Author Archive
2010 Academy Awards
Alec and Steve were the only friends left at "Oscar's" birthday party after mom kicked Kratos out after "the incident."
Some quick
The "interpretive" dancing to accompany the Best Music (Original Score) nominees was tacky and plain-old ridiculous. Being that the music was written for a movie, why not show either a) a montage/custom trailer showcasing the music against the images or b) show a specific scene from the movie as-is which highlights the connection between composer and the visual material. The eventual winner, UP, has a sequence which would have lent itself perfectly for, you know, showing the effect of the music instead of a bunch of people spinning on their heads or doing the robot. If they want to show break-ish dancing, America's Best Dance Crew does it better (and without the false pretense of it being "fine art.")
Aside from the fact that a movie which would be more properly described as "rendered" (or raytraced, or something or another) rather than "filmed," won for Best Cinematography, why did they show no clips, again, showcasing the recognized, excellent cinematography? I believe only the title cards were shown. Sure, most of the movies (except, Harry Potter, I believe) were shown in other awards' intro sections, but movies are a visual medium, show it if it's awards-worthy! Or maybe you could get the interpretive dancers to movieoke the scenes in question.
The Best Actor/Actress "wedding toasts" are still awkward and unnecessarily long. BUT, watching the obligatory "Oscar-bait" scenes are usually just as cringe-worthy. Of course, this year we got to see what happens when a "who's that guy?" actor without a compelling story (acting debut and [celebrated for some odd reason] morbid obesity, for example) gets nominated...Colin Farrell is left to relate stories from their time off set during the filming of SWAT because there is no body of work to reference (yet?). Consider it a tie between the old "bait" and new "toasts" methods. [Jeremy Renner absolutely deserved to be nominated and would not have been a surprise winner, and unrelatedly, SWAT wasn't all that bad of a movie, either].
In terms of Best Picture and Best Director (considering them interrelated here)... eh, The Hurt Locker was good, but felt a bit incomplete. Imagine a collection of seven interrelated short stories, any of which could be swapped for the climax of the movie. Unique, yes, but District 9 took another unique presentation method and did it better. The Hurt Locker would be somewhere below Up in the Air, District 9, An Education, and even Avatar on my list.
P.S. The Blind Side is an awful, awful movie. Meryl Streep did "I get what I want," bad-ass chick better in The Devil Wears Prada, though Sandra Bullock was definitely the best part of the movie (which is notable because there was anything in it that could be considered "best").
The End of Scrubs, the Sequel
Following up on my original, hopeful take on whether Scrubs was really going to end two years ago, another is-it-or-isn't-it the end episode aired last night. First and foremost, give the cast and crew of Scrubs and ABC (yes, the network) all the credit in the world for ignoring the absolutely awful, rather pointless seventh season and believing in the show enough to give it one last go. The entire eighth season was strong, beginning to end, and the fact that the lead actors took turns being MIA in some episodes due to cost-cutting, showed that the writers still knew what they were doing, even after two weak seasons.
It's still up in the air whether the show will continue sans Zach Braff, whether they'll focus on the interesting-but-not-quite-interesting enough interns, or whether they'll simply end it last night.
Let me officially place my vote for "simply let it end." The finale was all-but perfect. They took the risky direction by not wrapping up the stories, and even calling out the fact that endings really are just beginnings, and life isn't all-about simple wrap-ups. There's the dramatic decision to make a change, but after it happens, there are simply more unknowns to be faced, some even scarier than the original moment of "conclusion." JD's "what if" fantasy at the end worked a lot better than some sort of tacked on "20 years later" third act, a la Will & Grace.
The End of Scrubs, The Sequel gets four-and-a-half stars. Funny, poignant, dramatic, and the classic Scrubs' depressing in a happy way non-resolution. And they picked a Super-Duper song for the last "dramatic montage over indie music" which I knew beforehand! [Peter Gabriel's cover of "The Book of Love" originally by The Magnetic Fields.] Coming full circle, one of the reasons this site was started stems from hearing a really good song which I stumbled across in 2005, then heard when I was watching the third season of the show en masse in 2006 and patted myself on the back for knowing it before I saw the episode... then I found out that the CD which was playing that song when I heard it was from a playlist consisting only of songs played on Scrubs. That's right. The mirror is facing another mirror which is facing me. And I'm not smiling. Anyway, minus half of one star because the show could continue which would make this a "very special episode," not a firing-on-all-cylinders, pitch perfect series finale.
The finale of the finale.
Not pictured: the Janitor. And 8 years worth of wrinkles.
It's still up in the air whether the show will continue sans Zach Braff, whether they'll focus on the interesting-but-not-quite-interesting enough interns, or whether they'll simply end it last night.
Let me officially place my vote for "simply let it end." The finale was all-but perfect. They took the risky direction by not wrapping up the stories, and even calling out the fact that endings really are just beginnings, and life isn't all-about simple wrap-ups. There's the dramatic decision to make a change, but after it happens, there are simply more unknowns to be faced, some even scarier than the original moment of "conclusion." JD's "what if" fantasy at the end worked a lot better than some sort of tacked on "20 years later" third act, a la Will & Grace.
The End of Scrubs, The Sequel gets four-and-a-half stars. Funny, poignant, dramatic, and the classic Scrubs' depressing in a happy way non-resolution. And they picked a Super-Duper song for the last "dramatic montage over indie music" which I knew beforehand! [Peter Gabriel's cover of "The Book of Love" originally by The Magnetic Fields.] Coming full circle, one of the reasons this site was started stems from hearing a really good song which I stumbled across in 2005, then heard when I was watching the third season of the show en masse in 2006 and patted myself on the back for knowing it before I saw the episode... then I found out that the CD which was playing that song when I heard it was from a playlist consisting only of songs played on Scrubs. That's right. The mirror is facing another mirror which is facing me. And I'm not smiling. Anyway, minus half of one star because the show could continue which would make this a "very special episode," not a firing-on-all-cylinders, pitch perfect series finale.
The finale of the finale.
Urgent Warning Review: The Last Templar
Later tonight, NBC will be showing the second half of the two part "The Last Templar" mini-series. DO NOT WATCH THIS. It's rare that I feel tasked to present my opinion as a public warning, but it is entirely, absolutely necessary in this case.
