"Celebrating Unoriginality"

"CELEBRATING UNORIGINALITY"

Many people love to praise FOX science-fiction series, "THE ORVILLE" to the sky. Many praise it for being the epitome of the "traditional aspects" of the STAR TREK franchise. Even more so than the latest entry of the latter, "STAR TREK DISCOVERY". 

I have my suspicions on why so many love to praise "THE ORVILLE" to the detriment of the CBS Access series. I suspect that both sexism and racism are two of the reasons behind this sentiment . . . especially in regard to the leading lady of "STAR TREK DISCOVERY". However, there is some aspect or style of "THE ORVILLE" that makes me understand why many others would make this claim about the series being "traditional Trek". Unfortunately, I do not think this aspect has proven to be beneficial to the FOX series.

How can I be anymore blunt? To me, "THE ORVILLE" is basically a remake of the second Trek series, "STAR TREK NEXT GENERATION", but with a touch of leading actor Seth MacFarlane's style of humor. I just wish the series could be different. Offer A DIFFERENT STYLE in its presentation of episodes. It had recently occurred to me that "NEXT GENERATION" reminded me a lot "STAR TREK THE ORIGINAL SERIES" than any of the other Trek shows. In terms of format and the style of shows, it is almost seems like a remake or continuation of the 1966-69 series. Perhaps this is not surprising considering that the 1987-94 series, along with "THE ORIGINAL SERIES", was created by Gene Roddenberry. This could be a reason why it seems more beloved by the franchise's fandom and producers, save for the first series. 

My recent viewing of "THE ORVILLE" made me suspect that it pretty much repeated what "NEXT GENERATION" had done in terms of storytelling and format. Although both shows were willing to explore the different quirks and minor flaws of its main characters, both seemed hellbent upon portraying Humans as generally more superior than other alien races. Both shows seemed willing to put humanity on a pedestal. The Moclus race, as personified by the Lieutenant Commander Bortus character, bears a strong resemblance to the Klingons of the 24th century. And Bortus seems to be another Lieutenant (later Commander) Worf. Even the relationship between MacFarlane's Captain Ed Mercer and Adrianne Palicki's Commander Kelly Grayson almost seems like a re-hash of the Commander William Riker and Counselor Deanna Troi relationship, as portrayed by Jonathan Frakes and Marina Sartis in "NEXT GENERATION". And yet, the Trek shows that followed "NEXT GENERATION" seemed to be willing to offer something different. 

"STAR TREK DEEP SPACE NINE" was set on a space station and possessed a narrative structure that very slowly developed into a serial format by its third season. "STAR TREK VOYAGER" featured a crew traveling alone on the other side of the galaxy that comprised of Starfleet officers and crewmen, Maquis freedom fighters, an ex-convict/former Starfleet officer, two aliens and a former Borg drone. Superficially, "STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE" seemed a lot like "THE ORIGINAL SERIES" and "NEXT GENERATION", but it was set a century before 1966-69 series - during the few years before the establishment of the Federation, and it featured a serialized narrative about a major war during its third season. "STAR TREK DISCOVERY” proved to be a Trek series that has been serialized since its first episode. More importantly, its main character IS NOT a star ship or space station commander. 

The Trek shows that had followed "NEXT GENERATION" have been more willing to explore the uglier side of the Federation, Starfleet and Humanity; than the first two series. This has been especially apparent in "DEEP SPACE NINE", "VOYAGER" and "DISCOVERY". And aside from "VOYAGER, the Trek shows that followed "NEXT GENERATION" have been willing to utilize a serialized format - something that many fans seemed to lack the patience to endure lately. Most of this criticism toward a serialized narrative has been directed against "DISCOVERY". However, I personally find this ironic, considering that the other Trek shows have used this narrative device with the same quality as the other shows. At least in my eyes. I suspect that this heavy criticism toward "DISCOVERY" has more to do with the show's lead than its writing quality. Even "VOYAGER" has been willing to serialized some of its episodes on a limited scale, especially during its mid-Season Four. 

