Beukey on Pop Culture

MTV Get Off The Air

2009-12-11T07:19:00.000-08:00

What the hell happened to MTV?

I am not going to be grumpy old new-waver who complains that they don't show videos all day long. But for a network that constantly wanted to define the cutting edge, they seem to want out of the game.

They stopped showing videos 20 years ago, but created some of the best shows on television to take their place. That may seem hard to believe, but a roster of their best (Beavis and Butt-head, Daria, True Life, Wonder Showzen) outperforms the shows created by most basic cable outlets, and their constantly creative bumpers, ads, etc, were far ahead of the sentimental dreck created by Lifetime.

Even when the started showing unwatchable reality TV like The Hills, they could still create a double-edged sword of a show like My Super Sweet Sixteen, a perfect show for an era where instantly indulging a child's every whim takes precedence helping a child become a fully functioing adult. Trust me, someday the subversive genius of My Super Sweet Sixteen will be fully appreciated.

But I flipped by MTV the other day, and they were showing South Park reruns. South Park is a great show, but when did MTV start re-running culturally relevant shows instead of creating them? And "culturally relevant" is a changing term, as the rerun was about 10 years old. What teenager is going to want to watch that?

While re-running South Park is somewhat defensible because of the quality of the show, the next show aired was Grounded For Life. Grounded for Life? A failed sitcom from a few years back is now in rotation on cutting-edge MTV? Even a crappy video made in the last three months would be a better choice than Grounded For Life.

And MTV is going to keep going down this road, as it announced plans to air reruns of Buffy the Vampire Slayer next year. Buffy is a classic show, but "classic" is not what they do best (and we have niche channel VH1 Classic should we feel the need to go that route).

The title for this post comes from a song by The Dead Kennedys that came out over 20 years ago. "20 years ago" is starting to look like the audience MTV is shooting for. I don't know why they would abandon their brand image they have worked so long to create. No one my age is watching MTV, even though they seem to want to program to that demographic.

I guess MTV grew up, wants to settle down, and think about the glory days of its past. Maybe they should just show the video of "Glory Days" 24-7. (Do the kids still say "24-7?")

The Childish Sexuality of American Movies

2009-08-06T20:49:00.000-07:00

When flipping through the channels the other day, I passed by Auto Focus, which is the bio pic about Bob Crane's life. Or rather, it is about one specific part of his life, his sexual addiction that eventually cost him his life. Or rather, it is about how American movies approach sexual issues, which is to say that they reduce every sexual issue, no matter how mature or complex, into the nodding, winking, leering, overexcitement a teenage boy is supposed to feel when he sees his first naked female breast.

I don't know why American movies do this. I think I know why, but I am hoping I am wrong. I think they do it because they are afraid to take on sexual issues in a mature, adult (and I mean adult as in your are a grown person with a sex life, not "adult" as a synonym for "pornographic") manner because we still have a puritanical streak (God forbid we would offend someone) and it is easier to take on a mocking, adolescent tone rather than tackle the subject head-on.

Someone once made the observation that rock and roll music is full of songs about sexual immaturity. It is full of songs that basically take the viewpoint of a horny high school boy that might be having sex for the first time that night. Since the boy might have sex, the songs deal only in anticipation, not events. When disco came out, and dealt with songs with people who actually had sex (I Feel Love, for one) certain people were offended by the "frankness" (although the songs at that time weren't very frank). But since the mid-80's, and the gradual decline of rock and roll as the face of popular music, popular music dealt in a more head on manner with sex. Not rock and roll, however, where a song like Stacy's Mom can maintain a safe and snickering distance.

Movies haven't even made this much of an advance. Porky's, American Pie, The 40-Year Old Virgin, and the godawful Austin Powers movies all make millions of dollars. They all deal with people desiring sex, but instead of actual getting laid (unless getting laid involves embarrassing someone else (the Stiffler's Mom complex)), they are an exercise in tease and frustration. I have no idea why these movies would appeal to people. They deal in unoriginal material, they are not funny, and they all deal with the unnecessary thwarting of a natural desire. Would anyone go see a movie about a hungry person that was always this close to eating a meal, except that at the moment of truth the table collapsed, or a bird flying overhead pooped in the food, or some other unlikely contrivance prevented him from eating? I would think not, as that sounds like a repetitive, not entertaining movie. Yet Americans flock to the sexual equivalent of such a movie over and over again.

Which takes us back to Auto Focus. While it is not a comedy, it feels the need to fall back on comic and crowd-pleasing elements because it thinks we can't handle a straightforward movie about a man with a sexual addiction. So we get lots of shots of people playing Hogan, Newkirk, Klink, etc. The worst offense is a nightmare scene where Crane is dreaming he in costume on the set of Hogan's Heroes while dealing with sexual temptation. But, face it, that was the scene the American audience wanted to see in the movie.

Whenever an American movie does try to take on sexual issues in a straightforward manner, it is usually criticized in an exaggerated manner. I have recently come across writers going on and on about what a horrible movie Eyes Wide Shut is. This movie is not great, but it's not horrible either, especially when compared to an Austin Powers movie. Eyes Wide Shut is somewhat of a mess, but it does deal with the issues of sexual desire in contrast with what a rationale course of behavior would be. Of course, no critic wants to talk about that, they just want to pile on the "ridiculous" orgy scene.

The scene is unrealistic, but what I think bothers the puritanical American critics is that the scene deals with people having and actually enjoying sex, not anticipating sex and being somehow stopped at the last minute because Mom got home, or a pipe suddenly burst, or a cow kicked over a lamp and set the barn on fire.

I'm Supposed To Be Sad That There Is One Less Pervert In The World?

2009-06-28T06:16:00.000-07:00

Maybe this is a sign of maturity, or maybe it is a sign of the early advance of old age, but I find it very hard to find Michael Jackson a sympathetic figure, much less understand the hysteria over his death. I had expected that the baby boomers "end of a era" caterwauling over the inevitable death of Bob Dylan to be the most annoying music related spectacle I would have to endure, but this death is already taking on Elvis-like proportions. Already we have the "mysterious doctor", 10 years from now, we'll have stories that MJ didn't really die, and he was "sighted" preparing for a comeback tour.

People want to print any over the top statement they can, but they don't want to examine the facts of his life, and what likely lead to his death. The most unbelievable thing I read was that MJ, who is about as apolitical a figure in music that you will find, had a great (although previously publicly unstated) desire to see the reunification of Korea. Yes, you read that right.

Micheal Jackson lived in a self-constructed prison of gold bars. And he invited little boys in there to spend time with him. He even admitted to sharing his bed with minors. If your next-door neighbor made such an admission, you would punch him in the face. But with Michael, it's all supposed to be taken in stride and forgiven, because he provided entertainment to people, and he had a rough childhood. Awwwwwwww!

People may be temporarily shocked by his death, but they can hardly be surprised. Anyone who has abused painkillers in the way that MJ did stands a good chance of dying early. Anyone who underwent as much plastic surgery as he did is placing a unnecessary burden on their body. He also seemed to have a Bear Stearns attitude towards his finances, and may have been as much as $500 million in debt at the time he died.

It has been said that MJ regressed into some type of child-like stage many years ago. If that is true, it is hardly something to be envied or emulated. All I see is someone who indulged himself in painkillers, debt, and other "activities" without much concern to his overall well being. If he doesn't care enough to take care of himself, why should his death surprise us?

Will Ferrell Visits "Land Of The Flops"

2009-06-09T20:19:00.000-07:00

Well, it finally happened, thank God. The great American love affair with unfunny Will Ferrell is over. Land Of The Lost (movie budget $100 million, advertising budget estimated to be $30 million) made less than $20 million in its first weekend of release. There is nowhere to go but down from there.

I saw a trailer for this movie, and it looked awful. Even worse than his usual dreck. Is telling Matt Lauler to "Eat it" supposed to be funny, and worth $10 to see?

I can only hope this is the start of a long series of flops. Soon he will need to make the career-reviving dog movie (think Jennifer Anniston and Owen Wilson's Marley and Me). I can only hope people stay away this time.

"Ha-Ha! You're Medium Is Dying!"

2009-04-12T05:11:00.000-07:00

That bon mot was tossed by Nelson Muntz to some print journalist a few seasons back on The Simpsons. It was true then, it is true now. In the last few months, there have been several op-ed columns, and one ridiculous piece of legislation, decrying the death of the newspaper, and, paradoxically, what can be done to save them.

What these have in common is they are high-minded think pieces that want to place the blame on technology, generational changes, or other such intangible factors that make you sound smart if you mention them.

What's killing newspapers is easy enough to see if you actually buy a newspaper, not work for one or try to make a living explaining mega-trends. As a public service, I am going to explain in one simple to understand sentence, why newspapers are failing.

The newspaper's primary objective is not covering "news".

When I get a newspaper, there is one thing I want to get. News. However, today's newspapers don't want to publish news. They want to publish opinions, or ask poll questions, or publish a kid page, or a high school basketball score, or a picture of the band car wash, or anything that is meant to trigger a warm-and-fuzzy emotional reaction in the reader. This warm-and-fuzzy emotional reaction is supposed to act like heroin in the sense that it will keep the reader happy and unagitated, and will make the reader by the paper again the next day so they can see a picture of a clown entertaining sick children in the hospital, whereupon the reader can feel proud about his or her community, and the process can repeat itself.

If you think that is an exaggeration, here are some "headlines" from articles in today's Washington Post.

"How a Pothole Gets Patched" (includes three pictures)

"The Kindness of Neighbors" (not written by an employee for the paper, which makes this article the equivalent of a blog post)

"Anacostia Joins Cherry Jubilee With Festival, Tree Plantings"

"The First Puppy Makes a Big Splash" (Two photos, this article is on the front page, and it also has a poll question)

For those of you wondering, these stories all come from the "news" part of the newspaper, not the Sunday features section.

Considering how expensive newsprint is (a subject addressed in a recent Ombudsman column in the WP), why is this stuff in print? Answer (also found in recent Ombudsman column), the Post has targeted certain types of readers as "must-keeps". One "must-keep" demographic is women, so they must run stories to keep women buying the newspaper.

If you think I am exaggerating, click here. How to Create Future Readers - washingtonpost.com

If the WP has "must-keep" readers, then they have abandoned the purpose of being a newspaper. They are letting the consumers dictate the content instead of using their news judgment (that element that would define them as a "professional" as opposed to a blogger who usually writes about a subject in which he or she is interested) to determine what makes its way to print.

So the "newspaper" is not interested in serving the community. Instead, it is dedicated to serving a segment of the community, a segment that it believes will continue to buy papers and keep the paper in business. And it will refine its product to appeal to the segment of the community from which it can mine a profit.

This is why newspapers are failing. Not because of the Internet. Not because they have been slow to adapt. It is because they have abandoned their primary interest, and are only concerned with staying in business.

RIP, and know that you died of self-inflicted wounds.

Chick Flick Q & A

2009-03-14T04:58:00.000-07:00

Since this blog has a very small readership, something I take full blame for, I will have to provide both the "Q's" and the "A's." I am picking chick flicks because in that last two weeks, I have seen 3 different but linked chick flicks, Confessions of a Shopaholic, Nights in Rodanthe, and The Reader.

Q. Why these three flicks?

A. The first two I saw with my girlfriend, the third I pulled a Don-Draper type of move by leaving work and going to an art flick.

Q. Why are they chick flicks?

A. Because chick flicks seems to have lead characters that are divided into two extremes: quirky, kooky, effervescent girls who demand that the world accepts them on their own terms (COAS) or women who seem to exist and be defined by how much pain they can stoically digest (NIR, TR).

Q. Can't it be argued that the chick in The Reader, by virtue of being an SS guard and her actions while being a guard, caused much more pain for people than the pain she stoically digested?

A. Of course it can, but since her actions are never shown onscreen, only mentioned in dialogue, you'd be missing what the filmmakers have chosen to show you. You get plenty of shots of Kate Winslet giving pained looks and struggling to read and write, but you get no shots of her days of doing shitty things to prisoners.

Q. Why do chick flicks go to these extremes?

A. I have no idea. Is this how women want to see themselves portrayed on screen? You could probably make an argument that men go to action movies because they want to be James Bond or Rambo, and they would love to spend their days shooting off guns, screwing a different chick every night, and getting the best of every situation. Do women go to movies because they want to relate to the idea of being either the most superficial or most sensitive person in the world?

Q. Wasn't that last A more of a Q?

A. It was, I'll try to do better in the future.

Q. Why is there a double standard in chick flicks, or flicks in general, when it comes to having sex with minors? Why are people repulsed when Kevin Spacey, in American Beauty, has lusty thoughts but an unconsummated relationship with underage Mena Suvari, but no one makes a stink when Kate Winslet repeatedly fucks a 15-year old in The Reader?

A. Because movie world perceives men as predators and women as nurturers. Therefore, even though Kevin never goes through with it, he's a disgusting predator and a bad person. But since Kate is a nurturing woman, she couldn't have ever had any bad intentions and must have felt actual love for the boy, so it was OK for her to have sex with him repeatedly. Of course, this view actually ignores the reality of what is happening, but people never seem to want for facts to get in the way of anything.

Q. Speaking of facts, isn't that woman in Nights in Rodanthe completely nuts for wanting to see the wild horses on the beach in Rodanthe? Shouldn't someone tell her that the wild horses are near Corolla, which is about 45 miles north of Rodanthe, and that the horses are never going to travel 45 miles down beaches filled with people to go and see her? Shouldn't someone just tell her to get in her car and drive to Corolla?

A. Of course someone should, but see previous digression on facts. And in the end, the horses do come to see her.

Q. Isn't The Reader typical of the type of movie where years of pointless pain and suffering between the main characters could have been avoided if these characters just had frank discussions with each other years earlier?

A. Yes (long sigh).

Q. Are we really supposed to believe that Kate Winslet is more ashamed that she couldn't read or write that by the fact that she was in the SS?

A. You are if you are going to buy into the movie.

Q. Why do chick flicks feed into the idea that the purest type of love is the type that is unsustainable do to external forces? Specifically, why does the chick in NIR fall in love with someone she spends very little time with, only to have him die in a freak accident before they can spend a life together? And, despite their age differences, couldn't the couple in TR have had a nice little life together if that whole Nazis-coming-to-power-before-he-was-born thing never happened?

A. Yes, but only truncated love can be pure because nothing can ever happen to mess it up. Richard Gere didn't stick around in NIR long enough to do something really stupid to Diane Lane (and let's be honest, the guys that manage to make it all the way through a chick flick without falling of a mountain while trying to save the orphanage always do something stupid or hurtful to the female lead). But on the other hand, if men never did anything stupid to the female characters in these movies, the female characters would never be able to demonstrate how sensitive, forgiving, and caring that, deep down, they really are.

OK, last question.

Q. Wasn't that little boy in Nights in Rodanthe in danger of dying from estrogen poisoning? Couldn't he have benefited from have a positive male role model in his life?

A. Yes, but in that movie all the men were either jerks or dead.

Elitism and 30 Rock

2009-01-20T15:52:00.000-08:00

30 Rock is the funniest show on television. After a bunch of episodes to begin the season that attempted to boost ratings by cramming pointless guest stars down our throat, it seems to have righted itself. I can't think of a comedian who is more the polar opposite of Tina Fey than Jennifer Anniston. Is there some type of fan overlap there that I am unaware of? Do people that like the sophisticated scripts of 30 Rock also go to see movies where dog farts are considered the height of hilarity, and big-nosed Owen Wilson plays a grade Z imitation of a Bill Murray character for the umpteenth time? America, you could have killed the movie careers of Wilson and Anniston if you stayed away from that steaming pile. Instead, the opening box office ensures they will open a lot of crappy movies of the next four years. Woof!

I liked the last episode, even though it had a time-wasting zombie montage. The episode picked up on a subtle theme on the show, and one that I hope they will explore in more detail. The theme is this: Why does the character that Tina Fey plays (Liz Lemon) seem ashamed of her successful career, and why does she seek to identify herself with workers who are in an economic strata that is beneath hers?

In the last episode, Liz was planning an expensive vacation. As a valued member of the show's staff, she was offered the opportunity to get a flu shot that was not available to all the workers on the show. She was aghast that health care was being rationed, and made a big, vocal deal in front of the lower-paid crew workers about not getting the shot, even though she later go it in secret and went around feeling guilty about it.

