Author Archive
Rubbie’s Southside Bar and Grill (Louisville, KY)
[consider this line the token "and we'll start to write more frequently...I promise"]
According to whatever research I had done, Kentucky is famous for barbecue. Judging from the competitive grilling shows that I've seen (not a joke), my memory tells me that Kentucky barbecue is all about the sauce and St. Louis barbecue is all about the spice rub. I'm a sauce guy, having frequently talked people's ears off and began awkward conversations about one's favorite barbecue sauces until my sauce enthusiasm overtook the underwhelmed victim's interest and desire to continue the conversation. And people wonder why I'm awkward around girls. (well, that and the fact that I have/run a website)
My class knows no bounds. Neither does my belt size.
With a GPS unit with a "barbecue" category in the "food" menu. (You tell it what kind of food you want, it tells you how to get there. Kind of like a reverse drive-thru, I guess.) We randomly picked the fourth item, "Rubbie's." In two hours later hindsight, I'm not sure why I, as a sauce guy, would agree to a place called "Rubbie's," but I guess I thought it was "Ruby's" but spelled incorrectly.
My traveling companion gave the typical "if it looks awful, we're going somewhere else." I'm not familiar with Louisville at all (nor should I be, thank the FSM), so it was just a point on a map of uncertainty as far as I was concerned. Pulling up, indeed, it didn't look too special. Rather divey, but in a quaint, people playing beanbags and poker outside of the place sort of way. I'm not picky, so it worked for me. I don't get much out of the whole "rustic" charm thing (people who do should replace their toilets with outhouses, to make sure they're getting the full effect of what they claim to love), but more than anything else, I didn't want to pick yet another arbitrary place in the list of restaurants of unknown quality.
I don't review ambiance, but in short, there wasn't much. A food critic would include an overly colorful sentence about how "in the evening, the characterless walls and booths achieve a sense of ghostly familiarity as the drinks and conversations ebb and flow." The menu was small, with the barbecue section tucked in a corner of the menu. There were the typical barbecue offerings: pulled pork, brisket, wings, and ribs. I picked the full rack of ribs (a whopping $12.50, which is the absolute lowest I've ever seen for a full rack of ribs), and my traveling partner chose the small pulled pork sandwich ($4.50). Sides selected were steak fries and onion rings, though considering my future held large quantities of meat, I laid off the fried things.
At my advanced age, I'm not prone to hyperbole, especially related to food, but (say it with me) it was truly nothing short of incredible. The meat wasn't "fall off the bone tender," but I have four pointy teeth for a reason. In full caveman mode, I pretty much destroyed both of the racks, using the two supplied sauces liberally. Well, actually I pretty much focused on the "normal" sauce; the "hot" was so intense that had I used of it, I would've had to go to a hospital and a church, and probably not in that order. The "normal" sauce was like none I've had before: much more molasses than I was used to, but not overwhelmingly tangy. It had bite, but no kick. They left the kicking for the bottle of "hot."
The pulled pork was equally good (though in all honesty, I'm not a big pulled-pork fan). Perfectly tender and not at all chewy. There was some sort of smoke-aging present in both meats, but I can't tell Mesquite from whatever else would be used for it, so I'll just leave it at "the smoky flavor added a lot to the natural taste of the pork."
Cheapskate or not, this is probably the most amazing part:
The total for two people was $20.13. And that includes tax. There wasn't any alcohol on the tab (which screws up any cost comparisons), but that's border-line ridiculous for both the amount of and quality of food presented.
And finally, the weakness of my Constitution is known all the way from here to Hong Kong, and it looks like I've finally found a barbecue place which doesn't much any/much garlic in their sauce. This means that right now, my body isn't trying to destroy itself to punish me for my foolhardiness, and that's a first for getting barbecue at any restaurant.
Rubbie's Southside Bar and Grill gets five BIG stars. Great food, better prices, and bean bags if necessary.
Their address:
Rubbie's Southside Bar and Grill
6905 Southside Drive
Louisville, KY 40214
502-367-0007
Also, I drove by what might be the worst house location I've ever seen: they've got amusement park screamers not far from their backyard, an airport across the street, and the "street" is an interstate. Too bad a railroad crossing isn't in their backyard and the hog rendering plant a few blocks upwind closed last summer...
According to whatever research I had done, Kentucky is famous for barbecue. Judging from the competitive grilling shows that I've seen (not a joke), my memory tells me that Kentucky barbecue is all about the sauce and St. Louis barbecue is all about the spice rub. I'm a sauce guy, having frequently talked people's ears off and began awkward conversations about one's favorite barbecue sauces until my sauce enthusiasm overtook the underwhelmed victim's interest and desire to continue the conversation. And people wonder why I'm awkward around girls. (well, that and the fact that I have/run a website)
My class knows no bounds. Neither does my belt size.
With a GPS unit with a "barbecue" category in the "food" menu. (You tell it what kind of food you want, it tells you how to get there. Kind of like a reverse drive-thru, I guess.) We randomly picked the fourth item, "Rubbie's." In two hours later hindsight, I'm not sure why I, as a sauce guy, would agree to a place called "Rubbie's," but I guess I thought it was "Ruby's" but spelled incorrectly.
My traveling companion gave the typical "if it looks awful, we're going somewhere else." I'm not familiar with Louisville at all (nor should I be, thank the FSM), so it was just a point on a map of uncertainty as far as I was concerned. Pulling up, indeed, it didn't look too special. Rather divey, but in a quaint, people playing beanbags and poker outside of the place sort of way. I'm not picky, so it worked for me. I don't get much out of the whole "rustic" charm thing (people who do should replace their toilets with outhouses, to make sure they're getting the full effect of what they claim to love), but more than anything else, I didn't want to pick yet another arbitrary place in the list of restaurants of unknown quality.
I don't review ambiance, but in short, there wasn't much. A food critic would include an overly colorful sentence about how "in the evening, the characterless walls and booths achieve a sense of ghostly familiarity as the drinks and conversations ebb and flow." The menu was small, with the barbecue section tucked in a corner of the menu. There were the typical barbecue offerings: pulled pork, brisket, wings, and ribs. I picked the full rack of ribs (a whopping $12.50, which is the absolute lowest I've ever seen for a full rack of ribs), and my traveling partner chose the small pulled pork sandwich ($4.50). Sides selected were steak fries and onion rings, though considering my future held large quantities of meat, I laid off the fried things.
