Things we noticed watching tv this week 28 (spoilers)

With everything else going on, I haven't yet mentioned series 3 of either Robin Hood or Primeval in this column. So this seems a bit overdue. But with Robin Hood having only 3 episodes to go, and Primeval now finished, it actually gives me a chance to look back over a substantial body of work. I'm gonna say from the outset that I enjoy both shows. I know many people don't, and that they think either one or both are rubbish. Fair enough. But as pure Saturday evening slot entertainment, I think both are rather enjoyable. However the idea of this column has never been to give a traditional review that you can find from the TV critics in newspapers etc. What I've always tried to do, for myself as much as anyone, is analyse what I think works and doesn't work so I can apply that to my own writing.

And I think it's really interesting that these series 3's have perhaps shown the value of a US style showrunner (or put simply, a lead writer - and usually creator.) Because I think the lack of involvement of Dominic Minghella (and probably reduced involvement of Foz Allan) from Robin Hood, and Adrian Hodges (and possibly Tim Haines too) from Primeval, has really been noticeable.

Let's take Primeval first, as that has concluded. Be honest, as concepts go it's brilliant. Simple but brilliant. That's why it's being made into a Hollywood movie. And the first two season's rocketed along. So when series 3 kicked off, I had no idea Douglas Henshall was leaving. So Cutter's death came as a complete shock, which I thought was fantastic, because as regular readers will know, I'm very big on killing off key characters in a show that asks us to buy into life and death drama. Because if no one ever dies, well, the belief will evaporate and it will just become boring. (I'll come back to this with Robin Hood.) Then two weeks after that, Lucy Brown left the show, albeit escaping death by the skin of her teeth and leaving of her own accord. This set up the precedent now that no one was safe. For two main characters to leave during a series (as opposed to at the end of one and then not return) is very rare. Suddenly there was the real possibility that anyone could get killed off. But I do feel that the series lacked focus and a sense of unity. By that I mean although Jason Flemyng was brought in and led very well as Danny Quinn, Laila Rouass's Sarah was given hardly anything to do. (And she's an excellent actress, as anyone who saw the brilliant Life Isn't All Ha Ha Hee Hee a few years ago will know.) And Captain Becker was even worse. I actually feel a bit sorry for the actor because his part seemed so bland and underwritten.

Then there was the series arc (again something regulars will know I bang on about a lot) This was where the problems really lay and something a strong showrunner would've helped avoid. What series arc there was centred around an artifact from the future, the eventual end of the world, and Helen Cutter running around in the thick of it. Oh and throw in Christine Johnson to that too. Her character actually typified this lack of focus. Because as well as still not having a clue as to who she worked for or what she was trying to do, one week she was getting a dressing down and seemingly beaten after being trapped by Danny and Lester, and the next she was carrying on, throwing her weight around like nothing had happened. It turned out that the artifact showed where anomalies were (although I think we knew that before the finale) and actually didn't seem to make a difference to anyone. It ended with Abby and Connor trapped in one time period, and Danny stranded in another. So I hope, despite strong rumours that the shows future is in jeopardy, this is not the end. It's kind of a slave to the special effects, which in turn eat up the budget, but it doesn't need to be with good writing. One of the best episodes of the series was James Moran's, which in the main featured one little creature and a spooky house. In three seasons, only once, a medieval knight, has anything other than a creature come through an anomaly. More creative thinking and less big digital dinosaurs can reduce the budget and improve the story telling. And of course a stronger series arc!

Robin Hood has had similar problems. Season 2 ended with the humdinger of Marion being killed by Gisborne. Many fans were outraged, but I thought this was spot on. Not because of Lucy Griffiths, who I thought was rather good. But because once again, if characters lives are in danger each week, and people are running around with swords and shooting arrows, and yet still no one gets killed, we begin to lose interest. And unlike Primeval, who could easily replace its lead, Robin Hood of course cannot. It's the classic James Bond problem. No matter how many times Robin is on the verge of death, you know he'll be okay. So it gets ever more ludicrous. The pinnacle this season was when Gisborne had him completely surrounded, and a volley of arrows or a rush of blades would've seen him off. But no, he thought, a hungry lion would be the way to go instead! It just becomes silly and although there can be comedy in a show like this, the drama has to be played straight otherwise why should we care. It's a delicate balance of tone. But if Robin can't die, the threat has to come to the others. To that end, I think Robin should've killed Gisborne in the Series 3 opener. The fact that Richard Armitage obviously had breaks from filming and has largely played a peripheral role in the series, only adds weight to this. (Although having said that the twist in last week's episode means that the shift in his and Robin's relationship could drive the series to the finish line.) Same with the Sheriff, who has disappeared but those wiggling fingers when he was supposed to be dead, suggests a return is likely. His absence and the appearance of Gisborne's sister and Prince John has been fun though.