I get the point about health care not being rationed or given out based on your salary; such a system would be shameful. What I find far more interesting is why Liz (or people in real-life) feel the need to apologize for their success, even to the point that they pledge fealty to a lifestyle they left behind a long time ago. I'm not saying that people automatically change when they make more money, but it's pretty ridiculous when someone that makes $80,000 a year goes out of their way to act like they are in the same economic situation as someone who makes $20,000 a year.

Liz (who, in one of my favorite jokes on the show, comes from White Haven, Pennsylvania) has turned down a promotion, and other opportunities to move into higher social circles that have been extended by her boss. She seems rooted in some type of middle-class mindset where she feels she should not rise above her current station.

As a counterpoint to this, there is the character of Tracy. In early episodes, it was established that Tracy grew up in poverty. But now the character is successful, and has no compunction about living it up, even to the point of burning through lots of cash and needing to develop new revenue streams to support his lifestyle.

I certainly don't think people need to be obnoxious about their wealth, and there are no limits to the TV shows, movies, etc., that seek to deflate snooty rich characters (of course, these shows are written, acted, and directed by millionaires, so the public is making people rich by paying them to make fun of the rich). But I think it's worth exploring why people seek to tie their identity to a lower-economic lifestyle that they are not a part of, and why they think that doing so is "keeping them real". There's nothing "real" about it.

Oh yeah, about the picture, couldn't do a Tina Fey post without a little eye candy.

Just In Time For Christmas, I Watch "Last House On The Left"

2008-12-21T16:50:00.000-08:00

This movie is the poster child for ugly 70's horror. Whether or not it is the sickest 70's horror movie is another matter, but it's the one everyone will come back to when trying to make a point. This one made it further into the mainstream than any other movie that could be considered "grindhouse".

So I was utterly amazed when Fearnet, which is an OnDemand channel I get that usually shows lame 80's and 90's movies, had this in their queue. It looks like it is part of a Wes Craven month promotion.

I jumped on the chance to watch it, because this movie is never going to be shown on HBO or Showtime, or even Sundance or IFC, the latter of which had a "grindhouse" month promotion and wouldn't touch this.

Last House On The Left had been in the back of my mind ever since I saw part of that horrible Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake, and had heard that someone was going to remake LHOTL.

I watched this with 2 questions in mind.

Is this as horrific as everyone says it is?
Is it possible to remake this movie in this day and age?

"Crude" is probably the best way to describe this movie. It is practically unwatchable, and not because of the content. This movie is crudely shot, crudely edited, and crudely scored. There are jump cuts, scenes shot in daylight that are supposed to take place at night, and scenes that seem to be edited out of order. The low point of this amateur hour is when the father (who is also a doctor) pulls his daughter out of the lake and pronounces her dead, even as she is moving around. I can see part of the reason why this is never on cable is that it barely looks like a real movie. Even a cheapie like my beloved Don't Look In The Basement can manage to edit and score the movie so it looks like it was done by professionals (hack professionals, but that's still a couple of cuts above amateurs). If someone didn't tell you that this was a notorious movie, you would never stick around and watch it.

For something that is supposed to be horrifying, it gets off to an extremely slow start. It also doesn't help that one of the bad guys is played by someone that appears to be channeling Larry Fine, and gives an overly long impersonation of a frog.

But just as I was ready to give up on the movie, something kicked in. When the movie finally gets around to what it's famous for, the amateurness turns into an asset. The film takes on a nightmarish quality in the torture/humiliation/rape/carving/killing scenes. It's not easy to watch. There is no CGI, no stylized quality, no indication that what you're watching is anything other than some disgusting home movie.

And once the girls are dead, it devolves back into a mostly unwatchable mess. There are a few interesting moments (seconds, really), but they are strung out too far. Also, there is a "comedy" plot that seems like it is dropped in from another movie, and detracts from the overall vibe of LHOTL.

I don't suppose there was a market for 10 minute horror movies back then, but this really looks like a short film sandwiched into 60 minutes of padding. Someone should websode this to cut out the beginning, the ending, and the exteraneous shots that are intermixed into the torture scenes. The result wouldn't be pretty, but it would be powerful.

It would be interesting to contrast that 10 minutes of film with a modern counterpart, or, barring that, its non-union Mexican equivalent. To fill that void, I volunteer Hostel 2, which was conviently on cable this week, and was roundly criticized as the death of the "torture porn" movement that overtook horror films a few years ago.

Readers, there is no comparison. I only saw parts of Hostel 2, but I saw all of Hostel, and they are the same movie, except that the girls get it in Hostel 2. Hostel 2 takes the long way to set up ridiculous torture scenes that play out extra slowly so you can wince. But they're not really scary, because everything is telegraphed, and designed to make you jumpy instead of scared. LHOTL is the ultimate "Kids, don't talk to strangers" movie, but the bad guys at least act like how someone would expect a psycho to act. You could never imagine what happened in Hostel 2 happening to someone in real life. But everytime you hear a missing child story on TV, you are hoping that kid is not living out what happened in LHOTL. That is what gives LHOTL its power, and makes Hostel 2 look silly.

This is ultimately what makes LHOTL a movie that cannot be remade. (By the way, it is being remade, but the plot has been changed, and I am sure they will either tone things down, or go too far in the other direction and make things look ridiculous.) Times have changed, and people don't go to see horror movies that look like they could actually happen. There has to be some genuis serial killer, or supernatural force, or dead twin trying to be reborn so people can create a mental safety barrier between the silver screen and real life.

However, they are remaking LHOTL, although in name only. There is only one movie from the 1970's that I think is less out of tune with the way the majority of people think today, and is even more unsuited for a remake that would be faithful to the original.

And if anyone ever does plan a faithful remake of A Clockwork Orange, the social critics will have a field day.

No TV Party Tonight

2008-09-21T16:56:00.000-07:00

I know it's been a while since a post, but a little thing called "reality" has a way of taking up most of my time nowadays. I'm loathe to discuss my non-pop culture life here, but the economy, which is messing up everyone's life, is also affecting mine. Except that I have what I would call an "anti-economy" job, by which I mean, the worse the overall economy is, the more time I have to spend working. Since things are pretty screwed over now, you can imagine how much time I spend in the office.

On top of that, my TV died. I poured a 40 over the picture tube and dragged it out to the curb. The upside is I have an HDTV coming soon, just in time for hockey season, 30 Rock, and the last half of Mad Men.

To start with a clean slate for fall, here are the capsule reviews of what I watched over the summer/what I plan to watch over the fall: X-Files movie: sucked beyond belief, horrific box office, let's hope the series is dead and buired; Tropic Thunder: Uneven, but funny; The Dark Night: Don't miss it; Futurama: The Beast With A Billion Backs: Better than the last Futurama DVD; Mad Men: Still great, why are you reading this instead of watching it?; The Shield: Gotta catch up when the new TV arrives; Dollhouse: Was highly anticipating the series' January debut, now worried about quality.

X-Files Movie Tanks

2008-07-27T14:22:00.000-07:00

I get my wish, and more. The Dark Knight makes $75 million, a record for the second week of a movie's run. Idiots spend $30 million to see Will Ferrell's tired act in Step Brothers. The chicks all go to see Mamma Mia!, which makes a very respectable $17.8 million.

That leaves The X-Files: I Want To Believe opening in the fourth spot, and taking in only $10.2 million. No matter how may excuses are being made for that figure, it's awful.

But they have no one but themselves to blame. By keeping everything such a big fucking mystery until the last minute, they gave no one other than their hardcore fans a reason to see the film. Teens who make up most of the movie market wouldn't have been watching The X-Files, went it went off the air 6 years ago, and the show flat out sucked the last three years of its run. So what connection does an 18-year-old today have to The X-Files?

The I Want To Believe portion of the title might as well stand for Chris Carter and company's delusional idea that characters that they left dormant for years were somehow in the forefront of everyone's pop culture mindset. And that all they had to do was put a movie in a theater and everyone would fall all over themselves to see it.

There is a reason why an iconic character like Batman, who has been around since the 1930's, is a household name and can capture the imagination of a country. (It also doesn't hurt that The Dark Knight may be one of the best movies of the year.) Mulder and Scully were a powerhouse in the 1990's, but their show ended badly, and nothing in the marketing campaign ever seemed designed to want to make people see the film. The whole promotional mindset seem to be "We're back! I bet you missed us!" And now they know nobody did.

Watch "Mad Men", Avoid "The X-Files"

2008-07-21T16:22:00.000-07:00

Mad Men starts its second season on AMC this Sunday night at 10:00. This show snuck under the radar last year because it was the first drama ever produced by AMC, which is normally known for showing movies that were popular when Clara Bow ruled Hollywood. Since the show was on AMC, no one expected much, but it turned out to be the best show of the year.

The show is period piece, set in an advertising agency on Madison Avenue in the early 1960's. For a refreshing change of pace, the show is not PC, the characters act like people did back then. They smoke, they drink, they have affairs, and there is not group hug at the end of every episode.

Because it is an hour-long drama on cable, the show is most often compared to The Sopranos. Although it was created by a writer that worked on The Sopranos, (from a script that pre-dates his work on that show), Mad Men lacks the viceral impact of The Sopranos. Instead, it intially focuses more on mood, the drama unfolds slowly over the first few episodes, then it picks up steam. If you are familiar with advertising, and some of the memoral campaigns on the past, this show will appeal to you.

The first season of Mad Men is currently on In Demand and on DVD. I started watching it on In Demand last year and got drawn in after the first few episodes. Make sure to watch it on HDTV if you can.

Although I know I'm going to break down and see it, I am expecting nothing from the new X-Files movie. They are so concerned with keeping every thing a secret that the marketing budget seems to be about $100. I have seen no articles and few commercials about the movie. The commercials indicate that they are using the played out plot device "Two characters spilt up, but come back together for the case of their lifetime" device, which seems like something out of a buddy cop movie. I am hoping this movie tanks bad. The Dark Knight is going to make another $50 million next week, all the idiots that run to see Will Ferrell's latest piece of shit will go see that, the chicks will go see Mama Mia, and The X-Files could make less than $20 million. And there's nowhere to go but down from there.

Is Sleepaway Camp The Gayest Horror Movie Ever? Not That There's Anything Wrong With That

2008-06-29T04:32:00.000-07:00

The cable movie channel IFC does some strange things. They decreed June "Grindhouse" month, and ran triple features on Thursday nights, but did not screen one true grindhouse movie. We've been all through grindhouse and Grindhouse on this blog, but if IFC needs me to tell them that Scream 3 is not a true grindhouse flick, then the state of independent cinema is in worse shape than I thought.

As a tangent to the Thursday movies, they ran a different horror movie midnights on Friday. The strange thing is that the choice for Friday movies, while also not true grindhouse, were at least horror movies that never get any screenings on cable (as opposed to Scream 3, which hardly needs the exposure). Why they buried their offbeat choices on Fridays at midnight is a mystery to me, and seems to run counter to a grindhouse promotion.

I didn't know about this promotion until I got home at midnight on a Friday and came across a screening of Sleepaway Camp. I remembered this as an 1980's slasher flick, but had never seen it. As an 1980's slasher flick set in a summer camp, I expected it to follow a certain pattern: whiny campers; obnoxious, horny counselors; teens that have sex get killed; some hot chick that takes a shower gets killed; some hot chick that skinny-dips gets killed; etc., etc., etc.

But Sleepaway Camp wasn't going to blindly follow this formula. It doesn't make homosexuality and sexual identity its central themes. But it does subvert the traditional heterosexual slasher genre by introducing such themes.

My first inkling that Sleepaway Camp was going to be different was when the (going through a divorce) father has his two kids out on a lake in a tiny boat, and the camera kept cutting back to the father looking at another man on shore. Then tragedy ensues, and in reasons too random and various to encapsulate, the father and one of the kids gets run over by a speed boat.

My second inkling that we were in uncharted territory was when the surviving child, Angela, is raised by a crazy, overly dramatic "Aunt Martha" who comes across as drag queen. "Aunt Martha" was played by a female, but with the overly exaggerated acting and fashion choices, it is clear that there is supposed to be some confusion about the gender of the character. It also shows that the "Camp" portion of the title works on more than one level.

From this point forward, I couldn't help but notice the other unconventional choices this movie makes. The main character, Angela, is a sullen, uncommunicative teen that is having a miserable summer at the camp. She spends most over her time not interacting with the other characters. The male counselors mostly look like body-builders from the pre-steroids era, and wear shorts so tiny and colorful that the look like panties. The camera spends a lot of time on these counselors.

For the traditional nude swimming scene, the male counselors ask the female counselors to go skinny-dipping. The girls refuse, so the guys strip down and swim by themselves, and probably have a great time. (Aside: I understand that most video and DVD versions of the film don't have this scene, but it was included on the version I watched on IFC.) There is no female nudity in this film at all, which is almost unheard of in early 1980's slasher flicks. But we get plenty of gratuitous shots of men's asses.

At a seemingly random point in the film a flashback occurs, and hints that Angela and the dead sibling at some point watched her father have sex with the guy he kept looking at on the shore.

As far as plot development goes, people who treat Angela poorly are getting bumped off. Who's doing it? Angela? Her overprotective cousin who is also at the camp? The boy that went out of his way to befriend Angela? Cropsy? (Sorry, that's from another killer-in-the-woods movie.)

This movie has a "surprise" ending, although how much something can be kept a secret after 25 years and the last 2 1/2 minutes have been posted on youtube is an open question. But, after much meandering, the film comes back to the question of sexual identity. Also, there was a film in the 1990's that had a "twist", and we were all encouraged not to reveal the "twist" to anyone that hadn't seen it. This "twist" was blatantly stolen from Sleepaway Camp.

So anyone going to see Sleepaway Camp for tits and gore is going to be confronted by a off-kilter flick that is more concerned with subverting the genre than following it. And by creating a horror movie that runs counter to the heterosexual slasher formula, the movie gets creativity points. There are plenty of examples of comedies, dramas, musicals, etc that have gay/transgender themes. But Sleepaway Camp is the only horror movie I can think of that veers into that territory.

If you click on the link to this title, it will take you to the review of the movie posted on the website 1000 Misspent Hours and Counting which is an outstanding resource for horror movies. The summaries give detailed plot descriptions, and they are rounded out with insightful criticism.

Can This Finally Be The Weekend?

2008-06-20T04:56:00.000-07:00

I have waited for years for the general population to wake up to what an unfunny, Hackey, Joke, and Dunnit, no-talent that Mike Meyers is. I have read two reviews of The Love Guru that state that the reviewer did not laugh once.

America, what took so long? Austin Powers was three movies of dick jokes and seventh-grade puns. Yet you all lapped it up while I railed on Cassandra-like hoping to find someone that realized how unfunny it all was. A comedy needs to have originality. Anyone can take jokes out of an old joke book and put them up on the big screen. You need to do more, especially if you are earning, I mean making millions of dollars to make a movie.

Meyers felt the need to again drag Vern Troyer on the screen. So he could make the same unfunny size jokes for a fourth time. "Meyers and Troyer" isn't exactly Laurel and Hardy, or even Abbot and Costello.

Please, please, please let this movie crater, and let Mike Meyers go back to whatever obscurity he has been living in for the last 4 years.

Sex And The City? I'd Rather Be Horny

2008-05-29T16:46:00.000-07:00

A few months back, I posted about the nauseating media saturation that occurred prior to the release of the final (we can only hope) Harry Potter book.

However, that media campaign was the height of restraint when compared to the onslaught surrounding tomorrow's release of the Sex And The City movie.

You may or may not remember Sex And The City. If the woman in your life imagines herself as sophisticated, urban-dwelling, sushi-eating, Cosmo-drinking, fashion-conscious, trendy, sensuous, wealthy (but not in an obnoxious way), complicated diva, (yet in real life she stays home to watch Oprah, wants to eat at TGI Fridays and shoe shops at Payless) chances are she is dragging your ass to this movie. Be very afraid; it's nearly 2 1/2 hours long.

To be fair, the show had it moments. It was always well-written, and it didn't sink into a insufferable morass of until the last season. But it definitely went out with a thud and should have rested in peace and reruns.

