In a complete turn around from last week, this week's bottom three actually were the three worst dancers left.
Melissa Joan Hart losing outright wasn't at all shocking, since (a) based on where she finished last week, she doesn't have that many of the audience's votes, and (b) she peeked too soon! Her Charleston was great, but that's a performance-heavy dance and not a talent-heavy one, so, as an actress, she had an easier time with it. In the weeks since she has been getting worse, making both the judges and audience turn against her.
Louie finally going out wasn't surprising at all, though I do suspect that the producers asked one of the judges to vote for him in the dance-off against Michael Irvin to bring it down to the final vote and add suspense. And now Louie can finally get back to his real job!
One last thing: I am tired of Aaron Carter. I know he's been dancing better recently, but he was so moved by the judges' compliments that he looked ready to burst into tears while they were saying nice things about him! If you were a woman, that would annoy me, but since you're supposedly a man, it actually angers me. I mean, really man, grow some damn balls.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
"I got a rock."
That is one of the greatest lines in animation history!
I mean, who are all these people who give out rocks as Halloween treats, and why do they keep giving them to the kid with too many eye-holes cut out of his bedsheet? Even Pigpen, walking in a permanent cloud of dust and probably smelling like dirty laundry dipped in a sewer, gets actual candy, but poor old Charlie Brown just keeps getting rocks.
And the line is delivered brilliantly. Peter Robbins, with this low, almost flat monotone adds an air of "Well, I expected this," to those four words, but with more than a hint of disappointment. As if on some level, Charlie Brown really thinks that maybe this next house will finally be the one that gives him something good, but still not believeing that whole-heartedly.
It's like Lucy offering to hold the football: every time Charlie Brown falls for it because he wants to believe that this time will be different, but he knows deep inside that it won't end well for him.
And that's part of why we all love Charlie Brown: he assumes everything will end horribly, but he still has hope.
Another Halloween's come and gone, and all I got was a bag of rocks.
I mean, who are all these people who give out rocks as Halloween treats, and why do they keep giving them to the kid with too many eye-holes cut out of his bedsheet? Even Pigpen, walking in a permanent cloud of dust and probably smelling like dirty laundry dipped in a sewer, gets actual candy, but poor old Charlie Brown just keeps getting rocks.
And the line is delivered brilliantly. Peter Robbins, with this low, almost flat monotone adds an air of "Well, I expected this," to those four words, but with more than a hint of disappointment. As if on some level, Charlie Brown really thinks that maybe this next house will finally be the one that gives him something good, but still not believeing that whole-heartedly.
It's like Lucy offering to hold the football: every time Charlie Brown falls for it because he wants to believe that this time will be different, but he knows deep inside that it won't end well for him.
And that's part of why we all love Charlie Brown: he assumes everything will end horribly, but he still has hope.
Another Halloween's come and gone, and all I got was a bag of rocks.
Monday, October 26, 2009
How is it "Freerunning" if you have to do it in a Specific Spot?
I, along with many people all over the world have seen plenty of Youtube clips of some lunatic attempting (and often failing) to do a backflip off of, or onto a building, jump from one piece of playground equipment to another, or do handstands in some of the most dangerous places imaginable.
When one succedes at these stunts, then one is partaking in a sport known as "freerunning" (when you fail, you just look like an idiot). This sport (sometimes spelled as two words, sometimes as one, I have no idea which is correct, nor I think does anyone else) evolved from the French "parkour" by adding more acrobatics and the new philosophy of a complete freedom of movement. Freerunners (as seen in the BBC specials Jump London and Jump Britian) cover urban landscapes in a new way, finding a path from one building to the next, from one street to another, or across or through any structure one finds in a city that no one else would even consider trying.
Thus, freerunning stresses freedom of movement and expression; a person's imagination and physical abilities the only obstacles to discovering a new way to look at and travel the cities of the world, even as these cities themselves become increasingly homogenous and repetitive.
So, how can you have a Freerunning Competition that forces the freerunners to do all of their work within a relatively small stadium?
I just watched G4's coverage of the 2009 Barclaycard Freerun Championships. The competition took place in London a few weeks ago, housed within a structure built specifically for this reason. The stage had mulptile levels, metal bars, concrete tables, and a seperate, smaller stage so competitors could leap onto and off of it. They had one run of sixty seconds, then, the top ten went a second time to determine a winner. They were scored on their tricks' difficulty, the fluidity of their runs, how well they accomplished their tricks, and creativity.
The competition was fun and impressive to watch and even though I'd never seen one of these before today, even I could tell that the winner Tim "Livewire" Shieff was, by far, the best one.
However, this is a competition in a sport that is supposed to stress freedom limited only by one's own capabilities. So, by putting it into a specifically limited space aren't you already going away from the initial ideas of the sport? There was scaffolding enclosing the competition space, which I thought looked perfect for some of these tricks (it would certainly help your creativity score), but, I kept wondering whether or not the competitors had been told to stay off of it or risk being disqualified. And if that's true, haven't you already lost?
I suppose this is how freestyle street skateboarders first felt when the X-Games and other groups started moving their freedom of movement sport to a small, prescribed space. Actually, some still feel like that, and there is an ongoing controvery between some freerunners, those who compete in freerunning compeitions, and parkour enthusiasts, who believe any competition completely misses the point.
Now that I think about it, any sport like skateboarding, freerunning, or whatever will come next has to lose some of its original spirit in order to become bigger and reach a wider audience. They are selling out to a certain extent, but they're also adapting to changing tastes as one's pastime gets more and more famous on a larger, worldwide scale.
So here's how it works: you start something that gets really popular among a select group; then it starts to spread out from your small fanbase to a wider audience; then you have to continue to grow for the good of the sport you made, so you change some things to make it more accessible; then it gets really popular and you're a genius and a founder of a major sport, but it isn't quite what you originally made, and you just have to hope you were among the first ones to start getting money from what you created in the first place.
