I have recently developed a strange fascination with the baking of pies, to the point that I'm embarking on a pie project that will revolutionize...ahem...sorry, I'm drifting off topic, as always. Anyhow, the prospect of baking and eating lots of pie made me nostalgic for a brilliant show from 2007 that was all about pie and, despite that universal appeal, was canceled far too soon. Of course, you immediately realized that I'm talking about Pushing Daisies - the best pie show ever.
In addition to pie, the show features a great cast, superb writing, and really outstanding visual design that makes the show look like a fairy tale about death... and pie. In addition to the ability to bake really killer pies, Ned (the main character) has the ability to bring dead things back to life by touching them once. This seems like a really cool ability but it turns out, if he touches them a second time, they die again (which is really tragic because it means he often can't eat his own pies when he "revives" the fruit for them). Oh, and if he doesn't touch them a second time then they don't die again, but something/someone else dies in their place. Ned uses this ability to help the awesomely named Emerson Cod, P.I. to solve crimes and collect rewards. He also uses it to revive his childhood sweetheart whom he then can't touch again, potentially ever.
It's quirky, it has fun dialogue, it's really pretty to look at, and it has a scene midway through season one where Kristen Chenoweth (Wicked) and Ellen Greene (Little Shop of Horrors) sing They Might Be Giants' Birdhouse In Your Soul. Yes, really. Also, there's pie.
Seriously, if you haven't seen this show, it's time to go stream it from Netflix. This is the perfect time of year (the doldrums between the February sweeps and the May sweeps) to get acquainted - or reacquainted - with a brilliant-but-canceled show.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Monday, March 28, 2011
The Story of How Tom Selleck's Mustache Lost a Step - Or Did It?
Tom Selleck has long had one of the sexiest mustaches on television. Even if you didn't get to see it on Magnum P.I. in the '80s, you might have caught its guest appearance on Friends in the '90s, or on Boston Legal in the early 2000s. The mustache was a brilliant star - or guest star - over three decades of television.
Imagine my surprise when I tuned in to the pilot episode of Blue Bloods and that brilliant, scene-stealing mustache was nowhere to be found. Tom Selleck was there and still a very solid actor, but something about the mustache just wasn't the same. I consulted the internet, feverishly comparing photos, and came to the devastating conclusion that the mustache had lost a step. As I lamented this sad discovery, Ian happened along with a promising alternative, pointing out that it's more likely that the mustache was trimmed so that it wouldn't steal the show from the other actors. I'm actually ashamed that this never occurred to me. My shame knows no bounds. After all, there's no question that the mustache would have stolen the show. I mean, sure, it's a very solid cast, but who can compete with the power of the mustache? This wasn't a problem for guest roles, or for Magnum, but what police commissioner would have such a sexy mustache? Certainly the all-business 'stache is much more appropriate for the tone of the show. So, with this resolved, all that remains is to enjoy the show - which is really quite good - and cling to the knowledge that someday, down the road, the mustache will return.
Imagine my surprise when I tuned in to the pilot episode of Blue Bloods and that brilliant, scene-stealing mustache was nowhere to be found. Tom Selleck was there and still a very solid actor, but something about the mustache just wasn't the same. I consulted the internet, feverishly comparing photos, and came to the devastating conclusion that the mustache had lost a step. As I lamented this sad discovery, Ian happened along with a promising alternative, pointing out that it's more likely that the mustache was trimmed so that it wouldn't steal the show from the other actors. I'm actually ashamed that this never occurred to me. My shame knows no bounds. After all, there's no question that the mustache would have stolen the show. I mean, sure, it's a very solid cast, but who can compete with the power of the mustache? This wasn't a problem for guest roles, or for Magnum, but what police commissioner would have such a sexy mustache? Certainly the all-business 'stache is much more appropriate for the tone of the show. So, with this resolved, all that remains is to enjoy the show - which is really quite good - and cling to the knowledge that someday, down the road, the mustache will return.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
I Hate You!! You're Horrible and We're Not Friends Anymore...
