A dog skull on a stake: the manliest science fiction movies of all time
Not to put too fine a point on it, but science fiction has never been what you would describe as the manliest of genres. It tends to have people dressed in funny and non-manly ways (check out Sean Connery wearing a Red Diaper in Zardoz if you don't believe me), involve extended nerdiness, and advocate social positions which are the antithesis of mainstream male-ness in early 21st century America. When you find a seriously manly "sci-fi" movie, it is usually in one of those crossover genres like horror or fantasy (or both, it's hard to get much manlier than Bruce Campbell in Army of Darkness). But there are a few paragons of the Manly in any genre, and so I thought I would go ahead and select "The Purple Duck's Manliest Science Fiction Movies of All Time."
What was it about the early 1980's?
What was it about the early 1980's that seemed so full of despair in light of making snowballs during a nuclear winter, and yet brought us MTV and silly TV shows that we are embarrassed to have even watched? Growing up during this time I, like many of my school-mates felt the awesome sense of the futility of life after we saw The Day After. And if Ronald Reagan and the Soviets didn't blow us up, well then we always had to look forward to computers doing it for us like in Wargames. So many of us developed the attitude that if the world was going to blow up, why were we wasting our time at school? It's not like things got better the next year with the first (big) PG-13 movie Red Dawn, even less of a reason to be at school. Especially if our hopes of freedom lay in the hands of Patrick Swayze.
However we had New Wave music, the growth of Rap (remember the Fat Boys?), The Brat Pack, oh I could go on. Throughout this time there was a general sense of the world being chaotic and disaster looming overhead. But I also remember this sense of innocence and silliness that I don't see today. Being a kid back then, tattoos, piercings, and sexual openness were very rare things. Look at the youth of today and they have been exposed to so much more that affects them and their thinking in a more direct way. I suppose one could argue that everything is relative, but if that's the case how much farther will kids go twenty years from now? In the 80's parents worried about their daughters being influenced by Madonna -- look back at how girls who loved Madonna dressed -- Now compare that with how mom's dress and how their daughters emulate Christina, Brittany, Jessica & Paris.
Ah, the innocence of the 80's gave us such sophisticated TV shows as Square Pegs, to help us deal with the Fast Times. Or Whiz Kids for those of us who were afraid of the War Games being played by the politicians. Technology was continuing to grow and this weird Science would even give birth to the Misfits of Science. I couldn't even imagine such TV shows being given the green light these days.
Maybe it was that overwhelming sense of dread that allowed us to more fully enjoy the 80's in an innocent way that compared to today makes the 80's look like the 1950's. Oh and just in case you doubt that some shows made back then would never be made today, I present my last piece of evidence, the smoking gun if you will (and a show I did watch and enjoy) perhaps you also watched it?
However we had New Wave music, the growth of Rap (remember the Fat Boys?), The Brat Pack, oh I could go on. Throughout this time there was a general sense of the world being chaotic and disaster looming overhead. But I also remember this sense of innocence and silliness that I don't see today. Being a kid back then, tattoos, piercings, and sexual openness were very rare things. Look at the youth of today and they have been exposed to so much more that affects them and their thinking in a more direct way. I suppose one could argue that everything is relative, but if that's the case how much farther will kids go twenty years from now? In the 80's parents worried about their daughters being influenced by Madonna -- look back at how girls who loved Madonna dressed -- Now compare that with how mom's dress and how their daughters emulate Christina, Brittany, Jessica & Paris.
Ah, the innocence of the 80's gave us such sophisticated TV shows as Square Pegs, to help us deal with the Fast Times. Or Whiz Kids for those of us who were afraid of the War Games being played by the politicians. Technology was continuing to grow and this weird Science would even give birth to the Misfits of Science. I couldn't even imagine such TV shows being given the green light these days.
Maybe it was that overwhelming sense of dread that allowed us to more fully enjoy the 80's in an innocent way that compared to today makes the 80's look like the 1950's. Oh and just in case you doubt that some shows made back then would never be made today, I present my last piece of evidence, the smoking gun if you will (and a show I did watch and enjoy) perhaps you also watched it?
Doctor Who: So what was it all about?
First, and most important: many thanks to Billie for inviting me to be a guest blogger.
Warning: this contains spoilers for most of the Doctor Who Ninth Doctor episodes, including the finale Bad Wolf/The Parting Of The Ways.
