We've already skimmed over some of the problems that sci-fi shows have: the stony-faced tone, the unbelievable situations, the focus on hard science at the expense of...everything else. Orphan Black doesn't have any of those problems. It also draws an ever-increasing cast of characters who are three-dimensional, flawed and interesting, characters you'd care about even if you weren't watching them in a futuristic thriller serial. It's grounded. It doesn't try to do big special effects that are beyond both its budget and remit. It doesn't indulge in stereotypical depictions of gender, sexuality or race (for the most part). There are jokes. This all elevates Orphan Black to the higher echelons of genre TV, up amongst the early 90s canon of The X-Files and Buffy. The show has the benefit, however, of having come out during the tail end of the television renaissance, when shows receive as much critical acclaim, viewership and - crucially - a budget tantamount to films. Fondly remembered and cult-followed as the best sci-fi shows are, they demand to be watched through rose-tinted specs. Mulder and Scully were victims as much of bad supporting actors and creature make-up as governmental conspiracies, and Buffy's wire work and action sequences couldn't quite match up with the money Fox was willing to spend on it. Orphan Black, meanwhile, sits comfortably amongst the likes of Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones with all the aforementioned qualities - would Walter White be as watchable without his comedic moments, or Westeros as engaging without it's historical inspirations? - along with strong writing, lack of filler, a cinematic look and a universally great ensemble of performances. Speaking of which...
Tom Baker is the Comics Editor at WhatCulture! He's heard all the Doctor Who jokes, but not many about Randall and Hopkirk. He also blogs at http://communibearsilostate.wordpress.com/
