I don't choose to listen to KLOS at work. It's just always on. It's also one of the better options out of the music stations that come in on our crappy radio. Star and KROQ? Sorry, but there are only so many times you can hear Kings of Leon in a day before your brain starts oozing out of your ears. Jack FM? A limited playlist of overplayed past and present top 40 hits, all played by a randomized playlist with no heart or soul. Blah. KCRW is wonderful, but they don't play music in the afternoon. I like The Sound too, but they tend to be a bit too mellow a lot of the time.
So that just leaves KLOS. The station's core has always been classic rock. Back in the day, they'd throw in modern rock/adult contemporary stuff like the Red Hot Chili Peppers too. But once Arrow FM changed to Jack FM, it left L.A. without a full-fledged classic rock station. So KLOS got rid of the new stuff and dedicated themselves entirely to classic rock. In listening to KLOS on a fairly regular basis for the past year or two, my problem with them is their horrible lack of variety. Adhering to a classic rock format gives them a good three decades worth of great music at their disposal. Yet they play pretty much the exact same stuff every single day - all the hit singles that everyone's already familiar with, deeper album tracks nearly nonexistant. Luckily, a good amount of the songs they play are actually good. And unlike most stations, they generally only play each song once a day, unlike the countless stations that pick a handful songs and play them every two hours every day for several months. So ultimately, KLOS is the lesser of many evils.
Lately though, KLOS has abandoned their loyal adherence to the classic rock format. Formerly self-promoted as "Southern California's Classic Rock Station", the station now refers to itself as "Southern California's Best Rock Station". The music change isn't too dramatic. 95% of the time, they still stick to the small classic rock playlist that they've always limited themselves to. But every now and then, they throw in some more contemporary rock, kinda like how they used to do. Some of the selections are decent, stuff that doesn't feel too horribly out of place on a classic rock station, songs that could feasibly be considered "new classics." But a lot of it is the same crap that the other rock stations have been playing to death for the past decade, (i.e. Kid Rock, Puddle of Mudd, and Nickelback). This infusion of crap rock reeks of desperation, a sad ploy to bring in younger listeners and more advertising dollars by watering themselves down.
It's a practice that's all too common in the media these days. If something isn't attracting enough viewers or listeners, then it won't bring in as many advertisers and the station will be less willing to fund it. So you dumb it down. You broaden its appeal so that it reaches out to a wider audience. Your product is just a watered-down, homogenized shell of its former self. You've forgotten your original mission statement and cashed in your integrity for a few extra ratings points. This isn't automatically a bad thing. Media, like politics, is all about compromise. You make a few concessions, and in return, you get to keep doing what matters. Ideally, you could throw a little extra crap into your programming and still be able to maintain the station's integrity and focus. But let's be honest - that's not what happens. In fact, KLOS is probably one of the least objectionable examples of a station selling out and altering its format.
Here's what normally happens in these situations: the station's getting low ratings, they change their approach and alter their programming (either slightly or drastically) in the interest of drawing in a more profitable target demographic (adults in the 18-49 range), and the station gradually becomes a bastardized version of its original self. If the changes don't bring in better ratings and more ad revenue, then the station either continues fighting to broaden its appeal or it ceases to exist it current form. L.A. rock station Indie 103.1 would be an example of the latter. Originally, it was launched as a genuine alternative to the bland commercial radio style of KROQ. They had better music, more variety, and daily free-form programs hosted by celebrities and musicians playing all sorts of stuff that you'd never hear on any other radio station in a million years. But the ratings weren't there. So the owners got rid of all the specialty shows, threw in more Kings of Leon. But the ratings didn't increase, so the owners shut down the station and put a Mexican polka station in its place. But here's the silver lining: since being taken off terrestrial radio, Indie has become an online-only station and its music selection has gotten significantly better. Now, they get to play whatever crazy stuff they want to, and they barely have to run any commercials.
The more common alternative to being shut down is to change focus and broaden your appeal. It's the mindset that has taken over the entire system of cable television for the past decade. Look at how cable TV was originally set up: you have a channel for music videos and concerts called Music Televsion, a channel for educational shows called The Learning Channel, and then channels like USA with a wide variety of programming. The variety channels like USA and FX seem to have fared the best in recent years. They've been able to maintain their basic structure and do fairly well. But most of the niche channels have been morphed and tweaked to the point that they barely resemble the original channels. MTV no longer plays music. The Learning Channel (now just TLC) is full of reality shows about unfit mothers. The History Channel is full of reality shows about lumberjacks and fishermen. Cartoon Network now has plenty of live-action programming, like people playing basketball on trampolines. TV Land, once a channel dedicated to just showing episodes of classic TV shows, has now found airtime for dating reality shows.
Speaking of TV Land, I was browsing their schedule the other day. And like most classic rock stations, they have decades of quality content at their disposal but still only present an extremely limited showcase. Yeah, they've got All in the Family, The Jeffersons, and MASH, but what about I Love Lucy or The Munsters or any of the other old Nick and Nite staples? And Nick at Nite, formerly an outlet for classic shows, now consists of George Lopez, The Nanny, and Malcolm in the Middle. New classics, indeed. If you have 24 hours of airtime to fill everyday, you might as well put as many shows as you can out there. We need more variety. Case in point: the Nickelodeon Games and Sports channel (which doesn't exist anymore). The entire 24/7 lineup consisted of five or six old Nickelodeon game shows played over and over. That was the entire channel. The nostalgia was fun, but it wore off pretty quickly. If you're a station with a concept, then you have to live up to it - with quality programming and variety.
Plenty of other channels find adequate ways to fill their airtime, but have watered themselves down from their original form, resulting in a half-assed, less enjoyable product. Look at AMC. The entire channel used to be old, classic movies. No commercials, no censorship, just good movies. Then they started showing newer movies, which they had to censor in order to air on basic cable. Then they added commercial breaks to the movies. Now, American Movie Classics just chopped up, commercial-filled versions of crap like Catwoman and Two Weeks Notice. But hey, I bet they're more profitable that way.
The divisions between the genre-specific channels are mostly blurred now. And I'm not saying this to try to make a conservative or segregationist argument, since I strongly believe the progression and innovation are the cornerstones of our society. My point is that the companies that run them are thinking primarily in terms of saving money on production costs and making money with ad revenue. And the result is that instead of airing content serves a purpose and addresses an audience normally overlooked by most of the other media outlets, we instead end up with hundreds of channels filled with a bunch of crappy reality shows. That's what you wind up with when a few big media conglomerates continue their quest for that lowest common denominator: cameras following horrible people around and passing their arguments off as entertainment. The whole reality TV thing was supposed to be a passing fad, but it's been going on for over a decade now and fills an overwhelming percentage of TV programming as a whole.
Maybe the Indie 103.1 example is a proper showcase of the growing shifts in American media consumption. Instead of building your personal schedule around what's on TV, you can pick and choose what shows to watch and catch them anytime on Hulu or your Tivo. And instead of being stuck with whatever your local terrestrial radio stations choose to play, you can opt for satellite radio, internet stations, and customizable services like Pandora. These new methods are still a relative drop in the bucket compared to the power of the established media structures of media. But as TV and radio stations continue to sacrifice quality for cost effectiveness, more people will get turned off and seek out a safe haven, free of reality shows and an overabundance of product placement. Sometimes, things have to get worse before they get better. We had to suffer through 8 years of Bush before people gained enough sense to elect Obama. Similarly, the quality of standard TV and radio options will decline and the effectiveness of new media will increase. Ineffectiveness and dissatisfaction begets change. We've already seen it in the fact that networks are putting their TV shows online for free instead of still making you pay $2 to download an episode. So let the peons trudge through that hell of reality shows and Linkin Park songs. Those out there who actually care will still have a way of bypassing the garbage to find content that's actually worthwhile. Of course, as with most things that are both free and worthwhile, it's only a matter of time before they try to make more money off of it and find a way to ruin it forever. So enjoy it while it lasts, I guess.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
The New Academy Awards Philosophy: The More the Merrier
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences recently announced that they would be expanding the field of Best Picture nominees in 2010 from five movies to ten. Their reason was that it was a throwback to the the early years of the Academy Awards, allowing a greater amount of great movies to get the respect they deserve. Maybe the Oscars were about genuinely rewarding talent and hard work in the 30s, but nowadays, they're mostly about publicity.
