on Whedon as the king of transmedia. When we stop to think about the limitations of television’s fixed narrative structure, Doctor Horrible has no business being on the air. So kudos to Whedon for sneaking one past The Man. Bravo for showcasing how the main stream can embody the indie spirit; Dr. Horrible was a product of the 2007 writer’s strike. But nobody should presume Dr. Horrible’s TV debut is indicative of a two-way street between web media and television.


0

I, Kaled: A Short Primer on Dalek Origins

Earlier this week I wrote a rather exhaustive piece on Asylum of the Daleks. After I posted it, a film maker friend of mine emailed me on a point of detail regarding my thumbnail description of the Dalek’s origins within Doctor Who’s canon. Knowing my friend to be a Whovian of the first order I set about reviewing my source material, the 1975 Doctor Who serial Genesis of the Daleks. Though the Daleks had existed as the Doctor’s foes long before this twelfth season plot arc, it was in this particular story that Dalek creator and Doctor Who writer Terry Nation, who later went on to define British dystopia with the subversive series Blakes 7, detailed the specific origins of the Dalek race.

Dalek history begins on the planet Skaro. Once a technologically advanced world, Skaro at the time of the Daleks’ creation was in a state of ecological collapse and technological decay due to a thousand year war between two rival humanoid nations, the Kaleds and the Thals. The course of the war saw both sides deploy atomic as well as chemical weapons, thus rendering Skaro’s surface nearly lifeless. Moreover, prolonged attrition cost both sides much of their advanced technology, forcing the Thals and the Kaleds to adopt firearms, akin to those used on twentieth century Earth, as a primary weapon of warfare. The survivors of the war lived in two giant domed cities. Only “mutos”, Kaleds and Thals whose genetic code had been damaged from radioactive and chemical fallout lived outside the cities.

Enter Davros.

Davros was the chief scientist of the Kaled “Elite”. The Elite was a scientific and military enclave housed in a bunker outside of the Kaled city. They existed beyond the direct control of the Kaled civilian authority, and while charged with producing research and technological developments that would end the war with the Thals, their purpose was usurped by Davros. In studying the Mutos, Davros came to understand that the humanoid inhabitants of Skaro had a further evolutionary form. Therein he created project Dalek, a combat and life support vehicle that would house the Kaleds once they had fully evolved into their “ultimate form.”  Davros, however, was unwilling to trust to evolution. He began experiments on healthy Kaleds, exposing them to radiation so that he might artificially evolve his race. Many of these experiments were monstrous failures, condemned to live out their tortured lives in the caves under the Kaled city. Ultimately, Davros’ twisted scientific genius proved successful in creating the “final evolution” of the Kaled/Thal race.

In that sense, the first ever Daleks were direct genetic inheritors of the humanoid inhabitants of Skaro. Encased in the travel machines, the mutated Kaleds were psychological unstable, but bound to obedience by invasive programming which limited their autonomy.

Davros would not stop his work there. He wanted to further improve on the Dalek race. He set about a series of genetic alterations that would remove remorse, pity, and conscience from the Dalek psyche. Their lone motivating force would be survival at any cost. When intervention from the Doctor introduced Davros to the knowledge that there was other intelligent life in the universe, he conceived of the Daleks as a twisted weapon of peace. In suppressing all others races known to creation, the Daleks would enforce peace through extermination.

Upon learning of Davros’ intention to augment the Daleks, many members of the Kaled Elite, as well as the Kaled civilian government moved to end the project. While even those who opposed Davros were resigned to the knowledge that the Kaled/Thal race would evolve into a form utterly inhuman, they insisted that their final evolutionary form retain the concepts of right and wrong. Despite their objections, Davros remained utterly committed to his vision of a Dalek future. He conspired with the Thals to have the Kaled city destroyed in a missile attack. In the immediate aftermath of that strike, Davros turned his first batch of twenty augmented Daleks against the Thal city. Only a handful of survivors managed to escape extermination at the hands of the Daleks.

Davros’ only miscalculation was assuming that the Daleks would remain loyal to him. As Davros moved to consolidate power, the Daleks refused to acknowledge his dominion as their rightful leader. During this insurrection, the Doctor destroyed the hatchery that housed the twisted infant Daleks. However the automated production facilities for breeding more Daleks, as well as their shells, remained intact. Despite Thal survivors entombing the Daleks within the Kaled Elite’s bunker, the Daleks possessed all the knowledge and manufacturing capacity to perpetuate themselves and eventually leave the confines of Skaro. Their reproductive blueprint would be Davros’ augmented and evolved Kaled, their mandate: extermination.

