Star Wars as Cultural Phenomenon: Scrubs and Phineas and Ferb

Scrubs is one of those shows that I rarely watch on purpose but always enjoy when I run across it by accident.

"My Two Dads" pits Dr. Dorian's two mentors against each other. Dr. Cox, naturally, is Ben Kenobi (all in white). Dr. Kelso is Darth Vader, all in black!

Scrubs is a natural recipient of Star Wars iconography. The essence of the show is Zach Dorian's imaginative responses to everyday life, an imagination that is heavily informed by popular culture. He demonstrates a true mix of high, low, urban, and everything else culture, distilled into one mindset.

The comparison of Dr. Cox to Kenobi and Dr. Kelso to Vader is doubly interesting because it remains flexible. Just as Vader proves ambiguous in later movies, Dr. Kelso proves to have multiple sides. His bottom-line ideology is based on reality: treating patients costs. Dr. Cox, although the more likable . . . ah . . . appealing man, is too adamant, too much a zealot. While adopting Dr. Cox's patient-oriented philosophy, Zach eventually becomes more well-rounded than his chosen mentor; his compassion will eventually enfold even Dr. Kelso.

The imagery is great! As Zach says, "It's an old story." And I love Dr. Cox's beard!!

I had never seen Phineas and Ferb. Ah, the life of a person without cable. 

My favorite part of "The Chronicles of Meap" is when the evil (random) carpet guy keeps saying, "But that's another back-story. Well, that's another back-story." It reminds me of superheroes--you want to "get" this character? Here's a billion back-stories!

I also like Ferb's British accent: "Well, it occurs to me that perhaps not all of the modifications I made are technically street legal." And I love Phineas's nonchalant attitude towards being threatened: "Hi!" 

There's multiple sci-fi references: Back to the Future, Star Wars (of course), and Star Trek (slingshot around the sun, universal translator) plus ET. Regarding Star Wars, there is the non-round space station, "I am NOT your father," not to mention the Yoda-like fighting of Meap!

Like any good cultural phenomenon, Star Wars has seeped into our lives; although this list has addressed many deliberate uses of Star Wars, it ends with shows that take the movie's influence for granted. Doesn't everybody know what a light-saber is?

Star Wars Visits X-Files

"Small Potatoes" and "Jose Chung's From Outer Space" are two of X-Files' funniest episodes.

Darin Morgan stars in "Small Potatoes" (written by Vince Gilligan) and wrote "Jose Chung's" (starring, well, everybody). Morgan's stories inject an everyman quality into X-Files, even into the edgy Mulder.

"Small Potatoes" begins with multiple Star Wars references (we even get to hear the theme: da dum dadada DA dum). After all, Eddie "wooed" his high school girlfriend by transforming into Luke Skywalker. However, in all honesty, Star Wars is only slightly referenced (directly; more on indirect references later). In fact, "Small Potatoes" is one of X-Files' human interest episodes; although the concept (a man can transform physically into others) is fanciful, the explanation/pay-off is not rooted in either futuristic science or government conspiracies.

Joseph Campbell's Monomyth

It is rooted, rather, in the human dream of transcendence.

Eddie IS Luke Skywalker, albeit an unsuccessful one who never gets off Tatooine. He wants to be called to greatness/adventure, only it doesn't seem to ever quite happen. The twist: when he does cross the threshold (becomes Mulder), he discovers that Mulder has disappeared into Tatooine's basement.

Applying Joseph Campbell's monomyth here is apropos. Star Wars IV's success can be traced to its homage to Campbell, specifically Campbell's interpretation of the ancient hero's classic journey. Humans love the hero's arc and tell it over and over again, much as Eddie (and his high school girlfriend) went to see Star Wars over and over again.

At the end of "Small Potatoes," Eddie advises Mulder to "live alittle." After all, Eddie made more progress with Scully, simply by talking to her, than Mulder had in four years. Even Mulder confesses, "I'm no Eddie Van Blundht" (the "h" is silent).

The episode truly is more about the emotional aspects of the hero's journey than that same journey's fantastical accompaniments.

In comparison, "Jose Chung's" is chuck-full of sci-fi references, starting with Star Wars, specifically the opening shot of the Star Destroyer! Another ship, the Millennium Falcon, appears in Blaine's bedroom. In keeping with the Star Wars references, this episode focuses on the fantasy or space opera side of sci-fi rather than the hardcore side of sci-fi.  

X-Files, surprisingly enough, usually relies on the hardcore side. In this case, the fantasy side shows through. Roky is obsessed with the mystical side of his imagined aliens, who speak using "thees" and "thous." Lieutenant Shaefer creates a Close Encounters of the Third Kind mountain out of his mash potatoes (and there's a film completely rooted in  non-reality). And Jose Chung ends by contemplating why we humans love to look to the skies: What hopes and dreams do we hope to satisfy? We may love sci-fi for its fast travel and medical advances, but what's the other, deeper, reason?

In many ways, both episodes tackle the same questions raised in Fanboys, although from a very different angle.

And, of course, both are just gosh darn funny. From "Jose Chung's":

Star Wars as Comedy: That 70's Show & Friends

KATE SAYS everybody does the scrolled words!

That 70's Show is one of those shows that I enjoy but don't watch that often. However, I happen to adore Kurtwood Smith and consider Debra Jo Rupp one of the funniest comediennes on television. Interestingly enough, she shows up in our other sitcom as Phoebe's sister-in-law.

Subsequently, my favorite episodes from That 70's Show highlight the dad and mom characters. And Smith makes an awesome Obi Wan Kenobi. In general, I think the "adults" on the show far funnier than the "kids" though Topher Grace does make a good, believable Luke.

Regarding Friends . . . well, Mike will have to speak to the Princess Leia fantasy. In general, I like Friends' episodes that highlight Monica and Chandler far more than I like episodes that highlight Rachel and Ross. This episode happens to fall in the season where Ross and Rachel eventually break up (for the first time) because of their ridiculous, infantile personalities. So it's kind of hard to watch.

Which doesn't mean I didn't enjoy it; Friends is so well-written, it is hard not to enjoy. And the episode did send me back to Return of the Jedi for possibly the first time in about 20 years.

And . . . I decided that although Return of the Jedi is better by far than Lucas's prequels (the story is at least a narrative about individuals rather than a badly-written "political" drama), I still hate the Ewoks. Even as a teen, I found the idea of winning a war with teddy bears absolutely ridiculous. As an adult, let me tell you, wooden spears and Tarzan ropes will NOT win against armor and freaking big guns. It just don't happen.

Outside their relationship to Star Wars, however, both sitcoms hit a nerve/raise an issue with me: the idea that sci-fi is ONLY the province of geeky males. I suppose this is true enough to make it sitcom fodder (even on Big Bang Theory, for shame). But since I'm a fan of such writers as Connie Willis, C.J. Cherryh, and Diana Wynne Jones, I get tired of the assumption that women are NEVER interested in sci-fi.

And yet . . . having written the above, I have to admit, I prefer my sci-fi people-oriented to machine-oriented (although I still consider Iron Man one of the best of the Marvel movies). And I completely support the idea that woman/male interests are not merely due to social conditioning; brain-wiring, hormones/physical development are also factors.

On the other other hand, rather than argue that men are from Mars and women are from Venus, I agree with those who contend that men are from North Dakota and women are from South Dakota. Or, at least, North Vulcan and South Vulcan.

MIKE SAYS this post is so late, I probably shouldn't comment on it. I could go on explaining a whole lot of stuff, or, I could apologize, so, I'm sorry!

The Friends episode took me back;  the Ross/Rachel relationship was the talk of the hallways in school, and the whole will they/won't they thing was the stuff of legend. After watching the episode, I'm not sure what surprised me more: how much I remembered of what was going on, or just how much they crammed into one episode!  Each character, with the exception of Phoebe, had their own little arc, though the Leia fantasy was little more than a running gag.  Star Wars in general wasn't really mentioned.

 As far as the Princess Leia fantasy goes, well, to be honest, my first viewing of this episode back in the 90's may have been the first time it ever occurred to me to think of Leia or the golden bikini in that way.  And in the years since, well, Carrie Fisher isn't really my type.  As such, I can't really speak to the whole gold bikini fantasy other than this:  For most guys my age, Leia was the first character we saw in such a state of undress, and well, she kicked some serious butt in the meantime. So it's easy to see how that might be the first real fantasy of a lot of guys... though I think it'd take a pretty adventurous and non-judgmental woman to fulfill that for them.

That 70's Show has become a favorite in my house in the last few months.  Not only is it witty, fun, and nostalgic, but it's great to see how some ideas, worries, and dumb decisions really are timeless.  The episode about Star Wars strikes me on numerous levels.... like the shoe string budget of the dream sequence.  The cool thing is that I actually owned the remote control light saber that Eric uses in the sequence (which was a model of The Return of the Jedi saber).

Between the two episodes, Star Wars fuels fantasies that affect how we see the world, which is really what fiction and film is all about.  The whole point is that we might be able to see our lives in more exciting way, and see news ways of facing our fears.  Star Wars is one of the best ways to do this, especially for those whose lives aren't nearly as... fulfilling.

The best advice that I gleaned from these episodes may be this:  If you ever fantasize about being a character in Star Wars, it may be better for everyone if you keep it to yourself.

