Bafta Nominees

I'm torn over who should win for best lead actor on British television. The youngest Dr Who, or the latest Sherlock Holmes?*

Pitting Sherlock against Dr Who is a tough call. Who do you think would win in a bar fight? The guy with the giant brain, or the one wielding a sonic screwdriver?

In a way, Sherlock is the classier choice. (No offence intended to the Timelord).

Benedict Cumberbatch portrays the modern incarnation of a complex, contradictory character sourced from classic literature.

In contrast, Matt Smith plays the most recent re-incarnation (or to be technical, regeneration) of a kooky time travelling alien with a soft spot for Earth.

Sherlock (the series) is more about quality than quantity. Every episode has a filmic veneer, but let's face it- maintaining a high production standard is somewhat easier if your premiere season only spans three episodes.

Dr Who, on the other hand, is a long-running serial where dodgy special effects are downright celebrated. The show has a complex history and there's no denying some of it's a tad kitsch on the eye.

Frankly, elegant understatement has never been Dr Who's forte.

Then there's the genre issue. Historically, science fiction never does well on the mainstream awards circuit. The fact that Smith is the eleventh actor to play the Doctor, yet the first to score a Bafta nomination, pretty much sums it up.

BUT...

As brilliant as Cumberbatch is in his portrayal of Sherlock, it has to be conceded that Smith tackles a unique acting challenge every time he dons that bow tie 'n tweed (which he does with such panache).

How would an actor even begin to embody the personality of a character that's existed for centuries? More importantly, how can an actor instil a child-like, almost flippant social persona over the established patina of a reall-y old soul?

Just ask Matt Smith. He does a beautiful job of exactly that, hence the nomination.

Either way, I'm glad they both scored a nod. Fantastically deserved, my dear Watson!

(*The two nominations are also a sideways nod to Steven Moffat and the entertaining television he's putting out into the world, since he's executive producer and writer for both Dr Who and Sherlock. Other nominees in the category include Jim Broadbent and Daniel Rigby, but I'm backing one of the slender, erratically intelligent misfits from the Moffat universe).

From Text To Textual

Ah, Trueblood. A guilty viewing pleasure for so many if us. The HBO vampire series may not be intellectually or artistically challenging, but by god, it's addictive.

There's not much you can say about vampires that hasn't been written already, so I'll skip right past the relatively lame suckers-as-a-sex-metaphor explanation. I will, instead, strive to scatter as many bad vampire puns as possible through the following text. (Sucks, I know).

A television series that has evolved from a popular book series is an interesting animal. After a lot of thought about the books and the show, comparing them both over the last year, I've come to the following conclusion.

I think of Trueblood, the written word, as the feminine interpretation (in a traditional sense). Trueblood, the television series, is its masculine counterpart.

Sookie: Shut the f*** up!

True Blood, Season 1, Episode 10.

Yes, two completely different animals. What's interesting is that both incarnations, despite sometimes feeling like polar opposites, are extremely successful with the public. More often than not, people are fans of both the books and the television series, which seems almost impossible when you compare the material.

To be clear, I read the books first. My concept of the characters evolved from the written word, whereas a lot of other people's initial exposure to the Bon Temp crew was via the small screen. Frankly, the tv crowd are a rougher lot.

Arlene: I'm sorry you fell in love with a serial killer, alright. But honestly, who here hasn't?

True Blood, Season 3, Episode 1.

For virgins of the Southern Vampire Mysteries, Charlaine Harris's books are ver-y different to the television incarnation. Sookie is a lot more old-fashioned, a lot more respectful, and in a way, very romantic. In the early days of the book series, the sex is a lot less graphic and not as intense a focus as it was from day one of the television show.

The most notable difference? Sookie and her friends and family are not white trash in the books. Possibly a little naive and sheltered, but very different to the television series, where everyone around Sookie seems to revel in being crass, trashy, and at least a tad skanky. (Not to mention the many moments I heard a friend refer to as 'redneck dense').

Jason: Never thought I was really smart enough to get depressed.

True Blood, Season 3, Episode 7.

Likewise, the violence and gore isn't celebrated in print as it is on tv. In the books, epic bloodletting is kind of distasteful, even awful, referenced more for the impact it has on the psyche of our heroine (and her subsequent life decisions), than for the dark thrill of it.

Frankly, our heroine seems to have lost a LOT of IQ points in her transition to the small screen. Sookie comes across as quite well-spoken and relatively intelligent in Harris's fictional efforts. Onscreen? Not so much.