But a movie was made, and I have never seen something so heavily promoted in my life (except for ESPN promoting itself). Today, I counted all the media outlets I came across that made mention of the show/movie. Here is the list: Entertainment Weekly (which devoted 63 pages to it), The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, The Washington Post, MSNBC, Newsweek, The Wall Street Journal (??), AOL (when checking my mail, my choices included, Old, New, and Sex And The City), The Onion (which also had a great sarcastic column about a Sex And The City drink promotion at Houlihan's) and TV commercials.

All this promotion points to one thing. The movie stinks on ice, everyone involved knows it, and if they don't get you and your wife's ass in the theater this weekend, you're not going.

Which points back to the central conundrum of Sex And The City. The women that considered this appointment television and continually argue over which of their friends is the Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte, and Miranda, have the lives that least resemble the TV characters. Do you think a real life Carrie spends her Friday nights in a movie theater fantasizing about the life she doesn't have, then goes home, pays the babysitter, and sits down in front of the TV with a half-gallon of cookie dough ice cream? Enjoying a movie is one thing, thinking that movie represents your everyday existence is another thing. Overboard Sex And The City fans need some closure; I can only hope this movie doesn't spawn sequels.

Beukey's first weekend box office prediction: $45 million.

This Ought To Keep You Little Bastards Entertained For A While

2008-05-17T04:51:00.000-07:00

Click on the title to go to "Bloody Blood", a blog that posts nothing but movie trailers from the grindhouse era. It even organizes them into categories (i. e. "70's horror", "Giallo", etc.). Gratuitous enough to satisfy even Bluey, who has been complaining about Planet Terror as of late.

Exclusive: On Set Shot From New "Sex And The City" Movie

2008-04-12T14:15:00.000-07:00

An old joke, but one I can't resist. Image courtesy of the "Stupid Comics" website. Check it out, they do great stuff.

To Use Language That Reflects The Sophisitcation Of The Newscast: Katie Go Bye Bye

2008-04-12T13:47:00.000-07:00

It seems that CBS's $75 million dollar experiment in dumbing down the evening news is tanking. CBS may dump Katie Couric, or reassign her before the end of the year.

The blame should not be assigned to Katie Couric. Although I don't care for her, she does possess the skills to do network television. (If you don't believe me, watch 15 minutes of Ann Curry, and you'll see the world of difference that exists.) But Katie's skills do not mesh with an evening newscast, something that was obvious before she was hired. "Katie" was being "Katie", not "Kate" which was the pre-Today show name she used when she was trying to make it as a serious journalist.

Why on earth did CBS news think it was a good idea to have "fireside chats" and "man on the street" segments in the evening news? If I want to know what a soccer mom or guy on a bar stool thinks about world events, I'll take a walk through my neighborhood. The network news is put together by professionals that have access to other professionals that get paid to think about complicated issues. Why toss out all that knowledge just to chase down some rube on the street to see what he thinks about global warming? "I think we can all do more to help the environment" says the rube. Thanks Einstein, you must have been up all night thinking to come up with that timely solution.

CBS so far paid Katie about $30 million in salary to have exchanges similar to that air. No wonder her ratings are in the toilet.

"I Feel Financially Raped"

2008-04-01T17:19:00.000-07:00

This quote, coming from the linked-to article in The Wall Street Journal, comes from a woman. And what ungodly indignity did she suffer that drove her to make that quote?

She (sob, grab Kleenex) has to pay alimony!

She is Rhonda Friedman, ex-wife of actor John Castellanos. Castellanos is best known for playing John Silva on The Young and The Restless for a number of years, but his character has been off the show for a while. Quotes the article "Soap star Mr. Castellanos bluntly says he deserves alimony for the same reason that his former wife, Ms. Friedman, says he doesn't: He earned more than she did during six of the nine years they were married. Only after losing his regular role on "The Young and the Restless," and only after his wife received several promotions, did she start earning more than he. For years, his big paychecks financed their lavish lifestyle, and now he is due some payback, he says." You go, guy!

Well, well, well, now that equality has reared its head, some of those who fought for it now suddenly don't like it. Boo Hoo. All of a sudden, equality isn't fair.

I was raised in the era of equality, and I believe in it completely. But certain people in this world think that equality is a one-way street, and that gains that they achieved shouldn't be shared by all members of society. They always want the biggest piece of cake, the best seats in the house, and to retain the iron grip on their victim status, even when time has moved on.

This article also contains Joan Lunden's infamous quote after she was ordered to pay her ex-husband alimony. "Why the courts don't tell a husband, who has been living off his wife, to go out and get a job is beyond my comprehension"she said in 1992. (In fairness, a lot of things were beyond Joan's comprehension. She's not the sharpest knife in the drawer.) Switch the words "husband" and "wife" in that quote, and you have a definition of chauvinism. But no one ever held Joan accountable for her words, although, thankfully, that untalented hack shuffled off into the sunset years ago. Lunden now says she regrets the quote, but in the article she never apologizes for it or takes it back. So I guess she still feels that way.

Alimony guys, did you ever know that you're my heeeeeroes. You are the wind beneath my wings. Collect on, brothers! And buy the next round!

How About Using Pink Ink, Or Have An "Empowering" Quote As A Banner Headline Everyday?

2008-01-28T17:35:00.000-08:00

The Ombudsman (or maybe I should say Ombudswoman) for The Washington Post has a very serious problem to deal with, as she described in her column Sunday. The problem she and the Post editors are concerned about? Young women (ages 18 to 34) with children read the Post at half the rate as men with children. Of course, this critical problem needs a solution, so a Post task force will look at it and make recommendations.

I would think the people at the Post would have more pressing concerns, like, maybe, determining how good a job they are doing covering the hard news in the city? Concerns with improving the overall quality of their stories? Ensuring that they put out the best paper that they can on a daily basis?

But not in Washington P.C., where the emphasis is on being all-inclusive, rather than putting their energy into creating the best product possible.

The company that owns the Washington Post makes several products targeted to specific demographics, including El Tiempo Latino (a Spanish Language newspaper) and Sprig (which seems to be targeted to those going green). They even publish the Express, which, given the brevity of the articles and the numerous photos, seems to be targeted to people that have no interest in reading newspapers. If the Post really feels that women with children are such a separate market, make a paper especially for them. But don't shove any more junk touchy-feely non-news items in the already retaining water Washington Post.

Remaking Classic 70's Horror Movies

2008-01-27T04:05:00.000-08:00

A few weeks ago, I got back into town late on a Sunday night. While channel surfing, I came across the last half-hour of the original The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I hadn't watched that movie in about 10 years, and that part is my favorite part of the movie, so I watched it again. This part contains the "dinner table scene" and the ending. If you have never seen the movie, the "dinner table scene" is one of the most intense and uncomfortable scenes you will ever watch. Not because it is bloody or grotesque, but because it is so disorienting, yet done in such a way that the performance seems real and never over the top. And I like the ending more each time I see it.

Last Friday, I came across the remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre that was released a few years ago. I never knew why someone thought it was a good idea to remake this movie. You weren't going to do a better job that the original filmmakers. To me, it just looked like a cheap way to make money. But I had the audacity to hope that the people making the new version had something new or different to present on screen.

Well, hope got me nowhere. Not only did the new version suck, it sucked beyond the normal level of suckiness usually associated with these remake projects.

The new version is a torture porn film. That type of horror movie was popular in the last few years, but that approach is dying out (no pun intended). You may think anything titled The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is inherently assumed to be a torture porn film. But the original doesn't have as much gore as the title would imply, while the new decided to skip any kind of plot and just become a slow moving slug of a picture where the audience just sits around waiting for the inevitable to happen.

I've seen a couple of other torture porn films that were at least watchable. Hostel was all right; in fact the slow moving torture scenes are the most boring part of the movie. Watching a guy walk around slowly and decide which torture tool he is going to choose is not interesting. I even liked the remake of The Hills Have Eyes, although introducing the tired plot motivator of "It's all the government's fault" made me roll my eyes.

The motives in the new TCM were even less substantial and believable. The movie is set in 1973, and it had something to do with the Texas sheriff thinking the kids were no good hippies because someone defaced their draft card. Draft card? I doubt anyone born after 1975 would even have the slightest idea of what that was. Of course, everyone in the sheriff's family is crazy and grotesque. The kids are brought/find their way to the house, where they are tied-up, tortured, and ultimately killed.

The new TCM made a half-assed attempt to recreate the dinner table scene. But they had no idea of what made the original scene work. They made no attempt to recreate the atmosphere or the dynamics of the scene. Instead, it was another interchangeable torture porn scene.

Since they couldn't do the dinner table scene right, they certainly weren't able to recreate the ending. In the original TCM, a movie full of jarring imagery, the most jarring thing (to me) is the sudden visual change that occurs when Marilyn Burns jumps out the window. She leaves the claustrophobic darkness of the house (that darkness that we have sat in for 45+ minutes) and suddenly finds herself outside in the bright sunshine with one final chance to escape her captors. That leads to the ending, with her running out to the road, with Leatherface two steps behind waving his chainsaw. I am not going to ruin the ending for anyone who has never seen it, but it manages to bring a conclusion to the film, a cathartic release to the audience and provides an interesting last look at the characters and the situation. This ending was made before every horror movie ended with an eye toward a sequel.

The new TCM changed the ending substantially. The darkness never lifts, the main character flees in a car, and you can pretty much guess the rest, although the main character ends up losing control of the car it crashes into another car, killing a few more people for good measure.

The new TCM is pointless. It adds nothing new to the original story or to horror movies in general.

I have heard there is an upcoming remake of Last House On The Left. I don't know how true to the original it will be, but that movie is a product of its time, and would be the last movie that I would try to update to fit into today's sensibilities. Of course, it's also one of the most recognizable titles, so it gets remade. I can only imagine what ill-conceived, totally missing the point 70's remake they will dump into theaters next, probably a CGI-heavy remake of Suspira.

We get it, The Mullet sucked, can we attack something else now, please? (I have a suggestion)

2007-12-08T05:42:00.000-08:00

Like The Spice Girls, I am back in time for the holiday season.

Unlike The Spice Girls, something else that should have gone away in 1998 is continuing strong to this day, unironically, and it's time to Stop The Madness (I guess this is going to be heavy with 90's pop culture references).

I saw a book the other day devoted to the now most maligned of male hairstyles, the mullet. Of course, now everyone ridicules the mullet as something that is totally out of place. To wear one shows that you live in the past, relishing your past glory (if you had any). You are an unsophisticated Joe-Dirt type that spends your days wearing a wife-beater and drinking beer out of a can.

Yes, like all fashion choices, the mullet's time has come and gone. Put it on the shelf with knit belts, ties and scarves that look like piano keyboards, and satin Starter jackets.

What I don't get is all this focus on the mullet when there is another male hairstyle choice that has lived, nea, thrived, well beyond its expiration date. Everyone knows the mullet is ridiculous, let's turn our collective energy to stigmatizing something else that is equally outdated, and shows that the wearer wants to live in the past.

I am talking about the goatee, and its cousin, the soul patch.

If you wore a goatee 20 years ago, you looked like a disciple of Charles Manson, who, up until that point, was probably the only man who consistently sported a goatee. Then grunge and Kurt Cobain happened, and the goatee was as hip as Seattle and designer coffee.

Now it is 2007. Kurt Cobain is dead and buried, and people no longer look at Seattle as if it were Mecca. The 90's are over. Time to get rid of the goatee, which, in case you didn't notice, is starting to turn gray.

I cannot understand why this has stayed popular for 15 years. The only things I can think of is that people that wear it think they look cool, or look like what cool was 15 years ago. Or they have lost so much hair on their scalp, and they lack the ability to grow a proper beard, that they are looking to maintain some hair on their head.

Recently, Robert Plant has taken to wearing one. Robert Plant now looks like your grandfather, except he still goes to the beauty salon everyday to get his curls dyed, washed, and set. If an early 70's rock icon is growing a goatee in order to try and maintain a "hip" image with the "kids" of today, that tells you all you need to know about the goatee being played out.

The outdated mullet is ridiculed, but the equally outdated goatee goes on and on. We've done overkill on the mullet, it's time to turn our attention to the goatee.

Snoop-y

2007-09-11T17:33:00.000-07:00

Just found out today there is a new biography coming out soon about Charles Schultz. Everyone is familiar with the comic strip Peanuts, but anyone who was really paying attention noticed the dark undercurrent that ran through the strip. The strip was not created and maintained by a happy person. The biography will also contain several Peanuts strips, and how they paralleled what was going on in Schultz's life. Like this tidbit: A story about Snoopy's crush on another dog mirrors Schultz's real-life extramarital affair.

The Classic "Simpsons" Episodes No One Lists When Making Lists Of Classic "Simpson" Episodes

2007-07-29T05:34:00.000-07:00

The Simpson movie opened this weekend. If you were paying real close attention, you might have heard something about it. This movie is something I will have to see, but I feel no need to rush out and see it.

Leading up to the movies, many pop culture entities on the web felt the need to make a list of Simpsons related material. MSNBC made a list of their best episodes. TV Guide and Entertainment Weekly had done the same in the past.

These lists seem to confirm two things: 1. Everybody thinks the best episodes are in the past and 2: There is some general agreement as to what the best episodes are.

I want to shine a light on some excellent episodes that never seem to make these lists. I certainly think these episodes are better than the "Stonecutter" episode that everyone other than me thinks is hilarious.

In order to keep with my policy to write as much from memory and do as little research as possible, I will identify the episodes by their major events instead of researching through imdb and a thousand other Simpson related sites in order to make sure I didn't screw up some minor plot point.

Overlooked Episode #1: Homer meets Frank Grimes. Frank Grimes (or as Homer calls him, "Grimey", ) gets a job at the nuclear power plant. Frank's had a hard luck life, and is less thrilled that Homer's lifelong incompetence keeps being rewarded.

Why It's Excellent: Yes, we all know The Simpsons is a cartoon, and the characters interact in a cartoon-y (i. e. not real world) manner. But Frank Grimes is the closest thing to a real-world person that has ever entered The Simpson's universe. He's had a life of hard work and little reward. He thinks Homer is a complete moron, and can't believe that Homer has had a series of incredible adventures (going into space, meeting The Smashing Pumpkins) that do not mirror Frank's ordinary experiences. Frank is less than amused at this irregularity, and is incredulous that the other (cartoon) characters around him don't see bothered by (or even notice) Homer's stupidity. Frank's speech to Homer about Homer representing what's wrong with Americans (Homer coasts through life doing as little as possible, and seems not to consider any other approach to life) is a rare "real world" moment in any cartoon.

Overlooked Episode #2: Bart "sells" his soul, then tries to get it back.

Why It's Excellent: There is a lot of controversy over who had the most overall influence in shaping The Simpsons. This storyline mirrors the thematic interests of Matt Groening. Going back to Life In Hell, Groening always had an interest (and talent) in exploring common childhood themes/fears that we tend to forget as adults. (See the books School is Hell and Childhood is Hell for numerous examples.) These themes also popped up in early episodes (the episode where Homer steals cable around the time Lisa learns in Sunday School that stealing is breaking one of The Ten Commandments), but as the show got less plot-driven and more jokey, these themes faded away. The "soul" episode is a rare exception, and shows the normally care-free Bart worrying about a concept that most adults would dismiss as ridiculous (how could you sell a soul, much less find a buyer), yet is done in such a way that it reminds the viewer of the intensity we believed certain things when we were children. (Another great episode that has a similar theme is the one where Bart is caught stealing a videogame.) Plus, they finally made the joke I have been waiting for someone to do since I was a kid: slip the church organist the music to In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida, and see if anyone can tell the difference.

Enough About Harry Fucking Potter Already

2007-07-27T05:59:00.000-07:00

The whole Harry Potter thing--I never got it. It's a children's book. I'll say that slowly so you can all understand. It's. A. Children's. Book. So I can understand why children would want to read it, and why children would breathlessly anticipate the next book coming out, and why children would dress up like Harry or Dumblefuck or whoever other characters are in the book while they stood in line past their bedtime to buy a book that, for no meaningful rea$on, had to go on sale exactly at 12:01AM on Saturday July 21, 2007. I can understand that the book is something that parents would want to share with their children, whether they read it together, read it separately and discuss it, or have some other interaction that centers around the book.

