The New Series of V got its premiere on Monday Night here in the UK.
I loved the original series of V. It was creepy, poignant, fantastical and intriguing. Full of political machinations, real-life references complex characters and pure horror.
So when I saw the first trailers for the new series you’d better believe I was excited. Despite my usual cynicism, I was really looking forward to this show. How
could a series with such rich and powerful source material, such relevant and terrifying concepts, how could it fail?
Don’t get me wrong. I didn’t wander blindly in with my rose-tinted glasses firmly in place. Oh no, I wasn’t able to put aside my cynicism that easily. I kept some back, some buffer to protect me against the chance that that should would not live up to me expectations. I was prepared for some disappointment. What I was not prepared for an hour of blithering, nonsensical self-contradictory and frankly insulting bullshit.
It’s difficult to sum up all the Rage I have for this show in a single, summarising review. (Yes, Rage with a capital ‘R’) So instead, I present to you an examination of the entire show, start to finish.
This will not be an ‘is this entertaining’ review, V the original series was much more than that, and so its reimagining deserves the same treatment. This is something the producers and writers of this show must have been well aware of. Taking a show with such influence, such power and relevance, they’d must have
know that if they didn’t treat it with the respect it deserved, true fans and critics alike would rape them raw...
So I hope they bought enough lube beforehand.
On my second viewing I wondered at what point I began to entertain that part of my mind that I’d kept back in preparation for disappointment. I think It was at the 35 second mark. No, I’m not kidding. The arrival of the aliens is signified by having a main character’s sleep interrupted by hr house shaking, a-la Independence day, while the camera lingers over a glass of water on the bedside cabernet, showing ripples. Well done, series, you are so void of inspiration that you have to rip off two major films...
As the events unfold we see a myriad of characters all reacting the arrival of the spaceships... At one point, an airplane crashes in a conveniently empty street, causing one character, Brian, to run for safety before turning back and watching a dead pilot float to the ground, dangling from his parachute. THIS EVENT IS NEVER MENTIONED AGAIN. The death of the pilot is never explained. This sequence exists solely to create something cool to put in the trailer. Fuck you, series.
During a following newsreel montage, a couple of ids are interviewed... One of them saying: “Dude, this
is Independence day.” To which, his friend replies: “Which was a rip-off of any number of alien invasion predecessors.”. I have to laugh at the postmodern irony of accusing a film of being a rip-off in the context of a film that is deliberately and unashamedly ripping off that same film... A copy of a copy of a copy...
So... The aliens arrive and introduce themselves. Meanwhile an FBI agent is calling her colleague and explaining that her through her monitoring of terrorist cell com chatter, she has found that almost all cells dropped to minimum activity, with the exception of one, which spiked dramatically. While the character is verbally relating this information to us, the screen is passing over a series of graphs, showing one that runs opposite to the others... On this graph, which the camera pauses on, a little red arrow appears, labelling the graph with the words: “Significant increase.” Thanks , show, I needed that clarification. I know this may seem like a minor point for now, but I’ll return to it.
A few moments later we witness a news conference and one of our main characters, Reporter Chad Decker, summing up the conference with a “Let’s not be too hard on them, editorial.” And here we have yet another problem with the series. Mankind’s simple acceptance of the visitors, as pointed out in the New York
New York Times' review of the series, is stretching the imagination, to say the last:
Following Anna’s (The lead Visitor/Alien)introduction speech to the people, in which she says that all they’re after is a bit o water and some ‘mineral resources’ that we have loads of... (hurr hurr)
- Quote :
- The assembled New Yorkers digest this, look at one another — and start to applaud. [...] and the only logical reaction to it is: on what planet does that happen? Certainly not ours, where a more natural reaction would be “Who does she think she’s kidding?” or words to that effect.
Throuought the rest of the series, the occasional newscaster or barely-on-screen note will mke reference to ‘pokets of resistance’, at point even showing a bunch of people pulling down a police barricade... But beond that, we see nohtihng of the sort! Nor do we receive any notes or hints as to why these people are resisting... Common garden-variety xenophobia? Conspiricy therorists? What? Nothing, we just have to take it as read that it happens... Again, this is a very poor storytelling point that I’l get back to.