At my advanced age, I'm not prone to hyperbole, especially related to food, but (say it with me) it was truly nothing short of incredible. The meat wasn't "fall off the bone tender," but I have four pointy teeth for a reason. In full caveman mode, I pretty much destroyed both of the racks, using the two supplied sauces liberally. Well, actually I pretty much focused on the "normal" sauce; the "hot" was so intense that had I used of it, I would've had to go to a hospital and a church, and probably not in that order. The "normal" sauce was like none I've had before: much more molasses than I was used to, but not overwhelmingly tangy. It had bite, but no kick. They left the kicking for the bottle of "hot."
The pulled pork was equally good (though in all honesty, I'm not a big pulled-pork fan). Perfectly tender and not at all chewy. There was some sort of smoke-aging present in both meats, but I can't tell Mesquite from whatever else would be used for it, so I'll just leave it at "the smoky flavor added a lot to the natural taste of the pork."
Cheapskate or not, this is probably the most amazing part:
The total for two people was $20.13. And that includes tax. There wasn't any alcohol on the tab (which screws up any cost comparisons), but that's border-line ridiculous for both the amount of and quality of food presented.
And finally, the weakness of my Constitution is known all the way from here to Hong Kong, and it looks like I've finally found a barbecue place which doesn't much any/much garlic in their sauce. This means that right now, my body isn't trying to destroy itself to punish me for my foolhardiness, and that's a first for getting barbecue at any restaurant.
Rubbie's Southside Bar and Grill gets five BIG stars. Great food, better prices, and bean bags if necessary.
Their address:
Rubbie's Southside Bar and Grill
6905 Southside Drive
Louisville, KY 40214
502-367-0007
Also, I drove by what might be the worst house location I've ever seen: they've got amusement park screamers not far from their backyard, an airport across the street, and the "street" is an interstate. Too bad a railroad crossing isn't in their backyard and the hog rendering plant a few blocks upwind closed last summer...
People Who Say “Cheers” Instead of “Goodbye”
Special note on the title: I figured that there must be an opposite of the word "greeting," and it turns out it's "valediction." Instead of using a houty-touty word such as that, I've grouped everything into the serves-all "goodbye." You're welcome.
I saw some of the MTV Movie Awards tonight, and Johnny Depp, accepting Best Performance for Pirates of the Caribbean 2 (Piratey-Boogaloo), did the normal awards-show spiel after receiving a lengthy standing ovation from the audience. Nothing out of the ordinary... except, instead of ending his speech with "thanks," "bye," or even the 'look at me, I'm World traveller' and I want you to know it, "Ciao," he dropped this gem: "Cheers." What is this world coming to. And that's not a question. Given the wide variety of ways to say "goodbye" (even some that serve to combine it with a "thanks" aspect), he has to give the trendy, pretentious "cheers."
Cheers, hippy
Let Johnny Depp serve as an example for the problems with the phrase, but his usage was no more egregious than any others'. I take exception with this expression for three reasons:
1) "Cheers" is a drinking-related saying. That's fine, but this what at an awards show, not a restaurant. It wasn't even the Golden Globes which (obviously) serves alcohol. This is the biggest issue - it makes no sense.
2) It reeks (REEKS!) of Eurotrash and, even worse, Americans who wish they were Eurotrash. You know these people - they refer to manual transmissions as "standard" and call elevators "lifts" just so you can make a weird face at them to which they respond by saying these exact words (every time): "I was in London, and that's what the call them in London."
3) I'd like to take credit for being part of the cusp of the expression "not so much." In fact, my earliest documented utterance of the phrase was way back in July of 2004. I challenge anyone to beat that. I'm not claiming to be first, but I'd like to think I beat any of you seven reading this to the punch. How is this related to "cheers?" Well, tangentially at best. I guess I'm just a little bitter, and my lexicographic warning radar is going of like crazy about the soon-to-be "cheers" phenomenon. Consider this my warning to people who want to keep European lingo where it belongs.
People Who Say "Cheers" Instead of "Goodbye" get ZERO stars. The English language has hundreds of thousands of words, and provides myriad tools for making up words (such as "spamera" - n. a digital camera used to take pictures which will later be e-mailed to everyone the camera owner knows, but no one will look at. Usage: "Yeah, my mom is unfortunately bringing her spamera to my nephew's pre-school graduation next weekend, so I'm definitely going to spend time familiarizing myself with the delete button in my e-mail program.") Hmm. That's actually a pretty good made-up word. Anyway. Lots of words, easy to make-up new ones. Does the bowel of the English language that is the British dialect really need to be given a colonic every time someone decides that he's too cool for "bye" or "thanks?"
I saw some of the MTV Movie Awards tonight, and Johnny Depp, accepting Best Performance for Pirates of the Caribbean 2 (Piratey-Boogaloo), did the normal awards-show spiel after receiving a lengthy standing ovation from the audience. Nothing out of the ordinary... except, instead of ending his speech with "thanks," "bye," or even the 'look at me, I'm World traveller' and I want you to know it, "Ciao," he dropped this gem: "Cheers." What is this world coming to. And that's not a question. Given the wide variety of ways to say "goodbye" (even some that serve to combine it with a "thanks" aspect), he has to give the trendy, pretentious "cheers."
Cheers, hippy
Let Johnny Depp serve as an example for the problems with the phrase, but his usage was no more egregious than any others'. I take exception with this expression for three reasons:
1) "Cheers" is a drinking-related saying. That's fine, but this what at an awards show, not a restaurant. It wasn't even the Golden Globes which (obviously) serves alcohol. This is the biggest issue - it makes no sense.
2) It reeks (REEKS!) of Eurotrash and, even worse, Americans who wish they were Eurotrash. You know these people - they refer to manual transmissions as "standard" and call elevators "lifts" just so you can make a weird face at them to which they respond by saying these exact words (every time): "I was in London, and that's what the call them in London."