Star Wars Copied? Battlestar Galatica (1978)

KATE SAYS this television movie was far, far, far less hooky than I'd anticipated. In many ways, it reminded me more of Forbidden Planet's story and look than either Star Trek or Star Wars, especially the pristine special effects (more on both Star Trek and Star Wars later).

Mostly, I was impressed by how much 2003 Battlestar Galatica relied on the original to create its remake. There's the ship's design; the carrier-landing approach to incoming spacecraft; the complex political situation; the mix of sci-fi and mysticism. Characters even use made-up swear words (Starbucks says, "Frack!" once).

I have to give kudos to Battlestar Galatica's 2003 producers for truly respecting the original (at least in the first season, which is all I've seen; the show got too soap-opery for me in the following seasons; however, I plan to give the original series a try!).

Two major differences between 2003 and 1978: human Cylons in 2003, which I greatly prefer. Give me elegant androids any day over clunky robots. 

And a male Starbuck in 1978 (though the female and male Starbucks have similar personalities). The switch in gender says something about changing times; on the other hand, women are impressively omnipresent on the 1978 battleship as are blacks: it isn't just a white male person's future.

And what a cast! Wilfrid Hyde-White shows up. Wilfrid Hyde-White is one of my favorite British actors of the mid-twentieth century. I know him best from Columbo and Agatha Christie's Ten Little Indians. His voice is instantly recognizable.

The 1978 cast includes another Columbo graduate, Ray Milland (yes, okay, he is better known for Dial M for Murder). Milland was an expert at playing snarky characters who are more slimy than totally evil.

So I really enjoyed the movie.

As for the Star Wars copyright infringements, the only similarities I saw were visual as in the weapons and the ships. I suppose if I had designed stuff for Star Wars and it then showed up on Battlestar, I might get a little peeved (although the Battlestar folks argued that the Star Wars folks stole everything from them in the first place). But my personal reaction was that Battlestar Galatica was likely influenced as much by NASA and Star Trek as anything else (in fact, the movie kind of turns into a Star Trek episode at the mid-way point). And they all owe something to 1956 Forbidden Planet.

Did Lucas et al. really think they'd invented sci-fi?

Okay, bad question. Lucas might actually think that.

But I agree with the final ruling.

MIKE SAYS first off, I should apologize.  If any of you out there in Internet land are still reading, we've been on a month or more of Unannounced Hiatus, mostly due to my summer suddenly becoming AWESOME.  In the last few weeks, I've been camping twice, once at a water park; I've been to Maine and back (where I grabbed a quick lunch with Kate!), and just this last weekend, I went to the inaugural Salt Lake Comic-con where I got to meet Stan Lee.  School has also started, along with my annual Bump up to a 60 hours/week.  To say the last month has been busy would be, well, fairly accurate.

Fitting a viewing of the very long BattleStar pilot into these events, especially with 4 other people sharing my television, made it even harder.  What I discovered, to my delight, is that Battlestar was actually very well made and written.  And, as Kate mentions above, the extent to which the new series honors the original is truly astounding.

The pilot starts off fairly mellow, but events escalate quickly, and it's not long before Humanity is on the run from the Cylons. What I really enjoyed about the show is the grand sense of mythology behind the Battlestar world.  There's a complicated past that may or may not be connected to our own. The story plugs so many different little tastes of cultures and histories that it carries alot of depth.  With names taken from Greek mythology, Christianity, and even hints at African and Egyptian heritage (check out the fighter pilot helmets again to see what I mean!), the world of Galactica is certainly rich with potential.

The opening movie certainly does its best to tap into this potential, and it gets mixed results.  The story certainly has punch in certain moments; the fall of the colonies, and the death of Adama's family certainly help with this.  The action comes in fits and starts, but is mostly satisfying.  Perhaps the biggest detraction to the opening film is the pacing, which certainly plays more like several episodes instead of a movie proper.

The smaller arcs are a bit distracting, especially with the overarching linking story.  While the killer casino world makes for a great Trek episode, it felt awkward here, as if Battlestar was trying to establish itself as several different types of series in order to have options later.

In many ways, the modern show really is an improvement, as the plot is much tighter, the motivation of the enemies much clearer, and the plight of the humans is so much more believable.  Other modern non-Trek sci-fi shows, such as Babylon 5 and even Stargate Universe seem to take more pages from Battlestar than Trek, and do a better job capitalizing on the idea and themes.

As for the Star Wars connection, well aside from a couple aesthetic choices, I really don't see much of a connection.  While there are similarities, such as smaller fighter ships that break of the big ship, robotic helmets, and a human race of non-earth origins, this may be more due to the times than any creative theft.  Chariot of the Gods, Star Trek, A Space Odyssey, and many other landmark sci-fi franchises had all surfaced in the previous decade, and the country was still high off several Moon missions, and was preparing, very soon, to begin the Space Shuttle program.

This time period was rife with symbolic sci-fi, and the use of space to explain the purpose of life was more the norm than the exception.  If anything, I think the lawsuite was the product of financial greed and worry; the folks behind Star Wars were concerned about their bet paying off, and they were afraid audiences would get confused.  As even Asimov himself claimed that Battlestar was nothing but a blatant rip-off, it becomes easier to see their concern, as unwarranted as it was.

Star Wars Without a Fourth Wall: Robot Chicken

KATE SAYS I have to confess I enjoyed Family Guy's parody more than Robot Chicken's. I think Robot Chicken may be a "learned" viewing experience. Every genre has its motifs; with Robot Chicken, the fourth wall has been dismantled, jumped on, dynamited, and swallowed whole by Melville's Great White Whale. It's a little unsettling. (For a broader look at Robot Chicken's meaning, check out Mike's review!)

It can also be hilarious, like Palpatine taking Vadar's call about the Death Star and Jar Jar Binks as Vadar's recurring nightmare.

What I really liked was the Monty-Python-esque approach to all the boring, bland, everyday stuff that goes on elsewhere while so-called important history is unwinding--like the poor hardworking guy that just wants to go to the bar for a drink but ends up getting "mistranslated."

I especially loved the "Vadar can't really strangle people, so we have to practice pretending to be strangled" routine. It is VERY Monty-Pythonish.

My one criticism is actually a criticism that applies to parodies in general: irrelevant (as opposed to irreverent) humor. Parodies and satires are so dependent on context: just trying reading Dante's Inferno and guessing--without notes--why Dante consigned certain political figures to certain areas of hell.

The trick, of course, is to have an underlying joke/plot/point strong enough that lack of current knowledge doesn't matter. Golden Girls, despite an abundance of contemporary 1980s references, is still funny. Dante's Inferno, despite an abundance of contemporary enemies, is still great literature.

I'm not sure about Robot Chicken (in all fairness, I doubt Robot Chicken cares that I'm not sure). For example, I thought the George Bush, Jr. as Vadar joke fell flat. Like many political whipping boys, Bush, Jr. was so very much the punching bag of the moment when he was president. I thought it was pointless at the time; now, I just roll my eyes. (I'm not a big fan of the "this political opponent that I currently detest is the worst person in the world/the spawn of Satan/another Hitler" argument. Really? The WORST person? Really?)

On the other hand, surprisingly enough, the Mama jokes still work!

And Vadar's rehearsal of all Lucas's future plot devices is GREAT self-referential fun! I'm actually old enough to remember when the audience DIDN'T know Luke would turn out to be Leia's brother--in fact, a novel came out between A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back (which one of my brothers owned) in which the author postulated a romance between Leia and Luke. I understand that Star Wars novels now pair Luke with a Jedi chick. Ah, what a complicated world is the world of other universes!

MIKE SAYS Robot Chicken is one of those shows that can't fully be defined.  Sure, it's a parody, but it's also genre-mashing and blending to a degree that was, for awhile, several years before its time. It's not every show that decides to put Christ as the main character of a Kill Bill parody (in one scene, healing a man's cut eye to then chop him in half), whose sole purpose is to kill Santa and the Easter Bunny.  Random, blasphemous, and deep at the same time.

Not every Robot Chicken episode scrapes to the same depths, however, though combinations of pop culture references and mash-ups are run of the mill;  one episodes features a race with everyone one from Fast and the Furious to Knight Rider to Mario Kart, all organized by Burt Reynolds.  Yet another has Inspector Gadget getting parts from Cyberdyne, and his Niece Penny becoming the new leader of the human resistance.

In the end, Robot Chicken is, at least occasionally, an essay examining the effects of pop culture on our society, and its influence on itself;  in the end, pop culture feeds itself and hides. The majority of Robot Chicken's sketches just explore how a movie or show might have worked differently if the characters were aware of our world and pop culture in general: like Optimus Prime getting  prostate cancer much to the horror of the other Autobots, only to have the event revealed as a twisted PSA.

The Star Wars Special, as a result, isn't really that far off the regular series; in fact one or two of the sketches are actually from earlier episodes.  But, as you watch it, each segment does basically the same thing:  it takes the show that we're familiar with and injects either reality, or the artificial reality of modern entertainment (like reality TV).  Examining the long-term effects of the Bar Alien who loses his arm to Obi-Wan (which leads to losing his job as an architect) works on several levels, casting something well-known in a new light.  We've all been out doing stupid things with our friends, and we've all had misunderstandings.  To suddenly introduce the idea that there was more going on than we realized is not only brilliant, but brings the film to life all the more.

The Boba Fett Scene is another example of introducing just a little bit of embarrassing reality into the situation.  Is it so hard to believe that Boba wouldn't have bragged about catching Han, and maybe even strutted around his ship a little?  As far as the awkward romantic tendencies go, well, Harrison Ford is a handsome guy.

