The Sarah Jane Adventures

[JesusAndYourBush]

Anyone watching this on BBC1 right now.  So far after 20 minutes it's utter shit.

[TraceyQ]

Turn it off, then.

[ffogems]

Isn't this an identical plot to an episode of Futurama?
It's really quite bad. I fear for the disposition of tea-time children everywhere if they watch this thick-fisted handling of provincial teen-trauma. The abrasive black girl in particular is awful. Yet more form-before-content characterisation.

It's better than Torchwood though.

[lardboy]

Pile of shite.  The cute Nissan Figaro and the fact that she's a milf are the only redeeming features.

What's the pretty boy been in before?

[Totem Hokum]

I don't get this - is it supposed to be a family show or a kid's show? It's all over the fucking place.

[lardboy]

It's a CBBC production, so it's presumably for kids.  They're probably hoping for a good crossover audience as well, hence the high profile slot for the pilot.

My highlight was Moneypenny saying "I don't understand her, it's all noise and ignorance" when the girl was going all Vicki Pollard at her.

Worst:  "So this is happiness, yes?"

[JesusAndYourBush]

It's a CBBC production

Hehe, I realised that during the closing announcement.

The basic idea for a Sarah Jane & K9 spinoff series was first tried about 25 years ago with "K9 & Company".  I preferred that to this piece of tosh today.  The basic idea of the story wasn't too bad I suppose but with Russell T Davies in charge he had to ruin it with his silliness that we're familiar with in his other works.

My highlight was Moneypenny saying "I don't understand her, it's all noise and ignorance" when the girl was going all Vicki Pollard at her.

A shame that when she erased the girls most recent memories she didn't also erase all the stupid slang expressions and turn her into someone less annoying.

[lardboy]

...Sarah Jane & K9 spinoff series...

No BBC involvement, so it's not even vaguely canon.  I have no doubt it'll be complete shit, but still better than Torchwood.

[Dark Sky]

Hurray, this was brilliant!  I was really hoping they'd pitch it right, and they did...  Though actually it was a bit more complicated and scary than I thought it would be.  

Hope the CBBC series is just as good, and that Samantha Bond does return, 'cause she was great!

And Elisabeth Sladen was really good...I was a bit worried 'cause she was rather crap her episode of Doctor Who last year.  But no, she's brill.  

It's still a shame K9 isn't in it properly, but maybe it's for the best.

[Dark Sky]

...Sarah Jane & K9 spinoff series...

(picture)
No BBC involvement, so it's not even vaguely canon.  I have no doubt it'll be complete shit, but still better than Torchwood.

Just to avoid the confusion which is gonna ensure..."K9 Adventures" has got nothing to do with "The Sarah Jane Adventures".

The new K9 series is being made for a Dutch network and will be part animated.  Plus as it's written by Bob Baker I wouldn't hold any hope.  I used to think he was good up until the major disaster of the Wallace and Gromit movie.

But presumably the Dutch series is the reason why the BBC can't get the rights to use K9 in The Sarah Jane Adventures...

[Beagle 2]

So that old Partridge gag about buying the rights to K9 actually happened, and it's actually paid off for someone?

[Catalogue Trousers]

Dark Sky wrote:

major disaster of the Wallace and Gromit movie.

I know that I've said this a fair few times recently but would you care to expand on that? I found Curse Of The Were-Rabbit to be a highly enjoyable film. Granted, it's just Wallace and Gromit stretched out to feature-length, with uncomfortable similarities in some ways to A Close Shave (another bloody cute wee animal put in, one suspects, primarily for the merchandise possibilities, and Wallace in love again), but for all that it was never less than enjoyable, and some of the gags - such as Gromit's attempted "seductive stripper" routine - are up there with any of the others.