Warning: this contains spoilers for most of the Doctor Who Ninth Doctor episodes, including the finale Bad Wolf/The Parting Of The Ways.
Primer: the little movie that could
Now, see, this is what you get when you're into sci-fi and you click on Netflix recommendations.
Lost: Thoughts on Seasons Past
For today's guest blog, I thought I'd do a little post-season reflection on how Lost, Season Two compared to Season One. But first, I'd like to thank Billie for asking me to be a guest blogger! It's an honor and a privilege.
Throughout the second season of Lost, I continually experienced a vague sense of dissatisfaction. Even though I usually found things to enjoy in each episode, overall something just felt off. I wasn't enjoying the episodes as much as I did in the first season. It wasn't until January and "The 23rd Psalm" that I felt we'd finally gotten an episode that was on par with some of the best episodes from the first season. After that point, the season got a little better with "The Long Con," "One of Them," and "Maternity Leave." Then near the end we had some episodes I thought were outstanding ("Lockdown," "Two for the Road," and "?"). But in general, when all was said and done, I just didn't feel that Season Two quite lived up to Season One.
Since the finale, I've been trying to put my finger on what exactly didn't work for me in Season Two. Some of it has to do with the pacing of the story versus the pacing of the scheduling. Given that the events of the story happened so close together (about 23 days were covered in S2), I might have enjoyed it more if it had unfolded over a shorter period of real time. But I think what it really comes down to for me is the shift in the second season from focusing on the mysteries of the characters to focusing on the mysteries of the island.
The Season One Approach
In Season One, the stories were about how the Lostaways dealt with the crash, with each other, and with their own demons. The characters are why I fell in love with Lost. I loved seeing their back stories unfold and watching how their past decisions affected their choices on the island. The ever-evolving dynamics between the characters were fascinating. Some weird island happenings were thrown in for flavor, but usually these mysteries served more as a means of exploring a given character's psychology and issues.
Take the hatch, for instance. Sure, I was initially curious about what the heck it was, where it went, and what it meant. But in retrospect, it quickly became a lot more interesting because of how Locke reacted to it. I didn't really need to know what the hatch was. I just enjoyed how it let us explore Locke's warped sense of destiny and how far he was willing to go to find his destiny. His actions served as a catalyst for Boone's death and brought to a head the Jack/Locke, reason/faith conflict. At the end of the season, part of me was hoping they'd show us what was in the hatch, but part of me was fine with not knowing. The important thing was that the hatch's existence had led to some great character exploration.
The Season Two Shift
In Season Two, however, the island mysteries moved front and center. The stories this year emphasized questions about the Dharma Initiative, the Others, and their relationship to the hatch and the island. Moreover, a whole world of information and possible clues started appearing in venues outside the show. It started with last summer's Oceanic web sites and progressed to more websites, Hanso Foundation commercials, novels written by characters we've never met, online interactive games, and appearances by Hanso Foundation "representatives" on late night television. I have to admit, I find some of this new information intriguing to a certain extent, especially when presented in a Lost episode. I'm certainly curious about many aspects of Mystery Island and why the Lostaways are really there. But I'm a bit irked that this shift in focus to the island seems to have come largely at the expense of good character stories.
In Season Two, the effect of all the island wackiness on the Lostaways and the way they deal with each other often seemed to get lost in the shuffle. At first it seemed like the "to push or not to push the button" issue would lead to more opportunities to explore Locke's and Jack's psychologies and their conflict. Instead, they spent half the season sitting around the hatch and sniping at each other. Locke was obsessed. Jack was angry. They fought about guns. There wasn't much more to it. Not until the arrival of Henry (more than half way through the season) did the effect of the button on Locke and others really came back into play. For awhile there, I was actually bored with the whole Dharma/hatch/button/Others thing because we weren't getting any new information and the island weirdness wasn't leading to any compelling character dynamics. Henry and his mind games definitely kicked things into a higher gear for the back half of the season.
Character Development
Another thing I think hurt Season Two is that the character back stories just weren't as effectively integrated with the island tales. For most of the first season episodes, the character's flashback not only revealed something new or interesting about the character, but it directly tied into how they were behaving in the "present" and moved the story forward. In some cases, we got to see the characters grow, because when faced with similar circumstances, they were making different choices. The flashback/present integration didn't work for every episode, but it worked more often than it didn't. In Season Two, the opposite was true. In many cases, it felt like the writers wanted to answer some of the character questions raised in the first season, but couldn't think of a good way to tie that bit of past story into present actions. As a result, some of the best overall episodes for the season were those that focused on the entirely new characters (Ana Lucia, Eko) rather than our old favorites.