The brilliant thing about the majority of these sketches is that they're not that far off what actually happens in the films, with much of the scenes happening when the characters are off screen.  Oddly enough, these comic moments actually humanize the characters all the more, and make them suddenly new. It's that aspect of Robot Chicken that I enjoy the most: its ability to reinvent something I had always seen the same way.  Not only does this reinvention give the source material new life, but it increases my appreciation for the material . . . though, in some cases, such as the brief Luke/Leah flash, I might need therapy someday.

Star Wars Parody: Family Guy: "Blue Harvest"

KATE SAYS this is a hilarious 1-hour parody of what I continue to think of as Star Wars I, even though it is IV (A New Hope).

It's hilarious for so many reasons--the tiny Vadar; the good-natured nitpicks (in response to Luke's query, "You don't believe in the force, do you?" Han responds, "Oh, you mean that thing you just learned about three hours ago, and are now judging me for not believing in?")--but especially because it is also a tribute. The strength of the original story is not lost and there are multiple--almost eerie--reproductions of the most famous special effects and shots, like the shot of the Millennium Falcon entering the Death Star.

At the end, I wanted to go back and rewatch the original (the true original without all the bells and whistles added in). A parody that can make you love the original more is worth watching!

The only part I found disturbing/pointless was Obi Wan Kenobi as a pedophile. I have a feeling that Family Guy fans may have found this hilarious since they not only know Star Wars but know the Family Guy characters. This was my first time seeing anything Family Guy-ish, and I just thought the use of the John Herbert character was odd, especially since--according to Wikipedia--there were plenty of other Family Guy characters to choose from (why not Patrick Warburton's character? I don't know anything about the character, but Patrick Warburton is hilarious--and great at dead-pan).

The choice is doubly odd since, as noted above, this parody is also a tribute. I especially liked the John Williams tribute, even after the orchestra was burnt to a crisp. So how is it that Alec Guiness didn't merit an equal degree of affection/respect?

Consequently, I'll doubt I'll be able to put "Blue Harvest" at the top of my parody list. However, I do put this exchange at the top of my Funniest Dialog Ever list (I was literally ROFL-LOL; I still snicker--even when I'm out in public--when I remember it):

Princess Leia (Lois): [recording her message on R2-D2] Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi. you're my only hope. All right, now what do I click?
R2-D2 (Cleveland): Click "Preferences".
Princess Leia (Lois): Okay, I clicked "Preferences".
R2-D2 (Cleveland): Now go to "Default Media Browser".
Princess Leia (Lois): Okay. There's a little hourglass and it's-it's not letting me do anything. It-it says "Buffering": what is that?
R2-D2 (Cleveland): Just give it a minute.
Princess Leia (Lois): All I'm trying to do is make an MPEG.
R2-D2 (Cleveland): All I'm trying to do is tell you to wait a minute.
Princess Leia (Lois): Okay, relax.
R2-D2 (Cleveland): Now click, "Import Video File".
Princess Leia (Lois): All right. It's telling me I have to download RealPlayer 7.
R2-D2 (Cleveland): You know what? I'll just bring it to him myself.

MIKE SAYS Family Guy and Star Wars have something in common in my house:  Whenever either of them are on, I can't help but stop and watch . . . though admittedly for different reasons.  While love and nostalgia still fuel my Star Wars viewing, Family Guy is something more of a "That is wrong on so many levels that I can't look away . . ."

Their take on Star Wars is hilarious and very complete . . . even though it's much shorter ( I honestly don't know how: less establishing shots, maybe?).  While Family Guy primarily survives on sheer shock value, I do find it honestly funny from time to time.  And while the Star Wars special isn't devoid of the shocking, suggestive, and downright disturbing humor of the series,  it's much cleaner than I had originally expected.

The great thing about the special is the depth of the jokes themselves.  While some are for the casual viewer (this may be where the Obi-Wan parody came in), the majority are not just for fans of Star Wars, but rather for the people who know it inside and out.  Comments on everything from the soundtrack ("Ladies and gentlemen, John Williams!") to Han's lack of actual piloting skills ("You call that a maneuver?!?"), "Blue Harvest"'s jests are for the folks who have seen the movie thousands of times . . . especially since it was written by those very same people!

My favorite bit of the episode has little to do with Star Wars itself, but rather the creator, Seth McFarlane, who is also the voice of several characters, including Peter/Han.  The actor who plays his son, Chris, is the one and only Seth Green, former Werewolf and creator of another eccentric animated series, Robot Chicken.* Their discussion about the two shows, their success, and their choice to honor Star Wars is hilarious on so many levels that's I'm often left laughing for several minutes into the credits.  The following specials are also quite humorous, but "Blue Harvest" is something special, as like the original film itself, it's something new and different and hard to match.

* See our review in 2 weeks! Coming up: Spaceballs!

Star Wars Star Wars Everywhere!

It sprang into being in 1977, the imaginative masterpiece of wunderkid George Lucas--or at least a imaginative masterpiece after serious editing:

STAR WARS!

It was a huge hit, selling to packed theaters and spawning a franchise that is still operative today. It got Joseph Campbell all excited. It pushed fed-up actor Harrison Ford into the limelight. Star Wars inspired a generation of geeks, writers, and filmakers, changing American culture and cinema forever.

There are traces of its impact everywhere, especially in film and television.  In fact, it's fair to say that every non-period major television series made since features at least one Star Wars reference.  The influence of Star Wars is so profound, that when we talked about a tribute list, or a list of shows that all reference one source, Star Wars was the obvious choice.

Each of the titles on this list pays homage to Star Wars in its own way, ranging from pure imitation, proven plagiarism, to good-natured mockery.  While the impact of Star Wars has been much more profound than some funny references, there are few films that are being referenced just as consistently 35 years later.

Here's the list. Reviews will begin the weekend of June 22nd.

1. Family Guy: "Blue Harvest"
2. Spaceballs
3. Robot Chicken: "Star Wars"
4. Fanboys
5. Battlestar Galatica Pilot (1978)
6. Fifth Element
7. Friends: "The One With the Princess Leia Fantasy" (Season 3) and That 70's Show: "A New Hope" (Season 1)
8. Toy Story II
9. X-Files: "Small Potatoes" (Season 4) and "Jose Chung's From Outer Space" (Season 3)
10. Scrubs: "My Two Dads" (Season 1) and Phineas and Ferb: "The Chronicles of Meap" (Season 2)

The Club's review of Star Wars: A New Hope can be found here, including Mike and Kate's separate introductions to the franchise.

A sizzling  (and very entertaining) critique of the Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the Sith can be found at Red Letter Media.

White Collar: Pilot

Aired Date: October 23, 2009

Time Mike wanted to see it: I've been a fan of USA since it stopped showing reruns and started actually making television shows, and I wanted to see this right around the time it started getting a lot of buzz, so just a couple months after it came out. I guess 2 years isn't too bad.

Reason Mike procrastinated: I don't know if I procrastinated, or just waited until it took almost no effort to see it. Although, it was on my Netflix instant queue for a couple months before I finally watched it.

Category: Television, mystery, cop/con

Mike says I liked the pilot quite a bit. I'll say that right off. This show has a fun feel, and I dig the whole "rat-pack throw back" vibe (Internet, witness the coining of a phrase!).

It's also a fairly clever premise, although one has to wonder if the show came from plans of a failed series version of Catch Me If You Can. And I do enjoy when criminals have a better sense of high society and etiquette than the cops.

Seeing Bomer bounce his witty style off the generally serious and glum agents is a lot of fun, as is wondering how far he'll push the envelope.

I really don't have a lot to say, because the show is fairly simple. A little humor, a little drama, and some seriously quirky characters is kind of the USA formula, and it works pretty well.

I do have to mention, though, that I differ from Kate in my feelings about DeKay. For some reason, I don't trust his character. Perhaps I've seen him as a villain one too many times, maybe I like Bomer so much that I have sided with him against the FBI. I'm not really sure. The show puts a lot of effort into making the audience like him... but I can't help but feel a little...wary. Hopefully, that'll clear up as the show goes on.

While White Collar isn't my usual type of show, it's a good compromise show for my wife and me, keeping me interested with the humor, and keeping her interested with the crime and mystery. I look forward to seeing where it goes!

Kate says when I learned that Bryce Larkin of Chuck had his own show, I was not surprised. Matt Bomer has the looks and charisma, intensity and humor to pull off a leading man role.

Nevertheless, I'm very glad the producers paired him with Tim DeKay. Not only does DeKay remind me of Rubert Graves (Lestrade in BBC Sherlock)--so much so that the American accent actually throws me--but the relationship/repartee/guy-romance between Bomer and DeKay is really what makes White Collar work. For one thing, unlike Patrick Jane and Lisbon (whom I still watch), I feel like DeKay can actually control his maverick ("Get in the car!"). Also, Bomer manages to sell his character as fundamentally kind and even decent (Simon Baker is too good at playing damaged and unaccountable characters--I really mean that; his unfixable Jane persona doesn't help the show work, but boy, is he good at it!).

White Collar's concept is engaging. The pilot is more than the usual 50 minutes (ah, remember the old days when pilots were two-parters? I confess I prefer one-hour pilots), but I hardly noticed. Like many pilots, naturally, way too much stuff was thrown at me at once (rich widow! FBI Agent's wife! missing girlfriend! lesbian co-worker?) but the main plot/necessary information was adequately and quickly provided.

