Bell back at his best...
Showing posts with label batman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label batman. Show all posts
Friday, 5 August 2022
Saturday, 29 June 2013
Sunday, 10 March 2013
The Big Bang Visitor Experience Theory
I suppose it's true to say that over the last two years I've become a little addicted to The Big Bang Theory. I've become a fan.
At its simplest, part of the attraction arises from the fact that most of the leads are physics or engineering geeks. Or uber geeks. Sheldon et al have huge IQs and problematic social skills. And you can't help loving them.
It is great that the main characters are interested in string theory, anisotropic universes and astronautics. They love tech, and they are also into Stars Wars and Trek, Dr Who, comics, costumes and conventions. And they are surrounded by a bunch of other clever scientist people (and Penny).
Of course, as well as all the nerdy stuff, the other half of the show is admittedly more traditional - it's about relationships and love and stuff, and just how metrosexual is Raj? But it does all seem to fit together; we like watching these gawky individuals navigate a world full of other people. The main characters are outlandish, at various places on the spectrum (of clever-idiocy, if nothing else), but likeable.
But mostly I think I like it because physics is in some way at its heart.
However, thinking about the show recently I realised that it has a significant weakness, and an obvious one. The gang are keen on costumes and media SF, but they don't appear to read fiction. They don't talk about Pterry, or China or Iain or Robert A. When they argue over Star Trek or Babylon 5 they don't say a word about the writers. Never a mention of The City on the Edge of Forever. They appear to hold no opinion about Dean R Koontz.
This may be partly because they still have an audience to connect to - there have to be points of contact which aren't too obscure. Which is why they talk about Batman and the Flash rather than Rorschach or Dr Manhattan. But the chief reason is more obvious.
It's because it's on the telly.
Some time back, a fashion started amongst museums and galleries and their ilk to become more open to the public. To let us 'behind the scenes' to see what they did with our money, and why they ought to be cherished.
This resulted in lots of new buildings being designed and built to allow this to happen, and the signature element of many of these new ventures was the glass wall. Physically transparent, it served as the thinnest possible membrane between the public and the behind-the-scenes experts who researched, conserved and curated the displays. The Darwin Centre is an obvious example in London, but there are many others.
London Zoo caught this fever too. I recall going to the newly Biodiversity Centre a few years ago, just after it opened. An attractive, multi-level triangular building towards the southern corner of the site. And yes, there were these huge glass walls opening on the keepers' offices, so we could see what they did at work.
I only once, ever, saw anyone doing anything in those rooms.
He was reading a book.
Doubtless a worthy and interesting book, about ants or cephalopods or the care and feeding of giraffes, but it didn't make a compelling visual feast. There was no crowd of happy visitors clustered around the glass wall, watching him turn the pages.
It just wasn't good telly.
And that, I suspect, is ultimately why Sheldon, Leonard, Howard and Raj don't read SF, don't ever compare notes on the Culture or Discworld or Lundun. Visually, it just ain't got it. That is why they'll buy a George Pal Time Machine at auction, but never discuss Wells' original novella.
Having all four of them dress as the Flash is just so much funnier. But that don't make it true.
At its simplest, part of the attraction arises from the fact that most of the leads are physics or engineering geeks. Or uber geeks. Sheldon et al have huge IQs and problematic social skills. And you can't help loving them.
It is great that the main characters are interested in string theory, anisotropic universes and astronautics. They love tech, and they are also into Stars Wars and Trek, Dr Who, comics, costumes and conventions. And they are surrounded by a bunch of other clever scientist people (and Penny).
Of course, as well as all the nerdy stuff, the other half of the show is admittedly more traditional - it's about relationships and love and stuff, and just how metrosexual is Raj? But it does all seem to fit together; we like watching these gawky individuals navigate a world full of other people. The main characters are outlandish, at various places on the spectrum (of clever-idiocy, if nothing else), but likeable.
But mostly I think I like it because physics is in some way at its heart.
However, thinking about the show recently I realised that it has a significant weakness, and an obvious one. The gang are keen on costumes and media SF, but they don't appear to read fiction. They don't talk about Pterry, or China or Iain or Robert A. When they argue over Star Trek or Babylon 5 they don't say a word about the writers. Never a mention of The City on the Edge of Forever. They appear to hold no opinion about Dean R Koontz.
