CliqueClack TV
TV SHOWS COLUMNS FEATURES CHATS QUESTIONS

What’s this show called … Warehouse 13?

Each week I review a show that's new to me. Good idea, or punishment (mine or yours)? You be the judge. But either way, if I had to watch it, the least you can do is read what I have to say....

I am not, by any definition of the phrase, a science fiction person. Most movies that people deem “musts” in a list of films to see have passed me by — I’m not sure I’ve even sat through one entire installment of Star Wars.

But there are exceptions to that “rule,” and they generally have something to do with actors. Even now I’ll watch a rerun of Quantum LeapScott Bakula’s awesome. And we were robbed of Journeyman; the fact that Kevin McKidd landed on his feet doesn’t salve that wound.

So when I heard that Saul Rubinek was in a new series, I didn’t care that it was science fiction. Okay, that’s a lie, but I was willing to try the pilot in spite of that. I loved him as Donny Douglas on Frasier, even while our first sighting of him — bare to the waist in a towel, I believe — was disturbing. Unfortunately, Warehouse 13 was not a pill I could swallow.

But when I recently popped the first season of Frasier into my DVD player — there are some shows I watch over and over again — I thought of giving Rubinek and his series another try.

Well, from the opening scene of last week’s episode I started to question my decision. The supernatural isn’t really for me, but tracking it down and locking it away I can handle. Magical chains and driftwood from the Titanic are a different story.

But remembering that I came for Rubinek’s Artie, I sat back to wait. So who were the new women who appeared suddenly? IMDb tells me that Leena (Genelle Williams) was in the pilot (I don’t remember her), but who is Claudia (Allison Scagliotti), and why did the team expand? Were Myka (Joanne Kelly) and Pete (Eddie McClintock) not enough to help keep the artifacts locked down?

That question brought to mind the pilot, when Myka and Pete are sightseeing in the warehouse and see all sorts of crazy stuff. It occurred to me that there’s a difference — at least as far as my viewing pleasure goes — between cool stuff that do whatever, and items imbued with magical powers. Why would the dust on Titanic driftwood induce hypothermia?

Artie’s tale of trading artifacts for people locked behind the Iron Curtain was bad Cold War fiction. Not that it couldn’t have happened, but it just didn’t work well as told. Neither did the Supernatural-esque character who captured him and wanted to kill him. I totally felt as if the guy — and his tools — came straight out of the CW series.

Speaking of character plots, Claudia’s love story (not to mention Claudia herself) was miserable. Granted I don’t know her so I’m not emotionally invested in her, but the way it was written — upon discovering that he really was a techie she embraced her hardware store friend passionately — was ridiculous. What was she added to the team for? At least Leena was unobtrusive.

H.G. Wells’ (Jaime Murray) mythology was lost on me as well, but again that doesn’t matter much when my problem was with the actress’ lack of talent and chemistry with the people around her. To make a comparison that some may get, she stuck out as badly as Elisabetta Canalis does on Leverage, and that’s not a good thing.

I learned long ago that it’s pointless to use my own distaste for science fiction as a base for not liking a show, at least in this column format. That’s my reason for not making Warehouse 13 a show I watch, but does that mean the show’s bad, or just not for me?

I get that argument. But my problem with Warehouse 13 had little to do with the supernatural this time around; I just found the story and acting lacking. Saul Rubinek, who I tuned in for, was enjoyable when he wasn’t trying to be all clandestine. But as he’s not alone, unfortunately even a halfway-decent performance from him didn’t save the show for me. I guess I’ll just go back to watching him on Frasier.

Photo Credit: Syfy

9 Responses to “What’s this show called … Warehouse 13?”

September 6, 2010 at 4:52 PM

Maybe it would be best if instead of checking out a show in mid second season you should check out an episode in the first season while the characters are still growing. Ask your co-workers what episode had them putting the show on season pass or poll the readers.