When one succedes at these stunts, then one is partaking in a sport known as "freerunning" (when you fail, you just look like an idiot). This sport (sometimes spelled as two words, sometimes as one, I have no idea which is correct, nor I think does anyone else) evolved from the French "parkour" by adding more acrobatics and the new philosophy of a complete freedom of movement. Freerunners (as seen in the BBC specials Jump London and Jump Britian) cover urban landscapes in a new way, finding a path from one building to the next, from one street to another, or across or through any structure one finds in a city that no one else would even consider trying.
Thus, freerunning stresses freedom of movement and expression; a person's imagination and physical abilities the only obstacles to discovering a new way to look at and travel the cities of the world, even as these cities themselves become increasingly homogenous and repetitive.
So, how can you have a Freerunning Competition that forces the freerunners to do all of their work within a relatively small stadium?
I just watched G4's coverage of the 2009 Barclaycard Freerun Championships. The competition took place in London a few weeks ago, housed within a structure built specifically for this reason. The stage had mulptile levels, metal bars, concrete tables, and a seperate, smaller stage so competitors could leap onto and off of it. They had one run of sixty seconds, then, the top ten went a second time to determine a winner. They were scored on their tricks' difficulty, the fluidity of their runs, how well they accomplished their tricks, and creativity.
The competition was fun and impressive to watch and even though I'd never seen one of these before today, even I could tell that the winner Tim "Livewire" Shieff was, by far, the best one.
However, this is a competition in a sport that is supposed to stress freedom limited only by one's own capabilities. So, by putting it into a specifically limited space aren't you already going away from the initial ideas of the sport? There was scaffolding enclosing the competition space, which I thought looked perfect for some of these tricks (it would certainly help your creativity score), but, I kept wondering whether or not the competitors had been told to stay off of it or risk being disqualified. And if that's true, haven't you already lost?
I suppose this is how freestyle street skateboarders first felt when the X-Games and other groups started moving their freedom of movement sport to a small, prescribed space. Actually, some still feel like that, and there is an ongoing controvery between some freerunners, those who compete in freerunning compeitions, and parkour enthusiasts, who believe any competition completely misses the point.
Now that I think about it, any sport like skateboarding, freerunning, or whatever will come next has to lose some of its original spirit in order to become bigger and reach a wider audience. They are selling out to a certain extent, but they're also adapting to changing tastes as one's pastime gets more and more famous on a larger, worldwide scale.
So here's how it works: you start something that gets really popular among a select group; then it starts to spread out from your small fanbase to a wider audience; then you have to continue to grow for the good of the sport you made, so you change some things to make it more accessible; then it gets really popular and you're a genius and a founder of a major sport, but it isn't quite what you originally made, and you just have to hope you were among the first ones to start getting money from what you created in the first place.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Ying/ Yang, Female/ Male, Passive/ Active, Crap/ Could Be Cool
I preface this post by saying that I have neither read any of the Twilight books nor seen the film. For that matter, I have no intention of ever seeing or reading any of the Twilight series of books or films, unless someone holds a gun to my head (and even then, Hell might be preferable to reading page after page of Stephenie Meyer's whiny, teenaged protagonist). I have also not read any of the Cirque Du Freak books, and I am still undecided as to whether or not I will see the film The Vampire's Assistant. All of what follows comes from what I've seen or read about any of the works involved. So, forgive me if I get anything wrong, but I have absolutely no desire to read a teenager gushing about her hottie Prince Charming Vampire for over a thousand pages.
In an interview about the film The Vampire's Assistant, John C. Reilly mentioned that this story is really a young male's fantasy version of the vampire story. This reminded me that I've always forgiven the popularity of Twilight as the epitome of a young girl's fantasy, but just consider how different these fantasies are.
In Twilight, the heroine, Bella, falls for and meets the vampire of her affection after he saves her life, which he then continues to do, while never going all the way with her because he loves her too much or some such nonsence (vampires I can buy, but a straight guy not gettin' down with his girlfriend Kristin Stewart, now that's unbelievable!). Bella plays the part of fairy tale damsel in distress with Edward as the Prince Charming/ bad boy of the story.
In the trailers for the sequel New Moon, Bella is even seen putting herself in mortal danger in an attempt to bring Edward back to her. Because that's a sign of a healthy relationship that young girls should definitely look forward to trying at some point in their lives. Hey kids, do you want to get that hottie ex-boyfriend to come back to you? Try almost dying! Why doesn't Bella just cut herself like so many of Twilight's fans are already doing?
Bella's role in the story is passive, even her activities are attempts to push Edward to make a move for her. Darren's role in Vampire's Assistant is active.
In this story, Darren has a normal, boring suburban, middle-American life until a circus comes to town and Darren decides to ditch his family, say "Screw you" to his best friend, and become a vampire. Darren isn't begging for anyone to save him from anything other than staggering normalcy; that's not how boys think, that's not what we dream of. We don't want some hottie Princess Charming to ride in and save our asses, we want to do the saving.
We want to have adventures, fight off the bad guys, save some girls (and whatever comes after that), and, oh yeah, live forever. To hell with getting old, getting some crap job, marrying some woman we might not be able to stand, having some kids, and then dying unfulfilled and bored in a retirement home somewhere. We want to be forever young with superpowers and kick ass until the world ends, which hopefully wouldn't be until we're done having fun.
Boys grow up reading comicbooks and that's what we dream of becoming, superheroes. Darren is Superman, Bella is Lois Lane (before feminism got hold of her, and made her intelligent and independent). Darren goes off and has adventures, Bella desperately wants someone to come to her. As to which one is the better fantasy in terms of the long-lasting impact upon the young who have them, I have no idea and I'm not even going to try to judge.
All I know is, I want the cool one.
In an interview about the film The Vampire's Assistant, John C. Reilly mentioned that this story is really a young male's fantasy version of the vampire story. This reminded me that I've always forgiven the popularity of Twilight as the epitome of a young girl's fantasy, but just consider how different these fantasies are.
In Twilight, the heroine, Bella, falls for and meets the vampire of her affection after he saves her life, which he then continues to do, while never going all the way with her because he loves her too much or some such nonsence (vampires I can buy, but a straight guy not gettin' down with his girlfriend Kristin Stewart, now that's unbelievable!). Bella plays the part of fairy tale damsel in distress with Edward as the Prince Charming/ bad boy of the story.