Sookie: Did you just call me a dumb bitch?

True Blood, Season 3, Episode 8.

Label me a fangbanger, but I don't know what it is with vampires. However they're written, they seem to come up trumps! Bill and Eric are beloved in both the written word and on the screen. Even Pam, who I feel is a lot prettier and fresher in the books than on television, is popular in both versions. I guess you can't go wrong with a bloodsucker these days...

Jessica: Is it my fault my fangs come out when I'm turned on?

True Blood, Season 2, Episode 4.

Relatively minor characters in the novels, local lotharios Jason and Lafayette move to the fore on the small screen thanks to the sex 'n blood focus of the television series.

Andy: Conscience off, dick on, and everything's gonna be alright.

True Blood, Season 3, Episode 1.

I prefer Lafayette to Jason, partly because Nelsan Ellis is a brilliant actor (great in a one-episode appearance in Veronica Mars as a former Ugandan child soldier btw).

Lafayette: It aint possible to live unless you're crossing somebody's line.

True Blood, Season 1, Episode 7.

The least successful character transition to the small screen would probably be Tara. Not written to be a hundred percent likeable in the books, she performs an important narrative service in that she's someone from Sookie's childhood that Sookie can react against, and Sookie's opinion of Tara is often a measure of her changing life perspective throughout the series.

On tv, however, she has become incredibly annoying, and is the regular character complained about the most on blogs, reviews and fan forums.

Franklin: She's such a f***ing disaster, we could be twins.

True Blood Season 3, Episode 5.

I actually loved the television version of the vampire Godric. He was possibly the most interesting character transition, and killing him off so early was a real loss. He added a certain depth, with his vastly different perspective to all the other self-absorbed characters on the telly.

Godric: A human with me at the end, and human tears. Two thousand years, and I can still be surprised? In this, I see God.

True Blood, Season 2, Episode 8.

Finally- I was reading the latest novel in the series and for some reason it seemed... strange. It took me a while to realise the sense of displacement came from the fact the characters were beginning to act more like their television alter-egos, and less like their established Book Land personalities. I guess, with people coming into the written series as a result of enjoying the television series, the author was bound to bow a little to the crossover pressure.

Personally, I preferred them as notably separate entities, and appreciated the distinct flavours. (I should work in some kind of AB and AB negative blood type joke here, but it's not coming to me).

For anyone who's interested, on True Blood (tv) next season the witches come to town. Hey, the more the merrier, just as long as they don't try to smuggle a maenad into Bon Temp- after the Maryanne fiasco, those bitches are BANNED.

Fresh Blood

A heap of tv newbies are about to be unleashed on the American small screen. Looking for a new show to love? Here's half a dozen that hold promise.*

1. The Borgias

Set in the fifteenth century, this show explores the lives and loves of history's most infamous papal family. Luckily, they're much more exciting than the mob residing in Rome these days. Think corruption, manipulation and power play politics, a la Renaissance-style. Anyone unfamiliar with the Borgias clan should google them. At the very least, be prepared for high drama.

Will Appeal To Fans Of... The Tudors.

Familiar Faces Include... Jeremy Irons.

Also Worth Mentioning... Executive produced by the director of The Crying Game.

2. Camelot

I don't know about the rest of you, but I can never get enough of Arthurian legend. I've been like that since I was a little kid. Mention Merlin, reference Morgana, and I'm there. (I am purposely ignoring any allusion to that bimbo flake Guinevere, btw). This take on the tale looks rough, almost violent. I think they've tried to imbue a sense of passion by creating an aura of grittiness, which bodes well.

Will Appeal To Fans Of... The round table.

Familiar Faces Include... Joseph Fiennes, Eva Green, James Purefoy.

Also Worth Mentioning... Co-creator Michael Hirst wrote the film Elizabeth.

3. Breaking In

Okay, this one makes the list because Christian Slater is in it. Gleaming The Cube and Heathers flash through my mind whenever I see his face onscreen. Oh yeah, I think the show's about hackers. Or something computer-y. I'm guessing it's meant to be kind of funny. Or something. Did I mention Heathers?

Will Appeal To Fans Of... Chuck and Sneakers, maybe?

Familiar Faces Include... CHRISTIAN SLATER.

Also Worth Mentioning... The guy from Pump Up The Volume is in it.

4. Workaholics

Personally, telemarketing depresses me. Also, when someone mentions telemarketing, I can honestly say my immediate response has never once been, 'comedy gold!'. Fools gold, maybe. But this show, focusing on three guys who work together/live together/get wasted a lot, has been scoring a serious amount of hype.