I'm not proud of myself, but I fell for the "well, I should probably buy a book before I get on an airplane for thirteen hours" business model. That's right - I spent $10, the full retail price, based only on, "I liked The DaVinci Code well enough and that giant red cross on a white background on the cover of the book looks familiar. Ooh, it has 'templar' in the title, too." Not one of my finer moments. Not one of my finer moments.
Why the warning? People are quick to complain about The DaVinci Code for perfectly valid reasons; poor structure (action, explanation, action, explanation, ad nauseum...), clunky writing, the fact that it's more-or-less the product of generously editing Angels & Demons and using "find and replace" to swap "Catholicism" with "Christianity," and so on. BUT, The DaVinci Code worked well enough. I liked the book enough to also read Angels & Demons as well as Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and most significantly, there are few people have haven't read The DaVinci Code, and I really don't know anyone that truly hated it. I stand by the complaints detailed above, yet I wouldn't tell someone not to read it if I were asked.
Of course, based on the overwhelming financial success of The DaVinci Code, a cottage industry sprang up around the Knights Templar and literary background checks of Jesus H. Christ ranging from the academic to the pulpy. Simply everyone who's remotely interested in such things has read at least The DaVinci Code and is acutely aware of the recently-renewed discussion on whether Jesus should be referred to as "Dude" or just "dude."
The Last Templar is the second worst kind of "DaVinci Code cottage industry" detritus. The single most damning error of the book is that the characters live in a vacuum where The DaVinci Code never existed. This is preposterous - as readers, we're no longer shocked that there are "major revelations" about Jesus' divinity and holding that like a carrot to keep the reader engaged just doesn't work. Within the world of the story, it's equally ludicrous that an archaeologist would be shocked (SHOCKED!) to hear that there are alternate theories of Jesus beyond those of the Gospels and Qur'an. It's just plain inexcusable.
The story itself is of the relic-hunting variety: beheadings, ancient mythology, suspect foreigners, the two lead characters getting it on, a encryption/decryption/codex device, and so on. Passable, but the obliviousness detailed above checked me out of the book almost immediately. Well, the obliviousness and the fact that the romantic thread in the story was written with the fluidity and grace matching that of a teen-aged love letter saying, "I want to do you."
I do have to comment on the selection of quotes on the front and back covers. On the front, we see "Like The DaVinci Code, Khoury's novel features age-old mysteries that play out in a modern setting." Let that sink in a bit. It's equivalent to the quote reading, "The DaVinci code is a book. This novel is also a book." There's not even an implicit recommendation; in fact, one can extract an almost negative tone from it, as if the quote continued as, "..., but this is not even The DaVinci Code." Imagine a Battlefield: Earth poster saying: "Star Wars was a movie in space. This one is, too." No, don't fall for it.
Moving to the back cover we see, "[will] satisfy your historical thriller craving." One could say the same thing about Stalingrad Vodka and alcoholism. Similarly, "For those who think Dan Brown doesn't write fast enough," doesn't actually provide a comment on the quality of the book. Think of a review of the Arena Football League: "Because the NFL off-season is February to August."
The Last Templar mini-series gets half of one star. Bad books make for bad movies. Sure, the guy who got dumped on Scrubs is perfectly likable and Mira Sorvino looks fancy, but you're better than this. If you feel the need to get your artifact-hunting itch scratched, re-read or watch The DaVinci Code, or, even better, read The Rule of Four.
I'm not proud of myself, but I fell for the "well, I should probably buy a book before I get on an airplane for thirteen hours" business model. That's right - I spent $10, the full retail price, based only on, "I liked The DaVinci Code well enough and that giant red cross on a white background on the cover of the book looks familiar. Ooh, it has 'templar' in the title, too." Not one of my finer moments. Not one of my finer moments.
Don't fall for it - you're better than this. Don't make the same mistake I did.
Why the warning? People are quick to complain about The DaVinci Code for perfectly valid reasons; poor structure (action, explanation, action, explanation, ad nauseum...), clunky writing, the fact that it's more-or-less the product of generously editing Angels & Demons and using "find and replace" to swap "Catholicism" with "Christianity," and so on. BUT, The DaVinci Code worked well enough. I liked the book enough to also read Angels & Demons as well as Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and most significantly, there are few people have haven't read The DaVinci Code, and I really don't know anyone that truly hated it. I stand by the complaints detailed above, yet I wouldn't tell someone not to read it if I were asked.
Of course, based on the overwhelming financial success of The DaVinci Code, a cottage industry sprang up around the Knights Templar and literary background checks of Jesus H. Christ ranging from the academic to the pulpy. Simply everyone who's remotely interested in such things has read at least The DaVinci Code and is acutely aware of the recently-renewed discussion on whether Jesus should be referred to as "Dude" or just "dude."
The Last Templar is the second worst kind of "DaVinci Code cottage industry" detritus. The single most damning error of the book is that the characters live in a vacuum where The DaVinci Code never existed. This is preposterous - as readers, we're no longer shocked that there are "major revelations" about Jesus' divinity and holding that like a carrot to keep the reader engaged just doesn't work. Within the world of the story, it's equally ludicrous that an archaeologist would be shocked (SHOCKED!) to hear that there are alternate theories of Jesus beyond those of the Gospels and Qur'an. It's just plain inexcusable.
The story itself is of the relic-hunting variety: beheadings, ancient mythology, suspect foreigners, the two lead characters getting it on, a encryption/decryption/codex device, and so on. Passable, but the obliviousness detailed above checked me out of the book almost immediately. Well, the obliviousness and the fact that the romantic thread in the story was written with the fluidity and grace matching that of a teen-aged love letter saying, "I want to do you."
I do have to comment on the selection of quotes on the front and back covers. On the front, we see "Like The DaVinci Code, Khoury's novel features age-old mysteries that play out in a modern setting." Let that sink in a bit. It's equivalent to the quote reading, "The DaVinci code is a book. This novel is also a book." There's not even an implicit recommendation; in fact, one can extract an almost negative tone from it, as if the quote continued as, "..., but this is not even The DaVinci Code." Imagine a Battlefield: Earth poster saying: "Star Wars was a movie in space. This one is, too." No, don't fall for it.
