There is a point where a long running franchise writes itself into a corner. At this point, the fans of the series have accepted the canon rules as fact. And such facts, even in science fiction tales, cannot be changed to suit the need for the character story to continue on forever.
This is the problem with Doctor Who, the 50 year old British sci-fi series. Yesterday, the 11th/12th Doctor, Matt Smith, made his farewell appearance as the main character. But under the terms of the Who franchise, a Time Lord can only regenerate 12 times . . . i.e. gather a new life cycle before dying. Under this season's episodes, Smith was actually the 12th Time Lord in his regenerated body . . . meaning that there was only one left, the final Doctor to be played by Peter Capaldi.
Which is the canon that fans know about. It is the Rule from the very beginning.
Things got a little muddled in this Christmas special, The Time of the Doctor, when head writer Steven Moffat crammed so many untied story strings together to make the special. Smith's Doctor, who previously helped stop a universal war by sending his home planet into a different hidden universe of time and space, finds the means to bring back his home planet, but at the cost of restarting the war that will destroy everyone. It is a typical big picture ethical dilemma that the main character has to solve. In this case, he decided to fight his enemies alone on a wayward planet that he knows from seeing his own future where he dies.
In an fuzzy moment, Smith attempts to explain that he should not be able to regenerate again because of the 10th Doctor's aborted regeneration may have used up his final reboot. Smith's character accepts that this is the end, but his companion whispers through a crack in time and space for help to his trapped home world. At the climax, the Time Lords for some unknown way, transmit to the Doctor another dose of life regeneration which he uses to destroy his enemies, save the planet, then make his final farewell.
That is all well and good, except it really unclear what really happened. Buried in the explosions and sentimentality, is a question of how the writer is getting around the most sacred story Rule of the series on how many times a time lord can regenerate. Even the television reviewers are confused at what the explanation was for the regeneration process. On reviewer stated that Time Lords granted the
Doctor a new regeneration cycle, thereby saving him from death on
Trenzalore and changing his future; that temporary rejuvenation is a 'reset' for the new cycle
of regenerations to begin and the second phase of the regeneration is
taking some time to start up, but he will soon change. However, another reviewer states that the Time Lords granted Smith's character only "one more" regeneration and not a new cycle (which would mean 12 more characters in the future).
This story confusion is unwarranted and tricky since everyone accepted the fact that Smith's Doctor had one more regeneration to go. The fact that he suddenly needed an "extra" boost does not make sense since the aborted regen did not alter the prior Doctor's appearance (which shows the completion of the cycle). So, everyone assumed that the regeneration to the Capaldi Doctor was a given and no intervention by his home planet was required to accomplish it.
Because, if the one reviewer is correct in the assumption that the Time Lords can grant another full life cycle of 12 regenerations, and hence immortality, then the Rule was frivolous from the start. The need to "change" the rule so dramatically is to extend the franchise's main character is an easy way out, without the creativity to make a "new" doctor profile (i.e. someone to take the place of the Doctor character - - - would not violate the Rule). But executives and producers believe that the viewers are tied to the main character (in all the incarnations it is still the same man), but that is another false assumption, because as we have seen in the Star Trek franchise, fans will accept different captains, different ships, even different eras - - - so long as they do not violate the basic canon rules of the show. To mess with canon rules is to mess up the show's past history - - - to diminish it to irrelevance.
So the series producers need to quickly explain what they meant by Smith's final regeneration. Did it change the normal, steadfast rule which has been in place for 50 years, or was it convenient hocus pocus to extend the franchise's main character?
Fan reaction to the episode and continuity has been mixed, much like LOST's ending.
There is a vocal majority who believe that the show produced a McGuffin to get around the Rules to make the premise that there are no rules in the show's universe. A few have scanned the wiki-archives to find one small reference to the proposition that the Doctor's high council could "grant" an additional cycle of regenerations to a Time Lord. But how is that possible, especially if the high council is trapped in another universe and cannot get out into ours? And it seems odd that a species has the ability to "grant" another sequence of life force on a mere whim. Again, that would mean that no time lord would ever die, but they have in the past so much so that they were about to be wiped out during the Time War. The change in the principle rule of regenerations has taken many fans to questioning the future of the series; whether it has jumped the shark. More than a few have lamented that there should have been a better, more clever story line than just instantaneously but haphazardly giving a character another cycle of regenerations. These are the same criticisms we have been debating since The End finale of LOST.
Showing posts with label art. Show all posts
Showing posts with label art. Show all posts
Thursday, December 26, 2013
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
THROWN AGAINST THE WALL
There has been a resentment in some circles to how LOST was structured as a series. Many people believed that the writers merely threw plot twists, traps and mysteries against the wall to see what stuck in the hearts and minds of the fans.
Humans have the brain capacity to be curious about their surroundings. We have the intelligence to apply knowledge to problems to find solutions. That is why we are at the top of the food chain. And that same basic mental framework is how we view our information and entertainment.
Even before we can walk, as babies, we want to put the shaped blocks through the right holes and into the bucket. That is why a few of us still continue to think whether there is (by accident and not even design) some unified explanation for the layered, complex and engaging story lines of the series.
