Unexpected endings

In the last few days I've watched the final episodes of two television series I've liked a lot. In both cases this was their second season and in both cases they were cancelled earlier this year by the American networks which broadcast them.

The first was Stargate Universe; part of the Stargate Sci-fi franchise which started with a major film of that name in 1994. Whereas the previous television incarnations had lasted ten years and five years, the latest — and now known to be the last — series was canned during its second season. And because that cancellation, announced just before last Christmas, happened after the succeeding episodes had already been filmed the series ended without a resolution to the complex storylines. I have my own personal view of what might have happened and, briefly, a film was planned which was then cancelled, so I'll never know. Oddly, the pre-penultimate episode of the second season almost provided a sort of closure, and the final edition provided a bookend to the very first, with the lights on each floor of the Destiny going out in order at the end, reflecting them coming on at the series opener.

The other, however, had some warning of the impending end. Life Unexpected was light-years away from Stargate (though 'Light Years' was the original working title,) being the story of a girl called Lux who had been put up for adoption as a new baby and her search, sixteen years later, for emancipation which led her to her birth father and mother. Wonderfully acted and moving it was a series I greatly enjoyed for its two, all-too-short seasons and in many ways reminding me of the earlier Gilmore Girls also from the WB/ CW stable.

And where Stargate Universe left its viewers on a knife-edge, Life Unexpected had a (clearly rewritten) final episode which tied most of its plot threads together, at least in the last twenty-five minutes! There was a "Two years later" title which cut to a graduation class, wherein we saw most of the main characters but weren't initially clear who were together as couples and which just happened to be sitting near each other right up until the final moments. And yes, the final scene played out as many of us viewers had probably written it way back in the series' pilot two years before, but we cried nonetheless.

I find this way of American television being happy to cancel a show on a whim quite annoying for two reasons. One is the simple "but I liked that show!" which also applied to other recent cancellations (like Lie to Me and Human Target, both of which were cancelled after their final episodes had been broadcast), the other is the short-sightedness that a series may take a while to grow an audience.

The politics of downloading

First off, before I get started, let me say quite clearly and absolutely that I do not hold with people downloading music and films illegally. There are proper outlets for such media and they mostly require payment, a portion of which goes to the performers and creators involved. I categorically consider them wrong. Saying "illegal" though is, I believe, going too far as such behaviour appears to me to be a civil, not criminal, matter.

However I believe that life is not so straight-forward when it comes to certain other media available via the internet. There are, for instance, many 'radio stations' both narrowcast and broadcast available over the web. There are also many "watch again" services from the BBC iPlayer and Channel Four's '4OD' (On Demand) services in the UK through to NBC and other US broadcasters, each in their respective markets. There are also suppliers such as hulu.com who provide something between the free-to-air and pay-by-the-month models.

Back when I was young and innocent I would watch a series on television and discuss it with friends in the playground or lecture theatre the next day. The only television available to us was that by the terrestrial broadcasters of the time; BBC and ITV. Even when Channel Four came along nothing much changed; we consumers weren't really aware of what happened outside our own country and it was many years before I, for one, realised how old some of the programmes were that I was seeing broadcast here for the first time.

And it didn't matter.

But in the last ten to fifteen years things have greatly changed. Not just the more recent 'facebook generation' but those of us online during those fifteen years have made friends around the world, and chat and discuss things with them. And one of those things has often been our favourite television series.

In my case there have been some shows which I found I was reading friends' blogs — or even news reports — about what had happened in that week's instalment where we in the UK were still a season or more behind. And it isn't that one can — or should — stop interacting with friends, or ask them not to post their thoughts in case you might see it and be 'spoilered'.

So one is left with either an unacceptable option of retreating into some sort of shell, or considering whether to download the episode ahead of its broadcast in the UK (and remember that nearly everything worth seeing gets transmitted on free-to-air free-to-watch channels in the UK).

It isn't an easy decision, by any means. There are many considerations about whether getting to see something that you will get for free within some months — eg. Gossip Girl — or years — eg. Burn Notice — is necessary to not ruin the series for you. Of these, ITV2 now seems ahead of the USA on the first, and it doesn't bother me that the second is three years behind, so I'm happy to watch both on the television in the corner of my room.

But some years ago I was in this position with what I consider one of the top television programmes of all time. Aaron Sorkin's ' The West Wing'. Scheduling in the UK (on Channel 4 and its cable channels) meant one season was being broadcast at the same time as the succeeding one and, very clearly, not only would watching both spoiler me without any external interaction, but we were also somewhat behind my friends in the USA and elsewhere who, like myself, were deep in discussion about the series' storylines and arc.

So I torrented it to catch up.

And, whilst I admit that fact let me also add that I bought the DVD box sets for every season as soon as they became available (as well as re-watching it on UK television once it arrived here). No studio or artist lost out, indeed they profited over and above what they would have received had I solely watched it on the local services. I could also keep up with discussion online about the story arc of the show at the time it was happening. Even now I have an annual 're-watch all seven seasons from the start'.

And The West Wing isn't the only show this applies too. Buffy, Angel, Dark Angel, Firefly, and others too have seen me buy the DVDs once they are available.