What I can't understand is adults acting like this series is a work of art, or adults that excitedly proclaim that they would rather read these books than something written for adults. These adults ought to be embarrassed that their literary tastes run so low. For society's sake, grow the hell up and read some Twain, Swift, or Greene (if you even know who those authors are--I specifically chose them because they had one syllable names that you could easily understand) .

To stem off the inevitable question, I am not criticizing this series without reading some of it. A few years back, Newsweek published about 4 pages of whatever book was going on sale at the time. There was nothing in the 4 pages that justified further reading.

For a long time, I held the view that even those these books were for children, there was nothing relating to the series worth criticizing because the phenomenon seemed self-contained, and those involved seemed to understand that, at the end of the day, this was just a series of books and movies.

All of that changed whenever a review of the book was published by the New York Times(those of you faint of heart may need to sit down) two days before the book went on sale. Seems some booksellers ignored JK (G)Rowling's edict and sold the book early, which elicited the following response from her.

"I am staggered that some American newspapers have decided to publish purported spoilers in the form of reviews in complete disregard of the wishes of literally millions of readers, particularly children."

Oh yes, the children, it's always about the children. Hey JeRk, someone needs to tell you that American schoolchildren do not spend their days reading copies of The New York Times. And adults that read the New York Times and not going to give a shit about your children's book. Furthermore, anyone who doesn't want to read spoilers doesn't have to. It's a personal choice. You may not be familair with choice since you now feel the need to make edicts, and stamp you foot when they are not followed. Newspapers (get the genesis of the word JacKass, News-papers) are under no obligation to follow your wishes. All this money you made on this book has cleary gone to your head, which is why it is time to stop acting like you are some harmless entity, and point out what an insufferable sanctimonius twit you are.

If JK's comments weren't out of balance enough, we got another comment from a spokeswoman from Bloomsbury comparing the early printing of the review to the Boston Tea Party. It's a tortured analogy that I am not even going to try to explain, but comparing a book review to a seminal event in American history shows how divorced from reality the publishers are.

So now the book is out, and something like 8 million copies have been sold. So adults, can you finally put this Harry Potter crap behind you, and take this "love of reading" that Harry is supposed to foster, and buy a grown-up book?

Amy Winecooler is the New Macy Gray, and We Don't Need a New Macy Gray, nor Did We Ever Need an Original Macy Gray

2007-07-11T17:41:00.000-07:00

The title is so long that it counts as a post and says it all.

"Sopranos" Hits A Flat Note

2007-06-15T05:38:00.000-07:00

Since the rest of America has already had its say-so about the ending of The Sopranos, I figure it is time for me to weigh in. And really, I think it's a great thing that so many people have had comments about the ending. It shows that people were watching the show, and watching it closely enough to think about it in a sophisticated manner. That's great progress for a nation in which over 25 million people watch American Idol every week, and adults count down how many days until the next Harry Potter book comes out.

Let me start by saying I get the ending. So many critical examination of the ending assume that people that don't like the ending didn't get it. It's not the first piece of pop culture to end on an ambivalent note. Although I have to wonder about the people that thought their cable went out. I mean, really people. The screen goes black for 10 seconds and you panic like mommy's milk got cut off. Andy Kaufman did a similar trick on a TV special 30 years ago (he made the picture move on the screen, people at home thought their TV was acting up) so I had hoped people were a little more media savvy now.

My criticisms have more to do with the final episode in general rather than the ending. One of the great things about this show was how it well put together it was week in and week out. Usually they had three or four plot points they followed from beginning to end, with continuity throughout the show. Everything flowed together.

However, the final episode was made up of numerous two and three minute scenes, many of which retreaded over plot points we already knew, or could have been dropped in any episode during the season. The whole episode was herky-jerky. And filled of restatements of things we already know. Yes, we all remember Gigi died taking a shit. Tell us something we don't know.

How many different ways do we have to be told that AJ is a complete asshole? Did I really learn something new about his character by watching him ruin a vehicle and get another one? He's supposed to be depressed enough to be suicidal, yet he cheers up and no longer cares about the environment when he gets a new car. What was the whole point of his story with Blanca? Why would they use part of season 6 to explore that non-story, and totally blow off the break-up of Meadow and Finn? I think Chase most centrally identifies with AJ, and is reliving his childhood traumas through him. I can think of no other reason why AJ gets so much screen time.

Here is an example of something that appeared in the final but could have appeared anywhere: The return of Hunter. What was so central about that exchange that it had to take place in the final episode? All that exchange did was reinforce something we learned a long time ago: Carmela is an asshole, and can't stand it when anybody has it better that her. Once she found out Hunter was in medical school and ahead of Meadow, she stormed out of the room. How mature.

I know that we are being told that the ending is "real life" but there is a lot on that show that isn't "real life", and the creators want to have it both ways. In "real life" I am sure the body of Ralphie, Adrianna, Febby or someone that got whacked would resurface and questions would be asked. But in one of the final episodes, a body does resurface, but the whole thing gets blown off. So it seems to me the creators jot out the "real life" argument when they need to justify a creative choice they have made, rather than having "real life" apply as a whole to the series.

I have to believe the choice of "Don't Stop Believing" was a swipe at the characters of the Sopranos, and the fact that they are delusional about what "good" people they are. All their creature comforts in life come from the blood of others, yet they act like they deserved them. Or else it's a jab at the fans, and the fact that they have watched The Sopranos up to this point, so they might as well go on believing that everything goes well for Tony and the gang in the land of make-believe.

And we have seen the "Whole Family Together" ending several times in the show. It was the ending of season 1. It was pretty much the ending of the first half of season 6. Why are we seeing this again?

I really think The Sopranos was the greatest American TV show ever, and nothing I disliked about the final will change my opinion of the show. But when you create something (novel, movie script, painting, whatever), you are supposed to create it through to the end. (What would someone think if Picasso painted a painting, left 10% of the canvas blank, and told patrons to "complete that blank space yourself, paint in there anything you want"?) Thousands of shows, movies, etc., have great premises, but lose steam in the end. The ones that don't are rightfully held to higher acclaim. I already figured out that life has a lot of loose ends that never get resolved, so I didn't need a TV show to tell me that.

To read the best criticism I have come across that supports this ending, click the title.

Stupid Comics

2007-06-10T06:26:00.000-07:00

Another in the occasion Sunday series of other people's great work. I have only read through some of these, but they are hilarious. Apparently, these guys go around buying up old comic books and post the dumbest drawings, stories, etc along with their sarcastic comments. They also like to post stories that haven't aged too well. And they also like to call attention to little jokes or other things in the stories that slipped under the radar when we were kids.

It is interesting to see the stuff they put in comics when we were kids. The story plots and presentation, and some of the graphic drawings in horror comics would not be sold in supermarkets today. I wonder what that poor girl did to kill or otherwise piss off a whole hockey team? She's got six skaters bearing down on her, and another one coming through the ice (maybe the goalie?)

Pulling a "Paris"

2007-06-09T04:40:00.000-07:00

The events of yesterday will lead to a new phrase being born. Like anything new, it will take time before it is recognized and comes into common usage (how may years passed between Jim Jones and everyone using the phrase "drank the kool-aid?"). And this phrase will come into use because it will describe a situation that we commonly understand, but there is no one word that summarizes it.

The phrase will be "Pulling a Paris", as in "Did you see what that girl did when the boss told her that her work was sub-par and they were getting rid of her? She totally pulled a Paris!"

"Pulling a Paris" will describe the following situation: When a child that is raised by parents who coddle the child and shelter the child from the realities of the world to such an extent that the child believes it deserves "special treatment" and is not subject to the laws and obligations that everyone else lives by, reaches a point in child's adult life when the child does something from which mommy and daddy can no longer protect it, and the child reacts by crying and whining and saying "It's not fair" and other behavior that would commonly be associated with a four-year old.

Well, we all know who "pulled a Paris" last night. Unspecified medical condition, my ass. Last week on The Sopranos, AJ pulled a Paris in his bedroom when Tony told him times just got tough and he had to cowboy up, and AJ sat on his bed and cried. (Well, not for long, Tony "corrected" that situation.) Earlier this year, The Wall Street Journal had an article about how twenty-somethings that were new to the workplace were crying when they got a less than glowing employee evaluation. The reason? All their life their parents told them they were special and could do no wrong. So the first time someone gives them negative feedback, they collapse into tears.

We should not give a second thought to anyone who "pulls a Paris". To keep coddling someone that has no coping skills does no one any good. If someone at work gets a negative evaluation, does their work somehow become better because that person cried about it? Will their work magically improve in quality in relation to the number of tears the person sheds?

At least the judge in the Paris case realizes this, even if th sheriff doesn't. But this saga is far from over, and I have no idea how it will play out.

"Gracie" Slick

2007-06-03T05:19:00.000-07:00

There is a new, empowering, uplifting movie that all us stupid men are supposed to see with our daughters, lest we fail the good citizenship test. The movie is Gracie, and it attacks the long held prejudice that girls can't compete in boys sports.

Except that...is this really a long held prejudice in this day and age? Look at the calendar, it's 2007. Look at the soccer fields all through America, and you will see boys and girls playing along side each other, having fun rather than harboring some attitude that belongs in the 1950's.

Gracie is symptomatic of a certain type of movie that wants to act like time hasn't moved on. It wants to vilify an outdated attitude, yet it also wants to pretend like this attitude is prevalent in modern society. I am not naive enough to believe that no one holds the attitude that girls shouldn't play sports with boys, but I am also not naive enough to believe that the majority of people in 2007 feel this way, and that those that do will magically change their opinions when they see Gracie.

I feel this way because the changes this movie portrays were taking place when I grew up in a distant time called the 1970's (the same time Gracie is set in, but more on that later). My organized sports were limited to a year of T-ball and 6 years of soccer (the soccer years stretched into the 1980's). In all the leagues I played, I played with or against girls, and no one acted like the world was going to end or the girl was going to be carted off on a stretcher because she played with the boys. In fact, there was no fanfare, everyone accepted it for what it was and got on with playing the game.

But that story wouldn't make much of a movie. So instead we have to make a movie where a girl overcomes seemingly insurmountable obstacles and teaches all the cavemen around her (including her father) that girls are just as good as boys. Oh, and if that isn't enough, Gracie also brings the family together in the aftermath of the tragedy that tore them apart. Wow, what a girl, that Gracie.

When you make an uplifting steaming pile, someone is going to give it an award. According to the review on the imdb database (click the title) and the glowing, 10-star review posted there, Gracie gets the Heartland Film Festival's Truly Moving Picture Award (really, believe me, I couldn't make that up). Apparently the film festival doesn't do much research, as the review states this movie takes place before Title IX. Gracie takes place in 1978, and title IX was enacted on 06/23/72, but never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Which is the problem I have with films like Gracie. They want to act like history hasn't moved forward. The movie cleverly tries to move around this point (by setting it in 1978) but the fact is we are watching this in 2007. The basic subject matter for this has been mined to death (Quarterback Princess came out 24 years ago), yet we are supposed to act like Gracie is an eye-opening revelation on a previously unexplored topic.

There are numerous examples of inequity in modern-day society that would make relevant movie topics. But the battles in Gracie have been fought and won. Time to move on.

The Sopranos and The Shield

2007-05-18T05:39:00.000-07:00

Link to a great discussion (from A.V. Club at The Onion) about these shows, the character of Tony and Vic, what we've learned in the past, and what's in store as these shows head toward their conclusions.

Both shows are running new episodes, and both are having excellent seasons.

"Vicarious Identification"

2007-04-26T04:05:00.000-07:00

This piece, by Christopher Hitchens, says it far better than I ever could, about American society's current trend of needing to demonstrate how emotional and sensitive it is.

Tarantino's Half of Grindhouse on Shaky Foundation

2007-04-21T09:19:00.000-07:00

Grindhouse is 55% of an excellent movie, five-stars, A+, however you want to grade a movie. Tarantino doesn't hold up his end of the bargin (big surprise).

The execution behind the concept is outstanding. It's apparent that everyone behind this was fully committed to the concept, because the look, feel, and dialouge are exactly what you would find in grindhouse movies. I was afraid that this would tip over into parody, or would pull its punches by going soft, but it doesn't. If you are a fan of this stuff, see this. Leave your women at home, or let them tee-hee at Blades of Glory and leave the kids at Firehouse Dog. If you're not a fan of this stuff, you might as well see Blades of Glory as you are not going to get numerous references to the grindhouse genre. Maybe you and the Mrs. can split a giant popcorn as Will Ferrell hams it up yet again.

Planet Terror is a fantastic recreation. Most everyone thinks of this as a horror film. It's not, but that is the shorthand that everyone understands. More appropriately, it is a zombie-apocalypse film that has more in common with Night of the Living Dead that a straight out horror film like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. (Quick aside: if you don't understand why the film 28 Days sucked, you need to see Planet Terror and compare the two. And keep in mind that 28 Days totally ripped of the plot of the excellent book Day of the Triffids.)

There are also a series of trailers and other commercials, bumpers, and other various items. These trailers are fakes, but they look better than 98% of the movies made these days. Each of these trailers have their own in-jokes. You have probably heard about Thanksgiving and the Nazi werewolf movie, but the best trailer is for a horror movie. The title of the movie is a pitch-perfect joke, so I won't give it away. And the little bits announcing the movie's rating were also priceless.

So that is 55% of the movie. And after you are presented with this, you have to sit through Tarantino's Death Proof. I wish I could say this movie is snore-proof.

Death Proof is a car chase car crash movie (or it's two halves of a car chase movie, but more on that later). That was never my type of movie, but that is not why I disliked it. Here is why I disliked it.

It's a boring car crash movie.
The reason it's a boring car crash movie is that Tarantino, even though he is making a homage to a certain type of film, still has to make everyone know it's a Tarantino movie.
To accomplish this, we sit through minutes and minutes of quixotic Tarantino dialogue that never advances the plot. Almost all of this dialogue comes before any major action, so you sit around for a long time waiting for anything to happen. (This type of slowness would never be tolerated in a real grindhouse film. Compare this script to Planet Terror, where, even though the plot is purposefully jumbled, the script actually movies the plot along and keeps things in order). Here is what I got out of Tarantino's script. He likes Vanishing Point. A lot.
Since the movie itself was boring, I paid more attention to the stuntwork, which, to be fair, was outstanding. This is not CGI "Let's make it look like an elf is flying a dragon to the moon" shit. These stunts look legitimately dangerous.

Now to the "two halves" comment. Death Proof looks like two different movies, with the only connection being "Stuntman Mike". It was common in the grindhouse era to take parts of two different movies and cobble them together into one movie. If someone shot 30 minutes of a failed project, and someone had 60 minutes of a movie but needed to add a little extra, they would make a deal and take what they needed of the 30 minutes and interject it into the 60 minutes. If you ever saw Make Them Die Slowly, it's obvious that some of that footage either came from stock film or someone's failed film.

At the beginning of Death Proof, a title of another movie briefly flashes onscreen before it is completely covered over by the title for Death Proof. Was Tarantino the conceptualist specifically making a movie that is supposed to be cobbled from two movies? If so, the fact that his typical dialogue is found in each "movie" ruins the concept.

If you are as bored as I was at Death Proof, feel free to leave anytime. There are no more cool trailers at the end of the movie.

Grindhouse is loaded with fleeting images and other things that slip quickly by when you see this in a theater. Wait until the DVD comes out, and ever frame can be stopped and obsessed over. I hope they give a separate DVD release for Planet Terror.

Sunday Supplement

2007-04-15T05:08:00.000-07:00

Click on the title to find an awesome blog that deals with 80's music, especially hard to find remixes.

I still haven't seen Grindhouse. It is proving hard to find the time to squeeze in seeing a 191 minute movie. But that last posting on movies got me thinking about the movies I have seen and half-remembered, so that led to me looking for sites that dealt with grindhouse/horror movies.

As you can guess, there are many of them. And they have been very helpful, as I can now put titles to movies, and remember/find out endings I may have missed.