Will Appeal To Fans Of... The Office.

Familiar Faces Include... Um, noone?

Also Worth Mentioning... Started as a web series.

5. Happy Endings

A group of co-dependent friends face social free-fall when the central couple at the core of their cliche break up. This sitcom, like every sitcom tailing half a dozen twenty-somethings, is blatantly dying to be the next Friends. Luckily, the teaser is actually quite funny, suggesting (at least flashes of) decently written, light-hearted humour.

Will Appeal To Fans Of... Friends (duh).

Familiar Faces Include... Elisha Cuthbert.

Also Worth Mentioning... there's a Bridget Jones-type character in the mix (love or hate the stereotype).

6. Game of Thrones

Ah HBO, you continue to deliver. From the network that brought you True Blood and Boardwalk Empire comes a kick-ass medieval fantasy. The preview trailers are pretty wild, so I'm inferring a chunk of cash was spent on the pilot. Since I'm one of the, what, five people who watched Legend of the Seeker (outside estimate), I'll definitely be tuning in.

Will Appeal To Fans Of... The books series, A Song of Ice and Fire.

Familiar Faces Include... Sean Bean, Jason Mamoa from Stargate: Atlantis.

Also Worth Mentioning... Buffy writer Jane Espenson is onboard.

*NOTE: I've skipped mentioning new procedurals, partly because I'm not a fan, but also because you need to see how a cop show handles episodic unfolding of the who-dunnit-factor before making a definite comment or recommendation. It's just one of the quirks of the genre.

A sneaky insert....

...not at all related to television, but my first book Optimate is now available as an ebook for $2.99(US). I generally describe it as cyber-fiction, with a fashion slant? It's available for purchase on Kindle devices and Kindle apps for iPad, iPhone, iPod touch, PC, Mac, Blackberry, and Android-based devices. Here is the link, feel free to recommend x

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004RPXT98

It's No Party The Second Time Around...

Originally considered guaranteed rating winners, reincarnated shows like 90210, V, Melrose Place and Hawaii Five-0 should be now be rated EP... for Epic Fail, that is.

Other possible warnings to include at the beginning of said programs might be:

-This Show Contains Warped Nostalgic Scenes Some Viewers May Find Disturbing.

-This Program Contains Partial Storylines.

-Viewer Discretion Advised. (Actually, there's no pun required here).

Like hooking up with an ex, tv remakes seem a good idea at the time, but tend to end in disaster.

On the surface, the pitch is solid. A show that will appeal to devotees of the original (wave to that ready made fan base), while also drawing in younger audiences, thanks to a jazzy conceptual update.

Win/win, right?

Um, sure. That is, only if you don't think the idea through properly? While the concept seems sound, cracks are there for anyone to see if they bother to glance underneath the glossily produced surface.

Let me break it down for you (with an axe, or something).

Firstly, you're playing the nostalagia card. This is a notoriously fickle part of the cultural psyche to try and tap into. Affection for an old tv show is linked to memories from that period, not to mention the way the show was lit/filmed/edited/written, all aspects which are now (naturally) hopelessly out of date.

Replacing them with new fangled options is non-negotiable, and ultimately crippling. Unfortunately, said production values were an integral part of the nostalgia. By changing the way a show is shot and edited, you effect the feel... and old fans, they want to connect, are expecting to re-connect, to that feeling again.

Set and costume design, are, of course, other elements that have a similar impact on the viewing experience.

Prime example? Seeing the Peach Pit all modernised and cold in the new 90210 sent a chill down my spine. The Peach Pit had a kind of rustic charm in the original Beverley Hills 90210. Besides which, the set design allowed for characters to interact in a cosy way (a little like the couch in Friends, or the booth in Seinfeld).

This was completely lost in the open design of the new version. Worse, it was repelling, as if a memory was being sullied, rather than celebrated.

Likewise, the first V was creepy, and quite fantastic for the period. The new V lacks the best of the old V... gone are the red uniforms and the original Star Wars-inspired special effects. Instead, we have subtle greys and a lot of CGI.

Added to which, there's the complication of modern technology completely reshaping the storyline. Worse, it creates massive plotholes; the basic freedom fighter premise of V can't quite hold up under the deluge of complex surveillance modern audiences are capable of conceptualising.

Creating general storylines for any of these shows also constitutes a problem. Today's versions are comparatively grittier; blunter, even. They need to be, to survive in the current market. I'm not arguing this is better or worse, only that it's different to the tone of the original material. So, yet another core element of ye olde efforte bites the dust.