So I'm left wondering what the answer is. Where a television programme is going to be available to me and everyone else in the country to watch for free, is there any actual financial loss incurred by anyone if I were to download it ahead of broadcast? I'm as likely to see the same advertisements, where the commercial channels are involved, and I pay my annual licence fee to the BBC and very happy to do so as it represents great value. I also pay for my bandwidth with (three) ISPs, and when I have occasionally torrented something more recently I do so after midnight so as to not disrupt other UK users.

The world is a globe now. It isn't a series of flat-earth countries each doing their own thing. Scheduling a week apart in different places is pretty acceptable, but longer causes problems to a great many people who aren't so blinkered as to ignore friends in the rest of the world. If there is no income reduction for keeping up to date — and possibly an increase from subsequent DVD sales — then should it be wrong at all?

The ultimate "what if?"

One of my favourite shows this autumn / fall season has been the second outing of Being Erica from CBC. Starring Erin Karpluk it has been a voyage of discovery as we watched Erica come to terms with events in her past when she was offered the chance to revisit them and — just possibly — make some changes. An interesting premise I'm sure you'll agree; what would you change about events in your past? Do you have lots of regrets, just a few or, indeed, none whatsoever?

In watching the show one can't help pondering after each episode what similarities there have been in one's own life. When Erica has broken up with a boyfriend — or 'repaired' the situation so that she didn't — sometimes she found that things didn't change in the long term anyway, but other times they did, majorly. It made me wonder what would have happened if I'd accepted John's marriage proposal in 1994; where would I be now? Or if I hadn't split up with Brandon a short while before he became a multi-millionaire? If my first business had been more of success than it was (when my second client refused to pay their final invoice and I couldn't afford the barrister to take them to the High Court) or I'd worked less on student politics and more on my coursework when I went to university. And that is before I look at the more 'personal' choices I've made in my years on this planet!

Ultimately, I don't believe the past is something we can ever know if we got 'right'. We make the choices that seem right at the time and hope for the best outcome in their future. If we got it wrong well, it was right at the time† and we couldn't know what would happen in the end.

Erica gets to 'do over' her mistakes. Sometimes it is an improvement, often it makes little difference in the long run. Would we all choose the same alternative if we knew then what we know now?

† As I write that I'm suddenly aware of Tony Blair saying today that he thought it was right to go back to war in Iraq, no matter whether there were actually WMD.

State-sanctioned murder

Earlier this evening I watched a powerful drama on Channel 4. The Execution of Gary Glitter was — in its final outcome — expected from the very name of the programme. A superbly made film, with an absolute tour-de-force from Hilton McRae in the lead role, it was disquieting and terrifying in the possibility that state-sanctioned murder could ever come back to this country.

The ' death penalty' (ie Judicially-sanctioned murder) does not work - just look at the countries which still have it and note how often those crimes which get 'death' as the punishment still happen regularly. It has no deterrent effect whatsoever and instead, just as this film showed, we end up with a population in a state of 'excitement' of mob rule and their belief that they should have their way. A (fictional) Home Secretary saying that a decision was based on the desire of the people to have a killing is not an acceptable way for the elected government to act. Death, for practical purposes of the person found guilty, is no different from a whole-life sentence served behind bars, yet just as we abhor death by terrorists so we must find state-sanctioned murder no better.

In many ways we are all children of the modern era, in that most of us - thankfully - rarely see death in front of our eyes. We watch hundreds of fake deaths daily on television and in films, yet news programmes ensure they do not show the act of violent death when reporting from war zones or relaying film from al-Qaeda showing another captive being beheaded — little different to the effect of a hanging. Cowboys and Indians as children again make us learn that death is an impermanent state of being and little happens to change that early view. Even in the case of this dramatisation the executive producer, Samir Shah, has said "The director Rob Coldstream felt we had to show enough to convey the grim reality of the execution but it would have been gratuitous to show more."

That some comments on the Channel 4 website have said things such as "that drama put a smile to my face. bring back the death sentance (sic) and hang huntley and glitter. they won't be smiling then", and "The only dissaponting (sic) thing about this programme is that it wasnt for real" makes me feel very sad and disappointed, not to say very worried.

For the state to accept mob rule and fail civilisation in killing offenders for the fun of the few should never be acceptable. That polling suggests 54% of the UK adult population want the 'death penalty' returned shows both that there is a lack of education about what it really means, and — arguably — that the result of any polling is questionable, based on the way a question is asked ( Sir Humphrey in Yes, Minister comes to mind) and how inaccurate electoral polling often is.

Whilst some may believe in the (Judeo-Christian) bible's "an eye for an eye" approach, I believe we have moved on. Even Gandhi noted "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" and we no longer permit many activities sanctioned in the bible and to kill someone because they did something we find totally, utterly, and completely reprehensible makes us as bad as them.
________________________________________
clip from Yes, Minister
"Are you worried about the number of young people without jobs? … Are you worried about the rise in crime amongst teenagers? … Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our comprehensive schools? … Do you think young people would welcome some authority and leadership in their lives? … Do you think they'd respond to a challenge? … Would you be in favour of re-introducing national service?"

"Are you worried about the danger of war? … Are you worried about the growth of armaments? … Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill? … Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will? … Would you oppose the re-introduction of national service?"