The Orville: A better Star Trek than Star Trek

What a ridiculous name for a StarShip.

The Orville.

Instead of going where no man has gone before...Instead of evoking visions of the first flight with the brothers Wright (as in Orville and Wilbur) 

I think of Redenbacher...

You know, the popcorn guy...

...and maybe that's the point.

But somewhere along the way Seth McFarlane managed to do something no Star Trek Series has done in 4 decades.  

In a time when the "official" Star Trek canon has been bastardized into some weird amalgamation of action movie meets Sci-Fi chic peppered with  liberal doses of gratuitous sex and violence for no other reason than they could.

Here comes a parody, a spoof, the comic relief of the genre that somehow managed to get it right.

The Orville while not as straight-laced as Star Trek: The Next Generation or as moody and lifeless as Discovery has more in common with the original series than either of them.

What made the original Star Trek series good was the writing and the chemistry of the actors.  You didn't have to club the viewer over the head with the message.  The drama made sense.  Tension had a reason and didn't have to be manufactured.  You cared about the characters, maybe even shed a tear at their pain.

Tonight while watching The Orville it happened for me.  Yes, it was campy in spots but there were moments every bit as poignant as the the best Star Trek episodes regardless of who sat in the captain's chair.  It touched me like any good Star Trek episode would.  It made me think.  It made me feel.

The Orville works for the same reason Star Trek worked in the 60's.  We can identify with the characters.  We can see ourselves in their trials and tribulations without being forced to.  I think of The Orville as kind of a Next Generation if Picard had a better sense of humor.

It's a funny show but not Family Guy kind of funny.  The laughs aren't forced, they're natural and fit the narrative.  The kind of thing you might say to a friend in a similar situation.

OK the obvious question....

"It's a show about being on a spaceship with alien people 400 years in the future.  How would I EVER be in a similar situation?"

That's the gist of it, it's relatable, recognizable.  Not in the way that Deep Space 9 was in defiling the rose colored glasses of Roddenberry's Star Trek universe by exposing its dark underbelly.  Its rai·son d'ê·tre  to make the future just as ugly as our present.

No, the problem with many of the Star Trek series that came after Kirk and Spock was that they took themselves too seriously.  Somewhere along the line, they forgot that just shoehorning a current event into a Science Fiction context wasn't enough to be relatable to those of us that were watching.

For any work of fiction to succeed it has to meet us half way.  It has to connect us to their world by reaching a hand out to ours. 

I've seen that happen repeatedly on The Orville.

In "Nothing Left on Earth Excepting the Fishes" a title which references "The King and I" we saw multiple story lines intersecting and filling out the narrative.  The most primary of which spoke to finding common ground.  Something very much in the public conscience and something only addressable through a narrative in the current political climate.

It's no surprise, however, with Star Trek heavy hitters like Andre Bormanis and Brannon Braga showing up in the show's credits.  In the previous episode "Home" we even saw a couple of veteran Star Trek actors in Robert Picardo ( the EMH from Voyager ) opposite John Billingsley (Dr. Phlox from Enterprise)

You don't have all of these celebrated Star Trek alumni  jumping onboard The Orville just because they need a paycheck.  They see it too.

Where Discovery is a militant, lifeless shell devoid of passion or reason for being other than just...being, The Orville has managed to bring us back to what good Sci-Fi should be.

It's not an action movie, it's not sexy or gratuitous just for the sake of being so.  It's not trying to make Star Trek into Mission Impossible: Space Camp.

It's good writing, a good story and a dose of humor just where it's needed.  Even if that means poking fun at it's progenitor.  

And the fans love it.

I've had a very positive view of  The Orville since it launched ( pardon the pun ) but this season seems to be raising the bar.

At the end of "....Fishes" there was a poignant scene where Ed ( Seth McFarlane ) sets free a Trill ( the primary antagonist species ) that  betrayed him by appearing as a human and starting a relationship just to lure him into a Trill trap.  As the scene closed and she boarded her shuttle, Billy Joel's "She's always a woman" played the episode out.

I literally felt that moment.  Maybe it was the song....no...not maybe....the song fit the story perfectly.

That's good writing, that's making something completely alien relatable. 

That's why The Orville is a better Star Trek than Star Trek...

