Two days ago, a crazed gunman opened fire on a crowd in front of a Safeway in Tucson, Arizona. Six people were killed and fourteen others were wounded. The apparent target, Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, was shot in the head but survived and is currently in critical condition.
The gunman apparently isn't talking to police, so we can only speculate as to why he did what he did. Frankly, I think the question of motive is beside the point. The press, along with other commentators and observers, want to frame the tragedy mainly within the frame of the nation's current political landscape and its implications. But the guy was violently insane, so politics can't possibly tell the whole story. This is a time of mourning, respect, and reflection, not a time to give credence to the twisted mindset of a mass-murderer.
But even if we shouldn't be devoting too much attention to the gunman, the tragedy does give the American people an opportunity to examine several important concerns. Like how a state's lax gun laws can allow a mentally-disturbed person to buy a gun without a permit or a background check. Or whether it's healthy for journalists and commentators to say that all people from the opposite side of the political spectrum are traitors comparable to Communists and Nazis. Or whether it's a good idea for wide-reaching cable news outlets to espouse fringe conspiracy theories about government takeovers and present them as fact on a daily basis. Or whether there can be consequences to using crosshairs to mark congressional districts on a map or using rhetoric like "Second Amendment remedies" or "Don't retreat, RELOAD."
It's easy to say "Politics are to blame! So-and-so is responsible!" and leave it at that. But we need to go beyond that and do what we should be doing all along. We need to look at ourselves, our public officials, and our sources of news and information. We need to look at how we take in the information that we're given and, most importantly, how we treat each other.
These are complex, reflexive, society-examining issues, and hopefully these are the issues that we will discuss and debate for some time to come.
But first and foremost, right now is a time for prayer and respect for the victims and their families.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Comic Con: A Two-State Solution
Wow, up until yesterday, I had almost completely forgotten that Comic Con is happening this weekend. I guess it doesn't speak well for the Con that my interest in it has decreased to the point that I don't even really care to pay attention to the scheduling this year, let alone pay for registration. (Granted, I'm going to a wedding on Saturday, so I'm physically unable to make it to Comic Con this year anyway. But even if I was free, I'm not sure I'd make the effort to go this year.)
In a way, it's a relief. The feeling of not going to Comic Con reminds me of how I felt last year when I decided to not sign up for my work's fantasy football league. Gone is the burden of having to rack my brain, picking and choosing and plotting my every move over the course of two 16-18 hour days. No running, no crowds, no drain on my wallet. Every so often, life requires you to stop and take a break, right?
Of course, I'll still miss being there this year, since I've had plenty of good times in the past. Who could forget Spike & Mike's Gauntlet of Sick and Twisted Animation? Or Jerry Beck's Worst Cartoons Ever showcase? Or the Brisco County Jr. panel with Bruce Campbell? Or getting into an epic gunfight with the cast of Spaced? Or meeting Troma head honcho Lloyd Kaufman? Or meeting Ren & Stimpy creator John Kricfalusi and getting a free personalized drawing from him? Man, I'm getting all nostalgic now. Makes me really wish I could go this year.
But for all the awesome panels and occasional encounters with living legends, there are plenty of things to gripe about. For one, the aforementioned crowds and lines. Comic Con wasn't always the insanely crowded high demand extravaganza that it is today. I remember taking a trolley downtown on a Sunday afternoon and casually strolling into the convention center with practically no wait time in 2005. The following year, my good friend (coincidentally, the same friend whose wedding I'm attending this weekend) had to stand in line for three hours, just barely making it in before they had to cut the line off completely and start turning people away.
Since then, Comic Con has strictly been a "buy tickets in advance" type of event. In 2007, Friday & Saturday passes sold out days in advance. In 2008, all four days were sold out weeks in advance. Now, if you wanna go, you need to register more than half a year in advance because the passes sell out so quickly (many of which are bought by scalpers and sold for huge markups on the black market, a.k.a. eBay). This eliminates the possibility of waiting to see what the guests and panels are gonna be before deciding on going. You have to throw down your hard-earned cash for the sole purpose of attending the convention. Any cool guests or panels that happen to get scheduled are really only an added bonus.
Once you finally make it to the San Diego Convention Center, you find yourself surrounded by tens of thousands of sweaty fans at every turn. Even with the attendance caps, Comic Con is very crowded. It's inevitable, but annoying nonetheless. Walking through the western and central areas of the exhibit hall is an experience comparable to driving north on the 405 during rush hour. You have to deal with the crowds by figuring everything out ahead of time. If there's a panel you really wanna see, you have to head over to the room two or three hours in advance and camp out, and you have to be prepared to spend those two or three hours standing in line.
Going to Hall H on a whim probably isn't going happen. In fact, if you want to see anything in Hall H at any point during the day, it's probably best to just get there first thing in the morning and spend the whole day there. Unfortunately, much of the time, seeing one panel that you want to see means having to skip another panel that you also want to see, even if you have a decent gap of time in between the two. You just have to pick your battles. You're not going to see everything you want to, and the sooner you accept that, the sooner you can stop worrying and enjoy the day.
The increased crowd sizes and higher profile of the event can be explained pretty easily: the convention has been taken over by the entertainment industry. What was once a hardcore yet low-key gathering of nerds and fanboys has changed over the past decade into a preview showcase for every movie distributor, TV channel, and media conglomerate in the country. A-list celebrities and big-name directors talk about their new projects and have Q & A sessions. Studios unveil clips of new movies to the public for the first time. It's where "buzz" and "hype" are created. All the nerdy stuff is still there too, of course. But with each passing year, we see the nerd culture of Comic Con being pushed slightly more to the side.
This year, this trend goes beyond the standard fears of the comic section of the exhibit hall shrinking. The registration price for exhibitors has jumped from $75 to $200 (source: Cartoon Brew), essentially discouraging smaller-scale exhibitors from even being able to attend the event. They've also cracked down on attendees registering as professionals. It used to be that anyone who worked in the entertainment industry got two free passes. Now the passes are reserved for industry professionals with creative/production jobs and a thorough list of credits and credentials. Essentially, they're slowly but surely driving out a significant contingent of the convention's lifeblood. Drive out the independent artists, more room for multibillion-dollar media giants. I shudder to think about what Comic Con will look like in five years.
Let's face it: Comic Con has jumped the shark. The days of it actually being centered around comics have long since passed. Last year, ABC had a panel for a new Patricia Heaton sitcom (the program noted "being a housewife is kinda like being a superhero..."). E! News gives Comic Con recaps and highlights the Monday after the convention ends. Last year's most popular panel was the friggin' Twilight panel. Clearly, something is wrong here.
So how do we remedy the situtation? How can Comic Con get back to its roots? My recommendation: have two conventions. It's a fact that Comic Con has gotten too big. They've expanded slightly by having some panels at the next door Hilton ballroom, but the problems remain. There's been plenty of open speculation about whether the convention will stay in San Diego or head elsewhere in a few years to try to accommodate its growing size. The purists are upset about the convention's shift away from what's supposed to be its main focus.
So let's create a separate convention for all of the high-profile entertainment industry stuff. It can be in San Diego or Los Angeles or Las Vegas or wherever they want to do it. Most of the panels that would normally occupy Hall H and Ballroom 20 can be held in their own separate time and place. All of the studios and organizations and celebrities can converge in one place and present first-hand footage and information for highly-anticipated upcoming projects. It'll still be the second biggest entertainment industry showcase of the year (the Oscars being the biggest). Everyone gets to see the stars, hear the news, and have a great time. Call it Entertainment Con, or whatever.
Meanwhile, let Comic Con be Comic Con. Let the emphasis be on comics, animation, video games, collectibles, art, and general nerd culture. Some products of the mainstream entertainment industry can still be a part of it. 20th Century Fox's Futurama comes to mind as a high-profile program that still fits in at Comic Con. Troma can stay. Bruce Campbell can stay. Hell, we could even keep the panels for blockbuster movies specifically based on comics or video games. And of course, Kevin Smith can still have his annual Q & A session. But honestly, most of the TV and movie panels currently at Comic Con don't really need to be there.