So here is a website to check out. Please Ignore the Dust While there are website with far more comprehensive lists, the reviews here are detailed. The writer has an odd writing style that I originally found off-putting, then it grew on me.

And for anyone looking for a little Pittsburgh related horror nostalgia, you can't beat this. Welcome To Chiller Theater Memories!

Another Movie That, Despite All Common Sense, I Have To See

2007-03-29T17:21:00.000-07:00

Hola, Amigos. It's been a long time since I rapped at ya. But, as those of you who know me know, I'm splitting time between two cities, and it doesn't leave a lot of time to blog.

Those of you who know me also know how much I can't stand Tarantino. But I have to see Grindhouse.

The true grindhouse experience is long gone. (Click on the title to see someone's really good list of "grindhouse" films). To be honest, it was long on its way out where I lived before I could see an R rated movie. I managed to catch a few double-headers at the drive in where they played 70's movies (like Don't Look In The Basement or The Texas Chainsaw Massacre) but those aren't really considered grindhouse films.

So if I don't like Tarantino, and if I can't feel nostalgic for something I didn't really experience, why is it that I have to see this movie?

My guess it that I think this movie can do something that few movies today do, which is, surprise me. Surprise me by doing something extreme. Surprise me by doing something unpredictable. Surprise me by doing something original.

So many movies, especially big event movies, are utterly predictable. Anybody expecting anything out of the ordinary from Spiderman 3? Shreck 3? Anything 3? Yet these movies will probably make $300 million.

I did try my best to catch up on some of the "classics" in the VHS era. But I was limited to what the video store stocked, or what way-out movie played at the drive-in. Although the following list doesn't consist of "grindhouse" films, it will tell you what unusual things I did manage to see, with a brief comment. And I was (am) a big horror fan.

Bloodsucking Freaks a.k.a. The Incredible Torture Show (good), Barbed Wire Dolls (awful), Three on a Meathook (awful), Last House on the Left (not impressed), Make Them Die Slowly (surprisingly interesting), Evil Dead (good), Evil Dead II (silly, but Bluey and I had fun talking back to the screen), Bloody Birthday (another one I saw with Bluey, awful, but for some reason this was showing in a regular theater in Altoona 5 years after it was originally released), The Gates of Hell (the only Lucio Fulci movie I have ever seen, it was so-so) The Blood-Spattered Bride (on TV, I'm sure it lost something), Demons (bad), Night of the Demons (bad), Deathdream a.k.a Dead of Night (good, and an anti-Vietnam movie from a time when such movies were rarely made), Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things (not scary, but off-beat), The Little Girl Who Lives Down The Lane (strange, and Exhibit A for the type of movie that would never get made today), My Bloody Valentine (worst horror movie ever, I actually saw someone the other day call this a misunderstood masterpiece).

Emotional Freeloaders

2007-03-07T17:04:00.000-08:00

It would be a full-time job to keep track of all the stupid things that TV talk show hosts say in a day, but Rosie O'Donnell's comments today really show how much she (and so many other "sensitive" people ) have lost touch with reality.

I find Rosie mildly annoying. She entertains me when she keeps that chirpy red-state Christian on "The View" in check. But R loses points for her acting job playing a retarded person in a movie whose name I can't remember. I don't know why so many actors want to take the role of a retarded person. Nobody ever does a good job, and often times they come off as someone mocking mental retardation. Instead of acting, they come across as someone mimicing a stereotyped version of what a retarded person is assumed to act like. Which is what Rosie did. Her character talked real loud, and wore two different colored shoes. In real life, I have never seen a retarded person walk around wearing two different colored shoes. Yet Rosie thought it was a good acting choice, and no one ever called her on it.

But today, Rosie decided to reveal to the world that she suffers from depression. And of course, like any Hollywood personality, she can't have ordinary depression. She has depression, and seasonal affective disorder, and an unorthodox and in no way medically proven way to treat the depression (hang upside-down like a bat for a half-hour a day). I guess it doesn't cure obesity.

But even that wasn't enough to cross the border into a totally stupid comment. What crosses the border is the source of her depression. She claims she became depressed because of the killings at Columbine High School, and how she felt like her own children were killed.

Rosie, here is the realiy check you desparately need, and I hope the chirpy Christian reads this to you on the air: 13 people were killed at Columbine. Parents lost children. Siblings lost siblings.

Of the 13 people that were killed at Columbine, Rosie, NONE OF THEM WERE YOUR CHILDREN! If you don't realize how irrational your statement was, go straight to the sanitarium.

I have no doubt people who lost loved ones experienced overpowering and painful emotions over an extended period of time. That is their pain, Rosie. It is not yours. Let them get through it in the manner they need. Do not be an emotional freeloader and hitch your common situation to something you did not, and never will experience.

But of course Rosie (Oprah, countless others) always need to hitch their common experience to something uncommon and extreme because they're...sensitive! And we always have to know how sensitive they are, because what's the use in being sensitive if you can't demonstate that sensitivity in the most "Look at me!" way possible. That's why every celebrity death (Anna Nicole) has moist-eyed anchors calling it "sad' and "a tragedy". You would have thought Anna was 24 hours away from curing cancer and carrying all her research around in her head the way people reacted to her death. In reality, it was a very predictable thing for someone who lived like she did.

I don't know exactly when people decided they needed to cry over things that have no direct impact on them just to show they're "human", but I can't wait for the pendulum to swing back.

Beukey on Beauty

2007-02-21T16:25:00.000-08:00

When I first saw a trailer for Norbit, I knew we were in for a slew of articles that dealt with all the negative stereotypes that were jammed into the trailer. The trailer featured stereotypes of black women, fat women, and they probably threw in Murphy's portrayal of a Chinese man, although I don't specifically remember it. Not that these stereotypes stopped anyone from seeing the movie. The trailer made the movie look terrible, but it still brought in $30+ million in its first week in theaters.

And today I came across the article that I knew was coming: the article that would touch upon the idea of "beauty", and how pop culture is/isn't accepting of all types of "beauty". You can click the link to read the article.

The debates about "beauty" go back to ancient times. I am not going to try to define what beauty is or should be. But what bothers me about these types of articles is how they want to have things both ways. The overall tone of the article is that beauty should not determined by society. Then the article goes on to make definitive statements about what is and what isn't beautiful, and that the reader should just accept these as fact.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is a cliche, but in my opinion, it is true. There is really no test you can create to determine what is or what isn't beautiful. You may be able to get an idea of what a majority of a culture thinks is beautiful at a given time, but that doesn't "make" something beautiful, it's just an opinion that a group of people share. And the standards of beauty change over time and place, which is even more proof that beauty can't be objectively defined.

But for the sake of arguement (and articles like the one in the link), let's examine a position that I don't believe. That position would be that beauty can be defined, that it does have a certain set of criteria, and the criteria have to be met for something to be defined as "beautiful". If you believe this, then it also follows that certain things are beautiful, and others are not. It then becomes very easy to point at things as being "beautiful" or "not beautiful".

Whenever this article uses a phrase like "the 5-foot-10 blond, blue-eyed standard of beauty" or "real beauty in black women whose features are not pointed", the article takes the position that beauty has definitive standards, and to be beautiful something must fall within the standards. The reader is being told to accept that 5 foot-10 blondes with blue eyes or black women without pointed features are beautiful.

(A quick aside: What copy editor approved the original article? "Blond" applies to a man. When referring to a woman, the word is spelled "Blonde". Is this a mistake, or just another example of how poorly thought out this article is?)

But why should the reader be forced to accept this author's standards of beauty? Isn't the purpose of the article to rally against standard definitions of beauty? The author doesn't (and can't) offer any reasons as to why these types of women should unquestioningly be described as beautiful. You are just supposed to accept it, because you can't be trusted to make the distinction yourself. You are supposed to accept that the author of the article knows more than you do about beauty.

If you believe beauty is in the eye of the beholder, you don't have to be told who or what is beautiful. You make those judgments yourself, and accept that they are only your opinion. Yet we live in a time when people are constantly asserting, and looking for outside sources to confirm, that they are beautiful. Tyra Banks is now so offended that some people no longer consider her beautiful that she's telling people to kiss her fat ass. Someone is supposed to kiss her ass because he or she doesn't agree with Tyra's unobjective view of herself? Fuck you, you self-absorbed bitch. Don't tell people how to think, you're not that smart.

And what is so important about being beautiful anyway? There are a lot more important things in life than how you look. You should be getting over that type of issue in your early 20's (i. e., when you grow up). If people believe they are beautiful, that's fine. I'm not going to tell them that they aren't. But if these people expect others to share that opinion, and are put out when they don't, that's where I draw the line. If you can make up your mind about what is beautiful, then I can certainly make up mine.

TV Party Tonight!

2007-02-15T15:29:00.000-08:00

Although I write about pop culture, I have to admit to not keeping up with the hardware end of things. I still don't have an ipod, my cell phone is 4 years old yet I keep putting off replacing it, etc., etc.

But last week I finally made the leap to get the Tivo-like thing that my cable company offers.

The reason I did this is that a bunch of my favorite shows are returning, plus I keep coming across shows I would like to watch, but I am never around when they are on. I jumped in right away, started recording things, so I could soon be watching more TV than ever (yeah!)

So I want to share with you the things I think are worth recording, and some comments on why.

Beukey's Tivo-like thing will be recording:

The Sopranos
The Shield (which was awesome last season, but the plot revolves so much on what has happened in the past that I think it would be hard for someone to jump in now)
Moral Orel (on Adult Swim, it's a takeoff on Davey and Goliath, even done in the same Claymation style)
30 Rock (getting better as it goes)
The Sarah Silverman Show (for obvious reasons)
Law and Order SVU (yeah, I know it jumped the shark a season and a half ago, but I have closure issues with TV shows, once I start, I usually can't stop watching, no matter how bad it gets)
Entourage (which should run right after The Sopranos)
The Simpsons
American Dad
South Park (when a new season starts)

That's all I can think of for now. Am I missing anything? I have no interest in watching The Office.

Time To Play Funny/Not Funny

2007-02-13T14:42:00.000-08:00

I can't be the only to have noticed how little news is actually printed in Newsweek. This slide has been going on for years. They have been replacing news with crap like My Turn, an excuse to let amateur writers vent in a national forum about subjects that are only of interest to themselves, a column about religion (Dear God (which is not the title, but my reaction to the fact that they do this)), and, of course, pop culture.

Hey Newsweek, let's make a deal. You stick to paying your writers to cover actual hard news, and I'll cover pop culture for free (and do a better job).

Why I am writing about this now is that this week's Newsweek has the worst article they have ever written on pop culture. You can click the link to read it.

Here's why it's terrible. There is absolutely no original thought or insight in this article. It starts with an overlylong dissection of a joke. It then continues with a dry recitation of the "boomers" that made America laugh. (I hope you realize how terrible that last sentence was, I wrote it that way to show the lack of thought or spark in the article). Interspersed with this is a bunch of random jokes the author either remembered or looked up on YouTube. Then the article ends.

The whole things reads like a tenth-grade term paper written during one period of study hall.

Here is why Newsweek published it: 1: Boomers love themselves, never tire of reading about themselves or hearing how great and influencial they are, and they will buy any magazine that has an article about them. 2: It is less work to write superficially about your memories, make up quizzes, etc., than do actual reporting. 3: In the print version of this article, the text is accompanied by a quiz, a timeline, and plenty of pictures (like anyone forgets what Eddie Murphy looks like) and they actually managed to strech this shit out to 5 pages! That 5 less pages of news they have to write!

Funny/Not Funny was a segment on the late, lamented Wonder Showzen, a show far funnier than what the "boomers" in the industry are creating now. In regards to this article: Not Funny!

Stupid Bowl Ads

2007-02-05T16:41:00.000-08:00

Get the title? Isn't it funny? I took the common name of "Super Bowl" and changed it into "Stupid Bowl". It was the first thing that came to mind, so it didn't take a lot of work to produce. And it wasn't very creative, so I didn't have to worry anyone coming across this and not understanding what I meant. In fact, I could probably use the same concept year after year and people would still laugh at it because, even thought it really not that funny, it's comfortable, it plays on what people expect.

In other words, it's exactly like a Super Bowl ad.

(If you would like to read one person's detailed summary of this year's (s)ads, click the title.)

For years, we have had it forced down our throats that the Super Bowl is the pinnacle of advertising, and every year we watch the same concepts and gags recycled. (Except a few years ago when they went in full adolescence mode with the farting horse and the crotch-chomping dog. The unwelcomed appearance of Janet Jackson's floppy tit brought that type of (bowel) movement to a halt.) So again we get animals doing cute things (awwww!). Or guys that love Bud Light and will do anything to get it except buy the $4 bottle of beer. Or guys making gawking at women until they do something stupid (the prize-winning Doritos commercial).

Speaking of which, why did this commercial that was designed by an amateur look so much like every other commercial on TV? Was it because the contestant watched thousands of commercials to design one that looked like every other commercial? Or is it that designing a commercial is so easy that anyone at home can do it, and the results are indistinguishable from an ad designed by a professional? At least when Iron City did that routine 15 years ago, the commercials that people designed looked somewhat different that what was on TV.

The "edgy" ads were even worse. Ian Michael Black continues to prove he cannot be funny on any network other that VH1 (and that well ran dry at the end of I Love The 80's Part 1).

The only ones I found funny were K-Fed's (and what does that say when K-Fed turns in the best performace of the day?) and Sprint's "Conectile Dysfunction".

Worst. Movie. Tie-In. Ever.

2007-02-03T04:37:00.000-08:00

Movie tie-in ads are now a way of life. They're annoying, but usually trivial. So trivial, that I can't think of an actual one to site. Maybe Bambi once ate at McDonalds, or one of Micheal Myer's annoying Austin Power's characters wanted to eat at Appleby's or something. You get the idea.

But last night I came across a TV commercial for the coming movie Ghost Rider. You have probably never heard of Ghost Rider unless (a) you are a comic book geek who specializes in minor characters, or (b), you had to sit through a promo of this movie when you saw X Men 3. I fall into category (b).

I can't tell you a lot about Ghost Rider. From the trailer, he is Nicholas Cage by day, and at night he turns into a flaming skeleton that rides a motorcycle across they sky. Yes, I am serious.

Or should I say, I couldn't tell you a lot about Ghost Rider (flaming skeleton version) until I saw this commercial last night. According to this commercial (click on the title), he gets his taxes done at Jackson Hewitt. And he needs a Money Now loan.

This opens the door for all sorts of questions. Does he have a Social Security number? Does his Social Security card list his name as "Ghost Rider", as the tax preparer addresses him? What's his salary? (We know he has a job because he hands over his W-2s). Why did he come to the office in flaming skeleton mode instead of coming in the daytime as a normal person? What use does he have for money because he could probably get whatever he wanted by taking it after scaring the shit out of someone by appearing in the flaming skeleton mode (although he didn't scare the tax preparer).

Or a more serious question: What marketing genius sat through the movie and said "This movie is opening in February, I can tie this character into tax season?"

Love is a (bad) mix tape

2007-01-08T16:22:00.000-08:00

Love is a mix tape was an intriguing enough title to get me to flip through a couple of chapters, but stay away from this unless you are the eternally sappy type that thinks that anything sad that ever happens has to be shared (in extensive detail) with strangers.

You only have to get a few pages into to realize that this book is written by a man whose wife died unexpectedly, but it's never made clear to me why the reader should care. Bad things happen to people every day, but that doesn't make someone's recollection of their pain literature. I could read all the obituaries that appear in the paper every day, but that doesn't mean I am expected to make an emotional connection to the person that died and those who mourn the deceased.

And I didn't find anything in the chapters I read that would make me connect with the characters. Rather, I was put off by the author's labored attempts to sound clever. Consider the following sentence "(The 90's) were a time of Kurt Cobain and Shania Twain and Taylor Dayne and Brandi Chastain." Eccccccccch! That's just plain awful writing. (And 5 of Dayne's 8 top 10 US singles peaked in the 80's the other three peaked in 1990.) Does the author want to be Chuck Klosterman, Mitch Albom, or some unholy combination of the two?

Life is too short to read crappy books. If you want to read a superlative book where someone explores the life, death, and legacy of a loved one that died suddenly, read The Boy Who Fell Out Of The Sky by Ken Dornstein.