I went ahead and watched the next episode "Threads" and I'm happy to report, the "stuff" calms down quite a bit. However, I still sense an unevenness. Is the show supposed to be some kind of 24-deal? Or some kind of Leverage-deal? I prefer my producers and directors to know right off the bat.

I'll probably pick up a few more episodes before I decide if I'm a long-time fan. If no vision appears in the next few episodes--eh, there's so much more to watch. But I adore Willie Garson, so that might keep me coming back. (That's the adorable Marty from Stargate SG-1!)

Farscape: Premiere

Aired Date: March 19, 1999

Time Mike wanted to see it: A good friend started bugging me to see it somewhere around 2005, and I've been vaguely interested in seeing it since then. When I started using Netflix on my Xbox over a year ago, it instantly went into my instant queue....and stayed there, unwatched, for nearly a year.

Reason Mike procrastinated: It just looks...well, cheap. And cheesy. And there are so many other under-rated little known cable sci-fi shows that I've been meaning to watch (Sliders, Stargate), or have watched (Firefly, Babylon 5), that Farscape just kinda of got overlooked.

Category: Syndicated/Cable Low-budget Sci-fi

Mike says I really should have been more excited when, after years of putting it off, I finally sat down and watched Farscape. But really, I felt like I was doing some chore I had been avoiding until the last possible moment. And, sadly, I continued to feel that way through most of it.

I can say I was impressed with the pace of the first episode. It gets moving FAST, with John off the planet and far off into space within ten minutes. The inclusion of a veteran astronaut as John's dad was a little over the top, but admittedly a nice touch that should have received a little press.

The premise is run-of-the-mill sci-fi: traveler thrown into a far off place and searching for home is really a standard at this point, not to mention that any territory already explored by a Star Trek series is a risk, especially for a little known concept without any sort of brand recognition tied to it.

As such, I really couldn't help but draw the obvious comparison between Star Trek: Voyager and Farscape, which is a discussion that I would guess (without Googling to check) has raged across the Internet for years.

What Farscape has going for it is a strong male lead, a sexy and assertive female lead, and some funny one liners. And, in the end, that's about it. It's easy to guess that the political intrigue with the human-like species will progress through the remainder of the show, and at some point John will become leader of a rebellion rather than getting home (again, speculation).

Voyager, however, while being far than perfect, explores the idea of being lost in a far more interesting way. First off, humanoid characters are more interesting as main characters. Secondly, instead of focusing on one lone man experiencing new things, we get to see how an entire community reacts and adapts. We also get to see how the decisions of that community impact the cultures they meet on their way home.

As a fan of Firefly and Joss Whedon, I really do appreciate humor in my sci-fi, which Voyager was always a little light on. It seems that humor is a common element in cable sci-fi and usually it works pretty well. Star Trek, however, has always been a bit more serious, with its humor being a little more dry and subtle. Farscape's humor is perhaps the only real thing that might bring me back, though it's questionable.

While funny, the universe the show creates is just a tad too weird, as well as cheap looking, to really hook me. I am a little tempted to see what might be in store down the road, but, then again, I do have a long list of shows to see (one day, Stargate, I promise!)


Kate says this was the first time I saw anything Farscape-related! Bizarre, huh? It's bizarre to me. I've at least caught glimpses of Xena and Andromeda over the years, but somehow Farscape didn't make it on my radar.

Based on the opening minutes of the Farscape pilot, it would probably have stayed off my radar--if, that is, I wasn't reviewing the pilot for this list. The first few minutes of the pilot were supremely off-putting. I still have no idea why the astronaut's best friend, D.K., was in the pilot--and I have even less of a no-idea why a scientist working for NASA would dress and act like a punk rocker.

Luckily, I kept watching, and I will say that once John gets thrown through the wormhole, the episode really picks up. It delivers a great deal of information in an hour but not in an overly confusing or distancing way. In fact, "Premiere" is what Lucas should have done for Star Wars I, II, and III. The politics are simple but intelligent (if a bit wooden in delivery). The events unfold through John's eyes, so the viewer gains understanding at the same time he does. (The actor does a good job capturing John's confused resilience in the face of his new circumstances.)

Just as importantly, the hero, John Crichton, looks and acts the part (one reason I couldn't get into the recent Robin Hood series was because I never could believe in Jonas Armstrong as a leader). Ben Browder as John Crichton convinced me of his intelligence, resourcefulness, leadership and fundamental kindness ("Go. Go play") right away.

And I liked his sense of humor: "I'll fill you full of . . . little yellow bolts of light." (The pilot could have used more humor, though pilots are almost always overly serious.)

Plus John has a good relationship with the female lead, Aeryn--more than adequate sexual tension and strong character development issues.

Unfortunately, John and Aeryn bring me to my closing confession: although I enjoyed the pilot, I can't see myself watching much more Farscape. The problem: I had zero interest in anyone but the humans. The priest, Pa'u Zotoh Zhaan, was somewhat interesting, but D'Argo bored me, and the other main characters . . . Muppets. I've mentioned before that I like Muppets as Muppets; otherwise, I need human faces.

This lack of relatable characters is quite different from Star Trek: TNG and Stargate. With either of those shows, if I get tired of one character, I just start focusing on another. I enjoy Data episodes, Picard episodes, Riker episodes, Geordi episodes. Even Troi delivers some engaging plots. And though I'm not a huge fan of Klingon episodes in general, Worf does have some kickin' storylines (plus I can see his expressions).

Likewise, I enjoy Daniel episodes and Jack episodes and Samantha episodes and Teal'c episodes.

But, based on only the Farscape pilot (which is not, I grant, a very fair assessment), I would be invested in precisely two characters and since the show obviously focuses on their relationship, I would pretty much be held hostage to that one relationship.

I do watch shows where I am held hostage to one relationship, X-Files being the most notable example (Bones, Lois & Clark are two others). And there's no reason for me to suppose that Aeryn and John's relationship wouldn't engage me as much as Mulder and Scully's, especially since I like the characters. But I'm not sure there is enough there there to keep me watching.

BBC Sherlock: "Study in Pink," "The Blind Baker," "The Great Game"

Book: Sherlock Holmes stories/novels by Arthur Conan Doyle, specifically A Study in Scarlet

Gap between first publication and film release: 123 years--1887 to 2010 (1st Sherlock Holmes movie appeared in 1900)

Closeness to original characters: 97% (Kate)

Closeness to original story: 60% (Kate)

Mike says this is a great show! Modern reinventions are always a bit of a risk. People have the classic idea stuck in their head, and often don't like seeing the thing they love get twisted to somebody else's vision. American television, especially lately, has a long string of failed reinventions and adaptations. In my long and varied career of TV watching, I can think of at least four other Sherlock Holmes pilots I've seen over the years that went kaput. House is probably the closest to a Sherlock Holmes series that has really ever taken off, but that was merely in spirit. And then there were the Next Generation episodes--I don't care what people say, Brett Spiner would make a GREAT Holmes.

While American TV can't seem to pull off the reinvention, the BBC seems to have it down to an art. From the wonderful revitalized Dr. Who to Hyde, a re-imagining of the classic, the BBC really seems to be on a roll. Sherlock has been on my watch list for awhile, but upon finally watching it, I was thrilled to see that it continues BBC's trend.

The success of Sherlock, I think, lies in the successful translation of the characters. Not only are Sherlock and Watson there and very recognizable, but there are in fact very believable as modern people. The modern twists to their characters are slight, yet bring with them a measure of believability that makes the entire series work.

The chemistry (and I do hesitate to use that word, but it's really what it is) between the two actors is also wonderful. That Holmes needs Watson is fully apparent, and I do enjoy that Watson very actively serves a purpose in this show. He is competent, resourceful, and courageous, Something you don't see in most adaptations.

I've said it for awhile, and I hold to it: American TV really needs to start following the BBC way of doing things--when you make a series a collection of mini-series, you get a refined product that is much more cohesive and polished.

Anyway, perhaps the only minor flaw I find in the show is the direction they have taken Moriarty. While I get it--if Sherlock is a functional sociopath, then Moriarty is less so--I was still slightly disappointed that he seemed so... tame. But, admittedly, I'm not sure what I would have done different. I was, however, extremely pleased that Moriarty was not Watson. That would have been one reinvention to far.

Anyway, a great show, a wonderful adaptation in which the characters really survive the transfer and make the series work as a result.

P.S. I also LOVE that Watson has a blog! As many adaptations take Watson's perspective, the one thing that was always missing was who wrote the novels. A blog completes the loop!

Kate says I adore this series! Which is kind of odd.

For one thing, the series relies (at least partially) on a conspiracy (and I dislike conspiracy plots). For another, the scripts play homage to the original stories/novels but in no way try to retell them (unlike the masterly 1980s BBC series with Jeremy Brett). Lastly, they are movies, not one-hour dramas (my preferred watching). So, on paper, I shouldn't be a fan of Sherlock!

But I have currently seen the first movie "A Study in Pink" four or five times, and I'll probably see it another four or five times until Season 2 comes out!

During my first watch-through, I was disappointed by the lack of close adherence to the original short stories. I was hoping to see classic Holmes' stories translated into contemporary life. The writers of Sherlock are serious Sherlockians who KNOW their Holmes (their commentary for the movies is quite engaging), and their scripts make constant references to the stories and novels, but they don't try to follow any particular plot line ("A Study in Pink" comes the closest).