Officially, "THE ORVILLE" is not a part of the Trek franchise. Why does it feel that it is? And Why does it have to feel like it? Because its creator and star, Seth MacFarlane, had this need to pay homage to "NEXT GENERATION"? Or even "THE ORIGINAL SERIES"? Why? Some advocates of "THE ORVILLE" have pointed out the series' style of humor and the fact that it features a LGBTQ couple. However, "DISCOVERY", which had premiered during the same month and year, also features a LGBTQ couple. And previous Trek shows and movies have featured or hinted LGBTQ romance and/or sexuality in the past - namely "DEEP SPACE NINE" and the 2016 movie, "STAR TREK BEYOND". Even television series like "BABYLON 5" and "BATTLESTAR: GALACTICA" have featured or hinted LGBTQ issues. But more importantly, both shows, along with "FARSCAPE" and others in the science-fiction genre have managed to be completely original both style and substance. Why did MacFarlane feel he had to literally copy "NEXT GENERATION" when other Trek shows have managed to be more original? The only aspect of "THE ORVILLE" that I truly find original is its occasional use of twisted humor. And even that has appeared even less during the series' second season. 

This is what I find so frustrating about "THE ORVILLE". One, I feel that it is basically "traditional Trek" disguised as another science-fiction franchise. Even worse, it seems like a close rip-off of "STAR TREK NEXT GENERATION". I see nothing complimentary about this. I find it sad that so many people do. And I find it even sadder that so many people are willing to put "THE ORVILLE" on a pedestal for . . . what? For the series' lack of originality? Because these fans want to cling to the past? This is just sad. No . . . not, sad. Pathetic. At least to me.

"NORTH AND SOUTH" (1975) Review

"NORTH AND SOUTH" (1975) Review

I had been a fan of Elizabeth Gaskell's 1855 novel, ever since I first saw the 2004 television adaptation a few years ago. Mind you, I had never read the novel. And I still have yet to read it. Despite this, I became a fan of the story. And when I learned that the BBC planned to release an older adaptation of Gaskell's novel, which first aired in 1975, I looked forward to seeing it. 

As one would assume from reading this review, I eventually purchased a copy of the 1975 adaptation on DVD. And if I must be honest, I do not regret it. "NORTH AND SOUTH" proved to be a pretty damn good adaptation. Like the 2004 version, it consisted of four (4) fifty-minute episodes. Gaskell's novel told the story of one Margret Hale, who returns home after ten years to her cleric father's rector in Helstone, after attending the wedding of her cousin, Edith Shaw. Margaret's homecoming is short-lived when she and her mother learn that her father Richard Hale has left the Church of England as a matter of conscience, after he has become a dissenter. His old Oxford friend, Mr. Bell, suggests that the Hales move to the industrial town of Milton, in Northern England; where the latter was born and own property. 

Not long after the Hales' arrival in Milton, both Margaret and mother Maria Hale find Milton harsh and strange. Due to financial circumstances, Mr. Hale works as a tutor. One of his more enthusiastic students turn out to be a wealthy cotton manufacturer named John Thornton, master of Marlborough Mills. Appalled by the conditions of the poverty-stricken mill workers, Margaret befriends the family of one Nicholas Higgins, a union representative. She also develops a dislike of Thornton, finding him gauche and seemingly unconcerned about his workers' condition. Unbeknownst to Margaret, Thornton has grown attracted to her. The volatile relationship between Margaret and Thornton eventually plays out amidst the growing conflict between mill owners and angry workers.

As I had stated earlier, "NORTH AND SOUTH" proved to be a pretty good adaptation. I have a tendency to regard BBC miniseries produced in the 1970s with a jaundice eye, considering their tendency end up as televised stage plays. Thanks to the conflicts, social commentaries and romance featured in "NORTH AND SOUTH", the miniseries was never boring. Many viewers who have seen this version of Gaskell's novel claim that it was a more faithful adaptation than the 2004 miniseries. I cannot agree or disagree, considering that I have yet to read the novel. But I have never been too concern with the faithfulness of any movie or television adaptation, as long as the screenwriter(s) manage to come up with decent script that adheres to the main narrative of the literary source. Fortunately, David Turner did just that. His screenplay, along with Rodney Bennett's direction, explored all of the aspects of Gaskell's 1855 novel - the reason behind the Hales' move to the North, the labor conflicts between the workers and the mill owners, Margaret Hale's conflict/romance with John Thornton, the latter's relationship with his mother, Nicholas Higgins' conflict with fellow mill worker Boucher, and the fragmentation of the Hale family. Also, Bennett directed the entire miniseries with a steady pace that kept me alert.

