Thunderbirds are Go - 'Ring of Fire' and 'Space Race'

Tracy Island, located squarely in the flooded basin of the uncanny valley.

When it was announced that a rebooted CGI Thunderbirds series was to be made, the response from fans was predictably restrained.

This is going to be shit, they said, because they always do. Now, I enjoyed the Captain Reboot, so here I am to check out Thunderbirds are Go, ITV's shiny new Anderson-derived property, in particular the opening two parter 'Ring of Fire' and the third episode, 'Space Race'.

There's no build up in the opener, as Virgil Tracy rescues a man and his son from a lost balloon in storm force winds. It's clear that International Rescue are an established presence in the world, even as they set out to rescue the crew of an underwater research station, and become embroiled in a plot by their megalomaniac foe, the Hood, to blackmail the world with satellite controlled earthquake machines.

Line of the week goes to the Hood: "I don't want to rule the world; I just want to own it. Someone else can run the place."

In 'Space Race', astronaut Alan shares centre stage with London operatives Lady Penelope and Parker, as they race to deactivate an old stealth satellite left over from a less enlightened age.

Line of the week is probably Parker dubbing himself 'the Grey Ninja', although there is also a pricelessly awkward exchange between Alan and Kayo:

"Sorry for last time. The babysitter crack."
"It's okay; most men would kill to have you as a babysitter. I mean... because you're so... responsible."

Our new series then is set in a world where International Rescue has been operating for some time, but the organisation is missing a head; Jeff Tracy is gone, lost in a crash thought to have been engineered by the Hood. Also gone is faithful butler Kirano (presumably lost in the same crash,) leaving IR in the hands of the younger generation.

The Tracy brothers are all pretty much as they were before. Scott and Virgil are the serious, dark-haired ones; Gordon and Alan are the junior members of the team; and John sits in a tin can in space and watches everything, making him a little bit creepy. Thus far, the balance between the five has been better than in the original, and in particular space monitor John has been a far more active member of the team, running a lot of their data analysis like a human version of Person of Interest's Machine. Also present and correct are Lady Penelope Creighton-Ward and Parker; the latter is most directly influenced by the original series in performance, almost to the point of parody.

Rounding out the team's gender dynamics a little bit (it's still a 3:1 ratio, but better than the old 6:1) is Kayo, IR's covert ops specialist. In full Tanusha 'Kayo' Kyrano, this is the cloyingly proper Tin-Tin revised for the modern age, nicknamed for her knockout punch rather than her maidenly sweetness (and to avoid IP conflict with the big screen version of Herge's boy reporter.) She even gets her own ship, the Thunderbird Shadow, courtesy of Brains, who is apparently now an Anglo-Iranian (or possibly Indian, but voiced by Anglo-Iranian Kayvan Novak*.)

The cast is mostly unremarkable, but it is noticeable that they are primarily English actors affecting variable American accents. Rosamund Pike gets a pass on this as Lady P, of course, as does Angel Coulby, playing Kayo strictly RP.

All in all, this is a pretty good adventure show. There are doubtless fans of the old series shaking their heads in despair, but a show running on CITV is for the new generation, and I am keen to know what my nephew makes of it, having been introduced to Thunderbirds by his dad.

* Just to mess with my head, original Brains actor David Graham now voices Parker, while original Lady Penelope Sylvia Anderson is set to guest voice.

Gotham - Pilot

Apparently, Jim Gordon is going to meet everyone who will ever be anyone in Gotham City in his first week on the job. This makes finding a concise cast image challenging, and also leads me to suspect that the entire thing will turn out to be a dream he's having after being shot, or because Leonardo DiCaprio is trying to rob his brain.

James 'Jim' Gordon is a war hero turned detective, an honest and idealistic man trying to make a difference in a city that can charitably described as not honest and idealistic. The murder of noted local philanthropists Thomas and Martha Wayne brings Jim and his partner, the pragmatically corrupt Harvey Bullock, into contact with the now orphaned Bruce Wayne and his butler, Alfred Pennyworth. During the investigation, they encounter junior mob boss Fish Moony, her lieutenant Oswald Cobblepot and her boss Carmine Falcone, and cross swords with major crimes detectives Montoya and Allen. They also meet a young girl named Ivy Pepper, who likes plants, and in the background is cat-loving young thief Selina Kyle.

