In what seems to me to be a shining example of "us vs. them" syndrome, a debate is going on about which is worse being raped, or being cuckolded (in the biological sense of raising another man's child). Via Instapundit. Arguments are being made based on financial costs, emotional damage, etc.
But the only point in having this debate is to try to score a point against the opposite sex. Just as men and women are different, they have different ways of hurting each other. Even if one is "worse" than the other by some standard, it doesn't really say anything by itself about the conflicts between men and women.
Just as I think collectivism makes for bad government, I think it also makes for a bad way to try to resolve interpersonal issues. One should worry materially less about what "men" do and what "women" do than what the particular men and women in one's life do.
The kids have been on a real "King of the Hill" kick lately. That show, if you've never seen it, features a character, Dale, whose son Joseph is clearly not his. Dale is a comical character, cowardly and stupid, and his cuckolding by his wife played for laughs in both his and others' inability to see the obvious. (Joseph is around 14 through most of the series, and Dale's wife's affair is still going on when the series starts.)
But from the start, Dale's devotion to his son (such as it is) is the bedrock of the family. And as the series progresses and his wife rededicates herself to him, it turns out to be Joseph's real father who ends up lonely and isolated, watching his son grow up to admire and emulate another man.
It's a very funny show, but I don't think I've seen the topic handled more thoroughly and sensitively anywhere else. And I think it's more interesting than trying to figure out who hurts who more, men or women. Because I think we all do a pretty good job of that—and keeping score is probably just going to make us all look bad.
Showing posts with label TV. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TV. Show all posts
Friday, December 4, 2009
Monday, August 31, 2009
Penn and Teller on The Vatican
Wow, this was awful. Line up a bunch of anti-Catholics to talk about the evils of the Vatican? Sorry, guys, but that's bullshit. I say that as a never-been-Catholic, who has had more than a few historical beefs with The Church.
This was an awful, hacky one-sided hit-piece.
It started, as all these things do, with a long-winded list of the horrors committed over 2,000 years—well, it should be 1,600 years—which sure seem horrible. But then you realize it's over 2,000 years. Name an organization that's been around for that long that hasn't committed far worse.
Tough to think of many who've been around even a fraction as long. And, golly, the ones that have been around for any length of time? Most of them have done something awful, within the limits of their power.
Then, of course, there's child molestation. There are few crimes that are as devastating, and The Church has handled it badly, but part of their objection was that the current Pope (back in '60s) was part of the policy of covering up the crimes.
Well, duh. Was the Church supposed to adopt a policy of shouting this from the rooftops? The real sin, of course, was not taking the crimes seriously enough to remove the real risks. School systems across the country do the same thing, of course, but nobody seems to notice this.
Now, one could argue that the Church should be held to a higher standard, but this comes very close to Alinsky's Rule #4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." To blame the Chruch, I think, you should make a case that it was policy to approve of abuse.
Most of the rest is about hatin' on the Church for believing what it believes. For example, the idea that being gay is not a sin, while acting gay is, and using the defense "You're saying they can't act in their nature." Well, yeah.
See, that's what religions do. (Western religions, anyway.) They say, "Yes, it's in your nature to kill those who stand in your way, covet like mad, and put your reproductive apparatus wherever you think it might feel good, and we're telling you not to, because you're better than that, it pisses God off, and all that short-term stuff pales next to an eternity of bliss."
I never get this argument of "It's our nature." Is it not a serial killer's "nature" to kill? Does anyone accept the pedophile's argument that it's in his "nature" to molest? Obviously, what two consenting adults do isn't in the same league as rape and murder but, let's not forget that coveting women is also on the no-no list, and few would argue that that isn't part of male nature.
It's not difficult, people: The Church says non-reproductive sex is a forbidden. There's no way gay sex is going to be okay under this dogma. If you are gay, your particular cross to bear is not having the sex you want to have. And, actually, that's probably your cross to bear even if you're not gay, if fantasy is part of your sex life, or you might want to have sex with anyone other than your spouse, ever.
Then they get around to blaming the Church for AIDS in Africa. See, the Church forbids condoms. Therefore people are having unsafe sex and passing on AIDS to each other. Well, guys, the Church forbids having the sorts of sex that make sex unsafe in the first place. You'll have to explain to me why you think that a bunch of promiscuous dry-sex fans are going to ignore the Church on sex but follow religiously (heh) on condoms.
No sale, guys.
The constant refrain of "Times have changed! Get with the program!" is really just a cover for "You try to make me feel bad about something I want to do." Or "You make others I want to do something with feel bad about it." As judgmental as P&T are, you'd think they'd get less fired up about others who are quite possibly less judgmental than they are.
They even screw up what should have been a pretty good point when they bring on the blaspheming comic. An Italian satirist suggested the Pope was going to go to hell and be sodomized by vigorous gay devils. According to P&T, the Vatican threatened the woman with a liable lawsuit which carries a potential penalty of five years in jail. Bill Donahue says this is an outright lie. (He also froths over the language, which is kind of dopey.)
First, they laud this women like she's really doing something brave. I don't buy that: Italy is rife with anti-Catholic, anti-Vatican types, not all of whom are Communists. But I think when porn star Cicciolina got involved in government 30 years ago, it was safe to say that The Vatican had lost a lot of its supposed clout.
Next, they applaud her for saying that the Church is wrong for meddling with peoples' lives. For merely having opinions on things and getting them into the media, they are just like Islam. (I bullshit you not: This comparison is made.)
Libertarian much? I guess not: P&T champion free speech, but seem to object to it when it comes from religion.
Sadly, while they're usually pretty pro-human, they look at all these Catholic people in the world and say, "Except for you guys. You guys are stupid." Er, no, the Church is "pulling the wool over their eyes."
Penn and Teller always approach their subject with a bias—the kind of glib smugness that comes from knowing the dogma and apocrypha of the era—but this is typically tempered with an allowance for the bias and humor. Even the tax show, which was supposedly rather personal to them, had plenty of humor in it.
This one? Nary a laugh. It was scold from the first minute to the last. Having decided up front that the Church is responsible for the sins of the world (that they could prevent if only they changed everything they believed in), they close by saying maybe you shouldn't believe in a God whose representative on Earth would do all these horrible things (i.e., disagreeing with P&T).
A sad, hacky ending to an otherwise decent season.
This was an awful, hacky one-sided hit-piece.
It started, as all these things do, with a long-winded list of the horrors committed over 2,000 years—well, it should be 1,600 years—which sure seem horrible. But then you realize it's over 2,000 years. Name an organization that's been around for that long that hasn't committed far worse.
Tough to think of many who've been around even a fraction as long. And, golly, the ones that have been around for any length of time? Most of them have done something awful, within the limits of their power.
Then, of course, there's child molestation. There are few crimes that are as devastating, and The Church has handled it badly, but part of their objection was that the current Pope (back in '60s) was part of the policy of covering up the crimes.
Well, duh. Was the Church supposed to adopt a policy of shouting this from the rooftops? The real sin, of course, was not taking the crimes seriously enough to remove the real risks. School systems across the country do the same thing, of course, but nobody seems to notice this.
Now, one could argue that the Church should be held to a higher standard, but this comes very close to Alinsky's Rule #4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." To blame the Chruch, I think, you should make a case that it was policy to approve of abuse.
Most of the rest is about hatin' on the Church for believing what it believes. For example, the idea that being gay is not a sin, while acting gay is, and using the defense "You're saying they can't act in their nature." Well, yeah.
See, that's what religions do. (Western religions, anyway.) They say, "Yes, it's in your nature to kill those who stand in your way, covet like mad, and put your reproductive apparatus wherever you think it might feel good, and we're telling you not to, because you're better than that, it pisses God off, and all that short-term stuff pales next to an eternity of bliss."
I never get this argument of "It's our nature." Is it not a serial killer's "nature" to kill? Does anyone accept the pedophile's argument that it's in his "nature" to molest? Obviously, what two consenting adults do isn't in the same league as rape and murder but, let's not forget that coveting women is also on the no-no list, and few would argue that that isn't part of male nature.
It's not difficult, people: The Church says non-reproductive sex is a forbidden. There's no way gay sex is going to be okay under this dogma. If you are gay, your particular cross to bear is not having the sex you want to have. And, actually, that's probably your cross to bear even if you're not gay, if fantasy is part of your sex life, or you might want to have sex with anyone other than your spouse, ever.
Then they get around to blaming the Church for AIDS in Africa. See, the Church forbids condoms. Therefore people are having unsafe sex and passing on AIDS to each other. Well, guys, the Church forbids having the sorts of sex that make sex unsafe in the first place. You'll have to explain to me why you think that a bunch of promiscuous dry-sex fans are going to ignore the Church on sex but follow religiously (heh) on condoms.
