Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The New Season.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.transterrestrial.com/admin/mt-tb.cgi/10240
8 Comments
Karl Hallowell wrote:
*mild spoilers for season one possible*
One thing that bothers me is how the show goes after those that discover and invent, the scientists and engineers. We start with the knowledge that Skynet is built, that most of humanity will die through nuclear war or by some sort of robot-run concentration camps. Hence, the people who build up the infrastructure and knowledge that Skynet exploits, they are among the enemy. The protagonists are in a position of having to harm innocent people because their works are used by Skynet down the road.
I don't really know where this show plans to go. But currently it does seem to promote a sort of anti-rationality. That is, if we can kill enough scientists and engineers, we can keep Skynet from being made. More extreme, it seems that if the protagonists can ever come across a way to destroy humanity's current technological civilization, by the logic of their struggle, they should do it. The survival of humanity is at stake, and Skynet can't create itself from the resulting primitive society.
I watched the season 2 pilot on DVR last night. I had watched season 1 faithfully and enjoyed the mild teenage discomfort John Connor [John Dekker] felt around the crazy hot Cameron [Summer Glau]. But the new pilot takes it too far, I think. And it appears that a theme of season 2 will be the dangerous unreliability of Cameron's now-damaged circuitry. This seems like a dismal turn. Since a series like this can in no way actually kill off the principal character, the interest has to be generated by novelty -- in season 1, provided by the Turk, by John's uncle, by the crazy hot Cameron. So every minute they spend ginning up false suspense (gee, is Cameron going to reboot and kill John? no? whatever) is a minute lost to moving the story forward.
Karl, while I partially agree with your thoughts, this is a very specific (fictional) case. The main characters have knowledge of a specific invention that has disastrous consequences. This is much more than an unease over the Large Hadron Collider. Also, the characters aren't out to kill people, just to stop the machine. Though the way the show is written, people tend to die in that process.
*Movie/show spoilers follow*
In T2, Dyson dies after being shot by police and volunteering to trigger the explosion himself
In the show, Andy dies due to Derick's knowledge of what Andy's contribution is to the death of humanity (more details to come, I'm sure)
The death of Sarkesian(sp?) in the opening montage this season was self-defense.
Larry J wrote:
The idea of Terminators sent back in time may have some basis in fact. I can think of two examples that quickly come to mind - Lance Armstrong and Michael Phelps. They came back in time and, since they couldn't find John Connors, they turned to athletics. I can only think of one picture I've ever seen of either of them with a dog (a commercial with Michael Phelps) and that dog didn't look happy.
Things that make you say, Hmmmmm.....
notanexpert wrote:
I loved the original movie, but totally ignored the TV series. Is it any good?
Ryan Olcott wrote:
IMO better than the movies. I re-watched T2 over the summer, and its one track nature just doesn't compare to the breadth of issues addressed in the TV series.
The characters are also a lot more interesting and multi-dimensional (and attractive, which doesn't hurt, and probably has provided a nice increase to HD TV/Antenna sales). Its worth watching just to be awed by Summer Glau's incredible acting skill - but I may be biased in that I love watching the cast of Firefly. I also prefer Lena Headley's strong, determined Sarah Connor to the frenetic, haunted Linda Hamilton portrayal.
Rand Simberg wrote:
Its worth watching just to be awed by Summer Glau's incredible acting skill - but I may be biased in that I love watching the cast of Firefly.
I'm less impressed by Summer Glau than I'm supposed to be, I guess. I'd have to see her play some other character to know whether or not she has acting skill, or is just being herself. River and Cameron seem much like the same character to me (spooky girl with superhuman powers), and I suspect that she plays that kind of part naturally. So it's good casting but not necessarily indicative of a great actress.
notanexpert wrote:
I just added the season one DVDs to my Netflix queue. Thanks Rand for the heads-up about this series, and Ryan for the recommendation.
I thought that T2 and T3 were little more than standard big-budget summer movie fare, which is probably why I never paid much attention to the series. But to me the original was brilliant -- one of the true classics of the genre, IMHO.
