Instead of a clear number one pick, my picks for the men's champion come in tiers. The first consists of the first, second, and fourth (yes, I skipped third) ranked players: Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer, and Andy Murray.
Nadal has not had the best summer since winning his second Wimbledon, a fast moving hard court is by far his worst surface, and he has traditionally not been at his physical best this late in the season. But Nadal WANTS this title, he wants to finish his Career Slam and prove to everyone (especially himself) that he's the best player in the world on any surface. The last time Nadal was this determined to win a title, he ended up winning Wimbledon, so don't count him out.
Andy Murray has had a slightly better summer season than Rafa since losing to Nadal at Wimbledon, but has looked sluggish and tired in his latest matches. He has also failed to bring his best game in his past matches against Nadal or Federer at the Slams. But if he could overcome whatever stops him from playing his best against either of these two when it really counts, he could finally pull off his first Slam.
Roger Federer is Roger Federer. He hadn't looked great this year since winning the Australian Open, then won in Cinncinati last week, looking like the dominant champion that he once was. his game might not be as flawless as it used to be, and his first serve percentage might still go down more than it did, but he has the constant mental advantage of simply being Roger Federer and being driven to retake his number one ranking.
My second tier is varied, to say the least: Novak Djokovic is the third seed but hasn't had the best results lately, and plays poorly in warm weather; if Andy Roddick gets his energy back after a recent fight with mono, he would have the crowd support, and he still has a great hard court game; but the American crowd could be divided if Roddick meets fellow American Mardy Fish, who has completely revamed his game after losing 20 pounds, and has numerous wins against top opponents (including Nadal, Murray, and Roddick) to help his confidence. The biggest problem for all these men is that they share the same quarter. Rounding them off is Robin Soderling, who could meet Federer in the quarters, and if he pulls off that upset, he and his giant forehand would be moving on with confidence into the semis.
There are plenty more men who might make a good showing, but it would be a genuine surprise if anyone other than my seven top picks comes away from New York with a trophy.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
US Open Women: Who Outlasts Who?
Serena Williams is out for another month with a cut on her foot. Justine Henin is out until October with an elbow injury that ended her run at Wimbledon. This leaves all the focus, and possibly too much pressure, on the defending champion Kim Clijsters.
Last year, Clijsters was playing slightly under the radar, not expected to go that far, and so had almost no pressure, helping her mentally in overcoming the rest of the field and winning her second Slam. This year, minus Serena, everyone is looking at Kim and expecting great things. This could be a problem, since mentally tightening up was always Kim's biggest issues on tennis's biggest stages, and she is now the biggest female star on tennis's largest stage. Also, she is carrying a possible hip injury, that clearly affected her game last week, when she played a horrible match to lose to Vera Zvonareva for the second straight time. While Zvonareva is a mentally inconsistent player who can be brilliant, Clijsters should have won these matches. The fact that she didn't, along with her mysterious hip problem, worries me for Clijsters' chances to repeat as champion.
However, I am still going with Clijsters as my safe bet for potential winner at Flushing Meadows. She plays a great hard court game and she does it with much more consistency than anyone else currently in the field. She could have an early round challenge with either Ana Ivanovic or Marion Bartoli in the fourth round, but, if she overcomes either of them, she has a good draw.
Coming in a close second, Maria Sharapova has finally been looking good on a regular basis again. Stymied by a shoulder injury and then wracked with double faults and unforced errors, Sharapova has dropped out of the top ten, but has recently started rising again. She tightened up during a rain delay of her recent loss to Clijsters, and seemed to surrender in a straight set loss to Victoria Azarenka, but she has been looking much better throughout a whole match within the last few weeks. She also has experience winning the big ones, and has a stubborn tenacity when it comes to winning.
But, she still insists on going for too much on second serves (in my opinion, anyway, it did work for a set and half against Clijsters), and when the errors creep in she starts to look like a different player. She also has a bad draw, possibly meeting top-seeded Caroline Wozniacki in the fourth round. Since Wozniacki is my third choice, I'll move on to her.
The Great Dane, Caroline (nicknamed "Sunshine" due to her sunny disposition) Wozniacki succeeds through others' failures. She has a good ground game, plays a wide variety of shots, and has a great defense. She's also successfully been more aggressive this season, and has continued to remain mentally strong despite dropping in the ranks due to an ankle injury early in the season. Wozniacki still lacks a power shot to make her threat to the power players (like Sharapova), but in a tournament plagued by injuries and where even the top players might just implode at any moment, an opponent who just returns more balls than you expect and refuses to go away could go all the way.
As for the rest of field, I don't even know where to begin. There are so many potentially dangerous players among the lower seeds, and so many potential upsets brewing from top seeds, it's impossible to cover them all. Here's a sample: Ana Ivanovic has some of her big forehand/ big serve game back, but was injured two weeks ago and has a hard draw; Venus Williams has an easy draw, but hasn't played since her horrible loss at Wimbledon, and is as inconsistent as much of the rest of the field; Svetlana Kuznetsova has been looking better, but she has a history of bailing out when it matters most; Victoria Avarenka (Brad Gilbert's choice to win it all) has power but not always control, and little experience, though she's still so young that she might not think about it too much, which could be the decider when the going gets tight.
On that last note, early upsets are likely to run rampant among the women, which is why it would not be all that shocking to see some young/ no name/ where the hell did she come from? player going deep into the tournament, and potentially shocking everyone by winning it all, while we all still struggle with correctly pronouncing her name. And if she's young, and doesn't know any better, and no one's looking her way until she's suddenly in the semis, it increases her chances of just floating in under the radar while the bigger names suffer under expectations and physical problems from playing a long hard season.
So this could be a very interesting U.S. Open. Or it could be filled with horrible play and matches between two players who played good to make it that far only to crumble when they started feeling the pressure.
This is Women's Tennis, welcome to it.
Last year, Clijsters was playing slightly under the radar, not expected to go that far, and so had almost no pressure, helping her mentally in overcoming the rest of the field and winning her second Slam. This year, minus Serena, everyone is looking at Kim and expecting great things. This could be a problem, since mentally tightening up was always Kim's biggest issues on tennis's biggest stages, and she is now the biggest female star on tennis's largest stage. Also, she is carrying a possible hip injury, that clearly affected her game last week, when she played a horrible match to lose to Vera Zvonareva for the second straight time. While Zvonareva is a mentally inconsistent player who can be brilliant, Clijsters should have won these matches. The fact that she didn't, along with her mysterious hip problem, worries me for Clijsters' chances to repeat as champion.
However, I am still going with Clijsters as my safe bet for potential winner at Flushing Meadows. She plays a great hard court game and she does it with much more consistency than anyone else currently in the field. She could have an early round challenge with either Ana Ivanovic or Marion Bartoli in the fourth round, but, if she overcomes either of them, she has a good draw.
Coming in a close second, Maria Sharapova has finally been looking good on a regular basis again. Stymied by a shoulder injury and then wracked with double faults and unforced errors, Sharapova has dropped out of the top ten, but has recently started rising again. She tightened up during a rain delay of her recent loss to Clijsters, and seemed to surrender in a straight set loss to Victoria Azarenka, but she has been looking much better throughout a whole match within the last few weeks. She also has experience winning the big ones, and has a stubborn tenacity when it comes to winning.
But, she still insists on going for too much on second serves (in my opinion, anyway, it did work for a set and half against Clijsters), and when the errors creep in she starts to look like a different player. She also has a bad draw, possibly meeting top-seeded Caroline Wozniacki in the fourth round. Since Wozniacki is my third choice, I'll move on to her.
The Great Dane, Caroline (nicknamed "Sunshine" due to her sunny disposition) Wozniacki succeeds through others' failures. She has a good ground game, plays a wide variety of shots, and has a great defense. She's also successfully been more aggressive this season, and has continued to remain mentally strong despite dropping in the ranks due to an ankle injury early in the season. Wozniacki still lacks a power shot to make her threat to the power players (like Sharapova), but in a tournament plagued by injuries and where even the top players might just implode at any moment, an opponent who just returns more balls than you expect and refuses to go away could go all the way.
As for the rest of field, I don't even know where to begin. There are so many potentially dangerous players among the lower seeds, and so many potential upsets brewing from top seeds, it's impossible to cover them all. Here's a sample: Ana Ivanovic has some of her big forehand/ big serve game back, but was injured two weeks ago and has a hard draw; Venus Williams has an easy draw, but hasn't played since her horrible loss at Wimbledon, and is as inconsistent as much of the rest of the field; Svetlana Kuznetsova has been looking better, but she has a history of bailing out when it matters most; Victoria Avarenka (Brad Gilbert's choice to win it all) has power but not always control, and little experience, though she's still so young that she might not think about it too much, which could be the decider when the going gets tight.
On that last note, early upsets are likely to run rampant among the women, which is why it would not be all that shocking to see some young/ no name/ where the hell did she come from? player going deep into the tournament, and potentially shocking everyone by winning it all, while we all still struggle with correctly pronouncing her name. And if she's young, and doesn't know any better, and no one's looking her way until she's suddenly in the semis, it increases her chances of just floating in under the radar while the bigger names suffer under expectations and physical problems from playing a long hard season.
So this could be a very interesting U.S. Open. Or it could be filled with horrible play and matches between two players who played good to make it that far only to crumble when they started feeling the pressure.
This is Women's Tennis, welcome to it.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
X-Games Overview: Attack of Travis Pastrana
Freestyle Moto-X: Travis Pastrana won another Gold in this competition, but was it completely deserved? The judges loved that he used the course in unique ways, and he was hitting some unbelievable tricks. BUT X-Games rookie Levi Sherwood was also going huge on hits that were staring straight into the setting sun, and he altered his run throughout the competition. And yeah, Levi only lost to Pastrana by one point, but I thought my sister had a point when she said that it just seemed that the judges were favoring Pastrana a bit too much.
Keep in mind, Travis did hit the first ever double flip in freestyle competition, and if he had added that to his run he would have definitely won anyway, but it turned out he didn't need to. Travis did it anyway, but that's just Travis.
Finally, I have to say, the judges just didn't seem to have much love for Nate Adams' 360, especially considering he's still the only person doing it consistently.
Women's Super X (that's racing, FYI): Ashley Fiolek repeated her Gold Medal performance in one of the best stories to come out of X-Games in years. Besides only being 19, Ashley is also completely deaf, and has learned to ride and race using only the vibrations of the bike to tell where her opponents are. That nearly cost her the gold this year, when another racer got close to passing her, but she just didn't have enough, and ended up crashing when she pushed it too hard on the next lap.
It was also nice to see that the sideline reporter did not stick the microphone in Ashley's face, which is what happened last year.
Skateboard Vert: For the first ten minutes, this was a boring final. Shawn White got his first two big runs in, leading the pack by a distance while no one else either got anywhere near, or could stay on their board log enough to match his scores. Finally, reigning champion (and lone Canadian skater) Pierre Luc Gagnon got a huge run in, and then another, forcing White to push it for one last chance, which he fell on.
So those last five minutes were well worth the wait.
Skateboard Street: Ramos, Ryan Sheckler, and Chaz Ortiz all owned the course in the elimination rounds, then none of them were as good in the semifinals. Finally, Sheckler and Ortiz started hitting their jumps in the final, while Ramos hadn't got past the semis. Sheckler won, and was easily the best skater out there, proving what he could do all the time if he'd stop trying to act and stay healthy.
Rally and Super Rally: For reasons passing all logical understanding, the organizers changed the Rally course four times: one for warm-ups, one for qualifying, one for eliminations, and one for the finals. This led directly to numerous races being decided by a rider going off-course, which could have been eliminated had they been more intelligent when setting up the course, or by adding co-drivers to use as navigators, which is a staple in many rally competitions.
As it was this year, Rally was upstaged by Super Rally, in which four (street legal) cars had to race at once on a course so tight, it often seemed insane to attempt a pass, but they did anyway, (and even jumped nearly at the same time once), because who said rally car racers were sane? This was just awesome to watch.
Final Thought: Nice to see that Action Sports coverage and X-Games specifically continues to be the epitome when it comes to using a very attractive woman with questionable skills as a "sideline reporter" for the sake of ratings. This year, they tried out bikini model Jenn Brown, who at least got people's names right.
Keep in mind, Travis did hit the first ever double flip in freestyle competition, and if he had added that to his run he would have definitely won anyway, but it turned out he didn't need to. Travis did it anyway, but that's just Travis.
Finally, I have to say, the judges just didn't seem to have much love for Nate Adams' 360, especially considering he's still the only person doing it consistently.