No sale, guys.
The constant refrain of "Times have changed! Get with the program!" is really just a cover for "You try to make me feel bad about something I want to do." Or "You make others I want to do something with feel bad about it." As judgmental as P&T are, you'd think they'd get less fired up about others who are quite possibly less judgmental than they are.
They even screw up what should have been a pretty good point when they bring on the blaspheming comic. An Italian satirist suggested the Pope was going to go to hell and be sodomized by vigorous gay devils. According to P&T, the Vatican threatened the woman with a liable lawsuit which carries a potential penalty of five years in jail. Bill Donahue says this is an outright lie. (He also froths over the language, which is kind of dopey.)
First, they laud this women like she's really doing something brave. I don't buy that: Italy is rife with anti-Catholic, anti-Vatican types, not all of whom are Communists. But I think when porn star Cicciolina got involved in government 30 years ago, it was safe to say that The Vatican had lost a lot of its supposed clout.
Next, they applaud her for saying that the Church is wrong for meddling with peoples' lives. For merely having opinions on things and getting them into the media, they are just like Islam. (I bullshit you not: This comparison is made.)
Libertarian much? I guess not: P&T champion free speech, but seem to object to it when it comes from religion.
Sadly, while they're usually pretty pro-human, they look at all these Catholic people in the world and say, "Except for you guys. You guys are stupid." Er, no, the Church is "pulling the wool over their eyes."
Penn and Teller always approach their subject with a bias—the kind of glib smugness that comes from knowing the dogma and apocrypha of the era—but this is typically tempered with an allowance for the bias and humor. Even the tax show, which was supposedly rather personal to them, had plenty of humor in it.
This one? Nary a laugh. It was scold from the first minute to the last. Having decided up front that the Church is responsible for the sins of the world (that they could prevent if only they changed everything they believed in), they close by saying maybe you shouldn't believe in a God whose representative on Earth would do all these horrible things (i.e., disagreeing with P&T).
A sad, hacky ending to an otherwise decent season.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
I Build A DVR
I get into things. I don't mean I get into things, but I get into things. Like, I hate the Department of Water and Power. They provide plenty of service, but I always feel like I'm being overcharged, and it bugs the crap out of me that I can't go anywhere else. (If I could go somewhere else, I'd switch and then start hating my new provider.)
My things usually involve feeling coerced into something, like having to buy something from one source when there's no good technological reason for it.
Like DVRs.
We all made it through the '80s and '90s with VCRs. It wasn't such a big deal: You selected your device—made by any one of dozens of manufacturers, with the features you wanted, from your desired price range—and you hooked it up to your TV. Voila! You could record whatever you wanted.
Of course, the content creators hated that, and challenged the entire concept. The Supreme Court decided otherwise in the Betamax case. As result of losing that case, entertainment moguls made billions of dollars by selling videos in the new market.
They've never forgiven the world that injustice.
In the case of the DVR, whose function is identical to the VCR, they've colluded with the distribution companies (cable, satellite, etc.) to make sure that that doesn't happen again. The battle was never really quit, of course. As soon as the TV makers sought to spare the consumer the presence of that big, ugly cable box by adding upper channels capacity to their TV, the cable companies moved the channels further up out of their range.
Then they just started scrambling everything, paid or free.
That wasn't enough, though. You had to have the box, pretty much, but on top of that, they wanted to make sure that you couldn't do anything with it. Congress even passed a law saying that cable companies had to provide a functional firewire port on their boxes for control and capture; but cable companies put the port on there—but in defiance of the law, they don't bother to make it work.
I don't want to pay the cable company an extra $15 a month. Or $10. Or even $5.
You can tell this is a thing with me, right?
Instead I bought some hardware and built myself a MythTV machine. The first thing that should be apparent from that is that money was not the issue. Even at 20 bucks a month, it takes a long time to make up the cost of a machine that has the oomph you want.
That's not counting the trouble. Although some installations are very smooth, especially with things like KnoppMyth and MythBuntu, there are a lot of issues.
Most of the issues, not surprisingly, revolve the aforementioned content guys—creators (like movie studios) and providers (like cable companies)—working overtime to make sure that you can't do any of the cool stuff you want. For example, it can be difficult to play—just play!—a DVD.
I've noticed kids' DVDs have the most vicious security, and you can see the hard work these guys put into making sure you can't play the DVD you just paid for by things like Vista downgrading your Blu-Ray discs. Remember that? And the Sony rootkit fiasco? I may be crazy, but I think when an industry's priority is stopping copyright infringement over providing paying customers with the experience they paid for, I think there's trouble.
The dumb thing being that, if you're inclined to cheat, you could just download all this stuff from the Internet. I find it to be bothersome to get an identical copy of what I've purchased off the 'net, but I'd hardly feel guilty for downloading something I already own. It's a lot of work that messes up paying customers.
They're not smart enough to look at the music industry and realize music's not going away because everything is digital. All it will take is an MP3 format for video—i.e., something that's easily exchanged and sufficient quality—and the party's over.
Anyway, I make perfectly legal personal-use copies to protect my original discs (most of which are actually badly damaged, but that's another story). And my DVR lets me store those and play those, which is something I can't do with a store bought machine. And given how fragile DVDs are (Nearly indestructible! the hype claimed), having all the kids' movies ripped and on a hard-drive is the only sensible thing to do.
There are a lot of cool things MythTV can do that your cable company's DVR can't. I won't bore you with the details now (I like to spread my boring stuff out), but one of the coolest things is that, if you run out of space, you can just add a cheap USB drive. I have 2.25TB on my drive.
The most interesting thing—and if you've had a DVR for years, you may have encountered this—is that everyone watches less TV. We record everything, but we watch very selectively. Also, there's none of that "Oh, we're waiting to watch..."
Also, with the forty of us living here and sharing one TV, it's much easier to apportion out the time.
My things usually involve feeling coerced into something, like having to buy something from one source when there's no good technological reason for it.
Like DVRs.
We all made it through the '80s and '90s with VCRs. It wasn't such a big deal: You selected your device—made by any one of dozens of manufacturers, with the features you wanted, from your desired price range—and you hooked it up to your TV. Voila! You could record whatever you wanted.
Of course, the content creators hated that, and challenged the entire concept. The Supreme Court decided otherwise in the Betamax case. As result of losing that case, entertainment moguls made billions of dollars by selling videos in the new market.
They've never forgiven the world that injustice.
In the case of the DVR, whose function is identical to the VCR, they've colluded with the distribution companies (cable, satellite, etc.) to make sure that that doesn't happen again. The battle was never really quit, of course. As soon as the TV makers sought to spare the consumer the presence of that big, ugly cable box by adding upper channels capacity to their TV, the cable companies moved the channels further up out of their range.
Then they just started scrambling everything, paid or free.
That wasn't enough, though. You had to have the box, pretty much, but on top of that, they wanted to make sure that you couldn't do anything with it. Congress even passed a law saying that cable companies had to provide a functional firewire port on their boxes for control and capture; but cable companies put the port on there—but in defiance of the law, they don't bother to make it work.
I don't want to pay the cable company an extra $15 a month. Or $10. Or even $5.
You can tell this is a thing with me, right?
Instead I bought some hardware and built myself a MythTV machine. The first thing that should be apparent from that is that money was not the issue. Even at 20 bucks a month, it takes a long time to make up the cost of a machine that has the oomph you want.
That's not counting the trouble. Although some installations are very smooth, especially with things like KnoppMyth and MythBuntu, there are a lot of issues.
Most of the issues, not surprisingly, revolve the aforementioned content guys—creators (like movie studios) and providers (like cable companies)—working overtime to make sure that you can't do any of the cool stuff you want. For example, it can be difficult to play—just play!—a DVD.
I've noticed kids' DVDs have the most vicious security, and you can see the hard work these guys put into making sure you can't play the DVD you just paid for by things like Vista downgrading your Blu-Ray discs. Remember that? And the Sony rootkit fiasco? I may be crazy, but I think when an industry's priority is stopping copyright infringement over providing paying customers with the experience they paid for, I think there's trouble.
The dumb thing being that, if you're inclined to cheat, you could just download all this stuff from the Internet. I find it to be bothersome to get an identical copy of what I've purchased off the 'net, but I'd hardly feel guilty for downloading something I already own. It's a lot of work that messes up paying customers.
They're not smart enough to look at the music industry and realize music's not going away because everything is digital. All it will take is an MP3 format for video—i.e., something that's easily exchanged and sufficient quality—and the party's over.
