TV Say What????

In a new segment called TV Say What, I go after ridiculous writing on the small screen. Before I begin my rant, I should point out that about 80% of TV show scripts are already rotten, but I'm specifically going after those that should know better.

This past week, CBS aired a special two-parter tie-in for two of their popular shows, "Hawaii Five-O," and "NCIS: Los Angeles." In a nutshell, it all had to do with a rogue scientist who wanted to stage a smallpox attack. Now, I don't normally watch "NCIS: LA," but I am a fan of "Hawaii Five-O," now in its sophomore season. It does a pretty good job, and is dependable week in and week out. But since this was a two-part ep., I set the ol' DVR to record the NCIS ep. as well.

In the first place, they easily could have made this a 5 parter, spread over different CBS shows. The reason I'm particularly interested in the subject is primarily because I just finished a book called "The Demon in the Freezer," which deals with the eradication of naturally occurring Smallpox, as well as what's been done with the remaining stock, and what nations could do with it as a bioterror weapon. It's fascinating, and incredibly scary stuff. The book goes into great detail, and that's why I was so disappointed these shows downplayed the seriousness of it all.

We start with "Hawaii Five-O." A person in Hawaii dies of what appears to be smallpox. We're basically given a one-line explanation of why it isn't "too dangerous," and how it spreads. WHAT??!? In the first place, the officers who found the body of the victim would have been put under quarantine with armed guards. None of that happened. Secondly, how they handled this threat of manufactured Smallpox was all wrong. Officers track down the lab where patients were tested, then killed. They go in without masks, or protection of any kind. That's one of the most foolish things I've ever seen. They're all searching for a killer, they find the lab, with people inside who all were exposed to Smallpox, yet they're not even wearing masks.
Eventually, the CDC arrives, and wear their protective "space suits" as they handle dangerous material. One of the regular cast members asks the coroner if he should be wearing a mask. When the coroner says something to the effect of "Definitely," the detective, Danny Williams, known for his quips, and sense of humor even in the most dangerous of situations, says, "Yeah, ok," before he and another cast mate walk away from the scene (without masks), while the CDC team works in the background dressed from head to toe in protective gear. I guess it's more important to look and sound cool than to worry about some silly bacteria spoiling the fun.
This is one of the worst examples of "dumbing down" a very real threat to this country I've ever seen. Those 2 men would have been thoroughly examined before they ever left that crime scene, and most likely taken to a remote lab for more medical tests. That doesn't happen.

There's an LA connection (where the show tie-in comes into play), and at the end of the ep., we learn that the virus is on board a plane bound for the city of angels. Detectives rush into action, and go to LA. (Here's where that NCIS ep. begins) But they fear a public panic (natch), so they don't bother contacting the CDC. Of course not, when a 5 person team can handle a potential pandemic. Preposterous.
Once again, we're given the usual one line explanation of how Smallpox spreads, and apparently why we shouldn't be afraid of something more dangerous than a nuclear bomb. 2 computer geeks do set up a "pandemic scenario," to show us how it could spread. That's about as close to science as we get here.
All the while, police joke, and detectives never fall short of witty banter as they work to track down the potential killer.

Of course, they eventually track down the villain, a woman who wanted to tip the earth's balance by getting school kids around the world to spread the disease in their respective countries. But, alas, we never learn *exactly* how that would have been done, only that she ordered "special shirts," to be put in the kids' gift bags at an LA conference. That isn't just bad writing, that's skipping a major plot point that could have gone something like this:

"So you mean these shirts were made to deliver the Smallpox? But how?"
"See this part of the shirt? She's put the virus here, and this thread will dissolve after 48 hours, leaving the virus to go airborne."
"We've got to stop her."

You get the gist. Now, even if the science is flawed in the above dialogue, at least it gives the audience something they can understand. By the way CBS, if you're reading this, I made that up in about 15 seconds.

The point I'm trying to make with all of this is that the audience deserves so much more than watered down science. I don't mean to imply they should write a show only a doctor or scientist could understand, just give us more accurate portrayals of characters in deadly situations. The TV audience will be better served (and might even learn something!) and who knows, the writers could even wind up winning an award or two.

"3-Don't"???