No,no, not you. Sorry, didn't mean to upset you. It's just this thing I saw that, well... Have you ever watched a TV show where one of the characters is so terrible (self-involved or horribly inept or just plain mean) that you just can't understand why the other characters would want anything to do with him/her?
I had this experience not long ago, when Chris exposed me to the Dungeons and Dragons episode of Community. I'm not a regular watcher of Community - it's not one of the shows that I religiously record and watch as soon as possible. I do enjoy the show though, and I've seen most of the episodes. I am, on the other hand, a fan of gaming (although not specifically D&D), and any reference to tabletop gaming reminds me of one of the best low budget movies EVER - The Gamers: Dorkness Rising. Seriously - if you haven't seen it, stop reading, go find it and watch it right now.
Meandering back to the topic at hand, I was very excited about this episode of Community, and it really did include a number of great moments. Abed was a great dungeon master (and who didn't expect him to be awesome...), the scene involving Annie and the elf was hysterical, and Chang's dark elf... I would venture to say that this was one of the best episodes of Community that I've seen, so why did I come away from it so unsettled? Two words: Pierce Hawthorne. Pierce is a raging dickhead most of the time. He's selfish. He's rude. He's bigoted. He's mean. Yet his behavior, while obnoxious, is usually amusing and often accompanied by some piece of information that makes it believable (and on occasion even acceptable) that he would act that way. I felt like he crossed a line in this episode - there was no way to rationalize his behavior, it was just too much.
Pierce has demonstrated in the past that he doesn't like to be excluded. (I'm thinking of the episode with the secret trampoline.) He reminds us, from his first appearance in this episode, how badly he reacts to being snubbed. The rest of the group is playing D&D with Fat Neil, trying to make him feel warm and fuzzy so he won't kill himself. Pierce was not invited because he's an insensitive jerk, but he finds them all in the study room and immediately lashes out at Fat Neil for taking his chair/his place in the group. This is classic Pierce and is funny while at the same time making you shake your head at his behavior. At this point he's taken aside and the purpose of the game is explained.
Now, I recognize that the study group as a whole is not the most sensitive or considerate group of people. They often seem to have no concern for people outside of their group, and no awareness of how their actions affect others. However, when they become aware that they have hurt someone (as Jeff did Fat Neil in this episode) they always express remorse and try to make things better. Granted, this doesn't generally extend to Pierce, but I've also never seen him push something so far that it lost the humor for me... until this episode.
Even after being told that the purpose of the D&D game is to prevent Fat Neil from killing himself, Pierce continues to insult and attack Neil, both verbally and through the game. His lack of concern for this obviously emotionally fragile person, and the fact that striking out at the group and at Neil to retaliate for his hurt feelings is more important than another person's life is offensive to me, leading me to my earlier question. Pierce is frequently the foil, often the butt of the joke, and regularly offensive. He is sometimes amusing and occasionally redeems himself with some sort of positive behavior, but it seems like the bad usually outweighs the good. So why does the group tolerate him? Is it just because they feel sorry for him? Granted, by the end of the show, Pierce is displayed in a slightly better light. It's very clear, though, that anything positive that came from his actions was incidental. My question is, how offensive or mean-spirited does a friend have to be before you decide that their behavior is intolerable? Shouldn't the rest of the group be trying to convince Pierce that he's a raving asshat? Shouldn't they be encouraging better behavior? And, failing at that, why would they want to keep this guy around?
In conclusion - and waaaaaay off topic - let me say that I'm watching Julie & Julia, and Julia Child was a rock star.
I had this experience not long ago, when Chris exposed me to the Dungeons and Dragons episode of Community. I'm not a regular watcher of Community - it's not one of the shows that I religiously record and watch as soon as possible. I do enjoy the show though, and I've seen most of the episodes. I am, on the other hand, a fan of gaming (although not specifically D&D), and any reference to tabletop gaming reminds me of one of the best low budget movies EVER - The Gamers: Dorkness Rising. Seriously - if you haven't seen it, stop reading, go find it and watch it right now.