Women's Super X (that's racing, FYI): Ashley Fiolek repeated her Gold Medal performance in one of the best stories to come out of X-Games in years. Besides only being 19, Ashley is also completely deaf, and has learned to ride and race using only the vibrations of the bike to tell where her opponents are. That nearly cost her the gold this year, when another racer got close to passing her, but she just didn't have enough, and ended up crashing when she pushed it too hard on the next lap.
It was also nice to see that the sideline reporter did not stick the microphone in Ashley's face, which is what happened last year.
Skateboard Vert: For the first ten minutes, this was a boring final. Shawn White got his first two big runs in, leading the pack by a distance while no one else either got anywhere near, or could stay on their board log enough to match his scores. Finally, reigning champion (and lone Canadian skater) Pierre Luc Gagnon got a huge run in, and then another, forcing White to push it for one last chance, which he fell on.
So those last five minutes were well worth the wait.
Skateboard Street: Ramos, Ryan Sheckler, and Chaz Ortiz all owned the course in the elimination rounds, then none of them were as good in the semifinals. Finally, Sheckler and Ortiz started hitting their jumps in the final, while Ramos hadn't got past the semis. Sheckler won, and was easily the best skater out there, proving what he could do all the time if he'd stop trying to act and stay healthy.
Rally and Super Rally: For reasons passing all logical understanding, the organizers changed the Rally course four times: one for warm-ups, one for qualifying, one for eliminations, and one for the finals. This led directly to numerous races being decided by a rider going off-course, which could have been eliminated had they been more intelligent when setting up the course, or by adding co-drivers to use as navigators, which is a staple in many rally competitions.
As it was this year, Rally was upstaged by Super Rally, in which four (street legal) cars had to race at once on a course so tight, it often seemed insane to attempt a pass, but they did anyway, (and even jumped nearly at the same time once), because who said rally car racers were sane? This was just awesome to watch.
Final Thought: Nice to see that Action Sports coverage and X-Games specifically continues to be the epitome when it comes to using a very attractive woman with questionable skills as a "sideline reporter" for the sake of ratings. This year, they tried out bikini model Jenn Brown, who at least got people's names right.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnndddddddddddddddd We're Back
Having returned from my apathy-induced absence from this blog, I'll just jump right in.
Burn Notice: I previously said that since every season of this show is almost a fully self-enclosed story that continues with the same characters, I couldn't judge last season's finale until I had seen how this season would turn out. Well, we're a couple weeks in, and I have to say, this season is going great! Michael was forced to cause the burning of another spy, Jesse (Coby Bell of the short-lived NFL sitcom The Game... also some doctor show I never watched), who has since joined Michael's crew, helping Mike to catch the guy Jesse was looking for prior to being burned, except now he's helping the people who ruined both his and Michael's careers, but only Michael knows it.
Yeah, it's kind of confusing when you spell it out like that, but it's much easier to follow on the show. And Jesse, unlike so many other new additions to shows before him, is adding a lot to the show and with his all-action approach to every situation, is creating a nice spot for him in the midst of Mike's spy crew.
One thing still bugs me about the show, though. Why is Michael still living in that crappy spot above the nightclub? Now that he's working for someone with resources and money, why can't he find a new apartment?
White Collar: It doesn't actually premiere until tonight, so there's not a lot I can say except this: according to my sister, Matt Bomer, who plays thief turned FBI pseudo-agent Neal Caffrey, is THE hottest guy on summer TV. Just passing that on.
Wipeout: I LOVVEEEE shows like this. Hell, I'm watching a repeat of Ninja Warrior (new season out in August!!!) as I type this. And Wipeout is helped along by the irreverent comments made by two hosts who themselves aren't going to get anywhere near any of these obstacles (also a great part of the sadly cancelled Crash Course). My one question is why aren't there more shows like this? Network insiders always claim that they prefer shows that aren't "myth-heavy" as they don't play well as repeats (even though I have Twin Peaks on four times a day); so what could possibly repeat better than a game show that will never age, because people falling is always funny?!
Burn Notice: I previously said that since every season of this show is almost a fully self-enclosed story that continues with the same characters, I couldn't judge last season's finale until I had seen how this season would turn out. Well, we're a couple weeks in, and I have to say, this season is going great! Michael was forced to cause the burning of another spy, Jesse (Coby Bell of the short-lived NFL sitcom The Game... also some doctor show I never watched), who has since joined Michael's crew, helping Mike to catch the guy Jesse was looking for prior to being burned, except now he's helping the people who ruined both his and Michael's careers, but only Michael knows it.
Yeah, it's kind of confusing when you spell it out like that, but it's much easier to follow on the show. And Jesse, unlike so many other new additions to shows before him, is adding a lot to the show and with his all-action approach to every situation, is creating a nice spot for him in the midst of Mike's spy crew.
One thing still bugs me about the show, though. Why is Michael still living in that crappy spot above the nightclub? Now that he's working for someone with resources and money, why can't he find a new apartment?
White Collar: It doesn't actually premiere until tonight, so there's not a lot I can say except this: according to my sister, Matt Bomer, who plays thief turned FBI pseudo-agent Neal Caffrey, is THE hottest guy on summer TV. Just passing that on.
Wipeout: I LOVVEEEE shows like this. Hell, I'm watching a repeat of Ninja Warrior (new season out in August!!!) as I type this. And Wipeout is helped along by the irreverent comments made by two hosts who themselves aren't going to get anywhere near any of these obstacles (also a great part of the sadly cancelled Crash Course). My one question is why aren't there more shows like this? Network insiders always claim that they prefer shows that aren't "myth-heavy" as they don't play well as repeats (even though I have Twin Peaks on four times a day); so what could possibly repeat better than a game show that will never age, because people falling is always funny?!
Saturday, June 5, 2010
French Open Women's Final: Finally, a Good Match
In the midst of a women's tour that has been fraught with inconsistent play, double faults, and doubtful service games, Francesca Schiavone became the first Italian woman to win a Slam in the Open era in a close, well-played match that was decided by one break of serve and one tie break.
Schiavone (all of 5 foot 5) won by handling Samantha Stosur's wicked kick serve better than either Justine Henin or Serena Williams, and, unlike Jelena Jankovic, Schiavone did not let Stosur take over every point with her crushing forehands. Schiavone also had a brilliant serve, hitting it hard and fast and out-acing the "second best server" Stosur.
In all, this was a really good match for both players and was well-played (Finally!) on both ends; something that hasn't happened at the French Open Women's Final in.... well, I don't remember. But it's been a while. And even though I am a big fan of Stosur's, Schiavone, at 29, pulled off upset after upset by playing fearlessly and flawlessly in what she must know might be her best (and only) chance at a major women's tennis title, which Italy hasn't had at all since the 1950s.
Schiavone (all of 5 foot 5) won by handling Samantha Stosur's wicked kick serve better than either Justine Henin or Serena Williams, and, unlike Jelena Jankovic, Schiavone did not let Stosur take over every point with her crushing forehands. Schiavone also had a brilliant serve, hitting it hard and fast and out-acing the "second best server" Stosur.
In all, this was a really good match for both players and was well-played (Finally!) on both ends; something that hasn't happened at the French Open Women's Final in.... well, I don't remember. But it's been a while. And even though I am a big fan of Stosur's, Schiavone, at 29, pulled off upset after upset by playing fearlessly and flawlessly in what she must know might be her best (and only) chance at a major women's tennis title, which Italy hasn't had at all since the 1950s.
Chuckie Finale
Hey, I used this as a sample writing for a job as a blogger for a site called Starpulse.com. Tell me what you think... or don't.
Going into making this season's finale, the creators of Chuck thought, as they did at the end of last season, that this could be their series finale. So, as many show runners have done before them, they decided to offer the network and their viewers a reset to the series, altering the show enough that they could potentially sell it as a new commodity, just with the same characters.
Last season, this meant adding fighting skills to the Intersect, along with a line from The Matrix ("I know kung fu"). This season, this meant doing away with Chuck (Zachary Levi, giving hope to geeks everywhere that all we need are downloaded special abilities and we too can get the hottest girls) as spy, and instead re-introducing him as a secret superhero, taking over where his deceased father left off in protecting the world in ways governments can’t… or won’t… or something like that. It wasn’t made all that clear in the episode exactly what Chuck’s father (They killed Scott Bakula! Who will travel through time to get two random people to fall in love now?!!) had been doing all these years, other than keeping files on organizations named after constellations.
I didn’t mind the re-invention of Chuck as a badass. I actually really liked how the show decided to handle it, by making so much of last season about Chuck coming to terms with being a spy all on his own. But that’s why I have issues with how they ended this season, because they decided to just ignore Chuck’s progression as a character and instead stick him in some completely new situation.
The creators even decided to do this just when it was perfectly set up for Chuck to finally become a world-class spy: everyone close to him was now aware of who and what he is, so it was just a matter of having them all (especially Ellie (Sarah Lancaster) who is somehow convinced she has to protect the super-spy) accept it, move on, and potentially help him out. Instead, both Chuck and the viewers have to get used to some brand new thing, and, of course, Chuck is no doubt going to go back to keeping secrets from his family, friends, and probably even his girlfriend (Yvonne Strahovski, just as hot in video game form).
I’m not saying I won’t watch the next season of Chuck (especially not when I love the show so much), or that I won’t necessarily like the next season. I’m only saying I think they made a mistake in what they could have done with the show and where they had already taken their lead character.
Going into making this season's finale, the creators of Chuck thought, as they did at the end of last season, that this could be their series finale. So, as many show runners have done before them, they decided to offer the network and their viewers a reset to the series, altering the show enough that they could potentially sell it as a new commodity, just with the same characters.
Last season, this meant adding fighting skills to the Intersect, along with a line from The Matrix ("I know kung fu"). This season, this meant doing away with Chuck (Zachary Levi, giving hope to geeks everywhere that all we need are downloaded special abilities and we too can get the hottest girls) as spy, and instead re-introducing him as a secret superhero, taking over where his deceased father left off in protecting the world in ways governments can’t… or won’t… or something like that. It wasn’t made all that clear in the episode exactly what Chuck’s father (They killed Scott Bakula! Who will travel through time to get two random people to fall in love now?!!) had been doing all these years, other than keeping files on organizations named after constellations.
I didn’t mind the re-invention of Chuck as a badass. I actually really liked how the show decided to handle it, by making so much of last season about Chuck coming to terms with being a spy all on his own. But that’s why I have issues with how they ended this season, because they decided to just ignore Chuck’s progression as a character and instead stick him in some completely new situation.
The creators even decided to do this just when it was perfectly set up for Chuck to finally become a world-class spy: everyone close to him was now aware of who and what he is, so it was just a matter of having them all (especially Ellie (Sarah Lancaster) who is somehow convinced she has to protect the super-spy) accept it, move on, and potentially help him out. Instead, both Chuck and the viewers have to get used to some brand new thing, and, of course, Chuck is no doubt going to go back to keeping secrets from his family, friends, and probably even his girlfriend (Yvonne Strahovski, just as hot in video game form).
I’m not saying I won’t watch the next season of Chuck (especially not when I love the show so much), or that I won’t necessarily like the next season. I’m only saying I think they made a mistake in what they could have done with the show and where they had already taken their lead character.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Lost: Jacob
Let's face it, Jacob's a dick. He sets people up to be stranded on a weird, magic island they can't leave, gives them no assistance or guidance on how to survive, never says or does anything when his whole "plan" goes horribly wrong, and it's apparently all just to prove a point to a guy he's been stuck with for centuries.
Now I know you're all thinking this is a biblical allusion, with Jacob as God and the island inhabitants as Job. But there's some problems with that. For one thing, Job had unswerving faith before God tested him, none of the people Jacob brings to the island have any idea he's there or what he wants to prove, nor does he ever enlighten them.
Also, Job got everything back when his tests were over. All you seem to get for staying true to Jacob is either live forever (Richard) or spend your life on the island serving someone you'll never meet nor will you ever know if you're doing anything right (Ben and his predecessors).
Finally, Jacob's complete lack of interaction with his supposed "disciples" leads directly to the very violence, suffering, and death that he's attempting to prove won't always happen. If Jacob had just sent word to Richard to pass along to Ben that he should be nice to these newbies or maybe just leave them alone, Jack, Kate, and all the rest wouldn't have had a fraction of the problems they've had. Actually, those kinds of issues predate Oceanic 815, since the Dharma people had problems with the Others, and the Others were always armed and jumpy whenever Sawyer's group encountered them while time-travelling.
So, this god-like being Jacob spent who knows how many years causing more problems with his amazing powers than he ever solved (especially for his special, chosen few), and while he might have been "like a father" to Ilana, he's been a horrible curse to almost everyone else.