It is a good thing that Bennett's pacing kept me alert . . . most of the time. Like many BBC productions in the 1970s,"NORTH AND SOUTH" did come off as a filmed play in many scenes. Aside from Margaret's arrival in Helstone inEpisode One, the labor violence that erupts within the grounds of Marlborough Mills in Episode Two and the delivery of Boucher's body in his neighborhood; just about every other scene was probably shot inside a sound stage. And looked it. This even includes the Milton train station where Margaret says good-bye to her fugitive brother, Frederick. Now many would state that this has been the case for nearly all BBC miniseries productions from that era. Yet, I can recall a handful of productions from the same decade - 1971's "PERSUASION", 1972's "EMMA" and even "JENNIE, LADY RANDOLPH CHURCHILL" from 1974 - featured a good deal of exterior shots. And there were moments when some scenes continued longer than necessary, especially in Episode One. Margaret's conversation with her cousin Edith and Mr. Hale's announcement of his separation from the Church of England seemed to take forever. And due to this problem, there were moments went the miniseries threatened to bog down.

But as much as I liked Turner's adaptation of the novel, it seemed far from perfect. One aspect of the script that really irritated me was that Turner had a habit of telling the audiences what happened, instead of showing what happened. InEpisode One, following their arrival in Milton, Margaret tells her parents that she met the Higgins family. The miniseriesnever revealed how she met Nicholas or Betsy Higgins in the first place. The series never revealed the details behind Boucher's death in Episode Four. Instead, a neighbor told Margaret, before his body appeared on the screen. We never see any scenes of Fanny Thornton's wedding to mill owner Mr. Slickson. Instead, John tells Mr. Bell about the wedding in a quick scene between the two men on a train. Also, I found Margaret's initial hostility toward John rather weak. A conversation between the two about the mill workers took part after audiences met the Higgins family. It is easy to see that John's arrogant assumption regarding his control of his workers might seemed a bit off putting to Margaret. But it just did not seem enough for her hostility to last so long. And while the script probably followed Gaskell's novel and allowed John's regard for Margaret to be apparent before the end of Episode One, I never felt any growing attraction that Margaret may have felt toward John. Not even through most of Episode Four. In fact, Margaret's open declaration of her love for John in the episode's last few minutes seemed sudden . . . as if it came out of the blue.

The above mentioned problem may have been one reason why I found Margaret and John's romance unconvincing. Another problem was that I found the on-screen chemistry between the two leads, Rosalie Shanks and Patrick Stewart, rather flat. In short, they did not seemed to have any real chemistry. The two leads gave first-rate, if somewhat flawed performances in their roles. Aside from a few moments in which I found Shanks' Margaret Hale a bit too passive, I thought she gave an excellent, yet intelligent performance. Stewart seemed as energetic as ever, even if there were moments when his John Thornton seemed to change moods faster than lightning. But they did not click as an on-screen couple. Also, Turner's screenplay failed to any signs of Margaret's growing attraction toward John. It simply appeared out of the blue, during the series' last few minutes. 

I certainly had no problems with the other performances in the miniseries, save for a few performances. Robin Bailey did an excellent job in portraying Margaret's well-meaning, yet mild-mannered father, Richard Hale. Bailey seemed to make it obvious that Mr. Hale was a man out of his depth and time. Kathleen Byron perfectly conveyed both the delicate sensibility and strong will of Margaret's mother, Maria Hale. I was very impressed by Rosalie Crutchley's portrayal of the tough, passionate and very complex Mrs. Hannah Thornton. I could also say the same about Norman Jones, who gave a very fine performance as union representative Nicolas Jones . . . even if there were times when I could barely understand him. Christopher Burgess' portrayal of Boucher struck me as very strong . . . perhaps a little on the aggressive side. And Pamela Moiseiwitsch gave a very funny portrayal of John's younger sister, Fanny; even if her performance came off as a bit too broad at times. It was a blast to see Tim Pigott-Smith in the role of Margaret's fugitive brother, Frederick Hale. I say it was a blast, due to the fact that Pigott-Smith portrayed Richard Hale in the 2004 miniseries, 19 years later. As much as I enjoyed seeing him, there were times when his performance came off as a bit hammy.

Overall, "NORTH AND SOUTH" is a pretty solid adaptation of Elizabeth Gaskell's novel. Aside from a few changes, it more or less adhered to the original narrative, thanks to David Turner's screenplay and Rodney Bennett's direction. And although it featured some fine performances, the miniseries did suffer from some narrative flaws and a lack of chemistry between the two leads - Rosalie Shanks and Patrick Stewart. However, "NORTH AND SOUTH" still managed to rise above its flaws . . . in the end.