Moving to the back cover we see, "[will] satisfy your historical thriller craving." One could say the same thing about Stalingrad Vodka and alcoholism. Similarly, "For those who think Dan Brown doesn't write fast enough," doesn't actually provide a comment on the quality of the book. Think of a review of the Arena Football League: "Because the NFL off-season is February to August."
The Last Templar mini-series gets half of one star. Bad books make for bad movies. Sure, the guy who got dumped on Scrubs is perfectly likable and Mira Sorvino looks fancy, but you're better than this. If you feel the need to get your artifact-hunting itch scratched, re-read or watch The DaVinci Code, or, even better, read The Rule of Four.
Z2K9 — The Day the Music Froze During the Loading Screen
Update 1/1/2009: All better. The thing "fixed" itself. I was this close to composing a strongly worded letter written under only natural light.
In the time between beginning this post and finishing it, it looks like Microsoft formally announced a solution to the issue, the always exciting "it'll fix itself tomorrow." Of course, that doesn't change the fact that I want to listen to my party mix now. Anyway, um, enjoy the increasingly less relevant post below.
I've stood by my MP3 player for more than one-and-a-half years. The 30GB Zune isn't the prettiest, thinnest, or most useful MP3 player, but I like what it does and how it does it. I spent a lot of time getting the video compression settings "just right," and I didn't need to purchase wrist weights to "maximize" my runs. I've gotten used to people confusing it with a dumbbell but I have never had the "I think someone stole my mp3 player," panic because I know my husky baby isn't going anywhere, if only because it would be a real burden for a potential thief if he or she needed to scale a fence.
My previous MP3 player, the geek approved Rio Karma served me just fine (though a few minor repairs) from 2003-2007, at which point it started turning into "computer junk," component by component, necessitating a new player. Microsoft's been good about updating the original, 30GB, player even though it's now one-and-a-half generations old. I can't argue with that, and the free Zune Software/Music Player is actually a program I'd whole-heartedly recommend to anyone, whether he owns a Zune or not. Everything was going swimmingly - the only real issues I had were occasional freezes (which disappeared with the latest 3.1 firmware) and a totally buff right bicep. This morning, I saw that one of the "tech news" websites I visit was reporting "Hundreds of 30GB Zune Players Fail Across the Country." I have one of those. Uh-oh.
Probably not the sort of top 10 list for which they hoped.
Skimming the article, I saw that the problems started around midnight PST last night, and most users experienced the freeze as their greeting as they turned on the device this morning. Of course, I still hadn't turned it on, but I was watching The Matrix last night, and needless to say, perhaps the computer gods were not happy at the ending (with Neo's bring thephysical virtual and verbal smackdown to computer program) and were taking their vengeance. Being that guy, I decided I wanted to see the crash myself so I could poke around at it. Well, I succeeded in seeing it crash/freeze, but that was about all she wrote. Apparently, one can disassemble the player, change the computer calendar to any date but 12/31/08, unplug and replug the battery, then reassemble and use it just fine with no issues, but I decided I was done losing tiny screws when I decided the Rio Karma wasn't worth fixing.
For a device considered not very popular, the news certainly got around. CNN posted a front page link (below "the fold," though) to a brief writeup. (Now, to the doubters' credit, the time between Christmas and New Years is ridiculously slow for the news.)
In terms of why it crashed, December 31, 2008 is the 366th day of the year. Odds are it has something to do with something in the software planning on each year being 365 days. Not the most exciting bug, but an easy one to forget to check for. Of course it could be an ugly coincidence, but Occam's Razor, people.
I was going to write here about how it could be a challenging bug to fix because the devices didn't even get to the point where the firmware updates can be initiated and it could be a support disaster, but being that the darn thing will apparently fix itself, I'll spare the words. (Note to Microsoft employees: I have no idea if that little spiel back there about "doesn't even get to the point where the firmware updates can be initiated" is even remotely accurate. I'm just counting on all 7 of the readers of this site nodding their heads and saying, "that Dan. He knows about computers.")
Star Rating is pending the results of tomorrow's self-update, but let's not jump to any conclusions.
Two stars - nice it sort of fixed itself, not so nice that I actually had to say, "well, I have that song on my MP3 player, but unfortunately, it's not going to work until noon tomorrow."
BUT, I have seen some pretty good overly dramatic names for the "situation": Z2K, Z2K9, ZUNEPOCOLYPSE. I guess give credit for the "social" for making enough noise the problem to be seen in more places than just some isolated support forums.
Of course, none of the postings made any mention of Judgment Day or this being Skynet's first move, so I'm not completely impressed. That said, in terms of a future where our ground up brains might be used to fuel sentient killing machines, the fact that computers are still baffled by the Gregorian Calendar does help me sleep better at night.
In the time between beginning this post and finishing it, it looks like Microsoft formally announced a solution to the issue, the always exciting "it'll fix itself tomorrow." Of course, that doesn't change the fact that I want to listen to my party mix now. Anyway, um, enjoy the increasingly less relevant post below.
I've stood by my MP3 player for more than one-and-a-half years. The 30GB Zune isn't the prettiest, thinnest, or most useful MP3 player, but I like what it does and how it does it. I spent a lot of time getting the video compression settings "just right," and I didn't need to purchase wrist weights to "maximize" my runs. I've gotten used to people confusing it with a dumbbell but I have never had the "I think someone stole my mp3 player," panic because I know my husky baby isn't going anywhere, if only because it would be a real burden for a potential thief if he or she needed to scale a fence.
My previous MP3 player, the geek approved Rio Karma served me just fine (though a few minor repairs) from 2003-2007, at which point it started turning into "computer junk," component by component, necessitating a new player. Microsoft's been good about updating the original, 30GB, player even though it's now one-and-a-half generations old. I can't argue with that, and the free Zune Software/Music Player is actually a program I'd whole-heartedly recommend to anyone, whether he owns a Zune or not. Everything was going swimmingly - the only real issues I had were occasional freezes (which disappeared with the latest 3.1 firmware) and a totally buff right bicep. This morning, I saw that one of the "tech news" websites I visit was reporting "Hundreds of 30GB Zune Players Fail Across the Country." I have one of those. Uh-oh.
Probably not the sort of top 10 list for which they hoped.