But again, the overall series arc has been missing. Season 2 was a while ago now so forgive me if I am off, but I think there was a long running plan, involving black knights and lords and stuff, to eventually kill the King in the Holy Land. Anything, even remotely like that, has been absent. And that is probably why, with 3 episodes to go, we get Robin's long lost thought to be dead father turning up with the news that Robin and Guy share a half brother who they must save from imminent death. Like I said before, a strong showrunner would probably have held greater creative control and unity of vision to balance the series a little better.

I'm trying to give up reading screenwriting books (seriously it's better to save your money and read scripts) but one I keep going back to at the moment is Alex Epstein's Crafty TV Writing. It's completely from a US perspective but it gives a fantastic insight into how shows work over there. And you are left in no doubt that the showrunner comes up with what's called the template, basically how the show functions tonally, story wise, etc, and that s/he is responsible for making sure every script meets that criteria. In the last few years this has become more common in this country. People like Jimmy McGovern and Tony Jordan have taken control of their shows. But there probably isn't a better example than Russell Davies and Doctor Who. By all accounts he ran the show in every sense, rewriting mercilessly scripts that would never ultimately have his name on. But would the relaunch have worked as successfully had it not had this unity of vision? I personally preferred early Shameless to that latter ones, I imagine it's because of the dwindling involvement of Paul Abbott.

Now most of the people reading this, including myself, are a long way off the chance to create our own shows. Correction. We're a long way off getting them made. The creation is up to us. Over a thousand people entered the Red Planet Prize this year with TV pilots. So plenty of people are doing it. So I hope that when these people do get their chance, it is indeed truly their chance, and the shows they create remain their own unique vision. And if indeed it's time to move on to pastors new, like Minghella, Hodges and now Davies, a suitable replacement is brought in. Over to you Mr. Moffat.

Things we noticed watching TV this week 18 (Spoilers)

As I've previously mentioned, the Saturday evening/tea time slot has become one of my favourites since Doctor Who re-galvanized it. Maybe it takes me back to my childhood and youth when I could stay up a bit later and watch The A Team, Robin Hood and ahem, Baywatch. Now, as well as the good Doctor, we have the new Robin Hood, Merlin, Primeval and the latest addition, Demons. With Johnny Capps & Julian Murphy (also Merlin and Hex) seemingly single handedly bringing fantasy back to UK screens, I was extremely excited about this series. And two episodes in, I'm enjoying it.

I get the feeling not everyone is, but equally, I really feel that if ITV keeps its nerve, and allows this series to bed in, it could be very good. It actually reminds me of Sanctuary, which I liked at first but got a bit bored with and gave up when work and other shows were causing a pile up. I think one of the reasons I lost interest was because of the unconnected nature of the show. Built around story of the day for the dip in whenever audience, there was not much keeping my interest week after week. I think this is fine for cop and doc shows, but fantasy creates a kind of mythology (and an ardent, loyal fanbase) and for me it benefits when there are more continuing elements. Demons has, admittedly, started more as a 'new demon' each week thing, but I am hoping that like Apparitions, this is just to lead people into the series and the next four or so will have a more continuing plot. But the actual show is working well, with a couple of reservations. Much has been made of Philip Glenister's American accent. I've read all sorts, like this will make it easier to sell the show to the Americans (er, right) to everyone not wanting Rupert to be too much like a certain Gene Hunt. Well, my answer to that would be, why the hell not? Glenister himself apparently said the following:

"Rupert was written as a Texan originally and I thought b****cks to that - I'm not playing a Texan. They said I could play him as English, but I wanted to have the challenge of playing an American... It was quite funny because they sent some of the rushes to Sony in New York and this email came back from them saying: 'Philip Glenister's accent is acceptable.'"