Anyway, I make perfectly legal personal-use copies to protect my original discs (most of which are actually badly damaged, but that's another story). And my DVR lets me store those and play those, which is something I can't do with a store bought machine. And given how fragile DVDs are (Nearly indestructible! the hype claimed), having all the kids' movies ripped and on a hard-drive is the only sensible thing to do.
There are a lot of cool things MythTV can do that your cable company's DVR can't. I won't bore you with the details now (I like to spread my boring stuff out), but one of the coolest things is that, if you run out of space, you can just add a cheap USB drive. I have 2.25TB on my drive.
The most interesting thing—and if you've had a DVR for years, you may have encountered this—is that everyone watches less TV. We record everything, but we watch very selectively. Also, there's none of that "Oh, we're waiting to watch..."
Also, with the forty of us living here and sharing one TV, it's much easier to apportion out the time.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Maybe There's A Downside To The Constant Drumbeat of Apocalyptic Defeatism
If you're not watching "The Goode Family", you're missing some very funny stuff. The above line is spoken by Helen Goode in response to her kids' despondency over the doom of the earth. (Said despondency I personally recall from my school days. If global thermonuclear war didn't get us, the ice caps were going to melt and send us spinning off into space. I'm not sure how the ice age was going to bring that on, but there it was.)
It still makes me laugh, a lot. The Goodes themselves are, of course, very good. Well, Gerald is very good. Much like Hang Hill, his straightforwardness in life not only prevents him from getting very far ahead, but actually prevents him from seeing how venal people really are.
Like Hank, he'll act to stop something he perceives as immoral, but he usually has to come the long way around to realize that people operate immorally--no matter how many times he sees it happening. Gerald's at a slight disadvantage (versus Hank), because he's not entirely sure what a man is supposed to do, though this is not too far removed from Hank's politeness and diffidence (which allows others to take advantage of him).
Interestingly enough, the message of both shows is pretty much the same: For every principle, philosophy or ideal (worthy or not, good or bad, right or wrong), there's someone willing to exploit those who believe it for personal advantage.
So far in the series, we've seen an ALF-style group exploit Ubuntu (the son), prisoners and bureaucrats exploit the entire family after they adopt-a-highway, a graffiti-cleaning program in an area with no graffiti, NPR as a front for people not talented enough to make it in the real market, meatless chili (with and without chicken), and acres of hypocrisy.
I enjoy "King of the Hill," but for me, Arlen is as far away as Oz. But whatever small town the Goodes live in is right next door. I've seen the "Good/Bad" tote board at Whole Foods. I've spent some time hashing out--for nutrition reasons, not really moral ones--which of the six different varieties of apple is "best".
But I'm sort of reminded why I didn't follow that road: It's freaking insane. But it's hard not to empathize with them, which is really what makes the show watchable.
It still makes me laugh, a lot. The Goodes themselves are, of course, very good. Well, Gerald is very good. Much like Hang Hill, his straightforwardness in life not only prevents him from getting very far ahead, but actually prevents him from seeing how venal people really are.
Like Hank, he'll act to stop something he perceives as immoral, but he usually has to come the long way around to realize that people operate immorally--no matter how many times he sees it happening. Gerald's at a slight disadvantage (versus Hank), because he's not entirely sure what a man is supposed to do, though this is not too far removed from Hank's politeness and diffidence (which allows others to take advantage of him).
Interestingly enough, the message of both shows is pretty much the same: For every principle, philosophy or ideal (worthy or not, good or bad, right or wrong), there's someone willing to exploit those who believe it for personal advantage.
So far in the series, we've seen an ALF-style group exploit Ubuntu (the son), prisoners and bureaucrats exploit the entire family after they adopt-a-highway, a graffiti-cleaning program in an area with no graffiti, NPR as a front for people not talented enough to make it in the real market, meatless chili (with and without chicken), and acres of hypocrisy.
I enjoy "King of the Hill," but for me, Arlen is as far away as Oz. But whatever small town the Goodes live in is right next door. I've seen the "Good/Bad" tote board at Whole Foods. I've spent some time hashing out--for nutrition reasons, not really moral ones--which of the six different varieties of apple is "best".
But I'm sort of reminded why I didn't follow that road: It's freaking insane. But it's hard not to empathize with them, which is really what makes the show watchable.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Penn and Teller on Organics
We're watching the Penn and Teller on organics. They've woven in a typically slightly blasphemous Jesus sketch (which I'm enjoying) and they're taking organic farming to the woodshed, predictably.
We've never done all organic. Even at our richest, it didn't seem worth it. Sometimes the stuff tastes better--but you can't really know whether that's due to some factor in the farming, or just greater care overall. I mean, if you have the money, it's actually cheaper to go to the tony grocers in the good neighborhood, and it'll definitely taste better. (And if you don't like it for any reason, the tony store will take it back, half eaten.)
They do some good stuff: It should be known that organic farming is brutal, environmentally speaking. It's a luxury. But their taste test is bogus, in the sense that organics might taste better generally, but that doesn't mean that any given piece of organically grown fruit or vegetable is going to taste better than a non-organically grown counterpart. (I mean, I guess some people--the ones who did their taste test, for example--believed that, but that's completely insane.)
The real problem with "organic", of course, is that "organic" means nothing. It is, as they point out, religiously enshrined Luddism. It might be that pesticides are bad. (Or more importantly, that they're worse than the pests they're meant to handle.) It might be that genetically modified foods are bad. Or it might be that they're not, or some of them are and some of them aren't.
Interestingly enough, my two favorite forms of snake oil don't have much to say about organics. The current plan I'm on laments the lack of minerals in our foods--but organics don't have much to say about that. Of course, I'm sure P&T could find people who will assure them that there's no problem with mineral deficiencies.
Anyway, what I've found is that you can't ever take a blanket label and turn off your brain. Whether it's "organic" or "green" or whatever. Some organics are going to taste better--even if it's not because of organic farming methods--and I suspect some are going to be better for you, too. Some "green" things really are going to be better for the ecology.
But some aren't. Just like you can't go into a Wal-Mart or a Costco and be confident you're getting the best deal, either. You have to pay attention.
Also, what do Penn and Teller have against natural breasts? I don't object to gratuitous nudity, but almost every girl they have strip on that show has implants.
Some things are definitely better organic.
We've never done all organic. Even at our richest, it didn't seem worth it. Sometimes the stuff tastes better--but you can't really know whether that's due to some factor in the farming, or just greater care overall. I mean, if you have the money, it's actually cheaper to go to the tony grocers in the good neighborhood, and it'll definitely taste better. (And if you don't like it for any reason, the tony store will take it back, half eaten.)
They do some good stuff: It should be known that organic farming is brutal, environmentally speaking. It's a luxury. But their taste test is bogus, in the sense that organics might taste better generally, but that doesn't mean that any given piece of organically grown fruit or vegetable is going to taste better than a non-organically grown counterpart. (I mean, I guess some people--the ones who did their taste test, for example--believed that, but that's completely insane.)
The real problem with "organic", of course, is that "organic" means nothing. It is, as they point out, religiously enshrined Luddism. It might be that pesticides are bad. (Or more importantly, that they're worse than the pests they're meant to handle.) It might be that genetically modified foods are bad. Or it might be that they're not, or some of them are and some of them aren't.
Interestingly enough, my two favorite forms of snake oil don't have much to say about organics. The current plan I'm on laments the lack of minerals in our foods--but organics don't have much to say about that. Of course, I'm sure P&T could find people who will assure them that there's no problem with mineral deficiencies.
Anyway, what I've found is that you can't ever take a blanket label and turn off your brain. Whether it's "organic" or "green" or whatever. Some organics are going to taste better--even if it's not because of organic farming methods--and I suspect some are going to be better for you, too. Some "green" things really are going to be better for the ecology.
But some aren't. Just like you can't go into a Wal-Mart or a Costco and be confident you're getting the best deal, either. You have to pay attention.
Also, what do Penn and Teller have against natural breasts? I don't object to gratuitous nudity, but almost every girl they have strip on that show has implants.
Some things are definitely better organic.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Old Movie Review: Are You In The House Alone?
I pulled this one out of the ether because of its provocative title, mirroring the "house" movies of the day, which somehow managed to capitalize on the slasher genre while being rated three stars and staying within the very, very narrow confines of what constituted "acceptable" in '70s TV terms. (Which, I assure you, were regarded as pretty appalling at the time and yet come nowhere near what's acceptable during "the family hour".)
It's about half tormented babysitter and then turns into half rape-prosecution advocacy story. I'm not really spoiling anything by telling you that: The movie opens with Kathleen Beller (playing "Gail") being wheeled out of the house claiming she's been raped and that no one will believe her.
That's what you call "a hook".