Now I know you're all thinking this is a biblical allusion, with Jacob as God and the island inhabitants as Job. But there's some problems with that. For one thing, Job had unswerving faith before God tested him, none of the people Jacob brings to the island have any idea he's there or what he wants to prove, nor does he ever enlighten them.
Also, Job got everything back when his tests were over. All you seem to get for staying true to Jacob is either live forever (Richard) or spend your life on the island serving someone you'll never meet nor will you ever know if you're doing anything right (Ben and his predecessors).
Finally, Jacob's complete lack of interaction with his supposed "disciples" leads directly to the very violence, suffering, and death that he's attempting to prove won't always happen. If Jacob had just sent word to Richard to pass along to Ben that he should be nice to these newbies or maybe just leave them alone, Jack, Kate, and all the rest wouldn't have had a fraction of the problems they've had. Actually, those kinds of issues predate Oceanic 815, since the Dharma people had problems with the Others, and the Others were always armed and jumpy whenever Sawyer's group encountered them while time-travelling.
So, this god-like being Jacob spent who knows how many years causing more problems with his amazing powers than he ever solved (especially for his special, chosen few), and while he might have been "like a father" to Ilana, he's been a horrible curse to almost everyone else.
Lost: Wow, Just Wow
There's an anime series I really liked that, with only four episodes left until their finale, killed off at least one major character per episode until there was simply no one left. I remember thinking, "Now THAT'S how you end a series."
Lost has apparently decided to do something similar, as in last night's episode, Sayid blew up, Sun and Jin drowned, Kate got shot, and Sawyer's head is bleeding (hey, I just realized, what happened to Lapedius?). So, now we're apparently left with unquestionably faithful Jack and "I see dead people" Hurley vs Smoke Monster Locke and Crazy Claire.
Now I'll admit that I'm pretty sad about Sun and Jin, but I did feel something like that coming. The two have had a whole "tragic love story" vibe for a while now: Jin almost dying to save Sun, then Sun coming back to the island to find him, then they were both looking desperately for one another, and even when they found one another I was scared that it wouldn't last long. And it didn't.
I really liked last night's episode, and the series is building up to a really good finale, but I will say I've had issues with this last season. For starters, instead of "answering questions" at the beginning, they just started adding characters who they then just killed off, which has always been an issue with the series, bringing people to light just so they can have someone die: "Hey, here's some people we've never noticed before, oh, they're all dead." Also, the flash sideways thing seemed like a waste of time, until they started linking them directly to the island action.
I realize that all (and probably even most) of our questions will not be answered or possibly even addressed (Why is the island so special? Why are these specific people candidates? Who built the statue? Why did Jacob never get a new weaving machine?), but I don't think I'll have a problem with that, provided they give us a good ending that doesn't require too much explanation. I am hopeful of this, despite a lifetime of disappointment.
Lost has apparently decided to do something similar, as in last night's episode, Sayid blew up, Sun and Jin drowned, Kate got shot, and Sawyer's head is bleeding (hey, I just realized, what happened to Lapedius?). So, now we're apparently left with unquestionably faithful Jack and "I see dead people" Hurley vs Smoke Monster Locke and Crazy Claire.
Now I'll admit that I'm pretty sad about Sun and Jin, but I did feel something like that coming. The two have had a whole "tragic love story" vibe for a while now: Jin almost dying to save Sun, then Sun coming back to the island to find him, then they were both looking desperately for one another, and even when they found one another I was scared that it wouldn't last long. And it didn't.
I really liked last night's episode, and the series is building up to a really good finale, but I will say I've had issues with this last season. For starters, instead of "answering questions" at the beginning, they just started adding characters who they then just killed off, which has always been an issue with the series, bringing people to light just so they can have someone die: "Hey, here's some people we've never noticed before, oh, they're all dead." Also, the flash sideways thing seemed like a waste of time, until they started linking them directly to the island action.
I realize that all (and probably even most) of our questions will not be answered or possibly even addressed (Why is the island so special? Why are these specific people candidates? Who built the statue? Why did Jacob never get a new weaving machine?), but I don't think I'll have a problem with that, provided they give us a good ending that doesn't require too much explanation. I am hopeful of this, despite a lifetime of disappointment.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Drugs on Television?? Shocking!
So months back (I think it was actually late last year), Joshua Jackson (who's still Pacey in my book) was being interviewed on Attack of the Show when he said that the joke behind the scenes on Fringe was that Walter was making his own drugs and that's what all that lab equipment was really for.
Well, the last two episodes of Fringe, the creators have decided to stop being subtle about anything and have just come out and said, "Hey, people, Walter's high as a kite. Anybody care?" Two weeks ago, it was limited to a single line by Walter when he offhandedly mentioned that his marijuana was superior to what they'd found at a crime scene. This week, we actually heard Walter sucking up his homemade "Brown Betty" through a bong made out of a lab canister.
We still didn't see the drug use, mind you, but, just like on That 70s Show, it was brutally obvious what was going on. I'd ask why we still didn't see Walter toking away, but I know that's a whole Standards and Practices/ Censorship B.S. thing that's both vague and yet absolute in what they do and do not allow.
Instead, I'll just say that I liked this addition to the show. Drugs are apparently a major part of Walter's character, they should thus be a big part of the show, despite what the censors don't want us to see or imply. Also, if the end result of more drugs on Fringe is more awesome episodes like the latest one, I wouldn't have a problem with that. It was a mixture of noir and sci-fi and the characters of Fringe with some music thrown in, in a story that could only come from someone who was tripping balls while he told it, which Walter was.
So my message to the creators of Fringe is this: Say Yes to Drugs!
Well, the last two episodes of Fringe, the creators have decided to stop being subtle about anything and have just come out and said, "Hey, people, Walter's high as a kite. Anybody care?" Two weeks ago, it was limited to a single line by Walter when he offhandedly mentioned that his marijuana was superior to what they'd found at a crime scene. This week, we actually heard Walter sucking up his homemade "Brown Betty" through a bong made out of a lab canister.
We still didn't see the drug use, mind you, but, just like on That 70s Show, it was brutally obvious what was going on. I'd ask why we still didn't see Walter toking away, but I know that's a whole Standards and Practices/ Censorship B.S. thing that's both vague and yet absolute in what they do and do not allow.
Instead, I'll just say that I liked this addition to the show. Drugs are apparently a major part of Walter's character, they should thus be a big part of the show, despite what the censors don't want us to see or imply. Also, if the end result of more drugs on Fringe is more awesome episodes like the latest one, I wouldn't have a problem with that. It was a mixture of noir and sci-fi and the characters of Fringe with some music thrown in, in a story that could only come from someone who was tripping balls while he told it, which Walter was.
So my message to the creators of Fringe is this: Say Yes to Drugs!
Thursday, April 29, 2010
South Park + The Handicapped= Classic
Ah, good ol' South Park. Fresh off receiving thinly veiled death threats for depicting someone who was supposedly the prophet Muhammad in a bear suit, they spent most of their season finale showing Jimmy and Timmy at a summer "cripple camp."
Knowing that no matter what they did with the mentally and physically handicapped or how they treated them they were sure to offend someone, Stone and Parker decided to pattern the handicapped off of classic cartoon characters. We had a stuttering Porky Pig, a forlorn-looking Droopy Dog, an Elmer Fudd lookalike who couldn't pronounce the letter"r" to save his life, we even got a kid who bore a striking resemblance to that idiot vulture who popped up as a villain trying to eat Bugs Bunny once or twice. And for the villains in this episode, we got Nathan and Mimsy, a duo who were apparently meant to be Rocky the dwarf gangster and his moronic partner Mugsy.
The episode was set up like the show Intervention, which I've never seen, mostly because using someone else's tragic life for the sake of ratings somewhat disgusts me. What surprised me most about this set-up though, is that, unlike what one would expect from South Park, the episode wasn't so much an outright parody (as they've recently done to reality shows Ghost Hunters and Whale Wars) as it was just ridiculous how serious everyone seemed to be taking everything.
Though I guess that is mockery in its own right, with Towelie's scenes being almost laughably serious and his drug addiction reaching ludicrous heights. I still really liked the show, it's just that the show was shocking to me by not being more shocking by bluntly insulting Intervention.
Anyhoo.... Oh, hell it's the prophet Muhammad! Everyone put your heads in the ground!
Knowing that no matter what they did with the mentally and physically handicapped or how they treated them they were sure to offend someone, Stone and Parker decided to pattern the handicapped off of classic cartoon characters. We had a stuttering Porky Pig, a forlorn-looking Droopy Dog, an Elmer Fudd lookalike who couldn't pronounce the letter"r" to save his life, we even got a kid who bore a striking resemblance to that idiot vulture who popped up as a villain trying to eat Bugs Bunny once or twice. And for the villains in this episode, we got Nathan and Mimsy, a duo who were apparently meant to be Rocky the dwarf gangster and his moronic partner Mugsy.
The episode was set up like the show Intervention, which I've never seen, mostly because using someone else's tragic life for the sake of ratings somewhat disgusts me. What surprised me most about this set-up though, is that, unlike what one would expect from South Park, the episode wasn't so much an outright parody (as they've recently done to reality shows Ghost Hunters and Whale Wars) as it was just ridiculous how serious everyone seemed to be taking everything.
Though I guess that is mockery in its own right, with Towelie's scenes being almost laughably serious and his drug addiction reaching ludicrous heights. I still really liked the show, it's just that the show was shocking to me by not being more shocking by bluntly insulting Intervention.
Anyhoo.... Oh, hell it's the prophet Muhammad! Everyone put your heads in the ground!
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
I Clearly Have Too Much Time on My Hands
MASSIVE SPOILER ALERT!!! DO NOT READ THIS POST IF YOU HAVE NOT READ WATCHMEN AND SEEN AND/OR READ KICK ASS!!! AND IF EITHER OF THOSE ARE TRUE, GO OUT AND READ/ SEE THESE FILMS/ COMIC BOOKS! THEY ARE AWESOME!!!!
Watchmen is the ultimate deconstruction of the superhero myth. Alan Moore took the archetypes that we were meant to idolize and worship as paragons of purity and justice and ripped back the layers, asking, "What kind of person really would dress up in a ridiculous costume and mete out vigilante justice," and "What would it be like to be an actual superhuman on a world where there's no one else like you?"
His answer was that these people would be sadists and fetishists; lunatic fascists and naive yet violent idealists; individuals who, believing themselves to be above the normal laws and limits of society, take the safety of others into their own hands and personally decree what is best for humanity.
The problem being, where do you draw the line? Is fighting purse-snatchers enough when you're not doing anything to stop the poverty that drove someone to be a criminal? Is stopping a local "super-villain" any different than killing a brutal, foreign dictator? In Watchmen, problems and solutions arise because the "heroes" decide that there is no line, that there is no limit to what they can and should do. Dr. Manhattan averts the energy crisis by using his powers to create the parts needed to make all-electric cars, powered by publicly-available electric hydrants (in the comic, not the movie); he also serves as a one-man nuclear deterrent and wins the Vietnam War (along with The Comedian, who's really just there for the fun of it); and then there's Ozymandias, who decides to take all the problems of the world and solve them in one broad stroke that just so happens to include killing millions. And it works.
Ozymandias effectively saves a world on the brink of nuclear holocaust by tricking world leaders into thinking that an alien invasion is imminent (again, comic not movie). It just so happens that his method to doing this requires him to kill most of New York City. But, again, it works. The comic which is somewhat an attack upon what kind of personality it would take to really be a costumed vigilante, upholds the methods those same flawed personalities use by having it all work out in the end.
Kick Ass does a similar thing. While Kick Ass the character is a satirical joke at the expense of every geek who ever dreamed of putting on a costume and fighting crime, Hit Girl isn't. Hit Girl and Big Daddy are Punisher-style vigilantes out for brutal revenge, with some of The Comedian's sadism added in for good measure. However, unlike Kick Ass's laughable attempts at heroism, Hit Girl and Big Daddy's uber-violent approach to crime fighting actually accomplishes something. In fact, Kick Ass isn't really much of a hero at all until he joins up with Hit Girl and copies her "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" tactics.
While one can argue the long-term affects of Kick Ass's costumed vigilantism (Red Mist's Joker moment at the end of the film is clearly an homage/ allusion to the end of another Batman film, Batman Begins), one can't argue that in the short-term, the bad guys have been defeated, the good guys won, and all is right with the world.
So while both Watchmen and Kick Ass ask the question of what kind of person would believably put on a costume to save the day and come up with some horrifying and ridiculous answers, the heroes in each save the day nonetheless.
Watchmen is the ultimate deconstruction of the superhero myth. Alan Moore took the archetypes that we were meant to idolize and worship as paragons of purity and justice and ripped back the layers, asking, "What kind of person really would dress up in a ridiculous costume and mete out vigilante justice," and "What would it be like to be an actual superhuman on a world where there's no one else like you?"