The most recent Academy Awards are a fine example of how things work. Look at the interesting development of The Reader. It was released as The Weinstein Company's prestige picture for the year. It opened to mixed reviews and its status was generally reduced from contender to also-ran. But the company pushed it so heavily that ultimately, it not only got a Best Picture nomination, but it became one of the top contenders to upset Slumdog Millionaire. All this for a movie generally considered average-to-slightly above average. It just demonstrates how recognition around award time is often based not on how good a movie is, but on the PR skills of the distributor.
Another example of how the Academy Awards work: Fox Searchlight had two big end of the year movies - Slumdog Millionaire and The Wrestler. The Wrestler was gritty and different, Slumdog was flashy and safe. While The Wrestler's December release date positioned it as Fox's big prestige pic of the year, its success was eclipsed by the popularity (and hype) of Slumdog Millionaire. So Fox put most of its marketing money behind Slumdog, while spending a much smaller amount on The Wrestler, almost exclusively revolving around the performance of Mickey Rourke rather than on the film itself. The end result: Slumdog gets a bunch of nominations and ultimately wins Best Picture, while The Wrestler's only nominations were for the performances of Mickey Rourke and Marisa Tomei, neither of who won.
The expansion of the Best Picture category could potentially fix the problem of movies with smaller marketing budgets not getting proper recognition. However, the more likely scenario is that we would see more nominations for the more popular, fan-friendly movies like The Dark Knight. (Although I'm not bashing The Dark Knight. If you look a few posts down, you'll see that it was my favorite movie of 2008.) People seem to always make a big deal about the Oscar shows always getting low ratings, as if the only purpose of the show was to attract a huge audience. Well, if you throw The Dark Knight and Iron Man into the Best Picture race, more people will watch the show, even if those movies have no chance at actually winning. And in the months leading up to the show, just think of how much extra money and attention the studios can draw to these movies by pointing out that they're "Best Picture nominees!"
Increasing the size serves primarily to give free publicity to the studios and bring in more viewers and ad revenue for the show itself. The fact that a few additional deserving movies might get some additional recognition in the process is merely a side effect. And besides, the Academy rarely gives the award to the movies that really deserve it anyway, so it's not gonna make much of a difference in the long run.
Hey, there's always the Independent Spirit Awards...
The most recent Academy Awards are a fine example of how things work. Look at the interesting development of The Reader. It was released as The Weinstein Company's prestige picture for the year. It opened to mixed reviews and its status was generally reduced from contender to also-ran. But the company pushed it so heavily that ultimately, it not only got a Best Picture nomination, but it became one of the top contenders to upset Slumdog Millionaire. All this for a movie generally considered average-to-slightly above average. It just demonstrates how recognition around award time is often based not on how good a movie is, but on the PR skills of the distributor.
Another example of how the Academy Awards work: Fox Searchlight had two big end of the year movies - Slumdog Millionaire and The Wrestler. The Wrestler was gritty and different, Slumdog was flashy and safe. While The Wrestler's December release date positioned it as Fox's big prestige pic of the year, its success was eclipsed by the popularity (and hype) of Slumdog Millionaire. So Fox put most of its marketing money behind Slumdog, while spending a much smaller amount on The Wrestler, almost exclusively revolving around the performance of Mickey Rourke rather than on the film itself. The end result: Slumdog gets a bunch of nominations and ultimately wins Best Picture, while The Wrestler's only nominations were for the performances of Mickey Rourke and Marisa Tomei, neither of who won.
The expansion of the Best Picture category could potentially fix the problem of movies with smaller marketing budgets not getting proper recognition. However, the more likely scenario is that we would see more nominations for the more popular, fan-friendly movies like The Dark Knight. (Although I'm not bashing The Dark Knight. If you look a few posts down, you'll see that it was my favorite movie of 2008.) People seem to always make a big deal about the Oscar shows always getting low ratings, as if the only purpose of the show was to attract a huge audience. Well, if you throw The Dark Knight and Iron Man into the Best Picture race, more people will watch the show, even if those movies have no chance at actually winning. And in the months leading up to the show, just think of how much extra money and attention the studios can draw to these movies by pointing out that they're "Best Picture nominees!"
Increasing the size serves primarily to give free publicity to the studios and bring in more viewers and ad revenue for the show itself. The fact that a few additional deserving movies might get some additional recognition in the process is merely a side effect. And besides, the Academy rarely gives the award to the movies that really deserve it anyway, so it's not gonna make much of a difference in the long run.
Hey, there's always the Independent Spirit Awards...
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
The 2009 Midseason San Francisco Giants Report!
Wow, it's hard to believe that we're at the All Star break already. Even more hard to believe is how GOOD the Giants are doing. This was supposed to be somewhat of a rebuidling year. Before the season started, most analysts figured that the Giants would probably finish a few games over .500, maybe come in 3rd place in their division. Earlier in the season, even that seemed out of reach. The quality pitching was there, but the offense just couldn't score any runs. This was an ugly team. But then something crazy happened: the Giants' bats started to wake up, and they became a surprisingly well-rounded team. Now, halfway through the season, they're ten games over .500, seven games behind the best team in baseball, and they hold a two game lead atop the NL Wild Card standings. It's an exciting time to be a Giants fan. If they can manage to cut loose some of their dead weight in exchange for a good hitter who can come in everyday and produce, they could be a force to be reckoned with at the end of the season.
Let's break down each aspect of the team:
Starting Pitching
As predicted, the Giants' starting pitching has been their key strength. Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain have been amazing. They're both serious Cy Young candidates at this point. Randy Johnson hasn't been amazing, but he's gotten the job done, which is more than I could hope for with a 45 year-old pitcher on his last legs. Signing Johnson in the offseason was a fantastic low-risk move by the Giants. Although now, he's hurt. It's nothing too serious, but he is 45 years old, after all, so now you have to wonder if he's gonna be much of a factor further down the line. But the real story this year has been the resurgence of Barry Zito. He'll never be worth the amount of money he's earning, but I've come to terms with that. It's the Giants' fault for overpaying. But this year, he's finally regained some sort of consistency and has emerged as a perfectly acceptable #4 starter. Most of the time. He's still prone to having a terrible game every now and then, but he's been decent for the most part. Then there's Jonathan Sanchez, the promsing young starter turned inconsistent trade bait turned worthless long reliever turned no-hitter-throwing hero. It'll be interesting to see how he pitches throughout the rest of the month with Johnson out of the picture. Hopefully, he'll pitch well and his stock will rise, and then he can either prove to be a valuable force for the Giants or he'll be able to bring back a quality hitter in a trade. Ryan Sadowski, Sanchez's rotation replacement, pitched well in his first three games, so it'll be interesting to see what happens with him too. Right now, it looks like the rotation is extremely talented, but slightly thin, so we'll see if they stick with what they have or try to look into acquiring another starter along with a solid hitter.
The Bullpen
Bob Howry gives up a few too many runs every now and then. And Brian Wilson has four blown saves. But other than that, the bullpen has been stellar. When you look at the pitching stats, it surprising to see how pretty much everyone in the bullpen has an ERA in the 2's and 3's. And it's interesting to see a new group of pitchers this year. Of course you've got Wilson and Romo, and Merkin Valdez is finally back from the minors and the DL. But other than them, the bullpen consists of two offseason free agent signings and two spring training walk-ons. Outstanding relief work this year.
The Infield
Pablo Sandoval had a slow start, but is now having an all-star caliber season. He's really provided the offensive spark that the team desperately needed, and he's easily the team's offensive MVP so far. Just an absoultely electric player. And he's only 22! Bengie Molina has had hot and cold streaks, but he's been good overall. I hope they can keep him around for another year or two until Buster Posey is ready to move up to the big leagues and play full time. Juan Uribe has been as good as you could hope for from a utilityman who came to the team on a minor-league contract. He's been a good hitter off the bench, and he's played well enough to start on several occasions. Edgar Renteria has been passable. Not worth $18.5 mil over two years, but certainly not bad either. 2nd base has been in a state of flux as of late. Manny Burris did an okay job as the opening day starter - not great, but good enough for the most part. But then he fell into an 0-for-27 slump and was subsequently demoted to Fresno to work on his swing. He is still young, after all. Matt Downs started briefly, but is now back in Fresno. That leaves Kevin Frandsen, often considered the heir apparent to the 2nd base spot. He hasn't done much offensively, but he hasn't had a whole lot of opportunities either. I like Travis Ishikawa at first base. His offense isn't gonna turn many heads, but he's gotten a lot better since the beginning of the season. Certainly good enough to get playing time over Rich Aurilia. So hopefully he'll be able to keep hitting decently and things'll work out for him. I'd rather have him getting at-bats than overpaying for half a season of Nick Johnson. And as for Rich Aurilia... well, at this point in his career, he's only suitable as a right-handed pinch hitter. Even then, he's not hitting terribly well. His days are probably numbered in San Francisco.