3) I'd like to take credit for being part of the cusp of the expression "not so much." In fact, my earliest documented utterance of the phrase was way back in July of 2004. I challenge anyone to beat that. I'm not claiming to be first, but I'd like to think I beat any of you seven reading this to the punch. How is this related to "cheers?" Well, tangentially at best. I guess I'm just a little bitter, and my lexicographic warning radar is going of like crazy about the soon-to-be "cheers" phenomenon. Consider this my warning to people who want to keep European lingo where it belongs.
People Who Say "Cheers" Instead of "Goodbye" get ZERO stars. The English language has hundreds of thousands of words, and provides myriad tools for making up words (such as "spamera" - n. a digital camera used to take pictures which will later be e-mailed to everyone the camera owner knows, but no one will look at. Usage: "Yeah, my mom is unfortunately bringing her spamera to my nephew's pre-school graduation next weekend, so I'm definitely going to spend time familiarizing myself with the delete button in my e-mail program.") Hmm. That's actually a pretty good made-up word. Anyway. Lots of words, easy to make-up new ones. Does the bowel of the English language that is the British dialect really need to be given a colonic every time someone decides that he's too cool for "bye" or "thanks?"
Comic Book Movies Being True to Comic Book Books (aka Spiderman 3)
First things first, I don't normally care about the "cleanliness" of a comic book's translation from paper to film. I think it's good that Sentinels weren't in the X-Men movies, that the Joker killed Bruce Wayne's parents in the 1989 Batman movie, and that Peter Parker was magically able to shoot webbing from his wrists after getting bit by a spider (as opposed to him constructing webshooters with his nerdy science skills). Long story short, "the internet (comic book branch)" finds it egregious - in fact, here's someone's take on the fact that the comic book has incorporated the detail from the movie. Blasphemy! [the most fundamental aspect of why these "internet people" are wrong is as follows: the movies go out of their way towards unenjoyable awkwardness establishing Peter Parker as an awkward science nerd. Having him construct webshooters in the movies is wholly unnecessary. There are no doubts about just how nerdy he is in the movies.]
Lycra and rain, never a good mix.
As a disclaimer, it's been a long while since my comic book "phase" - upwards of 10+ years. I was into Spider-Man when I was little, maybe 6 or so. This would've been too young to really process any of it beyond see that he was a guy who could walk on walls and stuff like that. (To really feel old, let me mention that I had Spider-Man read-along record and book set that I practically memorized.) My comic book interest followed the 1991 re-launch of X-Men, The Death of Superman, DC vs. Marvel, and ended with the Age of Apocalypse. As always, ladies, take a number. Anyway, I'm no expert on Spider-Man, and to the horror of true believers, most of my Spider-Man background comes from the cartoon show and the video game Maximum Carnage.
Now, I don't care about the whole "webshooters" thing - the argument that Mary-Jane in the movies is actually Gwen Stacey is even weaker. But, when there are little interesting details in the story (which would be in no small part inspired by the comics), why not include them? The Sentinel head in the third X-Men movie didn't require any explanation: it wasn't important to the plot and it was just a random thing for those who've never read the comics or seen the TV show, but it's a neat little thing to put on the screen for five seconds.
The Spiderman movies are probably the most appealing comic book movies for non-comic book people. That's fine. The movies are a bit cheerier in style than the X-Men movies or Superman Returns, but they work to the tune of what will soon be more than one billion dollars. Anyway, enough of this disjointed mess. Here's what's right or wrong with the movie (from a "movie" point of view, regardless of the comics) and a tiny little thing that would've added a lot to it.
I'm about to ruin the movie for you, if you've not seen it:
1. If you really liked the first two, you'll really like this one.
2. After Sandman was "killed" the first time, there was no longer any plot. There was the lovey-dovey stuff, but that's absolutely a side-show to the Spiderman story. If they wanted to make a romantic drama (it definitely wasn't funny enough to be even a marginal romantic comedy -- except the French waiter scene... HI-larious), they wouldn't spend $250 million on an action movie.
3. Venom, about whom "the internet" was crazy, was never mentioned by name and didn't show up until 20 minutes before the end and only came into being by a stupid (stupid) coincidence. I don't care how he came to be in the comics (Secret Wars, space, etc.), but the movie dumbed it down too much. Even someone who's never heard the story would say that it's stupid.
4. Here's my little detail (also Venom-related): the movie never called him by that name (that's fine), but the whole symbiote thing (in the comics and TV show) made it so he always talked in the first person plural, leading to the following exchange. "Who are you?" - "We are Venom." Now really, how tough would it have been to include that? Instead, they wanted to humanize their villains and frequently show Eddie Brock appear through the suit. Now really, does this movie need its villains to be any more humanized with Sandman ("I did it by accident, but even so, it was for my sick daughter"), (New) Green Goblin ("I got amnesia and love you guys. Wait, you killed my dad. Wait, no you didn't because my butler finally told me the truth after I spent millions of dollars assembling a woefully impractical flying glider and pumpkin-shaped grenade launcher."), and Eddie "slimy, but not evil until the last 20 minutes of the movie" Brock? Oh wait, Spider-Man himself is over-the-top "deep" as well. It's not complexity, it's painting in shades of grey because it keeps everyone smiling. Redemption for the win!
Comic Book Movies Being True to Comic Book Books (aka Spiderman 3) gets two-and-a-half stars because there are some things that enhance a story, but for the most part, the correct decisions in terms of translating from "page to screen" are made. The Starjammers have no place in the serious, grounded in a sort-of reality (within reason) X-Men movies, so distilling the Dark Phoenix Saga into a silhouette in a lake and a crazy chick in X-Men 2 and 3 worked wonders for making money. But, that isn't to say that there aren't cool little details that shouldn't be added. For example, Spider-Man's black suit looks a whole lot snazzier with a big white spider on it than with grey details, but oh well...
Lycra and rain, never a good mix.
As a disclaimer, it's been a long while since my comic book "phase" - upwards of 10+ years. I was into Spider-Man when I was little, maybe 6 or so. This would've been too young to really process any of it beyond see that he was a guy who could walk on walls and stuff like that. (To really feel old, let me mention that I had Spider-Man read-along record and book set that I practically memorized.) My comic book interest followed the 1991 re-launch of X-Men, The Death of Superman, DC vs. Marvel, and ended with the Age of Apocalypse. As always, ladies, take a number. Anyway, I'm no expert on Spider-Man, and to the horror of true believers, most of my Spider-Man background comes from the cartoon show and the video game Maximum Carnage.