His answer was that these people would be sadists and fetishists; lunatic fascists and naive yet violent idealists; individuals who, believing themselves to be above the normal laws and limits of society, take the safety of others into their own hands and personally decree what is best for humanity.
The problem being, where do you draw the line? Is fighting purse-snatchers enough when you're not doing anything to stop the poverty that drove someone to be a criminal? Is stopping a local "super-villain" any different than killing a brutal, foreign dictator? In Watchmen, problems and solutions arise because the "heroes" decide that there is no line, that there is no limit to what they can and should do. Dr. Manhattan averts the energy crisis by using his powers to create the parts needed to make all-electric cars, powered by publicly-available electric hydrants (in the comic, not the movie); he also serves as a one-man nuclear deterrent and wins the Vietnam War (along with The Comedian, who's really just there for the fun of it); and then there's Ozymandias, who decides to take all the problems of the world and solve them in one broad stroke that just so happens to include killing millions. And it works.
Ozymandias effectively saves a world on the brink of nuclear holocaust by tricking world leaders into thinking that an alien invasion is imminent (again, comic not movie). It just so happens that his method to doing this requires him to kill most of New York City. But, again, it works. The comic which is somewhat an attack upon what kind of personality it would take to really be a costumed vigilante, upholds the methods those same flawed personalities use by having it all work out in the end.
Kick Ass does a similar thing. While Kick Ass the character is a satirical joke at the expense of every geek who ever dreamed of putting on a costume and fighting crime, Hit Girl isn't. Hit Girl and Big Daddy are Punisher-style vigilantes out for brutal revenge, with some of The Comedian's sadism added in for good measure. However, unlike Kick Ass's laughable attempts at heroism, Hit Girl and Big Daddy's uber-violent approach to crime fighting actually accomplishes something. In fact, Kick Ass isn't really much of a hero at all until he joins up with Hit Girl and copies her "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" tactics.
While one can argue the long-term affects of Kick Ass's costumed vigilantism (Red Mist's Joker moment at the end of the film is clearly an homage/ allusion to the end of another Batman film, Batman Begins), one can't argue that in the short-term, the bad guys have been defeated, the good guys won, and all is right with the world.
So while both Watchmen and Kick Ass ask the question of what kind of person would believably put on a costume to save the day and come up with some horrifying and ridiculous answers, the heroes in each save the day nonetheless.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
It Just Sounds Wrong
So, I keep seeing commercials for American Idiot, the Broadway musical derived from the Green Day album of the same name. I also watched (or, at least, tried to watch through pure morbid curiosity) the Green Day performance at the Emmy's that featured the cast of the show. And it just doesn't sound right.
I've had this reaction sometimes to Glee (All-American Rejects' "Gives You Hell" is meant to be partly a joke, not belted out by a jilted girly-girl) and always to those awful Kidz Bop commercials (which would reach new heights of horrendousness whenever they featured a song whose meaning is considerably more adult than the producers would like to imagine).
Now I know that the creator of American Idiot: The Musical, is picking instrumentation specifically designed to remain true to the original songs, and they aren't changing the songs themselves that much; but I just can't help but think that it doesn't sound right. It's like just hearing an entire chorus of highly trained singers prettying up songs that are meant to be yelled out by punk veterans, untrained singers Billie Joe Armstrong, Mike Dirnt, and Tre Cool automatically misses the point.
Keep in mind, I'm not really much of a purist (the version of Billy Idol's "Dancing with Myself" that the kid in the wheelchair on Glee did, I really liked), but I feel as if these songs are somehow less genuine by taking the band out of the equation and supplanting them with attractive people with all their lovely voices.
Also keep in mind that there's no way I (or anyone reading this) will ever be able to afford to see American Idiot in its Broadway run. So there is that.
I've had this reaction sometimes to Glee (All-American Rejects' "Gives You Hell" is meant to be partly a joke, not belted out by a jilted girly-girl) and always to those awful Kidz Bop commercials (which would reach new heights of horrendousness whenever they featured a song whose meaning is considerably more adult than the producers would like to imagine).
Now I know that the creator of American Idiot: The Musical, is picking instrumentation specifically designed to remain true to the original songs, and they aren't changing the songs themselves that much; but I just can't help but think that it doesn't sound right. It's like just hearing an entire chorus of highly trained singers prettying up songs that are meant to be yelled out by punk veterans, untrained singers Billie Joe Armstrong, Mike Dirnt, and Tre Cool automatically misses the point.
Keep in mind, I'm not really much of a purist (the version of Billy Idol's "Dancing with Myself" that the kid in the wheelchair on Glee did, I really liked), but I feel as if these songs are somehow less genuine by taking the band out of the equation and supplanting them with attractive people with all their lovely voices.
Also keep in mind that there's no way I (or anyone reading this) will ever be able to afford to see American Idiot in its Broadway run. So there is that.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Re: WTA Stars
I forgot to mention something in reference to my last post. The reason it's so important for the WTA or ATP to create specific stars is because tennis is a one-on-one (or two-on-two) sport so there's not an entire team to root for. Nor is there a team's structure and PR people to make stars of the players for the league, that's all up to the players' and their people themselves.
Also, tennis is an international sport, so there are often not the instant connection one might have for the local team. While some countries or nationalities have gotten fully behind their players (the Serbians for their few top players, the English for Andy Murray, and now the Chinese are rallying behind their women), as a whole, it comes down to one player making a connection and becoming famous for tennis fans around the world. That has, sadly, not always equalled mainstream fame and success.
Also, tennis is an international sport, so there are often not the instant connection one might have for the local team. While some countries or nationalities have gotten fully behind their players (the Serbians for their few top players, the English for Andy Murray, and now the Chinese are rallying behind their women), as a whole, it comes down to one player making a connection and becoming famous for tennis fans around the world. That has, sadly, not always equalled mainstream fame and success.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
"Stars" of the WTA
During the 08 and 09 seasons of women's tennis, there was constant talk of a lack of "big name stars" on the women's tour: the Williams sisters only really gave their all for the Slams, and didn't (and still don't) play a heavy schedule anyway; Maria Sharapova went out with an injury and couldn't get back into top form (and still hasn't); the Serbians Ana Ivanovic and Jelena Jankovic rose quickly to the top of the game, gaining attention and fans, but then plummeted back down almost as fast (only Jankovic has been able to come back while Ivanovic has continued to fall); and no one seemed to care too much about top-ranked Dinara Safina, who mentally crumbled on the biggest stages.
But then a light of hope shone upon women's tennis. And it came from Belgium, of all places. First Kim Clijsters and then Justine Henin, both former world number ones and Slam champions, announced they would be returning to the game many felt they had left too soon. Their returns were lauded and praised as the second-coming and a return to consistency for the women's game, and suddenly the duo were celebrities again before they'd done anything.
Their fame has been ironic for two reasons. Firstly, while "Aussie Kim" was always a fan-favorite and much liked on the tour, she was too private and too quiet a personality to be the big cross-over star that the tour sees her as now. Also, Henin, while a perennial favorite among the French, was easily one of the most ignored number one players in recent memory. It was practically expected at the Slams that Henin would get the least press, but quietly and effectively progress into the later rounds regardless. So it is fitting that both of these players are getting so much attention for their "second" careers when they didn't always get it for their first.
Secondly, the consistency which many (including myself) were hoping would return with two of the more consistent players hasn't actually been seen, yet. Henin, with a specific dream of winning Wimbledon and completing her Career Slam, has been playing a more aggressive, offensive game which can lead to strings of unforced errors. She is also going for more on both of her serves, sometimes yielding double faults. Finally, both Henin and her coach have said that she wouldn't really get back into full champion form for several months (despite the fact that she made two straight finals to start her return). As for Clijsters, she has specifically lightened up her playing schedule (once one of the most intensive among the top players) to avoid the exhaustion that she felt the last time. By her own admission, this has led to her having problems getting into the consistent form that she once had, as she's now unable to find her game and just keep playing it week after week.
Keep in mind, I'm a huge fan of both of these players, and I really do want them to reach the consistent heights of excellence they once did. This is just a reminder of where their games still need work, and how insane the concept of "fame" really is, especially for sports stars.
But then a light of hope shone upon women's tennis. And it came from Belgium, of all places. First Kim Clijsters and then Justine Henin, both former world number ones and Slam champions, announced they would be returning to the game many felt they had left too soon. Their returns were lauded and praised as the second-coming and a return to consistency for the women's game, and suddenly the duo were celebrities again before they'd done anything.
Their fame has been ironic for two reasons. Firstly, while "Aussie Kim" was always a fan-favorite and much liked on the tour, she was too private and too quiet a personality to be the big cross-over star that the tour sees her as now. Also, Henin, while a perennial favorite among the French, was easily one of the most ignored number one players in recent memory. It was practically expected at the Slams that Henin would get the least press, but quietly and effectively progress into the later rounds regardless. So it is fitting that both of these players are getting so much attention for their "second" careers when they didn't always get it for their first.
Secondly, the consistency which many (including myself) were hoping would return with two of the more consistent players hasn't actually been seen, yet. Henin, with a specific dream of winning Wimbledon and completing her Career Slam, has been playing a more aggressive, offensive game which can lead to strings of unforced errors. She is also going for more on both of her serves, sometimes yielding double faults. Finally, both Henin and her coach have said that she wouldn't really get back into full champion form for several months (despite the fact that she made two straight finals to start her return). As for Clijsters, she has specifically lightened up her playing schedule (once one of the most intensive among the top players) to avoid the exhaustion that she felt the last time. By her own admission, this has led to her having problems getting into the consistent form that she once had, as she's now unable to find her game and just keep playing it week after week.
Keep in mind, I'm a huge fan of both of these players, and I really do want them to reach the consistent heights of excellence they once did. This is just a reminder of where their games still need work, and how insane the concept of "fame" really is, especially for sports stars.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
I Heart Human Target
I'll start with the negative, New Girl. I don't like New Girl, and I have no idea why they felt the need to add her. Well, I'll take that back. I have a guess that someone wearing a too-expensive suit, with an office that's way too nice for how little they probably do piped up in a meeting and said that this all-testosterone show needed a female as a series regular in order to appeal to a wider demographic. Well that idea sucks. New Girl's added energy and irritating naivete clashes with the more cynical, world-weary veterans of Chance (Mark Valley, Awesome!), Guerrero (Jackie Earl Haley, a creepy, psychopathic geek, Also Awesome!), and Winston (Chi McBride, Pushing Daises Ruled!). And yes, I realize that this too was part of the point of her character, to give "new energy" to the show by adding a newbie to the cast's dark world, but it just doesn't work. The only thing that would make her remotely interesting to me is if she turned out to be working for the mysterious Old Man that Chance and Guerrero used to work for.
Other than that, I really have loved this show. Every episode is like its own self-contained action movie whittled down to an hour (with commercials) which means that the most boring parts of action movies (set-up, exposition, conversations meant to build up characters, horribly forced love stories) are limited or just gone. They've already done Die Hard at a monastery, an episode on a hijacked plane, and a somewhat rip-off of The Gauntlet (which itself was much better when remade as 16 Blocks).
The show is now getting more into a recurring storyline of Chance and Guerrero dealing with their former, nameless employer (Chance and Guerrero aren't their "real" names, either, f.y.i.), but I'm not so sure they need it. I know why they would want it: to keep casual viewers coming back every week with a continuing storyline, but I liked the way it was before and I think enough other people did too (last night's show somehow dropped in their so-called target demographic according to Nielsen, but kept high ratings, proving once again that Nielsen is a lousy way to judge ratings).
I do like how the show is now having scary Guerrero and leader Winston do more than sit behind the scenes and set up the situation so Chance can do something unbelievable. Yes, I realize that that's another reason why they added New Girl, but that's another reason why I don't like New Girl. Those techie/ lab geek characters on these kind of shows/ movies that never seem to do anything tend to bug me because they're just scenery and they leave me wondering why are you even here? Why do you get lines and screen time at all? Can't we write around you? I mean, you just sit there typing while others risk their lives, for Gods' sakes, C'MON! When robots with advanced A.I. become common, these characters' roles will be some of the first jobs to go.
I guess now I need a conclusion.... ummm... Human Target's awesome. That's it.
Other than that, I really have loved this show. Every episode is like its own self-contained action movie whittled down to an hour (with commercials) which means that the most boring parts of action movies (set-up, exposition, conversations meant to build up characters, horribly forced love stories) are limited or just gone. They've already done Die Hard at a monastery, an episode on a hijacked plane, and a somewhat rip-off of The Gauntlet (which itself was much better when remade as 16 Blocks).
