It's a shame they've spent so much money on it
as it isn't anything new, the only thing that is new is that you see a couple
of willies (even though the willie count is going up generally, we always get
an almost embarrassed shot which says look there's a willie in this but lets
move back along to the tits, phew) along with the many, many boobs, bums and
really as you get closer to the end, stomach churning sexual violence. There is
a line spoken by one young actress which made me think that the thirteen year
olds watching it (and there will be) will be off kilter for days if not months
or years. And of course the scene where one actress fights naked. She seems to
be fighting naked because she is a new clone and if she had been born from a
vacuum pack I'd have gone with it, but she'd been reclining on a nice comfy
chair which could have gone with some nice comfy sci-fi- sweatpants or even a
slinky pair of pjs...but no she's naked. Some of the totemic cliches of the
first two episodes are part info dump but are mostly faithful to the book. And
unless I'm remembering the novel incorrectly, there's at least one Chekov's Gun
lying in plain view that had to be there. There is a degree of lingering soft
porn that's been overdone (e.g., the Bancroft clone vault scene), and the
screenplay and acting are awkward against the expense and complexity of the
effects. But I'm four episodes in and so far it's not even close to my
expectations. Richard Morgan's novels are heavily invested in violence and sex.
They do contrast the violent, casual decadence and immorality of the Meth's vs
the street. It's the dark side to privilege that, say, Bank's Culture didn't
always address with the same visceral ugliness.
I get the sense that the source material may
have been chosen in part because of the way it weaves an appealing character
and novel cultural mechanic with settings and tropes that are familiar and
popular. I wonder if Netflix see this as a gateway drug to get the “Game of
Thrones” audience onto SF/Cyberpunkish stuff. The boob count certainly suggests
so (although fringe benefit, pubic hair, is going to make a comeback in the
future). The prime reason it felt a little strung out is that they'd (perhaps
through necessity for a TV adaptation) expanded the roles of a number of
characters that don't feature quite so prominently in the book. Reileen is
barely in it, Ortega doesn't have anywhere near as much focus and certainly
doesn't spend time with her family, Quell only appears in the form of quotes
from her battle diaries and has no connection to Kovacs at all, The Hendrix
(Poe) is a lesser character, Vernon Elliott is not a sidekick and Lizzie
Elliott has one short scene. For me, the idea that you "shouldn't believe anything you see",
or whatever way they put it, is a cop-out. It's lazy writing and has the
potential to provide for an easy out for some awkward storyline akin to Bobby
popping up in the shower in Dallas. Also, I found the over-use and stagedness
of smoking cynical.
I think having read so much written SF over the
years my expectations of its being brought to life on screen were very high.
Perhaps I'm just a boring old fart who can't be the young twenty year old
falling in love with “Blade Runner” years ago and boring everyone senseless
over it. I would like to see someone throw money at Marge Piercy's “Body of
Glass” or “Woman on The Edge of Time” though (or at “The Player of Games” or at
“Consider Phlebas”), and maybe create a new equation of less sexual violence
and boobs but more willies and pubic hair...
All that being said, I am finding it extremely
frustrating, that people keep either comparing it to “Blade Runner”, which it
is not even remotely similar too, or complaining that it is whitewashing
because Kovacs is a white actor instead of Asian, which is exactly as it is in
the book. Having said that, I was really looking forward to seeing this, but
kind of disconnected during the fourth episode. The luscious visuals are just
not enough to keep you interested, as there's bad acting, bad and increasingly
fabricated plot, and cliche loaded elements that feel like randomly stolen from
the modern history of written and screen SF. I guess with “Altered Carbon” most
people fall for the great CGI, something that regularly makes me enjoy second
class movies if they at least look great, but this was just getting more boring
and sterile as it went along.
Coming back to Iain Banks, “Consider Phlebas” is
the obvious one for a great adaptation, as it's a very "cinematic"
story with a linear narrative focalised through one character's perspective and
contains some absolutely massive action set pieces. The main problem is
squeezing everything into a film's running length. The later Culture novels
become progressively more ambitious in scope and setting. “Use Of Weapons”
would be very difficult to do on screen due to the endless changes of place and
time. I also don't see how you could preserve the vital twist ending in a
visual representation of the characters.
It's a strange one isn't it? I guess the
question really is: should we judge a TV show/movie/book on its value as 'art'
(high brow/low brow whatever) or should we judge a TB show/movie/book on how
much money it makes. I wonder how much money Moby Dick made (first example to
pop into my head). And then of course the worry that if a trend comes out of
this, it could mean that only works that have a money value start to be
produced, which means we lose a great deal of potential art from a lot of
artists, as they simply aren't recognised, and the only things that are then
produced always fit a formula, one that has been shown to make money, which is
what I personally feel has been happening for many years in Hollywood - though there
are some notable outliers. It is another example of the 'echo-chamber' effect
in some ways I guess. I do wonder if a Brave New World awaits if we continue
down this path... everything fits in box A, B or C.
This series is what Stranger Things is to 80's
Spielbergian flicks; it does the same to 90's Cyber Films and B Movie Fare like
“Demolition Man”, “Johnny Mnemonic”, “Strange Days”, and even “The Matrix”,
etc. Even has some pseudo Industrial Rock songs that smack of 90's nostalgia. I
also found some references to Video Games like Bioshock (the Raven Hotel just
reminded me of some of the beginning stages) and Final Fantasy 7. “Altered Carbon” lacks invention and
understanding of what constitutes reality. Yes, we know life on Earth is likely
to be a replay of previous life. That much is obvious to anybody whose mind is
agile enough to detect the nuances that life brings about. What this series
needs is someone with inside knowledge of the complexity of life whilst
bringing out the pain and joy in ways that are subtle and not overplayed or
overstated. Too many series are lazy is this respect, they have lost the art of
developing the narrative and building up the story. Showing full nudity is a
cheap way of gaining stiction and is a clear sign that the director has nothing
much to say.
“Breaking Bad” showed us what good screen
writing and storytelling is about. Netflix should develop groundbreaking shows
like that, rather than spending on CGI blade runner adaptions.
Bottom-line: Gave up after four episodes.
Despite the lavish budget it came across like one of those tacky Charles Band
knock offs like "Trancers." I know. It's not easy to adapt books like "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" by Phil Dick. But it´s possible...
SF = Speculative Fiction.