Now, I don't care about the whole "webshooters" thing - the argument that Mary-Jane in the movies is actually Gwen Stacey is even weaker. But, when there are little interesting details in the story (which would be in no small part inspired by the comics), why not include them? The Sentinel head in the third X-Men movie didn't require any explanation: it wasn't important to the plot and it was just a random thing for those who've never read the comics or seen the TV show, but it's a neat little thing to put on the screen for five seconds.
The Spiderman movies are probably the most appealing comic book movies for non-comic book people. That's fine. The movies are a bit cheerier in style than the X-Men movies or Superman Returns, but they work to the tune of what will soon be more than one billion dollars. Anyway, enough of this disjointed mess. Here's what's right or wrong with the movie (from a "movie" point of view, regardless of the comics) and a tiny little thing that would've added a lot to it.
I'm about to ruin the movie for you, if you've not seen it:
1. If you really liked the first two, you'll really like this one.
2. After Sandman was "killed" the first time, there was no longer any plot. There was the lovey-dovey stuff, but that's absolutely a side-show to the Spiderman story. If they wanted to make a romantic drama (it definitely wasn't funny enough to be even a marginal romantic comedy -- except the French waiter scene... HI-larious), they wouldn't spend $250 million on an action movie.
3. Venom, about whom "the internet" was crazy, was never mentioned by name and didn't show up until 20 minutes before the end and only came into being by a stupid (stupid) coincidence. I don't care how he came to be in the comics (Secret Wars, space, etc.), but the movie dumbed it down too much. Even someone who's never heard the story would say that it's stupid.
4. Here's my little detail (also Venom-related): the movie never called him by that name (that's fine), but the whole symbiote thing (in the comics and TV show) made it so he always talked in the first person plural, leading to the following exchange. "Who are you?" - "We are Venom." Now really, how tough would it have been to include that? Instead, they wanted to humanize their villains and frequently show Eddie Brock appear through the suit. Now really, does this movie need its villains to be any more humanized with Sandman ("I did it by accident, but even so, it was for my sick daughter"), (New) Green Goblin ("I got amnesia and love you guys. Wait, you killed my dad. Wait, no you didn't because my butler finally told me the truth after I spent millions of dollars assembling a woefully impractical flying glider and pumpkin-shaped grenade launcher."), and Eddie "slimy, but not evil until the last 20 minutes of the movie" Brock? Oh wait, Spider-Man himself is over-the-top "deep" as well. It's not complexity, it's painting in shades of grey because it keeps everyone smiling. Redemption for the win!
Comic Book Movies Being True to Comic Book Books (aka Spiderman 3) gets two-and-a-half stars because there are some things that enhance a story, but for the most part, the correct decisions in terms of translating from "page to screen" are made. The Starjammers have no place in the serious, grounded in a sort-of reality (within reason) X-Men movies, so distilling the Dark Phoenix Saga into a silhouette in a lake and a crazy chick in X-Men 2 and 3 worked wonders for making money. But, that isn't to say that there aren't cool little details that shouldn't be added. For example, Spider-Man's black suit looks a whole lot snazzier with a big white spider on it than with grey details, but oh well...
The End of Scrubs
Update 3 (1+ weeks later): The ad during tonight's SNL 90's retrospective billed this week's episode as "only three episodes until the season finale. I guess that's that.
Update 2 (four days later): So, it looks like NBC is advertising this week's Scrubs as being the first of "the last 3." Hmm. They even emphasized the "last 3" section. Heck, they made mention of characters making the "biggest mistake of their lives", then showing Elliot and Keith's wedding scene then JD looking emotive (as usual).
Update (ten minutes after posting): I guess I should check Wikipedia (of all places) before I start posting things I think are facts. Looks like NBC has yet to officially renew the show, but according to Zach Braff himself, ABC is willing to air the last season if NBC does not renew it. Media watchers, don't worry, I've added the "journalistic integrity" category to this entry. Regardless, I stand by my comments about this season.
I haven't seen this reported anywhere else online (yet), but during a teaser for tonight's episode of Scrubs during The Office, the voice over announcer said something like, "the first of the last four Scrubs episodes." It was said that the show's status was up in the air, then there were stories about NBC throwing huge sums of money at Zach Braff to get him to come back for one more year. Well, I guess that didn't turn out so hot. And that's a good thing.
You might remember my epic review of Scrubs last year as being one of three notable parts of "the current TV landscape," so me thinking that the show might be capital "O" Over might not make any sense. Simply, if you've watched the show at all this season, you understand. Not just "not quite the same as older episodes," the first 10 or so episodes were awful. Dreadful, painful-to-watch TV. Mind you, this isn't like the-Simpson's-were-better-back-when thinking, where old episodes are more thought of as a collective period of time rather than individual examples of the series strengths. Just last season could be considered "classic Scrubs." Who knows why, but this season didn't get watchable until about episode 13, with one of the first twelve episodes being a brutal clip show and the other being a show about the newer Iraq war which served only to get politically simple people to say, "Wow, they really brought a new voice to the argument." Oh yeah, one of the pre-13 episodes was a highly hyped musical episode. It was tedious, so say the best.
Last year, I wrote that with Turk and Carla's baby and JD's impending fatherhood, the characters and show were growing up, and the show wasn't about grown-ups who acted grown-up. This should've been an occasion to use this season to wrap things up, but instead, Carla got an after school special version of post-partem depression, recovered from it, then the baby all-but disappeared from the show (a fair move - the show's not about babies). Also, JD's impending fatherhood/implied-eventual marriage was thrown out the window with the good, old-fashioned "tell the long distance dad-to-be that mommy had a miscarriage, but actually lie about it" move. It's like putting drama in a piggy bank.