Anyway...The Sarah Jane Adventures. On this, Dark Sky, I agree with you - I found it pretty bloody good! I did have some minor cavils (the way-too-similar-to-Who title sequence, the whole "ooh, I really fancied the Doctor" subtext, that blatant re-hash of Eccleston's "go back to your ordinary life and forget about me" speech) and one major one (that bloody actress playing Kelsey! Not helped by RTD's woeful attempts at "hip" childspeak - as embarrassing as John Sullivan's Damien dialogue), but on the whole - as I commented to Mrs Trousers, "This feels a damn sight more like proper Doctor Who to me". And that goes for both Torchwood and RTD's Who.

The acting was generally top-notch (and kudos to Lis Sladen particularly), the effects passable to good, and the basic story - despite a bloody rushed ending involving mobile phones again - more than fair enough.

And the kisses to the past were lovely. Not just K-9 (his little tail wagging as he said goodbye was heartwarming), but Sarah's suggestions for Luke's name (wot no Brendan?), and in particular...that photo of good old Lethbridge-Stewart. This is the first time that any of the UNIT old guard have even been noted since RTD took over, right? Fair brought a tear to me old fanboy eye.

One other petty annoyance - noted by some other posters here already - RTD really needs to sort out who he's pitching this show at. For a supposed kids' show, that line about "chasing me round the bedroom clutching a bottle of soft drink - well, it was a novel experience!" was a bit near-the-knuckle. Just change the room to any other room in the house, and the gag remains just as valid, without having to drag in LOL NO SEX!!! again.

But even that was at least partly counter-balanced by having our young heroine's Mum be more of a dislikable goit than her somewhat Modern Parents but basically okay New Man Dad. Keep it up, RTD, you're getting there...

Get rid of Kelsey, take the nudge-nudge-isms out of the script, and SWITCH OFF THE BLOODY MOBILE PHONES and you could be onto a winner here, Russ. Nice one!

[JesusAndYourBush]

...Sarah Jane & K9 spinoff series...

(picture)
No BBC involvement, so it's not even vaguely canon.  I have no doubt it'll be complete shit, but still better than Torchwood.

I was referring to K9 & Company, done in around 1980/81.  Is that thing you mention the animated thing?  Whatever happened to that?   I heard mention of it last year but as nothing ever materialised I'd assumed it was scrapped or mutated into the thing that was on today.

[Ghost of Troubled Joe]

Yeah, I quite enjoyed that. Compared to the utter amateurish gash that was and is "K-9 & Company" it was a fucking masterpiece. Obviously designed for a younger audience but all the better for it. I thought the tone was very consistent, especially with other CBBC productions- just watch a few episodes of the new Basil Brush Show, that's got a fair amount of adult humour in it that must go right over the heads of the target audience. The Kelsey character was annoying but then there are kids that my mum teaches who are exactly like that, and besides this is fiction and not all fictional characters are there to be liked.

The only crap line? "Sonic lipstick."

Groan, Russell and Gareth, groan.

[benthalo]

I enjoyed it in the main and have no doubt it'll be a hit, despite some of the glaring problems mentioned above.  

My main grievance was the desperately obvious story idea, but the guest cast clearly had a lot of fun with the villainy and - most important - the basic format works fine.  I could hear everything clicking into place nicely.  The loft scenes were rather lovely bar the fucking dog. It's interesting that Luke's basically going to take K9's place.

I thought Kelsey was fair enough - overwritten perhaps, but for the show to work it needs a catalyst character who storms into traps and complicates plot.  The others are too timid and cautious for that.

Ghost of Troubled Joe is bang on about its pitching.  It slots perflectly into the Tracy Beaker/Young Dracula landscape.  My jaw regularly drops at what The Slammer gets away with, so the bedroom line was no great surprise to me. RTD, to give him his due, doesn't underestimate how demanding a childrens audience is and how sharp they can be.  It's good to see him writing directly for CBBC again.

[Lookalike Mark Chapman]

Once again, my opinion fails to chime with the majority. I really liked it. I'm a sucker for kid's telly anyway, especially when it's as well made as this, but - come on, it is kid's telly.