The Outfield
Aaron Rowand started the year in a slump. Giants fans were starting to write him off as Marvin Benard with a Barry Zito contract. Meanwhile, Bruce Bochy wasn't getting much from the various people he had hitting leadoff. So one night, as a change of pace, he put Rowand in the leadoff spot. And there's been no looking back ever since. Rowand is hitting very well and the Giants finally have a reliable leadoff hitter. Maybe he can stick around after all. Randy Winn has been his usual above-average self. Fred Lewis hit well as the starting left fielder, but he drew more attention for his strikeouts and fielding errors than his on base percentage. Nate Schierholtz was confined to the bench for the first month or two, but has been given a lot more playing time since Lewis started slumping. In his time as a starter, he's been doing pretty good, hitting over .300 for a time. It remains to be seen if he has what it takes to be a solid full-time starter. But hey, at least he's finally getting playing time. Fred Lewis, on the other hand, has been reduced to an afterthought in the past month and a half, left to ride the bench the majority of the time. Fans generally seem to have given up on him, hoping that he can be thrown into a trade package for something decent in return. I personally would like to see Randy Winn traded too, since he's in his mid 30s and his contract is up at the end of the year. But since he's still a fairly good hitter, it would only be worth it to trade him if the Giants can get someone of equal or greater value in return, which I just don't see happening. Also in the outfield are Andres Torres, who's a fine backup, and John Bowker, who was a breakout star for a brief period in 2008 before being sent to AAA until just recently. They can't keep six outfielders on the roster for long, so some kind of shake-up should be happening in the near future.
In summary, the Giants have been a very impressive team this year, playing well above expectations. The pitching is as good or better than everyone had hoped, and the offense has been able to get it going more often than not. However, I'm still uncomfortable with the number of times that they've been blanked by other teams' solid pitching. It's almost like a pattern: they're able to win a few games, either closely or decisively, and then they get shut out or nearly shut out once or twice a week.
I think their biggest question mark right now is second base. If they can trade for a good-hitting, solid-fielding second baseman without giving up too much, I think it would help tremendously. The Pirates' Freddy Sanchez has been linked to the Giants in trade rumors, who I'd totally be in favor of. And their rotation is good, but if Johnson isn't healthy, and if Sanchez does get traded, then suddenly they'll need another reliable starter to fill in the back end of the rotation. And getting a solid long-term outfielder would great, but we still have to see how things shake out in the next few weeks before attempting to make any big moves. It's been an interesting year so far. Hopefully it'll only get better.
Go Giants!
Let's break down each aspect of the team:
Starting Pitching
As predicted, the Giants' starting pitching has been their key strength. Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain have been amazing. They're both serious Cy Young candidates at this point. Randy Johnson hasn't been amazing, but he's gotten the job done, which is more than I could hope for with a 45 year-old pitcher on his last legs. Signing Johnson in the offseason was a fantastic low-risk move by the Giants. Although now, he's hurt. It's nothing too serious, but he is 45 years old, after all, so now you have to wonder if he's gonna be much of a factor further down the line. But the real story this year has been the resurgence of Barry Zito. He'll never be worth the amount of money he's earning, but I've come to terms with that. It's the Giants' fault for overpaying. But this year, he's finally regained some sort of consistency and has emerged as a perfectly acceptable #4 starter. Most of the time. He's still prone to having a terrible game every now and then, but he's been decent for the most part. Then there's Jonathan Sanchez, the promsing young starter turned inconsistent trade bait turned worthless long reliever turned no-hitter-throwing hero. It'll be interesting to see how he pitches throughout the rest of the month with Johnson out of the picture. Hopefully, he'll pitch well and his stock will rise, and then he can either prove to be a valuable force for the Giants or he'll be able to bring back a quality hitter in a trade. Ryan Sadowski, Sanchez's rotation replacement, pitched well in his first three games, so it'll be interesting to see what happens with him too. Right now, it looks like the rotation is extremely talented, but slightly thin, so we'll see if they stick with what they have or try to look into acquiring another starter along with a solid hitter.
The Bullpen
Bob Howry gives up a few too many runs every now and then. And Brian Wilson has four blown saves. But other than that, the bullpen has been stellar. When you look at the pitching stats, it surprising to see how pretty much everyone in the bullpen has an ERA in the 2's and 3's. And it's interesting to see a new group of pitchers this year. Of course you've got Wilson and Romo, and Merkin Valdez is finally back from the minors and the DL. But other than them, the bullpen consists of two offseason free agent signings and two spring training walk-ons. Outstanding relief work this year.
The Infield
Pablo Sandoval had a slow start, but is now having an all-star caliber season. He's really provided the offensive spark that the team desperately needed, and he's easily the team's offensive MVP so far. Just an absoultely electric player. And he's only 22! Bengie Molina has had hot and cold streaks, but he's been good overall. I hope they can keep him around for another year or two until Buster Posey is ready to move up to the big leagues and play full time. Juan Uribe has been as good as you could hope for from a utilityman who came to the team on a minor-league contract. He's been a good hitter off the bench, and he's played well enough to start on several occasions. Edgar Renteria has been passable. Not worth $18.5 mil over two years, but certainly not bad either. 2nd base has been in a state of flux as of late. Manny Burris did an okay job as the opening day starter - not great, but good enough for the most part. But then he fell into an 0-for-27 slump and was subsequently demoted to Fresno to work on his swing. He is still young, after all. Matt Downs started briefly, but is now back in Fresno. That leaves Kevin Frandsen, often considered the heir apparent to the 2nd base spot. He hasn't done much offensively, but he hasn't had a whole lot of opportunities either. I like Travis Ishikawa at first base. His offense isn't gonna turn many heads, but he's gotten a lot better since the beginning of the season. Certainly good enough to get playing time over Rich Aurilia. So hopefully he'll be able to keep hitting decently and things'll work out for him. I'd rather have him getting at-bats than overpaying for half a season of Nick Johnson. And as for Rich Aurilia... well, at this point in his career, he's only suitable as a right-handed pinch hitter. Even then, he's not hitting terribly well. His days are probably numbered in San Francisco.
The Outfield
Aaron Rowand started the year in a slump. Giants fans were starting to write him off as Marvin Benard with a Barry Zito contract. Meanwhile, Bruce Bochy wasn't getting much from the various people he had hitting leadoff. So one night, as a change of pace, he put Rowand in the leadoff spot. And there's been no looking back ever since. Rowand is hitting very well and the Giants finally have a reliable leadoff hitter. Maybe he can stick around after all. Randy Winn has been his usual above-average self. Fred Lewis hit well as the starting left fielder, but he drew more attention for his strikeouts and fielding errors than his on base percentage. Nate Schierholtz was confined to the bench for the first month or two, but has been given a lot more playing time since Lewis started slumping. In his time as a starter, he's been doing pretty good, hitting over .300 for a time. It remains to be seen if he has what it takes to be a solid full-time starter. But hey, at least he's finally getting playing time. Fred Lewis, on the other hand, has been reduced to an afterthought in the past month and a half, left to ride the bench the majority of the time. Fans generally seem to have given up on him, hoping that he can be thrown into a trade package for something decent in return. I personally would like to see Randy Winn traded too, since he's in his mid 30s and his contract is up at the end of the year. But since he's still a fairly good hitter, it would only be worth it to trade him if the Giants can get someone of equal or greater value in return, which I just don't see happening. Also in the outfield are Andres Torres, who's a fine backup, and John Bowker, who was a breakout star for a brief period in 2008 before being sent to AAA until just recently. They can't keep six outfielders on the roster for long, so some kind of shake-up should be happening in the near future.
In summary, the Giants have been a very impressive team this year, playing well above expectations. The pitching is as good or better than everyone had hoped, and the offense has been able to get it going more often than not. However, I'm still uncomfortable with the number of times that they've been blanked by other teams' solid pitching. It's almost like a pattern: they're able to win a few games, either closely or decisively, and then they get shut out or nearly shut out once or twice a week.
I think their biggest question mark right now is second base. If they can trade for a good-hitting, solid-fielding second baseman without giving up too much, I think it would help tremendously. The Pirates' Freddy Sanchez has been linked to the Giants in trade rumors, who I'd totally be in favor of. And their rotation is good, but if Johnson isn't healthy, and if Sanchez does get traded, then suddenly they'll need another reliable starter to fill in the back end of the rotation. And getting a solid long-term outfielder would great, but we still have to see how things shake out in the next few weeks before attempting to make any big moves. It's been an interesting year so far. Hopefully it'll only get better.