All that said, the recent episodes have been solid, but the show's been on since 2001 (yikes, that's a long time for a show most people have never watched), doesn't have many viewers, became self-aware about how limited the main character was last year, and gave a potential setup for a season-long arc about JD "growing up" at the end of last season, then blew it. Of course, Scrubs is practically the template for wrapping things up efficiently and poetically (with indie music playing in the background, of course), and the series finale would pack a doozy, I'm sure [not sarcasm]. Considering that the writers did one of the tidiest jobs ever of removing a "Ross/Rachel" relationship from a show in a gutsy, (female) viewer alienating move at the end of season three, the slight (maybe unintentional) tension between JD and Elliot was a bit out of place on tonight's episode, who knows if they'll go that route, though Elliot's boyfriend proposed to her to end of the episode.
The End of Scrubs gets four stars because it's about darn time, but loses a star because it could've been setup better considering how last season ended.
I'm thinking about it some more, and maybe the voice-over lady during the promo meant they were the last four episodes of the season, but one can hope. Still, the show is responsible for one of the best ever TV moments, so I guess they're entitled one more season...
Update 2 (four days later): So, it looks like NBC is advertising this week's Scrubs as being the first of "the last 3." Hmm. They even emphasized the "last 3" section. Heck, they made mention of characters making the "biggest mistake of their lives", then showing Elliot and Keith's wedding scene then JD looking emotive (as usual).
Update (ten minutes after posting): I guess I should check Wikipedia (of all places) before I start posting things I think are facts. Looks like NBC has yet to officially renew the show, but according to Zach Braff himself, ABC is willing to air the last season if NBC does not renew it. Media watchers, don't worry, I've added the "journalistic integrity" category to this entry. Regardless, I stand by my comments about this season.
I haven't seen this reported anywhere else online (yet), but during a teaser for tonight's episode of Scrubs during The Office, the voice over announcer said something like, "the first of the last four Scrubs episodes." It was said that the show's status was up in the air, then there were stories about NBC throwing huge sums of money at Zach Braff to get him to come back for one more year. Well, I guess that didn't turn out so hot. And that's a good thing.
You might remember my epic review of Scrubs last year as being one of three notable parts of "the current TV landscape," so me thinking that the show might be capital "O" Over might not make any sense. Simply, if you've watched the show at all this season, you understand. Not just "not quite the same as older episodes," the first 10 or so episodes were awful. Dreadful, painful-to-watch TV. Mind you, this isn't like the-Simpson's-were-better-back-when thinking, where old episodes are more thought of as a collective period of time rather than individual examples of the series strengths. Just last season could be considered "classic Scrubs." Who knows why, but this season didn't get watchable until about episode 13, with one of the first twelve episodes being a brutal clip show and the other being a show about the newer Iraq war which served only to get politically simple people to say, "Wow, they really brought a new voice to the argument." Oh yeah, one of the pre-13 episodes was a highly hyped musical episode. It was tedious, so say the best.
Last year, I wrote that with Turk and Carla's baby and JD's impending fatherhood, the characters and show were growing up, and the show wasn't about grown-ups who acted grown-up. This should've been an occasion to use this season to wrap things up, but instead, Carla got an after school special version of post-partem depression, recovered from it, then the baby all-but disappeared from the show (a fair move - the show's not about babies). Also, JD's impending fatherhood/implied-eventual marriage was thrown out the window with the good, old-fashioned "tell the long distance dad-to-be that mommy had a miscarriage, but actually lie about it" move. It's like putting drama in a piggy bank.
All that said, the recent episodes have been solid, but the show's been on since 2001 (yikes, that's a long time for a show most people have never watched), doesn't have many viewers, became self-aware about how limited the main character was last year, and gave a potential setup for a season-long arc about JD "growing up" at the end of last season, then blew it. Of course, Scrubs is practically the template for wrapping things up efficiently and poetically (with indie music playing in the background, of course), and the series finale would pack a doozy, I'm sure [not sarcasm]. Considering that the writers did one of the tidiest jobs ever of removing a "Ross/Rachel" relationship from a show in a gutsy, (female) viewer alienating move at the end of season three, the slight (maybe unintentional) tension between JD and Elliot was a bit out of place on tonight's episode, who knows if they'll go that route, though Elliot's boyfriend proposed to her to end of the episode.
The End of Scrubs gets four stars because it's about darn time, but loses a star because it could've been setup better considering how last season ended.
I'm thinking about it some more, and maybe the voice-over lady during the promo meant they were the last four episodes of the season, but one can hope. Still, the show is responsible for one of the best ever TV moments, so I guess they're entitled one more season...
Best Song Ever?: Magic (Ben Folds Five)
Another in the "Best Song Ever?" series. Simply, I give the background, a point, a counterpoint, then star rating for songs that I have on my list of "good songs" with the goal of deciding what's the best song ever. Note for those using feedreaders: the song is embedded on this review's entry so there's a point-of-reference in the review; you might want to view this entry from the webpage instead of the feed.
Background
I was really never a fan of Ben Folds Five. I thought "Brick" was catchy in its own way, way back when (1995?). I never followed Ben Folds Five, but I knew the band ceased to exist sometime between 1995 and 2000, with Ben Folds going out on his own, making CD's that sounded just like when he was in "Ben Folds Five." (I had no problem with it, I just wasn't into it.) I randomly (very randomly) heard the song, "Magic" sometime in the fall of 2005 on WMUH. I didn't know what it was when I heard it (I had missed the DJ's intro), so I scribbled down some of the lyrics to look up later on the internet. Turns out that this was the mystery song. +1 for college radio.
For
Background
I was really never a fan of Ben Folds Five. I thought "Brick" was catchy in its own way, way back when (1995?). I never followed Ben Folds Five, but I knew the band ceased to exist sometime between 1995 and 2000, with Ben Folds going out on his own, making CD's that sounded just like when he was in "Ben Folds Five." (I had no problem with it, I just wasn't into it.) I randomly (very randomly) heard the song, "Magic" sometime in the fall of 2005 on WMUH. I didn't know what it was when I heard it (I had missed the DJ's intro), so I scribbled down some of the lyrics to look up later on the internet. Turns out that this was the mystery song. +1 for college radio.
For
- Shows that playing "around" chords and a pleasant melody can get you pretty far as a singer-songwriter. (yes, I'm aware that being that he had a backing band, this isn't really a "singer-songwriter" type song). For what it's worth, the song was actually written by the drummer, Darren Jessee, so it's not necessarily a "Ben Folds" song.
- The viola playing the bottom of the chords in a nice touch during the first verse.