But the acting, the monsters, the sets, the drink advert, the bus, the effects - it all had high production values, it was made with love, and it wasn't too patronising or too nerdy. Just about right. The kids didn't annoy me - which is always a risk - and Samantha Bond was obviously having a great time (I love her). The kids telly I watched when I was little were the likes of The Demon Headmaster, Aquilla - and more than anything, this reminded me of those. In a good way.

did have some minor cavils (the way-too-similar-to-Who title sequence,,,)

Yeah, I think something along these lines would have been better. Never before has the excitement of a series been so perfectly encapsulated by a title sequence - see Sarah-Jane glancing at a newspaper! Sipping some wine! Jogging near a wall! Sitting on a wall! Some close-ups of the dog! More wine sipping! And a bit more jogging! For over a minute! (why so long, when they obviously had no content??).

But now - now she's got her cute little Figaro (I always wanted one of them), she's got a computer that can 'hack into anything' and, of course, her sonic lipstick and her alien recognizing watch thingy! And - best of all - K-9's not even in it!  Now, I don't know about the legal issues, but it is odd that they could use K-9 and his voice in this, but not be allowed have him as the proper companion. But personally, I think the series will be better off without him.

So basically - I enjoyed it. I'll doubtless be at work when the series is run, but I'll definitely be getting the old Sky+ box to watch it for me. And, as has been said above, if you really did think this was 'shit,' then for God's sake don't watch it.

[Catalogue Trousers]

The levels of K-9 intolerance here are frankly shocking!

"You good dog..."
"Affirmative."

is possibly the best dialogue that New Who has presented so far. And it wouldn't have been there - or worked half so well with anyone else - if it weren't for the little tin dog himself.

Three cheers for K-9, says I!

[Gazeuse]

This feels a damn sight more like proper Doctor Who to me"

My thoughts exactly. Shit Bontempi music though.

[The Duck Man]

I caught the end of it. It looked like well-made, fun children's drama. Certainly something I would have watched when I came in from school.

[gatchamandave]

I'm  going  to  really  push  my  neck  out  and  suggest  it's  the  best  thing  that  RTD  has  done  in  the  Who-niverse.  Quick  glimpse  of  not  just  the  Brig,  but  Harry  Sullivan  as  well -  the  sort  of  kisses  to  the  past  us  old  sods  want  to  see.  A  decent (  Cthuloid  ?)  monster,  Samantha  Bond  on  top  form,  and  dear  old  Elizabeth  Sladden  winning  my  heart  all  over  again.  Lovely.  The  kids  were  pretty  good  too.

Making a  children's  programme  means  that  RTD  was unable  to  indulge  in  cheap  thrills - sex,  love-dovey bollocks,  fathers  that  are  bastards  and  characters  showing  they  are  adult  by  using  " fuck" -  and  meant  he had  to  concentrate  on  character  interaction  and   plot  more  than  he  usually  does. Alas, the  latter  was  a hoary  old  cliche,  but  still  better  than  some  of  the  guff  we've  been  fed  in  the  other  shows (  " You  must  drink  it "....hmmm...bubbly  juice  as   a  metaphor  for  RTD's  Dr  Who ?    ....nahhh...he's  not  that  introspective,  is  he ? ) -  though  I  think  it  does  demonstrate  that  he is  Who'ed  out  now.

I  enjoyed  it  immensely  and  look  forward  to  the  rest -  something  to  set  the  tape  for.

[Dark Sky]

I was referring to K9 & Company, done in around 1980/81.  Is that thing you mention the animated thing?  Whatever happened to that?   I heard mention of it last year but as nothing ever materialised I'd assumed it was scrapped or mutated into the thing that was on today.

Well...I said about it in my last post...?!  "K9 Adventures", being made for the Dutch network Jetix.  Dutch.  Netherlands.  And yeah, it's still going ahead!