Moving all of the extraneous stuff elsewhere will clear a lot of space in both the panel ballrooms and the main exhibit hall. And of course, leave the damn thing in San Diego! The San Diego Convention Center is the perfect location. The biggest problems with San Diego (crowds, expensive hotels) are the direct results of the insanely high demand for the event. If you carefully scale the whole thing down a little, it'll be a richer, more enjoyable experience for everyone.
Of course, this would mean that much less corporate cash would flow into the event. That shouldn't matter to a non-profit organization like Comic Con, but it will. So the odds of them kicking out the most high-profile exhibitors anytime soon are slim to nil. In the real world, money typically triumphs over integrity.
The voices of discontent grow louder and louder each year. Thousands are clamoring for a return to order that doesn't appear visible anytime soon. But in the meantime, artists, exhibitors, and fans are banding together and attempting to recapture the spirit of what Comic Con once was, as evident in the creation of groups like Creator Con. It could be an interesting time for the creative contingent, the people that make up the true heart and soul of Comic Con. Nerd culture has been co-opted by the giants of the entertainment industry, so artists and like-minded individuals have the opportunity to break free and start something new, something better, something that whole-heartedly celebrates the things that brought Comic Con into existence in the first place.
All that said, I still think that going to Comic Con is generally more of a positive experience than a negative one. So let's hope that Comic Con listens to the concerns of its truest devotees and gets its act together. But if that doesn't happen, it's nice to know that alternatives with more focus and integrity are taking shape out there.
In a way, it's a relief. The feeling of not going to Comic Con reminds me of how I felt last year when I decided to not sign up for my work's fantasy football league. Gone is the burden of having to rack my brain, picking and choosing and plotting my every move over the course of two 16-18 hour days. No running, no crowds, no drain on my wallet. Every so often, life requires you to stop and take a break, right?
Of course, I'll still miss being there this year, since I've had plenty of good times in the past. Who could forget Spike & Mike's Gauntlet of Sick and Twisted Animation? Or Jerry Beck's Worst Cartoons Ever showcase? Or the Brisco County Jr. panel with Bruce Campbell? Or getting into an epic gunfight with the cast of Spaced? Or meeting Troma head honcho Lloyd Kaufman? Or meeting Ren & Stimpy creator John Kricfalusi and getting a free personalized drawing from him? Man, I'm getting all nostalgic now. Makes me really wish I could go this year.
But for all the awesome panels and occasional encounters with living legends, there are plenty of things to gripe about. For one, the aforementioned crowds and lines. Comic Con wasn't always the insanely crowded high demand extravaganza that it is today. I remember taking a trolley downtown on a Sunday afternoon and casually strolling into the convention center with practically no wait time in 2005. The following year, my good friend (coincidentally, the same friend whose wedding I'm attending this weekend) had to stand in line for three hours, just barely making it in before they had to cut the line off completely and start turning people away.
Since then, Comic Con has strictly been a "buy tickets in advance" type of event. In 2007, Friday & Saturday passes sold out days in advance. In 2008, all four days were sold out weeks in advance. Now, if you wanna go, you need to register more than half a year in advance because the passes sell out so quickly (many of which are bought by scalpers and sold for huge markups on the black market, a.k.a. eBay). This eliminates the possibility of waiting to see what the guests and panels are gonna be before deciding on going. You have to throw down your hard-earned cash for the sole purpose of attending the convention. Any cool guests or panels that happen to get scheduled are really only an added bonus.
Once you finally make it to the San Diego Convention Center, you find yourself surrounded by tens of thousands of sweaty fans at every turn. Even with the attendance caps, Comic Con is very crowded. It's inevitable, but annoying nonetheless. Walking through the western and central areas of the exhibit hall is an experience comparable to driving north on the 405 during rush hour. You have to deal with the crowds by figuring everything out ahead of time. If there's a panel you really wanna see, you have to head over to the room two or three hours in advance and camp out, and you have to be prepared to spend those two or three hours standing in line.
Going to Hall H on a whim probably isn't going happen. In fact, if you want to see anything in Hall H at any point during the day, it's probably best to just get there first thing in the morning and spend the whole day there. Unfortunately, much of the time, seeing one panel that you want to see means having to skip another panel that you also want to see, even if you have a decent gap of time in between the two. You just have to pick your battles. You're not going to see everything you want to, and the sooner you accept that, the sooner you can stop worrying and enjoy the day.
The increased crowd sizes and higher profile of the event can be explained pretty easily: the convention has been taken over by the entertainment industry. What was once a hardcore yet low-key gathering of nerds and fanboys has changed over the past decade into a preview showcase for every movie distributor, TV channel, and media conglomerate in the country. A-list celebrities and big-name directors talk about their new projects and have Q & A sessions. Studios unveil clips of new movies to the public for the first time. It's where "buzz" and "hype" are created. All the nerdy stuff is still there too, of course. But with each passing year, we see the nerd culture of Comic Con being pushed slightly more to the side.
This year, this trend goes beyond the standard fears of the comic section of the exhibit hall shrinking. The registration price for exhibitors has jumped from $75 to $200 (source: Cartoon Brew), essentially discouraging smaller-scale exhibitors from even being able to attend the event. They've also cracked down on attendees registering as professionals. It used to be that anyone who worked in the entertainment industry got two free passes. Now the passes are reserved for industry professionals with creative/production jobs and a thorough list of credits and credentials. Essentially, they're slowly but surely driving out a significant contingent of the convention's lifeblood. Drive out the independent artists, more room for multibillion-dollar media giants. I shudder to think about what Comic Con will look like in five years.
Let's face it: Comic Con has jumped the shark. The days of it actually being centered around comics have long since passed. Last year, ABC had a panel for a new Patricia Heaton sitcom (the program noted "being a housewife is kinda like being a superhero..."). E! News gives Comic Con recaps and highlights the Monday after the convention ends. Last year's most popular panel was the friggin' Twilight panel. Clearly, something is wrong here.
So how do we remedy the situtation? How can Comic Con get back to its roots? My recommendation: have two conventions. It's a fact that Comic Con has gotten too big. They've expanded slightly by having some panels at the next door Hilton ballroom, but the problems remain. There's been plenty of open speculation about whether the convention will stay in San Diego or head elsewhere in a few years to try to accommodate its growing size. The purists are upset about the convention's shift away from what's supposed to be its main focus.
So let's create a separate convention for all of the high-profile entertainment industry stuff. It can be in San Diego or Los Angeles or Las Vegas or wherever they want to do it. Most of the panels that would normally occupy Hall H and Ballroom 20 can be held in their own separate time and place. All of the studios and organizations and celebrities can converge in one place and present first-hand footage and information for highly-anticipated upcoming projects. It'll still be the second biggest entertainment industry showcase of the year (the Oscars being the biggest). Everyone gets to see the stars, hear the news, and have a great time. Call it Entertainment Con, or whatever.
Meanwhile, let Comic Con be Comic Con. Let the emphasis be on comics, animation, video games, collectibles, art, and general nerd culture. Some products of the mainstream entertainment industry can still be a part of it. 20th Century Fox's Futurama comes to mind as a high-profile program that still fits in at Comic Con. Troma can stay. Bruce Campbell can stay. Hell, we could even keep the panels for blockbuster movies specifically based on comics or video games. And of course, Kevin Smith can still have his annual Q & A session. But honestly, most of the TV and movie panels currently at Comic Con don't really need to be there.
Moving all of the extraneous stuff elsewhere will clear a lot of space in both the panel ballrooms and the main exhibit hall. And of course, leave the damn thing in San Diego! The San Diego Convention Center is the perfect location. The biggest problems with San Diego (crowds, expensive hotels) are the direct results of the insanely high demand for the event. If you carefully scale the whole thing down a little, it'll be a richer, more enjoyable experience for everyone.