John Batiste, Colbert & the unexpected...

Say what you will about late night talk shows (and I have) but every once in awhile you get something that transcends the context.

That happened tonight at the end of the Late Show with Stephen Colbert when Colbert introduced bandleader, John Batiste as musical guest.

Colbert explained that the performance was meant to mark the anniversary of the Beatles first TV appearance on that same stage some 52 years earlier.

The music that flowed from Batiste's piano was a quiet medley of Beatles standards finally coming to rest in a rendition of Blackbird.  

The history of it all had weight but Batiste's performance is what almost moved me to tears.

I was floored. 

To be honest, up to that point I hadn't thought much of John Batiste outside of just being a happy go lucky bandleader and sometime sidekick.  

Nothing wrong with that.  I mean Reggie Watts of the Late Late Show is entertaining, The Roots on the The Tonight Show are a lively bunch but I wouldn't go out of my way to explore their musical catalogs.

They all may be decent musicians in their own right but they're just not at the same level as what I saw on Colbert's stage tonight.

Batiste is something different and for me, unexpected.  Till tonight we hadn't really seen the breadth of his talent having been primarily performing upbeat jingles and backing for other visiting musicians on the program.  

In short, not exactly the kind of stuff they invite you to Carnegie Hall for.

Batiste and Stay human are releasing an album of the show's music plus a few of Batiste's own songs.  Might be worth picking it up which is something I never thought I'd say. 

Apparently I need to give Colbert more credit for spotting talent.  

It's Christmastime! Take a break from the talking points...

The lights are up, the tree is trimmed and the smell of cinnamon and spice is in the air...

At least in the shopping malls.

It's holiday time again and whether you're still procrastinating on putting up the tree or your house looks like a Better Homes and Gardens holiday shoot the sights and sounds of the holidays are inescapable.

For me nothing says Christmas like the sound of my favorite carols playing in the background while taking a break with a cherished holiday classic.

To that end, TV Guide offers up its compendium of Holiday specials neatly organized by airdate, time and network.  Of course the list is dominated by ABC Family and the Hallmark channel who continue the tradition of nonstop holiday themed content.

Of course there's always on demand and Netflix has its own holiday offerings like "A very Murray Christmas" starring Bull Murray and "Santa's Apprentice."

This year marks the 50th anniversary of "a Charlie Brown Christmas" and to celebrate the event ABC has rolled out a special including popular musical acts and interviews with the creators of the animated feature.  If you're a devout "Peanuts" fan it's a must see event.  If not you can safely tune in an hour later to catch the animated special presented in its original length which including commercials runs about 40 minutes. 

You've already missed the first showing on Monday (11/30) but ABC is showing it again on Christmas Eve at 9PM. 

Of course all that assumes you're not already watching It's a Wonderful life on NBC at 8PM or A Christmas Story on TBS at the same time...

So settle in, enjoy the season and take a little time out from mini-malls and Amazon.com. 

I wish you the Happiest of whatever holidays you celebrate.

South Park Sellout?

I'm of the opinion that South Park is a guilty pleasure for most people.  It's almost a badge of honor to be lampooned by the show that takes no prisoners in its satire and truth be told its targets rarely complain.

That is so long as you don't draw a cartoon of Mohammed.

The Internet, racism, video games, hybrid cars, politics and celebrities are all fair game.  If it's in the news chances are it'll show up in an episode of South Park.

Interestingly enough, it seems those kids from South Park with now familiar names like Cartman, Kyle and Butters never seem to progress past the fourth grade but still manage to remain relevant after almost 20 years.  It's a strange time warp that fans just seem to accept as the series that began in the Clinton Administration continues well into the latter half of the tenure of the first black President. 

The world's changed quite a bit since 1997 and the series has kept tabs on it.  Creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone have somehow managed to chronicle nearly 2 decades of popular culture while keeping the show fresh.

Over the years, the best barbs have been reserved for those who took themselves a little too seriously.  Tea party conservatives, tree-huggers, religious fanatics and the excesses of political correctness have all been frequent targets.

It's that last one, political correctness, that was the focus of the premiere episode of Season 19 last week. 

In it we find that the rest of the world has had it with South Park's politically incorrect behavior and have sent in a new principal of the school in the form of one Principal PC to correct the transgressions. 

