MovieChat Forums > The Jensen Project (2010) Discussion > The 'Jensen Project' needs work in order...

The 'Jensen Project' needs work in order to become a TV series...

posted 14 years ago by BillyKary
22 replies | jump to latest

Attention: The following text contains spoilers.

I rarely find myself criticizing someone else’s work. It is my firm belief that we should be tactful when commenting on people’s creative visions. Having said that, I must admit that “The Jensen Project” was not what I expected.

It is important to note that, due to lack of research on my part, I was not aware of the true nature of this film. I was under the impression that this TV movie was going to be a pilot for an upcoming series similar to “Eureka” or “Warehouse 13”. As it turns out, it was a Wal-Mart and P&G family movie with the possibility of becoming a children’s TV series. So, it is understandable that my expectations were a bit extreme. A children’s movie offers the producers more freedom regarding acting, dialogue and realism. I am not insinuating that it could not become an acceptable TV series. Let’s see how:

1) The producers need to choose a target audience. They can either turn this into a children’s TV series, where the actors are younger and the script is not so restrictive, or they can turn this into an original, PG-13 show, with a lot of modifications. It’s either “Spy Kids” or “Eureka”. It is impossible to have both. As an adult, I will examine ways to make this an adult-oriented show. Bear that in mind while reading my suggestions.

2) At the beginning, we are immediately introduced to a typical, albeit slightly dysfunctional, family. We also see a teenage boy (played by the prepubescent-looking actor Justin Kelly, whose age is actually 16 or 17) using modern technology in a seemingly ingenious way, though actually unimpressive for a boy his character’s age. The world has progressed a lot since the ‘80s. Being tech-savvy doesn’t make you a genius, especially if you are over 3 years of age. If the producers need to portray “wunderkinds”, they should take a page from “Eureka”. As for the female characters, both the mother and the director of the Jensen Facility (portrayed by actresses Kellie Martin and Patricia Richardson respectively) are the woman-next-door types, which, although necessary for a family movie, is not acceptable for an adult-oriented series. Furthermore, the father of the family (actor Brady Smith) isn’t “compatible” with that motif.

3) The “parents” jobs are unclear. Mrs. Thompson is an MIT graduate, yet she teaches Physics at a high school (though the writers later try to explain why this is). Mr. Thomson is working as a general pathologist, even though we later find out that he is actually an immunologist, which is weird to say the least. For a successful adult-oriented TV series, the characters occupations and limits need to be defined clearly and from the start.

4) After the first fifteen minutes, we learn about the Jensen facility and the work that is done there. This is where the writers commit their first major mistake, probably due to lack of knowledge regarding the scientific process. The CDC and the WHO do not engage in active research. They merely regulate medical research. So, it is not possible for the WHO to take credit for the development of a vaccine. Furthermore, the scientific terminology used in the entire movie is riddled with inaccuracies that could have easily been avoided, even by using Wikipedia!!! Not to mention the blatant advertisements throughout the film…

5) At 20 minutes in, we meet another child prodigy, the older Samantha (played by Alyssa Diaz). One more badly written genius-child. Necessary for the boy-girl dynamic of a sci-fi children’s movie, completely cliché for an adult-oriented series.

6) The “villain” of the movie, Edwin (portrayed by David Andrews) is your typical “scientist gone wrong” character. Underdeveloped throughout the movie, his motives only become clear near the end. David Andrews is an extremely talented actor, yet even he is ultimately unable to save the movie.

7) There is nearly 40 minutes of footage where the children try to save the day. Horrendous execution, predictable dialog and scenes. Family movie material? Yes. Children’s show material? Probably. Adult-oriented TV series material? No.

8) At nearly 1 hour in, we see the first attempt at drama. It fails to appeal to the adult audience, which I assume was the point. I will not analyze it further, since I am running out of time.

In general, if you are an adult, this film leaves a bad impression. The script is bad and predictable. The concept, on the other hand, is shaky but salvageable. Without significantly improved characters and better script, though, it would never work as an adult-oriented series.

The scientific terminology needs even more work. Let me give you an example: the girl, Samantha, at 28 minutes in, is saying to the boy: “For all I know, Edwin could have send you… We are operating at DEFCON-5 since he bailed…”. It takes 0.24 seconds to google “DEFCON”, and find out that DEFCON-1 refers to a state of increased alertness due to imminent attack or other danger, while DEFCON-5 is normally used during peacetime. 0.24 seconds!!! I actually tried that once I heard the error… And that’s just of the top of my head. There were far worse mistakes in the rest of the movie. Writers, please… Do some research!!!

Please tell me what you thoughts about the movie and the possibility of a future show, even one with children as a target group. There are other things that I would like to mention, but I am running out of time.

Thank you.