Despite the lack of adherence to Doyle's plots, the writers not only capture the feel of Doyle's texts, they are absolutely true to the characters!

Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock Holmes is right on. He combines House with Jeremy Brett's Holmes. (He is less confrontational for the sake of confrontation than House and slightly more extroverted than Brett's interpretation.) He has the height and the sweeping coat.

Cumberbatch also brings a layer to Holmes that appears in the books but is rarely highlighted. Despite his self-characterization as a "high-functioning sociopath," Cumberbatch's Sherlock is not indifferent to how others view him. He desires approval/respect/support. He is embarrassed when Watson considers 221B Baker Street a mess (due to Sherlock's scattered stuff). He is highly embarrassed when he has to admit to Watson that he once took drugs. He asks Watson to help him because he needs someone on his side at crime scenes. He is charmed (and surprised) when Watson is frankly impressed by his genius.

Martin Freeman as Watson is the show's strength. I hate shows and stories/novels that portray Watson as a doofus. The whole point of Watson is not that he is stupid but that Holmes is so brilliant, Watson looks clueless in comparison. Watson is us.

Martin Freeman's Watson is not only a reasonably intelligent guy whose reasonable intelligence highlights Holmes' genius, he is interesting in his own right. I love the revelation (so counter to accepted wisdom) that what Watson craves isn't peace but a new war. ("And I said dangerous, and here you are.")

This craving for danger gives him remarkable sangfroid in the face of Sherlock's unpredictability. My favorite example of this sangfroid, however, happens in the non-dangerous restaurant. Sherlock is trying, somewhat defensively, to explain that he doesn't have or want an intimate relationship; Watson interrupts him, saying, "It's all fine." Sherlock looks startled and responds with stammered thanks.

I also happen to love Watson's jacket! This may seem odd, but that jacket is a great representation of Watson's personality: sturdy, non-glamorous with a slight 19th century military look and the barest hint of classiness in the shiny velvet strips.

Freeman's Watson has a somewhat different presence than original Watson (original Watson is much more "everyman"). However, all the information/characterizations given to Freeman's Watson can be found in the books/stories (he even fought in the same country--Afghanistan--if not the same war).

The biggest difference between the books/stories and Sherlock is Lestrade who is far more laid-back and far less weaselly in the 2010 television series than in the books/stories. I prefer 2010 Lestrade whose dry humor and indifference to ego make him a nice counter to Holmes. I get a big kick out of the pilot's opening scenes where Lestrade--bored and fed-up--answers the reporter's question, "How do people keep themselves safe?" with the dry response, "Don't commit suicide."

And, of course, there is the marvelous Mark Gatiss (also one of the show's creators and writers) as Mycroft. First watch-through, I didn't guess he was Mycroft (for obvious reasons), but I don't think Mark Gatiss is a cheat. For one thing, he has that great voice, not to mention the stellar 1920s Lord Peter Wimsey vibe, and, of course, there are all those jokes about diets.

Oh, and I love the show's music.

I can't wait until Season 2! Unfortunately--*sigh*--it may be awhile.

Doctor Who: "Blink"

Time Travel Device: The weeping angels AND, of course, the Doctor's time machine

Time Travel Outcome/Purpose: In the case of the statues, to consume potential energy; in the case of Sally Sparrow & the time machine, to save the Doctor from 1969.

Coolness Factor: Watching the episode unwind from Sally's point of view

Flaws: Not a flaw but a query--does the Doctor read Sally's notes before he gets trapped in 1969? If so, why does he still allow himself to be trapped?

Paradox: Definitely predestination but predestination wrapped up in free-will since Sally causes her own predestination

Mike says the angels have the Phone-box! "Blink" is perhaps one of the best written time travel pieces of all time. Not only does it explore the idea of messages left in the past by people who know the future for someone living in the present (wrap your brain around THAT one), but it does it in a way that keeps you guessing, and believing, every moment.

I'm a reluctant Smallville fan, and when the second season came out I was very excited when Clark discovered a cave with the story of Superman painted on the walls. I was so excited, you'd think it was a real cave! Years later, I shake my head and laugh. The idea was cool enough to make me forget reality completely. The DVD Easter egg with the Doctor on it has a very similar effect on me. Every time I watch the episode, I get excited when Sally starts having a conversation with the TV. The best part is how the conversation works in different circumstances! Sally pokes fun at the Doctor's timey-whimey dialog and gets a shamed response early in the episode; later, when Sally references this, the Doctor's shamed response plays again, exactly the same as before but still completely in the right tone and context. Brilliant!

Sally Sparrow is also a wonderfully written and acted character. She is so vibrant, believable, and genuine, that we as an audience follow her and bond with her within just a few minutes. It's not often that a guest character can carry an entire episode in their FIRST APPEARANCE. It's a shame she couldn't have replaced Martha as the companion... while I LOVE season three, Martha can often be a little (and by a little, I mean extremely) )grating on the nerves. Sally, however, is enjoyable, adventurous and smart.

While I love Tennant's Doctor (he's still my favorite), I love how this episode uses him sparingly and effectively. Altogether he may have only 5-8 minutes of screen time, those minutes have a solid impact, affecting the plot, providing insight, and all while supplying a solid laugh or two.

Finally, I love the weeping angels. As a monster, the concept is chillingly simple and terrifying. We never see them actually move, yet these props are used so effectively that the danger they pose to characters feels real and immediate. The climax, when the Angels assault the phone-box as it disappears around Sally is truly suspenseful. Impressive for what was probably Styrofoam figures!

I'm always impressed with Doctor Who's ability to focus on time travel and yet continually make it fresh and enjoyable as a concept. "Blink," more than anything else, shows the result of truly solid writing. That a filler episode that barely features the main characters of a long running fan favorite show can quickly become one of the best episodes of the series really shows how good something can be when the proper effort is put in. Take that, Smallville.

Kate says this is an excellent episode for many reasons. I've always enjoy non-Doctor episodes--someone experiencing the Doctor's interference second hand.

The best part, however, is how simple the "magic" is (the Doctor's appearance on the DVDs, the writing on the wall, etc.) and how much it is based on the simple fact that we forget that the Doctor travels in time.

Okay, by "we," I mean "I."

It gets me every time. I know I'm watching a time travel show, but I'm so wedded to linear-thinking that non-linear-events still surprise me. When I first started watching Doctor Who with Eccleston, I remember thinking, "But the Doctor who shows up in historical photos wouldn't be Eccleston! It would be Peter Davison or Tom Baker." And then, I had that "a-ha" moment--oh, OF COURSE, Eccleston could travel to whenever he wanted, before and after Rose meets him!

This makes me sound far dumber than I actually am, but I think this is what makes "Blink" work. The Doctor's appearances seem magical, random, or just-dumb-luck. But in fact, they are carefully planned out and arranged. This isn't Bill & Ted which, however funny, used the same idea of "oh, yeah, we went back and fixed that" to get rid of plot problems. In this case, "fixing things from the past" IS the plot problem.

I also think it is cool that Sally Sparrow is one of the few people to come in contact with the Doctor who has the strength and self-confidence to take the initiative with him and to walk away when she is done. She is a simply awesome character who makes a definite "I could have my own comic book series" impression in just one episode. I also have a soft spot for Lawrence, especially for the line: "I've got it on my t-shirt!"

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine: "Little Green Men" & "Trials & Tribble-ations"

Season 4: "Little Green Men"

Time Travel Device: Time wrap caused by a cascade reaction of kemacite . . .

Time Travel Outcome/Purpose: The Ferengi (and Odo) end up in 1947 America.

Coolness Factor: The misinterpretation factor: how nobody understands anybody at first and actions are misinterpreted with the best anthropological intentions. Odo as the big German Shepherd.

Flaws: The time travel explanation--huh? As Quark says, "I have no idea what you're talking about."

Paradox: Nog worries about disrupting the time-line, but I, Kate, think this episode falls into the predestination category.

Season 5: "Trials & Tribble-ations"

Time Travel Device: Defiant taken back by a Bajoran orb

Time Travel Outcome/Purpose: To prevent Captain Kirk's death

Coolness Factor: Classic Trek! The Department of Temporal Investigations!

Flaws: The orb moves the Defiant through time AND space?

Paradox: The investigation establishes that it is NOT a predestination paradox.

Kate says I love the underlying premise of "Little Green Men." I totally believe that if aliens did show up, the first order of business (ha ha) would be economics; again, as Quark says, "We just want to sell you things." I also totally believe an alien race would have its fair share of used car salesmen.

The time travel explanation of this episode definitely falls into the "magic door" category of explanations. It really doesn't matter how they get back; they just need to, so the jokes can start.

"Trouble & Tribble-ations" is a sweet episode. It is also lovingly done; the use of a Classic Trek actor, not just character, is inspired. The editing is smooth. As Mike says, the digital work doesn't look artificial; I think one reason is the layering (Odo appearing behind Chekov, etc.).

I got a huge kick out of Bashir's time argument: "I could be my own great-grandfather!" As Mike also mentions, the show takes a light-hearted look at the franchise's obsession with time travel. (Star Trek episodes do appear four times on this list!)

And the final scene is excellent although I can't help wondering, Will this "next generation" enlightened Federation beam the tribbles to an enemy ship?

Mike says that out of all Star Trek, DS9 was always the most willing to have fun, and both of these episodes testify to that. "Little Green Men" is really fun and cute and has a special place in my heart due to a few interesting months I spent living in Roswell.