Of course Principal PC is a ridiculous caricature best described as a mash-up between an overgrown frat boy and every politically correct tweet that's ever been feverishly beaten into a Smartphone.

For the most part the episode was a hilarious take on what is often an overheated politically correct culture that dismisses independent thought.

Except something happened at the end of the episode.

At the risk of spoilers I'll try to be somewhat vague in case you haven't seen it yet. 

The episode ended... Wrong....

Instead of staying with the theme of the ridiculous and driving the point home, everyone just kind of gave in.

I don't know if the show is starting to wear on Parker and Stone but this particular episode has me worried.

In the past, I've found myself, thrilled, bent over with laughter as well as grossed out and even offended but never was I lacking for closure when watching an episode of South Park.

I was on board with this one up until the last 3 minutes.  If ever there was a good excuse for an alternate ending this episode is it.

I'm just hoping all is put right with the world of South Park in episode 2 this season or I may be done with the likes of Cartman and Kyle.

My rating, 9/10 for the first 20 minutes, 0/10 for the ending.

James Corden, America's Sweetheart

I no longer have any faith in America...

Well, at least as far as what America thinks is funny.

Four months ago I chronicled the first week of CBS Late night's newest host, James Corden.

Back then I described his style as a "Giddy Schoolgirl" and someone who was just "playing host."  

The burning question on my mind is how someone can do something fifty times and not get any better at it.

It seems America doesn't agree...

The trades love him, blogs love him (not this one) and apparently so too does a wide swatch of the American viewing public. 

What the hell man!

What about this guy is so compelling?

Is it the accent?

That he looks like a Red Haired Pillsbury Dough Boy? 

The parade of indy musical acts nobody outside of a college dorm have ever heard of?

The on-set bar?  

Hmmm, perhaps its presence insinuates that one should be drunk before watching.

Whatever...

Since most of Corden's fans appear to come from the "college" demographic allow me to put this in the form of an SAT analogy.

James Corden is to late night as brick is to windshield.

If James Corden were to be compared to other late night hosts over the past decade the formula would go something like this:

Craig Ferguson on CBS = Conan O'Brien on NBC.

So in that vein, James Corden on CBS = Seth Meyers on NBC

Although that may be somewhat unfair to Seth Meyers as he is an actual comedian, just not very funny.

The smartest thing the producers have done in the intervening months is inject more of bandleader Reggie Watts into the show.  Watts is what I call a "subtle comic" meaning he doesn't have to go over the top to get a laugh which is in diametric opposition to the often contrived performance of Corden.

In short, you could have seen none of the episodes between the first and the fiftieth and missed nothing of consequence.  I'll give him this much, he's consistent.  Consistently bad.

His guests are largely forgettable generally coming from the second tier of the talk show circuit with the only exception being uninspired last stops on promotional tours.

Perhaps this is what CBS wanted.  A non-threatening shill devoid of any qualification for the position that will happily tow the corporate line without question.

If that's what America wants, you can have it.  Just don't delude yourself into thinking your being edgy or counterculture by watching Corden's show.

I'm Giving James Corden a week...

Ok, so I know the topic of late night talk shows is about as relevant as the width of men's neckties in the grand scheme of things but I have something of an investment so bear with me.

I haven't had pay TV for about 2 years now which means my choices for non-interactive visual media are fairly limited.  Yes I know, there's YouTube, XBMC, Hulu and Twitch to name a few but to me those are very solitary experiences.  

There's great content to be had but all of those options are to me more like checking a book out of a library than going to a movie.  I just like the idea that I'm watching the same thing at the same time as a lot of other people.  A shared experience.

So I'm weird, whatever...

When I had Satellite TV, I could care less about who was hosting a talk show on CBS.  When Conan O' Brien left for TBS, it was the only show I'd even think about watching.  Even then it wasn't a regular thing as he was at his best back when he was doing late nights at NBC (pre Tonight Show.)  At least in my opinion.

As I mentioned earlier, my choices have become a bit more limited as of late.  That means I had to give broadcast TV another look.  At some point I happened onto CBS' Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson.  I was an instant fan.  Ferguson was plain spoken, irreverent and a natural entertainer.  