Skimming the article, I saw that the problems started around midnight PST last night, and most users experienced the freeze as their greeting as they turned on the device this morning. Of course, I still hadn't turned it on, but I was watching The Matrix last night, and needless to say, perhaps the computer gods were not happy at the ending (with Neo's bring the
For a device considered not very popular, the news certainly got around. CNN posted a front page link (below "the fold," though) to a brief writeup. (Now, to the doubters' credit, the time between Christmas and New Years is ridiculously slow for the news.)
In terms of why it crashed, December 31, 2008 is the 366th day of the year. Odds are it has something to do with something in the software planning on each year being 365 days. Not the most exciting bug, but an easy one to forget to check for. Of course it could be an ugly coincidence, but Occam's Razor, people.
I was going to write here about how it could be a challenging bug to fix because the devices didn't even get to the point where the firmware updates can be initiated and it could be a support disaster, but being that the darn thing will apparently fix itself, I'll spare the words. (Note to Microsoft employees: I have no idea if that little spiel back there about "doesn't even get to the point where the firmware updates can be initiated" is even remotely accurate. I'm just counting on all 7 of the readers of this site nodding their heads and saying, "that Dan. He knows about computers.")
Two stars - nice it sort of fixed itself, not so nice that I actually had to say, "well, I have that song on my MP3 player, but unfortunately, it's not going to work until noon tomorrow."
BUT, I have seen some pretty good overly dramatic names for the "situation": Z2K, Z2K9, ZUNEPOCOLYPSE. I guess give credit for the "social" for making enough noise the problem to be seen in more places than just some isolated support forums.
Of course, none of the postings made any mention of Judgment Day or this being Skynet's first move, so I'm not completely impressed. That said, in terms of a future where our ground up brains might be used to fuel sentient killing machines, the fact that computers are still baffled by the Gregorian Calendar does help me sleep better at night.
Half-Inventing Stuff part 2
When in-character WWE wrestlers interview movie stars.
Check out these two videos of "The Miz" interviewing the cast and director of "The Dark Knight." I realized that the hype machine for the movie was pretty crazy (even crazier now that it's obvious that the movie could have sold itself on its own merits), but I had no idea they were so desperate to allow a WWE "representative" to interview the stars.
The image of a ridiculous wrestler (title belt draped over his body) interviewing Maggie Gyllenhall is really one for the ages as is her confusion when he insists on playing with the action figures. Likewise his mustache discussion with Gary Oldman of all people hits "awkward" right on the head. (I guess Oldman insisted that he not be interviewed by someone wearing a championship belt from a fixed "sport.")
Also of note is Christian Bale's look over to his assistant as he has no idea how to react to "The Miz." You'd think they could've had an interesting comparison of the injuries accumulated in filming a fight scene (Bale seems intense enough to acquire injuries during filming - it looks like he has marks on his arms from filming Terminator 4 around the time of the interview) to the injuries in wrestling or stories about "working through pain in the name of entertainment" - who knows.
Anyway, enjoy the awkwardness.
Superstar To Superstar: Miz interviews the stars of "The Dark Knight" - Part I.
Superstar To Superstar: Miz interviews the stars of "The Dark Knight" - Part II.
There's a reason that professional wrestling will never be considered a "mainstream" form of entertainment. This is it.
The image of a ridiculous wrestler (title belt draped over his body) interviewing Maggie Gyllenhall is really one for the ages as is her confusion when he insists on playing with the action figures. Likewise his mustache discussion with Gary Oldman of all people hits "awkward" right on the head. (I guess Oldman insisted that he not be interviewed by someone wearing a championship belt from a fixed "sport.")
Also of note is Christian Bale's look over to his assistant as he has no idea how to react to "The Miz." You'd think they could've had an interesting comparison of the injuries accumulated in filming a fight scene (Bale seems intense enough to acquire injuries during filming - it looks like he has marks on his arms from filming Terminator 4 around the time of the interview) to the injuries in wrestling or stories about "working through pain in the name of entertainment" - who knows.
Anyway, enjoy the awkwardness.
Superstar To Superstar: Miz interviews the stars of "The Dark Knight" - Part I.
Superstar To Superstar: Miz interviews the stars of "The Dark Knight" - Part II.
There's a reason that professional wrestling will never be considered a "mainstream" form of entertainment. This is it.
The Big Bang Theory
Quick TV Review...
If you don't watch "The Big Bang Theory," give it a chance. CBS Mondays at 8:00 and online. Sure, the premise is ridiculous (two super-nerds move next door to the proverbial sitcom "hot babe" and hilarious antics ensue -- See, they don't know how to relate! She likes shopping, they like Star Trek! Haha.) Well then, the show gets decent ratings (in the 8 million viewers range, compared to the Office's ~6 million), but it gets no respect. TV Squad doesn't provide weekly recaps (though they do write-up each episode of Big Brother). The stereotypical fan of The Office is too cool for "three camera sitcoms," and this one thrives on the "mismatched neighbors" and "nerd" constructs.
Four Geeks ± Babe (Math Humor!)
All that said, it's actually really funny, and one of the "support" geeks (meaning there are two physicist roommates and two equally geeky friends providing plot "support") is made fun of for being an engineer. I can't remember the joke exactly, but it involved something about calling engineers "the oompa-loompas of science." I haven't felt that way in a while, but in academic circles, I'll give them points for accuracy.
I have noticed that the show has actually moved away from the relationship the "babe" has with her neighbors. She has had little development - she basically sits there and makes simple jokes about her neighbors' lack of social skills or just how far over head their discussion is. I guess at some point the sort-of "head" geek needs to act on his crush he first showed in the pilot (but the show has left it sort of unaddressed since then), but I think that's the lazy way out for the writers. Family Matters did it years ago. I would guess that the writers felt like they needed a girl to be their "normal" foil for the four scientists, but as the show has gone on, they've realized the "geeks" personalities and competitiveness have been able to carry the show.
Now, the show takes an odd line between "same as every other sitcom" and "something new." If they ever fall back on "dorky nice guy chases after girl completely out of his league," we'll know that the writers have given up. The writers have stumbled onto four entertaining, dynamic characters who are unlike their TV geek forebears; they're the center of the show, not just one-note jokes on the periphery of a normal sitcom cast.
CBS has a good thing going. Unlike The Office, there's more potential upside for this show. The Office won't get significantly higher ratings - there's simply a finite number of people into sarcastic, dry humor (not that there's anything wrong with that). I've elaborated on The Office previously, and everything that was true then is still true now, the viewership numbers aren't improved, but they are more vocal (oddly enough, crossing into standard "geek" territory like having a convention). The Big Bang Theory is more straight-forward and, yes, "easier," but those aren't bad things. Tune In.