Velvet Undergroud Acetate

2007-01-07T04:42:00.000-08:00

I am back from my Christmas vacation, and days away from my trip to South America, where I hope to interview Xuxa (yes, that was a joke). So Jan. may be another lean month for postings, but I'll try to get up what I can when I am near a computer.

To continue the Sunday tradition I tried to start a while back, click the title to an interesting link I recently discovered. Go under the Jan. 4 posting to find the Velvet Underground Acetate that recently made news for fetching $25,000 in Ebay, until that bid turned out to be a fraud. I have not listened to all of these yet, but the differences in "European Son" and "Heroin" are obvious to any VU fan (and if you are reading this blog, you are a VU fan).

My Christmas Re-Gift To You

2006-12-18T17:30:00.000-08:00

Click on the title to read an all-time classic review of the steaming pile of pop culture (Wrestle)crap that was The Star Wars Holiday Special. For those of you that think George Lucas can do no wrong (probably not that many since his last three movies) see what he came up when he was at his creative "peak".

Sorry for the lack of updates. I have been busy all month, and those fatcats in Washington didn't do me any favors by passing a last-minute tax bill. I probably won't be posting anything new until the first of the year, so Happy Holidays from Beukey's blog.

Least Deserving Hall of Fame Rock Bands

2006-11-29T16:42:00.000-08:00

This is a well reasoned and anti-populist list. If Skynyrd is in the Hall, they should also be on this list.

Oh yeah, and there's about a hundred pictures of Britney's close shave on the web, but you little voyeurs have already been there and back and lost your appetite for a couple of days after seeing it.

Snoberry

2006-11-19T05:05:00.000-08:00

Tip of the cap to S for tipping me off to a column written by David Brooks this week dealing with snobbery in pop culture. You can either sign up at the New York Times webpage to read it, or rely on me to summarize it.

The column takes the position that certain entertainers and popular programs are appealing to their self-satisfied audiences by acting snobbish and mining humor from looking down on others. Brooks makes a list of the usual subjects (Bill Maher) and, in an effort to make his column timely, adds a lot about Borat. (If you still haven't seen that movie, do it now! It's absolutely hilarious.) He says these entertainers take shots at safe subjects (i.e. those not likely to be in the audience or in or in a posistion to garner any sympathy from their ridicule).

I have never read Brooks before. Does the Times pay him to write about unoriginial subject matter? There isn't anything in this column that hasn't been said before.

Brooks makes references to being condescending. But his article is very condescending, as if he somehow stumbled onto some special knowledge that other Times readers do not know, and he has to share it with them in a manner that screams "A very smart person wrote this column!"

Brooks sees snobbery as a one-way street. He sees it as a class weapon, as only something the formally educated can wield, and always used with the intent to make the less formally educated people feel inferior. But as a concept, snobbery has to do with looking down on others, and nothing to do solely with the class, education, religion, race, etc. of a person. Anybody can be a snob.

You can see snobbery in effect in all sorts of pop culture entertainment, not just entertainment geared toward the "educated" classes. If Larry the Cable Guy was to makes a bunch of jokes about how foo-foo and high faultin' it is to go to the Op-err-aa, that too is a form of snobbery. But is Brooks going to point that out? Of course not. It doesn't fall into his narrow, self-serving view of snobbery.

Humor always has to come at someone or something's expense. But it is comedy. In today's culture, where people study every remark so they can find something to be offended about, and then use their assumed status as an aggreived party to stake a position of moral superiority, you could take almost any joke and use it as prima facia evidence of disrespect. But prima facia arguements don't always hold up under examination. Also, you're then missing the point, and putting far more thought (misdirected thought) into the joke than the original writer did.

One other comment Brooks made deserves mention. He cites Simon Cowell ridiculing the talentless people that audition for American Idol, as if this is also a form of snobbery. This is a bunch of crap. Simon Cowell is a professional with a proven track record of taking singers and creating careers for them. If he tells someone they stink at singing, it's a professional judgment, and given his track record, one he is qualifed to make. I have no training or inherent skill as an engineer, but if I drew up a plan for a bridge, and had it reviewed by a group of engineers, and that group told me my plan sucked, would I be justified in saying "You professionals are a bunch of snobs, and you don't know what your talking about"? Hardly. Same prinicple applies here.

For Worse!

2006-11-15T17:01:00.000-08:00

So Lynn Johnston is making some type of move to fulfill the idea she raised several years ago, to end "For Better or For Worse". Although the article is kind of vague, but she appears to have reached a point where the characters will go into stasis.

Although I lost interst in the Patterson clan years ago (I never got over the death of Farley) this strip was a lot better than most of the garbage that appears in the comics today. It had an evolving story, althought the plots got blander and the resolutions more predictable over time. But it never devolved into an endless recycling of unfunny gags that strips like Hagar the Horrible, Tiger, and The Born Loser do day after day. Who can read that stuff? Maybe that's the real reason newspaper circulation is dropping.

The comic strip is in serious decline. Old comic strips calcify, and editors are hesitant to remove them. A trend has developed in "ethnic" strips where the race or national origin of a character is supposed to be essential to the strip (Baldo, Candorville). But these "progressive" strips never seem to capture anything related to the culture they come from, they recycle the same stale gags other strips do, and think throwing in a reference to "Sabado Gigante" is supposed to justify their space on the comics page. At the bottom of the pile is "Mutts", an ugly-looking, monotonous strips that centers around the fact that cats like to sleep and eat, and dogs sometime chase things.

The only thing that ever seems to draw attention to the comics is when a cartoonist does something mildy controversial, like suggest that Condoleeza Rice needs to find a man. Then strips get slammed for trying something modern, and everyone bemoans the fact that the children who read the strips had to deal with a real-world issue. But considering how outdated comics are, what kid would be interested in reading them?

Cities For Beer Drinkers

2006-11-10T03:35:00.000-08:00

My travel this weekend was not inspired by this article listing the top 10 cities for beer lovers. I score a lowly one out of ten on this list, but there is always room for improvement. And does anyone really go to Amsterdam for the beer?

Spears Harpoons Federline

2006-11-09T05:19:00.000-08:00

Britney, slowly catching onto what was obvious to the rest of the world, is dumping her no-talent money drain. Mr. Federline has been spending his time playing to empty houses in nightclubs and doing run-ins at WWE matches (no, I'm serious).

Britney, who never seemed all that intelligent, finally seems to be heeding the pragmatic advice coming from her handlers. Click the link to see why the timing of the divorce probably had nothing to do with trying to bury the story on Election Day.

Britney, who just a few months ago was asking America to leave her alone, apparently finds life out of the spotlight cold. She made a surprise appearance on Letterman, and seems ready to move onto the third phase of her career, whatever that might be.

I'm Feeling Childish Today

2006-10-29T05:52:00.000-08:00

so I will pass on this link to an actual 50's comic with Batman and the Joker (click the title). And set down anything you are eating or drinking before you read this.

Although I am finding it hard to maintain any kind of constant schedule for updating this blog, I am hoping to use Sunday postings to link to other interesting pop culture items I come across during the week.

Sesame Street: Not For Children!

2006-10-28T05:54:00.000-07:00

You might expect a DVD set for South Park or Law & Order: SVU to carry a warning that the show is not intended for children, but a DVD set for Sesame Street?

The DVD set (containing episodes from 1969 through 1974) was released this week, and has (according to a TV reporter) a tag on the video where "Bob" warns viewers that the content is intended for grown-ups and may not meet the needs to today's pre-school child. The same reporter did some investigating and speculation, and uncovered reasons for this warning. Such as: some of the things the children engaged in (like playing in a junkyard) would be considered "unsafe", and today's innocent children may have their mind's blown by certain incongruities between today's version and the episodes on the DVD's, (like having Oscar the Grouch appear in his original orange form, rather than the more familiar green).

Groan! Where to begin? How overprotective of a society are we going to create? The whole point of the show was to help pre-school children get a leg up on learing letters, numbers, etc. But now we would set that aside, because we are "afraid" that one segment showing someone playing in a junkyard will cause more harm that 5 episodes loaded up with educational information.

My whole generation grew watching those episodes, junkyard footage included, and I think it's safe to say we weren't "harmed" by Sesame Street. But let's set all that common sense and practical experience aside, and let fear of the unknown and unknowable rule our lives. We will protect you from these shows, our children, because we have an irrational fear that they will somehow harm you, although we cannot determine how this harm will come about. We just "feel" like something bad will happen. What a great message to send children.

Or maybe they don't want kids to watch it because the parents will have to do some explaining about the "special" relationship between Ernie and Bert.

U2, Bono?

2006-10-20T04:20:00.000-07:00

Got to catch a flight today, so I don't have time to comment much. But remember this the next time you see Bono imploring us to help the needy. He should take his own advice.

Will I Still Choose You, Will I Still Abuse You, When I'm 64? (Signs Point To Yes)

2006-10-18T17:12:00.000-07:00

Paul McCartney, whose has coasted on his reputation as the cute Beatle for 4 plus decades, could find himself, in this ever-changing relationship in which he lives in, not looking so cute. According to his wife, they were not like ebony and ivory, living together in perfect harmony.

Although he has not expressed any sympathy towards his wife, sources say Paul has expresses how sorry he was to his Unlce Albert in a repetative manner.

Several things about this story (and similar media divorce stories) are annoying to me because everyone shys away from the obvious unsettled issues such as:

Heather says she was abused by Paul on four separate occasions, and was once stabbed with a wine bottle. Paul will presumably deny this. Well, it either happened or it didn't. Somebody is a total liar, but that person will never be called on it.

Heather says Paul is an alcoholic and heavy drug user, and she knew this before she got married. If this is true, what a wise choice for a husband she made. And it was also a great decision to have a child with this 60+ drunk. He is sure to be a steady father figure. And 60 is just so the right age to have a child. (Seriously, do people even take their child's welfare into account when they have a kid at 60?) With decisions like this, it appears Heather cares more about baby seals than the welfare of her daughter.

Bankrupt Tower Records Is Liquidating

2006-10-16T17:14:00.000-07:00

What else is there to say except that this totally sucks (sorry for not being eloquent). The franchise was an institution. You could find an amazing amount of product there, certainly more than a Best Buy and (sorry, but it has to be said) more than any independent store I had ever been in. Now when I want to buy something and have it right now, I have to go to Best Buy where selection is limited, and the clerks all want to sell me a cell phone and an HDTV. Or go to Borders, where I have to chase down a clerk so they can unlock a cabinet so I pick up the box set I want to see.

People Finally Wise Up And Stay Away From New Robin Williams Movie

2006-10-15T14:49:00.000-07:00

It opened with $12.6 million, which was below expectations. To paraphrase his annoying quote from the movie's televison commercial, Robin Williams movies are like diapers, they should be disposed of quickly, and for the same reason.

Gibson: The Jews Are Also Responsible For My Drinking

2006-10-14T04:19:00.000-07:00

It only took about 70 days before Mel Gibson decided which early morning show he would go on to try and "redeem" himself. Click the title to read an article about the Good Morning America interview.

In this, he says some things that are so absurd that I can't believe Sawyer let them pass without comment. Since I guess Mel is not going to come see me during his redemption tour, I'll address them here.

He's blaming his drinking on the basis that his movie was criticized before it was released? Was there, like, any particular group that was criticizing this movie? The Shriners? The Knights of Columbus? I think it's pretty obvious what he means here. And what's this crap about having his rights as an artist and a Christian violated? Is there some Bill of Rights that provides extra rights for Christians and artists? Can I see a copy of that, or does it only exist at the bottom of a tequila bottle?

This was a warm-up for his comments about Israel's war in Lebanon and his concern (since his 20's!) with the problems in the Middle East.

Forget for a minute your own opinion about's who or what is to blame, and concentrate on Mel's words. Gibson says there is a "conflict", and that the Jews are not "blameless" in the conflict.

A conflict has to have two sides, so in this context, it's obvious that in his view the conflict is between Israel and Lebanon (or Israel and other Middle East countries). And if Mel says the Jews are not blameless, then in his view the blame must be spread between Israel and Lebanon and other unspecified Middle East countries. And don't forget, he's been concerned about this since he was in his 20's.

So if blame is to be spread around, why when he was pulled over drunk, was he only ranting and raving about Jews? Shouldn't he have been doing a roll call of all the countries involved in the conflict and the relative percentage of blame they were responsible for?

I haven't seen the interview, but did Sawyer ask any kind of follow-up question like this? Or was she too busy thinking about how she looked on camera?

Despite Mel trying to put on a pretty public face on the incident, I think the drunken rant and the sober interview make it pretty clear how he really feels.

30 Rock

2006-10-11T17:36:00.000-07:00

I don't often watch shows when the first air, but I made it a point to catch 30 Rock. It is the first sitcom from Tina Fey, who is writing and starring in the show. For the past several years, Tina was writer of "Weekend Update" on SNL. Although that show generally sucks, the news jokes on "Update" were always well done. I find her writing very funny.

The pre-season buzz was that the pilot was weak, and they did reedit and recast some of the show. The show was good, but not without its problems. However, it is 1,000 times funnier than most of the sitcom crap on network television. The people that make it a point to watch Yes, Dear will never get the show. Give it a shot, or else it will be replaced by a sitcom about a fat guy with an improbably hot wife, their cutie-pie kids, and the wacky next-door neighbor.

My favorite joke: Tina's character came to work casually dressed, but has to attend a hastily arranged fancy lunch. She goes down to the wardrobe department of the TV studio and demands the guy working there find her something to wear. He finds something, she takes it, and as she leaves the guy says, "You're the same size as Laura Bush".

Washington Post Corrects Critical Error

2006-10-08T04:57:00.000-07:00

The Washington Post runs a section called "Free For All", where people usually whine if they feel their pet cause is somehow demeened in print by the Post. However, they sometimes run important corrections, like the following which appeared on 10/07/06:

To avoid yet another distortion of history, please advise your staff that Sgt. Schultz in "Hogan's Heroes" was not a concentration camp guard [Washington Sketch, Sept. 29].

The show was set in a Luftwaffe prisoner-of-war camp, a Luftstalag. POW camps were not considered to be concentration camps.
-- Jacques H. Croom
Potomac

They also ran an old publicity still of Hogan and Klink with the article.

Redemption Prose

2006-10-07T06:32:00.000-07:00

At dinner the other night with friends, we were discussing books we had recently read. One friend mentioned a a fairly recent novel, The Kite-Runner. He made the book sound interesing, and the next day I was in a bookstore when I passed an audio copy of the book. I picked it up, and read the 100 word blurb on the back of the book. But what I read in the blurb made me put the book down and walk as fast as I could away. In those 100 words, the word "redemption" was used twice.

Since The Kite-Runner is a serious book, I suspect the word "redemption" was used more for marketing purposes than as a description of the thematic scope of the novel. But what is it about pop culture today that makes "redemption" such a prevalent theme? People write novels about characters that do terrible things, only to realize the error of their ways, and they become "redeemed". (Or they write their memiors.) Oprah stretchs one redemption into an hour long show, but I guess if your time is limited, you can squeeze your 15 minutes of redemption into a segment of Good Morning America (as Mel Gibson is soon scheduled to do). And Mark Foley and his handlers are already planning their redemption strategy.

I stay away from "redemptive" stories as much as I can because they are all the same fucking story. How many times can someone be entertained by the same basic story? Would you buy a magazine over and over if the contents never changed?

I am aware that there are only so many basic plots and story ideas, and that genre fiction is nothing new, but redemption stories are the most repetitive of all. At least humourous stories/movies use different jokes. At least crime dramas/detective stories feature different crimes, and the best can generate suspense as you try to figure out who did what and if they will get away with it.

But a redemption story will always end the same way. The character will be redeemed. Big surprise. Why do you have to watch a movie or buy a book to figure that out? Would there be any market for a book that was about redemption, except there is a big swerve at the end, and the main character decides to continue to be a scumbag? No, that would indicate creativity, which is something these stories tend to lack.

The only thing that would seem to change is the level and type of depravity a character goes through before he or she is "redeemed". If people read these books to get off on the depravity rather than the redemption, they would be similar to people that criticize violent content in popular entertainment, but always read those murder mysteries. Over and over and over again.