What I liked about him was that he didn't take himself or his show too seriously.  It never felt scripted even when he was forced to interview yet another Hollywood airhead.   He had a habit of tearing up note cards before beginning an interview which was a signal that this was not going to be the same scripted diatribe you saw on every other talk show.  It was like listening in on a conversation between friends.  The celebrities loved it and so did I. 

Ferguson had a run of close to 10 years and developed a kind of cult following not unlike Conan O'Brien.  Late night TV is the purview of those not quite in step with normal society.  Yeah, that means the stoners and the sub culture types but it also means the 2nd shift worker and the entrepreneur for whom clocks and sleep are a damned inconvenience.

To see the difference in audiences just watch a few of Ferguson's reruns on YouTube then watch one of the early morning news/chat shows like the Today Show.   Those giggly, empty talking heads drive me insane but that's what the cheery 9 to 5 types demand. 

I most unequivocally do not...  I hate morning people.  If you're the type that thinks 9PM is late then you should either be writing sermons or milking cows for a living.  

Think I'm wrong?  Then think about this.  Technology didn't advance much till the 20th century, know why? The damned light bulb that's why!  Without night people, you day people would inherit a world in flames!

But as always, I digress...

In short Ferguson was our kind of people.  Funny, direct and entertaining without pretense

But nothing is forever...

Ferguson decided to end his late night tenure last year with the final episode of his Late Late show airing on December 19th.  There was much speculation as to his replacement as his run had proven to be the most successful of any show in his time slot on CBS. 

Back in November, America was officially introduced to the new host of the Late Late show in the person of one James Corden.  He made an appearance on David Letterman's Late show which airs in the timeslot immediately preceding the Late Late show.  Letterman's own Worldwide Pants production company was behind both. 

When Ferguson left it was announced that Corden's first show would air on March 23, 2015.   The intervening 3 months found CBS scrambling to find a succession of guest hosts to fill in.  It also meant Letterman's production company had to continue being on the hook for the filler shows till CBS officially took over with Corden.

During one of those filler shows, Letterman was interviewed by guest host Regis Philbin and expressed irritation with the delay saying, "Where is he? Why are we talking to you?" "There aren't that many shows. How bad does he want it? Where is he?"

While Letterman is known for a dry wit, the comment was not made in passing but rather part of a much longer rant that included, "This guy... where is he? Is he even in this country? Don't you think that's a question that should be answered - where is the guy? I do."

Work ethic aside, it's doubtful anyone was really waiting with baited breath for Corden's debut.  His initial appearance on Letterman was uninspiring and yawn inducing at best.  

Anyone would be nervous in his position but Corden seemed more interested in his personal life than his new gig.  At the time I remember commenting that as nice a guy as he may be, he was the wrong choice.  It seems that CBS believes the formula for success is nothing more than a funny accent from somewhere in the British Isles and a fancy set.

So that's the backstory and for the next week I'm going to be doing short reviews of the new Late Late Show every day.  I'm going to give the kid a chance but I'm not holding out much hope.

Pop Culture is no longer popular or culture

There's no accounting for taste...

Well at least not on the Internet.  Maybe I'm just a grumpy old man but all these new creative outlets have left popular culture in chaos.  What else can explain over 2 million YouTube views of a flatulent dog let alone that Miley Cyrus gets even one ITunes download. 

Even commercials are senseless.  I mean c'mon, 80's hair metal to sell a Honda Minivan?  I may be old enough to remember what MTV was like before Rap music but even I'm not that lame.  The rise of Reality TV in the last century certainly didn't help either.  Maybe it's the cause of all of this. 

It's got to be tough to be a TV writer these days.  The opportunities are few and far between when the big networks are crowded with such "gems" as Survivor and Big Brother.  

I guess we didn't know how good we had it when we were wondering who shot JR or whether Fonzie was going to make it over that shark. 

Maybe that's when popular culture jumped the shark.  Oh yeah, in case you don't know, the Happy Days episode where Fonzie jumps a shark on water skis is commonly regarded as the point where the series finally lost popularity with viewers.

It seems that was also the point where popular culture developed a severe case of ADD.  Take a look at your local TV schedule these days and you'll soon find that if you want something other than reality TV or infomercials there's going to be a monthly charge attached.