Dark Sky wrote:

major disaster of the Wallace and Gromit movie.

I know that I've said this a fair few times recently but would you care to expand on that? I found Curse Of The Were-Rabbit to be a highly enjoyable film. Granted, it's just Wallace and Gromit stretched out to feature-length, with uncomfortable similarities in some ways to A Close Shave (another bloody cute wee animal put in, one suspects, primarily for the merchandise possibilities, and Wallace in love again), but for all that it was never less than enjoyable, and some of the gags - such as Gromit's attempted "seductive stripper" routine - are up there with any of the others.

I'm sure I've made posts about this before!  But in the knowledge that it's disrupting the thread I'll reiterate...  Now, I adore the first three Wallace and Gromit films...they're all absolutely wonderful.  But the film...ehhh...  My major quibbles are:

1) Destroying Wallace to just a guy who says "cheese".  Over and over again.  He was always (slightly) more than that.  But it was audience pandering.  "Oh...it's funny when Wallace says 'cheese', so we'll have him do that a bit.  Oh, and we can get that bunny to do it too, that'll be cute.  Yeah."

2) Changing the Wallace and Gromit Universe to suddenly incorporate horror fantasy (Wallace turning into a giant wererabbit just doesn't work in the world they created in Wrong Trousers and A Close Shave).  And just generally the whole plot was incredible unadventurous and uncinematic (especially when compared to the previous two films).

3) The "we deliberately mould the latex with thumbprints to make it look like it's all charmingly made out of badly animated plasticine, to show that this is one animated film that is made with love and affection!!  And we'll add thumbprints to the CGi elements as well!!!!" attitude.  It's bollocks.  The film didn't look "charming" because of the shoddy animation, it just looked ugly, and the whole sickening deliberateness of it was just....arrghh...sickening!  I never thought I'd hate Nick Park until he admitted the "deliberate thumbprint" thing.  Look at Tim Burton's Corpse Bride, made the same year.  Now I'm not saying that Corpse Bride is better than Curse of the Wererabbit in terms of plot / character or anything, but just look at it.  It's made using the most high tech stop motion animation there is today, and it's almost TOO good because it looks almost like CGi.  But does that make it charmless?  Quite the reverse!  Corpse Bride oozes with attention and love, and is so much lovelier than the audience pandering blodge which was the soulless Curse of the Wererabbit.

I can't remember being more disappointed coming out of a cinema.

Except maybe Star Trek Nemesis...or the Firefly movie.

did have some minor cavils (the way-too-similar-to-Who title sequence,,,)

Yeah, I think something along these lines would have been better. Never before has the excitement of a series been so perfectly encapsulated by a title sequence - see Sarah-Jane glancing at a newspaper! Sipping some wine! Jogging near a wall! Sitting on a wall! Some close-ups of the dog! More wine sipping! And a bit more jogging! For over a minute! (why so long, when they obviously had no content??).

Part of me thinks that to be able to call Ian Levine a cunt you merely need to whisper the words "title music to K9 and Company", but then at the same time he is a bit of a genius.  Highlight of the special, that theme music.  Shame Murray Gold is shit by comparison.  But then thankfully he didn't write the incidental music to The Sarah Jane Adventures, which has to be one of the main reasons it felt like a high quality piece of television compared to New Who and Torchwood.

Making a children's programme means that RTD was unable to indulge in cheap thrills - sex, love-dovey bollocks, fathers that are bastards and characters showing they are adult by using " fuck" - and meant he had to concentrate on character interaction and plot more than he usually does.

Ehhhh...I'm not sure that people realise that Russell Davies has only written two episodes of Torchwood, five episodes of the last season of Doctor Who, and only wrote the story to that episode of The Sarah Jane Adventures (which was actually written by Gareth Roberts, who I just assume is a terrible, terrible writer based solely off reading his incredibly poor novelisation of the TV Movie).  But never mind.