Meandering back to the topic at hand, I was very excited about this episode of Community, and it really did include a number of great moments. Abed was a great dungeon master (and who didn't expect him to be awesome...), the scene involving Annie and the elf was hysterical, and Chang's dark elf... I would venture to say that this was one of the best episodes of Community that I've seen, so why did I come away from it so unsettled? Two words: Pierce Hawthorne. Pierce is a raging dickhead most of the time. He's selfish. He's rude. He's bigoted. He's mean. Yet his behavior, while obnoxious, is usually amusing and often accompanied by some piece of information that makes it believable (and on occasion even acceptable) that he would act that way. I felt like he crossed a line in this episode - there was no way to rationalize his behavior, it was just too much.
Pierce has demonstrated in the past that he doesn't like to be excluded. (I'm thinking of the episode with the secret trampoline.) He reminds us, from his first appearance in this episode, how badly he reacts to being snubbed. The rest of the group is playing D&D with Fat Neil, trying to make him feel warm and fuzzy so he won't kill himself. Pierce was not invited because he's an insensitive jerk, but he finds them all in the study room and immediately lashes out at Fat Neil for taking his chair/his place in the group. This is classic Pierce and is funny while at the same time making you shake your head at his behavior. At this point he's taken aside and the purpose of the game is explained.
Now, I recognize that the study group as a whole is not the most sensitive or considerate group of people. They often seem to have no concern for people outside of their group, and no awareness of how their actions affect others. However, when they become aware that they have hurt someone (as Jeff did Fat Neil in this episode) they always express remorse and try to make things better. Granted, this doesn't generally extend to Pierce, but I've also never seen him push something so far that it lost the humor for me... until this episode.
Even after being told that the purpose of the D&D game is to prevent Fat Neil from killing himself, Pierce continues to insult and attack Neil, both verbally and through the game. His lack of concern for this obviously emotionally fragile person, and the fact that striking out at the group and at Neil to retaliate for his hurt feelings is more important than another person's life is offensive to me, leading me to my earlier question. Pierce is frequently the foil, often the butt of the joke, and regularly offensive. He is sometimes amusing and occasionally redeems himself with some sort of positive behavior, but it seems like the bad usually outweighs the good. So why does the group tolerate him? Is it just because they feel sorry for him? Granted, by the end of the show, Pierce is displayed in a slightly better light. It's very clear, though, that anything positive that came from his actions was incidental. My question is, how offensive or mean-spirited does a friend have to be before you decide that their behavior is intolerable? Shouldn't the rest of the group be trying to convince Pierce that he's a raving asshat? Shouldn't they be encouraging better behavior? And, failing at that, why would they want to keep this guy around?
In conclusion - and waaaaaay off topic - let me say that I'm watching Julie & Julia, and Julia Child was a rock star.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Winter is Coming...In April...
Is there anyone who's read George R.R. Martin who isn't waiting impatiently for April 17? There is nothing more exciting than HBO (the network that brought us Rome, John Adams, Deadwood, The Sopranos...) taking the reins on a new series based on Mr. Martin's Game of Thrones. Not only will we have the opportunity to actually see these brilliant books interpreted for the small screen, but the production may help to dynamite book five from the limbo where it has apparently been floating aimlessly for the past five years. My assumption is that Mr. Martin is hoping to rival the 22-year project that was Stephen King's Dark Tower series. After suffering quietly through those 22 years, I'm happy to report that I came late to the GoT party, just starting the series within the past couple years. Unfortunately, Mr. King has apparently used up all of my patience. I've been trying to drag out book four so that I don't finish it until book five is available, but that's just making me crabbier...