Piece by piece, you've taken away the main identifying factors of the original program. Sure, you've offered replacement material, none of which is NOSTALGIC- that was your drawcard for this portion of the audience, remember?

At this point, the only real thing connecting fans of the original series to the new show is a base premise- and that's about it. By now, the old school crew, to put it bluntly, are quite pissed off.

Now wave goodbye to ninety percent of the nostalgia market.

Likewise, over in the other camp, new fans are becoming quickly alienated. Why? Because simply put, the series isn't that good. Our modern innovators are hog-tied not just by network input and advertising requirements (like any other show) but also by bloody annoying flashes of nostalgia they're forced to inject wherever they can.

These clumsy moments hamper the show's development, especially for new audiences, who couldn't care less about the past incarnation. Desperate nods to the original series go over their head. Instead, they're left with the impression the show is a bit clumsy, that it stumbles in some sense, and their interest quickly wanes.

Now wave goodbye to a major chunk of the new, younger audience.

Obviously, this doesn't leave a lot of viewers for the show to try and hold. In the hopes of slowing the audience exodus, program creators must define the new 'feel' of the show asap. Unfortunately, this process is marred by the fact they're still forced to juggle the afore-mentioned conflicting elements.

The blunt truth is, rather than helping a program garner ratings, the loaded history of a reincarnated show enfeebles the latest manifestation's ability to maintain the interest of those who were originally drawn in, for whatever reason.

Melrose Place has already been put down. The best performer of the new breed is Hawaii Five-0, but I wouldn't say the show is a sparkling success by any stretch of the imagination. V is near death, and 90210 merely staggers along because it screens on the CW network, which has much lower audience expectations than most American networks.

It might be time to just let the old shows go, and embrace new concepts.

Now there's an idea.

Being Human

A vampire, a werewolf and a ghost share an apartment. The question is, who tells the story better? The Brits or the Yanks?

I'm going to run with the Yanks (shock, horror). While Being Human US is set in Boston and screens on America's Syfy channel, pedantic fans will tell you the show is actually produced by a Montreal company. This doesn't surprise me; I generally like shows that have a touch of the Canadian aesthetic to them.

(*Note: I'm only comparing the first seasons, because the US version is still fresh blood... excuse the pun!).

The English version of Being Human is definitely enjoyable, don't get me wrong, but I agree with a random comment I read somewhere on the web, pointing out the British industry's tendency toward 'gritty' television could be viewed as code for 'poor production values'.

I also found the British version of Being Human a touch Torchwood in tone; ie too dramatic slash over-emotional. I lean more toward a hint of subtlety when showcasing tortured characters. If you love the BBC version, props to you. Personally, when it comes to this tale, I favour the storytelling across the water.

Word on the web says the series began as an odd housemates concept, following the adventures of a sex addict, an agoraphobe and a guy with violent tendencies. The creator chose to throw in a dash of supernatural flair later on, dipping into the current zeitgeist. Personally, I prefer the supe take myself (no surprise there).

In terms of casting, I love the vampire/werewolf combo in the US version. Sam Witwer is great as the tortured vamp. I liked Witwer in Smallville, and apparently he also had recurring roles in Dexter and Battlestar Galactica. Those with good eyes and a memory for bit-part appearances may also recall Witwer from one-off ep appearances in Angel and Dark Angel, but that's almost a decade ago now.

Sam Huntington is quite an inspired choice for the werewolf role. He plays the woosy, socially inept character as such an unlikely violent type, his performance makes for riveting viewing. Huntington's face is familiar from Veronica Mars, but he's been around for years, popping up in generally b-grade movies (Fanboys isn't b-grade though, just to clarify). He's also done the pre-requisite procedural tours, ie NCIS and Law & Order.

Weirdly, I thought it was the actress who made me dislike the female ghost character in the British series, but I don't like the ghost in the American series either. This made me realise it's not the actresses, so much as the way the character is written.

What is it with the need to make women so lame onscreen? The girly ghost is kind of simple; moping around, missing her fiance. I think she's meant to be 'sweet', but sweet comes off as a bit dense and two-dimensional here. I wish they'd overhauled her character and added a bit more edge this time around.

The worst casting in the US version, to me, is the inclusion of actor Mark Pellegrino. I thought he was terrible in Supernatural last season, and I don't like him here as the prerequisite baddie. Maybe he rocked the small screen in Dexter and Lost, but I'm not familiar with either show. He's one of those actors you're always being told is talented, yet as a viewer, I'm never particularly moved by his performance?