If you don't watch "The Big Bang Theory," give it a chance. CBS Mondays at 8:00 and online. Sure, the premise is ridiculous (two super-nerds move next door to the proverbial sitcom "hot babe" and hilarious antics ensue -- See, they don't know how to relate! She likes shopping, they like Star Trek! Haha.) Well then, the show gets decent ratings (in the 8 million viewers range, compared to the Office's ~6 million), but it gets no respect. TV Squad doesn't provide weekly recaps (though they do write-up each episode of Big Brother). The stereotypical fan of The Office is too cool for "three camera sitcoms," and this one thrives on the "mismatched neighbors" and "nerd" constructs.
Four Geeks ± Babe (Math Humor!)
All that said, it's actually really funny, and one of the "support" geeks (meaning there are two physicist roommates and two equally geeky friends providing plot "support") is made fun of for being an engineer. I can't remember the joke exactly, but it involved something about calling engineers "the oompa-loompas of science." I haven't felt that way in a while, but in academic circles, I'll give them points for accuracy.
I have noticed that the show has actually moved away from the relationship the "babe" has with her neighbors. She has had little development - she basically sits there and makes simple jokes about her neighbors' lack of social skills or just how far over head their discussion is. I guess at some point the sort-of "head" geek needs to act on his crush he first showed in the pilot (but the show has left it sort of unaddressed since then), but I think that's the lazy way out for the writers. Family Matters did it years ago. I would guess that the writers felt like they needed a girl to be their "normal" foil for the four scientists, but as the show has gone on, they've realized the "geeks" personalities and competitiveness have been able to carry the show.
Now, the show takes an odd line between "same as every other sitcom" and "something new." If they ever fall back on "dorky nice guy chases after girl completely out of his league," we'll know that the writers have given up. The writers have stumbled onto four entertaining, dynamic characters who are unlike their TV geek forebears; they're the center of the show, not just one-note jokes on the periphery of a normal sitcom cast.
CBS has a good thing going. Unlike The Office, there's more potential upside for this show. The Office won't get significantly higher ratings - there's simply a finite number of people into sarcastic, dry humor (not that there's anything wrong with that). I've elaborated on The Office previously, and everything that was true then is still true now, the viewership numbers aren't improved, but they are more vocal (oddly enough, crossing into standard "geek" territory like having a convention). The Big Bang Theory is more straight-forward and, yes, "easier," but those aren't bad things. Tune In.
Nate’s Review of Cloverfield
Before I get started, be sure to check out Nate's review of Cloverfield. Make a point to check out the comments - they get to the crux of the argument and Ken Matthews (yes, that Ken Matthews) even weighs in. No, we don't take celebrity lightly here at The Bookshelf.
Nate, Nate, Nate. So many words. The movie didn't "work" because of the medium on which it was delivered. It worked (and worked quite well) because of typical disaster movie conventions (and I don't mean that in a bad way). The "found footage" created a new way to present those conventions; it didn't make them "new," but it serves to create a "wall" in the viewer's mind when he sees the "character presented as initially important dies abruptly and shockingly" so he doesn't say, "wow, this is like every other disaster movie ever." Likewise, the whole "cast in the darkness struggles to find a flashlight, then once they find it, they immediately illuminate something that jumps up and wants to kill/maim/eat them" is perfectly fine - it's been done before. "Found footage" doesn't change the presentation of that event - it's always a point-of-view shot and someone either dies immediately or is injured to the degree of eventually becoming a nuisance (or worse) to the group. I didn't feel any closer to the characters on the screen than with any other well made action/disaster movie. Was it better than "The Day after Tomorrow?" - absolutely, but the difference isn't in the "medium," it's in the competence of the director and the writer to make it compelling. "Found footage" isn't a smokescreen which obfuscates the director's lack of talent or the scenarist's lack of imagination - he's either a good director or not, the script is either good or it isn't.
As I've said, the monster was looking for delicious human brains. Imagine how disappointed it must've been when it realized the meal outside the restaurant wasn't real or life-size. Kind of like a pedophile outside a Bob's Big Boy...yikes. I think that one crossed a line.
Why Cloverfield worked was because of the little decisions made in the screenplay and the directing. There's not "cheese" in the story or the presentation. The "lovey-dovey" story is restrained and as realistic as it could be in a movie about a gigantic lizard making a buffet out of New York. The love story (effectively the pulse of the movie), has as satisfying conclusion as one could hope for, maintaining a reasonable suspension of disbelief inherent is going to the movies. And, no, the "found footage" doesn't assist in building up the suspension of disbelief. Know what? I sat in a movie theater at the beginning of Cloverfield, and I left that same movie theater. I wasn't transported (to a dream world of magic). During the movie, I was still in that same theater. I didn't forget that. I could get "lost" in the movie, but it's happened in plenty of other movies which were not "found footage"-based.
The success of Cloverfield is due to the director and writer not taking any easy ways out (other than the camera battery, walking distances, and other shortcuts necessary for the mechanics of the story - not the story itself, mind you). A less engaging version of this movie would have the disaster "following" the characters instead of the characters more-or-less being in the middle of it. They try to take direction, but in the end, they're at the mercy of the situation, not the screenwriter's goal of killing of some number of characters in 10 minute intervals. It's not an Indiana Jones movie where there is literally nothing that the hero can do without it backfiring. The characters never got guns, but you know that the writer wouldn't have stooped to one of them getting killed because his or her gun got jammed. The writer realized that the story was larger than that. The audience doesn't need manufactured drama in a world in which it has been established that a 60 story, seemingly bulletproof monster with a taste for mammal blood, much less human brains is on the loose. There's plenty there already without resorting to cheese. In fact, it's not until the lead-in to the climax of the movie (it involves a helicopter) that the "bad guy" seemingly singles out the heroes. Previously, Smashy McWrecksALot sort of did his own thing, getting mad at the military for shooting at him and causing people to make allusions to September 11, 2001. Suddenly, something very bad and very focused towards the main characters happens. It takes two-thirds of the movie to finally cave in to the demand that the bad guy single out the heroes. And, all things considered, it's fine by me. The story went that far without something disgustingly coincidental happening, and given the unexpected nature of the actual event, I'm all for it. And, there were B-2 bombers in the sequence, so that's practically a get out of jail card for the writer as far as I'm concerned (though, it wasn't even needed in this case). And none of that required first person "found footage" to work.