The show is now getting more into a recurring storyline of Chance and Guerrero dealing with their former, nameless employer (Chance and Guerrero aren't their "real" names, either, f.y.i.), but I'm not so sure they need it. I know why they would want it: to keep casual viewers coming back every week with a continuing storyline, but I liked the way it was before and I think enough other people did too (last night's show somehow dropped in their so-called target demographic according to Nielsen, but kept high ratings, proving once again that Nielsen is a lousy way to judge ratings).
I do like how the show is now having scary Guerrero and leader Winston do more than sit behind the scenes and set up the situation so Chance can do something unbelievable. Yes, I realize that that's another reason why they added New Girl, but that's another reason why I don't like New Girl. Those techie/ lab geek characters on these kind of shows/ movies that never seem to do anything tend to bug me because they're just scenery and they leave me wondering why are you even here? Why do you get lines and screen time at all? Can't we write around you? I mean, you just sit there typing while others risk their lives, for Gods' sakes, C'MON! When robots with advanced A.I. become common, these characters' roles will be some of the first jobs to go.
I guess now I need a conclusion.... ummm... Human Target's awesome. That's it.
South Park Pwns Golf
Ah, South Park. How I love you and the way you remind us all that the problems of humanity can nearly always be blamed solely on humanity itself.
In last night's season premiere, South Park addressed the Tiger Woods issue, as well as sex addiction, the media, and Matt Stone and Trey Parker's favorite punching bag, the stupidity of people. They also bluntly mocked what should be obvious to everyone by now, that the Tiger Woods controversy has brought attention to the sport of golf from people who would normally have nothing to do with watching people hit a little ball into a hole, and will completely forget about golf again once this all blows over.
One other issue bluntly addressed in this episode was sex addiction, which Stone and Parker clearly believe to be nothing more than a complete fallacy, dreamed up to hide any man's (and probably woman's, though they didn't mention that specifically) excessive sex drive. This is consistent with Stone and Parker's past views on how addiction is treated in and by our culture. There was the female teacher who got caught having sex with Kyle's little brother Ike and used the "Mel Gibson defense" of alcoholism, and then there was that episode with the bleeding statue.
In case you've forgotten, in the episode, Randy's alcoholism was "cured" by coming into contact with the blood pouring from the statue of a female saint's anus. Many couldn't seem to get over the clearly-meant-to-be-offensive-to-someone statue part of the episode long enough to notice the much more blunt point of the episode, which was Stan arguing against Alcoholics Anonymous and how they treat alcoholism.
Though I'm sure Dr. Drew wouldn't agree (and keep in mind, Matt Stone and Trey Parker aren't doctors or experts... hell I'm not sure they finished college), the creators of South Park have obvious issues with our culture of addiction, and are not at all afraid to say whatever they want to about it.
In last night's season premiere, South Park addressed the Tiger Woods issue, as well as sex addiction, the media, and Matt Stone and Trey Parker's favorite punching bag, the stupidity of people. They also bluntly mocked what should be obvious to everyone by now, that the Tiger Woods controversy has brought attention to the sport of golf from people who would normally have nothing to do with watching people hit a little ball into a hole, and will completely forget about golf again once this all blows over.
One other issue bluntly addressed in this episode was sex addiction, which Stone and Parker clearly believe to be nothing more than a complete fallacy, dreamed up to hide any man's (and probably woman's, though they didn't mention that specifically) excessive sex drive. This is consistent with Stone and Parker's past views on how addiction is treated in and by our culture. There was the female teacher who got caught having sex with Kyle's little brother Ike and used the "Mel Gibson defense" of alcoholism, and then there was that episode with the bleeding statue.
In case you've forgotten, in the episode, Randy's alcoholism was "cured" by coming into contact with the blood pouring from the statue of a female saint's anus. Many couldn't seem to get over the clearly-meant-to-be-offensive-to-someone statue part of the episode long enough to notice the much more blunt point of the episode, which was Stan arguing against Alcoholics Anonymous and how they treat alcoholism.
Though I'm sure Dr. Drew wouldn't agree (and keep in mind, Matt Stone and Trey Parker aren't doctors or experts... hell I'm not sure they finished college), the creators of South Park have obvious issues with our culture of addiction, and are not at all afraid to say whatever they want to about it.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Raj Patel is Living The Life of Brian
So, there's this religious organization (cult, New Age weirdos, however you want to say it) called Share International who believe that the Buddha has been reborn in the modern age (in 1972, to be specific) and is the messiah they call "Maitreya." According to the group's leader, Benjamin Creme (yes, that's his real name), Maitreya recently outed himself by stuttering on a national, popular television show. The show was The Colbert Report, and the supposed messiah is activist, journalist, and author Raj Patel.
Colbert, upon learning this, brought Patel back on his show via telephone, and asked him point blank whether or not he was the messiah. Patel said "No," but Creme has said that the true messiah would reveal himself by refuting that he was the messiah. That is specifically from the film Monty Python's Life of Brian.
In the movie, Brian (Graham Chapman) is mistaken as the messiah by a large group of people, who then follow him to his home and gather outside his window. After Brian says he is not the messiah, the people respond with, "Only the true messiah would reject that he was the messiah!" So, Brian says, "In that case, I am the messiah!" to which the crowd calls out, "He admits it! He is the messiah!"
Brain then goes on to preach that the people shouldn't blindly follow him or anyone else, they should think for themselves. Strangely enough, that is exactly what Raj Patel went on to say on The Colbert Report after he had rejected his own rumored messiah-hood. "I think I would make a terrible messiah... I think that the whole point of social change is not that we follow leaders, but that we can think for ourselves."
One final thought: Patel has often written about a more fair, balanced distribution of wealth and goods and done a lot of work trying to get food and clean water to the poorest and most desperate parts of the world. Sounds like a good messiah to me.
Colbert, upon learning this, brought Patel back on his show via telephone, and asked him point blank whether or not he was the messiah. Patel said "No," but Creme has said that the true messiah would reveal himself by refuting that he was the messiah. That is specifically from the film Monty Python's Life of Brian.
In the movie, Brian (Graham Chapman) is mistaken as the messiah by a large group of people, who then follow him to his home and gather outside his window. After Brian says he is not the messiah, the people respond with, "Only the true messiah would reject that he was the messiah!" So, Brian says, "In that case, I am the messiah!" to which the crowd calls out, "He admits it! He is the messiah!"
Brain then goes on to preach that the people shouldn't blindly follow him or anyone else, they should think for themselves. Strangely enough, that is exactly what Raj Patel went on to say on The Colbert Report after he had rejected his own rumored messiah-hood. "I think I would make a terrible messiah... I think that the whole point of social change is not that we follow leaders, but that we can think for ourselves."
One final thought: Patel has often written about a more fair, balanced distribution of wealth and goods and done a lot of work trying to get food and clean water to the poorest and most desperate parts of the world. Sounds like a good messiah to me.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
USA Finales: Final Words
Burn Notice: Though this season on Burn Notice wasn't as good as others (I felt the show was reaching a bit with Michael getting so into catching psychopath Gilroy), I loved the finale. It was full of twists and turns and Michael being the bad-ass ex-spy that he is.
However, I can't completely give a judgement on Burn Notice's finale specifically because the show has once again changed the game on Michael, having him seemingly join up with the ones who burned him to start the show. I have always loved how the show does that, instead of just sitting back and using an easy set-up, it makes every season progress to something new. So, I'll actually have to wait until next season to see how much I like how this season ended.
White Collar: I came late to this show, but have really liked what I've seen, and this was another great episode, featuring Neal at his master thief best, finally getting his hands on this famous music box.
I did have a couple issues with this show, though. For one thing: how could Neal not see that Alex intended to betray him? That was almost painfully obvious. Also, I didn't really like the way the show did what so many others do and build up to a character possibly going through with a major change, which then ends with that character abruptly being forced to stay right where he is, doing exactly as he's been doing.
Finally, a note to USA's advertising department, if you're going to end your season finale with a big, supposedly shocking explosion, could you possibly NOT put it in every commercial for said episode? You made me (and no doubt MANY others) know that ending was coming, which affected our enjoyment of the rest of the show.
P.S. I don't think Kate's really dead. People rarely die in explosions on television.
Psych: The show became even more of a self-aware, self-parody this season, and often featured meta-fictional jokes a la Boston Legal (Psych is still well-short of the meta-fictional heights of B.L., but then again, so is everything other than Moonlighting and the film Looney Tunes: Back in Action). I was worried about this since I thought it meant the writers were running out of fresh ideas. Then, I saw the finale, and I forgot about any worries I ever had.
The finale featured constant and intentional Hitchcock references, allusions, and even shots taken right out of Hitchcock's films, and it was brilliant! This cast and crew does parody better than almost anyone, and that was evident in the finale. Also evident was how well the show can blend heart and deep emotions with their jokes, as Shawn and Abigail shared a heart-rending scene, while Juliet broke down into the arms of Lassiter, of all people.
This is one of my favorite shows on TV right now, and I can't wait for next season.
However, I can't completely give a judgement on Burn Notice's finale specifically because the show has once again changed the game on Michael, having him seemingly join up with the ones who burned him to start the show. I have always loved how the show does that, instead of just sitting back and using an easy set-up, it makes every season progress to something new. So, I'll actually have to wait until next season to see how much I like how this season ended.
White Collar: I came late to this show, but have really liked what I've seen, and this was another great episode, featuring Neal at his master thief best, finally getting his hands on this famous music box.
I did have a couple issues with this show, though. For one thing: how could Neal not see that Alex intended to betray him? That was almost painfully obvious. Also, I didn't really like the way the show did what so many others do and build up to a character possibly going through with a major change, which then ends with that character abruptly being forced to stay right where he is, doing exactly as he's been doing.
Finally, a note to USA's advertising department, if you're going to end your season finale with a big, supposedly shocking explosion, could you possibly NOT put it in every commercial for said episode? You made me (and no doubt MANY others) know that ending was coming, which affected our enjoyment of the rest of the show.
P.S. I don't think Kate's really dead. People rarely die in explosions on television.
Psych: The show became even more of a self-aware, self-parody this season, and often featured meta-fictional jokes a la Boston Legal (Psych is still well-short of the meta-fictional heights of B.L., but then again, so is everything other than Moonlighting and the film Looney Tunes: Back in Action). I was worried about this since I thought it meant the writers were running out of fresh ideas. Then, I saw the finale, and I forgot about any worries I ever had.
The finale featured constant and intentional Hitchcock references, allusions, and even shots taken right out of Hitchcock's films, and it was brilliant! This cast and crew does parody better than almost anyone, and that was evident in the finale. Also evident was how well the show can blend heart and deep emotions with their jokes, as Shawn and Abigail shared a heart-rending scene, while Juliet broke down into the arms of Lassiter, of all people.
This is one of my favorite shows on TV right now, and I can't wait for next season.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Not Quite Fearless Oscar Predictions
Best Picture: In any other year, right now, The Hurt Locker would be the favorite to win Best Picture in a walk. Having won both Director's Guild and Producer's Guild Awards (two good indicators for who wins on Oscar night), the fact that the film would top off award season with the biggest honor would be almost boringly predictable.
However, due to the odd ranking voting system the Academy has started this year for Best Picture, Avatar, Inglourious Basterds, or Up in the Air could still pull off an upset. That, by the way, is the order in which I would place the films as possible winners: Hurt Locker in first; James Cameron's money making machine Avatar as a very close second; Quentin Tarantio's violent take on World War II movies as the third-place dark horse; and recession dramedy Up in the Air is an Uber dark horse in fourth.
I'm picking The Hurt Locker to win, but it wouldn't be all that surprising to me if any of those top three took the top prize. And if Up in the Air wins, we should all throw away our prediction math, and go back to using an abacus.
Screenplay: This award is traditionally given to the loser of the Best Picture category. For whatever bizarre reason, the Academy sees this as the consolation prize for whoever won't be getting the Big One. In any other year, then, Original Screenplay would go to Inglourious Basterds. However, this is not a normal year.
To prove that, Entertainment Weekly picked The Hurt Locker to win Original Screenplay and Best Picture. I'm going against that choice and sticking with the Basterds, but, again, we're not completely sure what kind of impact the new voting procedure will have until it actually happens.
So, Locker might just take everything, which I wouldn't have a problem with.
However, due to the odd ranking voting system the Academy has started this year for Best Picture, Avatar, Inglourious Basterds, or Up in the Air could still pull off an upset. That, by the way, is the order in which I would place the films as possible winners: Hurt Locker in first; James Cameron's money making machine Avatar as a very close second; Quentin Tarantio's violent take on World War II movies as the third-place dark horse; and recession dramedy Up in the Air is an Uber dark horse in fourth.