"NORTH AND SOUTH" (1975) Photo Gallery

Below are images from "NORTH AND SOUTH", the 1975 BBC adaptation of Elizabeth Gaskell's 1855 novel. Directed by Rodney Bennett, the four-part miniseries starred Rosalie Shanks and Patrick Stewart: 


"NORTH AND SOUTH" (1975) Photo Gallery

"X-MEN" (2000) Review

"X-MEN" (2000) Review

If anyone had asked me what was the first genuine superhero film, based upon Marvel Comics characters, my choice would be the 2000 flick, "X-MEN". In fact, I suspect that it was the first Marvel film ever shown in the movie theaters. Its success spawned a series of superhero films that continue to this day. 

Based upon the Marvel Comics series, the plot for "X-MEN" began first in 1944, at a concentration camp in German-occupied Poland. Thirteen year-old Erik Lehnsherr is separated from his parents, upon entry to the camp. And in an attempt to reach them, he causes a set of gates to bend with a magnetic force and is knocked unconscious by the guards. The story jumps several decades later when a 17 year-old girl from Meridan, Mississippi named Marie aka Rogue is flirting with her boyfriend. They kiss and her boyfriend goes into a coma, thanks to Marie's ability to suck an individual's life force. Instead of immediately killing a mutant, Marie's ability manages to suck his or her ability before dying. Upset over the harm she had inadvertently caused, Marie runs away from home and ends up in Laughlin City, Alaska. She meets Logan, an amateur fighter known as "The Wolverine" at a local bar. He also possesses superhuman healing abilities, heightened senses, and metal claws that extend outwards from between his knuckles. Marie hitches a ride with Logan. While on the road together, they are both attacked by Sabretooth, a fellow mutant and an associate of the adult Erik Lehnsherr, who has become known as Magneto. Two mutants - Scott Summers aka Cyclops and Ororo Munroe aka Storm arrive on time to save Wolverine and Rogue, and bring them to Charles Xavier's mansion in Westchester County, New York. Xavier is an old friend of Magneto's.

Xavier's mansion serves as headquarters for Cyclops and Storm, the two mutants who had rescued Rogue and Logan. They are part of a group called the X-Men, who try to seek peace with non-mutant humans, educate young mutants in the responsible use of their powers, and stop Magneto from starting a war with humanity. While Xavier, Cyclops, Storm and a fourth member of the X-Men named Jean Grey try to figure out the reason by Magneto's attempt to kidnap Logan and Marie; Magneto sets his plan in motion with the kidnapping of an anti-mutant politician named Senator Robert Kelly by Sabretooth and another minion, a shapeshifter named Mystique. Kelly is behind a Federal legislation called the "Mutant Registration Act", which would force mutants to publicly reveal their identities and abilities. Magneto uses Kelly as a subject for a machine that artificially induces mutation. He plans to use it on the entire non-mutant population. But a mutant has to generate the machine's power. When it weakens Magneto during his experimentation on Senator Kelly, it becomes clear to the X-Men that Magneto wants to use Rogue's transferring ability and the Statue of Liberty to power the machine.

I never saw "X-MEN" at the movie theater. In fact, I had never heard of Marvel's "X-MEN" comic series, until I saw the movie after its video release in late 2000. Needless to say, I became an immediate fan. I found the idea of a group of people with psychic abilities divided by moral compass and political beliefs, and who are regarded by others as freaks, rather fascinating. I realize that the movie is not particularly faithful to the comic book series that it is based upon. However, director Bryan Singer and screenwriter David Hayter did a pretty solid job of using the comic source to create their own cinematic version of the series. The movie also featured some first-rate acting and excellent production values.

After seeing the film, I saw how the original costumes for the X-Men looked in the comics. And all I have to say is thank goodness Louise Mingenbach designed a more uniformed look for the superheroes . . . even if it involved black leather. Newton Thomas Sigel's photography struck me as solid. His best work seemed to be featured in the Liberty Island sequence. Ann Brodie and her team did excellent work on the makeup for some of the characters - especially Logan, Sabretooth, Toad and Mystique. Mike Fink and his team received an Oscar nomination for the film's visual effects. Fink later expressed dissatisfaction with his work and I can see why. They struck me as . . . okay, but nothing more or less. I found the visual affects used during Logan's fight against Sabertooth atop the Statue of Liberty as somewhat clumsy. And considering that most of the movie was either set indoors or at night, I cannot honestly say that "X-MEN" was a visually stunning film.