While subsequent Daleks, prior to the end of the Last Great Time War, would share a genetic heritage to the Thals and Kaleds of Skaro, they are first and foremost a product of Davros’ genetic manipulation and warped psychology. Though the Kaleds were a militaristic nation, the pure hatred that embodies the Dalek subspecies was not a trait shared by all Kaleds. Indeed, the Kaleds who died in the first Dalek purge stand as proof that there was a redemptive quality to the Kaled people. Therefore, the origins of the Dalek race must begin and end at Davros. While the Kaleds and Thals were both genetically bound to evolve into a squid-like form of life, it is only through Davros’ genetic manipulation that they became the enemy of all life within the Doctor Who universe.


0

Guest Post: KW Ramsey on The Big Bang Theory As A Tale of Misogynist Redemption

I’m not going to lie, I’ve never seen an episode of Community, and in fact I’m a fan of its opposite, The Big Bang Theory. Yes, I know, I’m a terrible person who should be burned at the stake as a heretic, how dare I show myself in public, yadda, yadda, yadda. I tell you this not for public self-flagellation but rather so you’re aware that what I say below isn’t directed as a dig from a non-fan but rather an analysis from someone who actually watches and enjoys the Big Bang Theory.

I wasn’t a fan of the show at first. In fact, I think I’d dismissed it entirely without even seeing an episode as insulting to nerds/geeks and playing upon the tired stereotype of intelligence being a detriment when dealing with members of the opposite sex. (Yes, I know, a sitcom that uses stereotypes as part of its humour, what a shock.)

What turned me around later was the advice of my friend Jeff, an older geek (with the grey hair to prove it – yes I will pay for that comment later) who really enjoyed it and convinced me to give The Big Bang Theory a chance. I’m glad I did, if not completely for the reasons Jeff recommended it.

Yes the show panders to stereotypes about nerd/geek culture, dipping its toe into the shallow end of the geek pool. At the beginning the four main characters, all male, are all outliers of negative aspects of geek culture, used for comedic purposes. They are also misogynists. Okay, I’m sure that statement has upset a few people, but read on before condemning it, as I’m about to explain how they are misogynists and why The Big Band Theory is the tale of their redemption.

So Leonard, Howard, Sheldon, and Raj form what I’ve decided to call the “Four Faces Of Big Bang Misogyny”. I call them that in an effort to keep the scope of discussion narrow as there are many aspects to misogyny and gender relations that I am not an expert at and won’t address, though I do encourage those with deeper knowledge to comment on this piece to engender further discussion. Now, on to the Four Faces.

Howard during a "date night" with TV's Katee Sackhoff

Leonard is the first Face. He is the objectification of women so that they are held up on a pedestal above him and other men, an unobtainable goal that needs to be chased, quested for, and will ultimately remain out of reach. Leonard is the classic “good guy” before he’s turned bitter and resentful and morphed into the second Face or worse. He sees women as the Madonna.

Howard is the second Face. He is the objectification of women so that they are brought down to his level or lower (at least in regards to women he isn’t related to – I’d discuss his relationship with his mother but that’s an essay in and of itself). Howard is the clueless horndog who’s watched one too many rap videos and absorbed far too much of modern culture’s obsession with sex. He sees women as the Whore.

Sheldon is the third Face. He is the anger towards women that manifests itself in arrogance and disdain. Of course, Sheldon treats just about everyone that way, so it could be argued that he isn’t misogynistic, but consider this: the comments he makes about his fellow male scientists, while harsh, are rarely if not never gender-based.  The comments he makes about the female characters on the show quite often are. Like Howard he sees women as the Lesser.

The final Face is Raj. He is the fear towards women that manifests itself in selective mutism and an ersatz homoerotic relationship with other men where he takes on a female role, and of the four I think his version is the most insidious. Raj is, after you strip away the veneer of sensitivity, an old school misogynist raised in culture that still sees women as subservient to men (at least that’s how it is portrayed on the show – I can’t comment on current Indian culture as I’m not Indian nor have I had enough exposure that I can adequately comment). Raj is the hidden misogynist, the one you least expect, and therefore the most dangerous.

So those are the Four Faces, but if The Big Bang Theory is about four misogynists, where’s the redemption?

The redemption comes from how the characters have grown over the last few years, and covers not just the Four Faces but the show itself. At the beginning the focus was on the Four Faces and their struggles to fit in to society when they are so horribly not suited for life outside of their parents’ basements. (Sorry, it’s true – no one in their right mind wants these people as friends, and not because they’re nerds but because they’re just rather unpleasant to each other at times). A lot of the humour at the show’s beginning was based on how odd and pathetic Leonard, Howard, Sheldon, and Raj were. But then things started to change.