- It's in 6/8. None of the pedestrian 4/4 stuff here, thank you very much.
- The soft-loud-soft dynamic is used to good effect here. (see "against")
- 2:12 - At the risk of venturing into girliness, the line "You're the magic that holds the sky up" really gets the point of that whole "love" thing. It's not a metaphor, there's nothing really figurative to it, I'm not sure it's even symbolic, but it's just a gentle exaggeration which gets the point across rather well.
- For the love of God, who thought it would be a good idea to have the timpani levels so loud. If you've turned up your head phones to hear the first verse, the timpani is seriously "damage your ears and headphones" loud. Why, why, why? Studio engineers:The enhanced dynamic range offered by CD's is a privilege, not a right. Don't abuse it.
- Again, the timpani. If anyone has his or her bass turned up (most people usually do), the two timpani entrances (combined with the relative quiet of the first verse) will cause noticeable clipping because of their volume. Again, why?
- The string section is a bit gratuitous. A single viola, violin, or cello would be ok, but with all of them, it gets a little heavy sounding.
I've got a fever and the only prescription is louder timpani. No one would ever say that, even jokingly making reference to a Saturday Night Live sketch. The slightly over-the-top string section can be forgiven, but when the mixing of a song calls attention to itself, someone should be fired. Jarring dynamic changes are one thing; being unpleasant to listen to is another. It gets 4 out of 5, because of the quality of the song, but the mixing should really give it an "NA" for its rating.
Against
Inadvertently Recreating a Scene from Garden State
Though each time I go to China, I make a pledge to write many reviews (usually a stretch where I've written very few) and not follow through, I'll quietly imply that same pledge now, and begin and start here.
With the fact that flying to China from the U.S. is an awful experience, many of my co-workers get small prescriptions (2 or 3 pills total) for sleeping medicine. I'm not a big fan of taking even over-the-counter taking medicine as it is (my family has a history of awesomeness), but the flight is just plain awful for 15+ hours at a time. With that in mind, I stopped at CVS the night before my trip and purchased a bottle of Advil PM, not exactly prescription sleeping pills per se, but maybe they'd help a little bit.
Potential captions for this picture
1) No, not this scene.
2) I'm dark and brooding, too!
3) Because if the girl on the far left weren't touching his hand, he'd return to the land of lollipops and gumdrops.
Skipping ahead to being on the plane between Chicago and Hong Kong (China), the first (of like 7 drink services - the flight is that long) came through, and international flights serve alcoholic drinks free. For whatever reason (maybe because it seems poetic), sleeping pills are "supposed" to be taken with red wine. Sure, the package explicitly says "do not mix with alcohol," but I want to be dramatic, darn it. I get a 175mL mini-bottle (about half of a soda can) of red wine from a whichever vintner in California was willing to offer United Airlines wine at 3rd world prices. I take two Advil PM pills, then finish the bottle of wine.
Now, I had to be at the Allentown airport at 5:15am, so as one could imagine, I was pretty tired to begin with but rather uncomfortable because of the whole "being on an airplane" thing. I started noticing the fact that I had drunk wine, then shortly thereafter, went from lazy-feeling because of the wine to full-out, "boy, I'm starting to feel more sleepy than I was before." This turned into, "wow, I really don't feel like moving, but I'm not sleepy. Ooh, look how interesting the wall in front of me is."
So, for about an hour (I think - it was about half of the movie "Marie Antoinette") I sat there, dazed staring at the wall in front of me on the airplane as other passengers did their business, getting things from their stowed luggage, heading to the facilities, taking little strolls down the aisle. It's like the chemicals had slowed me down to the point of not being able to process the outside world my choices had made it so life was passing me by. Oh no, I was inadvertently recreating a scene from Garden State!
Extra bonus points for providing which Scrubs episode ending on a similar note to my ending.
Inadvertently Recreating a Scene from Garden State receives two-and-a-half stars for, well, I'm not sure. I won't be repeating the experience on the way back (maybe with significantly more Advil PM's, though I doubt it), so I guess that counts for everything.
A refresher for those who haven't seen the movie or for whom it's been awhile...
With the fact that flying to China from the U.S. is an awful experience, many of my co-workers get small prescriptions (2 or 3 pills total) for sleeping medicine. I'm not a big fan of taking even over-the-counter taking medicine as it is (my family has a history of awesomeness), but the flight is just plain awful for 15+ hours at a time. With that in mind, I stopped at CVS the night before my trip and purchased a bottle of Advil PM, not exactly prescription sleeping pills per se, but maybe they'd help a little bit.
Potential captions for this picture
1) No, not this scene.
2) I'm dark and brooding, too!
3) Because if the girl on the far left weren't touching his hand, he'd return to the land of lollipops and gumdrops.
Skipping ahead to being on the plane between Chicago and Hong Kong (China), the first (of like 7 drink services - the flight is that long) came through, and international flights serve alcoholic drinks free. For whatever reason (maybe because it seems poetic), sleeping pills are "supposed" to be taken with red wine. Sure, the package explicitly says "do not mix with alcohol," but I want to be dramatic, darn it. I get a 175mL mini-bottle (about half of a soda can) of red wine from a whichever vintner in California was willing to offer United Airlines wine at 3rd world prices. I take two Advil PM pills, then finish the bottle of wine.
Now, I had to be at the Allentown airport at 5:15am, so as one could imagine, I was pretty tired to begin with but rather uncomfortable because of the whole "being on an airplane" thing. I started noticing the fact that I had drunk wine, then shortly thereafter, went from lazy-feeling because of the wine to full-out, "boy, I'm starting to feel more sleepy than I was before." This turned into, "wow, I really don't feel like moving, but I'm not sleepy. Ooh, look how interesting the wall in front of me is."
So, for about an hour (I think - it was about half of the movie "Marie Antoinette") I sat there, dazed staring at the wall in front of me on the airplane as other passengers did their business, getting things from their stowed luggage, heading to the facilities, taking little strolls down the aisle. It's like the chemicals had slowed me down to the point of not being able to process the outside world my choices had made it so life was passing me by. Oh no, I was inadvertently recreating a scene from Garden State!
Extra bonus points for providing which Scrubs episode ending on a similar note to my ending.