Alcohol's Not Your Problem, You Pathetic Pervert

2006-10-02T17:04:00.000-07:00

Today is all about politics.

The Republican Party, the party that espouses "family values", the party that never misses a chance to attack popular culture, gambling, or any other straw man, cannot even be bothered to investigate when one of its own is sending inappropriate email to children. Instead, they spend 2 years and millions of taxpayer dollars to learn every detail relating to a blow job that an adult gave to another adult.

But I'm going to direct this post to the pervert himself, Mark Foley, and his disingenuous, 'me first" attitude to his actions.

With all the stories surrounding this today, you may not have noticed that Foley checked himself into rehab to because, as he put it "I strongly believe I am an alcoholic".

No you're not. What you are is a pathetic asshole. You are seeking to sequester yourself from the press and any responsibility for your actions. You are now off-limits to the public, you can sit behind gated walls while you pursue your treatment of "alcoholism" at whatever speed you choose. If you come back into public life, and things get too hard for you, you can "relapse" and sequester yourself again.

Of course, you come first. You wouldn't even think of trying make things right with the children that were the targets of your email. You just want to run away to a quiet place until it all goes away.

And by choosing alcohol as your vice, you will someday blame alcohol for your actions. When you become 'sober', you will "realize" that you did these things because of old John Barleycorn, on demon rum. You will ask us to believe it, and some pathetic individuals that think alcohol is evil (how could a liquid be evil?) will believe that you are a normal person, and only alcohol made you do what you did.

But all the alcohol in the world can't make someone do what you did. That is only on you, Foley. When will you own up to it?

Media Hits Another Low Point

2006-09-20T17:04:00.000-07:00

About 20 years ago, when I was a senior in college, in between the daytime when I was kicking Bluey's ass in Fireball and the nights I was spending at the bar, I had an intership in the newsroom of the only television station in a small city. We were in a mostly rural area that didn't have a lot of real news, and whatever real news happened was usually covered by the paid reporters. I spent a lot of time monitoring wire stories and transmissions of network news packages.

We had a police radio in the station. If something that sounded like it was news was happening, we would jump in a car and drive to the scene. One time a fire report came over, and it sounded promising so a cameraman and I drove to the scene.

When we got there, nothing was happening, but all the local yokels came out because we were in a car with the station's logo on it. The cameraman and I got separated, and one of the yokels asked me if I wanted to shoot video of a big pumpkin growing in his back yard.

I was a rookie, and I didn't want to go back to the station with nothing, so I found the cameraman and asked him if he wanted to shoot the footage.

He gave me an extremely pained look, one that immediately made me realize what a stupid question I was asking. What was the news value of a huge pumpkin? What was the compelling story, "Pumpkin grows, is ready to be harvested"? How was I going to shoot and edit 30 seconds of footage on that, let alone write the accompanying story that anybody would care about? In retrospect, this was probably the best lesson I learned during the internship; think about the news value of what you are doing, rather than do a story on anything that comes your way.

Today, I noticed that MSNBC.com (not some local one station town) posted a story (with video!) about a 330 pound pumpkin. (You can click on the title if you want to see the story, but you will have to sit through a PDA about ADHD (which no one with ADHD would sit through) and the story is every bit as exciting as I made it sound.)

So I guess the lesson was this. I wasn't wrong to question my judgment 20 years ago. Rather, I was a visionary who was ahead of his time, and the small minds around me couldn't see the superior skills I had in picking stories. I guess NBC will be calling me any day now. There's a really cool puddle near my house, maybe we can do an hour special on it.

Monday Night Goofball

2006-09-15T05:46:00.000-07:00

As much as I have enjoyed watching Tom Cruise act like the ass everyone knows that he is over the last two years, I never found anything he ever did to be blogworthy because, frankly, nothing he involves himself in is very interesting.

But his recent PR reclamation project, and the extent that some in the media will indulge him, is making me sick, so I have to say something.

On Monday, ESPN did their first real "Monday Night Football" game. Those of you hoping that this might lead to actually devoting more time to football during a football game were disappointed, as ESPN treated it as an excuse to report on Tom and Katie sightings, and as vehicle to show us how not entertaining Jamie Foxx is.

On the pregame broadcast, instead of reporting on the game, we got a shot of Tom and Katie walking across the field. This was followed up during the game by breathtaking reports and shots of Tom and Dan Synder sitting together in the owner's box. And by having Tony Kornheiser references to All The Right Moves and Jerry Maguire and probably every other Tom Cruise movie that contained something relating to football. (As if that wasn't bad enough, Kornheiser riffed on Cruise and Foxx on Tuesday's PTI, and also wrote a column about them on Wednesday. What they hell is Kornheiser thinking? Does he have a man crush?)

Although Suri wasn't on TV (leading some of us to wonder how much a couple that goes on and on about how much they love their kid could bear to be parted from the kid) it was reported in the press that little Suri was there, and a family-friendly happy time was enjoyed by all. (I think they stashed little Suri in the same room where they keep the extra footballs.)

I turn on football to watch football, not Entertainment Tonight. Joe Six-Pack doesn't care about the image problems of Hollywood millionaires, and if ESPN doesn't realize that, I hope that ESPN's run with MNF ends at one season. There is more than enough televised football to go around, we don't need a program that is half football, half Access Hollywood.

On a related note, the sighting of Tom in Dan's box can only lead to bad things. Dan is involved in whatever syndicate is planning to bankroll Tom's next movie, and it doesn't take a genius to realize that Dan will look at this as a chance to promote brand image. So I think in two years we are going to be subjected to a very bad movie that involves Tom Cruise coaching the Redskins, or being some over the hill quaterback (Billy Kilmer?) that gets a long awaited chance to participate in the Super Bowl, and along the way he will spend a lot of time at a Six Flags theme park. Boy, doesn't that sound worth seeing?

The True "Nightmare" on Elm Street

2006-09-10T05:33:00.000-07:00

On Sept. 28, infinifilm is going to drop a 2-disc special edition of the original "A Nightmare on Elm Street". Also, the movie is going to be re-released in theaters for a brief time. For any of you that never saw this movie, or are only familiar with the series through the later sequels (with the "jokey" Freddy Krueger), I strongly recommend checking out the original movie in a theater. Although the movie has its flaws, the more I've seen it, the more I've gotten drawn into it because there is a lot more going on in that movie than it originally seems. Once the shock/novelty of waiting for and watching Freddy kill teenagers wears off, and you pay more attention to what is going on between killings, there's a subtex to that movie that highlights a much more real-life fear.

The best horror movies use their set-ups and allegories to examine a society's unspoken fears. Often, these fears exist at certain points in time, and once time moves on and the fear passes, these movies lose their power. Other times the movies can center around a feeling common to most people, even if the feeling passes (or is proven wrong) in time.

I think A Nightmare on Elm Street centers on the latter, which is why I am interested to see if this movie finds an audience among today's teens. I don't think this fear is obvious in the movie, I had to watch it a few times before it made itself clear to me.

The first time you watch the movie, you are going to get caught up in the action, in the things that Nancy Thompson has to do to figure out what's going on, and what she needs to do to stop Freddy. So the first time viewer is going to concentrate on the slice and dice aspects, and be scared by that. Although it is scary, it's not very realistic, in the sense that few of us are ever going to be chased (in our dreams or real life) by a maniac that is trying to kill us.

But after seeing the movie a few times, I found the overall story more interesting. As the story unfolds, it becomes apparent that these kids are being targeted for death because their parents killed Freddy. So he is coming back for his revenge.

Here is where it gets interesting. Because as Nancy is trying to figure this all out, her parents spend their time telling her she is delusional, that she is wasting her time, that she should just get some sleep and forget the whole thing. Yet from the time she is describing Freddy to her parents, they would know exactly what she is describing is based in fact, since they helped to kill Freddy. But rather than help Nancy, they will do their best to thwart her, because they would rather see their daughter die than to face the sins of their past. They will sacrifice their daughter for peace of mind.

To state the fear more directly, the parent's don't really care about their kids, and whenever something in the kid's life threatens to disrupt the parent's life, the parent's will chose themselves over the kid. And it will be up to the kid to look out for herself. That is the central fear/theme of the movie, a fear that is not rooted in just one point in time. I think this gives the movie a more timeless quality than most horror movies. Thinking your parents don't really care about you is a much more real-life issue than being chased by a maniac.

Game Show Mania

2006-09-01T16:29:00.000-07:00

Click the title to link to a very interesting piece coming from The Onion and Youtube. It is a listing of fifteen game shows ready for revival, with a link to a clip of a version of the show. This is worth visiting if only to see one of the more bizarre and needlessly complicated game show concepts, the bonus round of Whew!, and for a look at the short-lived Second Chance, later to be sucessfully rebranded as Press Your Luck.

Potty Mouth

2006-08-30T17:02:00.000-07:00

I'm not sure how this story fits in with the "liberal bias" (sigh) this website claims to expose and combat, but it's a great clip and transcript of a moment CNN would like to forget.

Kyra Phillips went into the bathroom, and somehow managed to have her mircophone transmit part of her coversation over top of live coverage of President Bush's speech. It's nice to know she thinks men are assholes, but that she really loves her husband, and that her sister in law is a control freak.

So what will the court of public opinon say? Will she have to answer for her disparaging comment towards men? Or will she just go on "The View" and laugh it all off?

Celebrity Fat Club

2006-08-28T17:08:00.000-07:00

Last night I got my first chance to see an episode of the show I am most embarassed about watching, VH1's Celebrity Fit Club. In case you have never seen this slice of reality, washed up overweight celebrities go to fat camp where they are put through their paces in a mostly vain effort to lose weight. This season (why bother with their real names) you get to see Big Pussy, Issiac, Jennifer Keaton, and the girl from Wilson Phillips who got her stomach stapled, posed naked for Playboy, but still managed to regain the weight, sweat off the pounds. And those are the people you have heard of. The biggest complainer so far is Angie "15" Stone, who can somehow cite her care about wanting to spend more time with her children as a reason not to endanger her health with a workout, but can't find that same level of care for her children to not endanger her health by eating a pastrami sandwich.

"Survivor" Plays The Race Card

2006-08-26T06:32:00.000-07:00

And, predictably enough, people looking to score cheap political points (like our friend in New York in this news story) can't get to a microphone fast enough to express his outrage.

Where to start on this one? How about with CBS's apparent definition of "race", which would seem to be the American concept that only 4 races exist. Sorry, Native Americans, even though you were in this country first, I guess enough of your "race" doesn't watch TV to count in the ratings. Same thing with you, Eskimos. As for native groups located outside American (that's you, Aboriginies), don't even bother leaving an 8 X 11 photo.

Let's move onto another American concept, which is that all people of one "race" somehow automatically most strongly identify with people within their "race". This idea totally discounts that any type of cultural difference would exist between people of the same "race". I'm a Caucasian of mostly Celtic descent. I am somehow supposed to automatically identify myself with people of Eastern Europe solely because our skin color is white? Or, to put it another way, am I supposed to root for the "white" team for the sole reason I am white?

So even though I think CBS is doing the really lazy thing in assembling these teams and playing into American concepts of race, I don't really understand why our friend in New York and all the other pundits think this is the worst idea since the Bette Midler show.

To turn back to the news story, our friend in New York certain knows how to express his outrage, but he never really explains why they he is outraged.

"The idea of having a battle of the races is preposterous" says City Councilman John Liu. First of all Johnny, it's not a battle, it's a TV show. A battle is life or death, and is what is going on in Iraq. CBS is running a game show in which people win money, not lose their lives.

But Johnny never goes on and explains why it's preposterous. I guess we are just supposed to accept his didactic statement without question.

Later on, in a non-quote, Liu puts forth the idea that the show could encourage racial division and promote negative typecasts. (? I am not sure I understand that choice of words, but I think I know what he's getting at.)

But why would Johnny automatically assume this? Because we haven't seen one bit of footage that supports this idea. We haven't seen any footage at all.

For all Johnny knows, this could be a show about overcoming stereotypes. The contestants don't have to subscribe to Johnny's negative pre-programmed beliefs. They can reject their assignment to a team by race, and work together as human beings.

I know that "race" is the third rail in America, but if we are ever going to move forward and treat people as human beings, rather than racial categories, we can't have a knee jerk reaction negative reaction just because "race" is involved. People need to confront and work through the issues of "race" in America, not retreat to their safe positions everytime "race" is mentioned.

Dennis Miller A Senator?

2006-08-08T16:52:00.000-07:00

Today's clickable news story says that Miller is joining Fox News, but I find it more scary that he was talked about as a candidate for Senator.

I know this guy basically makes his living by giving his opinion, but what makes him qualified for Senator? Because he hosted a talk show? Because he hosted a kid's show? Because he talked football to America?

Since it is August, and everybody in DC takes time off in August, I will be stepping away from the blog for a few days. Check back in about a week for new stuff.

Read My Column! I'm So Sensitive!

2006-08-04T09:25:00.000-07:00

One of the things that disgusts me with newspaper writing today is how the writer, instead of doing some investigative work or making insightful commentary, will want to show you how sensitive and PC he is.

There is a perfect example of this in today's Washington Post in Steven Hunter's review of The Descent. It is a horror movie about a bunch of thrill-seeking women that go spelunking and get more thrills than they bargined for.

Here is an excerpt from the column. The italics are mine, to emphasize the point I want to make.

"So the movie right away removes itself from the heavy misogynistic vibe of most horror movies, in which beauty and promiscuity are punished, and there's a profane subtext of men wreaking vengeance on the women who've rejected and humiliated them over the years.

The best known horror franchises of the last thirty years are the Halloween movies, the Friday the 13th movies, the A Nightmare On Elm Street movies, and the Scream movies. In the movies in the first three series, the killers (more or less) are the same from movie to movie.

But in not one of those series is the killer targeting women who rejected or humiliated them over the years. Micheal Myers kills because he is a psycho. Jason kills because he was left to drown as a child. Freddy kills because he is "the bastard son of a hundred maniacs" and he kills children anyway, for the most part were born after he died (so does Jason). And I don't have enough space to get into the motives for killing in the Scream movies.

And another things about these supposedly misogynistic movies: They all have female protagonists. There's a lot more "girl power" in horror movies than in the average Hollywood summer action movie (and this certainly carries over to The Descent).

But if we go even further back into horror's past, and look at the most famous 1970's movies, we still can't find a movie that meets Hunter's description.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre? No.

Last House On The Left? No.

It's Alive? No. None of the plots of those three movies have anything remotely to do with the point Stephen would like you to believe.

So what the hell horror movies is Stephen talking about? Really, I have no idea. I am resisting the urge to break into The Big Encyclopedia Of Horror Movies to find one with a plot (or even a discernable subtext) where the killer's motivation is to kill women that rejected and humiliated him over the years.

But boy, doesn't Stephen sound all modern and sensitive and PC when he writes this? Instead or researching his subject or even citing one movie that meets his description, he just drops in his proclimation and expects people just to accept his statement because it's a common misconception of horror movies.

Critics are supposed to do a little digging below the surface, just not parrot what is commonly believed at the time.

MTV Turns 25

2006-08-01T15:32:00.000-07:00

You could make a case that the launch and rise MTV was the biggest pop culture event of the 1980's. It ushered in and help spread TV as a medium to sell music, brought a new look and faster-paced editing style to TV, and served as a great generation divide between those of you raised in the 70's and those of us raised in the 80's.

But after selling music for years (far past the point where videos were novel ideas), it moved forward to stake out the role of vanguard of the youth culture. That may sound a little far-fetched, but can you think of another TV station that devotes so much of it's time and energy to trying to trying to be the arbiter of cool?

But I would like to mention a few of their ideas that really stood out to me.

Stevie Washingon The Angry Youth. Somewhere between a promo and a continuing animated adventure, these had a great look and overall style. I just found out someone put some of these episodes on youtube.

My Super Sweet Sixteen. Years from now when people want to see to what extent parents would bend over to "befriend" their children instead of raising them, this will be the show they watch. I can't believe this show flies so under the radar. Don't these people know what assholes they look like when they appear on this show? Or do they just not care, and are somehow proud that they spend $200,000 on a birthday party where their kid will act like ingateful tyrant who gets off by excluding people from her party?

