You should never go back

Image from Wikipedia

Generally speaking, I find the motto 'never go back once you've moved on' a helpful one. Although I've broken it pretty regularly, I usually find I shouldn't have attended that school reunion or whatever. However, it's a lesson that TV and filmmakers rarely consider, as I've been discovering with the new X-Files.

I was looking forward to the rebooted series after a 15 year break. The timing could not have been better. We got through the last DVD of the complete box set the same week the first episode arrived on a UK channel. And it's okay. But there's something rather upsetting about it.

It's not just that David Duchovny looks really worldworn and tired. Or that Gillian Anderson looks emaciated and zoned out compared to her far better recent UK TV appearances. It just seems far too much like 'more of the same.' I wanted to wait until episode 3 to give a verdict, as it was written by the man who wrote my favourite episode ever, the season 3 'Jose Chung's "From Outer Space"', which is hilarious and mind-bogglingly twisted. Admittedly episode 3 did have some fun moments, notably Scully telling Mulder, as he played with his smartphone, that he ought to stay away from the internet. And it had a very neat twist in the plot, which I won't reveal. But both the script and the acting was like seeing someone who once was on top of their game going through the motions.

For years, I hoped that they would make a new series of my favourite TV show ever, Buffy the Vampire Slayer. But now I realise that it would be a mistake. The world moves on. So do stories and actors. I'll probably stick with X-Files for this season. But it's a bit like watching Bruce Forsyth in the latter years of Strictly. It's with as much a sense of sadness as pleasant familiarity.

Comments

Why I hate opera

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

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

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

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope

Search This Blog