We then see the events leading up to the opening event, which are photographer Gail and her new sensitive boyfriend "Steve" (Scott Colomby, who would go on to limited fame in the Porky's series) working out their teen-age angst about sex and relationships. Gail has just broken up with jerky "E.K." (Randy Stumpf) because she wouldn't go all the way with him. ("Sleep with" being the operative, acceptable phrase of the day.)
Since the mystery is "who's going to rape Gail?", we are treated to E.K.'s jerkiness, inappropriate comments from her photography teacher, leering from her best friend's boyfriend, the incredibly rich and good looking Lance--Harvey--Phil! (Whatever, it's Dennis Quaid). If they'd made it five years later it would've included inappropriate touching from her father.
Meanwhile, someone with access to her locker and full knowledge of her schedule has been leaving her threatening notes and making creepy phone calls saying, that's right, "Are you in the house alone?" Keeping things from getting too tense are a lot of discussions about sex. And ultra-casual atmosphere about threats fostered by school counselor Ellen Travolta. (John's eldest sister, yes. It's the '70s. Get used to it.)
Ultra-casual? Well, where now we have zero tolerance, back then it was 100% tolerance.
Gail's mom, Anne, is played by 35-year-old Blythe Danner. Because 30-something actresses used to play moms to girls in their late teens back in the '70s, and we'll just ignore that Kathllen Beller--and Quaid, and Colomby--was, like, 22 and only about 13 years younger at the time. Beller does a good job acting young, though.
The acting is good all around, actually, snark aside. Anne is going through her own difficulties with husband Neil (Oscar-winner Tony Bill, who was a producer on The Sting and still acts, directs and produces.) The direction deftly defuses most of the tension, however.
There are some interesting (for the time) directorial techniques, like a little less reliance on establishing shots than was the norm. (Today, establishing shots are short and sweet, if used at all; we're expected to understand that the character who was at home in scene A and at the police station in scene B used some means of conveyance--say, an automobile--to get from home to the police station, found a place to park it, walked into the building, and made the customary greetings, without actually being shown all that.) But the whole thing feels like an "ABC Afterschool Movie".
Except for the sex. No, they don't show anything, but after refusing to sleep with E.K. (despite going out for, like, six months) she ends up sleeping with Steve after a few days. It's love, you see. (This is foreshadowed, even: Their first date is to see Three Days of the Condor which features Faye Dunaway (I think?) sleeping with Robert Redford after knowing him for two days.
Then, when she's raped, we get all the angles on how hard it is to prosecute a rape case. (With Blythe Danner saying "It's because she's not a virgin!" though I must've missed how she found out.) The weirdest casting was Lois Hamilton as the police woman. I mean, she's all right, but she looks like a fashion model. You know, Farrah (PBUH) hair, worn down, obvious makeup, etc.
And it gets weirder at this point, and very Nancy Drew. Gail, devastated by the attack (of course), goes from hiding out to going back to school and concocting a scheme to catch her rapist. She's not even particularly depressed, apparently.
Resilience, people. Look into it.
The movie you can take or leave, but it is a kind of time capsule: fashions, hairstyles, a complete absence of digital technology. This is what we used to do before cable, kiddies.
It's about half tormented babysitter and then turns into half rape-prosecution advocacy story. I'm not really spoiling anything by telling you that: The movie opens with Kathleen Beller (playing "Gail") being wheeled out of the house claiming she's been raped and that no one will believe her.
That's what you call "a hook".
We then see the events leading up to the opening event, which are photographer Gail and her new sensitive boyfriend "Steve" (Scott Colomby, who would go on to limited fame in the Porky's series) working out their teen-age angst about sex and relationships. Gail has just broken up with jerky "E.K." (Randy Stumpf) because she wouldn't go all the way with him. ("Sleep with" being the operative, acceptable phrase of the day.)
Since the mystery is "who's going to rape Gail?", we are treated to E.K.'s jerkiness, inappropriate comments from her photography teacher, leering from her best friend's boyfriend, the incredibly rich and good looking Lance--Harvey--Phil! (Whatever, it's Dennis Quaid). If they'd made it five years later it would've included inappropriate touching from her father.
Meanwhile, someone with access to her locker and full knowledge of her schedule has been leaving her threatening notes and making creepy phone calls saying, that's right, "Are you in the house alone?" Keeping things from getting too tense are a lot of discussions about sex. And ultra-casual atmosphere about threats fostered by school counselor Ellen Travolta. (John's eldest sister, yes. It's the '70s. Get used to it.)
Ultra-casual? Well, where now we have zero tolerance, back then it was 100% tolerance.
Gail's mom, Anne, is played by 35-year-old Blythe Danner. Because 30-something actresses used to play moms to girls in their late teens back in the '70s, and we'll just ignore that Kathllen Beller--and Quaid, and Colomby--was, like, 22 and only about 13 years younger at the time. Beller does a good job acting young, though.
The acting is good all around, actually, snark aside. Anne is going through her own difficulties with husband Neil (Oscar-winner Tony Bill, who was a producer on The Sting and still acts, directs and produces.) The direction deftly defuses most of the tension, however.
There are some interesting (for the time) directorial techniques, like a little less reliance on establishing shots than was the norm. (Today, establishing shots are short and sweet, if used at all; we're expected to understand that the character who was at home in scene A and at the police station in scene B used some means of conveyance--say, an automobile--to get from home to the police station, found a place to park it, walked into the building, and made the customary greetings, without actually being shown all that.) But the whole thing feels like an "ABC Afterschool Movie".
Except for the sex. No, they don't show anything, but after refusing to sleep with E.K. (despite going out for, like, six months) she ends up sleeping with Steve after a few days. It's love, you see. (This is foreshadowed, even: Their first date is to see Three Days of the Condor which features Faye Dunaway (I think?) sleeping with Robert Redford after knowing him for two days.
Then, when she's raped, we get all the angles on how hard it is to prosecute a rape case. (With Blythe Danner saying "It's because she's not a virgin!" though I must've missed how she found out.) The weirdest casting was Lois Hamilton as the police woman. I mean, she's all right, but she looks like a fashion model. You know, Farrah (PBUH) hair, worn down, obvious makeup, etc.
And it gets weirder at this point, and very Nancy Drew. Gail, devastated by the attack (of course), goes from hiding out to going back to school and concocting a scheme to catch her rapist. She's not even particularly depressed, apparently.
Resilience, people. Look into it.
The movie you can take or leave, but it is a kind of time capsule: fashions, hairstyles, a complete absence of digital technology. This is what we used to do before cable, kiddies.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Pointy Breasts From Beyond The Outer Limits!
It's been a long time since I had a genuine pointy-breast post--something I think we can all agree this blog is the lesser for--and I found a pair where I least expected them. I never watched the original "Outer Limits" series, but with the new digital signals, we get the THIStv channel which shows an assortment of old movies and TV shows--including "The Outer Limits".
So I set the ol' MythTV to record them and finally got around to watching an episode called "ZZZZZ", which is the story of a queen bee who takes human form. This, naturally being a draining transformation, causes her to swoon on the lawn of a bee scientist.
And behold:
And behold again. Rebehold? Er, behold twice?
It was a strange episode. Or, I don't know, maybe it was completely characteristic of the show. Having only seen one episode, I cannot say. (I did watch the '90s series, though, on Showtime, and liked it.)
It was also kind of cool that the actress, Joanna Frank, was someone I had seen before, in the much later series "L.A. Law". As it turns out, she's TV mogul Steven Bochco's sister, and was actually married to Alan Rachins, whose wife (then, ex-wife, I believe) she played on that show!
She did a good job as the weird bug-person, and also had a slightly unusual beauty that suited the role.
Here's a picture of her about to enjoy some pollen. (I'm not good at screen-caps yet, but these turned out pretty well!)
I shall view more "Outer Limits" in the hopes of finding more specimens of mammaris conniculus. Note that the above are from '64 or '65, and so are the latest of that era we've yet found!
So I set the ol' MythTV to record them and finally got around to watching an episode called "ZZZZZ", which is the story of a queen bee who takes human form. This, naturally being a draining transformation, causes her to swoon on the lawn of a bee scientist.
And behold:
And behold again. Rebehold? Er, behold twice?
It was a strange episode. Or, I don't know, maybe it was completely characteristic of the show. Having only seen one episode, I cannot say. (I did watch the '90s series, though, on Showtime, and liked it.)
It was also kind of cool that the actress, Joanna Frank, was someone I had seen before, in the much later series "L.A. Law". As it turns out, she's TV mogul Steven Bochco's sister, and was actually married to Alan Rachins, whose wife (then, ex-wife, I believe) she played on that show!
She did a good job as the weird bug-person, and also had a slightly unusual beauty that suited the role.Here's a picture of her about to enjoy some pollen. (I'm not good at screen-caps yet, but these turned out pretty well!)