Maybe it was easier to do integrated, character-based stories in the first season, because we didn't know who anyone was or what their issues were. But after those first 44 days, we now feel like we know the characters and what motivates them. Or at least the writers must feel that way. Because we really didn't get any new insight into our core characters this past season. We've filled in some of the blanks in their stories, but we don't really know them any better and it doesn't feel like they've made any personal progress on the island. In fact, several of the characters feel like they are backsliding (Locke, Jack, Sawyer, Charlie) or stagnating (Kate, Claire, Hurley). Perhaps I shouldn't expect much personal growth over the span of 23 days, but after Season One, where we were treated to people facing their demons to a certain extent and growing a little, the Lostaways in Season Two felt a bit one-note.
Looking Forward...
I know for many viewers the island mysteries and possibly getting answers to those questions are the bread and butter of the Lost experience. So I imagine, for these folks, a season that brought a lot more information about the island and its mysteries was an improvement on the first season. (Or perhaps not, since it also brought a lot more questions.) But for me, the island mysteries are just icing on the cake, not the main course.
Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed Season Two, and there were definitely some episodes that I'll want to re-watch repeatedly. I did get pretty excited by the black light map on the hatch blast door. And I can't deny that I'm curious about who the Others are, what their purpose on the island is, and what they are planning to do with Jack, Kate, and Sawyer.
Still, for Season Three, what I'm really hoping for is not so much answers to those questions, but stories that let us once again explore our favorite characters, what motivates them, and what fuels their current choices and growth on the island. If the Others and their actions provide the means to tell those stories in a compelling way, then bring on the island mysteries! Otherwise, I'm hoping the writers dial back a bit on the craziness that is the island and return to what made the show special for me in the first place: the characters.
Throughout the second season of Lost, I continually experienced a vague sense of dissatisfaction. Even though I usually found things to enjoy in each episode, overall something just felt off. I wasn't enjoying the episodes as much as I did in the first season. It wasn't until January and "The 23rd Psalm" that I felt we'd finally gotten an episode that was on par with some of the best episodes from the first season. After that point, the season got a little better with "The Long Con," "One of Them," and "Maternity Leave." Then near the end we had some episodes I thought were outstanding ("Lockdown," "Two for the Road," and "?"). But in general, when all was said and done, I just didn't feel that Season Two quite lived up to Season One.
Since the finale, I've been trying to put my finger on what exactly didn't work for me in Season Two. Some of it has to do with the pacing of the story versus the pacing of the scheduling. Given that the events of the story happened so close together (about 23 days were covered in S2), I might have enjoyed it more if it had unfolded over a shorter period of real time. But I think what it really comes down to for me is the shift in the second season from focusing on the mysteries of the characters to focusing on the mysteries of the island.
The Season One Approach
In Season One, the stories were about how the Lostaways dealt with the crash, with each other, and with their own demons. The characters are why I fell in love with Lost. I loved seeing their back stories unfold and watching how their past decisions affected their choices on the island. The ever-evolving dynamics between the characters were fascinating. Some weird island happenings were thrown in for flavor, but usually these mysteries served more as a means of exploring a given character's psychology and issues.
Take the hatch, for instance. Sure, I was initially curious about what the heck it was, where it went, and what it meant. But in retrospect, it quickly became a lot more interesting because of how Locke reacted to it. I didn't really need to know what the hatch was. I just enjoyed how it let us explore Locke's warped sense of destiny and how far he was willing to go to find his destiny. His actions served as a catalyst for Boone's death and brought to a head the Jack/Locke, reason/faith conflict. At the end of the season, part of me was hoping they'd show us what was in the hatch, but part of me was fine with not knowing. The important thing was that the hatch's existence had led to some great character exploration.
The Season Two Shift
In Season Two, however, the island mysteries moved front and center. The stories this year emphasized questions about the Dharma Initiative, the Others, and their relationship to the hatch and the island. Moreover, a whole world of information and possible clues started appearing in venues outside the show. It started with last summer's Oceanic web sites and progressed to more websites, Hanso Foundation commercials, novels written by characters we've never met, online interactive games, and appearances by Hanso Foundation "representatives" on late night television. I have to admit, I find some of this new information intriguing to a certain extent, especially when presented in a Lost episode. I'm certainly curious about many aspects of Mystery Island and why the Lostaways are really there. But I'm a bit irked that this shift in focus to the island seems to have come largely at the expense of good character stories.
