How not to write a TV series

I have just finished watching the new Netflix originated series, Hemlock Grove. As I had really enjoyed their previous (and first) attempt at a home-grown series, House of Cards, I was looking forward to HG. Admittedly it is a horror show, and I am rather averse to gross horror (though clever, funny horror makes Buffy my favourite TV show ever), but I was willing to make allowances.

By about half way through the 13 episodes I thought that watching was a good move. The show was genuinely mystifying, very atmospheric and though leisurely in the extreme, there was enough complexity in the plot to keep the viewer interested - plus some genuinely intriguing characters. Ok, some aspects (Shelley's appearance, particularly) were trying too hard to be weird, but that was forgivable.

But then I watched the last two episodes and it all fell apart. Entirely. [ALERT - Spoilers coming.]

There was a lot left hanging for the next season. Well you expect that from a US series - they love their cliffhangers. That wasn't the end of the world. But first there was a senseless sacrifice, when it would have been perfectly possible to destroy the main killer of the series without any loss on the side of the good guys. Given the choice, which would you go for? Kill a werewolf before it turned (as it was actually asking you to do), or wait and let it bite your face off? So you could turn into a werewolf. And then have it kill you again. Limited on the logic front, to say the least.

And there was a sudden and senseless sequence of killings of most of the strong female characters. It isn't done all at once, so the sexism was not totally obvious, but women were dying left, right and centre. This was confusing, ruined any feeling you might have for the show and really left the viewer floundering. Add to that a decidedly unpleasant move from one of the (admittedly fairly weird) male sort-of-heroes and the revelation that the thing that has been striking terror throughout, carefully concealed to build its importance, is just an update of a Bodysnatchers pod person and it was a huge anti-climax.

The TV series is based on a book, and it's possible the book originated many of these problems. But as it was, what happened was there was great mystery and atmosphere built up... that all collapsed when the reveal showed the whole basis to be a sham. Bad choice of story, I'm afraid - and I'm not sure I will be bothered with season 2.

Image from Wikipedia

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...

Search This Blog