In the trailers for the sequel New Moon, Bella is even seen putting herself in mortal danger in an attempt to bring Edward back to her. Because that's a sign of a healthy relationship that young girls should definitely look forward to trying at some point in their lives. Hey kids, do you want to get that hottie ex-boyfriend to come back to you? Try almost dying! Why doesn't Bella just cut herself like so many of Twilight's fans are already doing?
Bella's role in the story is passive, even her activities are attempts to push Edward to make a move for her. Darren's role in Vampire's Assistant is active.
In this story, Darren has a normal, boring suburban, middle-American life until a circus comes to town and Darren decides to ditch his family, say "Screw you" to his best friend, and become a vampire. Darren isn't begging for anyone to save him from anything other than staggering normalcy; that's not how boys think, that's not what we dream of. We don't want some hottie Princess Charming to ride in and save our asses, we want to do the saving.
We want to have adventures, fight off the bad guys, save some girls (and whatever comes after that), and, oh yeah, live forever. To hell with getting old, getting some crap job, marrying some woman we might not be able to stand, having some kids, and then dying unfulfilled and bored in a retirement home somewhere. We want to be forever young with superpowers and kick ass until the world ends, which hopefully wouldn't be until we're done having fun.
Boys grow up reading comicbooks and that's what we dream of becoming, superheroes. Darren is Superman, Bella is Lois Lane (before feminism got hold of her, and made her intelligent and independent). Darren goes off and has adventures, Bella desperately wants someone to come to her. As to which one is the better fantasy in terms of the long-lasting impact upon the young who have them, I have no idea and I'm not even going to try to judge.
All I know is, I want the cool one.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
DWTS: The Result of Having so Many Competitors
There is a problem with having more competitors at this late stage than the show has ever had before. Namely, there aren't more viewers or vewiers with more of an attention span to go along with the larger cast. As a result, some celebrities simply get ignored by both the viewers and those who comment on and cover the show. This is part of why Natalie Coughlin went off WAYYY too soon on last night's show.
Here's my theories on the bottom four, Natalie, Aaron Carter, Joanna Krupa, and Melissa Joan Hart. Aaron is still suffering from his unpopularity of the last few weeks, but survives through a devoted following. Joanna, despite her dancing abilities, is something of a bitch (boy, did she looked pissed while waiting for the results!). And, if there's something the female audeince doesn't want to see, it's a woman who's both much prettier than they are, and has a horrible attitude. However, she no doubt recieved sympathy as a result of her partner Derek Hough's illness keeping him off the dancefloor this week. So, she gets at least one more try to get people to like her for reasons other her looks.
Then there's Melissa and Natalie. Melissa started off OK, and then got better. Meanwhile, Natalie has been good throughout. The female voters probably have a lot of love for Melissa as a mother and an older woman than others on the show. But Natalie, despite being graceful, expessive, naturally talented, and a great dancer, didn't have any drama, and thus no attention.
See, while Louie Vito and Michael Irvin have had rollercoaster performances (good one week, bad the next), their efforts to come back endear them to the audience, and makes them memorable, as do their personalities. Natalie is nice and comes across as a determined competitor, but, lacking the drama and outgoing personalities of her co-athletes, she's just not as memorable. And, when there are this many more dancers to follow and vote for, being noticed and remembered becomes even more important than in previous seasons.
So Natalie, Carrie Anne's favorite and a very talented dancer, goes out while neither Michael nor Louie are even in the bottom four, and these two were by far the worst dancers left! I'm saying that and I honestly like these guys, which raises another point.
Yes, this show is, at its most basic, a dancing competition. However, it is also a program people watch for the sake of entertainment. So, people naturally vote for those they find the most entertaining. It's how Cloris Leachman lasted so long despite the fact that she could barely move; viewers (including me) were getting an odd kind of joy watching an older woman be led around and molested by a younger dancer who also looked like he was having a lot of fun. This is the double-edged sword of this type of show: as a talent competition, the judges want the best ones to advance, while the viewers and voters (who are the only reason the show stays on the air) just want the ones they like to keep going, to hell with how good or bad they are!
The "dance-offs" of the coming weeks will help clear this up a little, but, it could very well happen that, fearing their loss in a dance-off, Michael and Louie's fans will vote in massive numbers to keep them out of the bottom four as they did this week.
Oh, well. As long as Mya wins in the end, the best dancer will prevail, it's just who else will be with her in the finals that might be questionable.
Here's my theories on the bottom four, Natalie, Aaron Carter, Joanna Krupa, and Melissa Joan Hart. Aaron is still suffering from his unpopularity of the last few weeks, but survives through a devoted following. Joanna, despite her dancing abilities, is something of a bitch (boy, did she looked pissed while waiting for the results!). And, if there's something the female audeince doesn't want to see, it's a woman who's both much prettier than they are, and has a horrible attitude. However, she no doubt recieved sympathy as a result of her partner Derek Hough's illness keeping him off the dancefloor this week. So, she gets at least one more try to get people to like her for reasons other her looks.
Then there's Melissa and Natalie. Melissa started off OK, and then got better. Meanwhile, Natalie has been good throughout. The female voters probably have a lot of love for Melissa as a mother and an older woman than others on the show. But Natalie, despite being graceful, expessive, naturally talented, and a great dancer, didn't have any drama, and thus no attention.
See, while Louie Vito and Michael Irvin have had rollercoaster performances (good one week, bad the next), their efforts to come back endear them to the audience, and makes them memorable, as do their personalities. Natalie is nice and comes across as a determined competitor, but, lacking the drama and outgoing personalities of her co-athletes, she's just not as memorable. And, when there are this many more dancers to follow and vote for, being noticed and remembered becomes even more important than in previous seasons.
So Natalie, Carrie Anne's favorite and a very talented dancer, goes out while neither Michael nor Louie are even in the bottom four, and these two were by far the worst dancers left! I'm saying that and I honestly like these guys, which raises another point.