This weekend marks the release of "Clash Of The Titans" in 3D (And 2D). While it boasts an impressive cast list, and certainly a timeless storyline of ancient gods and goddesses, along with fantastical mythological creatures, there's an overriding issue that has cast a pall over the movie: it really wasn't meant to be in 3D.
The film was originally shot in standard 2D, then, wait for it, retrofitted to 3D in the hopes of raking in more dough from moviegoers. So, here's the deal, it was converted into a 3D movie at the last minute, following the success of, you guessed it, that money making machine known as "Avatar."
Now, "Avatar" is a completely different story. It was always meant to be in 3D, was shot specifically with those stereoscopic effects in mind, and meant to be released that way.
Unfortunately, the trend now is, if it isn't in 3D yet, let's do it after the fact. Personally, I think this is a mistake that will ultimately lead to lower film quality. Let's face it, not everything was made to be viewed in 3D. Thankfully, moviegoers will have an option to see these "conversions" in standard form.
Recently, "Alice In Wonderland" proved to be another 3D cash cow. But, again, the movie was not originally produced for 3D. Still, it made a ton of money. And that's obviously the key for studios. If it looks like 3D will pull in the crowds, then let's have more, please.
And that's exactly what you'll get. This year, there are more than a dozen movies scheduled to be released in the 3D format. Some, like "Toy Story 3," (which I'm really looking forward to) were shot for 3D. Others, like Ridley Scott's "Robin Hood," with Russell Crowe, were given the 3D treatment after production had already ended. Check out this article from The New York Times about the proliferation of 3D conversions. So, watch out--don't be fooled into thinking that every movie thrown at you with a nice "3D" marketing campaign is the real deal. And they definitely won't be marketed like this: "Come see the big blockbuster action movie converted to 3D in postproduction!" No. They'll be pushed at you just like a regular 3D movie. Clever, eh? Deceptive, methinks.
To be honest, I think despite the controversy, "Clash Of The Titans" will do well at the weekend box office. I think people will be curious, and that most of them will see it in the retrofitted 3D format. It's the "novelty effect." It's still up against that 3D juggernaut, "How To Train Your Dragon," though.
So, what's next for the 3D bandwagon? Television manufacturers have already released 3D TVs, and certain programming outlets, notably DirecTV, have said they'll begin providing 3D channels starting this summer.
In my opinion, this will go down as one of the biggest blunders in the history of home entertainment. People are just now turning loose of the cash for nice flatscreen LCD televisions. Why on earth would they want to spend money on an unproven electronic device with, for now, an extremely limited amount of programming??
We are, however, witnessing an important shift in the direction of home entertainment. And, even though we may scoff at the idea of 3D televisions in our living rooms, someday in the not too distant future, all of this will be pretty standard stuff. We'll be tuning into holograms for sports coverage, and immersing ourselves in the action of our favorite drama series or sitcom by "living the experience."
I have no doubt that will happen. The technology already exists. And you can bet somewhere in those research and development labs, manufacturers are hard at work to deliver this form of entertainment for your home.
So, while 3D TV may not immediately be a huge hit (even if it crashes and burns, it's still an important step), it will probably eventually take off--maybe not right away, though. I predict that we'll see it become more mainstream in around 5 years. That timeframe will also allow prices to drop, and manufacturers to develop competing technologies.
Kinda fun to think about what comes next, hm?

"FlashForward" Reviewed

By now, most people have seen the new ABC show "FlashForward," which has been hyped as "the next Lost." So, as you may imagine, I was really looking forward, no pun intended, to its debut last week. 

The storyline was intriguing--people all over the world black out for 2 minutes, 17 seconds, a time when many of them see a vision of the future. We learn that these futures, although different for every person, are in fact connected. 

After everyone wakes up, we see that there has been some sort of global attack, and streets are in chaos. We're still working on that mystery.

Let me first say that I'm in. The show has a high "what happens next" factor, and I'll tune in for that reason alone. Having said that, the show is, by no means, another "Lost." The only way I can connect it to "Lost" is the big mystery, and a lot of characters. The minute you start comparing a TV show or movie to an already established hit, you're setting a near impossible goal. To both satisfy fans of the existing product, while also drawing in new ones. Very tough indeed. 

I read a recent article with which I must agree. Whereas "Lost" immediately developed characters you cared about, loved, or hated, then added the "what's going on here" element, "FlashForward" has done just the opposite. First we get the "what's going on?" then the characters. The show has a fine cast of talented actors, notably Joseph Fiennes and John Cho, among many others, but really needs to work on character development.

Where "Lost" gave us an onion that's been slowly peeled week after week, "FlashForward" has chopped up the onion, and now we have to see how in the world it all fits back together. 

You can watch "FlashForward" Thursday nights at 7 on ABC.