# Paradox (BBC TV SF detective series)



## Dave (Nov 24, 2009)

*Paradox*

There is a new series beginning on BBC 1 TV tonight. Accordingly to the actress, Tamzin Outhwaite, some people think it is sci-fi, but it is really a high-concept drama!

BBC - BBC One Programmes - Paradox

I'll let you into a secret, it is sci-fi.

If it isn't sci-fi, then 'Crime Traveller' with Michael French was a detective series and 'Life on Mars' was a costume drama.


----------



## blacknorth (Nov 24, 2009)

*Re: Paradox*

I'm going to take a look at Paradox - thanks for the reminder. Don't have high hopes, I'm busy remembering Bonekickers, heh-heh.

PS - I thought life on Mars _was_ a costume drama. That's why I didn't watch it.


----------



## Harry Kilmer (Nov 24, 2009)

*Re: Paradox*

Forgot all about this. Luckily my trusty PVR is recirding it - assuming it hasnt crashed again.

Life on Mars is well worth the watch.


----------



## Ursa major (Nov 24, 2009)

*Re: Paradox*

Not a paradox (and not much of a SPOILER, but beware anyway), but something puzzling:













Where were the blues and twos when they needed them...?


----------



## blacknorth (Nov 24, 2009)

*Re: Paradox*

Now, now, Ursa - that would have interfered with the plot and the spiffing climax. 

Turgid stuff, not a paradox in sight. Unless that's the paradox.


----------



## Dave (Nov 24, 2009)

*Re: Paradox*



blacknorth said:


> Turgid stuff, not a paradox in sight. Unless that's the paradox.


Turgid it was. If it continues to be that slow and dull I won't be watching much longer, though I may give it one more chance.

I just wonder who takes the photos that are beamed from space in the future. I can't see crime scene photographers or TV film crews being interested in a coffee cup lying on the road miles away. That is one paradox.


----------



## Harry Kilmer (Nov 24, 2009)

*Re: Paradox*

Halfways through.

Looks naff. The scientist guy needs to be arrested now on charges or being an annoying arrogant git.


----------



## Dave (Dec 1, 2009)

*Re: Paradox*



Dave said:


> I just wonder who takes the photos that are beamed from space in the future. I can't see crime scene photographers or TV film crews being interested in a coffee cup lying on the road miles away.


This may be improving.

Having already developed the characters last week (weird aloof silent guy scientist, stressed-out hard woman cop with lazy angry cynical cop boyfriend, and eager newbie rule-book cop) they jumped much quicker into the story this week and they are dealing with what I posted - "God Speaks to Manchester!" - was the cynical cop's explanation.

The "ticking clock" makes it try to be a poor imitation of _24_ and doesn't work very well, mainly because the subject is too thoughtful for that kind of fast-paced action thriller. It can't decide what it wants to be.

After being unable to change fate last week, there was the usual destiny versus choices debates this week. This week they did change the predicted future, so I guess choice wins.


----------



## Ursa major (Dec 1, 2009)

*Re: Paradox*

The major difference between the predicted future (the Source) and the one that occurs (the Destination) is the photography.

There that there doesn't appear to be a photographer on hand at the scene (or scenes) at the Destination.

And even at the Source, who would take all those eight shots (including, as they do, a random picture of a pigeon)? And why would they photograph the manhole cover? (And how would they do so, given that it was stolen?)


Is that the paradox? (It seems rather absurd to me, at any rate.)


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Dec 4, 2009)

I've decided to post this review here because there isn't an appropriate heading in the TV series section:

I have a major concern about this new series, since I've never found one which so strenuously avoids being watched. I missed most of the first episode due to my supposedly idiot-proof new digital recorder deciding to record only the last twenty minutes of the hour-long episode.  I initially assumed that I'm just a higher grade of idiot than they allowed for, but in view of subsequent events I'm beginning to wonder. This failure did prompt me to investigate BBC's iPlayer, which provides access via their website to any of their output for the previous seven days. I had thought I'd need to watch it online, but discovered that I could download it and watch it on TV, given the right connections. One connecting lead later, plus much fiddling with computer settings accompanied by the traditional grumblings and cursings, eventually produced a result. The picture didn't occupy the whole screen but it was acceptable and at last I could see the whole episode.