Most of the performances featured in "X-MEN" struck me as solid. There were a few exceptional ones. The movie made a star out of Hugh Jackman and it is easy to see why. Jackman is obviously a talented actor and he had the good luck to be cast in one of the comic franchise's most memorable characters. I could also say the same about Ian McKellen's performance as Erik Lensherr aka Magneto. What I found fascinating about McKellen's take on the character is that he managed to convey Magneto's willingness to pretend that his heinous actions were for the benefit of his fellow mutants, whom he believe should rule the earth. Patrick Stewart gave a fine performance as the more tolerant Charles Xavier, who would rather mutants and non-mutants to live side-by-side, instead of engaging in eternal conflict. I was also impressed by Anna Paquin's poignant performance as the young Marie aka Rogue, who seemed desperate to make some kind of connection to others, despite her ability. Bruce Davidson gave an excellent and complex performance as Senator Robert Kelly, whose fervent anti-mutant stance eventually softens from a traumatic experience and a conversation with Ororo Munroe aka Storm.

Among the movie's solid performances came from James Marsden's Scott Summers aka Cyclops, Famke Jenssen's Jean Grey and Rebecca Romijn as Magneto's hench woman, Mystique. I suspect some might be astonished by my description of Romijn's performance as "solid". I stand by my word. Mind you, I found the Mystique character rather striking - especially physically - but Romijn's performance merely struck me as solid. I wish I could say the same about Ray Park's portrayal of another of Magneto's minions, Toad. Honestly? I found the character cartoonish and one-dimension. Unfortunately, Park failed to rise above the material. I hate to say this, but I have to say the same about Halle Berry's performance as X-Men Storm aka Ororo Munroe. Most fans tend to blame Berry for the poor portrayal of Storm in this film. I cannot, considering her more positive portrayals of the character in subsequent films. Frankly, I blame Bryan Singer and screenwriter David Hayter. Poor Storm was merely used as a background character, except in a few crucial scenes. And Hayter wrote one of the worst pieces of dialogue in Hollywood history for the character. However, there was one scene in which Berry gave an excellent performance; and it featured Storm's poignant conversation with Senator Kelly.

As much as I liked "X-MEN", I feel that it is very overrated by many critics and the franchise's fans. I can honestly say that it is probably my least favorite X-MEN film. The main problem I have with this film is the number of plot holes or lack of logic in the story. I could say that it is indicative of the franchise's growing reputation for plot inconsistency. I never understood how Magneto learned about Rogue's ability to absorb a mutant's ability. I realize he must have learned about what she had done to her boyfriend David. But how did he learn about her ability's impact upon mutants? How did he or Sabretooth discover that she had traveled all the way from Mississippi to Alaska? I was also unimpressed by Logan's first scene at Xavier's school in which he woke up, heard voices in his head and ended up roaming all over the place in confusion. I am confused. Did Professor Xavier used telepathy to awaken him? Or did Logan simply hear voices, thanks to his enhanced hearing? 

The one sequence that really puzzles me was Mystique's activities at Xavier's School. The scene began with Mystique shape shifting into Rogue's new boyfriend, Bobby Drake aka Iceman in order to convince the adolescent that Xavier was angry at her for using her ability on Logan to heal herself and that she should leave the school. Why? So that Magneto could have an opportunity to snatch her. Later, Mystique transformed into Xavier in order to infiltrate Cerebro, Xavier's telepathic enhancing machine and sabotage it. Why on earth did Singer and Hayter create such a convoluted situation? They could have easily allowed Mystique to first sabotage Cerebro and then snatch Rogue from the school, herself. I also realize that Jean Grey, being both telepathic andtelekinetic, could have easily rescued herself and her fellow X-Men from Magneto's trap inside the Liberty statue's interior. I have already commented on the clumsily shot fight scene between Logan and Sabretooth. The former's fight against Mystique was somewhat better and probably enhanced by slow motion. And if I must be honest, I found the movie's writing and pacing almost episodic. Every time I watch "X-MEN", I get the feeling that it is a first-rate "B" or television movie . . . or a second-rate "A" movie, even if it is entertaining.

In the end, my opinion of "X-MEN" has diminished over the years. It is still an entertaining film with a decent story, and a mixture of solid and first-rate performances from the cast. And I have to give it credit for successful kick-starting not only the X-MENfranchise, but also spawning a reemergence of superhero films - especially from Marvel. However, I believe the movie is tainted by some very questionable writing and a style that nearly strikes me as slightly sub par. I still like the movie, but it has become my second least favorite X-MEN film in the entire franchise.

"X-MEN" (2000) Photo Gallery

Below are images from "X-MEN", the 2000 adaptation of the Marvel comic book series. Directed by Bryan Singer, the movie starred Patrick Stewart, Hugh Jackman, Ian McKellen and Anna Paquin: 


"X-MEN" (2000) Photo Gallery