So, in summary, three and a half awesome books, with a series upcoming on HBO in less than a month. George R.R. Martin is apparently involved in the project, so that certainly bodes well for readers. (Unless, horribly, we've all misinterpreted his work and are served something completely different on the screen!!) The only concern that I have (well, the only serious one...) is in the casting of the children. Most of the children have pretty important - even major - parts in the books, and part of what makes the story so compelling is that we are presented with children (usually behaving admirably) in appalling situations. A lot of the connection to these characters is on a very emotional level as we "see" them being forced to deal with things that children of their ages should never have to face. I'm afraid that, by casting several of these parts with older actors, the sympathy...empathy...even horror we feel for the characters may be muted or lost. The three characters that concern me the most, based on the cast photos, are Robb Stark (15-16), Jon Snow (15-16) and Daenerys Targaryen (14-15). All three of the actors are over 20, with the oldest being 24. In the case of both of the boys, there should be a noticeable difference between them and the men that they lead. Part of the appeal and heroism of both characters is that they are forced to step into roles that they shouldn't be expected to assume, due to their young age. The casting of Daenerys can probably be more easily excused, simply because the demands of the role might be inappropriate or uncomfortable for a younger actor. The cast photo of Emilia Clarke is not horribly off target from how Danys is described in the book, but I'll reserve judgement for now based on the fact that there is generally a big difference in appearance between a 14 year old girl and a 20 year old woman...
In spite of these reservations, I remain both optimistic and excited, and can't wait for April 17 to roll around, giving HBO the opportunity to laugh in the face of my concerns and prove me so very wrong.
So, in summary, three and a half awesome books, with a series upcoming on HBO in less than a month. George R.R. Martin is apparently involved in the project, so that certainly bodes well for readers. (Unless, horribly, we've all misinterpreted his work and are served something completely different on the screen!!) The only concern that I have (well, the only serious one...) is in the casting of the children. Most of the children have pretty important - even major - parts in the books, and part of what makes the story so compelling is that we are presented with children (usually behaving admirably) in appalling situations. A lot of the connection to these characters is on a very emotional level as we "see" them being forced to deal with things that children of their ages should never have to face. I'm afraid that, by casting several of these parts with older actors, the sympathy...empathy...even horror we feel for the characters may be muted or lost. The three characters that concern me the most, based on the cast photos, are Robb Stark (15-16), Jon Snow (15-16) and Daenerys Targaryen (14-15). All three of the actors are over 20, with the oldest being 24. In the case of both of the boys, there should be a noticeable difference between them and the men that they lead. Part of the appeal and heroism of both characters is that they are forced to step into roles that they shouldn't be expected to assume, due to their young age. The casting of Daenerys can probably be more easily excused, simply because the demands of the role might be inappropriate or uncomfortable for a younger actor. The cast photo of Emilia Clarke is not horribly off target from how Danys is described in the book, but I'll reserve judgement for now based on the fact that there is generally a big difference in appearance between a 14 year old girl and a 20 year old woman...
In spite of these reservations, I remain both optimistic and excited, and can't wait for April 17 to roll around, giving HBO the opportunity to laugh in the face of my concerns and prove me so very wrong.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
The Robinsons: Lost in Space (and in a drawer somewhere...)
I recently came across the unaired pilot for a proposed reinterpretation of the classic 1965 series Lost in Space called The Robinsons: Lost in Space, and I finally sat down to watch it this morning. (Go visit IMDb, here, for more info) I went into it with limited expectations, which helped me get through the first 30 minutes of clunky exposition and teen angst. It wasn't until I had already started watching that I looked up anything about the show. My first concern was trying to find out why Penny Robinson was replaced by an older sibling named David. The answer was pretty clear when, at the end of the pilot, (Here there be spoilers! Highlight ahead to view...) David was either killed or taken hostage by attacking aliens. Wrong though it may be, it's more acceptable culturally and easier to watch a male get killed/captured. Anyhow, in the process of my investigation, I learned that the pilot was directed by John Woo, explaining the slick look (other than some of the missing effects that were never added because the series wasn't picked up), and written by Douglas Petrie, from the Joss Whedon brain-trust, explaining why, despite the initial clunkiness, the pilot was able to hold my attention.