Ok, ok I know.  Ol' Grandpa hates that evil rock and roll and Elvis is corrupting our youth and you can get pregnant from sitting on a public toilet. 

Though before you judge me too harshly, let's look at a few examples of popular music  from the past few decades.  I happen to believe an era's music says more about its popular culture than any other medium.

1960's - Let's spend the night together, The Rolling Stones.   Risqué for its time but harmless.

1970's - Go Your OwnWay,  Fleetwood Mac.  At least we were thinking above the belt on this one.

1980's - I Still Haven't  found what I'm looking for, U2.   Maybe a bit cerebral ,not that it's a bad thing.

1990's - Smells likeTeen Spirit, Nirvana  A Ha!, there it is, I mean with a chorus of ...

Here we are now, entertain us
I feel stupid and contagious
Here we are now, entertain us

Hey, it's a great song and all but it might as well be the ADHD anthem.  Soon to be followed by a pop  culture confused by its own identity or a lack thereof.  Gender bending pop-stars pushing limits nobody cares about anymore and talentless hacks that even their peers can't stand.  I'm lookin' at you Bieber...

I'm not even going to bother with the 2000's, they're part of the problem with so-called popular tracks like "Poker Face" and "Give it 2 u" which never get above the bikini line let alone the belt...

Oh but the great equalizer that is the Internet, where anyone with a YouTube channel can be "discovered."  It's led to gushing pundits proclaiming the end of the "gatekeepers" and "curated" entertainment.  Evidenced by 2.7 million views of a bad fart joke.

Funny thing is that you're never going to see anyone get a Grammy or an Oscar based on YouTube views or ITunes downloads.

Maybe we need the gatekeepers.  For all their rumblings over piracy and copyright their real problem is that they  don't know how to read the public anymore.  It's true that business  concerns should never trump talent but we've gone too far in the other direction.  The entertainment industry has become  more flaky than a Wall Street broker with oil futures.

However, it's still a fact that nobody becomes successful without the blessings of the gatekeepers no matter how fickle  they are.  Some of them have even moved into the "New Media" space but in the end the new media is really just an extension of the same old construct.

That's a problem, because the gatekeepers have lost their focus by trying to entice a popular culture that doesn't know what it wants.  The result is a product only marginally better than YouTube fare.  It caters to the lowest common denominator and that part of the equation has gotten lower.

We're literally awash in cat videos, Jackass wannabes and bad movie trailers.  Hollywood is clueless, stuck in an endless cycle of formula sequels and kid friendly animation that would be better suited going straight to video.  They've become so bereft of creativity that any recent list of the top ten movies will undoubtedly include films based on either comic books or games.  

The rest usually involve vampires, werewolves or somebody's organs violently being removed from their body.  Let's not forget the new trend of "reboots" that Started with J.J. Abrams "Star Trek" and has moved on to 80's slasher flicks.    

Maybe I am too old but it seems I've managed to find a lot of things to like about every generation of popular culture.  Even those I wasn't around for. 

Something's different now.

Even with the overwhelming quantity of content it seems the quality has become insignificant.  Make no mistake, every era has had crap.  Face it, there was good reason why most of the hair metal bands didn't  manage to get past their first album.

Now imagine if all those bands were still around clogging up Pandora or Spotify.  You'd waste a lot of time wading through crap just to hear what you like. 

Art needs curation and entertainment deals with artists.  Pop culture is inextricably intertwined with art.   That means there needs to be some level of quality control.  Even if it runs against the whole "free and open" argument . 

Imagine the alternative. 

Would any museum be worth visiting if any hack with a paintbrush could throw up their paint by numbers portrait of Elvis?

Cord Cutting or A La' Carte, in the End it's All the Same

Article first published as Cord Cutting or A La' Carte, in the End it's All the Same on Technorati.

Last week Senator John McCain (R-AZ) took to the Senate floor with a proposal that seeks to lower your cable TV bill.   His proposal is to allow anyone who has cable or satellite television service to do something previously unheard of in the industry.  That is, only pay for what they want to watch.

A belief shared by McCain's colleague across the aisle, Senator Jay Rocefeller (D- VA)

"...rather than being able to pick smaller packages or choose the channels they want, consumers are still forced to purchase larger and larger packages of channels no matter how few they actually watch. This says to me that the market isn't working."

