|
"Why
do I get the feeling they'd be happy if they never found Mulder at
all." Probably because it just might be true, Scully. The opening credits of the third episode of season 8 of The X-Files will go down in XF history as a significant step on the 'how to alienate the fans and ruin the ratings of a once-loved television show' road. This journey began with the publication of the September 22 Entertainment Weekly and has continued past the milestones of:
The list goes on. And it now includes the removal of David Duchovny's name from the credits of the show, and the removal of the image of his character from the montage of clips which formed the opening. Maybe the removal of David's name was a contractual or SAG requirement. Who knows? We certainly don't. Despite the many posts to email lists, newsgroups and message boards an official answer hasn't been forthcoming. Nor has there been any explanation as to why, even if David's name had to be removed, the image of Mulder's badge in the montage was also deleted. Is it an attempt at synchronicity with the Official Fan Club magazine who only have two pictures of David/Mulder (the same pic printed twice) in the latest edition of the Fan Club mag? I know Mulder is supposedly the absent centre of the show, Chris, but did you have to make him so absent? What we do know, however, is that it is indicative of the focus of 1013 et al. that they didn't think about letting Philes know about this change ahead of time. For seven years the award winning opening credits have graced the post-teaser space. The opening notes of the score by Mark Snow, together with the fantastic montage of episode stills and paranormal imagery were as much a staple of The X-Files as the sunflower seeds Mulder chewed on. They were perhaps the only credits of a show I actually watched even though I had the ability to fast-forward to the good stuff. When the new season rolled around, we had scads of talk about the new manly-man, the new 'back-to-season one' format of the show, the new manly-man, the switch in roles for Scully, the new manly-man, the appearance of Robert's name in the credits, the new manly-man, the chemistry between Gillian and Robert… did we mention the manly-man? But not one word was spoken in the online chats, not one single line of print mentioned that David's name would no longer appear in the credits after the first two episodes. Not one word was uttered to tell Philes that, bar the image of Mulder falling into Scully's eyeball (and what is that about?), all other images of Mulder were going to be removed. Absent centre my arse, Chris. Thanks for the consideration and warning. (Ever hear of the concept of Change Management, Chris? Apparently not.) And adding insult to real injury, there is an image of Doggett and Scully together with flashlights in hand which is just too painfully reminiscent of an old one of Mulder and Scully. But Doggett isn't a replacement for Mulder, so we've been told. Yeah, right. Moving along. We've mentioned it before, but it bears a few lines again given this episode. Myth-arc to MOTW. What is up with that, Chris? Okay, it is a standard format. Philes have long accepted there are two time-continuums in XF which permit the frantic pursuit of truth in the myth-arc in one minute then a quick change to hunting giant fluke worms the next. But did you honestly think that this formula would work when one of the two reasons the X-Files is so successful is missing? Did it really make sense to you that Scully, after seven years of working with Mulder, of being the only one he trusts, would put down her search and go bat hunting with Doggett? Where was the search for Krycek? The interrogation of Marita? What about Skinner checking his contacts for CGB Spender's whereabouts? It was too soon, Chris. The Scully we've known for seven years would never have moved on so quickly when there were other leads to follow. But let's get back to that insistence of yours that Doggett isn't a replacement for Mulder. Really? Although he hasn't had the Oxford education Mulder had - and yeah, that was real subtle, Chris - it appears he has the intuitive leaps of Mulder. Oops. My mistake, not like Mulder. Mulder's ability to provide a theory or supposition out of apparent thin air is acceptable because right from the start he was painted vividly as a brilliant profiler, someone who had an amazing memory (photographic, if you take his words to Phoebe Green in Fire literally), who could make connections from the clues he saw, who believed in the possibility of the paranormal and had the experience with it to back it up. Doggett's baseless leap, in the words of one Phile, "left a plot hole big enough for the Starship Enterprise to fly through." (and we're talking the Galaxy class one… which was a replacement for the original) But even had the logic-leap been addressed (and