Yes, this show is, at its most basic, a dancing competition. However, it is also a program people watch for the sake of entertainment. So, people naturally vote for those they find the most entertaining. It's how Cloris Leachman lasted so long despite the fact that she could barely move; viewers (including me) were getting an odd kind of joy watching an older woman be led around and molested by a younger dancer who also looked like he was having a lot of fun. This is the double-edged sword of this type of show: as a talent competition, the judges want the best ones to advance, while the viewers and voters (who are the only reason the show stays on the air) just want the ones they like to keep going, to hell with how good or bad they are!
The "dance-offs" of the coming weeks will help clear this up a little, but, it could very well happen that, fearing their loss in a dance-off, Michael and Louie's fans will vote in massive numbers to keep them out of the bottom four as they did this week.
Oh, well. As long as Mya wins in the end, the best dancer will prevail, it's just who else will be with her in the finals that might be questionable.
Warren Zevon, What were you On?!!!
My crappy POS car has no working radio. Well, actually, the radio works, but it only gets AM stations, but since I'm not really old or a right-wingnut, I'm stuck using the old cassette player, which also doesn't always work that great. So, since I can't find one of those things that plugs into a discman and plays in a cassette player (Does anyone even remember what those things were called? Anyone?.... Bueller?....), for the sake of variety I've been buying used cassettes.
One of my recent purchases of the musical media that time forgot was A Quiet Normal Life: The Best of Warren Zevon, released in the mid-eighties. Now, I love Warren, I have for years, and I think the bittersweet brilliance of The Wind (his last album released during his lifetime) is unmatched by almost any other piece of modern music. I mean, he was recording this while recieving cancer treatments just to buy him enough time to finish the album and see the next James Bond film (he accomplished both, and I heard he liked the movie, which happened to be Die Another Day). The album is a fitting end to the over thirty year career of a man who always managed to be just to the left of massive fame and acclaim.
All that being said, however, I simply must ask, Warren, what drugs and how much were you taking when you wrote these songs? Even ignoring the enjoyably bizzare "Werewolves of London" (Why do you want to meet a werewolf's tailor? How can a werewolf's hair be "perfect"? What is "the werewolves of London" and how are Lon Chaney and Lon Chaney Jr. doing "it with the Queen?"), the greatest hits album is rife with imagery, lyrics, and concepts that make you go "WHAT"?
Here's a quick sample. This is from "Excitable Boy,"
After ten long years they took him out of the home,
Excitable boy they all said
And he dug up her grave and built a cage with her bones
Excitable boy they all said.
And that's the title track from one of his better selling albums!
Or here's another famous one, "Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner." The song tells the story of a mercenary hired to fight in Vietnam who then has his head blown off by the CIA that hired him. Roland, naturally, rises from the grave to seek vengence as a headless thompson gunner. The song is either meant to be metaphorical, allegorical, or just weirdness for weirdness' sake. Or it could very well be all three.
Warren's surreal storytelling isn't limited to the supernatural, either. In "Ain't That Pretty at All," an angry sounding Warren backed by guitars that seem to be stoking his rage, describes travelling back to Paris, visiting the Louvre, and then he's going to get a good running start and hurl myself at the wall!
Why? What could you possibly have against the walls of the Louvre?
His interactions with women are just as odd. "Poor Poor Pitiful Me" ends with,
Well, I met a girl at the Rainbow Bar
She asked me if I'd beat her
She took me to the Hyatt House
... I don't want to talk about it
If its something even Warren won't share, God only knows how that night went.
Then there's what passes for a love song on the album. The lovely and sad "Accidentally Like a Martyr" is a brilliant and touching song, but just try and make sense of this refrain.
We made mad love
Shadow love
Random love
And abandoned love
Accidentally like a martyr
The hurt gts worse and the heart gets harder.
How can you.... What does that even.... Oh, nevermind. Rest in Peace, Warren. If I took twice as many drugs as you, I still wouldn't have half your talent.
One of my recent purchases of the musical media that time forgot was A Quiet Normal Life: The Best of Warren Zevon, released in the mid-eighties. Now, I love Warren, I have for years, and I think the bittersweet brilliance of The Wind (his last album released during his lifetime) is unmatched by almost any other piece of modern music. I mean, he was recording this while recieving cancer treatments just to buy him enough time to finish the album and see the next James Bond film (he accomplished both, and I heard he liked the movie, which happened to be Die Another Day). The album is a fitting end to the over thirty year career of a man who always managed to be just to the left of massive fame and acclaim.
All that being said, however, I simply must ask, Warren, what drugs and how much were you taking when you wrote these songs? Even ignoring the enjoyably bizzare "Werewolves of London" (Why do you want to meet a werewolf's tailor? How can a werewolf's hair be "perfect"? What is "the werewolves of London" and how are Lon Chaney and Lon Chaney Jr. doing "it with the Queen?"), the greatest hits album is rife with imagery, lyrics, and concepts that make you go "WHAT"?
Here's a quick sample. This is from "Excitable Boy,"
After ten long years they took him out of the home,
Excitable boy they all said
And he dug up her grave and built a cage with her bones
Excitable boy they all said.
And that's the title track from one of his better selling albums!
Or here's another famous one, "Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner." The song tells the story of a mercenary hired to fight in Vietnam who then has his head blown off by the CIA that hired him. Roland, naturally, rises from the grave to seek vengence as a headless thompson gunner. The song is either meant to be metaphorical, allegorical, or just weirdness for weirdness' sake. Or it could very well be all three.
Warren's surreal storytelling isn't limited to the supernatural, either. In "Ain't That Pretty at All," an angry sounding Warren backed by guitars that seem to be stoking his rage, describes travelling back to Paris, visiting the Louvre, and then he's going to get a good running start and hurl myself at the wall!
Why? What could you possibly have against the walls of the Louvre?
His interactions with women are just as odd. "Poor Poor Pitiful Me" ends with,
Well, I met a girl at the Rainbow Bar
She asked me if I'd beat her
She took me to the Hyatt House
... I don't want to talk about it
If its something even Warren won't share, God only knows how that night went.
Then there's what passes for a love song on the album. The lovely and sad "Accidentally Like a Martyr" is a brilliant and touching song, but just try and make sense of this refrain.
We made mad love
Shadow love
Random love
And abandoned love
Accidentally like a martyr
The hurt gts worse and the heart gets harder.