Well yes, acceptable is the word I'd use too. But why bother? I'm not one to question an actors job, but trying an American accent seems a superficial challenge. Dare I say he seems a bit self conscious of getting that right in the show above anything else. Better surely to create a memorable character like Gene (Ashley Pharoah and Matthew Graham acknowledge that it was only after seeing footage from the first couple of episodes that they realised what a great job Glenister was doing and the character became far more central to the overall series.) Like Hunt, Rupert Galvin is the mentor figure for a younger man, has most of the sharp lines and could be the real star of the show. My other question mark at the moment concerns the tone and the young protagonist, Luke Van Helsing. In the fantasy genre, you usually get one of two types of protagonists. Either, they embrace their 'special' status (like Merlin or even the Doctor) or they fight against it and are reluctant heroes (like Luke Skywalker or early Buffy I think.) They just want to be normal. Luke Van Helsing seems neither one nor the other. In the first couple of episodes he's been really passive, doing what he is told most of the time. But not really rebelling against the 'rules' or training or his status, but not really relishing it either. It's made it a bit difficult to get a handle on him as a character. It's been rather nonchalant that all of a sudden there are demons everywhere (where have they been up until now) and he has to kill them. His girlfriend, Ruby, also seems to be taking it very much in her stride. Why is no one freaking out at this rather odd turn of events? It's a problem I had with early Apparition episodes but that faded over the series. So I hope it will here too.

A whole other ball game was BBC's latest adaptation of The Diary Of Anne Frank. If you type in those five words to IMDB, you'll see how many versions of this there have been over the years. As I was critical of the BBC for doing yet another adaptation of The 39 Steps over Christmas, it would be hypocritical of me not to raise a similar point here. However it is true that this subject matter is one that needs constant reinforcement, especially when Holocaust deniers are invited to speak at leading colleges throughout the world and give television Christmas messages. (Although having said that there are of course, sadly, many other narratives from that period and it may still be preferable to do something new and not so familiar. Compare the recently released Defiance that I have yet to see but certainly intend to.) But this adaptation was definitely written well enough, by the supremely talented Deborah Moggach, who had this to say:

"Like many people, I read the diary when I was young. Now, on rereading it, I'm struck by how contemporary Anne is - stroppy, obsessed with boys, with her looks, beady and rebellious, highly critical of her mother. In other words, a thoroughly modern teenager. In past adaptations, she has been somewhat sanctified - a bit cheeky and talkative maybe, but also over-sweet. I want to be true to the real girl. Sure, she got on people's nerves; but she was also full of life, her own sternest critic and, above all, she made people laugh."

In that respect, Moggach certainly achieved her goal. The character of Anne was rawer but truer than any I have seen before. And stupidly, like all good adaptations of true stories, I was still willing that THIS time, this time, it would end differently. This time they would not get caught.

The other thing that was fascinating about this adaptation was the decision to make it as five 30 minute episodes over one week. I wouldn't be as crass as to suggest that it was trying to soap-ify it (say like Bleak House or Little Dorrit) but if it made it more accessible or found a new audience, then I think it was a very smart and innovative decision indeed.

Finally, whilst not in any way wanting to seem flippant, it's worth thinking about how the drama works. Obviously we know the story, and it is true and heartbreaking. But now that it is so familiar, it's easy to forget that one girl writing about a handful of people confined to one little flat for two years, regardless of circumstance and the outside world that we never see, does not immediately suggest good television, i.e. visual, drama. But it is gripping, because of the threat of being caught, yes. But also because of the well drawn characters and the interactions and conflicts even in this confined space. The whole thing is a dozen actors and one set. Not the biggest of budgets I imagine. So without wanting to cheapen it in any way, it's worth thinking about whether we have any other stories, powerful, sad, entertaining or happy, that we can tell under these conditions.

Things we noticed watching tv this week 16 (spoilers)

Where have all the new shows gone? Maybe this is the lull before the Christmas special storm. But never mind. Gives me a chance to check back in with a couple of shows already featured in this column. They both finished this week and I have to say they are two of my favourites this year - Spooks and Merlin.

If this is why we pay out TV licence - fair do. But a certain amount of bar setting means that more of the same would also be nice!