Go Giants!
Friday, July 10, 2009
Jonathan Sanchez!
What an incredible game. Jonathan Sanchez throws a no-hitter, with no walks and 11 strikeouts. Couldn't happen to a more deserving guy, and it couldn't be more fascinating considering Sanchez's story this year.
For a while now, Sanchez has been a strikeout guy with tons of potential, but has never been able to fully realize it. He looked good as a starter through the first half of 2008, but then struggled throughout the second half of the year. In the offseason, his name came up in trade rumors (a trade for the Marlins' Jorge Cantu is the main one that comes to mind), but Brian Sabean decided to hang on to Sanchez and hope for the young pitcher to have a breakout year.
Unfortunately, that didn't quite happen. Sanchez pitched adequately. Nothing special, but good enough for a guy at the back end of a rotation. He seemed to regress over the year - giving up too many walks and too many runs, not being able to pitch past the fourth or fifth inning. In the span of a few weeks, his trade value went from "semi-untouchable" to "let's see if we can get someone good for him" to "worthless." By the end of June, he was 2-8 with an ERA around five and a half. He was pulled from the rotation and moved to bullpen. An unknown pitcher named Ryan Sadowski was called up from the minors to take his place. Sadowski only started his major league career by pitching thirteen scoreless innings and winning his first two games. Meanwhile, Sanchez pitched well out of the bullpen. His future with the Giants seemed wrapped up as a long reliever/spot starter, or as trade bait for anything of value.
But then Randy Johnson got hurt. He left last Sunday's game early with a shoulder strain and was placed on the 15-day DL. Without any other major league-ready options, the Giants inserted Sanchez back into the rotation in Johnson's place. At the very least, he was someone who could eat up at least five innings or so every five games. Or at the most, it was an opportunity for Sanchez to have a second chance as a starting pitcher and raise his stock with the team.
And did he ever.
Not only did he pitch well enough to redeem himself, but he pitched a friggin' no-hitter! Completely out of nowhere. Over the span of a few days, he went from bullpen exile to being the star of the team. And if that's not heartwarming enough, his dad was in the crowd to watch it happen and give his son a big hug afterward.
Expectations and trade value and all that crap don't matter right now. This was a fantastic game and an absolutely incredible performance. Here's to hoping that this gives him the boost he needs to keep pitching well and go on to have a great career, hopefully with the Giants.
Congrats, Jonathan.
For a while now, Sanchez has been a strikeout guy with tons of potential, but has never been able to fully realize it. He looked good as a starter through the first half of 2008, but then struggled throughout the second half of the year. In the offseason, his name came up in trade rumors (a trade for the Marlins' Jorge Cantu is the main one that comes to mind), but Brian Sabean decided to hang on to Sanchez and hope for the young pitcher to have a breakout year.
Unfortunately, that didn't quite happen. Sanchez pitched adequately. Nothing special, but good enough for a guy at the back end of a rotation. He seemed to regress over the year - giving up too many walks and too many runs, not being able to pitch past the fourth or fifth inning. In the span of a few weeks, his trade value went from "semi-untouchable" to "let's see if we can get someone good for him" to "worthless." By the end of June, he was 2-8 with an ERA around five and a half. He was pulled from the rotation and moved to bullpen. An unknown pitcher named Ryan Sadowski was called up from the minors to take his place. Sadowski only started his major league career by pitching thirteen scoreless innings and winning his first two games. Meanwhile, Sanchez pitched well out of the bullpen. His future with the Giants seemed wrapped up as a long reliever/spot starter, or as trade bait for anything of value.
But then Randy Johnson got hurt. He left last Sunday's game early with a shoulder strain and was placed on the 15-day DL. Without any other major league-ready options, the Giants inserted Sanchez back into the rotation in Johnson's place. At the very least, he was someone who could eat up at least five innings or so every five games. Or at the most, it was an opportunity for Sanchez to have a second chance as a starting pitcher and raise his stock with the team.
And did he ever.
Not only did he pitch well enough to redeem himself, but he pitched a friggin' no-hitter! Completely out of nowhere. Over the span of a few days, he went from bullpen exile to being the star of the team. And if that's not heartwarming enough, his dad was in the crowd to watch it happen and give his son a big hug afterward.
Expectations and trade value and all that crap don't matter right now. This was a fantastic game and an absolutely incredible performance. Here's to hoping that this gives him the boost he needs to keep pitching well and go on to have a great career, hopefully with the Giants.
Congrats, Jonathan.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Palin With the Quitting and Such
Sarah Palin sent SHOCKWAVES through the political world by abruptly resigning from her post as Governor of Alaska. A lot of long-time supporters were disappointed with her abandoning the people she was elected to serve, leaving many people wondering what exactly would prompt her to make such a bold move.
Money.
There's no point in further debating and speculating around this issue. She did it for the money.
After being thrust in the public spotlight, she instantly became a hero to Republicans nationwide. And over half a year after the election, she's still in high demand with the ultra-conservative, pro-Limbaugh, pro-cronyism, pro-censorship, anti-animal rights, anti-women's rights, anti-contraception, anti-environment, anti-government transparency, anti-ethics, batshit crazy wingnut core of the Republican party. She could make millions and millions of dollars a year giving speeches and making appearances at fundraisers and public events, if only she didn't have to spend so much of her time tucked away in that far-off corner of the world doing that whole "Governor" thing.
So, she quits. Who cares about about Alaska? That's only, like, three electoral votes. Now she's got all the time in the world to give speeches, make appearances, write books, provide commentary on Fox News, whatever she damn well pleases. And she'll be raking it in while doing so. And in 2012, assuming all of those pissed-off lunatics haven't been distracted by the next big shiny thing and are still hanging on her every word, she can run for President. Or if she wants, she can step away from politics and ride off into the sunset with her big bag of money and just disappear forever.
Preferably the latter.
Please.
Money.
There's no point in further debating and speculating around this issue. She did it for the money.
After being thrust in the public spotlight, she instantly became a hero to Republicans nationwide. And over half a year after the election, she's still in high demand with the ultra-conservative, pro-Limbaugh, pro-cronyism, pro-censorship, anti-animal rights, anti-women's rights, anti-contraception, anti-environment, anti-government transparency, anti-ethics, batshit crazy wingnut core of the Republican party. She could make millions and millions of dollars a year giving speeches and making appearances at fundraisers and public events, if only she didn't have to spend so much of her time tucked away in that far-off corner of the world doing that whole "Governor" thing.
So, she quits. Who cares about about Alaska? That's only, like, three electoral votes. Now she's got all the time in the world to give speeches, make appearances, write books, provide commentary on Fox News, whatever she damn well pleases. And she'll be raking it in while doing so. And in 2012, assuming all of those pissed-off lunatics haven't been distracted by the next big shiny thing and are still hanging on her every word, she can run for President. Or if she wants, she can step away from politics and ride off into the sunset with her big bag of money and just disappear forever.
Preferably the latter.
Please.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Top Ten Movies of 2008 / Oscar Picks
The Oscars are this Sunday, informally bringing an end to the 2008 movie season. There are still plenty of movies from 2008 that I haven't gotten to see yet, like Ballast, Let the Right One In, and several others. But at this point, I feel like I've finally seen enough to put together a top ten of 2008 list:
1. The Dark Knight
2. The Wrestler
3. Wall*E
4. Waltz With Bashir
5. Paranoid Park
6. Milk
7. Rachel Getting Married
8. The Class
9. Gran Torino
10. Man on Wire
Honorable Mentions: Happy-Go-Lucky, Iron Man, 4 Months 3 Weeks & 2 Days, Wendy & Lucy, The Wackness
And without further ado, my Oscar picks & predictions:
Best Picture
SHOULD WIN: Milk. Benjamin Button and Slumdog Millionaire were only decent. And I still haven't felt the need to see Frost/Nixon or The Reader. So that just leaves Milk, which wasn't the best movie of the year, but is definitely the best out of the five that are nominated.
WILL WIN: Slumdog Millionaire. It's inevitable. Slumdog is going to win. Yawn.
Best Director
SHOULD WIN: Darren Aronofsky, Jonathan Demme, Mike Leigh, and Cristian Mungiu are all better than most of the people nominated. Gus Van Sant is the only name in this category that jumps out as having put together some totally solid work.
WILL WIN: Danny Boyle will win, thus setting a dangerous precedent for giving Oscars to directors who make movies that look like feature-length music videos. I'm predicting McG to be an early front-runner for this category next year.