First, for the show’s redemption, Penny, the one female opposite the four guys, started to grow as a character. This is an important fact because Penny is the catalyst for change in The Big Bang Theory. She is the one that gets Leonard to actually do something about the attraction he feels towards her and pushes him to become a more rounded individual, a man who can have real relationships with women rather than chasing after unobtainable objects. She also opens Howard’s eyes by turning them black and blue, and is instrumental in introducing him to Bernadette, the woman that will act as the catalyst for Howard’s redemption. In an odd twist of fate, both Leonard and Howard end up on the road to redemption upon obtaining the objects of their affections and realizing that they are more than what they thought.

How do they show their redemption? Leonard breaks up with Penny, dates other women, and learns how to be a more confident partner, which comes to a head in an episode last season where he imagines what would happen if he and Penny got back together. He sees the worst possible scenario and decides to try again with Penny anyway. Their new relationship is a much more mature one, on both sides.

Howard, on the other hand, shows his redemption by having a stable relationship with a woman that is far from what he thought was his ideal mate. Bernadette is sweet, somewhat innocent (hey, she’s a woman, not a statue) and is nothing like the wanton sex-goddess Howard hoped to land. But she’s what Howard needed. After a false start they end up having the longest lasting and most stable of all the show’s relationships. Howard has his eyes opened up and realizes that having a partner is much better than having a living sex doll.

Even Sheldon gets in on the redemption train. The most recent season of the show saw him start to acknowledge he has an intellectual equal who is not only a woman but someone he has genuine feelings for. Of course, this being Sheldon he’s still an arrogant prick with childlike tendencies, a He-Man Woman Hater who’s physically an adult if not emotionally, but at least he’s made progress.

The only person who hasn’t shown signs of redemption is Raj. Not that he hasn’t tried to overcome his fear, but his methods have all been external to himself, through drugs and alcohol, rather than through internal means like the rest of the Four. Leonard, Howard, and Sheldon have all had realizations about themselves and their attitudes that lead to improvement. Raj has not. In fact, at times I think Raj has slipped even further backwards, as evidenced in an episode in the last season where he dated a woman because she was deaf and he could control her through gifts. I do hope that the next season sees the start of an arc where Raj truly starts to get his stuff together and work on his problems.

So those are the Four Faces and their treks toward redemption, but what about the show itself? How has The Big Bang Theory redeemed itself, if not for everyone then at least for myself? By improving and expanding the role women play in the show.

Early on there was an attempt to introduce a greater female dynamic and provide Penny with a female foil in the person of Leslie Winkle. Unfortunately, the writers or show-runners didn’t seem to be up to the task, and Leslie fell to the wayside. From what I remember reading the creators decided to drop Leslie because they just didn’t know what to do with her. A shame really.

The power trio of BBT's female characters in a scene without the men.

Not all was lost though. Both Bernadette and Amy, characters seemingly introduced not with any grand purpose but brought on to act as foils to the guys, ended up staying and finding their niche in the Big Bang world. Even better, with Penny they’ve formed a power trio that provides the writers an opportunity to show the women interacting without the guys around. They have their own adventures and fun separate from the men, which I believe no one actually intended when the characters were introduced. Do their scenes pass the Bechdel test? I don’t know as I haven’t tried to apply it yet. Still, how many sitcoms in recent memory that weren’t exclusively focused on a group of women can you name with a similar power trio?

Is The Big Bang Theory now the example of a perfect show that treats men and women as equals and is a shining utopia for us all? No, not at all. At times it does fall backwards, both when dealing with misogyny and when dealing with the other stereotypes that form the basis of its humour. That being said though it does offer me some hope, which is also a concept at the show’s core. Hope is what motivates Leonard from his first meeting with Penny, hope that he can win the heart of his lovely new neighbour. The hope that he can find love even after losing Penny is what sustains Leonard, and hope, from both Leonard and Penny, that they can make it work with a second try is what brings them back together. Hope is what redeems what could have been, in my eyes, a tacky take on nerd culture and makes it watchable.

In the end hope is wall we have when it comes down to the question, will there ever be true equality between men and women? So in the end, let me leave you with the hope that you find something decent to watch on TV. I know I have.


5

The Thin Plaid Line of Negative Reviews

In recent months, I’ve heard a great many thoughts on negative reviews. I’ll credit one of the best ideas to both Ryan Oakley, author Technicolour Ultra Mall, and Leah Petersen, author of Fighting Gravity. During a panel on criticism at Ad Astra 2012, a panel moderated by yours truly, both Oakley and Petersen suggested that leaving an inferior novel/film/game/whatever to languish in obscurity can sometimes be a better course of action than constructing a negative, albeit fair, review.