Of course, this would mean that much less corporate cash would flow into the event. That shouldn't matter to a non-profit organization like Comic Con, but it will. So the odds of them kicking out the most high-profile exhibitors anytime soon are slim to nil. In the real world, money typically triumphs over integrity.
The voices of discontent grow louder and louder each year. Thousands are clamoring for a return to order that doesn't appear visible anytime soon. But in the meantime, artists, exhibitors, and fans are banding together and attempting to recapture the spirit of what Comic Con once was, as evident in the creation of groups like Creator Con. It could be an interesting time for the creative contingent, the people that make up the true heart and soul of Comic Con. Nerd culture has been co-opted by the giants of the entertainment industry, so artists and like-minded individuals have the opportunity to break free and start something new, something better, something that whole-heartedly celebrates the things that brought Comic Con into existence in the first place.
All that said, I still think that going to Comic Con is generally more of a positive experience than a negative one. So let's hope that Comic Con listens to the concerns of its truest devotees and gets its act together. But if that doesn't happen, it's nice to know that alternatives with more focus and integrity are taking shape out there.
Friday, May 28, 2010
TV Party Tonight! '09/'10
An eventful TV season, with lots of good shows coming to an end. It's sad to see them go, but it's always better to see a show end while it's still in relatively top form rather than have it go on too long and become stale, thus tarnishing the reputation and enjoyment of the series as a whole (All in the Family, The Simpsons, Family Guy, etc.) Plus, this means that there are fewer shows that I have to worry about watching next year, meaning more time to actually, like, be productive and stuff.
WARNING: MANY, MANY SPOILERS AHEAD
Lost
What a season and what an ending. It's always been a good enough show that I've always enjoyed going along for the ride without knowing the how and why of everything that's going on, so it was a little disconcerting to actually start getting explanations about Jacob and the Smoke Monster and why everyone was brought to the island, and that it all boiled down to a battle between good and evil over the fate of the world, more or less. But through and through, the show still maintained an air of intrigue and mystery and managed to be one hell of a ride.
And it had a good ending: the Jack/Locke rivalry running through the entire series came to a head (even if it wasn't really Locke in the end), good triumphed over evil once and for all, Jack took charge and completed his six year-long transition from man of science to man of faith, Sawyer and the gang finally got off the island, Kate finally got to rescue Claire, and the island has new benevolent caretakers in Hurley and Ben. And best of all, everything on the island was real. No lame "it was all a dream" or "they were dead all along" endings, although a lot of people seem to be under the impression that they did all die in the plane crash. Hell, actual publications are printing articles complaining about the show based on the misinterpreted "everyone's dead" concept.
The key moment of the flash-sideways occurs when Christian tells Jack something along the lines of "Everyone dies. Some before you, some long after you." The people who died on the island died on the island. Hurley and Ben probably lived on for thousands of years. And the people who escaped on the plane made it home and lived full lives. Or maybe they crashed in the ocean. Who knows? That side of the story was open-ended; make up your own epilogue. Then everyone met up in a purgatory completely independent of time that showed them what life would've been like if the island had never existed, with the ultimate message being the notion that their time spent with each other on the island was the most important time of their lives (which could explain why Michael, walt and others weren't there; their time on the island wasn't all that enjoyable or meaningful in their own lives). Everyone comes together in the end and learns to let go of/move on from the things holding them down. It was fuzzy, heartwarming, and kind hokey. And beautiful. Not a perfect ending, but a near perfect ending for this show.
Oh, and the shots of the wreckage during the credits? Meaningless. Just a nod to where everything got started. ABC even made an official statement saying so. Calm down, people. I just don't see where all the "This show wasted six years of my life!" sentiment is coming from, beyond any misinterpretation of the ending. The whole show has always been rooted in the mystical and supernatural. The ending isn't any real deviation from that. And while plenty of small, insignificant questions went unanswered, most of the big questions were. It wasn't perfect, but it was a solidly interesting and entertaining wrap up to one of the best shows of the decade. It's been one hell of a ride.
24
24 has been another one of the best shows of the past decade. It was an action drama that struck a chord by combining an inventive format with post-9/11 concerns about terrorism and national security. Though not always eloquent or accurate, it got us thinking about serious issues like torture, corruption, and the moral fiber of a nation in wartime. Eight years was long enough. The plot cliches had been well-worn for years. (The middle eastern terrorists are being backed by the Russians! And the U.S. government is taking over operations at CTU! And there's a mole in CTU! And the bad guy wants an immunity deal!) But the show still at least managed to be fairly entertaining most of the time. Okay, season 6 was terrible. And until the show's cancellation was announced, I had given up watching season 8 for a good month or so. But overall, it was a kick-ass show that I was happy to have around for a while.
The last season started off pretty slow, to the point that many loyal fans got tired and jumped ship. But as the main storylines started to wrap up, the show got more interesting and exciting from week to week, culminating in Jack Bauer unhinged and on a killing spree for the last few episodes. It was interesting to see them do away with the "bending the rules to save the world" theme and have Jack degenerate into cold-blooded revenge. It was looking like the show would end in a way that Jack Bauer could never come back from (i.e. He can't come back and save the country if he's wanted for killing foreign officials). That's what happened, but they still ended the show in a way that leaves the door open for more Jack Bauer adventures somewhere down the road. In short, it felt like an intense season finale, not an epic culmination of the entire series. But I enjoyed it. After growing stale and nearly unwatchable, the show had a nice mini-comeback as one of TV's more exciting powerhouses.
One of the most lasting moments of the season (and probably the series): Jack tortures this Russian guy to try to get information (one aspect of the show I won't miss), absolutely eviscerates him - I mean, I've never seen anything this brutal on network TV before. It was genuinely tough to watch. He gets nowhere though, and finally he retreats to another side of the room and quietly utters, "Dammit, this isn't working." The show has been criticized over the years for espousing a "Torture good!" stance, but this scene demonstrates that things were a little more complicated than that. The show was never just black-and-white, but ventured into various grey areas, areas of endless debate with regard to national security and the shape of the world. For better or for worse, 24 was a show of its time. Sayonara, Jack Bauer.
The Sarah Silverman Program
I've always liked this show, but felt that it's the kind of show that would function best with a relatively short lifespan. And after a mere 32 episodes over three seasons, that's exactly what happened. Comedy Central almost didn't even make a third season (the Logo channel saved the show at the 11th hour by agreeing to split the season's production costs), and they buried the show halfway through the season by moving its timeslot from 10:30 pm to midnight. It's sad, but fitting, since the show seemed destined to be more of a cult hit than something with widespread appeal. But it remained ridiculous and offensive right up to the end, with Sarah's dog going back in time and stopping the Holocaust from happening. And now I have the "banana cop" song stuck in my head.
The Office
Another great comedy came to an end this past year, one of the best comedies to hit network TV in years. When the American adaptation of The Office first started, it was a miserably awkward clone of the British version. But before long, the show established its own identity and became one of the most solid shows on TV. It was funny, clever, interesting, entertaining - an all around oustanding show for at least the second and third seasons. The next few seasons suffered a little due to storylines that were never properly fleshed out and the use of cheap deus-ex-machina plot devices (the end of the Michael Scott Paper Company story arc, in particular). But when everything clicked, it was a thing of beauty.
It was odd to see a series come to an end in the middle of a season, but in all honesty, the wedding episode was a perfect way to end the series, a beautiful conclusion to the entire Jim/Pam dynamic that fueled the show for so long. It was easily one of the best hours of TV this year, and it's good to see the show go out on a high note. If the show had kept going on after that episode, it probably just would've been a pale shadow of its former self, with nothing fresh or funny happening, and with no driving force to keep the show interesting. It's nice to see a show that has some class and knows when to wrap things up instead of plummeting into mediocrity. It had a good run, and it will be missed.