I shall view more "Outer Limits" in the hopes of finding more specimens of mammaris conniculus. Note that the above are from '64 or '65, and so are the latest of that era we've yet found!
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Link For All Out There In TV Land
Via James Urbaniak, the voice of Dr. Venture, on Twitter: TV Legends' Archive of American Television, with interviews of some greats (and not just of TV).
Scrolling down I see makeup artist Rick Baker, SFX wiz Dick Smith, iconic announcer Don Pardo, composer Alexander Courage, Stiller & Meara, writer Richard Matheson, producers James Brooks, James Burrows, Dick Wolf, and tons of TV stars like Barabara Eden, Don Knotts, Ron Howard, Angela Lansbury, etc. etc. etc.
A treasure trove!
Scrolling down I see makeup artist Rick Baker, SFX wiz Dick Smith, iconic announcer Don Pardo, composer Alexander Courage, Stiller & Meara, writer Richard Matheson, producers James Brooks, James Burrows, Dick Wolf, and tons of TV stars like Barabara Eden, Don Knotts, Ron Howard, Angela Lansbury, etc. etc. etc.
A treasure trove!
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Conversations From The Living Room, Part 17: Come To Think Of It, They Are Pretty Close
"Prosecution? What's prosecution?"
"That's when the district attorney--the head lawyer for the government--takes you to court and tries to prove that you're guilty of something."
"..."
"You've seen enough of these TV shows to know what prosecution is!"
"I thought it was when you got your head cut off."
"..."
"..."
"No, that's decapitation."
"Oh."
"That's when the district attorney--the head lawyer for the government--takes you to court and tries to prove that you're guilty of something."
"..."
"You've seen enough of these TV shows to know what prosecution is!"
"I thought it was when you got your head cut off."
"..."
"..."
"No, that's decapitation."
"Oh."
Thursday, May 28, 2009
The Goode Family
Mike Judge has come a long way since his seminal Beavis and Butthead cartoon "Frog Baseball". (Heheheheh--I said "seminal".) At least financially. Those early shorts, along with the lesser known "Inbred Jed" cartoons, revealed a lot of his sensibility and grasp of human character.
"King of the Hill"--possibly the only primetime show with a genuinely conservative lead (excluding cartoonish parodies done by far-left liberals like Seth MacFarlane's "American Dad")--is something of a phenomenon, having run for thirteen seasons (and possibly being picked up for more by ABC) distinguishes itself by being consistently funny and also essentially kind. Kind sitcoms are only slightly rarer than funny ones, but kindness seems to be one of Judge's hallmarks. Even the biting satire of Idiocracy and Office Space had an essential benign optimism.
So, it's not surprising that "The Goode Family", Judge's new show is both funny and kind. In fact, it's "King of the Hill", only instead of the well-meaning, stalwart Hank Hill, we have the well-meaning, and less stalwart Gerald Goode. (Mr. Goode is surely in touch with his feminine side, a proposition that would appall Mr. Hill.) Judge uses a voice closer to his Office Space character's (the passive aggressive Chotchki's manager) but the cadences are still very similar to Hank's.
It's also a bit more exaggerated, I think, than KotH. At one point, Helen Goode (the wife, played by Nancy Carrell) is at the Whole Foods-clone and looking at a big board which lists things that are Good on one side, and things that are Bad on the other. As she watches, "farm raised catfish" toggles between good and bad several times.
There is a religious aspect to all of this, as well as a social-religious aspect. Where people used to go to church for guidance and also to one-up each other, the Goodes go shopping. And you sort of have to admire Helen for handling the paper-or-plastic dilemma in a way that makes every other woman shopping--who had all been trying to make her feel bad a second ago--feel ecologically inadequate.
There are a lot of good dynamics here already: The Goodes' neighbor is a black man who doesn't eat vegetables. Gerald's boss at the university is more interested in the bottom line while paying lip service to diversity. Helen's father brings rib take out over to the (naturally, vegan) Goodes house.
And then there are the two kids: Ubuntu (Judge regular, David Herman) , the child that the Goodes adopted from Africa, without realizing he was a blond-haired South African; and Bliss (Linda Cardellini) who rebels in the first episode by eschewing frank talk about sex with her mom for an abstinence group.
Christians make an appearance in the form of purity pushers. David Herman also plays Trayvor (Trevor?) who Bliss likes and who is an aspiring Michael Moore-type "documentary" maker who is planning to ridicule them. The show doesn't dance around the fact that these open-minded, tolerant people--represented most squarely by Helen--really aren't particularly interested in--or comfortable with--people who disagree with them.
So, a lot like "King of the Hill".
I was laughing out loud through a lot of the episode. Here are some lines I liked:
Gerald, trying to distract his wife from Bliss' interest in abstinence: "The View is on. The pretty one is saying crazy stuff again."
Helen, who doesn't approve of Gerald's support of Bliss, and also doesn't want their newly 16-year-old son to drive: "You're teaching our son to drive and our daughter to not have sex: Where have I gone wrong?"
Gerald, in response to Helen's objections that a man is wearing a flag pin: "Since the election we can all wear flag pins!"
If you missed it on ABC Wednesday, you can view it at ABC.com and IMDB.com.
"King of the Hill"--possibly the only primetime show with a genuinely conservative lead (excluding cartoonish parodies done by far-left liberals like Seth MacFarlane's "American Dad")--is something of a phenomenon, having run for thirteen seasons (and possibly being picked up for more by ABC) distinguishes itself by being consistently funny and also essentially kind. Kind sitcoms are only slightly rarer than funny ones, but kindness seems to be one of Judge's hallmarks. Even the biting satire of Idiocracy and Office Space had an essential benign optimism.
So, it's not surprising that "The Goode Family", Judge's new show is both funny and kind. In fact, it's "King of the Hill", only instead of the well-meaning, stalwart Hank Hill, we have the well-meaning, and less stalwart Gerald Goode. (Mr. Goode is surely in touch with his feminine side, a proposition that would appall Mr. Hill.) Judge uses a voice closer to his Office Space character's (the passive aggressive Chotchki's manager) but the cadences are still very similar to Hank's.
It's also a bit more exaggerated, I think, than KotH. At one point, Helen Goode (the wife, played by Nancy Carrell) is at the Whole Foods-clone and looking at a big board which lists things that are Good on one side, and things that are Bad on the other. As she watches, "farm raised catfish" toggles between good and bad several times.
There is a religious aspect to all of this, as well as a social-religious aspect. Where people used to go to church for guidance and also to one-up each other, the Goodes go shopping. And you sort of have to admire Helen for handling the paper-or-plastic dilemma in a way that makes every other woman shopping--who had all been trying to make her feel bad a second ago--feel ecologically inadequate.
There are a lot of good dynamics here already: The Goodes' neighbor is a black man who doesn't eat vegetables. Gerald's boss at the university is more interested in the bottom line while paying lip service to diversity. Helen's father brings rib take out over to the (naturally, vegan) Goodes house.
And then there are the two kids: Ubuntu (Judge regular, David Herman) , the child that the Goodes adopted from Africa, without realizing he was a blond-haired South African; and Bliss (Linda Cardellini) who rebels in the first episode by eschewing frank talk about sex with her mom for an abstinence group.
Christians make an appearance in the form of purity pushers. David Herman also plays Trayvor (Trevor?) who Bliss likes and who is an aspiring Michael Moore-type "documentary" maker who is planning to ridicule them. The show doesn't dance around the fact that these open-minded, tolerant people--represented most squarely by Helen--really aren't particularly interested in--or comfortable with--people who disagree with them.
So, a lot like "King of the Hill".
I was laughing out loud through a lot of the episode. Here are some lines I liked:
Gerald, trying to distract his wife from Bliss' interest in abstinence: "The View is on. The pretty one is saying crazy stuff again."
Helen, who doesn't approve of Gerald's support of Bliss, and also doesn't want their newly 16-year-old son to drive: "You're teaching our son to drive and our daughter to not have sex: Where have I gone wrong?"
Gerald, in response to Helen's objections that a man is wearing a flag pin: "Since the election we can all wear flag pins!"
If you missed it on ABC Wednesday, you can view it at ABC.com and IMDB.com.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
You Don't Understand: I Need The Attention
The late unlamented USSR had a practice of locking people up in labor camps for what we in the West called political reasons. The USSR didn't, of course, refer to it that way. They locked up people who were mentally unsound. I don't know whether they learned this from the Nazis--who labeled the Jews as mentally unhygenic--but there are always members of the mental health community willing to label bothersome people "mentally unsound".