I said at the start that my inner disappointment buffer was engagd and ready for action at abound the 30-second mark... here, at the 15-min mark, is where it took control and all notion that the series would be any good at all was completly written off.
“It has been three weeks since the visitors arrived” Decker tells us ion a news article, shortly before a little subtitle appears in the bottom right of the screen stating: “Three weeks later.” FUCK YOU! How stupid do you think I am that you need to hold my hand and spell out events like this, events like the graph I mentioned earlier, just in case I don’t have the intellectual capacity to process this information? I know a few people have heard my rant on this little note and stated “Yeah, well, it is written for American television...” Well, I would kindly ask you to punch yourself in the face for buying into that ludicrous stereotype; you are part of the problem, go educate yourself, I can guarantee that a lot of your favourite, intelligent, films and televisions series are written for the same audience, and quit being such a judgemental bigot, thankyouverymuch. This show does not treat its audience as retards because the American television audience are all thick, this is fact. No. This series treats its audience as stupid because it automatically assumes they are. That is flat out insulting, and I will not have it. This show thinks I’m an idiot. This show thinks I’m an idiot, and goes on to advance its own timeline, skipping over the most confrontational, difficult, and drama-filled time period that this television series could possibly explore. Well done, tv show, well done indeed.
Oh hey, after that Roy turns up in the church. He can walk again! His condition is cured and he no longer has any pain. The Visitors healed him. Isn’t that cool?
What’s that you say? Who’s Roy? Well, he’s.... Uhh... Well... He can walk again!
Seriously, the show just does that. Roy turns up and can walk again. We never met Roy properly before, he was just name dropped once or twice. We never got wind of his desire to walk again; we don’t know what was wrong with him. You’d have thought that his learning of the Visitors ability to heal his... whatever his condition was would have made for a good story. You’d have thought that following Roy as his condition seriously impedes his life would have given us sympathy for him, allowing us to share in his drama as he struggles to trust the Visitors, plucking up the courage to go to one of their healing centres, having us share in his joy and relief when he can walk again. You’d have thought that, wouldn’t you... But you are not an idiot. The writers of this show are. A such, Roy, some nobody to whom we have no connection to, can suddenly walk again. Yay...
Oh... But then, Roy turns back up in church later, he talks to Father Jack Landry, a preacher who distrusts the Visitors (His character raises another point that I’ll come to later)
“You were right to question the Vs. I know the real reason they’re here father, and I’m not the only one.”
Roy has been shot! He is implicated in a resistance movement and has come into possession of valuable evidence to support the notion that the Visitors are here to destroy us! With his dying breath, Roy passes the evidence onto Landry, informing him of a resistance meeting.
Wow...
How did Roy get involved with this? What turned him from having enough trust to go to the visitors to fix his condition (whatever it was) to him questioning the purpose of the Visitors? How did he come into possession with the evidence?
Seems to me that Roy’s story is a hell of a lot more exciting than the bimbleing around of all the protagonists we are supposed to be following! Roy has conflict, he has flaws, he has drama he has excitement... Father Landry has... A mild distrust of the Visitors... Seriously, writers, what are you thinking?
Would you believe that the stupidest part of this show hasn’t happened yet? Would you believe that the part I am most angry, nay furious at has yet to occur? Well, that point happens now. At around 38 mins in, at a scene that has features prominently in the trailers, a sequence I was looking forward to as it seemed to perfectly reflect the core message of the original series. A scene that, if done right, could hep draw attention to some very real and very current events, coating them with the feeing of fear and dread they deserve. By now, rather than have optimism with a disappointment buffer, I had just disappointment with an optimism buffer. Could this next sequence redeem the series?
Anna, the leader of the Visitors and Chad Decker, our cautiously optimistic investigative reporter are squaring off for the visitors first interview. As they start, Decker asks:
“Do you have any questions before we go to air?”
To which Anna responds:
“Just be sure not to ask anything that would paint us in a negative light.”
To which Decker responds, surprised, with: “Excuse me?”