So, we have the Robinson parents, who are not changed to the point that they aren't recognizable, and Will Robinson, who is pretty much the same brainy kid. The remainder of the cast illustrates the departure from the plot of the original show, which is why I'm referring to this as a reinterpretation rather than a remake. First, there is no sign of Dr. Smith in the pilot. There's no sabotage and, when we briefly see it, the robot is a creation of Will's, designed to protect him from bullies at school. Judy appears to be a 19 or 20 year old girl (returning to canon, after Heather Graham played an older version in the 1998 movie). Instead of aging Judy, this production chooses to make Don West younger, reducing the age difference in order to focus on the romance that was prominent in the movie but never developed in the original series. Unfortunately, Mike Erwin, who was 26 at the time, looks like a high school kid and just isn't believable as a seasoned military pilot. So, that leaves Penny who, as mentioned above, is rewritten as a boy and renamed David. It's not clear to me whether he's the oldest sibling, a year or two younger than Judy, or maybe Judy's twin. (I like to think twin because they get along far better than a pair of teenaged siblings ever should.) Penny is just gone, unless the random baby that Maureen (Mom Robinson) is schlepping around through the later half of the show happens to be named Penny...
So, I have a pet peeve with remakes that pretend that they are the same as the original but then make random changes for no apparent reason. This extends to television shows being remade, TV shows that are turned into movies, movies turned into TV shows, and books made into movies. I don't think that I'm unreasonable about this. If the changes make sense in the context of the show then, hey, awesome. (The Battlestar Galactica reboot is an example. I loved Dirk Benedict in the original, but the whole 'Starbuck is a girl!' really added to the Apollo/Starbuck dynamic.) However, if you change character names for no apparent reason or make gigantic changes to the main plot that turn it into a completely different story, well... change the name of your final product. (For example, the Angels & Demons movie should have been renamed to "A Very Loose Interpretation of Angels & Demons That Eliminates Major Plot Points And Is Unquestionably Inferior, But Could Have Been An Acceptable Summer Movie If It Had A Different Title.")
Oops, I digressed. The point that I was tap dancing around like an over-caffeinated squirrel is that, in spite of some crazy plot changes, this show actually worked. The Robinsons are not alone on the Jupiter 2 initially, and they aren't in charge of the trip to colonize another planet. They are part of a group of civilian colonists. Dr Smith and Robot - and the whole sabotage plot - are replaced by an alien attack on the "main ship". In the process of evacuating, the Robinsons and Don West find themselves on the Jupiter 2. Yes, a main character was completely reconceived but, as noted above, it makes sense with the plot.
So, if you happen to stumble across the unaired pilot for The Robinsons: Lost in Space, I wouldn't discourage you from watching it. (Unless you have a serious problem with cliffhangers because, let's face it, we're never finding out how it ends.)
So, we have the Robinson parents, who are not changed to the point that they aren't recognizable, and Will Robinson, who is pretty much the same brainy kid. The remainder of the cast illustrates the departure from the plot of the original show, which is why I'm referring to this as a reinterpretation rather than a remake. First, there is no sign of Dr. Smith in the pilot. There's no sabotage and, when we briefly see it, the robot is a creation of Will's, designed to protect him from bullies at school. Judy appears to be a 19 or 20 year old girl (returning to canon, after Heather Graham played an older version in the 1998 movie). Instead of aging Judy, this production chooses to make Don West younger, reducing the age difference in order to focus on the romance that was prominent in the movie but never developed in the original series. Unfortunately, Mike Erwin, who was 26 at the time, looks like a high school kid and just isn't believable as a seasoned military pilot. So, that leaves Penny who, as mentioned above, is rewritten as a boy and renamed David. It's not clear to me whether he's the oldest sibling, a year or two younger than Judy, or maybe Judy's twin. (I like to think twin because they get along far better than a pair of teenaged siblings ever should.) Penny is just gone, unless the random baby that Maureen (Mom Robinson) is schlepping around through the later half of the show happens to be named Penny...