"Found footage" adds nothing to the final presentation other than "it was a good movie and the video camera part was cool." I know, that goes against paragraphs and paragraphs of Nate's review, but in the end, it's no different than a movie shot in one take, a movie presented as four simultaneous one-take shots, or a movie presented as a documentary which is definitely not a true documentary. Any adds a touch of "clever" to a movie, but the "traditionals" - directing, writing, acting - are what make it watchable. The Blair Witch Project made it so people were ok with a movie being presented as if footage were found after some event, but it lacked the "traditionals", and ended up being all schtick and no substance. Cloverfield should've been the first "found footage" movie, if only for it to get thought of more highly than The Blair Witch Project for the academic accomplishment of making the concept work.
Nate's Review of Cloverfield gets two stars. Basically, the message is the message. The "medium" may add something to it, but in the end, people are attracted to story and emotion, not technique and the ephemera of film production. In fact, I've always interpreted "the medium is the message" as the medium says more about "where we are" than the message itself. For example, the fact that someone can be in the supermarket, see someone trip over a cracked egg and knock over a ceiling-tall paper towel display, open his telephone, video record the event, then instantly send it to any number of other people to view on their phones, computers, TV's, etc. says more about "our situation" than the fact that a movie was made about a monster using New York City for tackle drills and it was presented as if someone found a video camera. Of course, I've not taken any media theory classes, much less read that guy's book, but that's what I take from his famous quote. And no, when the first mainstream movie presented as if it were "found" cell phone video footage comes out, that's not saying any more about our current state than the fact that Cloverfield just gave the "disaster movie" genre a big F-U middle finger and said "beat that." Cloverfield just realized that the key to connecting to audiences is by turning a huge event (monsters attacking a city) on its ear by focusing on a tiny group who aren't in a position to fix the problem and showing how they handle it and each other. It's always been assumed that a "bigger picture" perspective with a secondary focus on a small group of charismatic characters was needed for a disaster movie, but Cloverfield is proof otherwise, focusing on that small group and barely even addressing the "bigger picture."
Cloverfield itself gets four-and-a-half big stars. As I was walking out of the theater I thought to myself that the story and its presentation completely precluded a sequel (wondering about a sequel is a good sign that the movie was well received) - then re-reading Nate's review, he pointed out that there is plenty of material to be mined from other groups of characters - specifically, not yuppies - affected by the event. As I said above, the movie worked so well by taking a huge event and focusing on a tiny slice of it. This contrasts with Juno, which left me slightly disappointed as it delivered a relatively small event and focused on a small group of characters. (At the risk of digressing, Juno was very good, not great. Witty dialog that writers in their 20's put on the page because they like to think they were that sharp in high school [they weren't] aside, it just seemed like a small story presented on a small scale. The big "drama" event wasn't quite "big" enough. Granted, it wasn't overwrought, but it seemed to play it slightly too safe.)
Nate, Nate, Nate. So many words. The movie didn't "work" because of the medium on which it was delivered. It worked (and worked quite well) because of typical disaster movie conventions (and I don't mean that in a bad way). The "found footage" created a new way to present those conventions; it didn't make them "new," but it serves to create a "wall" in the viewer's mind when he sees the "character presented as initially important dies abruptly and shockingly" so he doesn't say, "wow, this is like every other disaster movie ever." Likewise, the whole "cast in the darkness struggles to find a flashlight, then once they find it, they immediately illuminate something that jumps up and wants to kill/maim/eat them" is perfectly fine - it's been done before. "Found footage" doesn't change the presentation of that event - it's always a point-of-view shot and someone either dies immediately or is injured to the degree of eventually becoming a nuisance (or worse) to the group. I didn't feel any closer to the characters on the screen than with any other well made action/disaster movie. Was it better than "The Day after Tomorrow?" - absolutely, but the difference isn't in the "medium," it's in the competence of the director and the writer to make it compelling. "Found footage" isn't a smokescreen which obfuscates the director's lack of talent or the scenarist's lack of imagination - he's either a good director or not, the script is either good or it isn't.
As I've said, the monster was looking for delicious human brains. Imagine how disappointed it must've been when it realized the meal outside the restaurant wasn't real or life-size. Kind of like a pedophile outside a Bob's Big Boy...yikes. I think that one crossed a line.
Why Cloverfield worked was because of the little decisions made in the screenplay and the directing. There's not "cheese" in the story or the presentation. The "lovey-dovey" story is restrained and as realistic as it could be in a movie about a gigantic lizard making a buffet out of New York. The love story (effectively the pulse of the movie), has as satisfying conclusion as one could hope for, maintaining a reasonable suspension of disbelief inherent is going to the movies. And, no, the "found footage" doesn't assist in building up the suspension of disbelief. Know what? I sat in a movie theater at the beginning of Cloverfield, and I left that same movie theater. I wasn't transported (to a dream world of magic). During the movie, I was still in that same theater. I didn't forget that. I could get "lost" in the movie, but it's happened in plenty of other movies which were not "found footage"-based.
The success of Cloverfield is due to the director and writer not taking any easy ways out (other than the camera battery, walking distances, and other shortcuts necessary for the mechanics of the story - not the story itself, mind you). A less engaging version of this movie would have the disaster "following" the characters instead of the characters more-or-less being in the middle of it. They try to take direction, but in the end, they're at the mercy of the situation, not the screenwriter's goal of killing of some number of characters in 10 minute intervals. It's not an Indiana Jones movie where there is literally nothing that the hero can do without it backfiring. The characters never got guns, but you know that the writer wouldn't have stooped to one of them getting killed because his or her gun got jammed. The writer realized that the story was larger than that. The audience doesn't need manufactured drama in a world in which it has been established that a 60 story, seemingly bulletproof monster with a taste for mammal blood, much less human brains is on the loose. There's plenty there already without resorting to cheese. In fact, it's not until the lead-in to the climax of the movie (it involves a helicopter) that the "bad guy" seemingly singles out the heroes. Previously, Smashy McWrecksALot sort of did his own thing, getting mad at the military for shooting at him and causing people to make allusions to September 11, 2001. Suddenly, something very bad and very focused towards the main characters happens. It takes two-thirds of the movie to finally cave in to the demand that the bad guy single out the heroes. And, all things considered, it's fine by me. The story went that far without something disgustingly coincidental happening, and given the unexpected nature of the actual event, I'm all for it. And, there were B-2 bombers in the sequence, so that's practically a get out of jail card for the writer as far as I'm concerned (though, it wasn't even needed in this case). And none of that required first person "found footage" to work.