This may be partly because they still have an audience to connect to - there have to be points of contact which aren't too obscure. Which is why they talk about Batman and the Flash rather than Rorschach or Dr Manhattan. But the chief reason is more obvious.
It's because it's on the telly.
Some time back, a fashion started amongst museums and galleries and their ilk to become more open to the public. To let us 'behind the scenes' to see what they did with our money, and why they ought to be cherished.
This resulted in lots of new buildings being designed and built to allow this to happen, and the signature element of many of these new ventures was the glass wall. Physically transparent, it served as the thinnest possible membrane between the public and the behind-the-scenes experts who researched, conserved and curated the displays. The Darwin Centre is an obvious example in London, but there are many others.
London Zoo caught this fever too. I recall going to the newly Biodiversity Centre a few years ago, just after it opened. An attractive, multi-level triangular building towards the southern corner of the site. And yes, there were these huge glass walls opening on the keepers' offices, so we could see what they did at work.
I only once, ever, saw anyone doing anything in those rooms.
He was reading a book.
Doubtless a worthy and interesting book, about ants or cephalopods or the care and feeding of giraffes, but it didn't make a compelling visual feast. There was no crowd of happy visitors clustered around the glass wall, watching him turn the pages.
It just wasn't good telly.
And that, I suspect, is ultimately why Sheldon, Leonard, Howard and Raj don't read SF, don't ever compare notes on the Culture or Discworld or Lundun. Visually, it just ain't got it. That is why they'll buy a George Pal Time Machine at auction, but never discuss Wells' original novella.
Having all four of them dress as the Flash is just so much funnier. But that don't make it true.
Wednesday, 26 August 2009
Spain Tour 5: Bats!
The campsite had a stream that ran along beside it (actually, I think it was the same Rio Deva that accompanied us through the Gorge). At one point, beside the stream, there was a small bar/restaurant. It was usually quite busy.
As soon as it was fully dark they would switch on a strong bug-attracting light just outside the big windows of the bar, hanging slightly out over the stream. Moths and various other bugs would float around and congregate.
And they in turn attracted the bats.
Zooming back and forth along the river, snapping up the flying insects as they passed the cafe. Whirling around and returning for more.
They were fast, small and light, and despite the strong illumination from the bug-light, quite elusive to spot. And even harder to photograph. I must have tried forty or fifty times.
Here is what the scene looked like:
And again:
No, hang on. Look at the last picture again - the blur in the bottom right corner. It resolves to this:
Definitely batlike. So now we know what we are looking for.
This was the only other shot which was half-way successful at capturing one of the little furry flying things:
Did you spot it?
I am sure we spent somewhat longer in the bar, and went there more often, because of the bats. Not that I knowingly refused vino tinto at any time.
We christened the bug attracting light the Bat Signal (sigh).
As soon as it was fully dark they would switch on a strong bug-attracting light just outside the big windows of the bar, hanging slightly out over the stream. Moths and various other bugs would float around and congregate.
And they in turn attracted the bats.
Zooming back and forth along the river, snapping up the flying insects as they passed the cafe. Whirling around and returning for more.
They were fast, small and light, and despite the strong illumination from the bug-light, quite elusive to spot. And even harder to photograph. I must have tried forty or fifty times.
Here is what the scene looked like:
And again:
No, hang on. Look at the last picture again - the blur in the bottom right corner. It resolves to this:
Definitely batlike. So now we know what we are looking for.
This was the only other shot which was half-way successful at capturing one of the little furry flying things:
Did you spot it?
I am sure we spent somewhat longer in the bar, and went there more often, because of the bats. Not that I knowingly refused vino tinto at any time.
We christened the bug attracting light the Bat Signal (sigh).
Sunday, 10 May 2009
Reboots
Well. We have had a few reboots of venerable SF series over the last few years. From Dr Who with Christopher Ecclestone to Batman (I mean on film; The Dark Night graphic novel is too old to fit into the timeframe). If you count the prequels, then even that most clunky of franchises, Star Wars, has had a little of the makeover treatment.
And in the last few weeks we have had two more arrive.
Red Dwarf, which disappeared for reasons I don't understand some years back, but which had in any case become more something to watch late at night after the pub than anything akin to event TV (the SF equivalent of Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps), has had a new episode air over several days on Dave. Presumably as a taster for Dave repeating all of the series over the next few weeks.