That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
New Shows
Modern Family was not only the best new show this year, but I'd even go as far as calling it the second best show on TV this past year (right behind Lost). It's like Arrested Development meets The Office, with a little heart thrown in. Outstanding writing week after week, and great performances from all the actors involved. Good, funny stuff all around. An excellent piece of work that stands head and shoulders above most of the comedies out there. My second favorite new show was Justified, a cool, modern-day western that has never blown me away but has always put a smile on my face simply because of how well each episode works. This show could have a great future ahead of it. And let's not forget Community. For a while, I was on the fence about this one. It's consistently funny enough to keep watching each week, but a lot of the first season wasn't anything particularly special. For much of the year, I used this show as a barometer for how good a show needs to be in order for me to justify watching. Now, I view it simply as a damn good show. Not sure how long of a shelf life it can have, but I'm definitely enjoying it for now.
I got into Glee briefly, and then gave up on it just as quickly. I had minor surgery a few months ago and was out of commission for a few days. During that recovery time, I borrowed my roommate's Glee Volume One DVD, which had the first 13 episodes. So I watched and gradually got sucked into it. Yeah, it's basically just a cheesy soap opera with musical numbers, like High School Musical for teenagers. It's reputation for being edgy and satirical is somewhat of an overstatement. It's about as edgy as the movie Mean Girls. But despite all that, it still manages to be just funny and clever enough to be worth watching. And the first 13 episodes actually were pretty fun to watch. Then I made the mistake of watching the show once its hiatus ended in April. In their first episode back, they quickly undid everything that they had spent the first 13 episodes building toward. The whole thing smacked of desperation to keep things interesting by "mixing it up" or, more accurately, hitting the reset button. Then the second new episode was essentially an hour-long informercial for Madonna. They even had Jane Lynch (the rock of the show, the only real thing holding the show back from mediocrity) and had her character spend the entire episode going on and on about the greatness of Madonna. After about ten minutes, I threw in the towel for good. Record industry product placement aside, the show went from clever dramedy to just unwatchable. I also started and gave up on The Good Wife. It's a solid show, but it's basically just your typical courtroom drama, which has never really appealed to me.
Returning Shows
I watched the first three seasons of 30 Rock last summer and loved every minute of it. The fourth season was no exception. Great stuff all around. Probably the funniest show on TV right now. Parks & Recreation wins this year's most improved award. Like The Office, it got off to a slow start in its first season. But season two started off on a high note and the show never looked back. What started as awkward and unsuccessful eventually fulfilled its potential and became an endearingly funny and offbeat show with one of the best casts on TV. And there's South Park, which is still going strong. At this point, the show has been on long enough that it's not really worth debating whether or not it jumped the shark (or how many times it has). At this point, it's just a funny, outrageous show that's always there to poke fun and pop culture and provide a few good laughs. The 200th/201st episode extravaganza was a fun treat for the fans, even with Comedy Central's apparent meddling.
We'll see what happens in the fall. Hopefully there'll be one or two new shows worth checking out. And I can't wait for Conan's new show. (A gamble, but a good fit for Conan's mid-sized but fiercely devoted fanbase, not to mention an interesting test for the entire cable TV medium.) But until then, here's to summer, reruns, and having more free time.
WARNING: MANY, MANY SPOILERS AHEAD
Lost
What a season and what an ending. It's always been a good enough show that I've always enjoyed going along for the ride without knowing the how and why of everything that's going on, so it was a little disconcerting to actually start getting explanations about Jacob and the Smoke Monster and why everyone was brought to the island, and that it all boiled down to a battle between good and evil over the fate of the world, more or less. But through and through, the show still maintained an air of intrigue and mystery and managed to be one hell of a ride.
And it had a good ending: the Jack/Locke rivalry running through the entire series came to a head (even if it wasn't really Locke in the end), good triumphed over evil once and for all, Jack took charge and completed his six year-long transition from man of science to man of faith, Sawyer and the gang finally got off the island, Kate finally got to rescue Claire, and the island has new benevolent caretakers in Hurley and Ben. And best of all, everything on the island was real. No lame "it was all a dream" or "they were dead all along" endings, although a lot of people seem to be under the impression that they did all die in the plane crash. Hell, actual publications are printing articles complaining about the show based on the misinterpreted "everyone's dead" concept.
The key moment of the flash-sideways occurs when Christian tells Jack something along the lines of "Everyone dies. Some before you, some long after you." The people who died on the island died on the island. Hurley and Ben probably lived on for thousands of years. And the people who escaped on the plane made it home and lived full lives. Or maybe they crashed in the ocean. Who knows? That side of the story was open-ended; make up your own epilogue. Then everyone met up in a purgatory completely independent of time that showed them what life would've been like if the island had never existed, with the ultimate message being the notion that their time spent with each other on the island was the most important time of their lives (which could explain why Michael, walt and others weren't there; their time on the island wasn't all that enjoyable or meaningful in their own lives). Everyone comes together in the end and learns to let go of/move on from the things holding them down. It was fuzzy, heartwarming, and kind hokey. And beautiful. Not a perfect ending, but a near perfect ending for this show.
Oh, and the shots of the wreckage during the credits? Meaningless. Just a nod to where everything got started. ABC even made an official statement saying so. Calm down, people. I just don't see where all the "This show wasted six years of my life!" sentiment is coming from, beyond any misinterpretation of the ending. The whole show has always been rooted in the mystical and supernatural. The ending isn't any real deviation from that. And while plenty of small, insignificant questions went unanswered, most of the big questions were. It wasn't perfect, but it was a solidly interesting and entertaining wrap up to one of the best shows of the decade. It's been one hell of a ride.
24
24 has been another one of the best shows of the past decade. It was an action drama that struck a chord by combining an inventive format with post-9/11 concerns about terrorism and national security. Though not always eloquent or accurate, it got us thinking about serious issues like torture, corruption, and the moral fiber of a nation in wartime. Eight years was long enough. The plot cliches had been well-worn for years. (The middle eastern terrorists are being backed by the Russians! And the U.S. government is taking over operations at CTU! And there's a mole in CTU! And the bad guy wants an immunity deal!) But the show still at least managed to be fairly entertaining most of the time. Okay, season 6 was terrible. And until the show's cancellation was announced, I had given up watching season 8 for a good month or so. But overall, it was a kick-ass show that I was happy to have around for a while.
The last season started off pretty slow, to the point that many loyal fans got tired and jumped ship. But as the main storylines started to wrap up, the show got more interesting and exciting from week to week, culminating in Jack Bauer unhinged and on a killing spree for the last few episodes. It was interesting to see them do away with the "bending the rules to save the world" theme and have Jack degenerate into cold-blooded revenge. It was looking like the show would end in a way that Jack Bauer could never come back from (i.e. He can't come back and save the country if he's wanted for killing foreign officials). That's what happened, but they still ended the show in a way that leaves the door open for more Jack Bauer adventures somewhere down the road. In short, it felt like an intense season finale, not an epic culmination of the entire series. But I enjoyed it. After growing stale and nearly unwatchable, the show had a nice mini-comeback as one of TV's more exciting powerhouses.
One of the most lasting moments of the season (and probably the series): Jack tortures this Russian guy to try to get information (one aspect of the show I won't miss), absolutely eviscerates him - I mean, I've never seen anything this brutal on network TV before. It was genuinely tough to watch. He gets nowhere though, and finally he retreats to another side of the room and quietly utters, "Dammit, this isn't working." The show has been criticized over the years for espousing a "Torture good!" stance, but this scene demonstrates that things were a little more complicated than that. The show was never just black-and-white, but ventured into various grey areas, areas of endless debate with regard to national security and the shape of the world. For better or for worse, 24 was a show of its time. Sayonara, Jack Bauer.
