For less
recent
fare,
consult the
archives
at left.

Before transmat, there was Travel-Mat (R)

The Seeds of Death is the only Ice Warrior story that does much for me. It’s not like it’s amazing; it’s cordial, full of your lovely moments with the regular cast, and graced with a mix of halfway interesting ideas and uncommonly good acting and direction.

There is, for instance, the fellow up on the station — the spineless one, whose name I forget. The actor is handed a fairly one-dimensional role, yet he manages to inject an extraordinary amount of psychology into it. One tends to feel sympathy for him, until the plot demands he do or say something irredeemable. The result is nearly a Baltar-like character — you want to understand him, and his weakness, yet despite his guilt and fear it seems he really isn’t a good person. It’s a shame the script isn’t as smart about the character as the actor is.

Generally, that’s the kind of objection I have with this story. The world painted in this story is thoughtful, imaginative, and well-realized; there’s just a bit much of it, and for the time they’re given, the ideas and characters never really develop or go to much end besides driving the plot. It’s not a big deal, but there it is.

So it’s fine. Inconsequential yet cozy. The cleaned-up picture is also gorgeous. The most negative reply I can come up with is a shrug.

(March 16th, 2009 @ 2:01am)



No response?

Slick Moves

I just tore my pants and flesh, and twisted my knee. Thanks, sidewalk.

I think I’m most upset about the pants. The pain is annoying, but it’s overwhelmed by the nausea.

(March 3rd, 2009 @ 2:01pm)



1 response

From a discussion about a potential new TARDIS interior

If you wanna get analytical (and assuming we’re looking at some technological solution), it seems like the choices we’re looking at are:

A) A high use of high technology (Star Trek: TNG)
B) A high use of low technology (steampunk)
C) A low use of high technology (cyberpunk)
D) A low use of low technology (Rube Goldberg?)
E) An inscrutable use of high technology (Impressive, flashy stuff that does… what, exactly?)
F) An inscrutable use of low technology (Levers that do… what, exactly?)
G) A high use of inscrutable technology (Teleportation jelly?)
H) A low use of inscrutable technology (Ping pong of the gods?)

The current, “coral” interior seems to be some mix of F (bicycle pump) and G (organic elements, god vapors under the console), with a twinge of D (modern phones, TV, scaffolding). The original interior seems to be some mix of E and G, with a bit of A.

I think the really interesting question isn’t so much the style but the use of the set.

Early on, the Davies interior felt a bit dangerous, rattly; incomprehensible both through the technology at display and the way it was apparently thrown together. It seemed just as likely to do something unimaginable as fall apart at any moment. Since then, from the way it’s been used and shot, the interior has become cozy and sort of arbitrary. Most of the psychological weight has dissipated.

The original TARDIS, meanwhile, seems like it was meant to give sort of this impression –

It strikes me a way the new series (say, under Moffat) could tackle the “default” TARDIS interior would be to play up the stark, brilliant alien sterility. Make it almost blindingly white in there, so it’s hard to see the walls and there’s a bit of a haze around its occupants. Turn up the ambient hum. Maybe make the light from the roundels thrum a bit, like a mechanical heartbeat. Perhaps make them a sky blue?

The thing is, the classic TARDIS has always felt uncomfortable — like a place that was never meant for people to really live there. Which makes sense, since it wasn’t. It’s a formal vessel; Time Lords and all. It’s like a fresh installation of Microsoft Windows. For all its sharp and rough edges, the “coral” TARDIS feels comparably cozy; lived-in. The console is like a crackling fire in a darkened room.

So, well. Instead of treating the discomfort as a problem, run with it. Make it feel safe, but a bit queasy. Overstimulating. The kind of place you would like to get out of as soon as possible.

– yet later became a tedious, dramatically limited, over-lit three-wall set.

It seems to me you could do just about anything with the TARDIS, and make it feel remarkable — and you could do the very same thing, and make it feel like nothing very special at all.

EDIT: I suppose I’m missing an inscrutable use of inscrutable technology…

Another note

(March 3rd, 2009 @ 12:02pm)



9 responses

Thatcherite Zeerust

You know, the biggest problem with BBC TV’s Hitchhiker’s series is the casting. Ford is written as Tom Baker; he is performed as simultaneously anxious, resigned, wistful, and lost under a script he doesn’t begin to understand. Adams’ sun-dried humor is drowned under misplaced pathos. Indignation is misdirected as panic. I can understand not trying to do a Tom Baker impersonation (although the costumer didn’t quite get that note). In a comedy, however, it would behoove if its largest supporting player had a sense of humor.

Then there’s Zaphod, who is more Keith Richards, circa 2024, than the chiseled jackass he’s built up to be. Trillian (as played by Peter Davison’s then-wife) basically becomes Doctor Who’s own Melanie Bush, except a few pitches higher. At least Arthur and Marvin come through intact.

(March 1st, 2009 @ 10:32pm)



2 responses