So, I have a pet peeve with remakes that pretend that they are the same as the original but then make random changes for no apparent reason. This extends to television shows being remade, TV shows that are turned into movies, movies turned into TV shows, and books made into movies. I don't think that I'm unreasonable about this. If the changes make sense in the context of the show then, hey, awesome. (The Battlestar Galactica reboot is an example. I loved Dirk Benedict in the original, but the whole 'Starbuck is a girl!' really added to the Apollo/Starbuck dynamic.) However, if you change character names for no apparent reason or make gigantic changes to the main plot that turn it into a completely different story, well... change the name of your final product. (For example, the Angels & Demons movie should have been renamed to "A Very Loose Interpretation of Angels & Demons That Eliminates Major Plot Points And Is Unquestionably Inferior, But Could Have Been An Acceptable Summer Movie If It Had A Different Title.")
Oops, I digressed. The point that I was tap dancing around like an over-caffeinated squirrel is that, in spite of some crazy plot changes, this show actually worked. The Robinsons are not alone on the Jupiter 2 initially, and they aren't in charge of the trip to colonize another planet. They are part of a group of civilian colonists. Dr Smith and Robot - and the whole sabotage plot - are replaced by an alien attack on the "main ship". In the process of evacuating, the Robinsons and Don West find themselves on the Jupiter 2. Yes, a main character was completely reconceived but, as noted above, it makes sense with the plot.
So, if you happen to stumble across the unaired pilot for The Robinsons: Lost in Space, I wouldn't discourage you from watching it. (Unless you have a serious problem with cliffhangers because, let's face it, we're never finding out how it ends.)
Thursday, March 17, 2011
I Like Cheese
Let me apologize up front to lovers of dairy products, but this post is not about the 30 minutes I spent perusing the cheese counter at the local Fairway. Although that was some of the sexiest cheese I've seen in my life and, hey, a whole counter just dedicated to cheese!! But I digress...
So, anyhow, the cheese I'm referring to is that wholesome, embarrassingly entertaining cheese that can only be found by watching 80s television shows.
The best return - for both the embarrassment factor (as in "I can't believe I'm watching this") and the laugh factor (as in "I'm sure that they didn't intend this to be funny, but I think I just peed a little")- is the genre of 80s programming featuring the "super vehicle". Think Knight Rider, Airwolf, Street Hawk and Blue Thunder (listed in order of watchability, from the most watchable to the least). These shows all involve some form of travel that has been tweaked into a high-powered, crime-fighting machine.
Knight Rider: A police officer is shot in the face and left to die. A millionare conveniently happens to be watching him and rescues him, saving his life, giving him a new identity and a new face, and a super car that talks to him and helps him fight crime. I almost picked the Emmy-winning (yes, really) Airwolf as the most watchable of these shows, but then it occurred to me that it's always better not to hassle the Hoff. Plus, this show goes to fun, campy places (not usually intentionally, I'm afraid) that the darker Airwolf never touches.
Airwolf: A broody ex-military type is one of the test pilots for a government-sponsored super helicopter. When the chopper is stolen, he's called upon to help the government get it back. Instead of returning it to them, he hides it away and uses it to force the government to find his MIA brother. Of course, why steal such a nifty toy if you aren't going to use it, so he teams with a private agency and uses his super helicopter to fight crime. This works out admirably since it apparently occurs to no one to follow Stringfellow Hawke (our hero) to find the secret location of Airwolf.