I include an explanation of how Doggett got past the local librarian with a valuable, fragile newsprint in that!) the absence of Mulder would still be felt, because Doggett lacks something Mulder has which even Scully cannot provide - an empathy, a curiosity, and a basic desire to understand that which he hunted. No matter how bizarre, how terrifying, or even how mundane the 'criminal' was, Mulder always seemed to want to do more than just slap a set of over-sized handcuffs on the perp and chuck him/her/it in jail. So perhaps on that level Doggett isn't a replacement for Mulder. Maybe its really Scully who has been handed the role… along with the slide projector and Mulder's neat ability to make even the most convoluted explanation seem reasonable, and right. Sadly, neither really suit Scully. Her attributes, which contributed to what made she and Mulder such a great team, lay elsewhere. And those attributes don't include playing the helpless female. The Scully we know would have shot Mulder's knee-caps off for daring to be that over-protective. But then Mulder wouldn't have tried playing protector so overtly… he respected Scully's abilities far too much. Knowing that next week we get damsel-in-distress Scully we almost have a package deal. We just need to add a railroad track, an oncoming train, a tinkling piano back-score and a horse and white hat for Doggett. Bad enough Scully's strength has been sapped, but we've also been handed a Scully who, after seven years of 'trust no one', confides in Doggett in the blink of an eye. Did Scully get a look at the advance press and realise this manly-man could be trusted? Sheesh! If she needed to talk to anyone, why not Skinner? He is showing his ability to help, to keep her secret, and his place in Mulder's history makes him the more logical choice. But logic doesn't always come into it, does it? How else to explain that Chris Carter is suddenly re-writing Darwin. 'Bats evolving into man?' You have got to be kidding. This whole plot, which stole key elements from previous X-Files, was more reminiscent of B-grade horror flicks from the 50s. Are we going to get Doggett playing Steve McQueen next week in a rehash of The Blob? In the Chicago Tribune, Chris Carter was quoted as saying: "…I think of it as going back, really, to the first season and telling good, scary stories again…" A lesson in horror, Chris. Seeing it isn't always frightening. Knowing its not possible isn't frightening. What have been the greatest scares of past years? The Exorcist. The Omen. The serial-killer flicks which have kept people awake at night and sleeping with the lights on. These things scare because they are based on known myth and reality. If you're dumping the humor and attempting to nail that 18-49 male audience which you've never had who will love the show for the eps and not the characters, at least make it scary. Man evolving from bats ain't scary. It ain't even funny. And speaking of humor. An X-File about bats and not one humorous reference to Batman, bats in belfries or any of a number of possible one-liners. Talk about missing Mulder. Another notch on the 'subtle as a brick' meter is the speech from the old dude about the nature of obsession. Was that directed just at Scully, Chris? Or some of us who call ourselves Philes? Are we, too, supposed to take our reminders of Mulder and shove them in the desk drawer as Scully did with Mulder's name plate? If you were aiming for horror, Chris, you nailed it with that scene. That one image was more horrific than all the Peacock zombie brain-eating vampiric cultists you have ever conjured. And if you thought that little scene evoked any emotions for Scully other than those ranging from disbelief to outright hatred, you're way off base. The fact is, Chris, that unlike Scully it will take us a lot longer than a mere 10 days or so to get to a point where we're ready to shove Mulder to one side, if ever. As Mulder wore Scully's cross the whole time she was missing, we will continue to hold our symbols of Mulder close to us until he returns… and long after. Because frankly, Chris, until Mulder returns, until we have seen what you will do to this character whom we revere so, we will continue to fear for his fate. The reality is, Mulder is in your hands. And given the 3 eps which have aired thus far, given the spoilers of the revisionist history you are painting and the total annihilation of characterization which goes with it, this is a reality which is frightening. You wanted us to be scared this season, Chris. Congratulations, you have certainly achieved your goal.
P.S. Oh, and if anyone is interested, the next ep is apparently about cults (Genderbender) that you can't leave (Arcadia), squirmy parasites under the skin (Ice) and a mob attacking Scully (Our Town). Guess The Blob will have to wait for another week.
|
Fox
forgets Mulder.
|