And this is just episode 1!

So, Fox's Batman prequel is clearly going for volume on its cast. I didn't even mention above that the GCPD forensics guy is one Edward Nygma, or Gordon's society fiancee Barbara, whose independent wealth allows them to have a really swish apartment set and who it is hinted used to have a thing with Renee Montoya, because we don't have enough plots and backstory layered in. Fish Moony was also auditioning a comedian for her club; a Joker, if you will.

Some may ask - and indeed, some of my friends have asked - what can possibly be achieved in Gotham, when we know that the city will remain a cesspit of crime and corruption and that the Wayne's killer - who may or may not be Joe Chill - kind of has to wait for Batman? Surely all Gordon's efforts will be for naught, otherwise why would Batman need to happen?

My guess would be that the 'war' which Cobblepot warns of will be a big part of it. There are the rival mob factions, of course, with Falcone's growing weakness hinted at here, but modern Batman mythology is, thanks in large part to The Dark Knight and Arkham City concerned with the idea of the soul of Gotham. Whether Ra's al Ghul and the League of Shadows/Assassins will make an appearance or not, it seems likely that Jim Gordon's part in Gotham will be to make sure that some light survives in the heart of Gotham City; that the corruption which riddles Gotham doesn't utterly destroy it.

Won't somebody please think of the children!
Sadly, Selina is not wearing a top hat, but they are goggles. I'm not sure why
'Ivy Pepper' isn't Pamela Isley.

I suspect that a key part of this will be the origin stories of the various characters. Cobblepot and Nygma must be driven into their future roles, in the former case by hatred and injury, in the latter presumably by frustration, and I suspect that the soul of Harvey Bullock is not yet lost, but the real meat is likely to come from the three pictured above: Bruce Wayne has to live in the darkness, but not fall to it, while Ivy Pepper must become so disillusioned that she comes to see plants as better than people. Most promising, Selina has to walk the line; she has to despise the wealthy enough to become Catwoman, but retain the fundamental humanity that makes her Gotham's favourite anti-villain (if you subscribe to the theory that her enduring appeal is due to her fundamental humanity, rather than boobs and leather, and since Camren Bicondova is fifteen I sincerely hope the show will do.)

So, 'Pilot' was a strong opening which promises great things to come. It's got a lot of work to do, and it really needs to bring its A game every week given the need to fight against the negativity that the known outcomes bring with them, but it has solid potential.

Why the success or failure of the Ghostbuster's reboot will not stand or fall on the gender of the leads

This poster has one of the better cast shots, which
is why I used one from the sequel.
Also, one of the men on this poster isn't on that cast
list. If it was the black guy people might make
assumptions!

Okay, so my title is a bit of a gimme:  the success or failure of the Ghostbuster's reboot will not stand or fall on the gender of the leads because claiming that casting women in the main roles is 'feminazing a classic' or 'gynocentric' are as much pathetically transparent misogynist strawmen as claiming that 'women aren't as funny as men'. It's also a little disingenuous, because casting women to lead Hollywood movies sets one up for the gauntlet of a production and marketing machine that sees male stars as the only bankable assets. Any film in the action or science fiction genres that doesn't cast a 'name' male lead is taking a gamble that the studio won't royally bollocks its advertising and bury it in a release dead zone so that they can blame their predicted poor turn out on overall low ticket sales, but I for one don't think that it's a gamble that it's wrong to take.

Also, this is not to say that the casting of the leads can't sink the film, just that it won't be because they're women. Casting the wrong women will kill a film as surely as casting the wrong men, but given that the script is unwritten, anyone claiming that casting a woman in purely hypothetical role X will ruin the movie since role X is clearly intended for a male actor (maybe that should be role Y?) is either the greatest prophet since Nostradamus* or talking out of their arse.

So, and working purely from my own NSHO, what are the factors on which Ghostbusters not-actually-3 will sink or swim?