In my opinion, Star Trek has always been about the science. More than just the setting, the science fiction and how the characters use that technology almost always drives the plot. While this can always be boiled down to the proper use of power, in the end Star Trek really is about how we use technology. As such, techno-babble has always been integral.

I love how "Little Green Men" stays true to using technology, yet having Rom explain it makes it completely incomprehensible: definitely a playful jab at the long-standing tradition of time travel in Star Trek. The story is fun and playful, though only to hide the real point. Hollywood using aliens and time travelers to critique society isn't new . . . however, using both at the same time might be. The political comments are sparse, though, and lighthearted enough not to ruin anything.

I've always enjoyed Quark, and it's no surprise that Quark-centric episodes became more and more popular as the show went on. The slight nod here in the first few minutes of comparing Nog to Worf is a nice touch since being the first of a race to join Starfleet is definitely an honor. But I wish they had developed that relationship more. "Little Green Men" is playful, fun, and really takes full advantage of Quark and company .

"Trials and Tribble-ations" goes even further in the direction of poking fun at the time traveling happening in the universe of Trek. I love the idea of an agency that keeps track of every incident of time travel. Not just funny, but practical! I love how sparingly the special effects are used in this episode. So much so that even years later, it looks authentic in many scenes! The use of the popular original series episode was clever, and not replaying the entire episode, so much as touching upon the highlights, was really a good decision as the episode wasn't bogged down by old material.

The time travel here is classic "magic door": the magic Orb of the Prophets is the culprit, and it's never discussed how the orb works. Here, they're just having fun, and how they got back in time isn't so important as the "Holy crap it's Kirk!" moments. There are so many jokes, nods, and references in this episode, it'd take forever to mention them all. My favorites include "I'm a doctor, not a historian!" and Kirk's appearance.

Lois & Clark: "Tempus Fugitive" & "The Night Before Mxymas"

Season 2: "Tempus Fugitive"

Time Travel Device: H.G. Wells’ Time Machine

Time Travel Outcome/Purpose: To kill Superman/Clark Kent

Coolness Factor: Getting to see Clark Kent/Superman’s story from the beginning. Lane Davies as Tempus.

Flaws: Not really a flaw since Lois & Clark is such a blatantly campy show, but I (Kate) have never really gone along with the idea that Superman is not only super-strong but SO smart, he can build a time machine from plans in a few seconds.

Paradox: Totally the Grandfather paradox (indirectly) since Tempus presupposes that he would still be around once Superman’s utopia is destroyed. But in reality, without the utopia, Tempus’ existence is not a guarantee.

Season 4: "Twas the Night Before Myxmas"

Time Travel Device: There's that loop again! (In this case, the loop does have an origin or source, which it doesn’t in many other episodes/movies we’ve watched for this list.)

Time Travel Outcome/Purpose: To demoralize the world/get rid of Superman.

Coolness Factor: Love those Christmas episodes!

Flaws: Not to be cynical but Lois' "unthawing" seems a tad convenient.

Paradox: Loop

Kate says this is one show I own all four seasons of. It is unbelievably adorable. Dean Cain as the everyday American boy who happens to be a superhero is exactly my idea of Superman. Teri Hatcher is one of the few Loises that doesn’t drive me crazy; in fact she's very sweet. Martha and Jonathan Kent are the perfect parents. I could keep going about all the other characters . . .

The show is funny, spoofy, campy, clever, touching, insightful. I could keep going . . .

"Tempus Fugitive" is one of my favorites although, in this case, it is a favorite not for the regular stars but for the best guest star ever! That voice! That sarcasm!

There are too many great Lane Davies’ lines to list them all, but here is one (towards the beginning):

Tempus: Well, this is a special pleasure, Ms. Lane. I'm Tempus. I'm from the future that you and Superman created.
Lois: Me and Superman?
Tempus: A world of peace. A world with no greed or crime. A world so boring you'd blow your brains out, but there are no guns.

Setting aside the great fun of Tempus, the episode is important because Lois not knowing Clark is Superman gets pretty old. The creators do have Lois find out in Season 3, but even by the middle of Season 2, it was getting exasperating. This episode is a nice “hey, she knows, no, she doesn’t!” break.

"Twas the Night Before Myxmas" is far more heavy on the theme than "Tempus Fugitive." As a "redeeming Scrooge" type tale, it is pretty good, but it also illustrates some of the flaws of the last season. Once Lois & Clark got married, the episodes got downright squishy with sentiment. On the one hand, I think squishy sentiment is underrated: I love a happy ending! On the other, how much work would it really have taken to give the plots more plausibility? So many plots in Season 4 are resolved through Lois & Clark's love which is nice but not really conflict-inducing.

Still, "Twas the Night" does have some nice elements embedded in the loop (the shrinking tree for example). The script-writing may have been overly sentimental but the episode isn't lazy.

Final note: One thing I really like about Lois & Clark is the emphasis on Clark as the "real" personality: "Superman is what I can do. Clark is who I am." I’ve never been able to relate to the version of Superman that emphasizes the god-aspect of the man rather than the human aspect. I'm always appreciated that Clark/Superman has to struggle with decisions in this show. You aren't sure what he will decide!

Mike says no, no, I'm full, really. Thank you, but I've had all the cheese and corn I can stand. Anymore, and my head will explode. Dang it, I said NO! If you haven't guessed from my very clever and witty retort, I was a little overwhelmed by the camp and sentiment of these episodes. HOLY COW! I really don't remember this show being that painful to watch!

I too love Lois and Clark, and I, like Kate, own the entire series. As a teenager, it was one of those shows everyone was talking about Monday morning. I, the biggest comic fan in the school, never could join in because my mother HAD to watch America's Funniest Home Videos (which was on at the same time). *Sigh*

Having rewatched the show just a couple years ago, it was surprising how much I'd forgotten of these episodes. Both are great for our discussion on time travel. That "Night before Myxmas" actually defines a time loop while showing one is also fairly cool.

"Tempus Fugitive" covers so much ground, and the idea behind it is so epic in scale, I was shocked that it was just a hour episode. It is a busy, compact forty-five minutes, and Tempus makes it a fun ride.

One thing I like a lot is the idea of Clark keeping the knowledge of his own timeline, and being able to interpret the changes, such as the great bank hiest. Very cool stuff. The idea that Tempus would happen to run into Jesse James? Phfffffft. Well, if a man in tights can fly, and HG Wells can show up with a time machine, then yeah, I guess Jesse James could have been in Smallville that day. I guess. But I agree with what Kate said about meeting famous people in her review of Man From Earth:

"Why is it that people with past lives or people who have lived forever always have to know famous people? Why don't they just know that guy who ran the fish stand in Istanbul? Why aren't their day planners filled with 'Bobs' and 'Jills' rather than Columbus and Attila the Hun? Even if I lived 10,000 years, I doubt my circle would enlarge to include Hollywood magnets and political personalities..."

This is easily applied to Time Travel. While it's more likely you'll meet someone if you time travel specifically to meet them, I think celebrities were just as hard to find then as they are now.

Anyway, a fun episode, and while it explored a Lois that knew Clark's secret, it was quick to restore the status quo.

"The Night Before MyxMas" was . . . painful. Kate is right in saying that the fourth season oozed sentiment (so much in fact, I find myself occasionally cleaning up the puddle of sentiment that pools around the DVD stand where I keep my copy of the fourth season). Lois and Clark were married, happy, and the show could no longer run on pure sexual tension and the will they/won't they cliff hangers. The show had two choices: go real, or go cheesy. As a result of the producers' choice, there have been more mice-related thefts of season four of Lois and Clark from stores and homes than any other TV season, EVER.

Sorry, I'm very tangent prone tonight. Anyway, the episode is cute, but that's about it. I do like the idea of the people in the loop feeling its effects despite not being aware of it (though, to justify the changes in people and surroundings, it would have to be a loop of a couple days, instead of a few hours). The tree and Jimmy's girlfriend are great visual cues to help the viewer understand when they are in the loop, and the progression of despair everyone is feeling.

Mr Myx (I don't feel like googling the name and cutting and pasting right now) is played well by Howie Mandell, and I can understand why they choose him for the part. The comic version of Myx wasn't really one for world domination... he just REALLY liked annoying Superman. Still, his inclusion here is clever.

Overall, it really is the hokey feelings and mushiness of the episode (and that's really saying something considering this is a CHRISTMAS episode) that makes it hard to watch. But the trick used to send back Myx? Very Funny.

X-Files: "Monday"

Time Travel Device: Loop

Time Travel Outcome/Purpose: Mulder & Scully don't die in the bank; the loop ends.

Coolness Factor: X-Files' willingness to tackle the big meaning!

Flaws: “Monday” avoids the flaw that Mike mentions regarding Groundhog Day: "the human mind can only stay stable for so long with no true measurement of time." Pam--the only character to remember the previous loops--becomes progressively unstable as the loops continue and she gives up trying to find a solution.

Paradox: Loop (Does the universe restart each day?).

Trivia: Did you notice the brand of Mulder's wrist watch?

Mike says Sorry! As a procrastinator, one of the worst things that can happen to me is for Blogger to go down for maintenance the night of my deadline! Having to work, I wasn't able to add my review till just now.