In Season Two, the effect of all the island wackiness on the Lostaways and the way they deal with each other often seemed to get lost in the shuffle. At first it seemed like the "to push or not to push the button" issue would lead to more opportunities to explore Locke's and Jack's psychologies and their conflict. Instead, they spent half the season sitting around the hatch and sniping at each other. Locke was obsessed. Jack was angry. They fought about guns. There wasn't much more to it. Not until the arrival of Henry (more than half way through the season) did the effect of the button on Locke and others really came back into play. For awhile there, I was actually bored with the whole Dharma/hatch/button/Others thing because we weren't getting any new information and the island weirdness wasn't leading to any compelling character dynamics. Henry and his mind games definitely kicked things into a higher gear for the back half of the season.
Character Development
Another thing I think hurt Season Two is that the character back stories just weren't as effectively integrated with the island tales. For most of the first season episodes, the character's flashback not only revealed something new or interesting about the character, but it directly tied into how they were behaving in the "present" and moved the story forward. In some cases, we got to see the characters grow, because when faced with similar circumstances, they were making different choices. The flashback/present integration didn't work for every episode, but it worked more often than it didn't. In Season Two, the opposite was true. In many cases, it felt like the writers wanted to answer some of the character questions raised in the first season, but couldn't think of a good way to tie that bit of past story into present actions. As a result, some of the best overall episodes for the season were those that focused on the entirely new characters (Ana Lucia, Eko) rather than our old favorites.
Maybe it was easier to do integrated, character-based stories in the first season, because we didn't know who anyone was or what their issues were. But after those first 44 days, we now feel like we know the characters and what motivates them. Or at least the writers must feel that way. Because we really didn't get any new insight into our core characters this past season. We've filled in some of the blanks in their stories, but we don't really know them any better and it doesn't feel like they've made any personal progress on the island. In fact, several of the characters feel like they are backsliding (Locke, Jack, Sawyer, Charlie) or stagnating (Kate, Claire, Hurley). Perhaps I shouldn't expect much personal growth over the span of 23 days, but after Season One, where we were treated to people facing their demons to a certain extent and growing a little, the Lostaways in Season Two felt a bit one-note.
Looking Forward...
I know for many viewers the island mysteries and possibly getting answers to those questions are the bread and butter of the Lost experience. So I imagine, for these folks, a season that brought a lot more information about the island and its mysteries was an improvement on the first season. (Or perhaps not, since it also brought a lot more questions.) But for me, the island mysteries are just icing on the cake, not the main course.
Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed Season Two, and there were definitely some episodes that I'll want to re-watch repeatedly. I did get pretty excited by the black light map on the hatch blast door. And I can't deny that I'm curious about who the Others are, what their purpose on the island is, and what they are planning to do with Jack, Kate, and Sawyer.
Still, for Season Three, what I'm really hoping for is not so much answers to those questions, but stories that let us once again explore our favorite characters, what motivates them, and what fuels their current choices and growth on the island. If the Others and their actions provide the means to tell those stories in a compelling way, then bring on the island mysteries! Otherwise, I'm hoping the writers dial back a bit on the craziness that is the island and return to what made the show special for me in the first place: the characters.
Voyage to the bottom of the ratings
I am pleased to be appearing for the first time as a guest blogger on Billie's Blog, especially since I was initially stumped about what to write about. The problem is a simple one, all too often I feel like Billie is reading my mind with her writing. We seem to agree on most science fiction and have for many years now.
The Death of Deadwood
I've just heard that HBO is planning to cancel Shakespeare in the Mud after its third season airs. Only twelve more episodes, and possibly a TV movie. That's all we're getting, folks.Alias versus La Femme Nikita
[Written in June 2006 for a now defunct web magazine.]When Alias debuted in 2001, many fans of La Femme Nikita were outraged and angry by what they felt was a clear case of major league rip-off. I wasn't one of those fans. In 2001, I hadn't seen a single episode of Nikita.
But I was immediately in love with Alias. It is an amazingly strong, dramatic spy thriller with:
-- a Buffy-like kick-ass heroine (Sydney)
-- a gorgeous French leading man (Vaughn)
-- a wry, experienced, expressionless super agent (Jack)
-- Sydney's villainous, shuddery boss (Sloane)
-- Sydney's dragon lady agent mother (Irina)
-- Sydney's friend and sounding board (Dixon)
-- and a brilliant computer nerd (Marshall).