The Senate Commerce committee is scheduled to take up McCain's bill in a hearing on Tuesday (5-14.)

McCain's assertion is based on a solid premise.  Look at any cable or satellite TV provider and you find that all their programming is bundled into packages or tiers.  The only a la' carte options you have are for the so-called premium stations like HBO or Showtime which by themselves can cost an additional $10 a month or more and in some cases also come as part of a bundle.

Gone are the days of $20/mo basic cable.  A subscriber can easily find a bill of $50 or more per month with no premium channels.   Add HBO and a few HD channels and that bill is closer to $125.

In the end you ultimately end up subsidizing channels you don't watch.  That's because providers negotiate not with HBO or AMC but rather their parent companies like Viacom and Time Warner.  It's an all or nothing deal that can cause a disagreement over licensing fees on one channel to affect a dozen others.  That's why a tiff between a service like DirectTV and Viacom leaves subscribers with multiple blank channels instead of content. 

Cable industry lobbyists are against McCain's proposal claiming it's a "lose-lose" for both customers and providers as evidenced in an official statement from the National Cable and Telecommunications Association.

"As countless studies have demonstrated, subscription bundles offer a wider array of viewing options, increased programming diversity and better value than per channel options,"

Of course that assumes that the "wider array" is something you actually care to watch.  Even if you don't,  you're going to pay for it anyway and that's the logic of their claimed "win-win."

This is the rationale that's led to cord cutters who've turned primarily to online media sources like NetFlix and Hulu.  Unfortunately, legitimate online sources still can only offer a fraction of the content enjoyed by the traditional delivery model.  Unless you've got an HBO subscription, for example, you're not going to see "Game of Thrones" on the same day it airs unless you turn to illegitimate sources.

That's due to a reluctance of channel owners like Viacom to embrace online options that would lead to greater consumer choice but a less predictable revenue model.    It's flawed logic, however.

If you're a cord cutter it's probably not of any great consequence to you  about what happens to pay TV subscription rates but you're going to be affected all the same.   

With online bellwethers like YouTube launching paid channels it may seem like online TV options are poised to offer what traditional pay TV won't.    If the industry is forced into the a la' carte model, however, online TV will soon end up looking like it's broadcast predecessor.

You may be able to pick and choose from a few sources but likely run headlong into the same bundling schemes as traditional pay TV.  That's because the channels don't own the content, their parent company does and it's up to them to decide how it gets distributed. 

Add in the more targeted paid online options and soon you'll be paying as much if not more than if you'd never cut that cable.  Lest we forget data caps imposed by most Internet providers that could result in a nasty surprise in that bill if you enjoy HD content.

In short, the old guard of broadcast television has nothing to fear as one way or another we'll still end up paying more no matter how we choose to view their content.

Defiance, not so much

If you've been waiting for a TV series that looks like the redheaded stepchild of a trist between Babylon 5 and Halo then I may have something that fits the bill.

Monday April 15th saw the premiere of Defiance on the SYFY network following on the heels of the companion video game of the same name that launched 2 weeks earlier.  It's set in a near future where the Earth is besieged by bad guy aliens plunging the world into a Mad Max style post apocalyptic landscape with a few familiar features like a battered St. Louis' gateway arch thrown in for realism.

There's a few other alien races besides the big ugly bad guy aliens that live alongside the human survivors in a somewhat tenuous allegiance.  After all, the old adage of the enemy of my enemy and such and such applies here.  Thus we're presented with yet another Sci-Fi story using aliens and a post apocalyptic world as a metaphor for the human condition.

The video game is supposed to follow the storyline of the television series albeit in another location and is designed from the onset to be an MMO.  That means graphics are passable at best but acceptable if you buy into the whole media convergence thing that SYFY is trying to push with Defiance.

From the 2 hour pilot it appears we're going to spend a lot of time watching a multitude of antagonists scheming toward their own ends.  Somewhere toward the end of the episode, however, everyone will put aside their differences and come together in one giant Kumbaya  moment .  The result of which will be to repel yet another invasion by the big, ugly bad guy aliens that look like escapees from MechWarrior and an fantasy RPG.