For the second episode I was prepared. I not only checked carefully that the digital recorder was set for the full hour, I also set the DVD recorder to provide a backup. The next morning I checked the digital device - complete blank. So I sneered at it and congratulated myself on my thoroughness until I checked the DVD - also a complete blank. So it was back to the iPlayer again, except that this very shy series had evidently found out about this back-door route as the screen kept going black, but I discovered that hitting the ESC key brought it back again. I await with interest next week's happenings; will the iPlayer crash altogether this time?

Anyway, what's this reluctant show all about? The two principal characters are a scientist monitoring satellite data who finds that mysterious images giving fragmentary views of disasters keep being downloaded from a satellite, and the police detective he calls in to help identify them. Together they discover that the disasters haven't happened yet, and race (with varying degrees of success so far) to piece together what, where and who in order to try to prevent them.

This is looking like a classic piece of TV hokum. So far there is no indication of how this might be happening, or why only images of disasters are shown, or why the images show random close-ups which provide just enough evidence to lead the detective to the spot, or why all the disasters happen so conveniently close to their Manchester base. The scientist is unconvincing, displaying a rather creepy and enigmatic air of mystery instead of going off his trolley as any sensible person would, but fortunately the detective is played by Tamzin Outhwaite who is always worth watching (and not just for the usual male reasons - stop sniggering at the back!).

Perhaps the explanation for the difficulty in seeing the show is that it has acquired artificial intelligence and is too ashamed to be reviewed? Well, it's not all bad; there's a lot of drama in the race to piece together the evidence, interspersed with scenes of those involved heading unknowingly towards their disasters. If you can park your critical faculties and accept the preposterous premise at face value it becomes quite exciting. It could be one of those series that turns out to be so silly that it becomes addictive. I'll stick with it for the time being to see how it goes - provided of course that it decides to let me watch it (come on, now, it's not such a bad review, is it?).
 
(An extract from my SFF blog)


----------



## Dave (Dec 4, 2009)

I hope you don't mind if I merge this with my original thread in General Media Discussions where more people will see it (yes, I know that is under Film, but I have made a request to Brian more that once to split it into Film and TV for exactly the reason you just gave.) I'll keep your title as it is better.

I notice you thought it was exciting. Last week was better, but I think the jury is still out on that.


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Dec 4, 2009)

Dave said:


> I hope you don't mind if I merge this with my original thread in General Media Discussions where more people will see it (yes, I know that is under Film, but I have made a request to Brian more that once to split it into Film and TV for exactly the reason you just gave.) I'll keep your title as it is better.


No problem, Dave. I think it would be helpful if each of the major subdivisions of this forum had a catch-all "others" section to post messages which don't fit into the specific sections: but in the TV subdivision, even the "others" section is subdivided into specific series!



> I notice you thought it was exciting. Last week was better, but I think the jury is still out on that.


Only if you can suppress your critical faculties, which I find difficult...but I have a certain tolerance for hokum as long as it's entertaining!


----------



## Dave (Dec 4, 2009)

It is really not that much different from a typical Miss Marple/ Ellery Queen/ Cludeo 'who dunnit' mystery though. All you do is replace the blood-stained lead piping, poison bottle, and hand-written letter with several blurred photographs instead; the locked-room for a locked-time; and an annoying amateur sleuth for an annoying scientist.

I find all the racing around they do is peripheral to the actual story. I expect Police detectives feel the need to race around in cars, but I notice that angry cop and by-the-rules cop achieve much more headway on the phone and on the internet.


----------



## Dr.Jackson (Dec 10, 2009)

Having finally managed to get around to watching this series so far, I think it's not too bad, not brilliant, but I've seen worse. It is entertaining hokum, but the central question is being strung out over the series, which lead me to be wrong on my assumptions after watching the first episode.

I believed that the scientist would having realised what must happen to create the paradox in the first place, in the future, send the images back in time using the effects of the huge solar flare - since we all know that solar flares have a space/time bending effect on wormholes - but no!
Episode two came and went and brought yet more questions of the WTF variety. In episode one, all of the images could have been taken as part of police procedure for evidence, but for this episode an image that was received was an instant in time captured only by Strong Female Lead (and the camera crew ) so how could it have been uploaded anywhere?

Skip to episode three, again another image that was only captured by a person, this time Compulsory Black Character, who also happens to have a dual role as Religious Character.