Best Actor
SHOULD WIN: Mickey Rourke. Sean Penn was also great, but Rourke just works his ass off here.
WILL WIN: Rourke, although Penn still has a great shot at it
Best Actress
SHOULD WIN: Anne Hathaway
WILL WIN: Kate Winslet - She's been nominated a bunch of times and hasn't won yet. And at the ripe old age of 33, it's obviously unlikely that she'll ever be nominated for anything ever again. The Academy will probably give her the award here not necessarily because she gave the best performance, but because they feel she deserves to win one, which is usually how the Academy does things. However, Meryl Streep is also nominated, so she has to be considered an automatic front-runner as usual.
Best Supporting Actor
SHOULD WIN: Heath Ledger, not only for sentimental reasons, but because he deserves it
WILL WIN: Ledger
Best Supporting Actress
SHOULD WIN: Taraji P. Henson - in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, she was essentially the opposite of Brad Pitt. Pitt stands around while stuff happens around him, giving a completely wooden performance that adds nothing to the movie. Henson, on the other hand, gave a warm, enjoyable performance that brought life to the movie. I'd be fine if she won, although I haven't seen Doubt or Vicky Cristina Barcelona yet.
WILL WIN: Viola Davis - Total guess here.
Best Original Screenplay
SHOULD WIN: Milk - a totally solid script that never gets too melodramatic and tells an interesting story that largely sticks to the facts
WILL WIN: Milk - this category normally serves as a consolation prize for the movies that aren't going to win Best Picture. Thank God Juno's not nominated this year.
Best Adapted Screenplay
SHOULD WIN: Only seen two of the movies here, neither of which deserves to win. Of the remaining three, Doubt probably sounds like the one that might be the best written, but that's just a guess. I'd rather see the award go to The Dark Knight, a crazy, unrelenting story about chaos and vigilantism, but it wasn't nominated.
WILL WIN: What else? Slumdog Millionaire
Best Animated Feature
SHOULD WIN: Wall*E
WILL WIN: Wall*E - Would've been a lot more interesting if Waltz With Bashir had been nominated too. But as it stands, Wall*E is the front-runner by a mile, and deservedly so.
Best Foreign Language Feature
SHOULD WIN: Waltz With Bashir
WILL WIN: The logical pick here would be The Class, but something in my gut is telling me that Waltz With Bashir might actually have a chance at winning this one, so maybe I'll go with Waltz
Best Documentary Feature
SHOULD WIN: Waltz With Bashir should've been nominated, since it involves such a creative blend of documentary and narrative reenactment. But apparently it's against the law for a foreign language nominee to be nominated in any other categories. I can't really have much of a preference since the only film out of the five that I've seen is Man on Wire. But that movie was really good, so I wouldn't mind seeing it win.
WILL WIN: Man on Wire, although this category is chosen by people who actually went to screenings of all five films, so familiarity and word of mouth aren't always a factor
Best Cinematography
SHOULD WIN: Rachel Getting Married - the handheld camerawork did an amazing job of throwing you in the middle of all the family turmoil, resulting in a powerful exper... oh, it wasn't nominated. Well then...The Wrestler's cinematography really stood out this year. Both basic and effective, it truly centers the film around the main character and his life and really drives home... oh, that wasn't nominated either. Okay, then I guess we'll go with The Dark Knight and all of it's amazingly beautiful aerial shots.
WILL WIN: Slumdog Millionaire, because everyone loves flashy movies with lots of filters and quick cuts
Best Editing
SHOULD WIN: Milk - a very effectively assembled combination of the main story and archival footage
WILL WIN: Slumdog Millionaire. Notice a pattern?
Best Art Direction
SHOULD WIN: Benjamin Button
WILL WIN: Benjamin Button
Best Costume Design
SHOULD WIN: The Duchess - never saw it, but it's a costume drama, so it should probably win, right?
WILL WIN: The Duchess
Best Makeup
SHOULD WIN: Hellboy II
WILL WIN: Benjamin Button
Best Original Score
SHOULD WIN: The Dark Knight, hands down, which of course is why it wasn't nominated. So I dunno, let's go with Slumdog here, since this is one of the few categories that I wouldn't mind seeing it win.
WILL WIN: Slumdog Millionaire
Best Original Song
SHOULD WIN: Down to Earth (Wall*E). I don't remember either of the nominated songs from Slumdog, so the one from Wall*E must've been marginally better.
WILL WIN: Down to Earth, because the two Slumdog songs will cancel each other out
Best Sound
SHOULD WIN: The Dark Knight - great sound + great soundtrack = effectively dark, chilling atmosphre
WILL WIN: The Dark Knight
Best Sound Editing
SHOULD WIN: Wall*E - Sound effects play a much bigger role in this movie that most, and everything's done really well, so it deserves to win.
WILL WIN: Wall*E
Best Visual Effects
SHOULD WIN: Iron Man
WILL WIN: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - it's an Oscar Movie, and it has good special effects, therefore it will win (see: Forrest Gump)
Haven't seen any of the shorts (except Presto), so I have no preferences or predictions in those three categories.
For everyone's sake, I hope the Oscars are less predictable than this. This has to be one of the most unanticipated Oscar shows in recent memory, thanks to the neverending over-hype and impending dominance of Slumdog Millionaire, along with the overabundance of nominations for Benjamin Button and the lameness of the major category nods for The Reader and Frost/Nixon. Luckily, once you sift through all the traditional Oscar bait, there are a few good movies that got a healthy number of nominations, so hopefully it'll be an interesting show worth watching. And if not, then at least Jerry Lewis will be there.
1. The Dark Knight
2. The Wrestler
3. Wall*E
4. Waltz With Bashir
5. Paranoid Park
6. Milk
7. Rachel Getting Married
8. The Class
9. Gran Torino
10. Man on Wire
Honorable Mentions: Happy-Go-Lucky, Iron Man, 4 Months 3 Weeks & 2 Days, Wendy & Lucy, The Wackness
And without further ado, my Oscar picks & predictions:
Best Picture
SHOULD WIN: Milk. Benjamin Button and Slumdog Millionaire were only decent. And I still haven't felt the need to see Frost/Nixon or The Reader. So that just leaves Milk, which wasn't the best movie of the year, but is definitely the best out of the five that are nominated.
WILL WIN: Slumdog Millionaire. It's inevitable. Slumdog is going to win. Yawn.
Best Director
SHOULD WIN: Darren Aronofsky, Jonathan Demme, Mike Leigh, and Cristian Mungiu are all better than most of the people nominated. Gus Van Sant is the only name in this category that jumps out as having put together some totally solid work.
WILL WIN: Danny Boyle will win, thus setting a dangerous precedent for giving Oscars to directors who make movies that look like feature-length music videos. I'm predicting McG to be an early front-runner for this category next year.
Best Actor
SHOULD WIN: Mickey Rourke. Sean Penn was also great, but Rourke just works his ass off here.
WILL WIN: Rourke, although Penn still has a great shot at it
Best Actress
SHOULD WIN: Anne Hathaway
WILL WIN: Kate Winslet - She's been nominated a bunch of times and hasn't won yet. And at the ripe old age of 33, it's obviously unlikely that she'll ever be nominated for anything ever again. The Academy will probably give her the award here not necessarily because she gave the best performance, but because they feel she deserves to win one, which is usually how the Academy does things. However, Meryl Streep is also nominated, so she has to be considered an automatic front-runner as usual.
Best Supporting Actor
SHOULD WIN: Heath Ledger, not only for sentimental reasons, but because he deserves it
WILL WIN: Ledger
Best Supporting Actress
SHOULD WIN: Taraji P. Henson - in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, she was essentially the opposite of Brad Pitt. Pitt stands around while stuff happens around him, giving a completely wooden performance that adds nothing to the movie. Henson, on the other hand, gave a warm, enjoyable performance that brought life to the movie. I'd be fine if she won, although I haven't seen Doubt or Vicky Cristina Barcelona yet.
WILL WIN: Viola Davis - Total guess here.
Best Original Screenplay
SHOULD WIN: Milk - a totally solid script that never gets too melodramatic and tells an interesting story that largely sticks to the facts
WILL WIN: Milk - this category normally serves as a consolation prize for the movies that aren't going to win Best Picture. Thank God Juno's not nominated this year.
Best Adapted Screenplay
SHOULD WIN: Only seen two of the movies here, neither of which deserves to win. Of the remaining three, Doubt probably sounds like the one that might be the best written, but that's just a guess. I'd rather see the award go to The Dark Knight, a crazy, unrelenting story about chaos and vigilantism, but it wasn't nominated.
