sf/f TV development news - 2013

[Caliburn24]

I can't help but think that Revolution is at least in part inspired by Stirling's "Dies the Fire", in that book various characters theorize about what caused the event, but it is not a plot point. It is just the event that sets everything else in motion.

[Temis the Vorta]

So, the story is that the laws of physics change, but nobody puts any effort into finding out why or "changing it back" because that's not the story - instead, the story is how people cope with being cast back to the 19th C or even earlier, before telegraphs. Would steam power still work?

Anyway, that might be interesting, but hard to pull off. It depends so heavily on the characters being compelling and the audience caring whether they live or die. Just look at Alcatraz or Terra Nova and imagine those characters in this story. I wouldn't give a flip about any of it.

It could be great, but the odds would be better if they had some gimmick to amp the action every so often. Zombie attacks are a great way to distract from characters who are starting to annoy you.

[stj]

Is Stirling's Dies the Fire the opening of the series where he imagines the return of feudalism with modern people? (Yes, a contradiction in terms but there seems to be something wrong with Stirling's brain [Draka series.]) Revolution may be taking off from that and focusing on the overthrow of democracy/capitalism/namby pamby couch potatoes.

Raymond F. Jones' The Year When Stardust Fell had a similar but more logical premise, in which dust from a comet tail caused all metal moving surfaces in contact to cold weld. Voila! Basically no modern machinery. And this was published in 1958 before solid state electronics really took off.

[Caliburn24]

Yeah Dies the Fire is Stirling's attempt at neo-feudalism.

If the eventual trailer for Revolution shows that guns and cars are not working anymore the suspicion that they are copying Stirling is just going to increase.

[Temis the Vorta]

What the suits are looking for this season. Short answer: more comedies and attention getting dramas.

I checked out the cast of Revolution. Other than Giancarlo Esposito, nobody really stands out.

Here's a little more info; Esposito is the bad guy, so that's good news:

Billy Burke stars as Miles Matheson, a former Marine who reluctantly finds himself aiding his niece Charlie (Tracy Spiradakos) in her quest to rescue her brother Danny (Graham Rogers) from the dangerous Captain Tom Neville (Giancarlo Esposito). Andrea Roth and Tim Guinee also star as Charlie and Danny's parents, Rachel and Ben; with David Lyons as Miles's old Marine pal; and Anna Lise Phillips, Zak Orth, J.D. Pardo and Maria Howell as various residents who aid the group in their quest.

Edit: painfully corny cast photo. They've got their weapons of choice already!

I was curious where the show is supposed to be set. They're filming the pilot in Atlanta, so maybe they can borrow some zombies from TWD?

Working Class Hero (basically, The Incredibles as a TV series) is still alive at FOX.

[Caliburn24]

So judging from the cast photo guns are inoperable. Good, it'll give the show a different flavor than Walking Dead. I just hope they're willing to go as dark as the premise demands.

[startrekwatcher]

Temis the Vorta wrote:

---

I checked out the cast of Revolution. Other than Giancarlo Esposito, nobody really stands out.

Here's a little more info; Esposito is the bad guy, so that's good news:

Edit: painfully corny cast photo. They've got their weapons of choice already!

I was curious where the show is supposed to be set. They're filming the pilot in Atlanta, so maybe they can borrow some zombies from TWD?

Let's see--JJ Abrams + NBC + apocalyptic atmosphere= MEH

Working Class Hero (basically, The Incredibles as a TV series) is still alive at FOX.

No Ordinary Family was canned a few years ago--no thanks.

No more event-dramas.

[Christopher]

RJDiogenes wrote:

---

How can I be missing the point when I've said that about a hundred times already?

No, you've been saying just the opposite. You've been insisting on a narrow definition of "Western" that excludes any hybrids of Western elements with other genres or settings. You're trying to erect rigid walls between genres and define them in exclusionistic terms, which is grossly missing the point of what genre is.