Inadvertently Recreating a Scene from Garden State receives two-and-a-half stars for, well, I'm not sure. I won't be repeating the experience on the way back (maybe with significantly more Advil PM's, though I doubt it), so I guess that counts for everything.
A refresher for those who haven't seen the movie or for whom it's been awhile...
Best Song Ever?: Ambulance (TV on the Radio)
Another in the "Best Song Ever?" series. Simply, I give the background, a point, a counterpoint, then star rating for songs that I have on my list of "good songs" with the goal of deciding what's the best song ever. Note for those using feedreaders: the song is embedded on this review's entry so there's a point-of-reference in the review; you might want to view this entry from the webpage instead of the feed.
Background
TV on the Radio, creators of one of 2006's best-reviewed albums, Return to Cookie Mountain were once "indie" in more than just genre. They're now one of those "popular unpopular" bands, with an appearance on David Letterman and a video on rotation on MTV Hits. You'll see music critics fawning over their doo-wop and soul influences, though at the end of the day, their "thing" is usually more of a noise/fuzz experiment (basically, it's an entrant in the genre of "stoner rock"), in 2004, they released the album Desperate Youth, Blood Thirsty Babes with the a cappella "retro-ish" track "Ambulance." They're the type of band that if you namedrop "TV on the Radio," you're guaranteed to impress your pretentious friends.
For
Against
This is a tough one. The song is timeless - if I hadn't mentioned the dates in the first section, I'm not sure anyone would know that it was from 2004 instead of any decade preceding that. Timelessness would be a characteristic of "the best song ever," but I think this one draws too much from the past. A more modern take of the song is offered when it's played live (see video, below). A guitar plays some atmospheric texture, a bass plays the "dum-dum-dum-dum-dum" part, and someone beatboxes a drum part. It's wholly the same song, but provides an all-new direction for it. Note: the video is just a portion of the song, but it'll get the point across.
Background
TV on the Radio, creators of one of 2006's best-reviewed albums, Return to Cookie Mountain were once "indie" in more than just genre. They're now one of those "popular unpopular" bands, with an appearance on David Letterman and a video on rotation on MTV Hits. You'll see music critics fawning over their doo-wop and soul influences, though at the end of the day, their "thing" is usually more of a noise/fuzz experiment (basically, it's an entrant in the genre of "stoner rock"), in 2004, they released the album Desperate Youth, Blood Thirsty Babes with the a cappella "retro-ish" track "Ambulance." They're the type of band that if you namedrop "TV on the Radio," you're guaranteed to impress your pretentious friends.
For
- Who needs any stinkin' instruments when you've got competant singers.
- The "dum-dum-dum-dum-dum-dum-dum-dum-dum" bass line won't leave your head. Ever.
- Relentlessly solid lyrics (and I'm not a lyrics person): I will be your accident if you will be my ambulance //
And I will be your screech and crash if you will be my crutch and cast // And I will be your one more time if you will be my one last chance.
Against
- The "dum-dum-dum-dum-dum-dum-dum-dum-dum" bass line won't leave your head.
- The music is so straight-forward that you can't help but pay attention to the words, and some of those words, while usually solid, if not looked at in the context of the whole song give the feel of written-by-high-schoolers-literature. Heart's colors changed like leaves sounds like one of those faux-deep expressions a 16 year old would think up. To be fair, the line does actually work because the rest of that verse mentions vines, gardens, seeds and other earthy, not entirely unmetamorphical terms. I'm not sure this should be held against the song, but I don't feel like erasing it.
- At 4:54, it's a bit simple for a song with no "build" or swell.
This is a tough one. The song is timeless - if I hadn't mentioned the dates in the first section, I'm not sure anyone would know that it was from 2004 instead of any decade preceding that. Timelessness would be a characteristic of "the best song ever," but I think this one draws too much from the past. A more modern take of the song is offered when it's played live (see video, below). A guitar plays some atmospheric texture, a bass plays the "dum-dum-dum-dum-dum" part, and someone beatboxes a drum part. It's wholly the same song, but provides an all-new direction for it. Note: the video is just a portion of the song, but it'll get the point across.
Best Song Ever?: Superman (Goldfinger)
Another in the "Best Song Ever?" series. Simply, I give the background, a point, a counterpoint, then star rating for songs that I have on my list of "good songs" with the goal of deciding what's the best song ever. Note for those using feedreaders: the song is embedded on this review's entry so there's a point-of-reference in the review; you might want to view this entry from the webpage instead of the feed.
Background
Goldfinger was one of the bigger bands (along with The Mighty Might Bosstones and Reel Big Fish) of the ska "boom" of 1996/1997. They've been churning out albums at the pace of about one every other year since 1996, and are known for doing hundreds of concerts each year. The album Hang-Ups is probably their best work. The preceding self-titled album was a bit rough around the edges and the later albums (3 as of today), while solid, didn't quite have the creative edge presented with the whole of Hang-Ups. Basically, along with Blink 182, Goldfinger invented pop-punk, though for Goldfinger, the "pop" aspect never really came true. I heard the song "Superman" in 9th grade in 1997, and since then it's been one of my favorites.
For
Against
In terms of this being the best song ever, it gets only 3 stars. It puts up a good fight, but a real test here is whether one can listen to it beginning to end more than once in a row. This song? Can't do it. I could listen to the recapitulation of the first verse after the bridge (starting at 2:23) all day long, but unfortunately that's only part of the song, not the whole thing. And, well, the whole ska thing probably knocks it out of competition for good.
Background
Goldfinger was one of the bigger bands (along with The Mighty Might Bosstones and Reel Big Fish) of the ska "boom" of 1996/1997. They've been churning out albums at the pace of about one every other year since 1996, and are known for doing hundreds of concerts each year. The album Hang-Ups is probably their best work. The preceding self-titled album was a bit rough around the edges and the later albums (3 as of today), while solid, didn't quite have the creative edge presented with the whole of Hang-Ups. Basically, along with Blink 182, Goldfinger invented pop-punk, though for Goldfinger, the "pop" aspect never really came true. I heard the song "Superman" in 9th grade in 1997, and since then it's been one of my favorites.
For
- Incorporates the trumpets and trombones without it being gimmicky. They don't sound out of place, and they used sparingly enough that the texture they add is not arbitrary.