Certain things in the plot make sense, but it seems to be getting more confusing and convoluted as we go.
 Next week we find out that the special Prometheus satellite as built by Handsomely Scruffy Nerd Character has actually fused with an alien super-intelligence and is controlling the fate of Manchester via squinty, blurred clues. Adversarial Cynical Male has in fact been made immortal by the prevention of his death and goes on to lead Manchester into a glorious age of preventing the future!

There had better be answers, or I'm going to be annoyed.


----------



## Vladd67 (Dec 10, 2009)

Anyone remember Seven Days?


----------



## Dave (Dec 11, 2009)

Lets stop calling them religious black guy and angry baldy cop. The characters are:
Detective Inspector Rebecca Flint 
Dr. Christian King 
DS Ben Holt 
DC Callum Gada


Vladd67 said:


> Anyone remember Seven Days?


I saw one episode. IIRC it was shown at some ridiculous time in the UK, but that had an internal consistency - travel back in time was possible but only up to seven days. The film 'Deja Vue' had a similar idea. 'Paradox' better have an explanation or I am going to be writing to the BBC. I don't see how these pictures are being sent back from only 12 hours in the future (unless it is the scientist but a different reality version of him in a future they never experience.)


Dr.Jackson said:


> In episode one, all of the images could have been taken as part of police procedure for evidence.


Are you sure? A coffee cup discarded miles away. 

The other thing that made no sense in the second episode: DS Ben Holt was shown in a photo to have died from electrocution to the hand. And the boy was shown to have drowned in the cellar. If the police had not been forwarned then the boy would have drowned, but Holt could not have been electrocuted because he would not have been there. However, the police were forewarned, so the boy was rescued, but Holt didn't die either. I can't see any circumstances where Holt would get electrocuted. What am I missing here?


----------



## Dr.Jackson (Dec 11, 2009)

Dave said:


> Are you sure? A coffee cup discarded miles away.
> 
> The other thing that made no sense in the second episode: DS Ben Holt was shown in a photo to have died from electrocution to the hand. And the boy was shown to have drowned in the cellar. If the police had not been forwarned then the boy would have drowned, but Holt could not have been electrocuted because he would not have been there. However, the police were forewarned, so the boy was rescued, but Holt didn't die either. I can't see any circumstances where Holt would get electrocuted. What am I missing here?



Okay, the coffee cup I'll give you - I have no idea about that!
On the second point, you're not missing anything. I didn't want to add to my already confusing post with a paradoxical paradox. Holt wouldn't have been there unless it was an alternate alternate future - and I haven't accidentally typed 'alternate' twice there. Quite frankly I think the writers have tried to be a bit clever and got themselves confused. They've been so busy with making sure the identikit main characters tick the cliche boxes that the logic of it has been glossed over in places. As I said, I'm watching it to the bitter end to see if they have an answer to the whole mess.


----------



## Ursa major (Dec 11, 2009)

Dave said:


> The other thing that made no sense in the second episode: DS Ben Holt was shown in a photo to have died from electrocution to the hand. And the boy was shown to have drowned in the cellar. If the police had not been forwarned then the boy would have drowned, but Holt could not have been electrocuted because he would not have been there. However, the police were forewarned, so the boy was rescued, but Holt didn't die either. I can't see any circumstances where Holt would get electrocuted. What am I missing here?


I tend to agree with you (though an unconscious person with their head below water probably doesn't look very different from a drowned person with their head below water in a still image). But your main point holds water (no pun intended): the DS was only there at all because of the other images sent via the satellite.


By the way, the third episode was better viewing, if only because the drama switched from "what's it all about" to "who is the victim and where does it take place" and that the answers to this were unclear until close to the end**. (But I too want a serious explanation as to what's going on - even if it isn't fully nailed down - by the end of the season.)



** - Give or take what happens in episode four.


----------



## Dave (Dec 11, 2009)

Ursa major said:


> By the way, the third episode was better viewing, if only because the drama switched from "what's it all about" to "who is the victim and where does it take place"


I did half-watch it while typing up some work on the laptop. I haven't mentioned it precisely because it didn't have as much wrong with it, but I'm not sure I can wait until the end of the series for an explanation - mainly because I don't think it will be good enough.

Having said that, if it is on and I'm home, I expect I will still watch.


----------



## Ursa major (Dec 11, 2009)

I'll further agree with: it's not really worth 100% attention.


----------



## Dave (Dec 16, 2009)

I forgot it was on and have just watched the fourth episode on iPlayer. I'd say it was possibly the best yet (with one niggle.) 
Highlight for spoiler...