First to Spooks. It is slick story telling personified. Everything is done so fast and so smoothly that even when occasional plot holes are thrown up, they are more often than not missed by the viewer (another trait this show has in common with 24.) Which is how it should be really. But Spooks has always managed a couple of other things really well too. In this thriller plot heavy genre, the characters can often seem functional, there to serve the action and nothing much else. But Spooks has always been clever enough to make us care about the characters. We get to know them through what they do, not through needless diversion into banal personal lives. This season Lucas ably stepped into the Adam vacated void but it was Ros who was really the star. She is surely the hardest female ever on British TV, but we also got to see her vulnerable and emotionally wounded, when she slept with the man who wished to bring Britain's economy to its knees, to gain his trust. (A side point, these episodes must be filmed some way in advance but that episode was particular eerie with the current global melt down.) Then there is the boss, Harry Pearce. He didn't hesitate in shooting Adam's murderer in cold blood early in the series, was later tortured when suspected of being a Russian spy, only then to discover it was in actual fact his oldest friend in Section D. Finally, he gets kidnapped in the season finale!

I caused controversy over at Twelvepoint.com for a stand out moment that unfortunately didn't quite work for me. (Although seemingly only from Lucy - bless her!) It was from James Moran's penultimate episode. And no, it wasn't about the SAS smashing through the window in large numbers to arrest Harry (as seems to have been an issue over on his blog.) This made perfect sense to me. Harry was suspected of working for the FSB. Firstly, he may not have been alone. Secondly, the guy has been a spy for goodness knows how long. It's safe to assume he's armed and dangerous. Would you and a mate turn up by yourselves to arrest a sixty something James Bond or Jack Bauer? I'd err on the side of caution. No, the moment that didn't do it for me was when Connie, the real mole, slits Ben's throat. I won't go into detail of the scene but what it hinged on was character motivation. Ben could've left the scene, had the opportunity and all the motivation in the world to do so, but didn't. Why? Cos he needed to be killed off in a shocking twist. The discussion on twelvepoint.com became one of narrative logic versus believability. I think I've said before that I will believe anything. My wife often watches TV with me picking out all sorts of silliness in whatever show is on, and I usually defend it, because I have already suspended disbelief and am too engrossed to care. Believability is in the eye of the beholder. Anything is believable if you make it make sense. But when it betrays character motivation, and therefore narrative logic, it sticks out like a sore thumb, and what follows feels contrived. I don't know James, (I hope he doesn't kill me if we do meet) and I admire his work (the guy literally writes for all my favourite shows, Dr Who, Torchwood, Primeval, in fact, why not Merlin - have a word with your agent James!) but this scene didn't work for me. It did however highlight the other thing that Spooks has never shirked away from - killing off it's main characters AND keeping that a secret beforehand. (No small matter when you consider the tactics the soaps employ in leaking explosive storylines.)

It's a lesson that could be learnt in Merlin. My main gripe with Heroes since season one has been the reluctance to kill off main characters. In a show about good and evil, heroes and villains, with threats to the very existence of civilisation, people need to die to establish the danger and stakes. The season finale of Merlin climaxed with the near death of three characters... but all survived. Fair enough that Merlin and Arthur were going to make it. We'll be needing them for season two. And true also that Merlin destroyed Nimueh, which was pretty cool. But she was a baddie and had only appeared in three episodes. The fact is, either Merlin's mother or Gaius, could and should have been sacrificed, probably Gaius as he is a main player (nothing against the character himself or Richard Wilson who did a very good job.) But as Merlin's mentor, it would've been a sacrifice and wound for Merlin. Season two would then see him on his own, without that guidance. But at the same time Merlin could rise to court physician and play an even more significant role. It remains to be seen how characters evolve for the next series, but what's more, what is there left for Gaius to do? His farewell letter to Merlin was a fitting and emotionally satisfying end. The way it did eventually end - everybody won and nothing was lost. Maybe this is feel good and necessary for the time slot, (however Dr Who and Robin Hood don't seem to shirk this) but it came at the expense of the stakes and the drama.

Having said all that, I thought the first season was excellent and just so enjoyable. Along with the other two shows in this Saturday evening slot, it has become a solid addition to BBC output.

Things we noticed from watching tv this week 7 (spoilers)

Two shows that we've previously looked at in this column ended this week. The Cup and Lost in Austen were both largely successful but their finales brought up a couple of points worth examining.

