Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
I enjoyed this again last night. There were definite echoes of BSG in one or two places ... enough to make me start comparing the two, such as noticing that the camerawork on Outcasts isn't shaky like BSG.  Julius Berger is shaping up as some sort of Gaius Baltar figure. |
That shaky camera thing is supposed to be atmospheric. It's meant to make you feel like you are in the scene. It's never felt that way to me though. All it did in my case was to irritate me.
Quote:
|
They have gone for a technique that was very heavily used in JJ Abrams' Star Trek - lots of bright light straight into the lens. I'm not sure I like it very much but at least it shows the BBC is prepared to consider the American approach of giving big-budget drama a distinctive style and feel rather than just planting the camera and making it all about the performances.
|
TBH, it didn't look big budget to me. I don't know if the series was big budget (although Kudos TV, who produced it, do have a reputation for producing big budget shows). I have to admit, I don't think if something is small budget, or even if it looks cheap, that it is necessarily bad. A good story costs very little. Most of the classic series Doctor Who stories looked cheap, but there were some absolutely brilliant ones. Sadly, the story for this didn't seem that interesting (or was badly told).
Quote:
|
I think I would have liked it if they had kept the ACs a bit more mysterious for a bit longer, rather than explaining exactly who they are and what they want in part 2, but on the other hand they have given themselves an awful lot to establish ... if this were a US series they would be planning for 20+ eps, whereas this is following a typical British approach and going for 6-8.
|
If this were a US series and was in a run of 20+ episodes, I would hope they would employ a better scriptwriter.