I'm picking The Hurt Locker to win, but it wouldn't be all that surprising to me if any of those top three took the top prize. And if Up in the Air wins, we should all throw away our prediction math, and go back to using an abacus.
Screenplay: This award is traditionally given to the loser of the Best Picture category. For whatever bizarre reason, the Academy sees this as the consolation prize for whoever won't be getting the Big One. In any other year, then, Original Screenplay would go to Inglourious Basterds. However, this is not a normal year.
To prove that, Entertainment Weekly picked The Hurt Locker to win Original Screenplay and Best Picture. I'm going against that choice and sticking with the Basterds, but, again, we're not completely sure what kind of impact the new voting procedure will have until it actually happens.
So, Locker might just take everything, which I wouldn't have a problem with.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Why Chuck is Like Smallville
Something occurred to me while I was watching Chuck last night: the series has become more like Smallville has been in recent seasons. Not because Chuck's latest love interest, Kristin Kreuk, used be on Smallville (though that might be what initially gave me this idea), what's making Chuck more similar to Smallville is that they both started as fairly light-hearted shows with occasional darker or more serious moments, but they've both gotten darker and more serious as the series progressed.
On Smallville, the darker edge really started to take over when the love triangle between Lana Lang (Kreuk, again), Clark Kent, and Lex Luthor became so deadly the characters could easily slide into roles right out of a film noir, with Lana as a femme fatale, Lex as a murdered gangster, and Clark as a "hero" cop who arrests his own ex-girlfriend (they actually did that on one episode... it was better than it sounds here).
As for Chuck, the series' darker tone has come about as Chuck has progressed from "average guy with the intersect" to full-blown, bad-ass super spy. This has been jarring at points, and a little hard to get used to. On the one hand, I like the fact that the show is taking itself more seriously, and I think the writers, actors, and everyone else involved is doing a very good job with it (I even think Brandon Routh and Kreuk were great additions to the cast, and I like how Sarah is now the one willing to take a chance with a real relationship). On the other hand, it's not the Chuck (or Chuck) we're used to seeing, is it?
As Sarah (or Sam, I suppose) herself observed during last night's show, Chuck, the hero we've been following all this time has changed and the show has changed with him. In fact, the constant niggling problem I have with Chuck is the same problem Sarah/ Sam now has with Chuck: he isn't the same person we all used to like, and nor is the show. That constant light-heartedness is gone, and apparently we all have to get used to that.
With Smallville, I stuck through the tonal shift and still continue to watch and enjoy the show; which is what I'll end up doing with Chuck. It's just going to take some getting used to.
On Smallville, the darker edge really started to take over when the love triangle between Lana Lang (Kreuk, again), Clark Kent, and Lex Luthor became so deadly the characters could easily slide into roles right out of a film noir, with Lana as a femme fatale, Lex as a murdered gangster, and Clark as a "hero" cop who arrests his own ex-girlfriend (they actually did that on one episode... it was better than it sounds here).
As for Chuck, the series' darker tone has come about as Chuck has progressed from "average guy with the intersect" to full-blown, bad-ass super spy. This has been jarring at points, and a little hard to get used to. On the one hand, I like the fact that the show is taking itself more seriously, and I think the writers, actors, and everyone else involved is doing a very good job with it (I even think Brandon Routh and Kreuk were great additions to the cast, and I like how Sarah is now the one willing to take a chance with a real relationship). On the other hand, it's not the Chuck (or Chuck) we're used to seeing, is it?
As Sarah (or Sam, I suppose) herself observed during last night's show, Chuck, the hero we've been following all this time has changed and the show has changed with him. In fact, the constant niggling problem I have with Chuck is the same problem Sarah/ Sam now has with Chuck: he isn't the same person we all used to like, and nor is the show. That constant light-heartedness is gone, and apparently we all have to get used to that.
With Smallville, I stuck through the tonal shift and still continue to watch and enjoy the show; which is what I'll end up doing with Chuck. It's just going to take some getting used to.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Olympic Snowboarding Overview
First off, you have to understand that the scoring and judging for the Olympics is done just like in the World Cup circuit, which Americans don't do. This scoring especially emphasizes big air and goes by a 50 point scale, not a 100 point scale, like in the X-Games.
The reasoning to emphasize bigger air is because it raises the difficulty level by being much more dangerous if one falls. Also, a trick generally looks better the higher a rider gets out of the pipe. Finally, with a 50 point scale, scores can get close and judges have to get picky to differentiate between riders; so, bigger air comes in handy when one needs to separate a great run from a really good run.
This final point, of course, could be simplified if they just changed to a 100 point scale, which would offer more separation between the runs. Also, in my opinion, if a rider lands a whole, good, strong run, they should automatically be scored higher than someone whose run wasn't as good, but they went higher. Finally, if the pipe conditions aren't great and there's no way the riders will get bigger air, do you lower all the scores, or is it a comparative thing? On that note, if the conditions improve throughout the day (as happened Thursday, when the sun set and the pipe hardened again), do you score the later riders higher than the first ones, because they were lucky enough to go later and thus get air easier?
That being said, I didn't have a problem with any of the results except for how low they scored Louie Vito (I thought he deserved to be right with Scotty Lago and I. Pod. with a 41 something) and how high they scored Peetu Piiroinen (who eventually won silver).
I was disappointed to see how many riders went down throughout the competitions. I would prefer the final scores show who laid down the best run, with everyone doing their best, not who happened to finish. The ones I'm thinking of specifically: I. Pod.'s second run would have definitely raised his score; Kazuo didn't land either of his attempts and left the pipe bleeding with nothing to show for it; Gretchen Bleiler could have threatened Torah Bright's score had she landed either of her runs; Kelly Clark could have gone higher than third had she not clipped the lip and lost speed, forcing her to throw out the 1080 she had considered ending her run with; and I'm really sorry for Spain's Queralt Castellet, who was third after the women's qualifying run, then got injured in a training run, and couldn't even compete in the finals.
One thing I was glad to see was that the Chinese didn't win anything. See, the Chinese Federation's approach to snowboarding is the same as their approach to any other sport: harsh, regimental training focused solely on defeating your opponents and not enjoying yourself. While I can accept that something like this happening is the sad inevitability of the progression of the popularity of the sport, as NBC's analyst's said, "It's just not snowboarding."
The Chinese really need to look at all of the big names in women's snowboarding (Bright, Beiler, Clark, and Hannah Teter), and notice how they manage to be great, to stay focused on the sport, and yet enjoy themselves and not take it all so seriously. Hell, if the Chinese just got a foreign coach for the snowboarders who let them have fun like they did for the freestyle skiers, that would be a pleasant change, and the snowboarders might just get better like the skiers.
One final thought: Shaun White's run was EPIC! That will be remembered for quite some time as a moment that progressed snowboarding and brought the sport to a whole new level, and it left me cheering and feeling almost as good as if I had just landed it. It was just an awesome moment.
The reasoning to emphasize bigger air is because it raises the difficulty level by being much more dangerous if one falls. Also, a trick generally looks better the higher a rider gets out of the pipe. Finally, with a 50 point scale, scores can get close and judges have to get picky to differentiate between riders; so, bigger air comes in handy when one needs to separate a great run from a really good run.
This final point, of course, could be simplified if they just changed to a 100 point scale, which would offer more separation between the runs. Also, in my opinion, if a rider lands a whole, good, strong run, they should automatically be scored higher than someone whose run wasn't as good, but they went higher. Finally, if the pipe conditions aren't great and there's no way the riders will get bigger air, do you lower all the scores, or is it a comparative thing? On that note, if the conditions improve throughout the day (as happened Thursday, when the sun set and the pipe hardened again), do you score the later riders higher than the first ones, because they were lucky enough to go later and thus get air easier?
That being said, I didn't have a problem with any of the results except for how low they scored Louie Vito (I thought he deserved to be right with Scotty Lago and I. Pod. with a 41 something) and how high they scored Peetu Piiroinen (who eventually won silver).
I was disappointed to see how many riders went down throughout the competitions. I would prefer the final scores show who laid down the best run, with everyone doing their best, not who happened to finish. The ones I'm thinking of specifically: I. Pod.'s second run would have definitely raised his score; Kazuo didn't land either of his attempts and left the pipe bleeding with nothing to show for it; Gretchen Bleiler could have threatened Torah Bright's score had she landed either of her runs; Kelly Clark could have gone higher than third had she not clipped the lip and lost speed, forcing her to throw out the 1080 she had considered ending her run with; and I'm really sorry for Spain's Queralt Castellet, who was third after the women's qualifying run, then got injured in a training run, and couldn't even compete in the finals.
One thing I was glad to see was that the Chinese didn't win anything. See, the Chinese Federation's approach to snowboarding is the same as their approach to any other sport: harsh, regimental training focused solely on defeating your opponents and not enjoying yourself. While I can accept that something like this happening is the sad inevitability of the progression of the popularity of the sport, as NBC's analyst's said, "It's just not snowboarding."
The Chinese really need to look at all of the big names in women's snowboarding (Bright, Beiler, Clark, and Hannah Teter), and notice how they manage to be great, to stay focused on the sport, and yet enjoy themselves and not take it all so seriously. Hell, if the Chinese just got a foreign coach for the snowboarders who let them have fun like they did for the freestyle skiers, that would be a pleasant change, and the snowboarders might just get better like the skiers.
One final thought: Shaun White's run was EPIC! That will be remembered for quite some time as a moment that progressed snowboarding and brought the sport to a whole new level, and it left me cheering and feeling almost as good as if I had just landed it. It was just an awesome moment.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Update on Olympic Sports You Don't Care About
So here's what happened to Lindsey Jacobellis.
On the first jump of the semi-finals, she was too close to Canadian and eventual Gold winner Maelle Ricker, so Lindsey had to land on her side. This caused Lindsey to spin-out just a bit, go off course, and then recover herself.
The one problem was that the damn gate was right where she temporarily lost control. Lindsey had already regained from her sketchy landing and it is easily believably that she could recover and make it into the finals. But she hit the afore-mentioned damn gate, which is against the rules, and was disqualified.
And that was all it took.
PS,
The lack of parity in Women's Hockey is a little embarrassing.
On the first jump of the semi-finals, she was too close to Canadian and eventual Gold winner Maelle Ricker, so Lindsey had to land on her side. This caused Lindsey to spin-out just a bit, go off course, and then recover herself.
The one problem was that the damn gate was right where she temporarily lost control. Lindsey had already regained from her sketchy landing and it is easily believably that she could recover and make it into the finals. But she hit the afore-mentioned damn gate, which is against the rules, and was disqualified.
And that was all it took.
PS,
The lack of parity in Women's Hockey is a little embarrassing.
Olympic Sporting News You Don't Care About
The Snowboard Cross course is hard. There are multiple hops up to a tabletop (flat surface) which then drop off sharply, several jumps (two of them big ones), and sharp "Daytona" turns (they're quarter-pipes, like in Daytona, hence the name... duh). Then there's the weather, causing snow conditions to vary from slush to soft powder to ice all of which affect the racers' speed and control.
What this all means is that it is not surprising that heavy favorites Nate Holland and Pierre Vaultier didn't metal, it's actually a miracle that anyone could stand long enough to cross the finish line at all. So if Lindsey Jacobellis does not "redeem" herself and win gold in Snowboard Cross, don't be too hard on her, it might just be the course.
The one woman with the best chance of stopping an American sweep in Snowboard half-pipe is Australian (and Mormon, who knew they had those in Australia?) Torah Bright. Her one flaw, sadly, is also her greatest strength: Torah goes BIG. She wants those huge tricks even when it isn't wise to attempt them. Of course, if she lands all her tricks and completes a full run, she is unbelievably good, but it's that IF that gets her sometimes. Hell, she just suffered two concussions within three days while training the week before X-Games, which was about three weeks ago. As for her American competitors, Kelly Clark is the most consistent rider on the women's side, but she doesn't always go big enough in competition (which is partly why she's so consistent). Gretchen Bleiler and Hannah Teter have bigger tricks, it's just a question if they can put down a whole strong run.
For men's half-pipe, if Shaun White puts down a run like he had at X-Games, he is unbeatable. So, assuming that happens, it becomes a fight for second, where the other Americans might have some problems. Louie "Tiny Dancer" Vito (yes, they really call him that, now) hasn't put down a full, strong run in the finals of a competition in quite a while. This is partly because White has pushed everyone else to raise their games to a level not all of them have yet, but this also seems to be something of a mental problem with Vito. As for the other two Americans, Scotty Lago has good consistency, good air, and strong runs, but he has also been coming up short in recent competitions, and Greg Bretz is the other guy just lucky to make the team.