Anyway, "Monday" is one of the first X-Files episodes I saw and has the distinction of making me fall in love with the show. This episode, though, does something far more boldly than many X-Files episodes: it leaves no doubt to the viewer that something extraordinary is going on. Many episodes will give you a wink, or make things look plausible, but often in the X-Files, Scully's view of the situation is just as plausible as Mulder's. In later seasons, though, that goes to the wind, and Scully is left looking dumb while we and Mulder know what's really happening.

The time loop is pretty well regulated--the show avoids showing the same thing over and over and shows different views so it doesn't get old. One thing that I appreciated is that Mulder ALREADY had thoughts of deja vu being a time loop... it's not an idea that conveniently came to him while he was in one.

This is also a great one-off episode. Any viewer can come in, watch this episode, and know what happened, even though the point of the show might be lost on them. The standard X-Files watcher can be happy too, as there's plenty of wiggle room in the plot to allow Mulder one of his rants on the unexplained. Fun Stuff!

Kate says the great thing about "Monday" is that the loop doesn't feel repetitious. Loop narratives can get rather dry. "Monday" avoids this; not only do we see/learn more with each loop, but the loops aren’t exactly the same. One time Scully goes to the bank; another time, Mulder starts on a rant about fate versus free-will.

And, of course, there’s the X-Files' humor! (Note: the waterbed appears for the first time in "Dreamland" when Michael McLean, while possessing Mulder, enhances his apartment: Mulder finally gets a bedroom!)

Another great aspect of "Monday" is that the writers directly tackle the issue of free-will versus predestination (an issue that has arisen quite often on this list!). The conclusion seems to be that while minor things can change (as Scully says, "We are free to be the people we are . . ."), only a strong commitment/will to change can alter the big stuff. (We are programmed evolutionarily, biologically, and genetically unless we make the kind of sacrifices that result in a new direction.)

Finally, "Monday" has a neat twist in that it rests on the actions of the guest star rather than on those of the regular stars. I happen to like episodes like this (although they can’t usually occur until the later seasons--until, that is, the viewer really knows the regular stars). Star Trek: Next Generation has an episode, “Below Decks” about a group of young officers. The episode focuses on these entirely new characters, who only occasionally come in contact with the main characters. It’s a neat opportunity for the viewer to see the main characters from the "outside."

This happens in "Monday." Pam sees Mulder and Scully from the outside; as the loops continue, she begins to see them as a unit, partners who can be addressed individually to achieve the same result. This, of course, is something that the viewer already knows about them. But it gives the relationship a fresh start (this was the season right after the first movie when X-Files presumably collected more fans; it's a good season and very viewer-friendly).

All in all, this is one of my favorites, and one reason I wanted us to expand the original list!

Star Trek Next Generation: "Yesterday's Enterprise" and "Cause & Effect"

Season 3: "Yesterday's Enterprise"

Time Travel Device: Wormhole

Time Travel Outcome: Changes the current state of the Federation.

Coolness Factor: Seeing the Enterprise as a war ship. Also, Tasha Yar makes the greatest "return of a dead person" to television EVER. And Captain Picard gets to do his Winston Churchill impression.

Flaws: That's an awful lot of consequences resting on Guinan's say-so!

Paradox:Messing directly with the grandfather paradox here!

Season 5: "Cause & Effect"

Time Travel Device: Loop

Time Travel Outcome: Live the same few days over and over and over . . .

Coolness Factor: Seeing the Enterprise blow up several different ways. The clues Data sends himself. The idea of one choice leading in a completely different direction than another choice. Kelsey Grammar.

Flaws: People make thousands of minor choices every day. Eventually those minor choices would stop the collision from happening LONG before the actual moment.

Paradox: Although the episode resolves due to a single choice, the episode behaves as if some things are predestined.

Kate says so I love Star Trek, which means I rarely care how silly it is. Okay, "Spock's Brain" was pretty silly, not to mention early Troi. But generally, I just love Star Trek.

Of the two episodes, I think "Yesterday's Enterprise" is better, having more content to explore. One interesting idea of "Yesterday's Enterprise" is whether we really WANT to relive the past.

I recently thought to myself, "If I could go back to a year and a half ago and stop my Ford Focus from being pulverized when I hit a patch of ice, many of my current money troubles wouldn't exist. But I would have to live that year and a half over again." And I realized I wouldn't want to do that unless I remembered it (so I could tweak things here and there) and even then . . . well, gosh, there's just an awful lot of things that I just don't want to have to do again. It isn't that the past year and a half were bad; it's just . . . things happened; they are over. It took a lot of work for me to get to 2011. I'd rather take a breather, thanks.

Of course, that's not exactly the same as someone suddenly fast-forwarding me to 2015 and saying, "Hey, do you still want to live the last four years over again?" Still, if I liked 2015, I might say, "No."

And it isn't like I'm in the middle of a Klingon War; I've just never seen the appeal of, for example, going back to high school. I know people who live their lives in parallel--the life they have and the life they could have had. I don't see the point of this. This is the life I have. End of story.

Enough of the tangent! This issue of "what future or past do I choose for myself" is Tasha Yar's conundrum--in the "real" past, she's dead. But if she goes back into the WAY past, she'll likely be killed. If she stays in the new present, she'll continue to have a life.

Of course, she makes the noble choice (and lives to make another few guest appearances!). In any case, I like the idea of people struggling with where they belong time-wise. It gives the episode more ballast than just "oh, yeah, the Enterprise D shouldn't be here."

"Cause Effect" is fun, mostly because of how it is filmed--every day uses different angles or starts from different points of view. The idea is clever and the episode--like most Next Generation episodes--is well-plotted, but the idea doesn't really make internal sense, and there isn't enough other stuff to give it weight.

Mike says man, I love watching Trek. One nice thing, for our purposes, is that we can pick an episode, put it in for review, and usually not have to worry about what's happening in the season.

"Yesterday's Enterprise" is one of those episodes that changed all the rules. Altering the timeline, bringing back old cast members, and making everyone dark was all kind of a shock to us watching this for the first time years ago.

The idea is very cool, and I love the execution. When the Enterprise C leaves its timeline, time is changed, only returning to normal once they return. This is a big change to most time travel rules, as many keep the timeline, just assuming that history would be fixed later. I think it's the immediacy of the effect that I love so much.

Given all that, I do agree with Kate, the entire plot hangs on the very thin thread that Guinan "feels weird." While it's awesome that everyone has so much faith in her, it's a bit of a stretch (and by a bit, I mean "holy crap!").

"Cause and Effect" is fun, if very light compared to the heaviness of "Yesterday" (even watching it now, the opening teaser really throws off the viewer--Wait, everyone is dead? But there's another hour left!). One of the great things about TNG is that every cast member got a few episodes centered around them (though Worf, Data, and Picard really got the most screen time), and this Crusher-based episodes really fits the character, as the plot is simple, fairly mellow, with an explosive outcome.

The thing that really makes me laugh about these episodes, though, is how rampant time travel is in the Trek Universe. The timeline seems to be under threat every day, if not several times a day. If similar events are happening to every crew of every fleet of every race all over: yikes. The Trek universe is being rewritten everyday! Which really puts the validity of the Trek reboot into perspective.

Despite flaws, gimmicks, and gross overuse of a plot device, nobody does time travel like Trek.

Time Travel List!

As a reminder, here is the Time Travel list again (starting with the current set):

1. Back to the Future, April 8, 2011
2. "2010" and "1969," Stargate SG-1, April 15, 2011
3. Time Traveler's Wife, April 22, 2011
4."Yesterday's Enterprise," "Cause and Effect," ST: Next Gen, April 29, 2011

WEEK BREAK

1. "Monday," X-Files, May 13, 2011
2. "Twas the Night Before Mxymas," "Tempus Fugitive," Lois Clark, May 20, 2011
3. The Kid, May 27, 2011
4. "Little Green Men" & "Trials & Tribble-ations, ST: Deep Space Nine, June 3, 2011

WEEK BREAK

1. "Blink," Dr. Who, June 17, 2011
2. Lake House, June 24, 2011
3. "Genesis Part I and Part II," Quantum Leap, July 1, 2011
4. Star Trek IV: Voyage Home, July 8, 2011

Stargate: "1969" & "2010"

Time Travel Device: Solar flares/Wormhole (via the Stargate)

Time Travel Outcome/Purpose: To get back to one's initial time; to restore society as it was originally.

Coolness Factor: Hey, it's Stargate! Seeing the characters in new roles (the past/the future).

Flaws: "2010" isn't really a time travel episode since nobody travels anywhere; they just talk about it--that's my fault (Kate). Also regarding "2010," I find it difficult to believe that NOBODY would notice the whole "we're not having babies" phenomenon. People just aren't that uniform in behavior; some people would keep their own doctors; some people would refuse the Aschen drugs; etc. etc.

Regarding both episodes, why do solar flares cause time travel?? Star Trek does the same thing (the Stargate writers KNOW their Star Trek), but it doesn't make any sense in Star Trek either. The sun is just a big gas star. Gas causes time travel?

Paradox: Samantha attempts to avoid the grandfather paradox in "1969" by not letting Jack influence the people the team makes friends with.

Kate says I love Stargate! It is one of my all-time favorite shows. Both "1969" and "2010" are from the early seasons (before Michael Shanks left and came back) when the episodes were still Star Trekky explorations of different worlds, rather than long-drawn out military affairs. I love these seasons!