It is a superb sequence, or at least it was in the trailers. In the full show, however, it fell flat. There was no malice; there was no hint of something to hide. This
sequence could have painted Decker as a heroic character, coerced by threats, or as a vein egotist, seduced by fame. Either way, it would have been better than what we got, which was kind of “Oh well then, I’ll do it, but I won’t like it.” But the stupid didn’t end there. Oh no.
During the interview the following question is asked:
Talking about the Visitor healing centres Anna states: “We want to provide complete medical services to all.”
Decker answers: “You’re talking bout universal healthcare?”
Anna: “I believe that’s what you call it, yes.”
Are you serious? This show is stating that Universal Healthcare is a tool used by invading forces. Of course, the Tea Party have already begun to use the show in their anti-Obama propaganda:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]Yeah... A show whose origins are based on the book “It Can’t Happen Here.” A treatise against the dangers of nationalism is being used by the Tea Party... WHO ARE FUCKING NATIONALIST!
I honestly don’t know how harder a series could fail. Of couse, I’m not the first to call the show up on this point. When it premiered in the USA it did kick off a fuss... So how did the creators of the show respond?
From Slate.Com
- Quote :
- executive producer Scott Peters maintained, "We are not looking to put any sort of agenda onto the table,"
WAT?
You took one of the most politically loaded pieces of work out there, and you are claiming that you didn’t want to put “any sort of agenda onto the table”?
To quote the Chicago Tribune:
- Quote :
- At a time of political turmoil, a charismatic, telegenic new leader arrives virtually out of nowhere. [offering] a message of hope and reconciliation based on compromise and promises to marshal technology for a better future that will include universal health care.
The news media swoons in admiration -- one simpering anchorman even shouts at a reporter who asks a tough question: "Why don't you show some respect?!" The public is likewise smitten, except for a few nut cases who circulate batty rumors on the Internet about the leader's origins and intentions. The leader, undismayed, offers assurances that are soothing, if also just a tiny bit condescending: "Embracing change is never easy."
And you, Mr. Peters, call that ‘Not putting an agenda on the table’? Which is it, Peters, are you honestly ignorant of your source material and unaware of the implications it has? Making you a disrespectful idiot, or are you deliberately manipulating the plot of the show, while denying any intention? Making you a cowardly liar? Pick a side.
Or you guys can make up your own mind on the guy as he goes into what was called his: "people- and-their-pesky-subjectiveness mode:" in The Washington Post Again, I'll remind you, he has decided to take a piece of work whose political message was part of its power and purpose, so any claims that 'you shouldn't read too deep into it' demonstrate a flat-out ignorance of the source material, something you'd have thought a series producer would have been aware of.
So, after that.. after all that, is it worth me getting angry at the fact that Father Landry (The distrustful priest, who I assume is pandering to the right-wing religious backbone of the Tea Party) was put in the Michael Donovan leather jacket. Is it worth me getting cross that the iconic costume of the pot driving, independent, free-thinking, investigative journalist of the original series is put on the blathering, indecisive, close-minded Landry, who simply lets the plot happen to him, rather than take an active part?
Is it worth getting cross at the further incompetence of the story writing, when the Visitor conspiracy is spelled out to us, point by point, with no secrets kept back, but some bloke called George whom we barely know, leaving nothing for the audience to discover for themselves, no chance for a slow, horrific realisation that all the odds are stacked against the protagonists?
Is it worth pointing out the missed opportunity, as hinted back at the start of the Decker/Anna interview that the “Just be sure not to ask anything that would paint us in a negative light.” Line has been used... Used by the opponents of Obama’s health reform? Those opponents who, by the look of things, this show is supporting...
By this point I was at a loss. All my expectations and hope for a decent program were broken into minute pieces and flushed firmly, finally down the toilet.
Congratulations are due to Peters and his team. Never before have I seen a pint missed so hard. Never before have I seen ideas and potential so successfully wasted.
Normally this part of the review is used for the conclusion. A summary of my overall thoughts and experiences of this show. But I’ve got nothing. Nothing more than I’ve already told you.
...
I hate this show.
Home 