In the summer of 2005, one of my readers strongly recommended that I try La Femme Nikita, and fortunately, I listened to her. Although it started more slowly than Alias and many of the early episodes weren't that good, Nikita gradually pulled me in. By the time I reached season two, I was crazy about it. And I finally understood why so many Nikita fans were so deeply pissed off about Alias.
Because Nikita is an amazingly strong, dramatic spy thriller with:
-- a Buffy-like kick-ass heroine (Nikita)
-- a gorgeous French-Canadian leading man (Michael)
-- a wry, experienced, expressionless super agent (also Michael)
-- Nikita's villainous, shuddery boss (Operations)
-- Operations' dragon lady second-in-command (Madeline)
-- Nikita's friend and sounding board (Walter)
-- and a brilliant computer nerd (Birkoff).
Can you see where I'm going with this?
Each show ran for four full seasons, followed by an abbreviated fifth season. That's a pretty interesting coincidence. Alias was canceled abruptly in the middle of its fifth season. Nikita ended unexpectedly with its fourth; fan reaction and save-our-show campaigns brought it back for a brief fifth season.
There were many differences, of course. Alias was on ABC. It had a bigger budget, and it showed. Nikita aired on the USA network as well as many other stations all over the world, and was filmed in Toronto. Since Nikita ended its run in 2001 when Alias began, Alias was able to tap into the best of Nikita (I won't use the term "ripped off") and avoid some of its mistakes.
I love both shows. Alias has its strengths. Nikita has its strengths. Yes, I prefer one over the other; I finally came down on one side. I'll eventually tell you which one, and why. But first, I'm going to do a side-by-side comparison.
Sydney versus Nikita
As far as heroines go, Alias wins, hands down. I'm extremely fond of Nikita herself, played with heart and verve by the strikingly beautiful and athletic Peta Wilson. But Jennifer Garner was the stronger actress, and Sydney Bristow a more interesting character. Sydney was why we watched.
Nikita was something of a cipher. When we first met her, she was young and homeless, thrown out by her mother. We never learned her last name. During the first half of season one, Nikita had something of a Pygmalion/Galatea relationship with her trainer and mentor, Michael, and he told her what to do. Nikita constantly led with her heart, and it constantly got her into trouble.
Sydney, on the other hand, kicked major butt from the start of the first episode. Heroic, charming, athletic, brilliant, emotional, and sexy, Sydney was the ultimate heroine, and Jennifer Garner was perfect for the part.
I think this difference was illuminated by their, pardon the expression, aliases. The exotic wigs and cocktail dresses that Jennifer Garner wore on Alias were so special that they became a trademark of the series. Peta Wilson also wore some stunning and exotic outfits while undercover on Nikita, but it wasn't what made Nikita special. And the few times she wore a wig, it never quite worked.
Michael versus Vaughn... and Jack
My favorite character on Alias, other than Sydney, was Sydney's father, super agent Jack Bristow (Victor Garber). From the very first episode, Jack's expressionless poker face and dry sarcasm just reeled me in. Jack's love for Sydney and the way it developed from estrangement into closeness was the emotional core of Alias.
Don't get me wrong. I liked our romantic lead Vaughn (Michael Vartan), too. At first too much of a boy scout, the utterly gorgeous Vaughn developed some interesting darkness over the course of the series... but possibly not enough. A recent article on Salon.com referred to Vaughn as "chronically boring." I wouldn't go that far -- I still wanted Sydney and Vaughn to live happily ever after together in the end -- but I think the writer had a point. After the dissolution of SD-6 and the consummation of his relationship with Sydney, Vaughn was never as exciting as he could have been.
Which brings me to Michael (Roy Dupuis) on Nikita. It seems obvious to me that both Jack and Vaughn were based on different aspects of the character of Michael. Michael was cold, expressionless, mysterious... romantic, and utterly gorgeous. Michael was an extremely strong leading man, and the writers wrote for him. The character of Michael was the focus of Nikita, much as Sydney Bristow was the focus of Alias.
When it comes right down to it, I love Jack. But I love Michael more.
The love angle
When I was deeply into Sydney's undercover mission at SD-6 during the first two seasons of Alias, I kept wanting Sydney and Vaughn to disregard everything and have a reckless, passionate affair. I was so disappointed that they never did. One thing I loved about Nikita is that it is exactly what happened with Michael and Nikita. It was like wish fulfillment.