WILL WIN: What else? Slumdog Millionaire
Best Animated Feature
SHOULD WIN: Wall*E
WILL WIN: Wall*E - Would've been a lot more interesting if Waltz With Bashir had been nominated too. But as it stands, Wall*E is the front-runner by a mile, and deservedly so.
Best Foreign Language Feature
SHOULD WIN: Waltz With Bashir
WILL WIN: The logical pick here would be The Class, but something in my gut is telling me that Waltz With Bashir might actually have a chance at winning this one, so maybe I'll go with Waltz
Best Documentary Feature
SHOULD WIN: Waltz With Bashir should've been nominated, since it involves such a creative blend of documentary and narrative reenactment. But apparently it's against the law for a foreign language nominee to be nominated in any other categories. I can't really have much of a preference since the only film out of the five that I've seen is Man on Wire. But that movie was really good, so I wouldn't mind seeing it win.
WILL WIN: Man on Wire, although this category is chosen by people who actually went to screenings of all five films, so familiarity and word of mouth aren't always a factor
Best Cinematography
SHOULD WIN: Rachel Getting Married - the handheld camerawork did an amazing job of throwing you in the middle of all the family turmoil, resulting in a powerful exper... oh, it wasn't nominated. Well then...The Wrestler's cinematography really stood out this year. Both basic and effective, it truly centers the film around the main character and his life and really drives home... oh, that wasn't nominated either. Okay, then I guess we'll go with The Dark Knight and all of it's amazingly beautiful aerial shots.
WILL WIN: Slumdog Millionaire, because everyone loves flashy movies with lots of filters and quick cuts
Best Editing
SHOULD WIN: Milk - a very effectively assembled combination of the main story and archival footage
WILL WIN: Slumdog Millionaire. Notice a pattern?
Best Art Direction
SHOULD WIN: Benjamin Button
WILL WIN: Benjamin Button
Best Costume Design
SHOULD WIN: The Duchess - never saw it, but it's a costume drama, so it should probably win, right?
WILL WIN: The Duchess
Best Makeup
SHOULD WIN: Hellboy II
WILL WIN: Benjamin Button
Best Original Score
SHOULD WIN: The Dark Knight, hands down, which of course is why it wasn't nominated. So I dunno, let's go with Slumdog here, since this is one of the few categories that I wouldn't mind seeing it win.
WILL WIN: Slumdog Millionaire
Best Original Song
SHOULD WIN: Down to Earth (Wall*E). I don't remember either of the nominated songs from Slumdog, so the one from Wall*E must've been marginally better.
WILL WIN: Down to Earth, because the two Slumdog songs will cancel each other out
Best Sound
SHOULD WIN: The Dark Knight - great sound + great soundtrack = effectively dark, chilling atmosphre
WILL WIN: The Dark Knight
Best Sound Editing
SHOULD WIN: Wall*E - Sound effects play a much bigger role in this movie that most, and everything's done really well, so it deserves to win.
WILL WIN: Wall*E
Best Visual Effects
SHOULD WIN: Iron Man
WILL WIN: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - it's an Oscar Movie, and it has good special effects, therefore it will win (see: Forrest Gump)
Haven't seen any of the shorts (except Presto), so I have no preferences or predictions in those three categories.
For everyone's sake, I hope the Oscars are less predictable than this. This has to be one of the most unanticipated Oscar shows in recent memory, thanks to the neverending over-hype and impending dominance of Slumdog Millionaire, along with the overabundance of nominations for Benjamin Button and the lameness of the major category nods for The Reader and Frost/Nixon. Luckily, once you sift through all the traditional Oscar bait, there are a few good movies that got a healthy number of nominations, so hopefully it'll be an interesting show worth watching. And if not, then at least Jerry Lewis will be there.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Kneejerk Reactions to This Year's Oscar Nominations
I was hoping that this year's Academy Award nominations would have a few pleasant surprises scattered throughout the boring, predictable nomniations. But instead, I just find myself needing to vent. So let's go through this category by category:
The full list of nominations can be found here.
Best Picture
Ugh. For the past few weeks, the expected nominations for this category were Slumdog Millionaire, Milk, Benjamin Button, Frost/Nixon, and The Dark Knight. The Dark Knight always seemed like the wild card in the bunch: a summer blockbuster in the midst of "serious" movies with fall/winter release dates. But it still had enough widespread critical acclaim and excitement generated among the general public to earn it a Best Picture nomination. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case, as it was left it out in favor of The Reader, a paint-by-number prestige picture that's only managed to get mixed reviews. Limited release wonders like Rachel Getting Married, Happy-Go-Lucky, and The Wrestler were predictably ignored, because the Academy only pays attention to studio-financed pictures with buzz and huge PR campaigns surrounding them. As a result, the only surprise nomination that we're left with is one that nobody wanted. Slumdog Millionaire and Benjamin Button are both highly overrated. Slumdog Millionaire, a conventional, predictable fable with nothing you haven't seen before, has positioned itself as this year's front runner, somewhat expectedly racking up ten total nominations. And Benjamin Button, a fairly enjoyable Forrest Gump rehash, somehow picked up THIRTEEN nominations, for which I have to comment, "Really?" I haven't seen Frost/Nixon or The Reader yet, because they just look like standard Oscar bait and I don't have much interest in watching either of them. And that just leaves Milk, the only film in the bunch that might actually deserve to be called great, so hopefully that'll win.
Best Director
Usually, the Best Director category follows a pattern: the directors from four or five of the Best Picture nominees get nominated, and usually one of the directors gets left out of the directing category in favor of a widely-respected director from another movie. This year, the director nominees simply mirror the Best Picture category, which again means that Christopher Nolan gets shafted in favor of The Reader. Danny Boyle gets nominated for making a feature length music video. David Fincher gets nominated for making an Oscar movie that looks and feels about as unspectacular as you can get. And again, I haven't seen Frost/Nixon yet, but Ron Howard? Come on, that guy directed THE DA VINCI CODE for crying out loud. He just throws stuff on the screen without giving any life or depth to any of it. You guys are really considering giving him another Oscar? So again, that just leaves Gus Van Sant, who didn't do an amazing job with Milk, but at least managed to make a totally solid picture. And of course, Jonathan Demme, Mike Leigh, and Darren Aronofsky are forgotten, along plenty of others who produced more interesting work than most of the Best Picture nominees. C'est la vie.
Best Actor
The only omission that immediately comes to my mind is Josh Brolin's awesome performance in W. He totally immersed himself in the character and turned an obvious, mediocre script into a pretty interesting movie. I would've much rather seen him get a nomination than Brad Pitt, whose wooden performance in Benjamin Button can be best described as "a cardboard cutout standing around while everything happens around him." However, it wouldn't be first time that an actor won an award for a dull, hollow, lifeless performance (see: Kevin Spacey, American Beauty). That aside, Mickey Rourke deserves to win, and it's looking like he has a good shot at doing so.
Best Actress
Okay. What the FUCK. I finally saw Happy-Go-Lucky last weekend, and I don't know how it's possible for Sally Hawkins to not get nominated. Like Brolin in W., she gives a memorable performance that serves as the driving force of the entire movie. Oh well, her baffling exclusion means that now I can wholeheartedly root for the lovely Anne Hathaway, who was outstanding in Rachel Getting Married.
Best Supporting Actor
Heath Ledger. He should win. He will win. End of story.
Best Supporting Actress
Rosemarie Dewitt should've been nominated. Other than that, I don't have much of an opinion in this category.
Looking through the other categories, there isn't really that much that stands out, partly because I haven't seen a lot of the movies that are nominated, but also because most of the nonimations just aren't that interesting. There are the usual glaring omissions in technical categories. Two years ago, it was Children of Men losing Best Cinematography to Pan's Labyrinth. This year, it's the fact that The Wrestler's great cinematography wasn't even given a nomination. Stuff like just furthers the impression that Academy voters don't actually WATCH most of these movies before they choose these nominations or vote for the winners. (Fun fact: the movie Wanted got just as many nominations as The Wrestler.) The only other thing that stands out is Bolt getting nominated for Best Animated Feature instead of Waltz With Bashir. Apparently it's illegal for a movie to get nominated in both the Animated and Foreign categories. Oh well, those categories have always been screwy.