This was all vaguely unsatisfying. The actors had aged, the story in theory should have worked (about the Red Dwarf characters discovering they were fictional - at least in our universe - and with a relatively playful sideswipe to Blade Runner), but I ended up feeling short changed. It wasn't just that the scenes where the main characters met their fans had been somewhat better done in Dr Who, but that they over-egged them. It seemed very, very slow. Also it was more self indulgent than I felt was justified by the material. Rather like the end of the most recent Dr Who series. And I've always felt Blade Runner to be a vastly overrated movie, so that annoyed me a tad also.
And now we have a Star Trek reboot. This is a franchise that you could argue has lived only by periodically refreshing itself. Yet this film is a far more major rewrite of the history of Federation space and time. Without giving away too much of the plot, a Romulan travels back in time and changes Kirk's early life, and with it much of Federation history (the backstory) as we knew it from all the other stories. And by the end, some of the changes that occur in the alternative past/future stay changed.
All of which means that some of the events in the stories from the so-called 'canon' (other films and the various TV series) now cannot happen. They come from a universe that no longer exists because of the events in this story. Which I think is wonderful, but has lead to a little confused handwringing amongst some of the fanbase. This is a far more radical plot development than anything in (what I remember of) Red Dwarf - who would always reestablish the true plotline at the end of each story.
And is it any good? Well, I enjoyed it. Smashing. A real success. Also hugely self-indulgent - much more so than Red Dwarf (especially when watching the crew of the original TV show slowly assembled from a bunch of rookies). But somehow this indulgence is something you, well, you indulge. They get away with it. And with some good jokes too (like the voice-activated computer which doesn't understand Chekov's Russian accent).
This seems like something of a reversal. I can recall, say fifteen years or so ago, arguing that Red Dwarf was so much more fun than the bloated franchise that Star Trek had become because it had more agile plots, could properly use SF tropes and had genuine humour. I think this was probably around the time of Star Trek: Generations.
Oh well.
What I now wonder is whether the Star Trek lot intend to stick with this new timeline, or whether they'll return to the original, seeing this as a sport.
And in the last few weeks we have had two more arrive.
Red Dwarf, which disappeared for reasons I don't understand some years back, but which had in any case become more something to watch late at night after the pub than anything akin to event TV (the SF equivalent of Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps), has had a new episode air over several days on Dave. Presumably as a taster for Dave repeating all of the series over the next few weeks.
This was all vaguely unsatisfying. The actors had aged, the story in theory should have worked (about the Red Dwarf characters discovering they were fictional - at least in our universe - and with a relatively playful sideswipe to Blade Runner), but I ended up feeling short changed. It wasn't just that the scenes where the main characters met their fans had been somewhat better done in Dr Who, but that they over-egged them. It seemed very, very slow. Also it was more self indulgent than I felt was justified by the material. Rather like the end of the most recent Dr Who series. And I've always felt Blade Runner to be a vastly overrated movie, so that annoyed me a tad also.
And now we have a Star Trek reboot. This is a franchise that you could argue has lived only by periodically refreshing itself. Yet this film is a far more major rewrite of the history of Federation space and time. Without giving away too much of the plot, a Romulan travels back in time and changes Kirk's early life, and with it much of Federation history (the backstory) as we knew it from all the other stories. And by the end, some of the changes that occur in the alternative past/future stay changed.
All of which means that some of the events in the stories from the so-called 'canon' (other films and the various TV series) now cannot happen. They come from a universe that no longer exists because of the events in this story. Which I think is wonderful, but has lead to a little confused handwringing amongst some of the fanbase. This is a far more radical plot development than anything in (what I remember of) Red Dwarf - who would always reestablish the true plotline at the end of each story.
And is it any good? Well, I enjoyed it. Smashing. A real success. Also hugely self-indulgent - much more so than Red Dwarf (especially when watching the crew of the original TV show slowly assembled from a bunch of rookies). But somehow this indulgence is something you, well, you indulge. They get away with it. And with some good jokes too (like the voice-activated computer which doesn't understand Chekov's Russian accent).
This seems like something of a reversal. I can recall, say fifteen years or so ago, arguing that Red Dwarf was so much more fun than the bloated franchise that Star Trek had become because it had more agile plots, could properly use SF tropes and had genuine humour. I think this was probably around the time of Star Trek: Generations.
Oh well.
What I now wonder is whether the Star Trek lot intend to stick with this new timeline, or whether they'll return to the original, seeing this as a sport.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)