How can you.... What does that even.... Oh, nevermind. Rest in Peace, Warren. If I took twice as many drugs as you, I still wouldn't have half your talent.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Mini-Post, DWTS: Samantha's Hair, WTF?!!
Seriously, who is letting Samantha Harris go on live, national television looking like that? She looked like her head got gang-raped by curlers, extensions, and glue and then they kicked her out of bed and in front of the cameras. This isn't even the first time she's looked liked this; how the hell does this keep happening? I could do better hair than that, and I barely even keep mine clean!
I'd post a picture, but I'm not sure how to do that yet. I have got to start getting better at this posting thing. Also, apologies to my sole follower, but when one encounters hair this bad, it deserves a mention.
I'd post a picture, but I'm not sure how to do that yet. I have got to start getting better at this posting thing. Also, apologies to my sole follower, but when one encounters hair this bad, it deserves a mention.
Mad Family Sunday
This has been coming for a while now on Mad Men, and it finally seems to be coming to a head; Don's latest affair is getting creepily serious. I mean, what is she thinking? She had Don sized up right as soon as they met, the philandering husband who's always looking for the latest conquest. Of course, she falls for his charms anyway (you could see an obvious attraction even when she was rejecting him, and really, Jon Hamm is awesome!), but now she's getting genuinely attached.
Where exactly does she see this relationship going? Don's not going to leave his wife, and even if he were, it wouldn't be for you.
January Jones was brilliant this week. In the scene where Betty finds the key to Don's secret drawer, you can read this secret pleasure on her face as she anticipates finally seeing proof of Don's affairs and the life he has when he isn't with her and the children. Instead, she finds.... Dick. One can't even imagine what she was thinking to learn her husband literally had another life before they met, or how this will affect their relationship, though the teaser did show Betty packing a suitcase. However, I've gotten used to these being horribly misleading, so that might not mean anything.
Also loved that bit between Peggy and Kinsey at the end of the show. They were totally just making things up off the top of their heads (Don was surprisingly sympathetic towards Kinsey), and then Peggy just said something brilliant. Kinsey's reaction was priceless, he just stared at Peggy, aghast by her natural abilities which he apparently hasn't noticed until that moment.
Also on television last night, Family Guy did their take on three stories by Stephen King: Stand by Me, Misery, and Shawshank Redemption. They were well done and this was a good episode; in part because it didn't have my usual problem with Family Guy which is that its just a series of random jokes that have little to nothing to do with the supposed storyline (if you want to do a sketch show, do a sketch show, don't try to mask it with a barely-there plot!). However, this episode came the same night as the latest Simpsons Treehouse of Horror (another good show on Fox last night).
Now, I don't know who's fault that is, but it seemed that Family Guy was trying to go after one of Simpsons more famous episodes of the year with their own weird, short stories. So this is either a "booo" to the Family Guy creators for being dicks by going after a show that's one of the main reasons they're on the air at all, or to the Fox Network for scheduling these shows on the same night.
In other Sunday tv news, Titan Maximum finally ditched their random jokes and managed to stay focused on jokes that didn't just pop out of left field, and Venture Bros. came back with a new season. Venture Bros. was good, but the episode was told out of sequence and organized in a way that doesn't make sense until the end (and even then you might not get it if you're not as big a geek as I am), so, I feel like I have to watch the whole thing all over again. Although, the episode was good enough I really wouldn't mind seeing it again so I guess that's alright.
In all, a good Sunday's worth of television.
Where exactly does she see this relationship going? Don's not going to leave his wife, and even if he were, it wouldn't be for you.
January Jones was brilliant this week. In the scene where Betty finds the key to Don's secret drawer, you can read this secret pleasure on her face as she anticipates finally seeing proof of Don's affairs and the life he has when he isn't with her and the children. Instead, she finds.... Dick. One can't even imagine what she was thinking to learn her husband literally had another life before they met, or how this will affect their relationship, though the teaser did show Betty packing a suitcase. However, I've gotten used to these being horribly misleading, so that might not mean anything.
Also loved that bit between Peggy and Kinsey at the end of the show. They were totally just making things up off the top of their heads (Don was surprisingly sympathetic towards Kinsey), and then Peggy just said something brilliant. Kinsey's reaction was priceless, he just stared at Peggy, aghast by her natural abilities which he apparently hasn't noticed until that moment.
Also on television last night, Family Guy did their take on three stories by Stephen King: Stand by Me, Misery, and Shawshank Redemption. They were well done and this was a good episode; in part because it didn't have my usual problem with Family Guy which is that its just a series of random jokes that have little to nothing to do with the supposed storyline (if you want to do a sketch show, do a sketch show, don't try to mask it with a barely-there plot!). However, this episode came the same night as the latest Simpsons Treehouse of Horror (another good show on Fox last night).
Now, I don't know who's fault that is, but it seemed that Family Guy was trying to go after one of Simpsons more famous episodes of the year with their own weird, short stories. So this is either a "booo" to the Family Guy creators for being dicks by going after a show that's one of the main reasons they're on the air at all, or to the Fox Network for scheduling these shows on the same night.
In other Sunday tv news, Titan Maximum finally ditched their random jokes and managed to stay focused on jokes that didn't just pop out of left field, and Venture Bros. came back with a new season. Venture Bros. was good, but the episode was told out of sequence and organized in a way that doesn't make sense until the end (and even then you might not get it if you're not as big a geek as I am), so, I feel like I have to watch the whole thing all over again. Although, the episode was good enough I really wouldn't mind seeing it again so I guess that's alright.
In all, a good Sunday's worth of television.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
DWTS Update!
OK, this is seriously starting to become Bobby Bill's DWTS Blog, but I really had to comment on what happened on this week's Results Show.
WOW!! Where the hell did that come from??!!! Now Chuck Liddell being in the bottom two and exiting wasn't really a shocker. He's never been a good dancer, and he wasn't going to be getting any better.