Let's face it. The Sydney/Vaughn romance was a pale thing compared to Michael and Nikita, star-crossed lovers extraordinaire. Imprisoned by Section One, ordered to have sex with others in the line of duty, working together but forbidden literally on the pain of death to get emotionally involved, Michael and Nikita defied their keepers and fell in love anyway. Their clandestine affair eventually became their reason to live, and our reason to watch.
How did they keep that love affair so vital for five seasons? Part of it was that Roy Dupuis and Peta Wilson had some major chemistry going on, and the relationship built so slowly. For a long time, there were meaningful glances, brief conversations with undertones, making love... but only undercover, and under orders. For a very long time, I had no idea how Michael truly felt about Nikita. Michael is an emotionally dysfunctional hero, distant and damaged. In the early seasons, Michael knew that Nikita loved him and he cruelly manipulated her emotions more than once in the line of duty. But later, he risked death just for one hour alone with her. What can I tell you? I'm a sucker for stuff like that.
Frankly, the most interesting romantic couple on Alias wasn't Sydney and Vaughn. It was by far and away Sydney's parents, CIA agent Jack Bristow and KGB assassin Irina Derevko. The Jack/Irina relationship began with treachery, since Irina originally married Jack under orders so that she could spy on him. Their strong emotional bond was just fascinating, especially when they were trying to kill each other. The only person that Jack loved more than Irina was their daughter, Sydney.
Section One versus Spy Family
It might not be entirely fair to do a comparison here, because on Alias, we went through SD-6, the CIA, and APO. But on Nikita, there was only Section One.
Section One, "the most covert anti-terrorist organization on the planet," ostensibly did good while operating under a mandate of pure evil. The operatives of Section One were recruited from death row, and forced to perform or die; no one got out of Section One alive. Section One was personified by the villainous Operations (Eugene Robert Glazer), a man who ordered cancellation for bad guys, innocent people, and his own operatives as easily as he ordered dinner and a prostitute.
SD-6, run by the nefarious Arvin Sloane (Ron Rifkin), had something of the flavor of Section One. SD-6 pretended to be a covert branch of the CIA, but was in fact part of an evil alliance; when Sydney discovered this fact, she became a double agent for the real CIA in order to bring down Sloane. But the SD-6 plot ended in the middle of season two, and the setting shifted to the CIA. I have never understood why they did that, because the SD-6 story was a particularly strong one. I read somewhere that the audience found SD-6 confusing. I didn't find it confusing. In fact, I wonder if Alias just never recovered from the loss of SD-6. It was never quite the same afterward.
Two of the strongest characters on both shows strongly resembled each other. They were Section One's second-in-command, Madeline (Alberta Watson), and Sydney's mother, Irina (Lena Olin). Both were women of a certain age. Both were gorgeous, brilliant, ruthless, and duplicitous. I gotta say, too, that I just realized that their fates were similar. Coincidence? I don't think so.
I loved the darkness and paranoia of Section One, and the forbidden romance between Michael and Nikita. It was what made Nikita unique. But I also loved the complex relationships of the extended spy family on Alias: Sydney and her parents, Jack and Irina; Sydney's half-sister Nadia and her father Arvin Sloane; Irina's evil sisters Katya and Yelena. I used to fantasize that Sark was a relative, too. Wouldn't that have been fun?
How they ended
I gotta say that I think Alias had the better ending.
Alias started out phenomenally well. The pilot was extraordinary television, and the first two seasons were outstanding. Seasons three and four, though... not so much. Season five began badly, but they pulled out all the stops and created an ending worthy of the series. (Go read my episode review!)
Nikita was different. It started slowly with not so good episodes, but by season two, it was going strong. It got better and better until it peaked in the middle of season four. And then it got canceled, and it was as if the air went out of it. They rebounded with a good resolution of the story in the final episodes of season five, though.
Which was better?
Which do I like better, Alias or Nikita? They both have their strong points, as outlined above. And I haven't stopped loving Alias by any means, especially the first two seasons. Hey, if you like action more, Alias may be your cup of tea.
But I gotta say, I think Nikita is better. Or maybe I just love it more. Nikita is purer, more focused, much darker, and infinitely more romantic, since the Michael/Nikita relationship is the core of the series. I'm a romantic. What can I say.
---
Billie Doux loves good television and spends way too much time writing about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)