The Sarah Silverman Program
I've always liked this show, but felt that it's the kind of show that would function best with a relatively short lifespan. And after a mere 32 episodes over three seasons, that's exactly what happened. Comedy Central almost didn't even make a third season (the Logo channel saved the show at the 11th hour by agreeing to split the season's production costs), and they buried the show halfway through the season by moving its timeslot from 10:30 pm to midnight. It's sad, but fitting, since the show seemed destined to be more of a cult hit than something with widespread appeal. But it remained ridiculous and offensive right up to the end, with Sarah's dog going back in time and stopping the Holocaust from happening. And now I have the "banana cop" song stuck in my head.
The Office
Another great comedy came to an end this past year, one of the best comedies to hit network TV in years. When the American adaptation of The Office first started, it was a miserably awkward clone of the British version. But before long, the show established its own identity and became one of the most solid shows on TV. It was funny, clever, interesting, entertaining - an all around oustanding show for at least the second and third seasons. The next few seasons suffered a little due to storylines that were never properly fleshed out and the use of cheap deus-ex-machina plot devices (the end of the Michael Scott Paper Company story arc, in particular). But when everything clicked, it was a thing of beauty.
It was odd to see a series come to an end in the middle of a season, but in all honesty, the wedding episode was a perfect way to end the series, a beautiful conclusion to the entire Jim/Pam dynamic that fueled the show for so long. It was easily one of the best hours of TV this year, and it's good to see the show go out on a high note. If the show had kept going on after that episode, it probably just would've been a pale shadow of its former self, with nothing fresh or funny happening, and with no driving force to keep the show interesting. It's nice to see a show that has some class and knows when to wrap things up instead of plummeting into mediocrity. It had a good run, and it will be missed.
That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
New Shows
Modern Family was not only the best new show this year, but I'd even go as far as calling it the second best show on TV this past year (right behind Lost). It's like Arrested Development meets The Office, with a little heart thrown in. Outstanding writing week after week, and great performances from all the actors involved. Good, funny stuff all around. An excellent piece of work that stands head and shoulders above most of the comedies out there. My second favorite new show was Justified, a cool, modern-day western that has never blown me away but has always put a smile on my face simply because of how well each episode works. This show could have a great future ahead of it. And let's not forget Community. For a while, I was on the fence about this one. It's consistently funny enough to keep watching each week, but a lot of the first season wasn't anything particularly special. For much of the year, I used this show as a barometer for how good a show needs to be in order for me to justify watching. Now, I view it simply as a damn good show. Not sure how long of a shelf life it can have, but I'm definitely enjoying it for now.
I got into Glee briefly, and then gave up on it just as quickly. I had minor surgery a few months ago and was out of commission for a few days. During that recovery time, I borrowed my roommate's Glee Volume One DVD, which had the first 13 episodes. So I watched and gradually got sucked into it. Yeah, it's basically just a cheesy soap opera with musical numbers, like High School Musical for teenagers. It's reputation for being edgy and satirical is somewhat of an overstatement. It's about as edgy as the movie Mean Girls. But despite all that, it still manages to be just funny and clever enough to be worth watching. And the first 13 episodes actually were pretty fun to watch. Then I made the mistake of watching the show once its hiatus ended in April. In their first episode back, they quickly undid everything that they had spent the first 13 episodes building toward. The whole thing smacked of desperation to keep things interesting by "mixing it up" or, more accurately, hitting the reset button. Then the second new episode was essentially an hour-long informercial for Madonna. They even had Jane Lynch (the rock of the show, the only real thing holding the show back from mediocrity) and had her character spend the entire episode going on and on about the greatness of Madonna. After about ten minutes, I threw in the towel for good. Record industry product placement aside, the show went from clever dramedy to just unwatchable. I also started and gave up on The Good Wife. It's a solid show, but it's basically just your typical courtroom drama, which has never really appealed to me.
Returning Shows
I watched the first three seasons of 30 Rock last summer and loved every minute of it. The fourth season was no exception. Great stuff all around. Probably the funniest show on TV right now. Parks & Recreation wins this year's most improved award. Like The Office, it got off to a slow start in its first season. But season two started off on a high note and the show never looked back. What started as awkward and unsuccessful eventually fulfilled its potential and became an endearingly funny and offbeat show with one of the best casts on TV. And there's South Park, which is still going strong. At this point, the show has been on long enough that it's not really worth debating whether or not it jumped the shark (or how many times it has). At this point, it's just a funny, outrageous show that's always there to poke fun and pop culture and provide a few good laughs. The 200th/201st episode extravaganza was a fun treat for the fans, even with Comedy Central's apparent meddling.
We'll see what happens in the fall. Hopefully there'll be one or two new shows worth checking out. And I can't wait for Conan's new show. (A gamble, but a good fit for Conan's mid-sized but fiercely devoted fanbase, not to mention an interesting test for the entire cable TV medium.) But until then, here's to summer, reruns, and having more free time.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
OMG BEST DRAFT EVER!!!!!!!!!111
I was looking forward to this year's draft, but also dreading it. Speculation was rampant on the interwebs, as it is every year. The 1, 2, and 3 picks were pretty much set in stone with Bradford, Suh, and Gerald McCoy. But after that, the choices of the remaining teams seemed pretty up in the air, possibilities abound. Some mock drafts had the Raiders not filling their most immediate needs at offensive and defensive tackle and instead going with the best talent available, like linebacker Ronaldo McClain or quarterback Jimmy Clausen. But the majority of the sports analysts out there seemed pretty sure that the Raiders would use the no. 8 overall pick on offensive tackle Bruce Campbell. Campbell has a lot of upside, and his stock was raised significantly with an incredible showing at this year's Combine. But on film, he ranged from mediocre to decent, and he didn't have many college accolades to bolster his case. He's a guy with a lot of raw talent and potential, but whether or not he can actually make use of them and become a capable starter is a huge question mark. Most rankings had him projected as a second-rounder at best. In other words, he was the perfect stereotypical Raider draft pick candidate: impressive numbers, not much else - a huge reach if taken in the first round. Also picking up steam in the Raiders rumor mill was Mike Iupati, an offensive guard projected as a mid-late first-rounder. Again, another reach if taken no. 8 overall. If the "insider" buzz held true, this was shaping up to be another wasted draft in typical Raiders fashion, like Darrius Heyward-Bey all over again.
4th pick: The Bucs select OT Trent Williams. Damn. I was hoping (but not expecting) that he'd fall to the Raiders. Russell Okung, the only other "sure thing" OT in this year's draft goes to Seattle with the 6th pick. So what offensive tackles are left at this point? There's Bryan Bulaga, originally projected by many to go in the top 6. The fact that he's still available could be seen as a good value, although a lot of teams were concerned about his arm length and overall ability to be a playmaker at the pro level. There's also Anthony Davis, who has some concerns about weight fluctuation and work ethic but still projected as an early-mid first-rounder. Oh, and Bruce Campbell. As far as defensive tackles go, Dan Williams is still available, another early-mid first-rounder. There are a few options for the Raiders at this point. If they want to fill the gaps at OT or DT, they might have to reach slightly. They'd get solid player, albeit not a guaranteed sure thing. Or they could go with a combine freak or whoever posted the fastest 40 time, as has come to be expected of Al Davis by now.
BUt then the Raiders defied all expectations and made a pick that actually made a surprising amount of sense: they went with the best player available - LB Rolando McClain. The LB spot wasn't their more glaring need, with Kirk Morisson still on the roster, and significant depth at the outside LB spots. But McClain is a player who not only possesses solid defensive skills, but the intelligence and awareness to be a genuine leader on the field. I haven't followed his college career, but he seems like he could be good for this team. I'm cautiously optimistic.