But Aaron Carter being in the bottom two!! Now that was surprising, and I'm sure it caused some tears the little wimp didn't want to show on camera. The big question though, is why? Granted, his scores have fallen in the past two weeks while others have been getting better, but he still wasn't as low as either Louie Vito or Michael Irvin. Yet these two survive unscathed, while Aaron had to wait the show out to the end.
So, what's the deal here? Is Aaron a little too "fabulous," or "light on his feet" for the fans? Or, is it the whiny, crying thing people don't like to see in a man? Well, a straight man, anyway, and even if Aaron is gay (I don't know for sure, but I have a pretty good idea) he would still be annoying.
Anyhoo, Louie not being in the bottom two was another shocker of the night (he and Irvin are easily the worst dancers left), but I have heard a good theory why the fans are starting to like the pro snowboarder they'd never heard of until a few weeks ago. Louie does not fit the "Whoa, dude, let's get stoned and hit the slopes," stereotype that quite a few viewers probably have about snowboarders (for the record, very few if any of the pros are anything like that); so he's a pleasant surprise while also being likable as such a nice and positive person. Meanwhile, Louie, being an athlete, has a competitive spirit, which drives him to keep doing better. And, while the fans are liking Louie more the more they see of him, they seem to be getting sick of Aaron and his histrionics.
So, in all, Go Louie! I'm a big fan, and have been for years, but, seriously, for the sake of your ACTUAL CAREER, it might be great if you have another bad week.
WOW!! Where the hell did that come from??!!! Now Chuck Liddell being in the bottom two and exiting wasn't really a shocker. He's never been a good dancer, and he wasn't going to be getting any better.
But Aaron Carter being in the bottom two!! Now that was surprising, and I'm sure it caused some tears the little wimp didn't want to show on camera. The big question though, is why? Granted, his scores have fallen in the past two weeks while others have been getting better, but he still wasn't as low as either Louie Vito or Michael Irvin. Yet these two survive unscathed, while Aaron had to wait the show out to the end.
So, what's the deal here? Is Aaron a little too "fabulous," or "light on his feet" for the fans? Or, is it the whiny, crying thing people don't like to see in a man? Well, a straight man, anyway, and even if Aaron is gay (I don't know for sure, but I have a pretty good idea) he would still be annoying.
Anyhoo, Louie not being in the bottom two was another shocker of the night (he and Irvin are easily the worst dancers left), but I have heard a good theory why the fans are starting to like the pro snowboarder they'd never heard of until a few weeks ago. Louie does not fit the "Whoa, dude, let's get stoned and hit the slopes," stereotype that quite a few viewers probably have about snowboarders (for the record, very few if any of the pros are anything like that); so he's a pleasant surprise while also being likable as such a nice and positive person. Meanwhile, Louie, being an athlete, has a competitive spirit, which drives him to keep doing better. And, while the fans are liking Louie more the more they see of him, they seem to be getting sick of Aaron and his histrionics.
So, in all, Go Louie! I'm a big fan, and have been for years, but, seriously, for the sake of your ACTUAL CAREER, it might be great if you have another bad week.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
DWTS: Part Two, Louis, Louis
Like most people who watch Dancing with the Stars, I don't know a lot about the dances being performed, and I probably couldn't tell one from another, other than having a guess if one were a latin or a ballroom dance (and there, you're helped by the music and outfits).
However, having grown up in a small town in mid-Missouri, I do know what a two-step looks like, while snowboarder Louis Vito and his partner Chelsie Hightower clearly don't. Now, I can understand if someone didn't have the bad luck of growing up near rednecks; however, if you know the dance is coming up, and you know you have to choreograph and then perform the damn thing, why not at least google it?!!
I know Louis didn't look good in last night's performance, but I really am putting the blame of this one on Chelsie. She's supposed to be the pro dancer, she's supposed to be the one who knows the dance, she's supposed to figure out how to make her partner look as good as possible. Instead, Chelsie put together a performance that seemed to say, "Nether of us know what to do, so why don't you just walk me around like a show pony, and I'll do flip tricks and stuff and smile and we'll see how that turns out."
Complicating things for Louis is the fact that Michael Irvin has a much larger built-in fan base among the show's demographic going into the competition. On that note, many members of the key demographic (being female and 30s, 40s or older... namely, the opposite of me), not only don't recognize the former Olympian, they barely acknowledge his sport as a sport.
So, I think this is it for Louis, but there is a bright side. Now, he can go back to his real job and start training for the Olympics, which he should have been doing all along instead of learning how to DANCE!!
Seriously, man, what were thinking here? The show lasts potentially until December, the Olympics are in February, did you really expect to turn around, qualify for the US team, and be ready for the largest stage in your sport in three months?! Shaun White's the best snowboarder in the world, and he didn't even compete in skateboarding this year to prepare for Vancouver.
Assuming you do lose tonight Louis, consider it a blessing. If, however, you don't get eliminated, you might consider just backing out. The competition just to qualify for the US freestyle snowboard team is stiff, and clearly, at the moment, your head's not in the right game.
However, having grown up in a small town in mid-Missouri, I do know what a two-step looks like, while snowboarder Louis Vito and his partner Chelsie Hightower clearly don't. Now, I can understand if someone didn't have the bad luck of growing up near rednecks; however, if you know the dance is coming up, and you know you have to choreograph and then perform the damn thing, why not at least google it?!!
I know Louis didn't look good in last night's performance, but I really am putting the blame of this one on Chelsie. She's supposed to be the pro dancer, she's supposed to be the one who knows the dance, she's supposed to figure out how to make her partner look as good as possible. Instead, Chelsie put together a performance that seemed to say, "Nether of us know what to do, so why don't you just walk me around like a show pony, and I'll do flip tricks and stuff and smile and we'll see how that turns out."
Complicating things for Louis is the fact that Michael Irvin has a much larger built-in fan base among the show's demographic going into the competition. On that note, many members of the key demographic (being female and 30s, 40s or older... namely, the opposite of me), not only don't recognize the former Olympian, they barely acknowledge his sport as a sport.
So, I think this is it for Louis, but there is a bright side. Now, he can go back to his real job and start training for the Olympics, which he should have been doing all along instead of learning how to DANCE!!