I love Leverage but if anyone where to randomly tune into an episode this season they would not get the group dynamic at all. Hell Parker alone is a tough character to understand without seeing her as she was in the beginning, forget adding Hardison and Elliott into that mix.

September 6, 2010 at 5:03 PM

There’s a clear distinction between understanding a character’s motivation, and thinking that the actor portraying him or her is doing a good job of it. Knowing why Pete is who he is wouldn’t make me think that Eddie McClintock is a good actor. You shouldn’t have to know a show’s lexicon and background from A-Z in order to enjoy an hour of it.

As for Leverage, I agree, but for different reasons. If anyone were to tune in randomly this season or last, they’d be turned off because it has sucked … not because they missed the completely unsubstantiated supposition that Parker’s quirky or endearing.

September 7, 2010 at 10:21 AM

Quoting…

“You shouldn’t have to know a show’s lexicon and background from A-Z in order to enjoy an hour of it.”

Drop someone into an episode from the middle of the third season of “Lost” and say that. Even back in the days of “Gunsmoke” you missed a lot if you didn’t understand the relationships between the characters that had been built up over many seasons. That’s why I don’t see the point of these “What’s this show” posts. Someone didn’t like it then and they don’t like it now, or they don’t like it now because they don’t understand it. Just a reason to post an article, I suppose.

September 7, 2010 at 11:25 AM

Everyone has the right to their opinion on this, but I will reiterate mine: I believe it to be 100% counter-intuitive to say that you can’t join a show mid-life. That would completely kill all shows, because viewer numbers would have nowhere to go but down.

Had I been dropped into the middle of Lost, I likely would have had no understanding of the mythology, but I could have hooked into the characters and the concept. Every show aims to have something accessible for the casual or the new viewer … if that weren’t so, no show would continue to advertise after its pilot; there’d be no point to try and attract new viewers who would never be able to like the show if they had missed the pilot.

And the argument that you need to watch a number of episodes is valid, but what brings you back to check it out again and again? There has to be something that you see, even without understanding it, that compels you to return. Arguing that it’s impossible to watch a show other than from the beginning makes no sense to me.

September 7, 2010 at 11:56 AM

I actually did start watching Lost in season 3 – and I continued watching it all the way to the end. It was good enough to hook me, even though I started in the middle and had no clue about what was going on.

It’s true that some shows are much more enjoyable if you know the background and have been watching from the beginning – but I have often watched an episode from the middle of a season and then gone back and watched from the beginning. I did this for Arrested Development, Curb Your Enthusiasm, The Tudors, Modern Family, Better Off Ted… and many, many others. When I want to “test out” a new show, I usually can’t find the first episode so I just watch whatever episode I can find – usually one of the more recent ones.

September 12, 2010 at 8:56 PM

I’m exactly the same way. Finding the pilot for a show that’s been on for a year is hard enough; trying it for a grizzled show is almost impossible. It makes complete sense to me to watch what you can get … the assumption that even if lost you can get a feel good or bad is a given to me.

September 7, 2010 at 1:03 AM

Since the Titanic crashed into an iceberg in freezing cold water and the survivor clinged to that piece of wood to survive, it makes perfect sense for it to have that affect as an artifact (in the logic of the show’s magic system anyway)

September 7, 2010 at 11:16 AM

Ignoring how much of a stretch that is, I accept the explanation … maybe Rose and Jack’s love is frozen in there too! :)

September 7, 2010 at 12:22 PM

. . . . .

<——— has no idea who 'Rose' or 'Jack' are.

I'm lost. You have to accept them for who they are? What kind of situation comedy *is* this … ?!? Wait … wait … their love is frozen? In what?!? Is this a science fiction program and not a situation comedy? And when, exactly, did it get frozen … !?? Obviously, if their love is frozen, their hearts can no longer go on …

Is this thing on DVD yet? I might be intrigued.

Powered By OneLink