"Found footage" adds nothing to the final presentation other than "it was a good movie and the video camera part was cool." I know, that goes against paragraphs and paragraphs of Nate's review, but in the end, it's no different than a movie shot in one take, a movie presented as four simultaneous one-take shots, or a movie presented as a documentary which is definitely not a true documentary. Any adds a touch of "clever" to a movie, but the "traditionals" - directing, writing, acting - are what make it watchable. The Blair Witch Project made it so people were ok with a movie being presented as if footage were found after some event, but it lacked the "traditionals", and ended up being all schtick and no substance. Cloverfield should've been the first "found footage" movie, if only for it to get thought of more highly than The Blair Witch Project for the academic accomplishment of making the concept work.
Nate's Review of Cloverfield gets two stars. Basically, the message is the message. The "medium" may add something to it, but in the end, people are attracted to story and emotion, not technique and the ephemera of film production. In fact, I've always interpreted "the medium is the message" as the medium says more about "where we are" than the message itself. For example, the fact that someone can be in the supermarket, see someone trip over a cracked egg and knock over a ceiling-tall paper towel display, open his telephone, video record the event, then instantly send it to any number of other people to view on their phones, computers, TV's, etc. says more about "our situation" than the fact that a movie was made about a monster using New York City for tackle drills and it was presented as if someone found a video camera. Of course, I've not taken any media theory classes, much less read that guy's book, but that's what I take from his famous quote. And no, when the first mainstream movie presented as if it were "found" cell phone video footage comes out, that's not saying any more about our current state than the fact that Cloverfield just gave the "disaster movie" genre a big F-U middle finger and said "beat that." Cloverfield just realized that the key to connecting to audiences is by turning a huge event (monsters attacking a city) on its ear by focusing on a tiny group who aren't in a position to fix the problem and showing how they handle it and each other. It's always been assumed that a "bigger picture" perspective with a secondary focus on a small group of charismatic characters was needed for a disaster movie, but Cloverfield is proof otherwise, focusing on that small group and barely even addressing the "bigger picture."
Cloverfield itself gets four-and-a-half big stars. As I was walking out of the theater I thought to myself that the story and its presentation completely precluded a sequel (wondering about a sequel is a good sign that the movie was well received) - then re-reading Nate's review, he pointed out that there is plenty of material to be mined from other groups of characters - specifically, not yuppies - affected by the event. As I said above, the movie worked so well by taking a huge event and focusing on a tiny slice of it. This contrasts with Juno, which left me slightly disappointed as it delivered a relatively small event and focused on a small group of characters. (At the risk of digressing, Juno was very good, not great. Witty dialog that writers in their 20's put on the page because they like to think they were that sharp in high school [they weren't] aside, it just seemed like a small story presented on a small scale. The big "drama" event wasn't quite "big" enough. Granted, it wasn't overwrought, but it seemed to play it slightly too safe.)
Throwing Your Vote Away
I don't really believe in voting. I know that's not the most original sentiment and even sounds like the type of overwhelmingly "look how anti-establishment I am - I'm sure that no one else is as serious about it as I am" phrases for which I could call someone out. But, my argument is the same as the usual (it's super-rare for one vote to matter) and the wonderfully apolitical "status quo" thing. Case in point: the big hubbabaloo about the balance of power shifting to the Democrats in Congress last November. A whole lot of nothing has come of that. Iraq is still going on and the president's rather liberal immigration make-over was deeee-nied. Status Quo!
It was kind of like this.
Every November, this leaves me at a cross-roads - what's a better way to waste my vote? To not vote? To go to the booth with zero knowledge of anything going on? Yesterday I chose the latter.
First, let me say that the voting location, The Pennsylvania Institute of Technology, is probably the creepiest set of buildings I've ever seen/been inside. Architecture that screams "stay out," the type of church/chapel that you'd see in a movie where the devil comes back and has his big face-off with a holy warrior, big trees which make creaking sounds at night, and worst, a wholly inadequate access road for fire trucks.
Having manned up enough to get out of my car, I walked around rather aimlessly looking for an entrance to the fortress. No doors were labeled, but I managed to walk into what I learned was the completely wrong wing of a building that I'm sure you'll see on Ghost Hunters in a few years when the county condemns the place. Voting was simple - I signed my name, waited in line with one person in front of me, listened to one of the other voter's 3-year-old scream like a maniac, then was next in line.
I got into the booth which had electronic push buttons, then developed a strategy. I saw there were a lot of women in the races, so simply, for every random guy I voted for, I voted for two random women. I also made a point not to vote for the school board person who registered under both Democrat and Republican. How dare he make a mockery of our two party system! How dare he!
So, having done my part for women's lib., I pressed the green "vote" button to lock it all in, and I had just done my civic duty. Of course, if Delaware County effectively closes down for one week each month due to my voting patterns, maybe I did more harm than good. (I should really be a stand-up comedian.)
Throwing Your Vote Away gets four stars. It sticks it to the man (or maybe the woman, in this case) and gives me slight moral superiority over those that protest voting by completely not voting. Unfortunately, it kind of takes a long time getting there, finding the right entrance, then getting back (especially if the voter in question chose to man-it-out and not actually look to see where the place was, and instead, relied on the "fact" that he could, in his mind's eye, picture the street sign which said "Manchester" though he had no idea where that sign he was remembering actually was.) In terms of doing even more to throw a vote away I have a few options: vote on only one item - so when they talk about about how many people voted, the actual races will have fewer total votes than there were actual voters OR play battleship with the two columns of little lights which glow when you press the candidates' names. Ah, democracy.
It was kind of like this.
Every November, this leaves me at a cross-roads - what's a better way to waste my vote? To not vote? To go to the booth with zero knowledge of anything going on? Yesterday I chose the latter.