At that same convention I had a quick conversation with Sandra Kasturi, co-editor of ChiZine Publications, on the subject of criticism. Therein, she told me a critic should not be afraid to speak their mind as it is their job to assign value to a given work.

When I began writing reviews I found guidance in the writings of W.H. Auden, who framed criticism as something most useful when it calls attention to things worth attending to.

In an alternate timeline where I’m a “professional” critic, in the sense that I work for a publication and use words which elucidate critical thought for a living, I think it would be easy to craft the above mentioned philosophies into a set of grand critical principles. As an “amateur” critic, the issue is slightly more complicated.

Where “professional” critics are always going to receive gratis review materials, not to mention a fortified buffer zone from the subject under review via their publication, the amateur critic’s inclusion in the great game is dependent upon the good will of the publishers. Thus the “amateur” must broach the thin plaid line of negative reviews. In theory, a well crafted review, either positive or negative, speaks to the talent, experience, and ability of the critic in question. In reality, the publisher-critic relationship is about advertising, and no publisher is going to want to work with an “amateur” who makes one of their authors/game studios/clients look like a douche.

So that’s when you default to something that resembles the aforementioned Petersen-Oakley approach of occasionally leaving bad things to rot without comment, right?

Well, maybe. If a critic receives unsolicited review materials, they have every right to say thanks but no thanks. I did that once when a porn studio asked me to review one of their movies.

However, if said critic opts not to put pen to paper, then they probably aren’t going to see anything in the future from that publisher. To my previous example, nobody from the adult entertainment industry has solicited me since I said no to writing a detailed review of their Spartacus porno. (Come on, what would I say in a porn review? Offer commentary on the grunting and thrusting?)

If a critic asks a publisher for a review copy of a book/game/whatever, there’s an implicit, bordering on explicit, expectation that the work in question is going to get reviewed. A failure to complete the transaction on the part of the critic will likely yield the same result as producing a negative review: the end of the association between critic and publisher.

The equation is further complicated when self-published authors and independent productions enter the fray. Suppose a self-published author sends an “amateur” critic their debut novel. The critic then uses their review to demonstrate the inherent flaws of the text, warning potential readers away from investments in time and money. Under the Kasturi model, the critic has done their job. In theory, this is a good thing. In reality, a person who can write has held a person who can’t write to task for their inability to write. Some people (friends, family, fans of the author in question, and bored internet trolls) might be inclined to label that sort of treatment as a very public bullying.

Scenarios such as these contribute to what I see as a troublesome culture of positivity among the ranks of “amateur” critics. Beyond tiring both body and mind with a perpetual good will truffle-shuffle, this positive culture can cripple an “amateur” critic’s transition into the “professional” realm. Ask yourself this, how long would a New York Times book critic last if they loved everything? Would Ebert still be writing film reviews for the Chicago Sun Times if he praised every movie? Such a perpetually positive critic would quickly forfeit their perceived position as arbiter of taste, instead becoming something of a fanboy/girl, or worse, a paid stooge. Why would any editor want to hire such a writer? Furthermore, and even if people don’t want to admit it, readers love a scathing review.

A good negative review, that is to say one that knows how to challenge art without attacking the artist, is a spectacle in and of itself. It’s the reader-writer equivalent of a trip to the Coliseum. The negative review allows opportunities for revelling in collective contempt; those requiring evidence on that point should check the view count on Gilbert Gottfried’s reading from Fifty Shades of Grey. Similarly, the negative review can turn fans of the lampooned work into the most fervent advocates. At that point, a debate about the quality of the work often becomes a secondary concern. The focus shifts to proving the critic wrong and in the process mobilizing/recruiting others to that end. Go ahead and call out Stephenie Meyer and see just how quickly the Twihards assemble and more importantly proselytize. The same could be said for Community fans – myself among them. Say something bad about Dan Harmon within earshot of me and I’ll spend the next twenty minutes explaining why he is a visionary.

 

Thus we return to the Petersen-Oakley model where the bad review still promotes the work in question. Despite that reality, and the truism that any press is good press, there exists a limiting structure that shifts dominion over negative reviews to “professional” critics. The internet may have mobilized an army of well trained and highly skilled “amateurs”, but those critics risk biting the hand that feeds them should they dare to do their jobs and write like “professionals”.