I guess writing is therapeutic, because the inital sense of frustration that I felt went I started writing this has now subsided into apathy. In the end, this year's Oscars just follow in the tradition of the previous years. Run of the mill Oscar bait gets recognized, while universally-acclaimed action movies don't. Movies are judged less on skill and talent than they are on media-fueled hype and momentum. Actors and directors are judged less on performance than they are on repsect within the industry, and the all-important "buzz". And most of the genuinely fresh and unique films get passed over in favor of glossy multi-million dollar pictures with a famous cast, or a reputable director, or the backing of a major studio. Same as it ever was.
I'll still probably end up watching though. But I also feel more motivated to find someone with IFC so I can watch the Independent Spirit Awards, which look a lot more interesting than the Oscars this year.
The full list of nominations can be found here.
Best Picture
Ugh. For the past few weeks, the expected nominations for this category were Slumdog Millionaire, Milk, Benjamin Button, Frost/Nixon, and The Dark Knight. The Dark Knight always seemed like the wild card in the bunch: a summer blockbuster in the midst of "serious" movies with fall/winter release dates. But it still had enough widespread critical acclaim and excitement generated among the general public to earn it a Best Picture nomination. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case, as it was left it out in favor of The Reader, a paint-by-number prestige picture that's only managed to get mixed reviews. Limited release wonders like Rachel Getting Married, Happy-Go-Lucky, and The Wrestler were predictably ignored, because the Academy only pays attention to studio-financed pictures with buzz and huge PR campaigns surrounding them. As a result, the only surprise nomination that we're left with is one that nobody wanted. Slumdog Millionaire and Benjamin Button are both highly overrated. Slumdog Millionaire, a conventional, predictable fable with nothing you haven't seen before, has positioned itself as this year's front runner, somewhat expectedly racking up ten total nominations. And Benjamin Button, a fairly enjoyable Forrest Gump rehash, somehow picked up THIRTEEN nominations, for which I have to comment, "Really?" I haven't seen Frost/Nixon or The Reader yet, because they just look like standard Oscar bait and I don't have much interest in watching either of them. And that just leaves Milk, the only film in the bunch that might actually deserve to be called great, so hopefully that'll win.
Best Director
Usually, the Best Director category follows a pattern: the directors from four or five of the Best Picture nominees get nominated, and usually one of the directors gets left out of the directing category in favor of a widely-respected director from another movie. This year, the director nominees simply mirror the Best Picture category, which again means that Christopher Nolan gets shafted in favor of The Reader. Danny Boyle gets nominated for making a feature length music video. David Fincher gets nominated for making an Oscar movie that looks and feels about as unspectacular as you can get. And again, I haven't seen Frost/Nixon yet, but Ron Howard? Come on, that guy directed THE DA VINCI CODE for crying out loud. He just throws stuff on the screen without giving any life or depth to any of it. You guys are really considering giving him another Oscar? So again, that just leaves Gus Van Sant, who didn't do an amazing job with Milk, but at least managed to make a totally solid picture. And of course, Jonathan Demme, Mike Leigh, and Darren Aronofsky are forgotten, along plenty of others who produced more interesting work than most of the Best Picture nominees. C'est la vie.
Best Actor
The only omission that immediately comes to my mind is Josh Brolin's awesome performance in W. He totally immersed himself in the character and turned an obvious, mediocre script into a pretty interesting movie. I would've much rather seen him get a nomination than Brad Pitt, whose wooden performance in Benjamin Button can be best described as "a cardboard cutout standing around while everything happens around him." However, it wouldn't be first time that an actor won an award for a dull, hollow, lifeless performance (see: Kevin Spacey, American Beauty). That aside, Mickey Rourke deserves to win, and it's looking like he has a good shot at doing so.
Best Actress
Okay. What the FUCK. I finally saw Happy-Go-Lucky last weekend, and I don't know how it's possible for Sally Hawkins to not get nominated. Like Brolin in W., she gives a memorable performance that serves as the driving force of the entire movie. Oh well, her baffling exclusion means that now I can wholeheartedly root for the lovely Anne Hathaway, who was outstanding in Rachel Getting Married.
Best Supporting Actor
Heath Ledger. He should win. He will win. End of story.
Best Supporting Actress
Rosemarie Dewitt should've been nominated. Other than that, I don't have much of an opinion in this category.
Looking through the other categories, there isn't really that much that stands out, partly because I haven't seen a lot of the movies that are nominated, but also because most of the nonimations just aren't that interesting. There are the usual glaring omissions in technical categories. Two years ago, it was Children of Men losing Best Cinematography to Pan's Labyrinth. This year, it's the fact that The Wrestler's great cinematography wasn't even given a nomination. Stuff like just furthers the impression that Academy voters don't actually WATCH most of these movies before they choose these nominations or vote for the winners. (Fun fact: the movie Wanted got just as many nominations as The Wrestler.) The only other thing that stands out is Bolt getting nominated for Best Animated Feature instead of Waltz With Bashir. Apparently it's illegal for a movie to get nominated in both the Animated and Foreign categories. Oh well, those categories have always been screwy.
I guess writing is therapeutic, because the inital sense of frustration that I felt went I started writing this has now subsided into apathy. In the end, this year's Oscars just follow in the tradition of the previous years. Run of the mill Oscar bait gets recognized, while universally-acclaimed action movies don't. Movies are judged less on skill and talent than they are on media-fueled hype and momentum. Actors and directors are judged less on performance than they are on repsect within the industry, and the all-important "buzz". And most of the genuinely fresh and unique films get passed over in favor of glossy multi-million dollar pictures with a famous cast, or a reputable director, or the backing of a major studio. Same as it ever was.
I'll still probably end up watching though. But I also feel more motivated to find someone with IFC so I can watch the Independent Spirit Awards, which look a lot more interesting than the Oscars this year.
Monday, January 19, 2009
A Letter to Mr. Bush on His Last Day in Office
Dear Mr. Bush,
It goes without saying that your eight years as President have been a complete and utter failure. Years from now, historians will look at your presidency as one of the worst in American history. The only positive aspect of your years in office was that your incompetence inspired millions of people to unite and elect a President who actually seems to have compassion for the American people and good ideas for how to fix this country's problems.
Let's take a few minutes and break down the Bush legacy:
- Launching a woefully mismanaged war based on fabrications and faulty intelligence
- Thousands of dead U.S. soldiers
- Tens of thousands of injured U.S. soldiers
- Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians
- Turning a triple-digit budget surplus into a triple-digit budget deficit
- Financial deregulation policies leading up to America's worst economic crisis since the Great Depression
- The systematic disenfranchisement of thousands of eligible voters
- An education policy that actually reduces funding for the school and students that need the most help
- The rollback of environmental regulations and protections
- A failed attempt to privatize the country's Social Security system
- Planting administration spokespersons within the media to drum up support for administrative policies
- Awarding no-bid contracts to defense contractors with ties to administration officials
- A lack of funding for veterans' benefits, armor for troops, and other critical military expenditures
- Spying on American citizens through warrantless wiretaps
- An unprecedented level of secrecy and dishonesty with the American public
- A culture of corruption, immortalized by crooked politicians and lobbyists like Jack Abramoff, Duke Cunningham, Tom Delay, and several others
- The abolition of habeas corpus
- The destruction of America's moral standing in the world
- Torture
- Failure to act while millions lost their jobs
- Failure to act while millions lost their homes
- Failure to act while gas prices tripled and oil companies posted record profits
- Failure to act while people were stranded and drowning in New Orleans
- Failure to act on pre-9/11 intelligence
- Failure to capture Osama Bin Laden
- The lowest measured Presidential approval rating of all time
Fuck you.
Love,
Colin
Friday, January 16, 2009
Save the Cheerleader, Save the World, Jump the Shark
A warning to anyone who hasn't seen every Heroes episode up until now: plenty of spoilers ahead.
The first Season of Heroes was somewhat of a breath of fresh air. I'll admit that it was slightly overrated. It quickly built up a devoted following of viewers claiming it to be the greatest thing since sliced bread. I never felt that it quite lived up to most of the hype and buzz that surrounded it, but I definitely liked it. It was a cool, interesting show that was entertaining enough to watch every week. It became a weekly tradition to get together with my friends each week to watch the new episodes. Again, not an amazing show, but an entertaining show worth following.
The series stumbled in the second season. It got off to a slow start, but it was still definitely watchable. Viewers and critics alike complained about the season's slow pace and less captivating storylines. But to be honest, I never really had too much of a problem with the season in the early stages. The "Hiro In Japan" storyline wasn't nearly as bad as everyone made it out to be, and the rest of the show was still alright too. Nevertheless, the season did have some notable issues. Of course, the biggest problem was the fact that the season was cut short by the writers' strike. So storylines that could've been more effectively developed and fleshed out had to be abruptly wrapped up. The way that the British samurai dude was finally taken out of the picture felt rushed and anti-climactic. Peter's Irish girlfriend got trapped in the future, and then they never really went back and revisited that part of the storyline. (That's one way to write a character out of the story, I guess.) I was expecting/hoping that the show would go on hiatus in November and then come back for a few episodes in the spring after the strike was over so they could wrap things up more effectively and have a more satisfying end to the season. But instead, the season just came to an abrupt end after 11 episodes.
