Be careful what you write…
Now, I’m one of those people with a twitter account. I often use it these days to follow on with the one of the Multiverse RPGs going on (it’s really rather fun! I’ve spent a few nights arguing with Tony Stark about his drinking habits, for example, and being backed up by Jarvis and Pepper Potts – always a good sign. Right now, I’m discussing the possibility of Dr. Crane – otherwise known as The Scarecrow – leaving the Arkham Asylum).
Well, it’s amazing the sorts of people who are on Twitter, right? People like, say, TV-workers.
The other day, I was watching The Wizards of Waverly Place, and commented that it’s a fun show, but that I wished it had slightly better execution. This is a program that I was delighted to see being advertised. Finally, I thought, a show with bite! (Or, you know, wands. Yes, I’m a sucker for fantasy.) I was seeing something similar to Degrassi (the original, actually) in my head, but with magic. Something with that sort of staying power.
Honestly? Once I’d seen it, I was a little disappointed.
It’s the same basic plots as just about every other live-action, Disney Original Program of late – you could change some names and take out the magic (or turn it into a Vision – That’s So Raven – or change it into being over-acted sneaky – Suite Life, Hannah Montana – or make it a Futuristic Gadget – Phil of the Future), and it’s another program.
Yes, it’s a kid’s show – that doesn’t mean that it should be a rehash of the same ideas.
Also, sometimes, I’d like to see a little bit of character development between episodes.
I’m going to take a short moment and compare this series to Sabrina: The Teenage Witch.
Okay, this isn’t terribly fair, but hear me out.
Sabrina was a program that did develop its characters. As the series went on, she grew up, she finished High School, went to College. She took on a Witch’s Apprentice, she continued to learn about her magic. She started out a simple little half-mortal, but she did grow and change.
And this was from a program that was clearly made for kids.
Lesser characters got backstories. We learnt that Salem was an incredibly conflicted character – he’s evil at heart, but he does care about people. Hilda and Zelda were both granted episodes to grow in. Harvey learnt Sabrina’s secret – and didn’t really care – he was still her friend.
Sabrina continued to misuse her magic, but always accidentally. Ignorance was her reason, and as the series continued she did shed much of that ignorance.
Yes, all of the characters were stereotyped. The best friends, the boyfriends, the confliction, the hiding, even the familiar – they were all practically expectations.
Wizards, on the other hand, does not yet seem to have these sorts of changes. Those lesser characters don’t have much in the way of backstories (best friend since forever is all well and good, but what do they really have in common?).
How did the parents meet, and when did they just know that they were right for each other? Does Jerry ever regret (even for a single second) giving up his magic to marry the woman he loves? (Also, and here I might be getting a little bit risqué, but why could they not have lived together and simply not married – would he still not be allowed to keep his magic had that happened? Did Theresa know he was a Wizard before they married?)
Why, if the father is an ex-wizard, does he still have magical items? Why does he still get magical mail? Sure, this could be explained by his teaching his children, but why are they magical if he needed to relinquish his magic?
What’s the reasoning behind the magical competition anyway, and does it happen once they’re all grown up, just as they grow up (for example, will Alex fight Justin and then the winner wait a couple more years for Max to grow up and then fight again), or do they all need to compete once Justin’s grown up (which would not be at all fair, since he’s clearly the best at the theory, although Alex has done much more experimentation in her general life)?
Certainly, some of these things may well have been answered in-episode, and I freely admit that I don’t watch the program nearly as often as I want to. It’s the work-schedule, it completely kills most fannish-watching that I can’t see on DVD.
It seems that Mightypeter is one of the people with an influence on this (really rather fun) program.
And I got an @Reply wanting to know what could be done to make the show better.
Hey.
It’s for kids, I get that. But there are ways and ways of making something work on more than just the one level – Sesame Street works on several levels, and that’s blatantly for little kids. Anything involving The Muppets too. Early episodes of Pokemon even had metaphors (I draw your attentions to the backstories of Brock and Misty). Older Disney movies (Bambi, anyone?) still work today.
The Sarah Jane Adventures is for little kids, definitely, but the moral messages aren’t spelt out in neon letters, and let’s face it, the characters are credible and changeable. Yes, it needs to slot into the greater mythos of Doctor Who, and yes some of the villains are over-acted – but there’s an air of honesty about the program, and not all of it’s down to Elizabeth Sladen’s wonderful continuing performance.
As it currently stands, Wizards is going to be a program that’s looked on with a sense of vague fondness by the kids who’re watching it today – but if it ever repeats, it won’t be seen as quite as awesome as it’s remembered to be.
Mightypeter informs me that there’ll be some ‘more mature themes’ coming up, and that the program will be ‘developing the characters more as the year goes on, have some awesome stories I hope you’ll like’. Well, I hope I like them too. But also added is ‘but we also have to stay on target for the brand’.
The brand doesn’t need to be transient in nature, and I wouldn’t mind at all if this series got some staying power.
Leave a Comment