Skip to main content

Bad Show, but . . .


Ever remember seeing something on television or a movie that was kind of terrible, but kind of intriguing at the same time. Sometimes it can be chalked up to youth. Shows that I thought were great when I was nine or ten, somehow didn’t hold up very well once I reached adulthood. One example of this is the Time Tunnel, an Irwin Allen production. In fact, you can pretty much lump all of Irwin Allen’s 1960’s TV shows into this category. But the Time Tunnel looked awesome to my eight or nine year old eyes. I even learned a bit of history along the way. The show left fond reminiscences in my memories. I probably had not seen an episode in thirty years when I rewatched the pilot a couple of years ago. I made some observations: the show really did look good. One thing I will say for Irwin Allen, he pulled out all the stops to make the special effects realistic and the sets were a thing of beauty. Just look at the design of the tunnel itself. It’s fantastic. The other observation is that the stories kind of suck. The two main protagonists are supposed to be scientists, yet they do things that no scientist would ever do and at times they are dumb as posts. I guess it wasn’t nearly as good as I remembered.


When I was about twelve, I started watching a different show: UFO. The special effects looked cheesy even to my 12 year old eyes. Nowhere near as good as the stuff Irwin Allen churned out. I knew it wasn’t great television, but I still kind of liked it. Though I must admit, what my adolescent brain probably liked most about it was Lieutenant Ellis and the other girls in their sexy uniforms. I recently watched some of the old episodes and had to laugh at the ridiculous dialog and occasional overacting, and yes, the special effects look just as bad today as they did back then.

Then we have another category: A show that I saw as an adult and knew it was bad . . . but still kind of liked it in a bizarre twisted frame of mind. A guilty pleasure, if you will. For an example of this, I choose Lifeforce which came out in 1985. This film had a few things going for it: It had some good actors in it. It had excellent special effects including some cool practical effects. It had stirring music by Henry Mancini (no really, it was superb). But then we come to the down side. As I mentioned, there were good actors in it. Unfortunately that does not include the leads. The word ‘wooden’ comes to mind, but I don’t want to insult trees. The lead actress did not even speak English when filming began, and had to learn her lines phonetically. I guess they thought no one would notice, as she spends most of the movie naked. The plot? I think they had a couple of plot ideas and they couldn’t decide which ones to use so they just threw them all in a blender. I can imagine the production team meetings: “Let’s have space vampires. No, maybe make them zombies. No, let’s have an apocalypse story. A love story? A blood bath? Several blood baths? Oh, that astronaut we had in the first scene . . . let’s bring him back near the end of the movie for no reason. Whatever, as long as we have lots of exploding bodies.” I am not saying I would ever buy this movie, nor will I probably even watch it again, but it does hold a sort of weird fascination.

Some movies are so bad that they are good. Lifeforce does not quite make the cut. By that I mean, it is not bad enough. For that you need to look at the movies of Ed Wood and others like him. His magnum opus: Plan Nine from Outer Space, has been voted the worst movie ever made. When I told my son we were going to watch it, he asked me why on earth you would want to watch the worst movie ever made. I said, “just watch. You’ll understand.” Two minutes in, he was rolling on the floor with laughter. See, I am a good father. I taught my son what was important.

(My novel Star Liner, is now available as an ebook through Copypastapublishing.com, or the other usual online sources. For those who like to turn physical pages, the paperback will be out soon).

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Child of the . . .

  What was it like to grow up as a child in the 90s? How about the 1940’s? Thinking about a child growing up in each different decade, conjures up images in my mind. But that is all they are: images. I was a child in the 1960’s. I can tell you what it felt like to be growing up in the 60’s and 70’s, but what it felt like to me is not what the history books remember. History will tell you the 60’s was about the Viet Nam War, civil rights, and the space race. The 70’s was Disco and Watergate. I remember being aware of all of those things, but to me this era was about finding time to play with my friends, something I probably share with a child of any decade. It was about navigating the social intricacies of school.   It was about the Beatles, Three Dog Night, The Moody Blues, The Animals, Jefferson Airplane. It was Bullwinkle, the Wonderful World of Color, and Ed Sullivan. There are things that a kid pays attention to that the grown-ups don’t. Then there are things the adults ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Bureaucrats

  I am one of those nameless, faceless bureaucrats. Yes, that is my job. Though I actually have a name; I even am rumored to have a face. Bureau is the French word for desk, so you could say bureaucrats are “desk people.” In short, I work for the government. I sometimes have to deliver unpleasant news to a taxpayer. I sometimes have to tell them that the deed they recorded won’t work and they will have to record another one with corrections. Or we can’t process their deed until they pay their taxes. I can understand why some of these things upset people. The thing is, we don’t decide these things. It is not the bureaucrats that make the laws. The legislature writes the laws. We are required to follow the law.   If you are going to get mad at someone, get mad at the legislature. Or maybe get mad at the voters who voted the legislature in (That’s you, by the way). The same thing happens when the voters vote in a new district, or vote for a bond, or a new operating levy for an ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Telephonicus domesticus

Alexander Graham Bell’s telephone from 1877 bears about as much similarity to the modern smart phone as an abacus bears to a PC or Mac. There are just about as many leaps in technology in both cases. It’s funny how a major jump in technology happens (like the actual invention of the phone). Then there are some refinements over a few years or decades until it gets to a useful stable form. Then it stays virtually the same for many years with only minor innovations. The telephone was virtually unchanged from sometime before I was born until I was about forty. Push-buttons were replacing the rotary dial, but that was about it. (Isn’t it interesting though that when we call someone, we still call it “dialing?” I have never seen a dial on a cell phone.) Cell phones were introduced and (once they became cheap enough) they changed the way we phone each other. New advancements followed soon after, texting and then smart phones. Personal computers were also becoming commonplace and wer...
Post a Comment
Read more