Seriously, man, what were thinking here? The show lasts potentially until December, the Olympics are in February, did you really expect to turn around, qualify for the US team, and be ready for the largest stage in your sport in three months?! Shaun White's the best snowboarder in the world, and he didn't even compete in skateboarding this year to prepare for Vancouver.
Assuming you do lose tonight Louis, consider it a blessing. If, however, you don't get eliminated, you might consider just backing out. The competition just to qualify for the US freestyle snowboard team is stiff, and clearly, at the moment, your head's not in the right game.
DWTS: Part One, Explanation
I begin this two-part post with an explanation. My sister started watching Dancing with the Stars, and I ended up watching the show with her.
Whenever Heroes and/or Chuck weren't on, or were in reruns, we would follow DWTS, or would flip to it during commercials. Now that Chuck has vanished until after the Olympics, we watch the second hour of DWTS (has anyone else noticed that we abbreviate everything now? we are so damn lazy) after Heroes.
Added to this is the sad fact that I now always feel that I have to have something on television to watch. I didn't used to be like this. In high school, I know I didn't watch that much tv, and I had homework, anyway. Then, in undergrad, I would work some nights, plus I had homework, and I still wasn't watching it every night I could. Finally, in grad school, I would work some nights, I had night classes, and I still had reading and papers to do for class.
So, it wasn't until recently that I found I had nothing else to do at night other than watch television, which leads me to watch and follow shows that I normally wouldn't consider (Eastwick being the worst example of this).
Also, when one watches one of the many reality competition shows on a regular basis, you start to get into it without trying or maybe even wanting to, then you become an avid follower, and then you find yourself rooting for someone, rating the performances, and possibly even seeing what the judges see (though I'm not sure anyone always sees what Len Goodman sees).
So, for all these reasons and through this transition, I have gotten into Dancing with the Stars. At least there are hot women wearing revealing clothing and dancing sexy, so I can pretend I'm still something of a guy while watching.
Whenever Heroes and/or Chuck weren't on, or were in reruns, we would follow DWTS, or would flip to it during commercials. Now that Chuck has vanished until after the Olympics, we watch the second hour of DWTS (has anyone else noticed that we abbreviate everything now? we are so damn lazy) after Heroes.
Added to this is the sad fact that I now always feel that I have to have something on television to watch. I didn't used to be like this. In high school, I know I didn't watch that much tv, and I had homework, anyway. Then, in undergrad, I would work some nights, plus I had homework, and I still wasn't watching it every night I could. Finally, in grad school, I would work some nights, I had night classes, and I still had reading and papers to do for class.
So, it wasn't until recently that I found I had nothing else to do at night other than watch television, which leads me to watch and follow shows that I normally wouldn't consider (Eastwick being the worst example of this).
Also, when one watches one of the many reality competition shows on a regular basis, you start to get into it without trying or maybe even wanting to, then you become an avid follower, and then you find yourself rooting for someone, rating the performances, and possibly even seeing what the judges see (though I'm not sure anyone always sees what Len Goodman sees).
So, for all these reasons and through this transition, I have gotten into Dancing with the Stars. At least there are hot women wearing revealing clothing and dancing sexy, so I can pretend I'm still something of a guy while watching.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Titan Chicken, or Robot Maximum?
Last night, I watched the third episode of Titan Maximum, the new show from the creators of Robot Chicken.
It is very funny, clever, and original to see a dead-on parody of celebrity and heroism. The show, which follows the adventures of the re-formed Titan Force Five as they defend the universe from their former douchebag comrade, is like revisiting an old Japanese giant robot cartoon through the modern eye of cynicism and celebrity scandal.
But, the creators seem to have an issue staying focused on their own plots. This was brutally apparent in the half-hour pilot, as the show kept going off on tangential jokes about characters all but completely unconnected to the show's plotline. They have done this much less in the two 15 minute episodes that have followed, but the fact that they still do it at all is distracting and a bit annoying.
See, for those of you who don't know, on Cartoon Network's Adult Swim, a so-called 15 minute episode is really only about twelve or thirteen minutes; which is fine, considering the show is stop-motion, and if it were longer it would be a bitch to make a whole season. What is not so fine is when an actual plot-based show like Titan Maximum decides to take away from its brief episode length to focus on some random joke about people we'll never see again. It seems that the creators aren't used to limiting their focus on just a few characters and follow only one plot, being too used to Robot Chicken's random, unconnected sketch format.
None of this means I'm not enjoying the show (which I am) or that I don't think its funny (which I do, even the random, unconnected parts), but, if you want to make a plot-based show, make a plot-based show! Don't go only most of the way with it, and then throw us a joke out of left field about nothing to do with anything! Make up your damned mind, control your ADD, and this show will be even better than it is now!
And if anyone is actually reading this, please give me some sign. I'm new to the whole blogging thing, and could use the reassurance that its not just me talking to myself.
It is very funny, clever, and original to see a dead-on parody of celebrity and heroism. The show, which follows the adventures of the re-formed Titan Force Five as they defend the universe from their former douchebag comrade, is like revisiting an old Japanese giant robot cartoon through the modern eye of cynicism and celebrity scandal.
But, the creators seem to have an issue staying focused on their own plots. This was brutally apparent in the half-hour pilot, as the show kept going off on tangential jokes about characters all but completely unconnected to the show's plotline. They have done this much less in the two 15 minute episodes that have followed, but the fact that they still do it at all is distracting and a bit annoying.
See, for those of you who don't know, on Cartoon Network's Adult Swim, a so-called 15 minute episode is really only about twelve or thirteen minutes; which is fine, considering the show is stop-motion, and if it were longer it would be a bitch to make a whole season. What is not so fine is when an actual plot-based show like Titan Maximum decides to take away from its brief episode length to focus on some random joke about people we'll never see again. It seems that the creators aren't used to limiting their focus on just a few characters and follow only one plot, being too used to Robot Chicken's random, unconnected sketch format.
None of this means I'm not enjoying the show (which I am) or that I don't think its funny (which I do, even the random, unconnected parts), but, if you want to make a plot-based show, make a plot-based show! Don't go only most of the way with it, and then throw us a joke out of left field about nothing to do with anything! Make up your damned mind, control your ADD, and this show will be even better than it is now!
