Tuesday, August 21, 2012

H+ Review . . . Style Without Substance

 


New Digital Series Released by Warner Bros.

Bryan Singer, the guy responsible for "Superman Returns," "X-Men," "X2" and "The Usual Suspects," has recently unleashed his new digital series "H+."  The plot is simple.  Sometime in the near future a nanotech corporation invents a way to port the internet directly into people's brains.  No more iPhones, no more tabets, because you're always on-line.  Predictably, things go wrong, someone hacks the servers and, yep, people start dying.

Warner Bros. distributed the first two episodes beginning August 8, but if you subscribe to the channel you can view an additional four episodes.  

The first episode gives us a rough background on the story, with nice visuals and fine production value.  At just over seven minutes, the first episode is slightly longer than the (thus far) usual five minute running time the episodes average.  It begins in an underground parking structure in San Fransisco with a fight between husband and wife--the stereotypical argument about a guy failing to turn off the game once he's been told.

Driving deep into the bowels of the structure, they soon lose service, cutting them off from the internet.  After nearly hitting a man seemingly fleeing for his life, they suddenly realize that people are dropping dead just a few hundred feet in front of them.  Then a plane crashes on them.  It's all too quickly revealed that someone hacked the net and planted a software virus to kill people.  The few survivors are only safe as long as they remain out of service range.

The remainder of the episodes are very quick vignettes, neither full stories nor seemingly connected to one another except for the time stamp at the beginning which references where the action takes place, and the temporal reference post- and ante- "Event."  

Despite the stellar performances thus far, the beautiful CG, and a dystopian story of seemingly apocalyptic scope, I have a hard time believing this is going to go anywhere.

As I've mentioned before, the average episode is about five minutes long.  Hardly enough time to even establish location, it's woefully inadequate for expressing story or delivering characterization.  In the six episodes that have been released, only two follow the same characters.  The inherent shallowness of the storytelling strikes me as inimical to the success of the show as a whole.  Released once a week, I have a hard time believing that anyone will stick around long enough to see where its going.

And really, we've already heard this story.  It's a science-fiction trope that new technology will go bad in the worst possible way.  Maybe Singer hasn't done his homework, or maybe he thinks he has something new and important to say.  But so far, I'm not convinced.

3 comments:

  1. I'm not necessarily one to suggest we throw caution to the wind, but I get seriously wearied by technological alarmism. The use of technology is one of the things that defines humanity and I'm far more interested in the exploration of how we can use it to enhance our lives. Every now and then a luddite may make an interesting point, but isn't it science fiction's job to inspire our future, rather than warn us away from it toward some technological status quo?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Science fiction is deeply indebted to philosophy, and much of its analyses arise through philosophical proofs. So, what constitutes truth in philosophy is often what we see as truth in science fiction.

      What philosophy is really all about is how human beings interact with one another; so when something arises that diminishes the role of human beings in any particular system, both philosophy as a branch of study, and science fiction respond in remarkably similar ways.

      But I think the gist of H+ isn't necessarily anti-technology, but rather putting all our trust in something that is inherently weak.

      The failure isn't with the technology itself, but with our trust that it is secure.

      Regardless, I stand by my review that although it's fun to watch, it still isn't good storytelling.

      Delete
  2. That's very true. I just wish that there were more stories that showcased the technologies that do aid and enhance human relationships, which always end up being the most powerful ones. Language and, later, the internet are naked examples.

    The overall current zeitgeist seems to be one of rather cautious optimism (as in, we want it, but are a bit frightened by certain coming paradigm changes). You are right, though, in your assessment, as technology is simply how mankind extends itself through the use of external elements; when the external scaffolding becomes dissociated from us (or distances individuals), that's when we sense a perversion in it. It is science fiction's job to render such warnings, and I'm not prescribing a greater optimism for the future, but I do feel like we're missing a sense of inspiration toward possibilities of positive technological advancement. However, that could be faulty perception on my part.

    TANGENT OVER. Sorry.

    I'll have to watch at least the first episode, as I'm rather interested in "augmented reality."

    ReplyDelete