It has happened here before, too. And still happens. Shock treatment and lobotomies have also been used regularly for managing political problems. Really, governments should never, ever have any association with mental institutions, just because the temptation for abuse will always be irresistable--at least until some truly scientific criteria for insanity exists.
I was thinking about this because, well, I used to like Janeane Garofalo. I'm not proud of it. But back in the '90s, she was mildly funny and sort of cute in an angsty college chick way, and she had a pleasing acting persona. She delivered one of the great lines in TV history on "Law and Order", where it turns out she betrayed her celebrity employer for something like $10K:
Anyway, Garofalo has taken to promoting the notion that conservatives, right-wingers (i.e., people who disagree with her) suffer from an actual brain problem. Oversized limbic regions or somesuch scientific-sounding thing.
Most people, of course, won't take the suggestion seriously. But a big enough percentage of the population agrees with it, at least to the extent that they keep giving her avenues to say this. And it's not just her. There were a spate of "scientific studies" last year purporting to show conservatism as a mental disorder.
But, really, it's not an approach to tolerate, because it amounts to "socialists lobbying for the right to institutionalize dissenters". That hasn't worked out well in the past. Well, except for the State, I suppose.
Given the fact that the insane basically have no rights, someone seriously advocating that an entire demographic is insane is not someone who should be broadcast.
It has happened here before, too. And still happens. Shock treatment and lobotomies have also been used regularly for managing political problems. Really, governments should never, ever have any association with mental institutions, just because the temptation for abuse will always be irresistable--at least until some truly scientific criteria for insanity exists.
I was thinking about this because, well, I used to like Janeane Garofalo. I'm not proud of it. But back in the '90s, she was mildly funny and sort of cute in an angsty college chick way, and she had a pleasing acting persona. She delivered one of the great lines in TV history on "Law and Order", where it turns out she betrayed her celebrity employer for something like $10K:
That phrase takes on special meaning now that Garofalo took a paying gig on "24".
You don't understand: I needed the money.
Anyway, Garofalo has taken to promoting the notion that conservatives, right-wingers (i.e., people who disagree with her) suffer from an actual brain problem. Oversized limbic regions or somesuch scientific-sounding thing.
Most people, of course, won't take the suggestion seriously. But a big enough percentage of the population agrees with it, at least to the extent that they keep giving her avenues to say this. And it's not just her. There were a spate of "scientific studies" last year purporting to show conservatism as a mental disorder.
But, really, it's not an approach to tolerate, because it amounts to "socialists lobbying for the right to institutionalize dissenters". That hasn't worked out well in the past. Well, except for the State, I suppose.
Given the fact that the insane basically have no rights, someone seriously advocating that an entire demographic is insane is not someone who should be broadcast.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
TV Tropes
"He's bluffing! No creature would willingly make an idiot out of itself!"
"You've obviously never been in love!"
--"Futurama", "Parasites Lost"
This post is from the "notebook".
This is one of my favorite episodes of one of my favorite shows. Fry becomes infected with parasites after recklessly eating a truck stop egg sandwich. He discovers they're there when a pipe goes through his stomach and the worms immediately patch the enormous hole. They then start to work toning his muscles, improving his neurological function (Fry's a moron), and generally cleaning up the place.
This makes him palatable to the object of his affections, Leela, who attempts to keep him from getting rid of the worms, finally ending with his own efforts to rid himself of the worms and undo what they've done, in order to find out whether Leela loves him for himself or for his, um, worms. That leads to the priceless bit of dialog above. (Being a sci-fi show allows Futurama to pose some interesting and unlikely questions.)
End Notebook Section
I can't remember why I started this post, except that I was probably watching this Futurama episode and it made me think of this great site called "TV Tropes". That link actually goes to an entry called "Love Makes You Dumb", and it's part of a bunch of "Love" entries, like "Love Makes You Crazy" and "Love Makes You Evil".
TV Tropes is a great site because it lists all these common themes used in television shows--but many can be scene throughout movies and literature as well. Things like "Actually I Am Him" and "Someday This Will Come In Handy" make you realize how often you've seen something.
The site's a little animé heavy with the examples, I guess because those are the people who contribute most. So it's geekier than geeky. (I mean, it makes me feel like a square sometimes, so you know it's gotta be extreme.) Still, a whole lot of fun to dig around and go, "Yeah! I know exactly what you're talking about!" (There's probably a trope for that, too, but I don't know what it is.)
Enjoy digging around.
"You've obviously never been in love!"
--"Futurama", "Parasites Lost"
This post is from the "notebook".
This is one of my favorite episodes of one of my favorite shows. Fry becomes infected with parasites after recklessly eating a truck stop egg sandwich. He discovers they're there when a pipe goes through his stomach and the worms immediately patch the enormous hole. They then start to work toning his muscles, improving his neurological function (Fry's a moron), and generally cleaning up the place.
This makes him palatable to the object of his affections, Leela, who attempts to keep him from getting rid of the worms, finally ending with his own efforts to rid himself of the worms and undo what they've done, in order to find out whether Leela loves him for himself or for his, um, worms. That leads to the priceless bit of dialog above. (Being a sci-fi show allows Futurama to pose some interesting and unlikely questions.)
End Notebook Section
I can't remember why I started this post, except that I was probably watching this Futurama episode and it made me think of this great site called "TV Tropes". That link actually goes to an entry called "Love Makes You Dumb", and it's part of a bunch of "Love" entries, like "Love Makes You Crazy" and "Love Makes You Evil".
TV Tropes is a great site because it lists all these common themes used in television shows--but many can be scene throughout movies and literature as well. Things like "Actually I Am Him" and "Someday This Will Come In Handy" make you realize how often you've seen something.
The site's a little animé heavy with the examples, I guess because those are the people who contribute most. So it's geekier than geeky. (I mean, it makes me feel like a square sometimes, so you know it's gotta be extreme.) Still, a whole lot of fun to dig around and go, "Yeah! I know exactly what you're talking about!" (There's probably a trope for that, too, but I don't know what it is.)
Enjoy digging around.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Starbuck's Revenge
I haven't watched the new "Battlestar Galactica" series for a number of reasons.
I really liked the old one. Yes, it was cheesy and corny, low-budget and juvenille, and an attempt to cash in on the success of "Star Wars", but damn! It was a space opera! On TV! The second ever, if I'm not mistaken, following the first: "Star Trek". (No, I don't count "Lost in Space" or various cartoons and serials.)
The design was quite good: The Battlestar looked cool. The Empire's ships looked cool. The Cylons looked cool, at least at the design level. (I mean, yeah, they looked like guys in cheesy costumes, but the floating red eye was great, and the different robots for different tasks was evocative of an interesting hierarchy.
It broke from the sterile "Star Trek" mold, and referred to hookers as "solicitors". Come on! How can you not like that?
They may have been the ancestors of the Egyptians or the Toltecs or the Mayans! They were looking for Earth! OK, the screwed that up with Galactica 80, but at least it got one of my school pals a couple of weeks of work.
Right, we were talking about the new series which I've avoided even with Kelly bugging me about it. This article by Dirk Benedict, the original Starbuck (and star of the weresnake movie Sssssss), reminded me both that I'm not watching it, and some reasons why.
Probably the first reason is because the Cylons don't look like Cylons anymore. But...but...that was the coolest part of the original series! Not just that, but I find it ultra-super-extra-cheesy when shows do this "they're alien/robot/monsters that LOOK JUST LIKE US!" It's just a cheap tactic to reduce the budget. If I want intrigue between humans, I'll watch a soap opera.
Second, moral ambiguity. You know, I'm as morally ambiguous as the next guy, but one of the other great parts about the series is that you had these completely evil enemies. Long before the SatAM cartoon guys figured it out, BSG realized you could have endless carnage as long as you're killing robots. The humans were the underdogs but you could root for them without reservation--just 'cause they were humans fighting machines.
Really, the two big things the new BSG things are two things I don't really care for in my weekly space opera.
Benedict goes on to talk about the fact that BSG's strong characters are all female, while the men are wimps. I don't know if that's true, and I'm certainly not against strong female characters--the original BSG had Apollo's sister Athena as a fighter pilot, and even the solicitor was a strong female character, even if in a traditional female role--but isn't the tiny female superwarrior kind of hack at this point?
I don't buy Benedict's premise that this is just some cynical exploitation of a franchise. I'm sure the creators of the new series consider this an improvement, and I don't think people like it because of PR. Whether because a fundamental shift in viewpoint makes the new show more accessible, or maybe just because the "re-imagining" has the benefit of better production values all around and that compensates for other objectionable parts, people like the new show.
I'm just not among them. At least not yet.