Spoiler



They ended up needing two platforms to rescue people from a height, but only one was available. So even though they knew what was about to happen, they could only save one of the people.


The niggle - well nylon ropes and carabiners do not fail easily and not both at the same time. If he regularly checked his ropes that would never happen. Any rock climbing safety talk would teach you that, but someone who does that job for a living, everyday...??


----------



## Dr.Jackson (Dec 16, 2009)

Just finished watching Episode 4 on iPlayer.



Dave said:


> The niggle - well nylon ropes and carabiners do not fail easily and not both at the same time. If he regularly checked his ropes that would never happen. Any rock climbing safety talk would teach you that, but someone who does that job for a living, everyday...??



It's true, logic was thrown out of the window for a good story. Maybe both were a 1 in a million chance and as we know, those happen 9 times out of 10!

It seems to me that they might be trying to get another series out of this, so I'm losing faith in getting a satisfactory explanation in the last episode, but I don't think that they'll get the second series to be honest.

I think next weeks episode looks like it could be a rather good one, Holt's state of mind deteriorating because he cheated death.


----------



## Dave (Dec 23, 2009)

Just watched the 5th and final episode on iPlayer. It's a bit complicated for me, I don't think I understood it. Did Physics student Zach create that website, and did he find the wormhole sometime later in his future career, sending back the information to try and prevent the events we have seen. The "Paradox" is that the characters were not the observers we had thought, but were the actual players in this great game. If so, does the fact we still saw some of the events, including the death of one major character, mean that he ultimately failed? And if I got that bit correct, and I'm not entirely sure, then who was the female voice at the end exclaiming "Help Me!" *Confused.*


----------



## Dr.Jackson (Dec 23, 2009)

Just watched the last episode of the series, and I was right not to hold out for an explanation. It just got more confusing. Despite it all being rather a confusing and confused mish-mash, I hope they get the second series they are gunning for (no pun intended) because I want an explanation!



Dave said:


> Just watched the 5th and final episode on iPlayer. It's a bit complicated for me, I don't think I understood it. Did Physics student Zach create that website, and did he find the wormhole sometime later in his future career, sending back the information to try and prevent the events we have seen.



That still wouldn't explain how he had access to images that were only ever seen by a person, and not captured in any way except by the observers brain. He certainly did the interview with Dr King and wanted to be a physicist, but it occurred to me as I watched the interview that this series may have been summed up in Christian's answer to Zach's question - "There are no answers, only more questions." 



Dave said:


> The "Paradox" is that the characters were not the observers we had thought, but were the actual players in this great game. If so, does the fact we still saw some of the events, including the death of one major character, mean that he ultimately failed? And if I got that bit correct, and I'm not entirely sure, then who was the female voice at the end exclaiming "Help Me!" *Confused.*



DI Flint said "I was right, we're not the players, we're the game." Does this mean that essentially what we've witnessed is a sophisticated experiment in the style of 'The Sims'? Does it mean that events can be altered in some ways, but the outcome must remain the same, even with different players/victims?

On the subject of the major character, was he actually dead though? He was shot in the stomach and seriously injured, but he moved ever so slightly - although it is possible that was unintentional on the part of a live actor still having to breathe - and I thought that meant that he was still alive (for the moment).
The voice at the end sounded a bit like DI Flint to me, but there wasn't enough for me to do an accurate comparison.

Also, one of the characters has now to live with himself having done something very bad indeed. I'd like to see how that works out.

I think for most people who've seen more than one episode, the series has probably been far too confusing. It certainly won't have garnered any viewers who like to dip in and out of primetime shows without having to think too much about them. Ultimately, with it being left hanging with a far more confusing ending, I don't think there will be a huge outcry if they decide not to renew it.


----------



## Dave (Dec 23, 2009)

I'm glad it wasn't just me then. I do like more celebrial programmes, but I'd be happy if anyone who understood it would like to explain. And I agree that viewers who like to dip in and out of primetime shows will already have switched off.


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Dec 26, 2009)

I stuck with it to the end and found it quite intriguing, although I have no more idea what it was about than anyone else - so I hope they get that second series (but I'm not holding my breath).

P.S. People do not drop dead from being shot in the stomach; it takes quite a while to die. In fact, contrary to what Hollywood and all would have us believe, people don't instantly drop dead from any gunshot wound except in the central nervous system (brain and upper spine).


----------