Last week I expressed concern that the lead in The Cup, Terry McConnell, bordered on being so unlikeable, that it was actually affecting the comedy and making it hard to buy into the show. So I was delighted to see three beats, three brief moments, in the final episode that addressed this very point. Early on in the episode, Terry argues with his rival, Steve. Steve makes some derogatory remark about Terry's short lived career and his son, but Terry reacts passionately, telling him that his son is a better player than either of them ever were. And he means it too. He puts his son in front of himself. Later, after Terry and his wife have rowed, and she has made him choose between her and football (the choice every man dreads), and after he has initially chosen football, he turns down the chance to manage the team to watch the game in the stands next to his wife instead. It may sound a small thing when written on the page here, but in context of the show it was a massive moment and choice. Finally, after his son misses a last minute penalty, costing his side the cup, Terry consoles him with genuine, selfless, tenderness. Three brief moments which for me rounded out this character so much that it was then no problem laughing at the usual crap he pulled during the rest of the episode. The finale was then the strongest one of the lot and I hope it returns for a second series.

Amanda Price made it back to present day in Lost in Austen, but only briefly as it turned out. When I first looked at this show I confessed that I loved it, but wondered how long it could last, as this new take on Pride & Prejudice seemed to have a built in limited shelf life. What I didn't realise at the time was that its run was only going to be four episodes! Two shorter than the standard series run in the UK. And with apparently very little avenue available for a second run. Big shame. Not sure whether it was a lack of confidence in the show, a budget issue, or what, but there was surely more scope and fun to be had reworking the famous story of Elizabeth and Darcy. Oh well. As it happened, the final episode was completely bonkers. Amanda found a door back into contemporary London, followed by Darcy, who then found Elizabeth working as a nanny, using all the latest mod cons, but still talking like she was two hundred years old. Then, they all made it back through the key hole, as it were. There was some fast talking to be done, and playing hard and loose with restoring Jane to Bingley because she had married Collins instead. But never mind all that. What everyone wanted to know was who was going to end up with Darcy. My wife, an ardent Pride & Prejudice fan, promptly declared that after loving the series, if Amanda didn't end up with Darcy instead of Elizabeth, she would hate it. And there in lay the challenge. There was a lot of talk of destiny and fate, and Elizabeth seemed resigned to hers with Darcy, even though she clearly preferred 21st Century living. But really, there was only one logical conclusion. Elizabeth would follow her dream, and Amanda would live hers. The series closed as Amanda and Darcy kissed and embraced for the first proper time. It was hard to argue with that... and it made the missus happy too. But the standout moment of the episode, in fact probably the whole series, was when Amanda made Darcy come out of the lake, shirt all wet, and as she put it, "having a very post modern moment." It mimicked Andrew Davies' adaptation and the infamous Colin Firth scene, which of course was never even in the original novel. It was hilarious. And it perfectly summed up what Lost in Austen was all about.

Finally we come to our first look at Merlin. When I heard about this series and how it was going to fill what is now known as the Doctor Who slot, I thought what a great idea. Kind of like Robin Hood with magic. Interestingly, in a forum over at TwelvePoint.com three separate people revealed they also had Merlin projects in various stages of development, now effectively up in smoke. All no doubt had different takes on a classic story. The BBC have, naturally, gone for family friendly, PG, Merlin and Arthur as teenagers. The pilot showed a lot of promise and I really liked it. The young leads meet, clash, and hate each other, unaware that their destiny's lie together. And there was a lot at stake too. In Camelot magic is banned, but an evil sorceress tries to kill young Arthur. Merlin saves him and a mutual respect, if not quite friendship yet, is born. The acting was okay and the special effects not bad (the dragon has come in for a bit of stick but I thought it was fine.) The set seemed a bit monty python to me but they just about got away with it. But for me, and I guess for most of us, story telling is everything. Sometimes a pilot, strangely, is the weakest episode in the show. But when you think about it that's not so surprising. Everything is new, everything has to be established. And they did that well. But the second episode is where I expected things to kick on. But early signs are there will be a heavy story of the week format and very little serial element. Personally I think this is a shame. The second episode had a knight tournament as its main, and only story really. When one considers that Arthur is hardly likely to be killed off in episode two, what was really at stake? Why should we have cared who won or not? Both Doctor Who and Robin Hood were built around a different main story each week, but with distinct series elements. Merlin now needs to introduce something that is going to keep us coming back each week. There needs to be an overarching story, a hook, something at stake for the whole of Camelot or at least the main characters. But I will certainly tune in next week to see more. One thing though. Merlin was deemed to be special in the first episode because he had never studied magic, had been born with the gift, and just had to look at stuff to do it (jedi style.) In the second episode he was uttering spells left, right and centre?? Any old teenage wizard can do that!

This time next week - Heroes is back!!!!