The men's biggest foreign competitors include I. Pod. (I'm not even going to try his real name), Kazuo, and several others who are landing double-corks and following them up with other big tricks. It's a deep field and it could be hard for the Americans to snatch more than one medal, based on how they've been riding recently.
What this all means is that it is not surprising that heavy favorites Nate Holland and Pierre Vaultier didn't metal, it's actually a miracle that anyone could stand long enough to cross the finish line at all. So if Lindsey Jacobellis does not "redeem" herself and win gold in Snowboard Cross, don't be too hard on her, it might just be the course.
The one woman with the best chance of stopping an American sweep in Snowboard half-pipe is Australian (and Mormon, who knew they had those in Australia?) Torah Bright. Her one flaw, sadly, is also her greatest strength: Torah goes BIG. She wants those huge tricks even when it isn't wise to attempt them. Of course, if she lands all her tricks and completes a full run, she is unbelievably good, but it's that IF that gets her sometimes. Hell, she just suffered two concussions within three days while training the week before X-Games, which was about three weeks ago. As for her American competitors, Kelly Clark is the most consistent rider on the women's side, but she doesn't always go big enough in competition (which is partly why she's so consistent). Gretchen Bleiler and Hannah Teter have bigger tricks, it's just a question if they can put down a whole strong run.
For men's half-pipe, if Shaun White puts down a run like he had at X-Games, he is unbeatable. So, assuming that happens, it becomes a fight for second, where the other Americans might have some problems. Louie "Tiny Dancer" Vito (yes, they really call him that, now) hasn't put down a full, strong run in the finals of a competition in quite a while. This is partly because White has pushed everyone else to raise their games to a level not all of them have yet, but this also seems to be something of a mental problem with Vito. As for the other two Americans, Scotty Lago has good consistency, good air, and strong runs, but he has also been coming up short in recent competitions, and Greg Bretz is the other guy just lucky to make the team.
The men's biggest foreign competitors include I. Pod. (I'm not even going to try his real name), Kazuo, and several others who are landing double-corks and following them up with other big tricks. It's a deep field and it could be hard for the Americans to snatch more than one medal, based on how they've been riding recently.
Hey NBC, SHUT UP!!
So, it's Olympics time again, and again I have the same old complaint about the television coverage. NBC regularly insists on going away from the actual Olympic games to show these incredibly boring supposed "human interest" stories which are never very interesting and in last night's primetime coverage, didn't even mention humans.
Hey, NBC, you paid millions to have exclusive coverage of the games, you're losing millions on the damn games, you might as well show the Olympic games themselves instead of whatever random crap you make Mary Carillo do.
One other complaint I have is that if NBC is planning to show any of a specific event in their primetime coverage, they will show none of it during their day coverage, or post any of it online. They will, however, provide live updates and a live blog on what's happening in that event, as well as provide a full written recap of said event. Now, I can understand ratings and I know why they want to force viewers to sit through hours of talking and events they don't care about to get to the one they do, but then why do they post a live blog and live results? Granted, this is information one can find almost anywhere online, but why is the station forcing me to watch at night to see what happened during the day, telling me what happened during the day?
Also, they might not show all of an event in primetime so (as an example) if you want to watch every run in freestyle snowboarding (which I do) you're probably not going to, but you can read how everyone does in the live blog.
Hey, NBC, you paid millions to have exclusive coverage of the games, you're losing millions on the damn games, you might as well show the Olympic games themselves instead of whatever random crap you make Mary Carillo do.
One other complaint I have is that if NBC is planning to show any of a specific event in their primetime coverage, they will show none of it during their day coverage, or post any of it online. They will, however, provide live updates and a live blog on what's happening in that event, as well as provide a full written recap of said event. Now, I can understand ratings and I know why they want to force viewers to sit through hours of talking and events they don't care about to get to the one they do, but then why do they post a live blog and live results? Granted, this is information one can find almost anywhere online, but why is the station forcing me to watch at night to see what happened during the day, telling me what happened during the day?
Also, they might not show all of an event in primetime so (as an example) if you want to watch every run in freestyle snowboarding (which I do) you're probably not going to, but you can read how everyone does in the live blog.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Heroes Finale: Good Ending, Bad Beginning?
So I'll start with the positive. I really liked this episode. I liked Peter and Sylar teaming up; I liked the new "hero" Sylar; I liked the pacing; and I liked how everyone teamed up in their own way to defeat Samuel.
And how they took out Samuel was brilliant! How do you beat a psychotic cult leader? By getting his cult to lose all faith in him. Instead of joining powers and beating him down like he was Sylar at the end of season one, the Heroes cast got his "family" to realize what kind of man he truly he is: a lunatic who's been using them this whole time for his own crazy, super-villain, Napoleon-complex ends. Granted, they had to use mind-control on one of Samuel's enforcers to do it, but still, the good ending was achieved.
And I LOVED the scenes with Hiro and Charlie. It was heart-breaking, but believable; hard to watch but inevitable. Masi Oka just does not get enough credit for how good he is on this show.
So, I really liked this episode, but the cliffhanger beginning of the next chapter.... well, I'm still not sure about that. For one thing, NBC seems undecided as to whether or not the show will be coming back at all, in which case this was as close to a finale as we're going to get. But even beyond that, did Claire really have to go there? Now yes, there are only so "gas pockets," "sinkholes," and random, barely-explainable things that can believably happen in our modern, worldwide massive multi-media culture before it just gets ridiculous that the public has yet to catch on to the existence of super-humans.
However, to force it out into the public view like Claire did seems... I don't know. It's definitely a new direction for the show (assuming we get another season at all), but it was just so rash, wasn't it? It was like an "F.U." to Noah's beliefs made in the heat of the moment that could very well change the world, and will, at least, change her life and that of her friend's dramatically.
As to why Claire specifically did it, that was like the actions of someone who's just tired of hiding the truth of herself from the world. And yeah, she'd been under a lot of stress lately, so you can kind of understand why she just suddenly "came out" like she did.
But still.... it's the kind of thing that irks me until I see how the show is specifically going to handle it. So I guess I'll see what happens next, if anything.
Overall, though, I really liked this season, and I pray to all the gods of television that we get at least one more; if only so I'll see whether or not I was right to be unsure about this season's ending.
And how they took out Samuel was brilliant! How do you beat a psychotic cult leader? By getting his cult to lose all faith in him. Instead of joining powers and beating him down like he was Sylar at the end of season one, the Heroes cast got his "family" to realize what kind of man he truly he is: a lunatic who's been using them this whole time for his own crazy, super-villain, Napoleon-complex ends. Granted, they had to use mind-control on one of Samuel's enforcers to do it, but still, the good ending was achieved.
And I LOVED the scenes with Hiro and Charlie. It was heart-breaking, but believable; hard to watch but inevitable. Masi Oka just does not get enough credit for how good he is on this show.
So, I really liked this episode, but the cliffhanger beginning of the next chapter.... well, I'm still not sure about that. For one thing, NBC seems undecided as to whether or not the show will be coming back at all, in which case this was as close to a finale as we're going to get. But even beyond that, did Claire really have to go there? Now yes, there are only so "gas pockets," "sinkholes," and random, barely-explainable things that can believably happen in our modern, worldwide massive multi-media culture before it just gets ridiculous that the public has yet to catch on to the existence of super-humans.
However, to force it out into the public view like Claire did seems... I don't know. It's definitely a new direction for the show (assuming we get another season at all), but it was just so rash, wasn't it? It was like an "F.U." to Noah's beliefs made in the heat of the moment that could very well change the world, and will, at least, change her life and that of her friend's dramatically.
As to why Claire specifically did it, that was like the actions of someone who's just tired of hiding the truth of herself from the world. And yeah, she'd been under a lot of stress lately, so you can kind of understand why she just suddenly "came out" like she did.
But still.... it's the kind of thing that irks me until I see how the show is specifically going to handle it. So I guess I'll see what happens next, if anything.
Overall, though, I really liked this season, and I pray to all the gods of television that we get at least one more; if only so I'll see whether or not I was right to be unsure about this season's ending.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Fearless Oscar Predictions
1. Sandra Bullock and Jeff Bridges will win Best Acting Oscars recognizing their careers as much as, if not more than, their nominated roles.
2. Mo'Nique and Christoph Waltz will win Best Supporting Oscars for their roles in Precious and Inglourious Basterds.
3. Jason Reitman and his writing partner Sheldon Turner will win for Best Adapted Screenplay while Quentin Tarantino will win for Best Original Screenplay.
4. Up will win Best Animated Feature, because Pixar always wins Best Animated Feature, that's the rule.
5. Kathryn Bigelo will become the first woman to ever win an Oscar for Best Director.
6. Best Picture: Now that's complicated.
See, when the Academy upped the nomination number to ten for Best Picture, they also changed the rules for how votes for Best Picture are counted. Now, voters rank all ten films and, in order to be considered, a film has to have a majority of top picks by the voters.
Here's how it works. Let's say this is your Oscar ballot for Best Picture:
1. An Education
2. Up
3. District 9
4. Precious
5. Inglourious Basterds
6. The Hurt Locker
7. Up in the Air
8. The Blind Side
9. Avatar
10. A Serious Man
Now let's say not enough people saw An Education and so didn't give it that high a ranking, so that vote of yours will be ignored and the Academy will move down to the next one. Older Academy members don't want to see an animated film win Best Picture, so they're not voting for Up, so that vote's out. None of the Directors of Photography are voting for District 9, because they all think the film over-used shaky cam (which it did), and Precious is being widely praised for its acting, but not enough voters think it classifies as "Best Picture material" so there goes those votes. Inglourious Batserds, however, has enough support to get high ranking votes, so that would be the one that counts on your ballot, even though you ranked it 5.
Get it?
Yeah, it didn't really make sense to me, either, but this will make the Best Picture race much more interesting than it usually is, because we're still not sure what exact impact this new voting procedure will have. Well, I'm actually sure of one impact this voting will have: negative campaigning (which the Academy has been trying to lower in recent years) now means more than it used to.
Notice how low I put Avatar on the sample ballot. If enough voters get enough support, they can effectively bury a film they don't want to see win, by just getting people to put it among their lowest numbers as I did with Avatar. Now how little voters want a film to win has as much to do with who wins as who voters would like to see win.
So no matter what happens Oscar night, one thing is certain: the Academy has successfully made the Oscars a little more dickish.
2. Mo'Nique and Christoph Waltz will win Best Supporting Oscars for their roles in Precious and Inglourious Basterds.
3. Jason Reitman and his writing partner Sheldon Turner will win for Best Adapted Screenplay while Quentin Tarantino will win for Best Original Screenplay.
4. Up will win Best Animated Feature, because Pixar always wins Best Animated Feature, that's the rule.
5. Kathryn Bigelo will become the first woman to ever win an Oscar for Best Director.
6. Best Picture: Now that's complicated.
See, when the Academy upped the nomination number to ten for Best Picture, they also changed the rules for how votes for Best Picture are counted. Now, voters rank all ten films and, in order to be considered, a film has to have a majority of top picks by the voters.
Here's how it works. Let's say this is your Oscar ballot for Best Picture:
1. An Education
2. Up
3. District 9
4. Precious
5. Inglourious Basterds
6. The Hurt Locker
7. Up in the Air
8. The Blind Side
9. Avatar
10. A Serious Man
Now let's say not enough people saw An Education and so didn't give it that high a ranking, so that vote of yours will be ignored and the Academy will move down to the next one. Older Academy members don't want to see an animated film win Best Picture, so they're not voting for Up, so that vote's out. None of the Directors of Photography are voting for District 9, because they all think the film over-used shaky cam (which it did), and Precious is being widely praised for its acting, but not enough voters think it classifies as "Best Picture material" so there goes those votes. Inglourious Batserds, however, has enough support to get high ranking votes, so that would be the one that counts on your ballot, even though you ranked it 5.
Get it?
Yeah, it didn't really make sense to me, either, but this will make the Best Picture race much more interesting than it usually is, because we're still not sure what exact impact this new voting procedure will have. Well, I'm actually sure of one impact this voting will have: negative campaigning (which the Academy has been trying to lower in recent years) now means more than it used to.
Notice how low I put Avatar on the sample ballot. If enough voters get enough support, they can effectively bury a film they don't want to see win, by just getting people to put it among their lowest numbers as I did with Avatar. Now how little voters want a film to win has as much to do with who wins as who voters would like to see win.
So no matter what happens Oscar night, one thing is certain: the Academy has successfully made the Oscars a little more dickish.