Or, do we have to come to the final conclusion that we were duped by a canvas of splattered paint instead of coherent statement of words and actions.
The unease comes from the fact that many of the major themes and consequential moments (at the time) were rendered meaningless, irrelevant and immaterial in the conclusion of the series. For example, could the castaways gotten to the sideways church without the smoke monster story lines? Apparently so. What did the island time skipping have to do with the reunion in the church? Nothing. Did Juliet set off the bomb? It did not matter. What happened to all the deep and detailed ancient Egyptian ritual and hieroglyphs that expanded in scope as the last season unfolded? It turns out to be mere artful misdirection.
That is why so many people cannot grasp the significance of the ending because it was not foreshadowed by any of the action of the main characters. It was an off-ramp to a quiet side alley when the story was a super highway rushing to the final toll booth of answers.
All art, including storytelling, can many different variations. It can be mystery, drama, comedy, surreal or even absurd. It is just like in fine art painting. You have those artists who use the medium to express realistic portraits, impressions, illusions to reality, abstractions to comment on life, to surreal merger of mismatched items like a Dali creation to shock to viewer into wonder and personal reflection.
As I said above, a criticism has been that the LOST writers were merely throwing plots on the wall without any reason or structure in order to move the series forward. In the art world, this splatter approach was made famous by Jackson Pollock, who spilled, sprayed, flicked and tossed random colors on large canvases to make his art. Some people adore the freedom of expression, other people hate it as a mess, and many are just indifferent with the result. Sounds a lot like the reactions to the end of Season Six.
The strength but also the problem with the Pollock drippy style is that is it is "easy." It is easy to create because it is abstract. The result is all in the eye of the beholder. The artist does not have to say anything about the subject matter (even if there is one in his own mind). There are no rules. Structure is abandoned. Convention set aside. Recognizable symbols or shapes are not used to convey any message. I did the above graphic in a matter of minutes. If 100 people look at it, you would probably get 100 different responses to it. It is both nothing and anything. I had no concept of what I would be drawing; I only threw dashes of color and lines on a blank piece of digital paper. To me, it is just an abstract drawing.
To viewers of LOST, they do not want to see their show as an abstract nothingness. They were led on so many paths, experienced so many key moments to have the final reveal to be a Pollock-style painting. That is why a few keep searching for the hidden brush strokes.
Humans have the brain capacity to be curious about their surroundings. We have the intelligence to apply knowledge to problems to find solutions. That is why we are at the top of the food chain. And that same basic mental framework is how we view our information and entertainment.
Even before we can walk, as babies, we want to put the shaped blocks through the right holes and into the bucket. That is why a few of us still continue to think whether there is (by accident and not even design) some unified explanation for the layered, complex and engaging story lines of the series.
Or, do we have to come to the final conclusion that we were duped by a canvas of splattered paint instead of coherent statement of words and actions.
The unease comes from the fact that many of the major themes and consequential moments (at the time) were rendered meaningless, irrelevant and immaterial in the conclusion of the series. For example, could the castaways gotten to the sideways church without the smoke monster story lines? Apparently so. What did the island time skipping have to do with the reunion in the church? Nothing. Did Juliet set off the bomb? It did not matter. What happened to all the deep and detailed ancient Egyptian ritual and hieroglyphs that expanded in scope as the last season unfolded? It turns out to be mere artful misdirection.
That is why so many people cannot grasp the significance of the ending because it was not foreshadowed by any of the action of the main characters. It was an off-ramp to a quiet side alley when the story was a super highway rushing to the final toll booth of answers.
All art, including storytelling, can many different variations. It can be mystery, drama, comedy, surreal or even absurd. It is just like in fine art painting. You have those artists who use the medium to express realistic portraits, impressions, illusions to reality, abstractions to comment on life, to surreal merger of mismatched items like a Dali creation to shock to viewer into wonder and personal reflection.
As I said above, a criticism has been that the LOST writers were merely throwing plots on the wall without any reason or structure in order to move the series forward. In the art world, this splatter approach was made famous by Jackson Pollock, who spilled, sprayed, flicked and tossed random colors on large canvases to make his art. Some people adore the freedom of expression, other people hate it as a mess, and many are just indifferent with the result. Sounds a lot like the reactions to the end of Season Six.
The strength but also the problem with the Pollock drippy style is that is it is "easy." It is easy to create because it is abstract. The result is all in the eye of the beholder. The artist does not have to say anything about the subject matter (even if there is one in his own mind). There are no rules. Structure is abandoned. Convention set aside. Recognizable symbols or shapes are not used to convey any message. I did the above graphic in a matter of minutes. If 100 people look at it, you would probably get 100 different responses to it. It is both nothing and anything. I had no concept of what I would be drawing; I only threw dashes of color and lines on a blank piece of digital paper. To me, it is just an abstract drawing.
To viewers of LOST, they do not want to see their show as an abstract nothingness. They were led on so many paths, experienced so many key moments to have the final reveal to be a Pollock-style painting. That is why a few keep searching for the hidden brush strokes.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