0

Derezzed is the new Dead: The Brilliance of Tron Uprising

The arena is filled with tens of thousands of spectators. A calmed hush descends over the crowd as a regal figure walks forward from the recesses of his private box. He points to the floor below. Two men emerge, and the crowd cheers as the warriors who have fought so valiantly during the day’s games are presented for their approval. Both men have killed countless others during the day. Neither allows himself the luxury of thinking about the cost of his survival. That’s really what it’s all about: survival for the warriors, and entertainment for the crowd. But the crowd hungers for more. They want worthy foes to face the men who have bested all challengers.

From his box, the master of ceremonies announces the combatants for the day’s final battle. The two men will fight each other. The winner will be set free from the games, the loser will die at the hands of the winner. The crowd roars. Their lust for battle, for a distraction from the privations of their real lives, is palpable within every atom of the arena.

The two warriors refuse to fight at first. A bond of loyalty exists between the strangers made allies through shared bloodshed. The crowd simmers. They could get ugly at any moment.  The master declares both will be killed if neither fight, and the arena bends to his will. The crowd is appeased. He knows the games are a dangerous necessity. There is no better way to showcase the futility of resistance than through the games. But no matter what else happens, the games can never become a breeding ground for heroes.

Unwilling to be slaughtered, unable to take his own life, one of the warriors makes the first strike. He wants to die at the hands of his brother, not his enemy.

It could be a scene from one of Spartacus’ various screen adaptations. Perhaps it’s an excerpt from Ridley Scott’s pitch session for Gladiator? Obviously neither given the title of the post. But who would have thought a pretty, if unremarkable, sequel to Tron would incubate an animated series that dares to march where angels fear to tread?

Tron Uprising is a story of terrorism, or freedom fighting, depending on how you look at such things. It’s a story of a hegemonic empire imposing a world view on otherwise free people. We could even make a case for the show as an inquiry into social control through spectacle; what will a people abide so long as you give them bread and circuses? In short, Tron Uprising has restored the philosophical backbone that was essential to the first feature film, but subdued, if not entirely missing, from the Legacy. Only now the discourse has shifted from something that explored Enlightment ideas pertaining to man’s relationship with god to the philosophies of Edmund Burke and Hannah Arendt. In donning the guise of Tron, thought dead at the hands of Clu, Beck, takes up a banner which preaches evil triumphing if good programs do nothing. Moreover Uprising constructs a totalitarian state so that the narrative might safely explore ideas of resistance within it.

How then does Tron Uprising enact an exploration of such lofty ideas while remaining a Disney branded product? Through exploiting one very simple loophole in standards and practices: that which is not alive can not be killed.

Giving the show a prime time spot also helps, but so does that last bit. Allow me to explain.

The Grid, the world of Tron, is set inside a computer. Like any computer, The Grid is full of programs. These programs look and sound very much like humans or, as we are known the programs, users. But when a program is cleaved in twain with another program’s identity disc, the weapon of choice within the grid, they don’t die, they de-resolve or in the common parlance, they derezz. The null program takes on the appearance of a piece of cubist art before crumbling into so many bloodless sugar cubes. To other programs, the sight of de-resolution is abhorrent. To the censors, who are primarily concerned with violent visual cues, there’s little ground for objection. Remember that audience emulation is paramount among the concerns of the censor; will an impressionable idiot child attempt to replicate the actions that they see on screen? Should they do so in this case, the result will be an army of children throwing Frisbees at each other. Given North America’s childhood obesity problem, this is hardly something to be eschewed.

Within the story, however, the derezzing of a program has all the permanence of death within the human world. There are no “saved” programs or such gimmicks that would invalidate the finality of deresolution. Once you’re derezzed, you’re as good as dead, but conveniently not dead since you were never alive in the first place.

The potential payoff for narrative development here is boundless. With derezzing as a practical alternative to death, Uprising can actually explore how/why Clu went about purging the ISOs from The Grid. If said story ends with a camera pan back to a flash of light that sees two million programs getting mass derezzed, then so be it.

Why not go on to measure the greater good of programs sacrificing themselves for the idea of Tron against Clu’s attempts to create order as a moral chiaroscuro? Three episodes in and we’ve already seen programs sent to the games to be derezzed as a means of combating Beck’s subversive message of resistance. Extending that to its natural conclusion would make Uprising something that is as laden with political subtext as V for Vendetta. Political, but still something that is safe for the Disney brand. With nobody dying there’s nothing to tarnish the corporations family friendly veneer.

The only risk is that Tron Uprising may suffer the same fate as Exo-Squad and Transformers: Beast Machines. Therein both shows had a decidedly grown up subtext, but couldn’t convince adult audiences to watch. Arguably the success of series like The Clone Wars and Avatar: The Last Airbender (pay no attention to the horror show that was the movie of the same name) have done much to legitimize western animation for an adult audience. Time will tell of Tron Uprising follows suit.