- Similar to the last song reviewed, the return from the bridge (the bridge starting at 1:57) happens at exactly the right time within the song (2:23 as the lead guitar plays 3 notes to lead into a recap of the first verse), and the stripped down arrangement of rhythm guitar, bass, cymbal ride, and vocals is the perfect contrast to the "throw everything at the fan" arrangement of the bridge.
- Ambitious bass playing.
Against
- Probably a bit too aggressive for most people.
- Some people just don't and won't like the ska, guitar chord on the upbeat style.
- No one's going to be writing a treatise on the lyrics any time soon. (maybe Nate would be up it)
In terms of this being the best song ever, it gets only 3 stars. It puts up a good fight, but a real test here is whether one can listen to it beginning to end more than once in a row. This song? Can't do it. I could listen to the recapitulation of the first verse after the bridge (starting at 2:23) all day long, but unfortunately that's only part of the song, not the whole thing. And, well, the whole ska thing probably knocks it out of competition for good.
Best Song Ever?: In the Aeroplane Over the Sea (Neutral Milk Hotel)
The first in (maybe) a series of reviews. Simply, I give the background, a point, a counterpoint, then star rating for songs that I have on my list of "good songs" with the goal of deciding what's the best song ever. Up first is one that definitely isn't the best song ever, but lets me test my review format. Note for those using feedreaders: the song is embedded on this review's entry so there's a point-of-reference in the review; you might want to view this entry from the webpage instead of the feed.
Background
I came across Neutral Milk Hotel after reading that they had a 10.0 reviewed album with one of our nemeses, Pitchfork Media. (That's darn near impossible). I checked out the album, and came across a song I had heard once before and had stuck with me reasonably well considering I had only heard it once. That brings us to "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea."
For
Against
While not a one and a half star song on its own merits, in the scale of whether it's the best song ever, it really isn't even a contender. It's one-of-a-kind, but the weirdness-to-most-people inherent in making a song "one-of-a-kind" seals its fate on the "not the best song ever" side of the dividing line.
Background
I came across Neutral Milk Hotel after reading that they had a 10.0 reviewed album with one of our nemeses, Pitchfork Media. (That's darn near impossible). I checked out the album, and came across a song I had heard once before and had stuck with me reasonably well considering I had only heard it once. That brings us to "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea."
For
- Note the singing saw and the who cares if it's out of tune trumpet. It does the whole "using non-traditional instruments" in an artistic, non-self-conscious-way. (see Pet Sounds by The Beach Boys).
- It's in 6/8 (kind of rare for rock music [well, indie {the genre} music]).
- Evocative-ish lyrics "When we meet on a cloud, I'll be laughing out loud" [internal rhyme for the win!]
- Everything seems right in the world as the verses begin after the controlled musical meanderings (0:40, 1:28). The return after the bridge (the bridge starting at 2:00) is especially epic. As a listener, you're rooting for it to get to the "What beautiful face..." after the song seemingly deconstructs after the bridge. At 2:45, everything is where it needs to be.
Against
- Neutral Cheese Who?
- Odd instruments, intentionally sloppy singing and bass playing.
- Lyrically, there are some nice little onesies (see above), but there's not much going on beyond that.
- Just plain too weird for most people.
While not a one and a half star song on its own merits, in the scale of whether it's the best song ever, it really isn't even a contender. It's one-of-a-kind, but the weirdness-to-most-people inherent in making a song "one-of-a-kind" seals its fate on the "not the best song ever" side of the dividing line.
Calling Out Northwestern on National TV
It's not often that colleges get called out negatively on TV. Usually, writers namedrop the college they attended in passing: "These guys were frat brothers of mine from my time at Northwestern" (a sort of quote from an episode of Andy Richter Controls the Universe); it's not really an endorsement, but it is a type of plug, I guess the screenplayer writer's to hanging one's diploma on the wall at work. Anyway, aside from some Simpsons jokes making fun of Yale (because there was a time when many of the Simpsons writers had come from Harvard), college namedrops are neutral at worst.
Hollywood doesn't like you!
But, when watching tonight's episode of "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip", the following dialogue was exchanged:
note, this is more of an "I think this is what they said" than a pure transcription
Matthew Perry's Character: I'll write you a letter of recommendation.
Bradley Whitford's Character: Speaking of which, against my better advice, my nephew is applying to Northwestern, and he needs a letter of recommendation, too.
Not that big a deal, I know, but in a way, my non-donating-alumnus status just got a high five from Hollywood! Now, I guess it could be rationalized away by the writers by saying, they were getting at: "there are better such and such programs at some other college than Northwestern," but I feel like I'm part of higher educational history: The first(?) prime time dis'.
Calling Out Northwestern on National TV gets four-and-a-half stars for being the first negative namedrop of a college, with that 1/2 being deducted for the episode of "Studio 60..." being a perfect example of everything that's right and everything that's wrong with the show. *note: I don't really have any negative feelings towards Northwestern or anything like that, but considering how rarely it's brought up in pop culture, the fact that it was a negative (or pushing towards negative from neutral, at best) mention makes it quite newsworthy.
Hollywood doesn't like you!
But, when watching tonight's episode of "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip", the following dialogue was exchanged:
note, this is more of an "I think this is what they said" than a pure transcription
Matthew Perry's Character: I'll write you a letter of recommendation.
Bradley Whitford's Character: Speaking of which, against my better advice, my nephew is applying to Northwestern, and he needs a letter of recommendation, too.
Not that big a deal, I know, but in a way, my non-donating-alumnus status just got a high five from Hollywood! Now, I guess it could be rationalized away by the writers by saying, they were getting at: "there are better such and such programs at some other college than Northwestern," but I feel like I'm part of higher educational history: The first(?) prime time dis'.
Calling Out Northwestern on National TV gets four-and-a-half stars for being the first negative namedrop of a college, with that 1/2 being deducted for the episode of "Studio 60..." being a perfect example of everything that's right and everything that's wrong with the show. *note: I don't really have any negative feelings towards Northwestern or anything like that, but considering how rarely it's brought up in pop culture, the fact that it was a negative (or pushing towards negative from neutral, at best) mention makes it quite newsworthy.