Quote:
Originally Posted by Welshchris
What the hell is it with film makers all they wanna seem to do is focus on appocaliptic subjects and its tiresome and old.
|
They do that. Someone finds either a gimmick or a new formula for drama, and everyone suddenly thinks it's the best thing since sliced bread and slots it in anywhere they can.
How many films used "Bullet Time" after "The Matrix"? How many series and films used a lot of computer generated Lens Flare after "Babylon 5"? How many series used computer generated camera shake for their SFX shots after "Battlestar Galactica" or handheld cameras after the same series?
After 2001, how many SF films had bright, well lit, colourful, sterile looking spaceship interiors? After Star Wars, how many films had dark, grimy, old looking spaceship interiors?
Another thing Battlestar introduced to SF that I don't think is entirely realistic is an almost complete lack of humour. I say it's not realistic simply because especially in highly stressful and bleak situations (like war), people do use humour to try and make themselves feel better. They don't act like the cast of Battlestar.
Anyhow, back on subject.
I'll give the series a chance. It has at least one good actor in it's cast (Noah Wyle from ER), and had good special FX. Trouble is, even if something has an excellent cast (which Outcasts did) , and excellent special FX (which Outcasts didn't), if it has a crap story, it's still a crap production.