I can't defend Davies' writing in New Who, but - and I'm repeating myself for the millionth time here - how anyone can say that Davies can't do subtlety, can't do character interaction, has a "gay-agenda", has a "wouldn't it be nice if we were all bisexual?" agenda and all of that bollocks, if they've seen Bob and Rose?  Hmm?  How.  

It's not possible.

At all.

[Hypodeemic Nerdle]

3) The "we deliberately mould the latex with thumbprints to make it look like it's all charmingly made out of badly animated plasticine, to show that this is one animated film that is made with love and affection!!  And we'll add thumbprints to the CGi elements as well!!!!" attitude.  It's bollocks.

"The English think being incompetent is the same as being sincere." - Mr. Crisp

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

and it's almost TOO good because it looks almost like CGi

Isn't that similar thinking to what you've just berated Nick Park for?

[Mister Six]

I can't defend Davies' writing in New Who, but - and I'm repeating myself for the millionth time here - how anyone can say that Davies can't do subtlety, can't do character interaction, has a "gay-agenda", has a "wouldn't it be nice if we were all bisexual?" agenda and all of that bollocks, if they've seen Bob and Rose?  Hmm?  How.  

1- Can do subtelty but can't be arsed any more.
2- Can do character interaction. Yup.
3- Not sure on the gay agends.
4- Has admitted to the bisexual thing.

[Marv Orange]

Ehhhh...I'm not sure that people realise that Russell Davies has only written two episodes of Torchwood, five episodes of the last season of Doctor Who, and only wrote the story to that episode of The Sarah Jane Adventures (which was actually written by Gareth Roberts, who I just assume is a terrible, terrible writer based solely off reading his incredibly poor novelisation of the TV Movie). But never mind.

This comes up a lot and I always say something like this. RTD is in control of Who and Torchwood his fingerprints are over it he even if he doesn't get the writing credit, he has said it was him who wanted to do "Hill have eyes" which became countrycide. The shite "Story arcs" which consist of one word being present in every episode is him.  He is involved in every episode of who and torchwood.

[CaledonianGonzo]

Destroying Wallace to just a guy who says "cheese".

He spends mosty of the movie lusting after vegetables.  Unless you mean boiling down Wallace's tropes for Hutch the Rabbit, in which case cheese, inventions and tank-top seems an acceptable short-hand.

Wallace turning into a giant wererabbit just doesn't work in the world they created in Wrong Trousers and A Close Shave

Of course, conveniently forgetting about A Grand Day Out, where they fly to the moon, eat some of the moon (tastes like Wensleydale) and meet a skiing robot.

sickening! I never thought I'd hate Nick Park until he admitted the "deliberate thumbprint" thing

That strikes me as a no-win situation for the animators.  Too clean/clinical and it looks plasticky and sterile.  Try and rough it up a little and you get a similarly hostile response.  I'd skip Flushed Away if I were you, then, where the CGI characters are similarily afflicted.  

I love Curse of the Were-Rabbit.  Most enjoyable movie of 2005 for me, and a hell of a lot better than Chicken Run.  Corpse Bride, on the other hand, was forgettable, and it gave me the same charmless, soulless feeling that you seemed to get from Were-Rabbit.

But then I don't rate the Nightmare Before Christmas (or Tim Burton) that much so my expectations were never that high for it in the first place...

[Mister Six]

This comes up a lot and I always say something like this. RTD is in control of Who and Torchwood his fingerprints are over it he even if he doesn't get the writing credit, he has said it was him who wanted to do "Hill have eyes" which became countrycide. The shite "Story arcs" which consist of one word being present in every episode is him.  He is involved in every episode of who and torchwood.

As far as I'm aware, he comes up with the basic concepts for every episode, whether vague ("the 1950s" for The Idiot's Lantern) or detailed (telling Moffat to include Captain Jack in The Empty Child).