[RJDiogenes]

Revolution doesn't sound intriguing at all. The "all forms of energy" makes no sense. Presumably, it's just meant to take away technology, but they will still be able to have campfires and stuff (not to mention cellular activity), but it sounds like a bland post-whimpering-Apocalypse to me.

[RJDiogenes]

Christopher wrote:

---

No, you've been saying just the opposite. You've been insisting on a narrow definition of "Western" that excludes any hybrids of Western elements with other genres or settings. You're trying to erect rigid walls between genres and define them in exclusionistic terms, which is grossly missing the point of what genre is.

You obviously haven't been paying attention. I've said many, many times that concepts can and do fall into multiple genres. Go back and re-read. Why would the fact that words have meanings mean that you can't use more than one word?

[Christopher]

Yes, you've said that about other things, but you're stubbornly ignoring it when it comes to how Westerns are defined. So you're not even being consistent.

[Guy Gardener]

So ABSOLUTELY NOTHING happened in new York City between 1840 and 1890?

(Far and Away, and the Gangs of New York?)

[Harvey]

RJDiogenes wrote:

---

So if a Western uses the syntax of Space Opera, then it's a Space Opera?

The first thing I would say is that Outland isn't without semantic elements of the Western genre, such as the mining town setting and the town marshal (complete with tin star and shotgun) who stubbornly sticks to his ideals against all else.

The second thing I would say is yes. I'm not sure why you're so aggressively arguing against this idea, since you claim that you have no problems with genre hybridization.

Even if there were examples that fell into a gray area, I'd hardly call the definition of a Western too limiting to be useful.

Your definition of the Western film is narrow to the point of excluding Western films that aren't even on the fringes of the genre. That's a textbook example of a useless generic definition.

So what? As noted, all sorts of non-SF material is lumped under "Sci Fi" by reviewers and Blockbuster clerks who don't know any better.

First, looking at reviews of The Proposition on Metacritic, I can't find a single one that doesn't call the film a Western. You might think some of these reviewers are knuckleheads, but do you really suggest dismissing them all? Historically, I should point out, film critics have often played an important role in establishing generic terms. "Musical," for example, was just an adjective to describe other genres until film critics began using it to describe what we now understand as a genre (Rick Altman has a great book on the musical that discusses this in detail).

Second, you've ignored a key part of my point here, which not only was that shopkeepers and reviewers identified these films as Westerns, but the producers of these films also identified them as such. I suppose you're dismissing them, too?

It's still the North American West. Borders have nothing to do with it. The classification of a movie as a Western doesn't depend on whether or not it's set before or after California became a state.

Borders obviously have something to do with it, since you've dismissed the thought of Australian Westerns based on geography alone. I'm not sure why you've introduced California's statehood (1850) to the conversation, although I suspect you'd subscribe to a definition that limits the genre to films taking place in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

Of course, your geographic limitations eliminate Westerns like Rage at Dawn (which takes place in Pennsylvania) and Saskatchewan (which takes place in Canada).

[Temis the Vorta]

Caliburn24 wrote:

---

So judging from the cast photo guns are inoperable. Good, it'll give the show a different flavor than Walking Dead. I just hope they're willing to go as dark as the premise demands.

At least I won't have to keep yelling at the TV, WHY DON'T YOU ALL HAVE CROSSBOWS BY NOW!!! Like I do with a certain other show that shall remain nameless. Maybe the Revolution people glommed the entire crossbow supply in the greater Atlanta area.

RJDiogenes wrote:

---

Revolution doesn't sound intriguing at all. The "all forms of energy" makes no sense. Presumably, it's just meant to take away technology, but they will still be able to have campfires and stuff (not to mention cellular activity), but it sounds like a bland post-whimpering-Apocalypse to me.

If fire doesn't work, then that begs other questions - why does human metabolism still work? And that way lies madness.

Wiping out all the technology in such a specific and targetted way can only be explained as a prelude to alien invasion.

[Kegg]

Temis the Vorta wrote:

---

At least I won't have to keep yelling at the TV, WHY DON'T YOU ALL HAVE CROSSBOWS BY NOW!!!

But then how could we tell which one is Darryl and which one is the other ones?