Other interesting happenings in the first round: Tim Tebow, of course. He was one of the best QBs in college history, but there are major concerns about whether or not he'll ever be able to perform at the pro level. He'll need a few years of work before he's ready to be an impact player, if at all. So Denver trading up to get him in the late first round instead of waiting for the second or third round is a huge gamble. If it pays off, then Josh McDaniels is a genius. If not, it's a wasted first-round pick. Even with all that, my pick for biggest first-round reach is the Jaguars passing up on Jimmy Clausen and Dan Williams and taking some DT I've never heard of with the 10th overall pick. Maybe they know something that no one else does, but it seems like a reach. They probably could've traded down if they really wanted him. San Diego moving all the way up from 28 to 12 was pretty interesting too. With the pick and all that they had to give up to move up that far, Ryan Matthews will have to be an immediate impact player for this move to pay off. I think he'll be fine, though. As far as players I'd originally been looking at as potential Raider picks: Anthony Davis ended up being picked by the 49ers at no. 11, Bryan Bulaga fell from the top ten to the Packers at no. 23, and Dan Williams somehow lasted until the Cardinals pick at no. 26.
In the second round... First off, let me say that I like the new format of the draft. By having the first round on one day and the second round on the next, it makes the second round seem significantly more important. Now teams can think about their first round pick(s) for a while and figure out what they really need next. More time for trades, more time for analysis. It makes the draft more interesting overall. But anyway... in the second round, the Raiders didn't pick up Bruce campbell as predicted, but instead got a solid DT, which takes care of their most glaring defensive need. The third round comes along, and Campbell is still available. While taking him in the first round would've been a huge reach, taking him in the third round doesn't sound so bad. Nevertheless, the Raiders pass on him again to take some other OT. Maybe the Raiders weren't sold on campbell after all. Oh well. But... and this is where it gets interesting... apparently, no other teams were sold on Campbell either, because by the time the second day was said and done, Bruce Campbell was still without a team. Finally, in the fourth round early on the third day, the Raiders picked Campbell. This way, now they have two rookie OTs to work with. I like the potential here. I don't know much about the rest of their picks, but most of them sound fairly decent.
Of course, the big news on day 3 had little to do with draft picks. In a manner fitting a draft that seemed to break from the traditional Al Davis bad decision mindset, the Raiders acquired longtime Washington Redskins starting QB Jason Campbell for a 2012 fourth-round draft pick. The Raiders already have four QBs on the roster, but they're all questionable as starters for 2010. Bruce Gradkowski played well in his starts last year, but he's hurt. Even when healthy, it remains to be seen if he's good enough to build an offense around. Charlie Frye is purely a backup. New acquisition Kyle Boller is a former starter who's fallen on hard times and was brought in as insurance for Gradkowski's recent pectoral tear. And then we have JaMarcus Russell. After being picked no. 1 overall three years ago, Russell finally started to show some improvement and promise at the end of the 2008 season. In 2009, he regressed to the point that capturing Ryan Leaf's "Biggest Draft Bust of All Time" title seems inevitable. Bringing in Campbell signifies that they're finally sick of Russell's poor work ethic and lousy quarterbacking. A release seems likely by the end of the week, primarily to avoid the possibility of having to pay him an extra $6.5 million for 2010. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing him stay with the team, but only as #4 on the depth chart, and only for the absolute minimum salary. My stance is that we've already invested tons of time and money in him, so I'd hate to see the Raiders cut him loose only to have him go on and find success with another team. Although right now, the notion of him having a fruitful NFL career no longer seems very likely. If the choice is between paying him a full salary and finally being rid of the burden he's placed on the team, I say cut him loose.
And that's the end of that chapter.
This could actually be an interesting team to watch this season. That'd be nice for a change...
4th pick: The Bucs select OT Trent Williams. Damn. I was hoping (but not expecting) that he'd fall to the Raiders. Russell Okung, the only other "sure thing" OT in this year's draft goes to Seattle with the 6th pick. So what offensive tackles are left at this point? There's Bryan Bulaga, originally projected by many to go in the top 6. The fact that he's still available could be seen as a good value, although a lot of teams were concerned about his arm length and overall ability to be a playmaker at the pro level. There's also Anthony Davis, who has some concerns about weight fluctuation and work ethic but still projected as an early-mid first-rounder. Oh, and Bruce Campbell. As far as defensive tackles go, Dan Williams is still available, another early-mid first-rounder. There are a few options for the Raiders at this point. If they want to fill the gaps at OT or DT, they might have to reach slightly. They'd get solid player, albeit not a guaranteed sure thing. Or they could go with a combine freak or whoever posted the fastest 40 time, as has come to be expected of Al Davis by now.
BUt then the Raiders defied all expectations and made a pick that actually made a surprising amount of sense: they went with the best player available - LB Rolando McClain. The LB spot wasn't their more glaring need, with Kirk Morisson still on the roster, and significant depth at the outside LB spots. But McClain is a player who not only possesses solid defensive skills, but the intelligence and awareness to be a genuine leader on the field. I haven't followed his college career, but he seems like he could be good for this team. I'm cautiously optimistic.
Other interesting happenings in the first round: Tim Tebow, of course. He was one of the best QBs in college history, but there are major concerns about whether or not he'll ever be able to perform at the pro level. He'll need a few years of work before he's ready to be an impact player, if at all. So Denver trading up to get him in the late first round instead of waiting for the second or third round is a huge gamble. If it pays off, then Josh McDaniels is a genius. If not, it's a wasted first-round pick. Even with all that, my pick for biggest first-round reach is the Jaguars passing up on Jimmy Clausen and Dan Williams and taking some DT I've never heard of with the 10th overall pick. Maybe they know something that no one else does, but it seems like a reach. They probably could've traded down if they really wanted him. San Diego moving all the way up from 28 to 12 was pretty interesting too. With the pick and all that they had to give up to move up that far, Ryan Matthews will have to be an immediate impact player for this move to pay off. I think he'll be fine, though. As far as players I'd originally been looking at as potential Raider picks: Anthony Davis ended up being picked by the 49ers at no. 11, Bryan Bulaga fell from the top ten to the Packers at no. 23, and Dan Williams somehow lasted until the Cardinals pick at no. 26.
In the second round... First off, let me say that I like the new format of the draft. By having the first round on one day and the second round on the next, it makes the second round seem significantly more important. Now teams can think about their first round pick(s) for a while and figure out what they really need next. More time for trades, more time for analysis. It makes the draft more interesting overall. But anyway... in the second round, the Raiders didn't pick up Bruce campbell as predicted, but instead got a solid DT, which takes care of their most glaring defensive need. The third round comes along, and Campbell is still available. While taking him in the first round would've been a huge reach, taking him in the third round doesn't sound so bad. Nevertheless, the Raiders pass on him again to take some other OT. Maybe the Raiders weren't sold on campbell after all. Oh well. But... and this is where it gets interesting... apparently, no other teams were sold on Campbell either, because by the time the second day was said and done, Bruce Campbell was still without a team. Finally, in the fourth round early on the third day, the Raiders picked Campbell. This way, now they have two rookie OTs to work with. I like the potential here. I don't know much about the rest of their picks, but most of them sound fairly decent.
Of course, the big news on day 3 had little to do with draft picks. In a manner fitting a draft that seemed to break from the traditional Al Davis bad decision mindset, the Raiders acquired longtime Washington Redskins starting QB Jason Campbell for a 2012 fourth-round draft pick. The Raiders already have four QBs on the roster, but they're all questionable as starters for 2010. Bruce Gradkowski played well in his starts last year, but he's hurt. Even when healthy, it remains to be seen if he's good enough to build an offense around. Charlie Frye is purely a backup. New acquisition Kyle Boller is a former starter who's fallen on hard times and was brought in as insurance for Gradkowski's recent pectoral tear. And then we have JaMarcus Russell. After being picked no. 1 overall three years ago, Russell finally started to show some improvement and promise at the end of the 2008 season. In 2009, he regressed to the point that capturing Ryan Leaf's "Biggest Draft Bust of All Time" title seems inevitable. Bringing in Campbell signifies that they're finally sick of Russell's poor work ethic and lousy quarterbacking. A release seems likely by the end of the week, primarily to avoid the possibility of having to pay him an extra $6.5 million for 2010. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing him stay with the team, but only as #4 on the depth chart, and only for the absolute minimum salary. My stance is that we've already invested tons of time and money in him, so I'd hate to see the Raiders cut him loose only to have him go on and find success with another team. Although right now, the notion of him having a fruitful NFL career no longer seems very likely. If the choice is between paying him a full salary and finally being rid of the burden he's placed on the team, I say cut him loose.