[Catalogue Trousers]

Of course, conveniently forgetting about A Grand Day Out, where they fly to the moon, eat some of the moon (tastes like Wensleydale) and meet a skiing robot.

Plus, of course, A Close Shave features - in Preston -  a vicious, even frightening Terminator-esque robot dog, completely out of the blue - in fact, no explanation is given for his condition at all.

Glad to see that more people are starting to say that they liked The Sarah Jane Adventures. I think that gatchamandave in particular has hit the nail on the  head when he talks of the benefits of having RTD "forced" to write "exclusively" for children. The irony being that TSJA feels considerably more respectful towards my intelligence (and others', I'd wager) than New Who or Torchwood.

[gatchamandave]

Making a children's programme means that RTD was unable to indulge in cheap thrills - sex, love-dovey bollocks, fathers that are bastards and characters showing they are adult by using " fuck" - and meant he had to concentrate on character interaction and plot more than he usually does.

Ehhhh...I'm not sure that people realise that Russell Davies has only written two episodes of Torchwood, five episodes of the last season of Doctor Who, and only wrote the story to that episode of The Sarah Jane Adventures (which was actually written by Gareth Roberts, who I just assume is a terrible, terrible writer based solely off reading his incredibly poor novelisation of the TV Movie).  But never mind.

Thanks  but  I  do  know  how  much  he's  written  and  I've  followed  his  works  on  Who  since  Damaged  Goods (  heh - got  its  title right  this  time ).  I've  even  suggested  in  the  Dr  Who  thread  that  if  it wasn't for  him,  we  wouldn't  have  Sarah  Jane  and  the  Doctor -  to  name  but  two - back.  I'll  give  fair  credit  to  the   man -  but  I  also  think  that,  along  with  many  an  honoured  predecessor  such  as  Terry  Nation  and  Malcolm  Hulke,  he's  about Who'ed  out.  

Now,  yes,  he  has  only  written  the  two  episodes  of  Torchwood,  so  it's  unfair  to  take  him  to  task  every  time  Owen  brings  up  the  subject  of  " fuck-buddies "  .  Yet, nevertheless,  Torchwood 's  format   was  his  to  begin  with -  he  bigged  it  up  in  his  column  in  DWM  whilst  he  was  pulling  it  together  after  all - and  he  presumably  set  the  character  arcs  for  Owen,  Gwen  and  Rhys  in place,  for  example,. Thus  the  characters  ended  up  where  they  were -  ruined  relationships,  sex  as  a  driver  for  character  interaction  et  al -  because  that's  where  RTD  wanted  them  to  be  for  the  season  finale.  

Oh,  and  I  disagree  with  your  impression  of  Gareth  Robert's  wrtings (  got  all  of  his  stuff  on  Who  in  the  old  collection  as  well ) . It's  actually  about  time  he  was  brought  in -  have  a look  at  the  BBC  site  for  The  Well  Mannered  War on-line -  Excellent  stuff

Actually, if  you  are  referring  to  the  Paul  McGann  TV  movie  novelisation -  that  was  Gary  Russell.  And  yes,  he  can  be  a  bit  dodgy  as a  writer.

I can't defend Davies' writing in New Who, but - and I'm repeating myself for the millionth time here - how anyone can say that Davies can't do subtlety, can't do character interaction, has a "gay-agenda", has a "wouldn't it be nice if we were all bisexual?" agenda and all of that bollocks, if they've seen Bob and Rose?  Hmm?  How.  

It's not possible.

At all.

Well...I  didn't say  that,  did  I ?  What  I  am  suggesting  is  that  sometimes -  as  in  New  Earth  and  Tooth  and  Claw  -  that  subtelty  is  not  present  and  we  get  heavy  handed  "  I  love  being  with  you "  naffness,  rather  than  the  the   Bob  and  Rose level  of  writing.

[Mister Six]

Gareth Roberts should get some of that applause as well, him writing the script and all.