Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Sturgeon's Law: http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/s/Sturgeon_s_Law.html

I just watched the fourth episode of a new sci fi/court room drama tv show called Century City.


The show centers on a Los Angeles law firm in the year 2030. I watched the first episode expecting to dislike it, but I have a soft spot in my heart for sci fi, even bad sci fi (though for some reason I can't seem to work up the gumption to sit through an episode of Star Gate SG1) so I gave it a shot. I'm glad I did, because I liked it. I expected that the ethical and legal questions addressed in the show would involve issues that would smell like musty old news thirty years from now, and while I think that expectation has held some water, it hasn't held as much water as I thought it would. On the whole, I'd describe it as a really sharp legal drama and spotty science fiction.

Like any tv show, I assume that it is written by committe, and that, as with the current creators of Star Trek, a couple members of the committe have some scientific chops and that the rest know how to craft a prime time drama that fits nicely around the commercials which pay the rent. Still, this combination seems to work.

I'm astounded at the number and variety of advertisements I see for drugs on tv these days. Earlier this evening, as I watched the re-run of last night's Daily Show, five out of six commercials in one break were pushing either life-style drugs or food-esque products. So many commercials these days end with "Ask your doctor if (insert name of drug) is right for you," that it seems that advertisers assume that we all have live-in physicians with whom we plan every detail of our lives. Well, Century City seems to have its finger on the pulse of the concerns that all these advertisers keep throwing all this money at, because every episode of the show thus far has involved some question of medical ethics that has arisen in the wake of advancing medical technology.

One thing that seems like it might act as a turn-off but which has had just the opposite effect: in two of the episodes, a protagonist-lawyer has argued for what I took to be the wrong side of an issue and won the case. In both instances, one involving the question of expanding the definition of rape to include cyber-voyerism and the other involving the cybernetic enhancement of athelets, I thought the loosing side presented the more rationally compelling argument, but the protagonist lawyers presented the the more emotionally compelling case and won. That actually seems to heighten the beleivability of the show for me.

Well, it's time the Daily Show, one of television's shining lights, so I'm off.

Latest Month

August 2017


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Ideacodes