To start with, what were the keys to the success of the original? To understand that, it helps to see that the film almost never happened at all; at least not the way it ended up.

Dan Ackroyd produced the first super-high concept version of the script as a vehicle for himself and John Belushi. Ivan Reitman saw the impracticality of the script and Ackroyd worked with Harold Ramis to ground the concept in the present day. The death of John Belushi led to Bill Murray being brought in, with Ramis - only an occasional actor - and Ackroyd as the scientific members of the Ghostbusters, and Ernie Hudson rounding out the crew as the straight man. Sigourney Weaver was the serious acting talent and Rick Moranis was annoying, but in a role that called for him to be so. The song 'Ghostbusters' was a sensation, despite not being very good on a musical level.

The result was almost a perfect storm of action, special effects and humour, making it hard to pin down why the film worked. There is no better illustration of this illusive quality than Ghostbusters II, which reunited the same team, but failed to please on the same level. Nevertheless, there was enough residual energy for The Real Ghostbusters to run another two years and Extreme Ghostbusters to... well, get made in the first place, and for people to feel a massively proprietorial affection for the original movie on its 30th anniversary**.

Perhaps the key lesson to learn from GII is that 'more of the same' is unlikely to cut it. A new Ghostbusters film is going to have to do something new. Nevertheless, its commercial success confirmed the affection for the original cast and characters. Obviously, the longed-for sequel with the original cast starring is never going to happen now, with the death of Harold Ramis, but if anything is to be done, the public - or at least vocal sections of it - will expect some serious cameos.

With that in mind, a hard reboot (as of 10/10/14 the confirmed direction for Paul Feig's female-led offering) is probably the thing most likely to kill the film. It's not definite, but it essentially squanders any nostalgic loyalty to the franchise and brings the commercial future of the movie down to the here and now.

Wow; when I say it like that it feels like a good thing, but the danger is that the association, once no longer a blessing, will become a bane. In addition to losing the resentful fans of the older film, there is an automatic skepticism of a remake/reboot to overcome. It's a shame, because done right the positive association with the original Ghostbusters would have been a good way to launch a female-led sequel with a boost to take it past Hollywood's usually gynophobia. As it is, there is every chance that the reboot factor will kill the film before a single frame hits the digital medium and idiots around the world will say: "See; we told you women weren't funny."

In an interview with Rolling Stone***, Feig said the following:

1. "My favorite thing to do is work with funny women. I was like, what if it was an all-female cast? If they were all women? Suddenly, my mind kind of exploded: that would be really fun,"
2. "I love the first one so much, I don't want to do anything to ruin the memory of that. So it just felt like, let's just restart it because then we can have new dynamics. I want the technology to be even cooler. I want it to be really scary, and I want it to happen in our world today that hasn't gone through it so it's like, oh my God what's going on?"

On the first point: On a high concept like Ghostbusters, I can't help but feel that this is a bad reason to fix on an all-female cast from the get-go. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't, but don't you want to see what's in the script first? Still, fuck it; if that's how you roll as a director maybe that's just what's going to bring out your best work, and if you're working with a writer you know writes those parts well (I'm not really familiar with Feig's collaborations with Katie Dippold, but clearly they feel they work well as a team) then go for it.

On the second... I don't think that anything in that want list couldn't be done with a 'new generation' sequel, except wanting the world to be a clean slate, and remember how I was saying of GII that it turns out more of the same isn't what people wanted then? I'm not convinced that it's what is wanted now. For fans of the old, it's a do-over of something that didn't need to be done over, and from the perspective of the project as a new film, relaunching just means that you're retreading old ground instead of making your own mark.

There exists a Ghostbusters film about the supernatural being forced into the public perception; there exists a Ghostbusters film about the world trying to deny it. Why not have this film be about a world that thinks it's ready for the next Gozer, the next Vigo? Hell, why not go balls to the wall and use the goodwill of a Ghostbusters project to make Ackroyd's original concept?