Leave a comment
Note: The comment system is functional, but timing out when returning a response page. If you have submitted a comment, DON'T RESUBMIT IT IF/WHEN IT HANGS UP AND GIVES YOU A "500" PAGE. Simply click your browser "Back" button to the post page, and then refresh to see your comment.
About this Entry
This page contains a single entry by Rand Simberg published on September 9, 2008 3:27 PM.
*mild spoilers for season one possible*
One thing that bothers me is how the show goes after those that discover and invent, the scientists and engineers. We start with the knowledge that Skynet is built, that most of humanity will die through nuclear war or by some sort of robot-run concentration camps. Hence, the people who build up the infrastructure and knowledge that Skynet exploits, they are among the enemy. The protagonists are in a position of having to harm innocent people because their works are used by Skynet down the road.
I don't really know where this show plans to go. But currently it does seem to promote a sort of anti-rationality. That is, if we can kill enough scientists and engineers, we can keep Skynet from being made. More extreme, it seems that if the protagonists can ever come across a way to destroy humanity's current technological civilization, by the logic of their struggle, they should do it. The survival of humanity is at stake, and Skynet can't create itself from the resulting primitive society.
**SPOILER FOR SEASON 2 PILOT**
I watched the season 2 pilot on DVR last night. I had watched season 1 faithfully and enjoyed the mild teenage discomfort John Connor [John Dekker] felt around the crazy hot Cameron [Summer Glau]. But the new pilot takes it too far, I think. And it appears that a theme of season 2 will be the dangerous unreliability of Cameron's now-damaged circuitry. This seems like a dismal turn. Since a series like this can in no way actually kill off the principal character, the interest has to be generated by novelty -- in season 1, provided by the Turk, by John's uncle, by the crazy hot Cameron. So every minute they spend ginning up false suspense (gee, is Cameron going to reboot and kill John? no? whatever) is a minute lost to moving the story forward.
Karl, while I partially agree with your thoughts, this is a very specific (fictional) case. The main characters have knowledge of a specific invention that has disastrous consequences. This is much more than an unease over the Large Hadron Collider. Also, the characters aren't out to kill people, just to stop the machine. Though the way the show is written, people tend to die in that process.
*Movie/show spoilers follow*
In T2, Dyson dies after being shot by police and volunteering to trigger the explosion himself
In the show, Andy dies due to Derick's knowledge of what Andy's contribution is to the death of humanity (more details to come, I'm sure)
The death of Sarkesian(sp?) in the opening montage this season was self-defense.
The idea of Terminators sent back in time may have some basis in fact. I can think of two examples that quickly come to mind - Lance Armstrong and Michael Phelps. They came back in time and, since they couldn't find John Connors, they turned to athletics. I can only think of one picture I've ever seen of either of them with a dog (a commercial with Michael Phelps) and that dog didn't look happy.
Things that make you say, Hmmmmm.....
I loved the original movie, but totally ignored the TV series. Is it any good?
IMO better than the movies. I re-watched T2 over the summer, and its one track nature just doesn't compare to the breadth of issues addressed in the TV series.
The characters are also a lot more interesting and multi-dimensional (and attractive, which doesn't hurt, and probably has provided a nice increase to HD TV/Antenna sales). Its worth watching just to be awed by Summer Glau's incredible acting skill - but I may be biased in that I love watching the cast of Firefly. I also prefer Lena Headley's strong, determined Sarah Connor to the frenetic, haunted Linda Hamilton portrayal.
Its worth watching just to be awed by Summer Glau's incredible acting skill - but I may be biased in that I love watching the cast of Firefly.
I'm less impressed by Summer Glau than I'm supposed to be, I guess. I'd have to see her play some other character to know whether or not she has acting skill, or is just being herself. River and Cameron seem much like the same character to me (spooky girl with superhuman powers), and I suspect that she plays that kind of part naturally. So it's good casting but not necessarily indicative of a great actress.
I just added the season one DVDs to my Netflix queue. Thanks Rand for the heads-up about this series, and Ryan for the recommendation.
I thought that T2 and T3 were little more than standard big-budget summer movie fare, which is probably why I never paid much attention to the series. But to me the original was brilliant -- one of the true classics of the genre, IMHO.