During scenes depicting vistas in space or Aliens on the march the trademark SYFY production values shone through.  By that I mean cheap.  They looked like scenes out of a video game and considering the tie-in with Trion's game it's really no surprise that there's some cross-pollination. 

The most interesting thing about the whole franchise is trying to figure out whether the game supports the television series or vice versa.  From what I see it's the latter as the whole premise is tired and has been done better.  The only thing that makes Defiance different is the overt tie in with a video game.

The characters have no more depth than any other NPC in a video game in spite of how hard the writers try to make us care about them.  There's not a lot of room for plot development either unless they start getting wonky and unearth the Starship Enterprise under the Lincoln Memorial or something like that. 

I mean c'mon, let's face it, your plot is going to boil down to 4 things.

1. Racial tension (Babylon 5 copycat)

2. Exploring relationships between characters (kinda tough when they're basically just NPC's)

2. Finding the big super uber weapon to get rid of all those pesky big bad guy aliens 

3. Beating up on the big bad ugly aliens

I sincerely hope that Syfy isn't pinning their hopes on the fact that the series has a companion video game.  Cable stations have been doing companion web apps for a few years with series like Breaking Bad.  Thing is, apps don't make a bad series good and neither will a video game. 

By this time next year I doubt we'll remember Defiance in the same way we remember Babylon 5 or  Star Trek the Next Generation if we remember it at all.

Advertising to your affliction

Commercials annoy me.

"Yeah so what", you're likely saying to yourself right now...

If you have time on your hands like I do, you get to see a lot of ads pitching everything from luxury automobiles to breakfast cereal.  Of course the later the hour the more egregious the commercials become. 

Male enhancement and impotence cures show up the most frequently followed closely by well dressed lawyers pitching resolution via litigation.

All of those are the standard fare.  Even those products that promise to rectify men's...shortcomings. 

Most disgusting of all, however, are the ads from the pharmaceutical companies.  Regardless of how you feel about modern medicine, hawking prescription drugs like feminine hygiene products is something just short of criminal. 

"Ask your doctor" and "You don't have to suffer anymore" are common pitches.  Since when is it acceptable to create a demand for a controlled substance?  Is it wise to blithely wander into your doctor's office requesting medication without being sure of the affliction?  The commercials would make you think so.

How arrogant is that? The pharmaceuticals industry does the diagnosis making your doctor just another middleman.  I'd hope that rampant capitalism hasn't done the medical profession what it's done to our eating habits but I wouldn't hold your breath.  The practice of kickbacks and promotions given to physicians to favor one treatment option over another isn't as rare as we'd like it to be. 

With the advent of the Internet it seems self-diagnosis with a website as attending physician  has turned us all into hypochondriacs.  Every pain or discomfort is sure to have a miracle pill and all we have to do is make an appointment and ask for it.

Of course all the ads mention, "Ask your Doctor". 

Why?

If my doctor knows my physical condition and I don't have any medical training shouldn't he be the one prescribing treatments?  Who cares what a commercial says?  Why is it so important that I be aware of the names of prescription drugs and why do the drug companies feel the need to give them catchy names? 

So what's the point? 

Why does a company that makes drugs have a retail profit motive?  Need should dictate sales in medicine, not the other way around.  Commercials are explicitly designed to create a desire for a product.  In the case of prescription drugs that's a potentially unhealthy goal to say the least.

It's disgusting and highlights one of the primary flaws with the healthcare industry in the United States.  Personally, I don't believe healing should have a profit motive.  When you corrupt healthcare with greed both health and care are compromised.  There is no profit without sales and the ultimate goal of the salesman is to sell as much product as they can.  It's a goal inconsistent with medicine. 

Medicine should be more like the Red Cross than General Motors.  After all GM may charge you for antenna wax but the Red Cross will never charge you for a cot and a blanket when you need one. 

The worst part comes when we see our friends in the legal industry show up on late night TV again.  This time, however, it's not an auto accident or denied disability claim.  It's a class action against the pharmaceutical companies for injuries caused by their wares. 

Medicine isn't M&M's and shouldn't be marketed as such.  Pharmaceutical companies rush products to market often with inadequate testing and lax safeguards.  Competition may be the core of capitalism but it can be lethal to the unlucky patient receiving a recalled prescription.  Profit motives in business is fine, profit motives in healthcare at any level is a perversion.