And that's the end of that chapter.
This could actually be an interesting team to watch this season. That'd be nice for a change...
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Top 50 Beach Boys Songs
Something I've been chipping away at in the back of my mind off and on for a little while. The Beach Boys are (or were up until about 1977) an outstanding band and an integral part of American pop music history. Here's a list of what I believe to be the best Beach Boys songs out there. Anyone whose knowledge of the Beach Boys is limited to "Surfin USA" and "Barbara Ann" could do themselves good by checking out some of these songs. Or even better, just go out and buy Pet Sounds.
Honorable Mentions:
Solar System (Love You, 1977)
Honkin' Down the Highway (Love You, 1977)
A Day in the Life of a Tree (Surf's Up, 1971)
Aren't You Glad (Wild Honey, 1967)
Good Timin' (L.A. (Light Album), 1979)
50. Whistle In (Smiley Smile, 1967)
49. Here Comes the Night (Wild Honey, 1967)
48. Wake the World (Friends, 1968)
47. I'll Bet He's Nice (Love You, 1977)
46. Long Promised Road (Surf's Up, 1971)
45. Disney Girls (1957) (Surf's Up, 1971)
44. That's Not Me (Pet Sounds, 1966)
43. It's About Time (Sunflower, 1970)
42. Funky Pretty (Holland, 1973)
41. Little Bird (Friends, 1968)
40. You Still Believe In Me (Pet Sounds, 1966)
39. Hang on to Your Ego (Pet Sounds outtake, 1966)
38. The Night Was So Young (Love You, 1977)
37. Feel Flows (Surf's Up, 1971)
36. Let the Wind Blow (Wild Honey, 1967)
35. Airplane (Love You, 1977)
34. Friends (Friends, 1968)
33. All Summer Long (All Summer Long, 1964)
32. Time to Get Alone (20/20, 1969)
31. Forever (Sunflower, 1970)
30. All I Wanna Do (Sunflower, 1970)
29. Let Him Run Wild (Summer Days (and Summer Nights!!), 1965)
28. 'Til I Die (Surf's Up, 1971)
27. Surfer Girl (Surfer Girl, 1963)
26. Little Deuce Coupe (Surfer Girl, 1963)
25. Do It Again (20/20, 1969)
24. Don't Talk (Put Your Head On My Shoulder) (Pet Sounds, 1966)
23. Wild Honey (Wild Honey, 1967)
22. Wonderful (Smile outtake, 1967)
21. Can't Wait Too Long (Wild Honey outtake, 1967-68)
20. She Knows Me Too Well (Today!, 1965)
19. Sail On, Sailor (Holland, 1973)
18. This Whole World (Sunflower, 1970)
17. Cabinessence (20/20, 1969)
16. Darlin' (Wild Honey, 1967)
15. I Get Around (All Summer Long, 1964)
14. Heroes and Villains (Smiley Smile, 1967)
13. Please Let Me Wonder (Today!, 1965)
12. The Warmth of the Sun (Shut Down Volume 2, 1964)
11. The Little Girl I Once Knew (single, 1965)
10. Add Some Music to Your Day (Sunflower, 1970)
9. California Girls (Summer Days (and Summer Nights!!), 1965)
8. Help Me Rhonda (Summer Days (and Summer Nights!!), 1965)
7. Caroline, No (Pet Sounds, 1966)
6. Don't Worry Baby (Shut Down Volume 2, 1964)
5. Surf's Up (Surf's Up, 1971)
4. Good Vibrations (single, 1966; Smiley Smile, 1967)
3. In My Room (Surfer Girl, 1963)
2. Wouldn't It Be Nice (Pet Sounds, 1966)
1. God Only Knows (Pet Sounds, 1966)
Honorable Mentions:
Solar System (Love You, 1977)
Honkin' Down the Highway (Love You, 1977)
A Day in the Life of a Tree (Surf's Up, 1971)
Aren't You Glad (Wild Honey, 1967)
Good Timin' (L.A. (Light Album), 1979)
50. Whistle In (Smiley Smile, 1967)
49. Here Comes the Night (Wild Honey, 1967)
48. Wake the World (Friends, 1968)
47. I'll Bet He's Nice (Love You, 1977)
46. Long Promised Road (Surf's Up, 1971)
45. Disney Girls (1957) (Surf's Up, 1971)
44. That's Not Me (Pet Sounds, 1966)
43. It's About Time (Sunflower, 1970)
42. Funky Pretty (Holland, 1973)
41. Little Bird (Friends, 1968)
40. You Still Believe In Me (Pet Sounds, 1966)
39. Hang on to Your Ego (Pet Sounds outtake, 1966)
38. The Night Was So Young (Love You, 1977)
37. Feel Flows (Surf's Up, 1971)
36. Let the Wind Blow (Wild Honey, 1967)
35. Airplane (Love You, 1977)
34. Friends (Friends, 1968)
33. All Summer Long (All Summer Long, 1964)
32. Time to Get Alone (20/20, 1969)
31. Forever (Sunflower, 1970)
30. All I Wanna Do (Sunflower, 1970)
29. Let Him Run Wild (Summer Days (and Summer Nights!!), 1965)
28. 'Til I Die (Surf's Up, 1971)
27. Surfer Girl (Surfer Girl, 1963)
26. Little Deuce Coupe (Surfer Girl, 1963)
25. Do It Again (20/20, 1969)
24. Don't Talk (Put Your Head On My Shoulder) (Pet Sounds, 1966)
23. Wild Honey (Wild Honey, 1967)
22. Wonderful (Smile outtake, 1967)
21. Can't Wait Too Long (Wild Honey outtake, 1967-68)
20. She Knows Me Too Well (Today!, 1965)
19. Sail On, Sailor (Holland, 1973)
18. This Whole World (Sunflower, 1970)
17. Cabinessence (20/20, 1969)
16. Darlin' (Wild Honey, 1967)
15. I Get Around (All Summer Long, 1964)
14. Heroes and Villains (Smiley Smile, 1967)
13. Please Let Me Wonder (Today!, 1965)
12. The Warmth of the Sun (Shut Down Volume 2, 1964)
11. The Little Girl I Once Knew (single, 1965)
10. Add Some Music to Your Day (Sunflower, 1970)
9. California Girls (Summer Days (and Summer Nights!!), 1965)
8. Help Me Rhonda (Summer Days (and Summer Nights!!), 1965)
7. Caroline, No (Pet Sounds, 1966)
6. Don't Worry Baby (Shut Down Volume 2, 1964)
5. Surf's Up (Surf's Up, 1971)
4. Good Vibrations (single, 1966; Smiley Smile, 1967)
3. In My Room (Surfer Girl, 1963)
2. Wouldn't It Be Nice (Pet Sounds, 1966)
1. God Only Knows (Pet Sounds, 1966)
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
The Dodgers, the Braves, a Blown Call, and the Balance of the Universe
I've been meaning to write about this game for a while now because I thought it was so fascinating. Rarely do you see a game that features both an odd turn of events and a brilliantly profound ending.
It took place last summer, the night of August 7th, 2009. The Braves were playing against the Dodgers in L.A. Braves pitcher Jair Jurrjens was pitching to Andre Ethier in the bottom of the fifth inning. Rafael Furcal was on first, no outs, score tied 2-2.