And if anyone is actually reading this, please give me some sign. I'm new to the whole blogging thing, and could use the reassurance that its not just me talking to myself.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Hollywood, Stay out of Zombieland!
I love zombie movies and Zombieland is a great addition to that genre. It's fun, funny, clever, and even the acting's good (and with this kind of movie, the acting is usually what you have to forgive to enjoy yourself).
Woody Harrelson is great as this cowboy/ psycho/ zombie-killing badass who is both awesome and hilarious. Jesse Eisenberg is, well, he's the same indie/ poor man's Michael Cerra that he's always played, but he's good at it, and you like him despite how little you might actually want to be stuck with him in case of a genuine zombie apocalypse.
Anyway, so I loved the movie, and, clearly, so did a lot of other people. However, here's my issue: if zombies are the new vampires, and Zombieland's success points to more zombie flicks on the horizon, it's only a matter of time before a big budget Hollywood zombie movie is made, and this would probably suck.
Now I'm not one of those "all Hollywood/ mainstream/ mass market movies suck" kinds of people. Hell, Dark Knight and Wall-E were my picks for last year's two best movies.
But, a big Hollywood budget comes with certain expectations. Like, the movie has to make as much money as it possibly can, so we have to make it appeal to as wide an audience as possible, so right away, we lose the over-the-top violence which (let's face it) is one of the best parts of a zombie movie. Zombies aren't vampires; if you stab them in the heart, you don't expect them to just disintegrate into dust. Zombies are like Monty Python's Black Knight, if you shoot off a limb, that bleeding, rotting, hideous thing just keeps coming. And we expect it to, just like we expect a human's death by carnivorous, still-moving corpses to be delightfully disgusting.
Also, in order to milk movie-goers of as much moolah as possible, a big budget Hollywood film must have so-called "stars." Now, it's purely debatable if the addition of that guy from Las Vegas and a Black former male model had anything to do with the ridiculous financial success of the Transformers movies, but the fact that they've made as much money as they have "proves" (in the half-blind eyes of Hollywood execs) that you must have someone easily recognizable to sell a film.
Now, I ask you, would Zombieland have been half as good if it starred Tom Cruise and Zac Efron? NO, IT WOULDN'T!!
Hell, I'll go one further: would more of you have automatically gone to see District 9 if it had starred that guy who plays Kenneth on 30 Rock, instead of some foreigner you'd never heard of? (If anyone answers "Yes" to that, I will hunt you down.)
Oh, and the biggest reason why a big budget/ we're aiming for mass appeal while sucking the life out of a genre about living dead things/ Hollywood zombie movie would suck? Because it might be made by Michael Bay. That guy's movies are horribly acted, too damn long, and so cliche-ridden and unoriginal that I'm convinced his scripts are written by an automatic screenplay-generator. He did his best work on the Playboy Video Centerfold of Kerri Kendall (and, in my opinion, he didn't get that great a performance out of his lead actress in that one, either).
So, Hollywood, do the whole world a favor: leave the zombie flicks with smaller budgets that they can actually make back, let me keep my deplorable violence, ignore the urge to ruin the genre with over-saturation, and keep out of Zombieland!
You'll make more money that way, and that's really all you care about in the end isn't it, you heartless, greedy bastards?
Woody Harrelson is great as this cowboy/ psycho/ zombie-killing badass who is both awesome and hilarious. Jesse Eisenberg is, well, he's the same indie/ poor man's Michael Cerra that he's always played, but he's good at it, and you like him despite how little you might actually want to be stuck with him in case of a genuine zombie apocalypse.
Anyway, so I loved the movie, and, clearly, so did a lot of other people. However, here's my issue: if zombies are the new vampires, and Zombieland's success points to more zombie flicks on the horizon, it's only a matter of time before a big budget Hollywood zombie movie is made, and this would probably suck.
Now I'm not one of those "all Hollywood/ mainstream/ mass market movies suck" kinds of people. Hell, Dark Knight and Wall-E were my picks for last year's two best movies.
But, a big Hollywood budget comes with certain expectations. Like, the movie has to make as much money as it possibly can, so we have to make it appeal to as wide an audience as possible, so right away, we lose the over-the-top violence which (let's face it) is one of the best parts of a zombie movie. Zombies aren't vampires; if you stab them in the heart, you don't expect them to just disintegrate into dust. Zombies are like Monty Python's Black Knight, if you shoot off a limb, that bleeding, rotting, hideous thing just keeps coming. And we expect it to, just like we expect a human's death by carnivorous, still-moving corpses to be delightfully disgusting.
Also, in order to milk movie-goers of as much moolah as possible, a big budget Hollywood film must have so-called "stars." Now, it's purely debatable if the addition of that guy from Las Vegas and a Black former male model had anything to do with the ridiculous financial success of the Transformers movies, but the fact that they've made as much money as they have "proves" (in the half-blind eyes of Hollywood execs) that you must have someone easily recognizable to sell a film.
Now, I ask you, would Zombieland have been half as good if it starred Tom Cruise and Zac Efron? NO, IT WOULDN'T!!
Hell, I'll go one further: would more of you have automatically gone to see District 9 if it had starred that guy who plays Kenneth on 30 Rock, instead of some foreigner you'd never heard of? (If anyone answers "Yes" to that, I will hunt you down.)
Oh, and the biggest reason why a big budget/ we're aiming for mass appeal while sucking the life out of a genre about living dead things/ Hollywood zombie movie would suck? Because it might be made by Michael Bay. That guy's movies are horribly acted, too damn long, and so cliche-ridden and unoriginal that I'm convinced his scripts are written by an automatic screenplay-generator. He did his best work on the Playboy Video Centerfold of Kerri Kendall (and, in my opinion, he didn't get that great a performance out of his lead actress in that one, either).
So, Hollywood, do the whole world a favor: leave the zombie flicks with smaller budgets that they can actually make back, let me keep my deplorable violence, ignore the urge to ruin the genre with over-saturation, and keep out of Zombieland!
You'll make more money that way, and that's really all you care about in the end isn't it, you heartless, greedy bastards?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
