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.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
