Flash Gordon: Root for It To Get Better, or Delight in Its Failure?
Sunday August 19, 2007
This is one of those defining moments. I'm trying to decide whether I want to hope for the clumsy, clunky Flash Gordon reboot (Sci Fi, Fridays at 9 p.m. ET) to get better, or whether I want to laugh maliciously as it spirals down into the oblivion reserved for fatally flawed sci-fi shows that were bad ideas right from the beginning (like, say, Galactica 1980).
I mean, there's something sadistically fun (the devil on my left shoulder whispers to me) about coming back to a misbegotten show week after week and snickering at all of the ways in which it betrays the incompetence and cost-cutting of its creators. Surely it's okay for your soul to point and laugh, if what you're laughing at is hilariously bad TV, right?
And yet, the angel on my right shoulder assures me that I should be watching Flash Gordon in order to use sheer willpower, expended at my TV set while watching it, to make it get better. After all, it worked for Star Trek: The Next Generation, at least for a while. (You're welcome.)
Most critics were in agreement with my review, which, if you didn't read it, can be summarized by its final line, "Flash! Aaauugh!" Tom Shales, for example, wrote in the Washington Post that Flash "jumps the shark right out of the gate" -- never a good sign. The Reuters review joined me in seeing the basic problem as the show trying to be both dramatic and campy and failing at both, but was more generous with the visual appeal and the acting (which they deemed "serviceable"). The Sci Fi channel, meanwhile, announced that the Flash Gordon premiere was its "best series premiere telecast for 2007." As far as I can determine, this means it beat out Painkiller Jane.
The two episodes so far show some potential, and I've certainly seen worse. It'll probably make money (since it's obviously being filmed very cheaply) and there'll certainly be a DVD, if for no other reason than to compile Eric Johnson's shirtless scenes and Karen Cliche's skanky outfits into one convenient resource. But in the meantime I'll keep watching to see if it gets better. One of my angels will be happy either way.
I mean, there's something sadistically fun (the devil on my left shoulder whispers to me) about coming back to a misbegotten show week after week and snickering at all of the ways in which it betrays the incompetence and cost-cutting of its creators. Surely it's okay for your soul to point and laugh, if what you're laughing at is hilariously bad TV, right?
And yet, the angel on my right shoulder assures me that I should be watching Flash Gordon in order to use sheer willpower, expended at my TV set while watching it, to make it get better. After all, it worked for Star Trek: The Next Generation, at least for a while. (You're welcome.)
Most critics were in agreement with my review, which, if you didn't read it, can be summarized by its final line, "Flash! Aaauugh!" Tom Shales, for example, wrote in the Washington Post that Flash "jumps the shark right out of the gate" -- never a good sign. The Reuters review joined me in seeing the basic problem as the show trying to be both dramatic and campy and failing at both, but was more generous with the visual appeal and the acting (which they deemed "serviceable"). The Sci Fi channel, meanwhile, announced that the Flash Gordon premiere was its "best series premiere telecast for 2007." As far as I can determine, this means it beat out Painkiller Jane.
The two episodes so far show some potential, and I've certainly seen worse. It'll probably make money (since it's obviously being filmed very cheaply) and there'll certainly be a DVD, if for no other reason than to compile Eric Johnson's shirtless scenes and Karen Cliche's skanky outfits into one convenient resource. But in the meantime I'll keep watching to see if it gets better. One of my angels will be happy either way.



Comments
Never mind about flash gordon when will scifi network be airing season four of Doctor who? And the christmas special Voyage of the dammed. Lisa bowman