I really liked the old one. Yes, it was cheesy and corny, low-budget and juvenille, and an attempt to cash in on the success of "Star Wars", but damn! It was a space opera! On TV! The second ever, if I'm not mistaken, following the first: "Star Trek". (No, I don't count "Lost in Space" or various cartoons and serials.)
The design was quite good: The Battlestar looked cool. The Empire's ships looked cool. The Cylons looked cool, at least at the design level. (I mean, yeah, they looked like guys in cheesy costumes, but the floating red eye was great, and the different robots for different tasks was evocative of an interesting hierarchy.
It broke from the sterile "Star Trek" mold, and referred to hookers as "solicitors". Come on! How can you not like that?
They may have been the ancestors of the Egyptians or the Toltecs or the Mayans! They were looking for Earth! OK, the screwed that up with Galactica 80, but at least it got one of my school pals a couple of weeks of work.
Right, we were talking about the new series which I've avoided even with Kelly bugging me about it. This article by Dirk Benedict, the original Starbuck (and star of the weresnake movie Sssssss), reminded me both that I'm not watching it, and some reasons why.
Probably the first reason is because the Cylons don't look like Cylons anymore. But...but...that was the coolest part of the original series! Not just that, but I find it ultra-super-extra-cheesy when shows do this "they're alien/robot/monsters that LOOK JUST LIKE US!" It's just a cheap tactic to reduce the budget. If I want intrigue between humans, I'll watch a soap opera.
Second, moral ambiguity. You know, I'm as morally ambiguous as the next guy, but one of the other great parts about the series is that you had these completely evil enemies. Long before the SatAM cartoon guys figured it out, BSG realized you could have endless carnage as long as you're killing robots. The humans were the underdogs but you could root for them without reservation--just 'cause they were humans fighting machines.
Really, the two big things the new BSG things are two things I don't really care for in my weekly space opera.
Benedict goes on to talk about the fact that BSG's strong characters are all female, while the men are wimps. I don't know if that's true, and I'm certainly not against strong female characters--the original BSG had Apollo's sister Athena as a fighter pilot, and even the solicitor was a strong female character, even if in a traditional female role--but isn't the tiny female superwarrior kind of hack at this point?
I don't buy Benedict's premise that this is just some cynical exploitation of a franchise. I'm sure the creators of the new series consider this an improvement, and I don't think people like it because of PR. Whether because a fundamental shift in viewpoint makes the new show more accessible, or maybe just because the "re-imagining" has the benefit of better production values all around and that compensates for other objectionable parts, people like the new show.
I'm just not among them. At least not yet.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Mr. Monk Gets Cancelled
Well, no, not really. They're not canceling "Monk", they're just ending it next season because it will become more expensive than it's worth. Which is fine. I like the show but eight seasons is enough. (The damn Brits usually cut their series short.)
Anyway, about ten minutes into "Mr. Monk Gets Shot", I figured it out.
I'm not really very good at that sort of thing. I try to turn my brain off in the movies--that's part of the reason I go. But it's way harder with TV. Particularly with this kind of "can you solve it?" mystery genres.
My mom loved this kind of show, and I was weened on those Sunday Night Mysteries, "Ellery Queen" and the like.
It was "Murder She Wrote" that clued me in, though. In a late season MSW, long after I stopped watching it, I was at mom's and the opening scene was on. And I knew, from the opening scene, who the killer was.
In this type of mystery show, of course, the oddball item that "doesn't make sense" is the clue that solves the case. In this one, in the opening scene, Jessica had called across the lobby to an old friend, who didn't hear her and walked away. Well, duh. He had something in his ears, probably to protect him from loud noises while he committed his crime.
Plus, he was one of Jessica's old friends, and they were all murderers.
Anyway, these shows all have a limited amount of time and "Monk" especially so because of the comedy bits, so you know there's not much wasted space. There is no "offhand" remark. I've been calling "Monk" for quite a few seasons now.
Another sign that it's time to go. I hope they resolve Trudy's murder, tho'. And it wouldn't kill them to give Monk himself a little personal peace.
Anyway, about ten minutes into "Mr. Monk Gets Shot", I figured it out.
I'm not really very good at that sort of thing. I try to turn my brain off in the movies--that's part of the reason I go. But it's way harder with TV. Particularly with this kind of "can you solve it?" mystery genres.
My mom loved this kind of show, and I was weened on those Sunday Night Mysteries, "Ellery Queen" and the like.
It was "Murder She Wrote" that clued me in, though. In a late season MSW, long after I stopped watching it, I was at mom's and the opening scene was on. And I knew, from the opening scene, who the killer was.
In this type of mystery show, of course, the oddball item that "doesn't make sense" is the clue that solves the case. In this one, in the opening scene, Jessica had called across the lobby to an old friend, who didn't hear her and walked away. Well, duh. He had something in his ears, probably to protect him from loud noises while he committed his crime.
Plus, he was one of Jessica's old friends, and they were all murderers.
Anyway, these shows all have a limited amount of time and "Monk" especially so because of the comedy bits, so you know there's not much wasted space. There is no "offhand" remark. I've been calling "Monk" for quite a few seasons now.
Another sign that it's time to go. I hope they resolve Trudy's murder, tho'. And it wouldn't kill them to give Monk himself a little personal peace.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Bill Schulz is an Idiot
No, really. He was better before he came out of the closet as a liberal. The fun of "Red Eye" is that you don't get the usual parroting of The Consensus. The show took a bad turn before the election when virtually everyone except Greg joined on the bash Palin bandwagon.
In fairness, the show takes a bad turn almost whenever someone tries to score a political point, whatever side. Rachel Marsden was sheer agony most of the time when she was on, turning everything into a political point against the left. (Coulter usually does a better job.)
Anyway Schulz was actually talking about the evils of carbon dioxide and when Greg tried to correct him, he allowed that CO2 was fine except when you burn it. This is how shallow and stupid the global warming debate really is. There's no way to sanely argue against CO2, but I don't doubt that the AGW crowd conflates carbon monoxide with carbon dioxide.
Jeez. Remi Spencer just said people shouldn't be allowed to anonymously criticize celebs on the 'net. She was another doof who parroted the conventional wisdom on Governor Palin.
Great bit on the lobster, though, and "sea kittens".
In fairness, the show takes a bad turn almost whenever someone tries to score a political point, whatever side. Rachel Marsden was sheer agony most of the time when she was on, turning everything into a political point against the left. (Coulter usually does a better job.)
Anyway Schulz was actually talking about the evils of carbon dioxide and when Greg tried to correct him, he allowed that CO2 was fine except when you burn it. This is how shallow and stupid the global warming debate really is. There's no way to sanely argue against CO2, but I don't doubt that the AGW crowd conflates carbon monoxide with carbon dioxide.
Jeez. Remi Spencer just said people shouldn't be allowed to anonymously criticize celebs on the 'net. She was another doof who parroted the conventional wisdom on Governor Palin.
Great bit on the lobster, though, and "sea kittens".
Monday, January 5, 2009
Winter Of Our Discontent
Try to convince kids that in your day, cartoons were only on Saturdays and holidays, and they look at you like you're crazy. The Flower and the Barbarienne were treated to some "Herculoids"
today and while the Barbarienne was satisfied with it--as she is with anything animated--The Flower was incredulous that we were subjected to--nay, grateful for--such entertainments.
Even more amazing is that "Herculoids" and most of those holiday entertainments were hand-me-downs from Boomers. And sometimes not even English-speaking hand-me-downs. For example, Morozko
(1964), known here as "Jack Frost" or "Father Frost", was a bizarre Russian fairy-tale/love-story--or even worse, the 1959 Mexican movie Santa Claus.
Both of these would later be mocked on "Mystery Science Theather 3000" along with the perennial 1964 classic Santa Claus Conquers The Martians.
Jack Frost was the subject of one of the lesser--yes, one of the lesser--Rankin-Bass stop-motion animated specials. He's a sympathetic character in that one, but I'm pretty sure he was villainous in one of the other Rankin-Bass abominations.
As bad as the Russian Jack Frost is, it towers over the Michael Keaton movie of the same name. I saw that in a theater, believe it or not. Keaton is an on-the-road musician dad who ends up dying and being given a chance to fix things--as a snowman. Michael Keaton. Star of Batman. Snowman.
The premiere Jack Frost movie is also about a human being reincarnated as a snowman: This Jack Frost
is a serial killer whose DNA merges with snow and gives him all the super-powers of, um, snow.