Jurrjens threw a full count pitch to Ethier while Furcal attempted to steal second. Ethier took the pitch without swinging, and the home plate umpire raised his arm to signal strike three. Catcher Brian McCann then threw to second just in time for Furcal to get tagged out on the steal attempt. Double play.
But no. The umpire then explained to the teams that what had been believed to be the third strike was actually ball four. Essentially, he changed his mind, since it was a very close call, location-wise, and he did appear to call strike three initially. So instead of bases empty, two outs, it was now runners on 1st and 2nd with no outs. Naturally, Braves manager Bobby Cox came out to argue the call, for which he was ejected.
The next batter was Manny Ramirez, who struck out. Under the original call, this would've been the end of the inning. Instead, it was only the first out. The next batter, Casey Blake, came up and hit a 3-run home run. I remember watching all of this on TV in utter bewilderment. "Great," I thought. "The Dodgers are up by three now because of a bad call. It sucks to see a team get screwed over like that." I was having flashbacks of the infamous Ed Hochuli call in the 2008 Chargers/Broncos matchup.
Dodgers pitcher Chad Billingsley continued to pitch well in the sixth inning. Then, randomly, he tweaked a hamstring during an at-bat in the bottom of the sixth, so he had to be taken out of the game. He was replaced by relief pitcher Hong-Chi Kuo, who proceeded to give up two runs in the seventh, bringing the Braves to within one. Then in the ninth, the usually outstanding Jonathan Broxton gave up a run in the ninth to send the game into extra innings. Suddenly, the blown call didn't seem to matter any more. It took a few innings, but things were right back to where they were in the fifth. Ultimately, the Braves scored four runs in the twelfth inning to win the game 9-5.
All in all, it was a really crazy game to follow from the fifth inning non-strikeout to the end. A bizarre call was followed shortly by a bizarre injury. (Nothing serious, luckily. Just something that resulted in a hot pitcher being removed for a guy who promptly gave two-thirds of the team's lead back.) The ill-gotten three-run lead was gone by the ninth inning and the bad call was ultimately rendered meaningless. The Braves won, as they should have.
It really makes you think about the infinite number of parts at work in world and God's role in making everything come together. Not that God would devote His power to something as insignificant as making a team win or lose a game. It's just fascinating to see how things work out sometimes, how the universe seems to have a way of balancing itself out. That's all.
It took place last summer, the night of August 7th, 2009. The Braves were playing against the Dodgers in L.A. Braves pitcher Jair Jurrjens was pitching to Andre Ethier in the bottom of the fifth inning. Rafael Furcal was on first, no outs, score tied 2-2.
Jurrjens threw a full count pitch to Ethier while Furcal attempted to steal second. Ethier took the pitch without swinging, and the home plate umpire raised his arm to signal strike three. Catcher Brian McCann then threw to second just in time for Furcal to get tagged out on the steal attempt. Double play.
But no. The umpire then explained to the teams that what had been believed to be the third strike was actually ball four. Essentially, he changed his mind, since it was a very close call, location-wise, and he did appear to call strike three initially. So instead of bases empty, two outs, it was now runners on 1st and 2nd with no outs. Naturally, Braves manager Bobby Cox came out to argue the call, for which he was ejected.
The next batter was Manny Ramirez, who struck out. Under the original call, this would've been the end of the inning. Instead, it was only the first out. The next batter, Casey Blake, came up and hit a 3-run home run. I remember watching all of this on TV in utter bewilderment. "Great," I thought. "The Dodgers are up by three now because of a bad call. It sucks to see a team get screwed over like that." I was having flashbacks of the infamous Ed Hochuli call in the 2008 Chargers/Broncos matchup.
Dodgers pitcher Chad Billingsley continued to pitch well in the sixth inning. Then, randomly, he tweaked a hamstring during an at-bat in the bottom of the sixth, so he had to be taken out of the game. He was replaced by relief pitcher Hong-Chi Kuo, who proceeded to give up two runs in the seventh, bringing the Braves to within one. Then in the ninth, the usually outstanding Jonathan Broxton gave up a run in the ninth to send the game into extra innings. Suddenly, the blown call didn't seem to matter any more. It took a few innings, but things were right back to where they were in the fifth. Ultimately, the Braves scored four runs in the twelfth inning to win the game 9-5.
All in all, it was a really crazy game to follow from the fifth inning non-strikeout to the end. A bizarre call was followed shortly by a bizarre injury. (Nothing serious, luckily. Just something that resulted in a hot pitcher being removed for a guy who promptly gave two-thirds of the team's lead back.) The ill-gotten three-run lead was gone by the ninth inning and the bad call was ultimately rendered meaningless. The Braves won, as they should have.
It really makes you think about the infinite number of parts at work in world and God's role in making everything come together. Not that God would devote His power to something as insignificant as making a team win or lose a game. It's just fascinating to see how things work out sometimes, how the universe seems to have a way of balancing itself out. That's all.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Best of the Aughts
In the interest of satiating my compulsory need to make lists, here are some top tens of the past ten. Years.
Best Albums
1. Is This It - The Strokes
2. Kid A - Radiohead
3. Smile - Brian Wilson
4. Funeral - Arcade Fire
5. Songs for the Deaf - Queens of the Stone Age
6. White Blood Cells - The White Stripes
7. Madvillainy - Madvillain
8. Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots - The Flaming Lips
9. Picaresque - The Decemberists
10. Return to Cookie Mountain - TV on the Radio
Best Songs
1. Hey Ya! - Outkast
2. Turnin' On the Screw - Queens of the Stone Age
3. Do You Realize?? - The Flaming Lips
4. The Mariner's Revenge Song - The Decemberists
5. Clint Eastwood - Gorillaz
6. I Wanna Make It Wit Chu - Desert Sessions
7. Takeover - Jay-Z
8. A Distorted Reality Is Now a Necessity to Be Free (Early Version) - Elliott Smith
9. Zero - Yeah Yeah Yeahs
10. Rebellion (Lies) - Arcade Fire
Best Movies
1. There Will Be Blood
2. Children of Men
3. The Dark Knight
4. Inland Empire
5. Knocked Up
6. Shaun of the Dead
7. Paranoid Park
8. I'm Not There
9. Idiocracy
10. Wet Hot American Summer
Best TV Shows
1. Arrested Development
2. Futurama
3. The Shield
4. Lost
5. 24
6. Spaced
7. The Office (UK)
8. 30 Rock
9. Scrubs
10. South Park
Best Albums
1. Is This It - The Strokes
2. Kid A - Radiohead
3. Smile - Brian Wilson
4. Funeral - Arcade Fire
5. Songs for the Deaf - Queens of the Stone Age
6. White Blood Cells - The White Stripes
7. Madvillainy - Madvillain
8. Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots - The Flaming Lips
9. Picaresque - The Decemberists
10. Return to Cookie Mountain - TV on the Radio
Best Songs
1. Hey Ya! - Outkast
2. Turnin' On the Screw - Queens of the Stone Age
3. Do You Realize?? - The Flaming Lips
4. The Mariner's Revenge Song - The Decemberists
5. Clint Eastwood - Gorillaz
6. I Wanna Make It Wit Chu - Desert Sessions
7. Takeover - Jay-Z
8. A Distorted Reality Is Now a Necessity to Be Free (Early Version) - Elliott Smith
9. Zero - Yeah Yeah Yeahs
10. Rebellion (Lies) - Arcade Fire
Best Movies
1. There Will Be Blood
2. Children of Men
3. The Dark Knight
4. Inland Empire
5. Knocked Up
6. Shaun of the Dead
7. Paranoid Park
8. I'm Not There
9. Idiocracy
10. Wet Hot American Summer
Best TV Shows
1. Arrested Development
2. Futurama
3. The Shield
4. Lost
5. 24
6. Spaced
7. The Office (UK)
8. 30 Rock
9. Scrubs
10. South Park
Thursday, November 12, 2009
KLOS, Cable TV, and Perenially-Mutating Genre Definitions
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
