Masthead
One of my photos

How to enjoy Primeval

March 19th, 2007 · Posted by Skuds in Life · 6 Comments · Life

I found Primeval on ITV to be quite enjoyable, but only after employing some serious “willing suspension of disbelief” tactics. The secret is to not think about any of the following while watching it:

  • The one-dimensional character of the Home Office bloke
  • Why would the government, faced with a rash of unexplained physical events (like anomalies in the space-time continuum) have only life scientists as their technical advisors? If I found a rip in space and time I would expect a physicist to be more help than a biologist/paleontologist.
  • Since when did university professors and their staff carry guns?
  • Given that these time tunnels go all over the place, why did everyone assume that Helen Cutter had spent eight years roaming the past? She could have spent eight minutes there and then come back to our time eight minutes later.
  • Do these anomalies only occur in Britain?

Right up until the last episode I had wondered why all the anomalies went back in time and none went forward, but then they actually had one from the future, even though it popped out in the past rather than the present.

Mind you, the last episode ended with a really ridiculous time-travel faux pas. For reasons I would find hard to explain, you could not change something in the pre-historic age which would result in a very, very specific change in the present like a single person not existing but everything else being the same. And even if you did, it was a bit weak having that old chestnut of one person remembering the ‘real’ present and everyone else not.

Trying to ignore all that was a real challenge, but it was a lot better than I would have expected from ITV and the CGI effects were quite good. As long as you can treat it as entertainment and ignore the science its not been a bad way to pass an hour.

Tags: ·

6 Comments so far ↓

  • Jane Skudder

    Although it is like I kept saying to various friends who complained about lack of historical authenticity in the recent Robin Hood series – it is a kids programme. The opinions on these series that really matter are probably those of 8 – 12 year olds?

  • Dawn

    “I found Primeval on ITV to be quite enjoyable, but only after employing some serious “willing suspension of disbelief” tactics.”

    Isn’t this the way to enjoy any science fiction show, serious or otherwise.

    Yes it was intended as a kids’ programme and I would extend the age group downwards as my 5 and 7 year olds both loved it.

  • Skuds

    I know what you mean, but some science fiction concentrates on science which is more mundane and only extrapolates a little bit.

    Other science fiction can be scrupulously researched to be factual where possible and plausible elsewhere, but always consistant. Often it is written by authors who are scientists or have scientific training.

    In other science fiction the science is really just a background for a story or theory about society and human interaction and the focus is on the characters.

    But I am thinking more of books than films or TV here. TV usually has to compromise more for the sake of entertainment – look at how much detail was taken out of Jurassic Park for the movies, or how Starship Troopers lost a lot of its dodgy right-wing theorising for the screen.

    It is easier to be willing to make a shared assuption that a certain possibility will happen (like with Darwin’s Children for example) than to ignore huge logical holes, but it was worth doing it for Primeval, as it has been for Dr Who, for the sake of a bit of fun.

  • Dawn

    I confess that a lot of the scientific elements of science fiction are wasted on me. I enjoy the genre, but I am not the most technically minded and a lot of it goes over my head. I haven’t read Jurassic Park or Starship Troopers, only seen the movies, but I shall do so on your recommendation. On the subject of books, my problem with things technical emerges with Loop (the 3rd in the Ring trilogy). He quotes so many facts and figures that it seems you need a degree in higher mathematics to understand what he’s on about. As I am hopeless in this area it is spoiling the story somewhat.

  • Skuds

    I am not sure I would recommend Starship Troopers to anyone unless they had a strong stomach for a lot of right-wing militaristic theorising. Like many of Heinlein’s books it is a vehicle for his particular socio-political opinions, although at least it does not feature his socio-sexual opinions to the extent of some of his books.

    When there is too much science in a book I sometimes skip it. A lot of the time the point of the story is about people’s attitudes to the science and not the science itself, and as such you can treat teh science as a metaphor for something else – often with a religious connection.

    In earlier books the authors felt no need to explain the science or even mention it much. Take the Invisible Man as an example. It is fun to speculate on what one would do if invisibility was possible, or what the implications would be for society. Any science put in to make that possible is just a means to an end.

    With Primeval the story is still as much about the science – what are the anomalies? what causes them? – and reaction to them is only really represented by the stereotype government chap.

    I think its forgivable and bearable because it is not pretending to be serious science fiction.

  • Dawn

    I agree. Primeval couldn’t possible be taken seriously. It is an enjoyable piece of fun science fiction and I am thoroughly enjoying it as such.

    Thanks for the warning, I shall avoid reading Starship Troopers then. It seems he joins John Wyndham in the ranks of authors who can’t keep their political opinions to themselves.

    I do tend to gloss over the heavy science aspects in novels where they occur, however, I do find it annoying as, even though I realise that this is not likely to be essential to the story, I can’t help thinking I missed something important when I don’t understand it.