Better even then this movie is its sequel: Jack Frost 2: Revenge of the Mutant Killer Snowman
. The serial killer villain of the first movie is back, and where the first film has occasional moments of distasteful gore, the sequel is pure camp and a laugh a minute.
today and while the Barbarienne was satisfied with it--as she is with anything animated--The Flower was incredulous that we were subjected to--nay, grateful for--such entertainments.Even more amazing is that "Herculoids" and most of those holiday entertainments were hand-me-downs from Boomers. And sometimes not even English-speaking hand-me-downs. For example, Morozko
(1964), known here as "Jack Frost" or "Father Frost", was a bizarre Russian fairy-tale/love-story--or even worse, the 1959 Mexican movie Santa Claus.Both of these would later be mocked on "Mystery Science Theather 3000" along with the perennial 1964 classic Santa Claus Conquers The Martians.
Jack Frost was the subject of one of the lesser--yes, one of the lesser--Rankin-Bass stop-motion animated specials. He's a sympathetic character in that one, but I'm pretty sure he was villainous in one of the other Rankin-Bass abominations.
As bad as the Russian Jack Frost is, it towers over the Michael Keaton movie of the same name. I saw that in a theater, believe it or not. Keaton is an on-the-road musician dad who ends up dying and being given a chance to fix things--as a snowman. Michael Keaton. Star of Batman. Snowman.
The premiere Jack Frost movie is also about a human being reincarnated as a snowman: This Jack Frost
is a serial killer whose DNA merges with snow and gives him all the super-powers of, um, snow.Better even then this movie is its sequel: Jack Frost 2: Revenge of the Mutant Killer Snowman
. The serial killer villain of the first movie is back, and where the first film has occasional moments of distasteful gore, the sequel is pure camp and a laugh a minute.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Legacy of the Panned
Went to see Moscow, Belgium today with The Boy, who I think can probably claim to be the only 13-year-old male in America to see it. (Not many turning out to see movies about 43-year-old women juggling raising their children with their alienated husband and a truck driver competing for her affections. In Dutch. Or so I'm guessing.)
So I owe you two. Consider the following in the meantime however.
Because showing feature films (since about 1950) on a 4:3 TV would leave bands of the TV black along the top and bottom (and a very small resultant picture in many cases), the whole technology of "pan-and-scan" was developed, where a 16:9 (or other) film was reframed as 4:3, roughly along the center but panning to the right and left "as needed" to convey certain film elements. (I swear Blake Edwards used to deliberately frame dialogs with the two characters at the extreme ends of the frame deliberately to mess with that.)
So this butchery was allowed to continue, and few even commented on it until the '80s. As a result, pan-and-scan is still the dominant way films are shown on TV.
But wait, the widescreen TV is pretty standard these days! Does that mean they're showing the films as originally shot and framed? In a few cases, yes.
In most cases, however, the pan-and-scan version is being shown and then blown up to fill the edges of the widescreen TV.
So, you're seeing a butchered version of a film, where everyone looks short 'n' fat to boot. And while you can override this in some cases, I've seen a few situations where the cable overrides the TV controls, locks in the stretch, and seems to refuse to allow the picture to at least be put in the 4:3 frame for which it was designed.
Reminds me of the fact that lines in text files are still largely delimited by carriage-return followed by a line feed, from the time when they were printed out on teletypes, and the print head was on a carriage that had to be moved all the way to the left, and then the paper scrolled, in order to keep the line of text on the page and not overlapping.
Technology's funny, isn't it? Butchered movies with short fatties--not so much.
So I owe you two. Consider the following in the meantime however.
Because showing feature films (since about 1950) on a 4:3 TV would leave bands of the TV black along the top and bottom (and a very small resultant picture in many cases), the whole technology of "pan-and-scan" was developed, where a 16:9 (or other) film was reframed as 4:3, roughly along the center but panning to the right and left "as needed" to convey certain film elements. (I swear Blake Edwards used to deliberately frame dialogs with the two characters at the extreme ends of the frame deliberately to mess with that.)
So this butchery was allowed to continue, and few even commented on it until the '80s. As a result, pan-and-scan is still the dominant way films are shown on TV.
But wait, the widescreen TV is pretty standard these days! Does that mean they're showing the films as originally shot and framed? In a few cases, yes.
In most cases, however, the pan-and-scan version is being shown and then blown up to fill the edges of the widescreen TV.
So, you're seeing a butchered version of a film, where everyone looks short 'n' fat to boot. And while you can override this in some cases, I've seen a few situations where the cable overrides the TV controls, locks in the stretch, and seems to refuse to allow the picture to at least be put in the 4:3 frame for which it was designed.
Reminds me of the fact that lines in text files are still largely delimited by carriage-return followed by a line feed, from the time when they were printed out on teletypes, and the print head was on a carriage that had to be moved all the way to the left, and then the paper scrolled, in order to keep the line of text on the page and not overlapping.
Technology's funny, isn't it? Butchered movies with short fatties--not so much.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Dueling Lasses
Troop's been letting his freak fly now that he can embed pics into his blog and riffed off of something I said at Althouse to post a picture of Dana Delaney as head of the newly minted Department of Discipline.
Now, I like Dana Delaney. I think Dana Delaney is delicious. I watched "China Beach" until I got tired of watching her sulk all the time. It took several seasons. Except for her performance in the otherwise flawless Tombstone, I have nothing bad to say about her.
But if we're talking Irish lasses, Delaney had a co-star on that show, a young lady who had also appeared on "Hill Street Blues", and whom I've always preferred. So, take this, Trooper York:
Megan Gallagher! She also had a chance to strut her soulful-stuff on the short-lived series Millennium. Someone needs to put these Irish women in things where they're actually allowed to smile....
Now, I like Dana Delaney. I think Dana Delaney is delicious. I watched "China Beach" until I got tired of watching her sulk all the time. It took several seasons. Except for her performance in the otherwise flawless Tombstone, I have nothing bad to say about her.
But if we're talking Irish lasses, Delaney had a co-star on that show, a young lady who had also appeared on "Hill Street Blues", and whom I've always preferred. So, take this, Trooper York:
Megan Gallagher! She also had a chance to strut her soulful-stuff on the short-lived series Millennium. Someone needs to put these Irish women in things where they're actually allowed to smile....
Monday, November 10, 2008
Manic Monday Apocalypso: The Monsters Are Due
Can a story be apocalyptic when it's not really apocalyptic?
OK, that's a stupid question. Can a story be apocalyptic when the objective reality is actually not?
Submitted for your approval: "The Twilight Zone". TZ did apocalypse and post-apocalypse better than any one, because whatever they did only had to last 22 minutes. (Let's just forget those over-extended hour shows.) So, they could look at any aspect of a potential apocalypse intensely, and leave the rest of the details to our imaginations.
The particular episode for today is "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street". It's a fiendishly simple premise that given a few banal, but rattling and inexplicable circumstances, people will turn on each other. Presented with a potential apocalypse, in other words, people will act to destroy the world.
This is particularly a propos of last week's election. In any given US election, a substantial portion of the population is convinced the world will end if their guy doesn't get in. In the past eight years, we've heard a lot of screaming that it actually has or did come to an end, if only we'd been paying attention. (Fortunately, whatever damage has been done is instantly reparable by The Other Guy. But now that guy's gonna bring on the apocalypse.)
I don't think that the phenomena in "Monsters Are Due On Maple Street" would bother anyone much today. We're already used to rolling black outs. But our elections herald the new monsters.
The South Park episode airing the day after the election played on this a bit, with the winners celebrating and the losers fearing the post-election world. But in that episode, it only took the night for people to begin to realize that not much is different. And I think in real life, it'll take a minimum of two years for people to get over this one.
OK, that's a stupid question. Can a story be apocalyptic when the objective reality is actually not?
Submitted for your approval: "The Twilight Zone". TZ did apocalypse and post-apocalypse better than any one, because whatever they did only had to last 22 minutes. (Let's just forget those over-extended hour shows.) So, they could look at any aspect of a potential apocalypse intensely, and leave the rest of the details to our imaginations.
The particular episode for today is "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street". It's a fiendishly simple premise that given a few banal, but rattling and inexplicable circumstances, people will turn on each other. Presented with a potential apocalypse, in other words, people will act to destroy the world.
This is particularly a propos of last week's election. In any given US election, a substantial portion of the population is convinced the world will end if their guy doesn't get in. In the past eight years, we've heard a lot of screaming that it actually has or did come to an end, if only we'd been paying attention. (Fortunately, whatever damage has been done is instantly reparable by The Other Guy. But now that guy's gonna bring on the apocalypse.)
I don't think that the phenomena in "Monsters Are Due On Maple Street" would bother anyone much today. We're already used to rolling black outs. But our elections herald the new monsters.
The South Park episode airing the day after the election played on this a bit, with the winners celebrating and the losers fearing the post-election world. But in that episode, it only took the night for people to begin to realize that not much is different. And I think in real life, it'll take a minimum of two years for people to get over this one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