Street Hawk: A cop who is (apparently) a motorcycle-riding prodigy suffers a knee injury that turns him into a desk jockey. Lucky for him, he's apparently the best motorcycle rider in the area and the only one who can handle the super-secret super motorcycle that has been created by some organization or other... They fix his injury and stick him on this motorcycle to fight crime under the secret identity of "Street Hawk" (because a motorcycle that can go 300mph, operated by a guy who recently suffered a serious, potentially career-ending injury, is always a good idea...).
Blue Thunder: Also a helicopter show, but in this case the super chopper belongs to the police department and is used in the line of duty to fight crime. (I'm a little foggy on the plot, as I was unable to sit through an entire episode.) This show actually beat Airwolf to air by a couple weeks, but a little head start didn't help. In fact, even the presence of Dana Carvey and ex-football players Dick Butkus and Bubba Smith (don't mock - they were actually pretty big at the time) didn't salvage the show.
Funny, isn't it, that the most plausible of these shows is also the least watchable? Then again, plausibility was never a big concern for 80s television, which is probably why it's still watchable today. I mean, take a show that has a serious, believable premise. That realism is likely to be very dated today, and probably not as believable. On the other hand, a show that was never seriously believable isn't going to disappoint - it's probably still unbelievable, making its attempts to be meaningful all the more entertaining.
So, anyhow, the cheese I'm referring to is that wholesome, embarrassingly entertaining cheese that can only be found by watching 80s television shows.
The best return - for both the embarrassment factor (as in "I can't believe I'm watching this") and the laugh factor (as in "I'm sure that they didn't intend this to be funny, but I think I just peed a little")- is the genre of 80s programming featuring the "super vehicle". Think Knight Rider, Airwolf, Street Hawk and Blue Thunder (listed in order of watchability, from the most watchable to the least). These shows all involve some form of travel that has been tweaked into a high-powered, crime-fighting machine.
Knight Rider: A police officer is shot in the face and left to die. A millionare conveniently happens to be watching him and rescues him, saving his life, giving him a new identity and a new face, and a super car that talks to him and helps him fight crime. I almost picked the Emmy-winning (yes, really) Airwolf as the most watchable of these shows, but then it occurred to me that it's always better not to hassle the Hoff. Plus, this show goes to fun, campy places (not usually intentionally, I'm afraid) that the darker Airwolf never touches.
Airwolf: A broody ex-military type is one of the test pilots for a government-sponsored super helicopter. When the chopper is stolen, he's called upon to help the government get it back. Instead of returning it to them, he hides it away and uses it to force the government to find his MIA brother. Of course, why steal such a nifty toy if you aren't going to use it, so he teams with a private agency and uses his super helicopter to fight crime. This works out admirably since it apparently occurs to no one to follow Stringfellow Hawke (our hero) to find the secret location of Airwolf.
Street Hawk: A cop who is (apparently) a motorcycle-riding prodigy suffers a knee injury that turns him into a desk jockey. Lucky for him, he's apparently the best motorcycle rider in the area and the only one who can handle the super-secret super motorcycle that has been created by some organization or other... They fix his injury and stick him on this motorcycle to fight crime under the secret identity of "Street Hawk" (because a motorcycle that can go 300mph, operated by a guy who recently suffered a serious, potentially career-ending injury, is always a good idea...).
Blue Thunder: Also a helicopter show, but in this case the super chopper belongs to the police department and is used in the line of duty to fight crime. (I'm a little foggy on the plot, as I was unable to sit through an entire episode.) This show actually beat Airwolf to air by a couple weeks, but a little head start didn't help. In fact, even the presence of Dana Carvey and ex-football players Dick Butkus and Bubba Smith (don't mock - they were actually pretty big at the time) didn't salvage the show.
Funny, isn't it, that the most plausible of these shows is also the least watchable? Then again, plausibility was never a big concern for 80s television, which is probably why it's still watchable today. I mean, take a show that has a serious, believable premise. That realism is likely to be very dated today, and probably not as believable. On the other hand, a show that was never seriously believable isn't going to disappoint - it's probably still unbelievable, making its attempts to be meaningful all the more entertaining.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)