Monday, February 1, 2010
USA Minus Monk, Still Good
White Collar: I didn't watch last season, because the show was opposite something. I no longer remember what. So the first episode I saw was the second episode of the second season. I still had no problems following what was happening and I was really liking the show. The premise comes from the end of Catch Me If You Can, where Leonardo DiCaprio starts working with Tom Hanks to catch other forgers and the like. Except in White Collar there's also this whole thing with the bad guy's ex-girlfriend and some evil FBI agent, and whatever. If you've seen the commercials, you know the story.
Anyhoo, even without any previous experience with the show, it's still good. While the show goes with the whole pairing a straight-laced guy with the bad boy thing that's been done a thousand times, it messes with the concept by making the bad boy ex-con man a hopeless romantic and gives the straight-laced stiff guy a hot, fun wife (Tiffany Amber Thiessen, Kelly from Saved by the Bell, yes, she's still VERY hot) and something of a rebellious streak.
Burn Notice: The best thing about this show is that it refuses to remain static. Its set-up of a burned spy helping others while trying to find out what happened to his career could have been drawn out indefinitely. However, the hero/ MacGyver bad-ass spy Michael found the people responsible for ruining his life at the end of season one, spent season two dealing with them, and then spent season three trying to get back into the spy game while avoiding people he'd pissed off who now knew how to find him. Now in season four, Michael has to take down a lunatic assassin who has a problem with him. And , oh yeah, he ends up helping people in his own way every episode, cause that's just what kind of guy he is.
One thing that you might get tired of in the show is how the fact that Michael goes undercover as someone to make some bad guy come out and get caught can get a bit old sometimes. But, the show is fun, cool, and the way they've handled Michael's relationship with on-again/ off-again/ ex/ current/ it's complicated Fiona has been great, especially this season.
Psych: While watching the season premiere of Psych, something occurred to me. What professional wrestler John Cena's previous attempts at film acting had lacked wasn't that the hero was as stiff as a steel beam filled in with concrete who seemed to be reading his lines right off the page, it was that they weren't action film parodies starring big John as the straight man in a farce, coupled with two people who are not taking the situation nearly as serious as they should be.
I love this show, I loved this episode, and the scenes between Shawn (James Roday) and his girlfriend Abby (Rachel Leigh Cook) were so good, you can't help but notice how much talent these actors really have. This season's started great, and I can only hope that continues.
Anyhoo, even without any previous experience with the show, it's still good. While the show goes with the whole pairing a straight-laced guy with the bad boy thing that's been done a thousand times, it messes with the concept by making the bad boy ex-con man a hopeless romantic and gives the straight-laced stiff guy a hot, fun wife (Tiffany Amber Thiessen, Kelly from Saved by the Bell, yes, she's still VERY hot) and something of a rebellious streak.
Burn Notice: The best thing about this show is that it refuses to remain static. Its set-up of a burned spy helping others while trying to find out what happened to his career could have been drawn out indefinitely. However, the hero/ MacGyver bad-ass spy Michael found the people responsible for ruining his life at the end of season one, spent season two dealing with them, and then spent season three trying to get back into the spy game while avoiding people he'd pissed off who now knew how to find him. Now in season four, Michael has to take down a lunatic assassin who has a problem with him. And , oh yeah, he ends up helping people in his own way every episode, cause that's just what kind of guy he is.
One thing that you might get tired of in the show is how the fact that Michael goes undercover as someone to make some bad guy come out and get caught can get a bit old sometimes. But, the show is fun, cool, and the way they've handled Michael's relationship with on-again/ off-again/ ex/ current/ it's complicated Fiona has been great, especially this season.
Psych: While watching the season premiere of Psych, something occurred to me. What professional wrestler John Cena's previous attempts at film acting had lacked wasn't that the hero was as stiff as a steel beam filled in with concrete who seemed to be reading his lines right off the page, it was that they weren't action film parodies starring big John as the straight man in a farce, coupled with two people who are not taking the situation nearly as serious as they should be.
I love this show, I loved this episode, and the scenes between Shawn (James Roday) and his girlfriend Abby (Rachel Leigh Cook) were so good, you can't help but notice how much talent these actors really have. This season's started great, and I can only hope that continues.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
And In Other Sporting News You Don't Care About
Manchester City Forward Robinho said in a radio interview that he wished to be traded to another team to insure more playing time. Robinho wants to play more because he feels he needs more exposure in the English Premiere League (or wherever he ends up playing) to cement his spot on the Brazilian World Cup team.
Now, I'm no expert on how the Brazilian roster is chosen, but I have to think that more playing time on a sub-par team is not the way to guarantee a main spot on a top World Cup contender who is known for their blistering offense. Also, Robinho might just be looking for more money out of Real Madrid or another big money European squad.
So, this could all be about Robinho being a bit of a jerk, as he has been in the past.
Now, I'm no expert on how the Brazilian roster is chosen, but I have to think that more playing time on a sub-par team is not the way to guarantee a main spot on a top World Cup contender who is known for their blistering offense. Also, Robinho might just be looking for more money out of Real Madrid or another big money European squad.
So, this could all be about Robinho being a bit of a jerk, as he has been in the past.
Chileans Are Evil
So, last year at the Australian Open, the Serbian and Croatian fans started a fight (shocking that the Croats and Serbs would have problems getting along) when two players from their respective countries met in an early round. This year, in the first week, eleven Chileans had to be removed from The Beer Garden (which we're now calling simply "The Garden," apparently to promote sober celebrating).
And then, during the matches of top-ranked Chilean Fernando "Gonzo" Gonzalez, the Chilean fans kept sneaking in flares and letting them off while the match was still going on, which, along with other disruptive behaviour, got several of them removed from the stadium.
In Gonzo's fourth round loss to Andy Roddick, the handful of Chileans in Rod Laver Arena would not shut up. There was singing, shouting, and cheering between points, there often yelling during points, and even an occasional jack-ass yelling right when Roddick was in his serving motion.
If you want to show support for your player and your country, fine. But you don't have to be rude about it, and you certainly shouldn't be intentionally disruptive to the other player. And what the hell's up with the flares? Are you trying to show how happy you are that Gonzo's doing well by setting fire to someone?
This is tennis, people, we stay quiet during the points whenever possible. Now, I'm not saying you have to be the Proper English Stiff Upper Lip Wimbledon Crowd, but you should still show respect to the players and the sport by not being a dick.
And then, during the matches of top-ranked Chilean Fernando "Gonzo" Gonzalez, the Chilean fans kept sneaking in flares and letting them off while the match was still going on, which, along with other disruptive behaviour, got several of them removed from the stadium.
In Gonzo's fourth round loss to Andy Roddick, the handful of Chileans in Rod Laver Arena would not shut up. There was singing, shouting, and cheering between points, there often yelling during points, and even an occasional jack-ass yelling right when Roddick was in his serving motion.
If you want to show support for your player and your country, fine. But you don't have to be rude about it, and you certainly shouldn't be intentionally disruptive to the other player. And what the hell's up with the flares? Are you trying to show how happy you are that Gonzo's doing well by setting fire to someone?
This is tennis, people, we stay quiet during the points whenever possible. Now, I'm not saying you have to be the Proper English Stiff Upper Lip Wimbledon Crowd, but you should still show respect to the players and the sport by not being a dick.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
2010 Sic-Fi: Chuck, Heroes, Caprica
Chuck: I'll admit I was worried by the new, amped-up Chuck. I thought that by making Chuck into more of an action hero and less of a nerd the show would lose its fun and sense of self. Instead, by keeping the Intersect (and Chuck's ability to use it) inconsistent, Chuck continues to be far from the super-spy he had dreamed of being.
Even more than that, though, the show is still good and fun as ever because of Chuck himself. No matter what he can or can't do, he's still awkward, unsure of himself and his capabilities, and still fumbling about his feelings towards Sarah. I don't even mind how the show has drawn out Chuck and Sarah's relationship, since it is what it is now because Chuck wanted to be more like Sarah, and now that he's still a "spy," he has to at least try to adopt an attitude closer to her's. I'm still liking this show, I just hope it gets the ratings to stick around (hell, NBC might as well keep it and put it at 9 p.m., nothing else it working then, anyway).
Heroes: This has been a really good season. The David Koresh cult thing with Samuel and his "family" is good because it is a new villain and new type of villain for the show, but it's the fact that some characters still refuse to change after all these years that is annoying.
Claire's still naive and gets into trouble; Peter has to be a hero and save everyone his way (often alone); Hiro has to be a superhero right out of comicbooks; Noah has to keep Claire safe by utilizing lies and deceit and take out the bad "powers" for the good of "normals;" Suresh has to be the borderline obsessed scientist; and Ando's just usually there for the ride. It's been four years, people, can't any of you move on to be someone or something new? Other than Sylar, of course, who seems to undergo a major transformation at least once a season.
Caprica: ScyFy's spinoff series to Battlestar Galactica doesn't premiere for another week, but the pilot's been out on DVD for months, and it is now available for free on my ScyFy On Demand.
By being a work of science fiction, BSG (I've never completely liked that acronym) didn't need to be subtle when addressing such issues as suicide bombers, insurgency, technology, religion, fanaticism, war, racism, elitism, faith, life, death, and what it means to be human. Caprica is no different. Within minutes of its beginning, a monotheist suicide bomber (the vast majority in this world is polytheistic) takes out a train full of innocents while screaming about "the one, true god." The show also features a foreign-led mafia, bluntly racist comments, and, of course, the pursuit of an Artificial Intelligence that is going to destroy the planet in little over fifty years.
However, the show's greatest strength, like BSG, is that it manages to address all these issues but do it with believable, relatable, and extremely human characters. We don't see them as black/ white; good/bad; rich, greedy villain/ poor, determined, working class hero; victims/ terrorists. We see them as people, no matter what they do or believe.
If Caprica keeps up what I've seen in the pilot, it might just come close to living up to its predecessor, which is the biggest compliment I could possible give it.
Even more than that, though, the show is still good and fun as ever because of Chuck himself. No matter what he can or can't do, he's still awkward, unsure of himself and his capabilities, and still fumbling about his feelings towards Sarah. I don't even mind how the show has drawn out Chuck and Sarah's relationship, since it is what it is now because Chuck wanted to be more like Sarah, and now that he's still a "spy," he has to at least try to adopt an attitude closer to her's. I'm still liking this show, I just hope it gets the ratings to stick around (hell, NBC might as well keep it and put it at 9 p.m., nothing else it working then, anyway).
Heroes: This has been a really good season. The David Koresh cult thing with Samuel and his "family" is good because it is a new villain and new type of villain for the show, but it's the fact that some characters still refuse to change after all these years that is annoying.
Claire's still naive and gets into trouble; Peter has to be a hero and save everyone his way (often alone); Hiro has to be a superhero right out of comicbooks; Noah has to keep Claire safe by utilizing lies and deceit and take out the bad "powers" for the good of "normals;" Suresh has to be the borderline obsessed scientist; and Ando's just usually there for the ride. It's been four years, people, can't any of you move on to be someone or something new? Other than Sylar, of course, who seems to undergo a major transformation at least once a season.
Caprica: ScyFy's spinoff series to Battlestar Galactica doesn't premiere for another week, but the pilot's been out on DVD for months, and it is now available for free on my ScyFy On Demand.
By being a work of science fiction, BSG (I've never completely liked that acronym) didn't need to be subtle when addressing such issues as suicide bombers, insurgency, technology, religion, fanaticism, war, racism, elitism, faith, life, death, and what it means to be human. Caprica is no different. Within minutes of its beginning, a monotheist suicide bomber (the vast majority in this world is polytheistic) takes out a train full of innocents while screaming about "the one, true god." The show also features a foreign-led mafia, bluntly racist comments, and, of course, the pursuit of an Artificial Intelligence that is going to destroy the planet in little over fifty years.
However, the show's greatest strength, like BSG, is that it manages to address all these issues but do it with believable, relatable, and extremely human characters. We don't see them as black/ white; good/bad; rich, greedy villain/ poor, determined, working class hero; victims/ terrorists. We see them as people, no matter what they do or believe.
If Caprica keeps up what I've seen in the pilot, it might just come close to living up to its predecessor, which is the biggest compliment I could possible give it.
"Just Call My Name..."
"And I'll Be There."
Wait, you won't be there.
You're dead.
This song is sad now.
(weeping, weeping)
Wait, you won't be there.
You're dead.
This song is sad now.
(weeping, weeping)
Friday, January 8, 2010
Oh, God, is That What I Look Like?
So there's now a picture of me on this thing, essentially guaranteeing that no female of at least a moderate level of attraction will ever visit this blog for more a few seconds.
Please refrain from retching on your computers, as it may cause serious damage to your keyboard.
Please refrain from retching on your computers, as it may cause serious damage to your keyboard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