P.S.: I forgot about the "plug and play" portable "molecular assembler". Come on, people...

[–] blynnpatton 14 years ago

This movie was a family movie. It was geared so that children could also watch it. It wasn't perfect, but it was good for a family movie. I also applaud them for trying to make a clean, wholesome movie. The violence was kept at a minimum. Also, most shows, even the most sophisticated ones, sometimes make mistakes when it comes to scientific terminology or other things.

Also, you have to realize the limited time frame the usually have for a TV movie. Most TV movies are probably only about 90 minutes long or shorter. In fact, most prime time shows are about 50 minutes or less. The rest of the time is taken up by commercials. I know some people think that there were to many commercials, but most shows have a lot of commercials. That's how they pay more the programming.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] blynnpatton 14 years ago

Kyle XY was probably more of a PG-13 type show. This movie was just PG. It probably isn't fair to compare it to shows like Kyle XY.

[–] happy7x 14 years ago

On the subject of lack of research, there's the part where Brody has been implanted with a nanobot that can be remotely triggered to kill him... and it doesn't occur to a single one of these "genius" scientists that they could simply put Brody in a room that is shielded against all radio frequencies (i.e. a Faraday cage), thus preventing the remote signal from ever reaching the nanobot.

[–] blynnpatton 14 years ago

Would that work against the newer digital signals? Also, you have to realize that this is fiction, so conceivably they could have invented something that would by pass a Faraday cage. Perhaps they could have added that element to the movie, but it wasn't necessary. Most people might have no idea about Faraday cages. The word seems vaguely familiar to me, but that is all.

[–] masterimmortal 14 years ago

I've never heard of a Faraday cage, but I also thought that there should be some way to shield him from the signal.

Just curious, did you work on this movie or know someone who did? You seem awfully protective of it and quick to jump on any and all criticism of it.

[–] blynnpatton 14 years ago

No, I did not work on the movie, and I don't know anyone who did. I'm just glad that someone is trying to give us clean entertainment. I didn't say the movie was perfect or my favorite movie. I just thought it was okay for what it was trying to be and do. It is a movie that the whole family can watch. I just think some people are expecting the movie to be adult entertainment and have lots of adult stuff that is over a kids head and inappropriate. I've seen worse movies. It just needed to move a little faster and have just a little more suspense, but not enough so that they would have to change the rating. The movie was PG rated, because it had a little bit of violence.

I saw one poster that said his or her eight year old liked it. If they had added over the head dialogue, it might not be appropriate or interesting to children. Also, I'm glad the violence was kept to a minimum and that it had no sexual content. Also, this was television movie, not a theatrical release.

[–] masterimmortal 14 years ago

Nobody has asked for it to be adult entertainment or have inappropriate content.

There have been countless PG movies over the years that provided a solid family experience while also being thoroughly enjoyable. They didn't have excessive violence, sexual content, etc. Some of my favorite movies of all time are PG rated.

I'm all for family movie nights. I just don't think they are making these effectively to continue them. Neither have done great in the ratings and if Secrets of the Mountain is any indication, they aren't bringing in big DVD sales either. If they aren't successful, they won't make more.

[–] blynnpatton 14 years ago

I hope they do continue, and don't let this discourage them. I've seen lots of people on other sites that actually liked the movies. IMDB is not the only site that talks about movies. My niece like the first movie. I applaud them for trying.

[–] Alexej 14 years ago

Of course it would work against digital signals. From the viewpoint of physics, a signal is a signal. What makes it digital is only how it is used.

As for inventing something that would bypass a Faraday cage, you cannot bypass the laws of physics. I certainly hope most people do know about Faraday cages. Come on, we learned about them in high school physics.

My name is Colin Creevey
and I'm a photoholic.

[–] blynnpatton 14 years ago

I didn't take physics in high school. I had physical science and chemistry. That was years ago. They've changed how much science and math you have to take since I graduated from high school. Physics was not required when I was in high school. It's a mistake to assume everybody that replies to a post is the same age or went to school during the same decade. I was in high school a long time ago.

I realize you can't go against what we know about physics. This movie, however, was a work of fiction, and so they could decide that they discovered something about physics that nobody else had. I'm not saying it would be realistic, but since it is science fiction, it doesn't have to be.

[–] happy7x 14 years ago

High school was a long time ago for me too (I graduated in 1985), yet Faraday cages were indeed a part of the science curriculum at my school even back then. They aren't exactly a recent technological development, having been invented in the 1830s. Most people own a Faraday cage without even realising it - every microwave oven has one.

Personally, I don't buy into the "it's science fiction, so it doesn't need to have even a pretense of realism" argument. If they start making stuff up that has no basis whatsoever in science, then they just switched genres from sci-fi to fantasy IMO.