Ghostbusters hit the perfect combination of writing, cast and direction, in part from the combination of Bill Murray's improvisational performance and Ramis and Ackroyd's investment in their own script, which allows them to project Egon and Ray's total commitment to the high concepts of the movie which would otherwise seem laughable. The absence of anyone as utterly involved in the movie as Ackroyd was is likely to hurt the film, and the chances of pulling together an ensemble as great as the original line-up is slim, not because the female performers aren't out there - or, indeed, the male performers to pull off a reboot - but because the team-up in Ghostbusters was relatively untried, thus bringing in no preconceptions outside of Murray and Ackroyd's work on Saturday Night Live, and that it worked as well as it did a matter of ineffable alchemy. 

No producer can cast for the ineffable, as much as they might try. In other words, it is possible that such a cast could be pulled together for a rebooted Ghostbusters, but you couldn't do it a-purpose.

Ultimately, the film's success will depend on a multitude of factors, and its commercial and artistic success may vary wildly. For my money, the reboot is the greatest reason for skepticism, but I think that commercially that is going to end up shackled to an all female cast like an anvil.

* An attempt to do a prophet/profit pun fell down based on the fact that I don't know who posts obscene profits these days.
** I saw it at the cinema; I'm so old.
*** Rolling Stone online, http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/new-ghostbusters-film-will-be-series-reboot-20141009; get me, citing sources like some kind of professional.

Star Trek Into Darkness

Okay, so here's the warning: Further down the page, this review will contain spoilers. Do not click on the G+ link or read any further if you haven't seen the film yet. I'm going to start with the spoiler free version, but then I'm going to get spoilery. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

So, basic impressions: I loved it. I thought it captured pretty much all of the things I have loved in Star Trek, beginning with the Classic Series and running through to the darker, post-Roddenberry era, while also retaining its own, distinctive style. In the latter camp, the film retains the bright-white Enterprise main set designs, the slightly tweaked exterior appearance (which is matched to other Federation vessels) and the more industrial look of the engineering section, the updated uniforms and the sleek, silver phasers with their rotating kill/stun emitters, helping to establish the new universe as a coherent entity in its own right.

The film balances action, pathos and humour well, the action is fast-paced, with suitable breaks for the audience to catch its breath, and despite the trailer's best efforts retains a couple of surprises. On that subject, man but that trailer is an odd one, rearranging some lines in a way that actually goes against the key point of the scenes they come from.

So, yeah, this is another good one.

Is it as good as the first reboot? More importantly, perhaps, is it as good as the former second film?

I would say yes to the first, no to the second, but only because Wrath of Khan is so goddamn good.

And now, the spoilery bit.

Benedict Cumberbatch is not your father's Khan Noonian Singh; he is, however, awesome, and has a different backstory to explain the changes in the character. He is also, as ever, an ideal foil to the Enterprise crew because he can match them all on some level. Smarter than Spock, bolder than Kirk, stronger than any three of his enemies. I predicted the basic model of Kirk pursues a vendetta against Khan way back and they work it well, at the same time threading in Khan's own quest for vengeance and a surprise drop from DS9 in the shape of Section 31.

In terms of lifts from the older material, we also have Carol Marcus, torpedo designer, Bones performing surgery on a torpedo (and of course an 'I'm a doctor, not a...' line). There is a whole section towards the end which serves as almost a flat inversion of an iconic scene from Wrath, and the obligatory roar delivered in fine style if from an unexpected source. On the subject of those last two, they are things that could have been done very, very badly indeed if mishandled even slightly, but the emotional control of Zachary Quinto's Spock continues to be played as more fragile than Nimoy's, and in this film is specifically noted as a choice that he makes, rather than a state of being. It's also never noted, but having effectively snubbed the Kobayashi Maru test in the rebooted universe, Kirk not only faces the no-win scenario for the first time here but also correctly determines its creator's solution.

Oh, and there be Klingons here, somewhere between the old and the new with their more refined cranial ridge, helmets and redesigned bat'lehs. Being a colossal nerd, I was disappointed to see their homeworld names Kronus, rather than Qo'noS, but I guess that would have been a tad confusing. I wasn't wild about the new Bird of Prey design, but then I really loved the old one.