:: Captain's Personal Blog ::

Stardate: Thursday, November 21, 2002

Another open rant about Birds of Prey

Well, yesterday both Daily Variety and The Hollywood Reporter announced the cancellation of Birds of Prey, the new DC Comics show from the producers of Smallville.

A few weeks ago, I praised the show, based on it's pilot and my early reactions. Now that the show has been cancelled, I feel it is time to emote yet again......

First and foremost:
The following people are completely absolved of blame for the demise of this program -- Ashley Scott, Rachel Skarsten, Dina Meyer, Mia Sara, Shemar Moore and Ian Abercrombie.

A long standing belief that I hold is that not all actors can be held responsible for perceived bad acting. Why? Because some material can be so bad that even the best of actors would be left unable to pull off the material with a semblance of believability. Did this happen on BIRDS OF PREY? From time to time. But believe me when I tell you that this was the least of this program's problems.

From the get-go, let me just say that I am a supporter of this show and enjoy it. However, that doesn't mean that I don't think it could be better. And so I am now going to explain what I felt was wrong with this well-intentioned series.

1) Characterization - The actors and actresses in this series are not to blame for problems in this area. I blame this solely on the writers. Oracle is the biggest character to suffer in this department. She spends most episodes just sitting around spouting platitudes with occasional interruptions where she gives information. Past that, she seems to have no useful purpose. With the lack of characterization for her on the show, it seems unlikely that she could have tamed a young, wild, Huntress. Granted, Huntress isn't tamed, but it seems that Oracle does wield some authority over her, which as of now, is less believable than the fact that Clark hasn't considered tossing his father through a wall on Smallville (a point to be made in another rant.)

Huntress has actually been suffering from bad characterization the least. She has come a long way from her solo image in the pilot. The change is gradual, but there nonetheless which is good. Although last night's episode was a bit of a step backwards at first (what with the whole man-hating thing,) but again, I will get to last night's episode later.

Dinah has had little character development this season. This I can't explain seeing as how, as a friend of mine pointed out, in the pilot it almost seemed as though she was supposed to be the lead character. Instead we've been getting mostly Huntress episodes. Even with the Black Canary (Dinah's mother) in town, we spent almost as much time with Huntress than we did with everyone else. What gives? Time to make her an equal part of the team (although at this point it's a bit late.)

I'm OK with Reese. He's the Comissioner Gordon of this show, and that's fine. I don't expect much from him, and therefore am not particularly disappointed.

Alfred is probably the biggest disappointment to me. Other than the narration at the beginning of each episode, is he REALLY necessary here? He is transparent as a plot device intended to rope in Batman fans. Either give him a role or get him out. Alfred's presence is unnecessary and just another thing that will upset Batman fans due to the fact that he should either be REALLY old or dead by this point in time.

Harley is coming along very slowly and I think that is upsetting viewers a lot also. No character can be the secret villain throughout a show's run. It becomes stagnate and the viewers get bored. It's like too much foreplay. Last night was the biggest hint of what is to come, but having waited this long, it was probably missed by the people who needed to see it most. Those who already left.

2) Metahumans and Genetics - The term "Metahuman" is relatively new in the world of Comic Books. The concept is an old one, but the term is new. It is an example of how the genre (Sci-Fi/Fantasy) has gotten so steeped in technobabble that it tends to alienate the public at large. The term itself is grating on the ears when used in a comic book sense by laymen. If scientists on the show used the term "Metahuman" that would be one thing. But cops on the street wouldn't use it. Metahumans themselves wouldn't use it. It's not necessary. DITCH IT NOW.

Next, when was it decided that a person was a mix of their parent's mentalities on a genetic level? In relation to Huntress' psyche, I am tired of hearing people say that she is "Half Batman" or "Half Catwoman." From the point of view of the show, she never knew her father, and she never knew the side of her mother that was Catwoman. To that end, neither of those facts should have an imperative influence on her. She doesn't act bad because she is "Half Catwoman."

And on that subject, what's with Catwoman being "metahuman" in the first place? I mean I get it, and I'm more or less OK with it, but again this leads to the definition of where these metahumans come from. For the most part, in comics, they come from the results of lab accidents, experiments, alien births and other fantastic occurrences. Marvel Comics will concede that some of these mutations are natural evolution. However, I don't believe that the proliferation of metas on BIRDS OF PREY should be attributable only to simple evolutionary mutation. It's too much to take on faith. Even SMALLVILLE will use Kryptonite as a catalyst (which as we all know has worn kinda thin anyway.)

3) Villains - Do all villains have to die? Can't some of them come back? Would it be a crime to see some villains who model themselves after Batman's foes (as seen in BATMAN BEYOND)? If we spent a little less time exploring NEW villains, maybe we could get into some story.

4) Story - And speaking of which, last night capped it completely. I had the whole thing figured out 10 minutes into the program. The worst part is that I refused to believe that I was right because I didn't want to think that it was THAT easy. But it was. Earlier experiments in exposing canon to the show opened up possibilities for future stories. Oracle once mentioned JASON TODD, DICK GRAYSON and TIM DRAKE. They were all Robins. Would it have been so bad it Darkstrike was Tim Drake, grown up? We all know (at least those into comics) that Dick Grayson grows up to be the vigilante NIGHTWING. So Tim becoming Darkstrike would have been a nice footnote to that. Batman is an established mythos that most people know SOMETHING about and the producers/writers are not taking advantage of it at all. I find that upsetting. They should just stay away from all the genre plot cliches that we all know by heart.

Also, let me put forth my formal protest over the death of Black Canary. I feel that it was a mistake that was meant solely to evoke tears in both Dinah and the audience. Instead it came off as the old cliche that you should make your peace before it's too late.

5) Visuals - They should have quit the zooming through the city. It was a bit of overkill and a bit of a "Ooh look what we can do." Unfortunately, it looked more like a video game than a snazzy special effect and therefore detracted from the show.

I'm about out of ammo for now. I'm exhausted from writing this much, and you are probably exhausted from the read. Again, I like this show. It has tremendous potential. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that if it is realized, it will just be too late. After all, the WB is dumping BIRDS OF PREY and picking up GROUNDED FOR LIFE. To me that is a sorry state of affairs.


:: J 10:52 AM [+] ::
...