[–] blynnpatton 14 years ago

I wasn't trying to say that "it's science fiction so it doesn't need to have even a pretense of realism. I was saying that they could very well say that they found a new law of physics or discovered what they knew was wrong. It's fiction so if they wanted to do this, they could. I didn't say it would be true, reasonable, or realistic. I'm just saying that it could be their prerogative to do so.

Also, they may have had Faraday cages back then (1985), but that doesn't mean that they were part of everybody's experience. The name sounds familiar, but that is all. I a graduated in 1987. The poster was implying that everyone took high school physics. I was just pointing out that this isn't necessarily so. It depends on whether or not that part of the science curriculum was required or more of an elective at the time the person was in high school. I'm sure that Physics was offered, but it was not required that I take it. When I was in high school, it was required that everyone take two to physical science courses. I took general physical science and chemistry. You could take more, but didn't have to. I also had to take a biology class. After, I was in my junior or senior year, they started making more changing amount of certain types of classes that a person had to take. The people kids after me were the ones effected by the changes. For example, they increased the number math courses you had to take. They might have changed the science requirements, too. I don't remember.

I probably should have taken more of certain classes, but they weren't required. I wasn't particularly interested in physics. If I had been my ninth grade physical science teacher would have probably turned me off of it, because he was a really horrible teacher. I really remember nothing about his class. I don't think he even followed the curriculum. We didn't even have enough desks in the classroom. Some students had to stand up during a lecture style class. He never told the office that we needed anymore. We finally got enough desks, because a student who was picking up attendance reported it. At least, that's what I heard, and I believe it. I'm pretty sure the teacher wasn't the one who reported it. He just didn't care that some students had to stand.

[–] masterimmortal 14 years ago

I'll take "Unnecessary Information" for $200 Alex.

[–] blynnpatton 14 years ago

Sorry, Masterimmortal was just trying to show what a lousy experience the physical science class was. The atmosphere wasn't conducive to learning, remembering, or applying what you learned. The teacher should have been teaching college students, and not freshmen in high school. It certainly didn't make we want to take any classes in higher level physics. I did take chemistry. I liked it better, and the teacher was better.

[–] Alexej 14 years ago

I was in high school a long time ago.

Probably not as long ago as me. I graduated HS in 1968. Physics was mandatory.

My name is Colin Creevey
and I'm a photoholic.

[–] blynnpatton 14 years ago

Well it wasn't mandatory for me. It depends on where you lived. By the time I went, we had options for physical science classes. I took physical science and chemistry. The physical science class might have been like physics. I don't remember much about it, because the teacher was lousy. I was in school in the 1980s. All the teacher did was lecture, and he didn't even use the text book. He lectured like a college professor. We had no lab. Did you have a lab or hands on experience? I don't remember us having a lab or hands on experience. All we did was listen to him and take notes.

[–] Alexej 14 years ago

We had no lab, either. We had very little choice of subjects. We had physics, chemistry, biology, language and literature, two foreign languages, history, geography, psychology, philosophy, mathematics, descriptive geometry, numerical analysis, computer programming. That is what I remember, all of it was mandatory. Plus I took Latin as a selective. Oh, and we had physical education, but I got out of it for medical reasons.

Our physics teacher was horrible, but I still remember the Faraday cage. Our math teacher was truly great. She was an old lady (we nicknamed her Granny) who knew her subject and could explain it really well. Math was my favorite subject.

My name is Colin Creevey
and I'm a photoholic.

[–] blynnpatton 14 years ago

I don't remember anything from my physical science class. I think it was more of a general class that covered a little of all the physical science. At least that was what the class was supposed to be. I don't think the teacher followed the curriculum. He just taught us what ever he wanted to teach us. For the first few weeks or longer many of us had to stand during a lecture type class, because there weren't enough chairs. We had to try and take notes and listen to a boring lecture while doing so. One day I became ill and had to go home after standing up for a hour or more. Also, the teacher was not helpful, at all.

The classes you mentioned weren't all mandatory for us. Some were, but then we had choices for certain types of classes. Other classes weren't mandatory at all. For example, we didn't have to take philosophy. I think we had a choice between geography and another course. I think it was world history. Not every school district has the same requirements.

That's why I said that you can't assume everyone took a physics class.

[–] Alexej 14 years ago

I guess each country is different, plus it changes over time.

My name is Colin Creevey
and I'm a photoholic.

[–] blynnpatton 14 years ago

I agree. It depends on where you went to school and the curriculum at the time.

[–] powersroc 13 years ago

I must be one of the few who enjoyed this TV movie/pilot. Perfect,no but it has potential as a family friendly sf TV show with an engaging cast.With time & tweaking this could be a fun show.I also liked the setting of the Jensen Institute.Instead of modern day buildings we have what looks like Adirondak-like lodges,that's a refreshing change of pace.