I'm glad they kept the hospital backstory in the US series. I really like the banality of the vamp and werewolf's day jobs as orderlies. The mundanity of the setting really grounds them in normality; the complete contrast to their tortured supernatural lives outside of work makes their internal struggles even more poignant and jarring.

The visual aesthetic is lovely. Sure, occasionally quite dank settings, but I like the lighting and angles in both series. Not as moody as Supernatural or The Vampire Diaries (ie not many true blacks), there is, however, still a kind of pall cast over each shot. Every day, regardless of how much the sun shines, comes across a touch grey onscreen. A fair reflection of the state of mind shared by our suffering protagonists, I guess.

Hopefully the US narrative will diverge from its British counterpart more and more as the series unfolds. Personally, I found the Herrick storyline a bit tacky/tiresome, and wouldn't want to sit through that 'evil world domination' thing again...

But it does seem likely the two shows' season arcs will part company before long. The latest ep of the US effort included (what appeared to be) a True Blood-inspired, slightly gory sex scene that I don't recall from the first season of the British series!

I Know That Face

Do you ever feel like your brain is full of bit-part actors?

My mind just needs a few seconds of visuals to kickstart streaming feed, like an organic version of the Internet Movie Data Base. For some unknown reason, the cells upstairs are programmed to instantly recall an actor's entire television history in the blink of an eye.

I'm a walking information booth that charges a handful of popcorn, and maybe some icecream. All a friend has to whisper is, "Why does the main character's younger brother look vaguely familiar? What's he from?" and I'll come back with, "He was a dead man haunting his brother in a third season of Ghost Whisperer, a recently returned Vietnam Vet in a flashback scene from Cold Case and, I'm pretty sure, a recurring character in a teen show on the Disney channel in the late eighties."

Unless Hollywood decides to summer in Perth rather than the Hamptons, this isn't a marketable skill. Sure, it impresses film and television fans, but in general, as my family constantly tell me when I try to point out that the actress on screen played a classmate of Sabrina the Teenage Witch eight years ago, "Shut up already. Noone CARES."

Let's make this clear. I'm not talking one or two roles here. My mind recalls actors from their first big break. Yes, that walk-on non-speaking part in an indie film seventeen years prior, followed by the rest of their screen time up to the present day. The kind of visual recognition that would take up a wall of hard drives. Whole lotta RAM.

To my brain, film and television is one long complex puzzle, somewhere between a crossword and Soduku. The name of the game would be something like Place-A-Face... with the occasional information overload.

Take the actor who plays Detective Ryan in Castle. He's a Small Screen Regular, aka a facial recognition imprint that can send my mind into overdrive. "Mechanic-in-one-episode-of-Charmed" jumps out first, but numerous one episode appearances flood through after that. He did single eps of Crossing Jordan and Jag way back in the day, Ghost Whisperer and NCIS: Miami more recently.

Basically, the sight of his face short-circuits the tv memory portion of my brain. TMI.

The big question is, how much thinking room is all this actor recognition taking up? I mean, could I have picked up another language, or a second degree, with the brain space that's been allocated to recording the faces of bit part actors in every television scene I've ever watched?

Looking on the bright side (I always like the bright side), it makes the television industry as a whole seem more intertwined, and kind of familial. For example, I like noting how often actors swing guest roles for follow thespians they've worked with in the past. It adds a homey touch to the viewing experience.

One program that consistently strives to cast quality talent is Smallville, aka The Adventures of Young Superman. Because of its comic book origins, Smallville's scripting style has often allowed actors to really run the gamut of emotions.

Smallville alumni you might recognise? Laura Vandervoort (Lisa in the new V), Sam Witwer (Being Human US version), Jesse Metcalfe (Desperate Housewives), Kristin Kreuk (Chuck), Jensen Ackles (Supernatural), Ian Somerhalder (The Vampire Diaries); just the tip of the iceberg.

And let's not forget, Smallville always welcomed the beloved like James Marsters from Buffy and Michael Shanks from Stargate. They even collected classic faves with open arms (here's lookin' at you, Jane Seymour and Terence Stamp!).

In case you're wondering, Smallville rated a wind-up mention in this blog because the cult show is closing up shop. Having logged up an epic decade on the small screen, its departure marks the end of a (viewing) era for fans. Although never an avid watcher, I will definitely miss the show's heroic presence (get it?). It's been a long run for Clark Kent... Bon voyage Superman x