There were other problems that had nothing to do with the strike, like questionable story developments and lame payoffs. There was the romance between Claire and the flying kid, during which I often felt like checking the channel to make sure that I hadn't accidentally switched over to The CW instead of NBC. Speaking of Claire, the show kind of wrote itself into a corner with respect to Claire's healing power. Throughout the season, they started focusing more heavily on the notion that powers can be transmitted through blood. So anytime someone gets killed or seriously injured, the answer is simple: just give 'em some cheerleader blood, they'll be good as new. So now we have all these characters walking around who have healing powers and can't be killed, unless of course they get shot in the head or decapitated or something, because the rest of your body can't heal if your brain gets destroyed. So by the last few episodes, we were stuck with the old mantra "remove the head or destroy the brain" in regard to any characters actually getting killed off. In essence, Heroes became a zombie movie, minus the gore and the rotting corpses.
Speaking of deaths, they found some pretty mediocre ways to kill off characters. First there was D.L. getting shot by some jerk at a nightclub in a flashback episode. Then Nikki/Jessica/Ali Larter/whatever got blown up trying to rescue her son or niece or something from a burning building. It was a death that felt so unnecessary and unsatisfying that my first impression was that she had to have lived through it. More on that later. The whole subplot with the girl and the comic book and the burning building was just plain lousy from start to finish. Bad guys steal the kid's priceless comic book. His cousin has the power to imitate whatever she watches on TV, so she decides "If I watch Spiderman climbing a wall on my iPod, then naturally I should be able to break into the house of dangerous gangsters and get the comic book back without ever being in any danger!" Ugh. Bad, bad writing. And then the gangsters catch her and she winds up tied to a chair in a burning building. What, they couldn't just tie her to the train tracks instead? So Nikki shows up and saves the girl, and then Nikki gets blown up for no reason whatsoever. Unnecessary story developments like that ended up weighing down what could've easily been a decently satisfying season. And don't get me started on Mohinder's clumsy, unconvincing progression from being one of the smartest, most interesting characters on the show to being a lackey for "the company". But in retrospect, that deterioration was nothing compared to the shit they tried to pull with the character in the third season. More on that later.
The year-long gap between the end of season two and the start of season three proved to be devastating, primarily in terms of ratings, but also in regard to holding the interest of the loyal fans. If there's a year-long gap in between episodes, then you almost have to start from scratch and find a way to draw people in just as effectively as when the show started. Sadly, the third season just hasn't accomplished that.
I obediently made it through all thirteen episodes of Volume Three, titled "Villains". I never really felt that the volume lived up to the title. Sure, early on, there were all these new villains running around causing problems, and the show did try to adopt a darker overall tone. But in the end, it didn't really feel like a story arc about "villains" per se, because... well, I can't really figure out what this season has really been "about" in the first place. The writers seemed to be under the impression that more plot twists equals a more solid show, but that wasn't the case. Characters jumped from the light side to the dark side so frequently that in the week between each episode, you had no idea who was on whose side anymore. The Sylar character was thrown back and forth so much that it's a surprise Zachary Quinto didn't suffer whiplash as a result. I lost count of how many times he jumped from good to bad and vice versa, not to mention the whole "We're your parents. No we're not. But actually we are. Just kidding, we're not," thing. By the end, all that was left was an unintelligible, jumbled mess.
Now, if a TV show or a movie is crazy and impossible to follow, that's not always a bad thing. Look at David Lynch movies for example, which can be awesome viewing experiences because you have no clue what's going on or what's around the corner. It's a different story, though, if something is impossible to follow in a frustrating, unengaging way. Unfortunately, that was the case with Heroes this season. It became tough to follow because so much stuff was thrown out there, often with no rhyme nor reason for doing so. And all the while, they never managed to give you that much of a reason to care about what was going on, so there was no real urgency in trying to make sense of everything. I mean, I still watched because I was interested in seeing how things would develop. But this season, I noticed that watching the show felt like more of an obligation than a pleasure.
Once great characters were rendered either useless (Peter) or retarded (Mohinder). Peter, formerly the wunderkind who could absorb any power he came in contact with, became irritating and inconsistent. In the whole "Future Peter coming to the past to fix things" plot in the beginning of the season, he came off as this jerk who had no idea what he was doing. And for the rest of the season, he remained this snotty jerk running around trying to fix things. Looking back, I'm not sure what Peter actually was trying to do all this time. And then once he lost his powers, the little about him that was still interesting was wiped away. I blame this not only on the writing, but on Milo Ventimiglia's boring, one-dimensional performance throughout the season. Remember in X-Men 2 when Cyclops is begging Jean Grey not to sacrifice herself, and he's trying to be serious and emtional, but he's wearing that laser visor thing over his eyes so he just looks really goofy instead? That's what the Peter Petrelli character reminded me of all season.
That character's weakness is nothing compared to what happened to poor Mohinder Suresh though. In the first season, Mohinder was the lone primary character without powers, a brilliant mind trying to study the mystery of this phenomenon. In the second season, as I mentioned earlier, he made some uncharacteristic lapses in judgment. In season three... hoo boy... while doing his research one day, he impulsively decides that he wants powers, so he injects himself with superhero blood and turns into The Fly. I really wish I was making this up, but alas, that's what happened this season: significant changes to characters without any real rhyme or reason for doing so.
Let's see, what else happened... Ali Larter came back. Nikki's still blown up, and poor little Micah is still an orphan, but it turns out Nikki has an identical twin living on the opposite side of the country, and she also has powers. Oh, and Hiro had his mind erased and thought he was ten years old for a few episodes. Don't worry though, because could still time travel by closing his eyes. Ah, the time travel! That was another problem this season. In the first two seasons, the show largely steered clear of time travel paradoxes by never having the characters anywhere near themselves in the past or the future. This time around, Hiro hangs out with himself as a kid, and Claire even takes care of herself as a baby. But on the two or three occasions when a character teleported back in time a few minutes to the same location, one of the two of themselves simply disappears when time passes and they reach the present again. Ow, my brain!
The season's biggest attempt to try to recapture the magic, so to speak, was with the "eclipse" story arc that lasted two or three episodes. Apparently, all of the characters first gained their powers during an eclipse (a key plot point I don't remember them mentioning before this season, meaning that they're just making up explanations and backstories as they go along). So for the duration of this new eclipse, they temporarily lost all of their powers. It was interesting to see everyone fighting and trying to figure out problems using solely their strength and intellect. But the event, in the lead up to it and in the advertising for the episodes, just still kinda felt like a big thing happening for the sake of having something big happen, as a desperate attempt to attract viewers and get people to start caring again, of which it was only partly successful at doing.
There were a few interesting touches this season that did work, like the development of Claire's character after Sylar stole her powers and she became determined to revenge and never be a victim again. Then there was that one episode with the creepy puppet master guy, which stood out this season as some of the most genuinely unsettling stuff ever done on the show. And then the chick who could run really fast was pretty cute (which I guess is some kind of compensation for the fact that Kristen Bell's character got killed off this season). Beyond all that, there aren't too many positives about this season that stick out in my mind, so I don't really feel the need to keep watching again when the show comes back in February. Volume Three had a nice enough ending to go out on. They destroyed the formula, Claire killed Sylar, and the all-powerful Arthur Petrelli is dead too. All is well, the end.
The last episode ended with a prologue for Volume Four. Nathan is sitting in a limo with the president talking about people with abilities and the threat they pose to society. He hands over a folder with information about everyone with powers and what they've been involved in, and the president vows to deal with it. The title of Volume Four is "Fugitives". Now I'm no psychic, but let me try to guess what's gonna happen: The existence of people with powers is made public, they all become outcasts and start being hunted down, some of them decide to use their powers against the humankind that turned its back on them, while other seek to use their powers for good, alliances form, battles ensue. Sounds familiar? That's because it's X-Men. If the show manages to find a way to defy my expectations and return to top form, then maybe I'll give it a shot again. But for now, I think I'll pass.
It's a shame: A few years ago, it was one of the most promising new shows on TV. Now, it just appears to be another show that started off strong but then faded out much earlier than it should've. Gotta love that first season though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