First, let me say that the voting location, The Pennsylvania Institute of Technology, is probably the creepiest set of buildings I've ever seen/been inside. Architecture that screams "stay out," the type of church/chapel that you'd see in a movie where the devil comes back and has his big face-off with a holy warrior, big trees which make creaking sounds at night, and worst, a wholly inadequate access road for fire trucks.
Having manned up enough to get out of my car, I walked around rather aimlessly looking for an entrance to the fortress. No doors were labeled, but I managed to walk into what I learned was the completely wrong wing of a building that I'm sure you'll see on Ghost Hunters in a few years when the county condemns the place. Voting was simple - I signed my name, waited in line with one person in front of me, listened to one of the other voter's 3-year-old scream like a maniac, then was next in line.
I got into the booth which had electronic push buttons, then developed a strategy. I saw there were a lot of women in the races, so simply, for every random guy I voted for, I voted for two random women. I also made a point not to vote for the school board person who registered under both Democrat and Republican. How dare he make a mockery of our two party system! How dare he!
So, having done my part for women's lib., I pressed the green "vote" button to lock it all in, and I had just done my civic duty. Of course, if Delaware County effectively closes down for one week each month due to my voting patterns, maybe I did more harm than good. (I should really be a stand-up comedian.)
Throwing Your Vote Away gets four stars. It sticks it to the man (or maybe the woman, in this case) and gives me slight moral superiority over those that protest voting by completely not voting. Unfortunately, it kind of takes a long time getting there, finding the right entrance, then getting back (especially if the voter in question chose to man-it-out and not actually look to see where the place was, and instead, relied on the "fact" that he could, in his mind's eye, picture the street sign which said "Manchester" though he had no idea where that sign he was remembering actually was.) In terms of doing even more to throw a vote away I have a few options: vote on only one item - so when they talk about about how many people voted, the actual races will have fewer total votes than there were actual voters OR play battleship with the two columns of little lights which glow when you press the candidates' names. Ah, democracy.
The 2008 Phillies Alternate Uniforms
The Phillies have been one of the few teams to not have alternate uniforms in the last 15 years; the White Sox have their solid black jerseys, the Diamondbacks have their solid red and solid black, and on and on throughout the league. The Phillies have had an alternate hat the last few years, but it's only worn during the three weeks of interleague games.
For 2008, the Phillies will have a third uniform which will hopefully go over better than their 1979 "Saturday Night Specials" which were worn only once. Basically, the new uniform is the home uniform minus the pin-stripes (and the right arm number) plus a new hat inspired by the 1946 design (the modern "P" is slightly different). Well, in terms of being really picky, the vertical strip on each pant leg is blue-red-blue with the normal home uniforms missing the stripe (would look too busy with the pinstripes) and the current away uniforms having white-red-white stripes on the outside of each pant leg. Notice the blue stroke around all of the copy, the blue-red-blue at the edge of each sleeve and neck as well. These details are reminiscent of the late 90's Blue Jays uniforms.
The verdict? I like them - I've always been a fan of the ill-fated, solid blue alternate hats worn for about a month in 1994 because the 1993+ uniforms have always been very, very red, with no other colors except the blue stars dotting the "i's" and the blue button on top of the hat. Blue's seen in the batting practice jerseys and hats, but they're definitely not the image of the team. I would prefer the brim to be solid blue to match the rest of the hat instead of being red, but it is an obvious throwback to the hats of the late 40's. (I think a better choice would be solid blue with the stylized logo of the current alternate hats but with a white "P" and red star to create a disturbingly complete symmetry between the home and alternate hats, but oh well - that combination would probably be a bit much, if not unnecessary.)
I guess it comes down to whether these new alternate uniforms are more interesting than the 70's/80's maroon design. The Brewers wear their wildly popular 80's uniforms on Friday night home games, and I'm sure that lots of Phillies fans would like them to do the same, but let's leave those for turn-back-the-clock games instead of being a normal part of the rotation. The 2008 Phillies Alternate Uniforms get four stars: they're obviously not a risky choice, and I'm sure lots of people will buy a replica when they're available, so good work to the design team responsble for not copping out and settling on just a solid red jersey with white pants to match pretty much every other team in the league.
If you're at all interested in uniform-related stuff, be sure to check out http://uniwatchblog.com, a daily-updated blog on the topic.
For 2008, the Phillies will have a third uniform which will hopefully go over better than their 1979 "Saturday Night Specials" which were worn only once. Basically, the new uniform is the home uniform minus the pin-stripes (and the right arm number) plus a new hat inspired by the 1946 design (the modern "P" is slightly different). Well, in terms of being really picky, the vertical strip on each pant leg is blue-red-blue with the normal home uniforms missing the stripe (would look too busy with the pinstripes) and the current away uniforms having white-red-white stripes on the outside of each pant leg. Notice the blue stroke around all of the copy, the blue-red-blue at the edge of each sleeve and neck as well. These details are reminiscent of the late 90's Blue Jays uniforms.
The verdict? I like them - I've always been a fan of the ill-fated, solid blue alternate hats worn for about a month in 1994 because the 1993+ uniforms have always been very, very red, with no other colors except the blue stars dotting the "i's" and the blue button on top of the hat. Blue's seen in the batting practice jerseys and hats, but they're definitely not the image of the team. I would prefer the brim to be solid blue to match the rest of the hat instead of being red, but it is an obvious throwback to the hats of the late 40's. (I think a better choice would be solid blue with the stylized logo of the current alternate hats but with a white "P" and red star to create a disturbingly complete symmetry between the home and alternate hats, but oh well - that combination would probably be a bit much, if not unnecessary.)
I guess it comes down to whether these new alternate uniforms are more interesting than the 70's/80's maroon design. The Brewers wear their wildly popular 80's uniforms on Friday night home games, and I'm sure that lots of Phillies fans would like them to do the same, but let's leave those for turn-back-the-clock games instead of being a normal part of the rotation. The 2008 Phillies Alternate Uniforms get four stars: they're obviously not a risky choice, and I'm sure lots of people will buy a replica when they're available, so good work to the design team responsble for not copping out and settling on just a solid red jersey with white pants to match pretty much every other team in the league.
If you're at all interested in uniform-related stuff, be sure to check out http://uniwatchblog.com, a daily-updated blog on the topic.