"1969" is more fun than "2010" but not as deep. The premise of "1969" is basically the premise of Star Trek V: Voyage Home--get the team home from the past. Most of the episode is watching various characters try to fit themselves into hippy culture. Teal'c naturally does the best job. There's a nice moment with Catherine Langford (character from the Stargate movie) and some funny moments when the team first shows up in 1969 Cheyenne Mountain:

Major Thornbird: [You snuck in here] even though you achieved nothing?
Jack: Unless that was exactly what we were hoping to achieve.

(Actually, the entire exchange between Thornbird and Jack is extremely funny.)

But the episode is mostly an excuse to put Teal'c in hippy clothes. Although the script does cover some nice time travel issues.

"2010" has more grit (even though technically it isn't a time travel episode). What if we encountered aliens who took away all our problems (and didn't look like scary bug-creatures a la X-Files and Independence Day) but actually turned out to be far more villainous? Granted--as I mention above--the premise is a little strained. However, the underlying idea of a slow insidious invasion rather than a big, scary obvious invasion is classic sci-fi and brings up all kinds of questions about utopia and freedom and what power people should really be willing to give away. The humans in "2010" have given up all their military power for the sake of being protected. And it backfires. I'm not a huge fan of the NRA, but there's a reason the Revolutionary War patriots fought for the right to fight their own battles!

I enjoyed watching these so much, I'm going to start watching my four seasons all over again! I might even watch them all!!

Mike says that Stargate is definitely a lot of fun! I need to start watching from the beginning!

These episodes are pretty fun, and definitely take an interesting approach on time travel. In "1969," I really liked that the general let the team go--but sent along what they needed (the note). And the zany references to pop culture that hasn't happened yet, from competing franchises? Perfect.

I also liked that, for the most part, the episode employed pretty clean writing, covering most holes. "What about the tapes?" "Oh, those were in the boxes too." Nice and clean, let's tie up those loose threads and move on.

Despite this, perhaps the most frustrating thing about the episode is what they do leave hanging--like the hippy couple that helped SG-1. The episode seemed to hint that they were important, but no update, no information, no conclusion is ever given to the characters. It's frustrating and lazy.

I also enjoyed "2010," and I felt it was a great complementary episode to "1969." Not only does it reference the older episode, but it builds off many of the same ideas, and tackles it from another angle. Like Kate, though, I have a hard time believing the premise--there was at least one stubborn couple out there trying to have kids with their human doctor. And wouldn't the lower population of school age children (and thus, lower spending on schools) have been a big tip off? Sorry, I work in education.

I was also a little annoyed by the idea of the team dying to send the message, as at this point, the idea is cliche'. The great thing about time travel and alternate dimensions is you get to pay off on danger that doesn't normally exist for the main characters. You get to kill people off with no consequences. The problem is that there's no real weight to it if it's not real either. Ah well.

These episodes are a fun look at time travel, and a great introduction to a fun series... I'll have to give watching it a solid effort.

Dr. Who: "Human Nature" & "Family of Blood"

Time Travel Device: A(nother) phone booth!

Time Travel Outcome/Purpose: To hide Dr. Who as a human in history.

Coolness Factor: Hiding in time. Dr. Who's motivations for hiding are wholly unique.

Flaws: Dr. Who's laws are kind of a law unto themselves. However, if every alien-of-the-week could take out humans so easily, the earth would have been overcome long before now.

Mike says I really despise Martha Jones. The idea of a The Doctor traveling with a doctor is fun, but going with a brand new love interest, right after losing the first one, is kinda Blah. Then having her pine after the Doctor the whole time (without the slightest interest from him) grates on my nerves. Which is why it's kind of surprising that many of the best Dr. Who episodes are in the third season.

The writing throughout the season, which the exception of Martha's role, is all exceptional. But, of all the episodes in season three, I think the acting is at its finest in this two-parter. David Tennant really sells the "John Smith" persona, and truly assumes the morals and ideals of a man from the time period.

I really like the idea of hiding in time--and the idea that Dr. Who can truly "blend," fitting perfectly into the time period.

I also really enjoy the twist about WHY he is hiding. Very cool. All in all, a very well written, and powerfully performed episode. Now if only it had less Martha......

Kate says I'm not a huge fan of the "girl watching in despair from afar" motif-—possibly, one reason I've never been able to completely enjoy Dr. Who, Season 3.

However, there are a few things about the season—and this particular two-parter—that I really like.

One thing I like about it is that Dr. Who takes on the actual mind-set of his human self. This happens so rarely in time travel shows, it really should be applauded. So often, "good" people in time travel shows just happen to share all the same ideas and mentalities as us "good" modern people. So a "good" female character in a historical drama will ALWAYS be in favor of women voting.

When it fact, there were many women who-—for various reasons-—weren't, and they were still "good."

So I appreciate that Dr. Who as a human is a pre-WWI human with all the attendant attitudes of that person. He isn't a bad man, not at all, but he is good in the way a male human of that era could be good.

Consequently, he is not thrilled about being something other than what he is. In lots of sci-fi and fantasy, the Chosen One may query his or her own worthiness, but there is always this underlying belief that once he or she admits, "Yes, I am this special," he or she will be better off.

But Dr. Who's human self really, really, really doesn't believe that. At all. His Dr. Who self is glad to be back. But his human self refuses the whole "destiny" idea as so much rubbish.

My only problem with the history aspect is I'm not sure how well a young black woman would have fared in pre-WWI England. Unfortunately, I think Martha probably would have encountered far more prejudice than she does.

Other than this query, however, the historical setting/ambiance/mentality is pretty good. Dr. Who is a time travel show, of course, but this two-parter makes being able to time travel a factor, rather than simply a way of getting the doctor into a new situation.

Other good Dr. Who episodes where time traveling is a factor: Blink (we will review this episode later), Father's Day, Girl in the Fireplace, Turn Left, and The End of the World (where how much time has passed is an important issue).

Star Trek: "City on the Edge of Forever"

Time Travel Device: A sentient portal

Time Travel Outcome: Change history

Coolness Factor: What might have been!

Flaws: The heroes are unaffected by the changes--how convenient! And why can't a sentient portal control its own abilities?

Mike says "City" is one of those classic episodes that every geek MUST see- not only is it a great episode of classic Star Trek, but it is a great exploration of time travel and the pitfalls that come with.

Something Kate has said in the past is that "if you give the fans enough time, they'll fill in gaps themselves," or something like that. This is absolutely true with this episode, and every possible flaw has been explained so much that it's considered almost canon.

Probably the biggest flaw is the Guardian itself- a sentient portal that serves as historian for the universe, built by a long lost civilization. VERY COOL. But... the need for a portal to be sentient kind of ceases when it has no ability to control itself! In the end, I think the talking portal was a way to save money (no guest actors or make-up to pay for: Yay!). But still, a very cool concept. So cool in fact, that several novelists have used the portal in their expanded universe stories, and all have given the Guardian his full powers when they use him.

The episode is a great example on the relationship between the Trek Triad of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, and of how Kirk and Spock bring out the best in each other. It also uses a ploy that is used so often in the old show that it's still joked about today: Kirk Falling in Love . While it is most certainly a heart-rending situation Kirk finds himself in (the woman he loves must die for his world to exist), the simple fact is that he is faced with this same crisis so often makes one wonders if James Kirk was a descendant of James Bond.

Perhaps the only other thing that bothers me is the bloodthirsty nature of the situation: this woman must DIE, not simply be removed from the time line. It seems that taking her to the future with them would have solved the problem too (something they actually do in another movie on our list!).

"City" really does deserve the attention it has received through the years. Extremely well written, rich with untapped back story and history, and perfected with great performances, it really is a classic episode.

Kate says this episode raises the classic grandfather-paradox: if you go back in time and kill your own grandfather, you will cease to exist, so you would never be able to go back in the first place and kill your grandfather.

Our travelers change history so drastically, the Enterprise ceases to exist.

Except! the travelers conveniently continue to exist.

The episode does imply that the time travel device is located in a bubble.

Once this problem is disposed of, "City" is a fairly cool time travel episode. It is also one of those episodes that prove what James T. Kirk is supposed to be: not the fighting captain who gets his shirt torn off every three seconds but the thoughtful captain who must make the ultimate tough decisions.

And his tough decision is to let history alone. In a way, this goes along with the idea of the Prime Directive (not the actual Prime Directive which captains break whenever the plot requires). Star Trek will continually preach the idea of history as a fixed purity that shouldn't be messed with.

I respect this approach, but I mostly prefer Connie Willis. In To Say Nothing of the Dog, she presents time as something that self-corrects itself. The outcomes are fixed but not how those outcomes come about. If time travelers mess stuff up, the time devices keep re-jiggling things until the travelers' minor actions work together to create the necessary outcome. (Star Trek Voyager uses this approach more.)

In any case, I do think "City" is one of the best episodes Classic Trek created. It was in Season 1 which includes most of the best scripts: the narrative arc is very nicely paid off--though I do think the beginning is unnecessarily long. To be fair, the idea of time travel is so well-established in science-fiction television now, tediously explaining it is kind of unnecessary.

And the characters/relationships of McCoy, Spock, and Kirk ARE the way they are now remembered. I especially like the exchanges between Spock and Kirk at the mission, and Edith Keeler's statement (in response to Spock's query), "You [belong] at his side, as if you've always been there and always will," and later, "'--Captain.' Even when [Spock] doesn't say it, he does."

No other Star Trek franchise captured this particularly type of camaraderie with the same panache.