 |
| Sophie Lowe |
Welcome to a new column called Channel Surfing, in which I sporadically look at current TV shows and talk about them. These are not ones that I care to write weekly recaps for and are instead reflections either on the episode, the series, or particular moments. This will hopefully help to share personal opinions as well as discover entertainment on the outer pantheon that I feel is well worth checking out, or in some cases, shows that are weird enough to talk about, but should never be seen.
One of the most baffling new trends on TV has been the rise of fan fiction stories. With the recent success of Sleepy Hollow proving that people still yearn for the tales of Ichabod Crane, rehashing old, familiar tales is something that doesn't seem to be going away. In fact, ABC's Once Upon a Time remains one of the flagship series to this trend, now entering its third season and creating what appears to be its first spin-off, if the fairy tale world could exactly make something of that concept.
The series is Once Upon a Time in Wonderland. Based on the logo for the series alone, it seems like the creators are insisting that you associate it with the other show, as only "in Wonderland" is in a different font setting. It almost suggests that it is the same show in a different landscape. Having not seen the flagship series, I was coming in with fresh eyes and one curious to see what exactly this series could do to make the Lewis Carroll story of "Alice in Wonderland" come to life in a fresh new way that hasn't been done over the past 60 years.
It would make sense that if Once Upon a Time were to make a spin-off of one popular work, it would be Carroll's popular tale of a women who stumbled down the rabbit hole. In 2010, director Tim Burton sent Alice in Wonderland into a billion dollar success story with a few Oscars to back up its credibility (though for set design). It almost seemed opportune that if Disney was to make a cash grab for any fairy tale character, it would be her.
Of course, this doesn't exactly make for compelling TV. Making shows over familiar properties may not be something new, but with the execution of Once Upon a Time in Wonderland, you must wonder what exactly is the motive at this point. Along with Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., this season seems to be hitting the bottom of the barrel for ideas on ABC. Even then, you'd expect the spin-off of a beloved series and with a successful film in recent memory to have better production design. What follows isn't necessarily anything new, but it also isn't that attractive to look at.
The issue with judging the first episode "Down the Rabbit Hole" is that it does feel like it is re-establishing familiar ground. The only difference is that Alice (Sophie Lowe) is older and is broken out of a mental institution that she is locked up at for believing in Wonderland. It is an intriguing concept and the choice to study Alice as a psychological mess was a premise that had potential. However, when the show is called Once Upon a Time in Wonderland, it unfortunately has to go to Wonderland for the story to actually kick off.
This is where things become problematic. The straining of the budget begins to show and it isn't attractive. The familiar characters are there, including the White Rabbit (John Lithgow) and the Cheshire Cat (Iggy Pop), who are fine based on solid voice over performances, but clash too much with the background. It is true that TV's special effects budget is smaller than an average film, but when the story takes place almost entirely in a CGI universe, it does raise a lot of repulsive visuals. Fields of mushrooms and exaggerated trees and fields are all shown in a sickish, cartoony manner that sucks the life out of the authenticity. It doesn't feel like a Wonderland, but a bunch of actors forced upon bad backdrops. A simple decision to build sets could have easily fixed this problem and even if it didn't look as high tech, it would have at least kept things from distracting from the performances.
Right off the bat, we are also introduced to the villain of the piece: the Red Queen (Emma Rigby), who also doesn't feel exceptional. She is supposed to be the threatening foe of the piece, but she is given little to do in this piece besides hushing Jafar (Naveen Andrews) and having him ride away on a magic carpet. While I am sure that the universe of this show has plans for Aladdin crossovers, it does seem like a pathetic way to reinvent the wheel of "Alice in Wonderland" and instead feels like the only way for the show to have a potentially lucrative, long run akin to its parent series.
It is hard to properly judge the series, as the whole story is familiar. Besides the Aladdin connection, there isn't much reason to come back for another episode. Sophie Lowe's Alice isn't particularly interesting nor is her partner in the journey the Knave of Hearts (Michael Socha). Since the series feels premeditated on just reacting to awe-inspiring scenery, the show would either need to improve their effects budget, or just go back to the psych ward and tell the story that is far more intriguing and ambitious.
I wish that I could say something positive about the series, but it leaves me feeling baffled. Not being familiar with too many major network dramas, I am not familiar with the popular trends. However, I do believe that most of them look more professional than Once Upon a Time in Wonderland. It doesn't necessarily feel rushed, but it does feel lazy and uninspired at points. Even the title suggests that the only way to draw in a crowd is to remind people of where the series' existence was spawned from. I don't even know if it can find its own existence outside of the show as a result of the cursed name.
I do worry that this is just the product of having to fill time and relying on familiar, pre-established topics. Much like Fox seems reliant on Seth MacFarlane, ABC seems to be moving into the camp of everything associated with Once Upon a Time. It feels like we're mere years from a series on the Grimms' "Death's Messengers." Almost everything will be dug up and made into something slightly more modern. Do we need it? No. I do believe while using existing properties is good in moderation, I do also feel like it is halting the progression of interesting or even ambitious TV series.
Before you accuse me of disliking anything involving a modern take on fairy tales, do know that I like my share of them. Last year's Mirror Mirror managed to present a version of "Snow White" that was entertaining, lively, and different. While not in the traditional vein of fairy tales, Joe Wright's Hanna is a brilliant take on fairy tale in one of the most interesting, action packed modern ways. That is all I really asked for from Once Upon a Time in Wonderland. I wanted some sort of joy and life. Instead, I got CGI effects and performances meant to be in awe of the CGI. Good TV that doesn't make.
Maybe what really needs to be done is to cut back on the effects and just focus more on the characters. True, Wonderland is a problematic landscape to make without effects, but it is also possible for it to bring more focus to the characters, which I feel was missing. Even the rabbit hole being a big worm hole of an effect was bothersome. I liked the updated concept, but there also needed to be some sense of realism. A worm hole is about as far fetched as things get.
While the show itself isn't terrible, I don't see much of a point to its existence. Nothing about it feels honest or unique. Maybe in a few weeks, provided that the reviews get better, I may revisit the series and consider its trajectory. For the time being, it does little in the ways of becoming a necessary viewing appointment like Masters of Sex. In fact, it just reflects what is wrong with TV right now simply with its name. Even if the intentions are good, I feel like the point of becoming bloated with rehashed themes in TV culture has become prevalent with this Once Upon a Time in Wonderland.
Comments
Post a Comment