Beavis and Butthead. Although MTV ruined this show by changing it from a show where Beavis and Butthead made fun of others to a show where Beavis and Butthead were the butt of the jokes, the show still merits mention. They need to sell a DVD with the episodes AND the videos in their original place. And restore all the jokes they cut out to make this show palatable to the scolds of the world.

True Life. A documentary that doesn't need to teach "lessons", and constantly picks interesting contemporary topics that other shows ignore. Unlike 48 Hours, Cold Case Files, or any other documentary show that does nothing more investigative than rehash police reports.

Wonder Showzen. Although shown more on MTV2, this is an extreme rarity; a TV show that could truly be called subversive. Hilarious and offensive, it is not for everyone, especially those that like the familiarity of most shows and don't like a show that they can't figure out within 5 seconds of turning it on (stay away Everybody Loves Raymond fans). Watch a whole show, it is not possible to get a real sense of the show by watching a two-minute clip. And keep an eye out for the twins, for reasons I don't fully understand, they make me laugh every time.

Why Will Ferrell Isn't Funny

2006-08-01T14:55:00.000-07:00

Today on the pudfest that is ESPN's Mike and Mike, they felt the need to take time away from talking about sports to talk about the new Will Ferrell movie. You know, the one that doesn't have anything to do with what's going on in the real sports world. Greenberg, who would pass out from excitement at a supermarket opening, gushed that Ferrell is "great" as he and Golic went onto list all the "funny" movies Ferrell made.

(By the way, has anyone noticed that left-handed insult directed at his wife that is part of his book's title? It's called in part Why My Wife Thinks I'm An Idiot. If your wife thinks you're an idiot, and she married you, doesn't that make her stupider that you? Why would she marry someone who she thought was an idiot? Not a very intelligent decision.)

Why does the public constantly have to be told how "funny" Will Ferrell is? If he was really funny,wouldn't the public figure that out for itself? Instead, the PR people plant this story everywhere they can, and stains like Greenberg stick to the script in front of them.

So as a public service I am going to tell you why Will Ferrell isn't funny.

No matter the situation, no matter the character, Will has one trick that he uses over and over to be "funny". He delivers his lines in an earnest manner, AND HE TALKS REALLY LOUD!

In the commercial for Talladega Nights, he runs around in his underwear screaming because he thinks he is on fire, even though it would be obvious to anyone (especially himself) that he's not on fire. And he also thinks he is paralyzed, so he screams his lines and plunges a knife into his leg (and screams again).

He talked loudly and earnestly in Old School. He talked loudly and earnestly in Anchorman. He was screaming (and presumably kicking) in Kicking and Screaming.

Boy, I can't wait to see what mischief he gets into next summer. It will be so different from the movies he released this year.

Who's To Blame For Gibson's DUI? The Jews, Of Course

2006-07-30T04:50:00.000-07:00

So not only was old Mel driving drunk, he managed to get off some anti-Semetic comments (and say a few other crude things) during and after his arrest. Click the link.

Now Mel is trying to distance himself from his comments. What an asshole. He is more concerned about his image than any trouble he caused anyone. I love the last line in his apology ("I...have already taken the necessary steps to ensure my return to health.") Like after reading all this, the thing I most concerned about is Mel's health.

It's not like he was completely wasted when he did this. I would find it inexcusibe no matter what, but these comments sound more like someone that was blowing a .3 and a completely out of control babbling idiot than someone blowing a .12.

You know Mel has had a pretty sweet life. Major motion picture star, made millions of dollars. What is he so angry about?

The Passion Of The Drunk

2006-07-29T04:30:00.000-07:00

Well, look who was driving 87 mph down the Pacific Coast Highway at 2:36 am this morning, blowing a 0.12 on the old Breathalyzer. (Click on the title.)

You can bet your ass if I was caught doing that, they wouldn't call it "suspicion" of DUI. It would be plain old DUI.

What makes this news postworthy is that Gibson usually goes out of his way to make people aware of two things.

1. He used to drink. A lot. (Check out his old interviews.) If you want to believe Hollywood lore, he lost a few roles over his drinking.

2. He gave up drinking because he matured and wanted to be a family man.

Why people feel the need to tell you they used to drink a lot is beyond me. Are we supposed to think they were cool? And that they some ascended to a higher plane of being by not drinking anymore?

Which avenue to redemption will Mel chose? Will it be the "I made a one-time mistake and will never do it again. And by the way I love my wife and kids"? Or the Betty Ford Clinic?

Try not to be too shocked that a quasi-religious public figure doesn't walk it like he talks it.

Classic Rock Songs I Can Still Listen To

2006-07-27T17:29:00.000-07:00

Back before it was called classic rock, it was just songs that the radio played over and over. I must have heard "Radar Love" 500 times between ninth grade and the time I graduated college. And I got sick of almost all of them. But you can't kill a really good song, so I still listen to these when I come across them.

1. Cream "Crossroads" (The live version from Wheels of Fire). The musicians in Cream were good, but when they tried to inject psychedelia into their music, or play 16 minute drum solos, they sucked. "Crossroads" is great because all they do is play.

2. Jimi Hendrix Experience "All Along the Watchtower". He didn't write it, but he sure got to the heart of the matter. This song was cover by lots of artists, and they all play Jimi's version.

3. Blue Oyster Cult "Burning For You". There is just something about this song that appeals to people that like punk music. I don't know why. What I do know is plenty of people that ignore classic rock but love this song. I once read a book by a female punk fan who said on her college radio show she played only punk, and "Burning For You", so I know it's not just me.

4. The Doors "Wishful Sinful". Although Morrison is in full messianic wail (groan), the lush string and horn arrangements make all of The Soft Parade strangely compelling.

5. The Rolling Stones "Monkey Man". Every time some DJ would play "You Can't Always Get What You Want", I wondered why he wasn't playing this Stones song that was half as long and a hundred times better.

6. Ted Nugent "Free For All". He just finds a good groove and sticks with it. And, thankfully, not for a "Stranglehold"-like 8 minutes.

Family Values Include Getting Fired

2006-07-25T16:42:00.000-07:00

Thank God the virtues of the eternially imperiled American family (I love that phrase, coined by Dan Savage) were strong enough to withhold the pounding they took when Melanie Martinez hosted The Good Night Show. Her amoral reign of terror came to an end today when she was fired by PBSprout. Click on the link to read why she was fired.

If you are like me, you never heard of the show. Basically, it is three hours of wind down programing to get your preschoolers ready for bed. It runs in three hour blocks, from 6PM to 3AM, in case your kid's wind down time starts at 2AM.

I can't imagine why our tax dollars (it's PBS) are being spent to read bedtime stories to kids. Isn't that what parents are supposed to do? Especially the "family values" crowd, who carry on and on about how modern society is ruining their children. I would think these people would relish spending time with their children (not just talking about spending time with their children), instead, they just plop their kids in front of the TV and start surfing the Internet for free porn.

Here's where the hypocracy comes in. Melanie was fired because some comments she made in a video seven years ago were deemed inappropriate and would undermine her credibility with the audience. Her audience is a bunch of three-year-old that don't even comprehend the concept of credibility. All they want is someone with a pleasant voice to read them a story.

This firing was done to placate the parents. The same parents who probably slept with their high school sweetheart, did drugs in college, call in sick to play golf, and do all sorts of other things for which they don't want to be judged. They would say "That is just something I did, don't judge me as a person by it". Yet they will stand in judgment over comments made by a TV host.

It is possible that these parents will band together and demand Melanie be reinstated, and I will look like an overreacting jerk. Please make me look like an overreacting jerk.

Springsteen

2006-07-24T17:44:00.000-07:00

This post is going to attempt to answer the following questions.

1. Why do people like Bruce Springsteen's music?

2. Seriously, why do people like Bruce Springsteen's music?

About 20 years ago, he was as big as any star of the 80's. I had never liked him, but with the release of Born in the USA and something like 7 charting singles, his music was inescapable over the mid 1980's. The kids listened to it, their parents listened to it, tens of thousands of people went to his marathon concerts, and a 5 album box set of live recordings was released.

At the time, I didn't get it. I still don't totally get it, but I think I somewhat get it.

Back before we could listen to lots of different free music on the Internet, we had to swallow a lot of crap that the radio fed us. Which meant that if an artist had a huge album, you had to hear the songs plenty of times. This gives you plenty of time to analyze the songs, what worked, what didn't work, and how they related to each other.

Even with that, I had to read a lot of critcism about his work before it was all put into perspective for me.

This is not an original analysis, but you must understand it, because this is the answer to question 1.

The reason why people like Springsteen's music is that his songs are a unique combination of 60's musical influences. He starts by writing a 60's style straight ahead pop song (as opposed to a 60's album song, there will be no lengthy In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida indulgent hippie solo workouts in his songs). Then he crams in other influences, like using a Roy Orbison like expressive vocal style, but writing Dylan-like, jam as much as you can into a line, lyrics, and setting this all against Wall-of-Sound production. I could easily list some more obscure influences, but the point is his songs sound like a bunch of things you have heard before. They are original, but familiar.

Think of this the next time you hear "Born To Run", "Dancing in the Dark", or "Glory Days". Or listen to that elephantine live set. The E Street Band sounds like they are still playing bars (this is meant as a compliment), tight and fast, not sleepwalking all over the place like some 80's stadium act (think Journey). It is no surprise that the first single of the live set was the Edwin Starr oldie "War". It comes straight from the musical time frame Springsteen relates to.

Which explains why people like his music. But it doesn't explain why people really like his music. Because as cleverly constructed as the music is, I find it emotionally cold.

Which brings us to question #2. No doubt there are (or were) tens of thousands of people that emotionally relate to his music. But with a few exceptions (like "Brilliant Disguise"), I just don't get it. He sings about a lot of generic things that sound like something that might have happened to someone somewhere (I am sure somebody somewhere ran into the lake in just his socks and his shirt) but he ends up coming off like a ninth grade poet trying to sound deep, trying to write about experiences he expects to have, but never actually lived through.

And musicians that perform cleverly constucted songs usually don't do well in the marketplace. Probably the best example I can think of is The Tubes. They have a number of cleverly constructed songs, full of sly commentary and a subersive musical style ("Don't Touch Me There" is a perfect example. Also check out "Prime Time"). They had a lot of videos in the can when MTV first came on the air, so they got a lot of play. But their cleverly construced songs got them nowhere, and all anyone remembers was their hit "She's A Beauty", a song I suspect not a lot of people thought about what it really meant.

So since we know tens of thousand of people aren't listening to Bruce's songs because they admire their blending of musical styles, what are they listening for? His generic tales of strife offset by the occasional minor triumph? Because it sounds like the music that was popular when they were kids, and not that modern music of today? Because rock critics tell them to?

Oprah Feels The Need To Answer A Question No One Asked

2006-07-17T17:01:00.000-07:00

Click the title to read the article in which Oprah insists she's not gay, and feels the need to name the woman she is not gay with. I would be surprised if one tenth of one percent of the population knew who this woman was, or what her meager claims to fame are.

I could write until now until Doomsday about Oprah's inflated sense of self and my continued bewilderment at the fact that tens of thousands of women buy into her bullshit.

But let's just focus on this announcement, which , as far as I can figure, is apropos of nothing going on in Orpah's life.

First, Oprah needs to sell magazines to live the Oprah livestyle. So she makes an announcement, which becomes a story (or rather, nonstory since nothing ever happened) in her magazine, which in turn will sell magazines. Which means people are buying magazines to read her comments about something that never happened. She could have easily said "I never climbed Mount Everest", we all know that she never did that either.

But she has to pick a hot-button issue, so she picks the topic of homosexuality because she knows it will sell magazines. And she goes the "Seinfeld" route, she has to let us know that she's not gay, not that there's anything wrong with that.

She continues "Something about this relationship feels otherwordly to me, like it was designed by a power and a hand greater than my own.", showing once again the only thing bigger than her waistline is her sense of self-importance. Because Oprah cannot be a mortal like the rest of us. She can't just have long friendships like the other humanoids. No, it all has to be blown up to mythical proprotions, as if a power greater than her own decided she had to have a special level of friendship that is somehow denied to the rest of us.

And since she's special, we need to watch her show, buy her magazine, join her book club.

Because if you do all these things, if you follow Oprah, you will never have to think for yourself.

Idiotic Movies Finish In Near Dead Heat

2006-07-16T11:48:00.000-07:00

Little Man took in $21.7 million.

You, Me and Dupree took in $21.3 million.

America's I.Q. dropped a collective 10 points.

Cats That Look Like Hitler

2006-07-16T05:47:00.000-07:00

I know this website has gotten some publicity in the last few days, but in case you haven't seen it, click on the title. Too funny.

TV's All Time Most Overrated Show

2006-07-15T05:24:00.000-07:00

Most TV shows are a reflection of their times in the sense that their potential is limited to the sensibilities and technology of their time. This is pretty obvious to most people, but when trying to rank TV shows in an all-time orders, modern shows are always going to have a leg up because their visual look is superior to their 50's-60's-70's-80's counterparts, and the writers have greater creative freedom now that in any other time in TV history.

So when people look to include older shows in an all-time list, they usually include shows that were ahead of their time, or were so influential that their basic blueprints are still followed today. Is Law and Order anything more than Dragnet with higher production values, and and additional last half-hour in a courtroom setting? Has anyone done the basic husband and wife sitcom better than The Honeymooners?

One show from the 1960's is always held in high esteem (the show was #13 in TV Guide's top 50 list in 2002), always mentioned as being tuned into "modern sensibilites", supposedly possessing a more sophisiticated type of humor that other shows of its era.

That claim was a fraud then, it's a fraud now, and the time has come to expose this myth.

So I present to you, TV's All Time Most Overrated Show, The Dick Van Dyke Show.

Yes, the one everyonse supposedly loves, with Mary Tyler Moore, Buddy, Sally et. al.

The Myth vs. The Facts

Myth: This show threw off the stodgy constraints of 50's sitcoms. Rob and Laura were hip, they were young, they were sexy suburbanites living outside the button-down world.

Facts: This show premiered the same year Kennedy was sworn in as President, and that Camelot magic rubbed off on people's perception of the sitcom (it sure helped that MTM looked like the First Lady). If this show was so modern and sexy, why did Rob and Laura sleep in separate beds? Much more "modern" was the show Bewitched (but that's another post)

Myth: MTM was a new kind of sitcom mom. She was allowed to wear sexy pants (believe me, it was a big deal back then). She was a proto-feminist, much more an equal partner in marriage than June Cleaver.

Facts: MTM's character is mentally unstable. Any common household event, like Richie forgetting his milk money, launches her in crisis mode, she screeches "Oh, Rob" and then he has to stop whatever he is doing and solve her problem. How feminist and forward thinking tohave you husband rescue you. June Cleaver may not have been liberated, but she certainly knew what to do in her family role of "Mom". MTM's character would have been reaching for "Mother's Little Helper" all day long.

Myth: The humor in this show was "sophisticated" compared to other shows of its time.

Facts: This is the biggest myth of all. The main source of humor comes from such topical and relevant issues as...baldness. Get it? Mel is bald! When he walks into the room, Buddy will make a bald joke! One of the most celebrated episodes of this show centers around the fact that Laura says Alan Brady is bald on national television. How cutting edge and sophisticated!

And we also have the sophisticated humor of Dick Van Dyke falling over ottomans, running into doors, accidentally getting hypnotized (I think he uses this conceit to act like a drunk) etc., etc.

And my personal favorite in the "sophisticated" humor department: At least once or twice a season, Rob, Buddy, and Sally would be at a cocktail party. To entertain the guests, they would do old burlesque and vaudeville routines. Those jokes had to be 50 years old! I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to work in the "NIAGARA FALLS! Slowly I turned..." at some point.

How could this show rank #13 on TV Guide's list of all time shows? Does anyone with a brain really think that The Dick Van Dyke Show is a better TV show than The X-Files? Than The Larry Sanders Show? Than Buffy the Vampire Slayer?

The Dick Van Dyke Show was a mediocre show in its time, and TV's All Time Most Overrated Show.

In This Contest, Everyone's A Loser

2006-07-14T05:30:00.000-07:00

This weekend we have the big box office showdown between the stupid comedy starring mostly white actors (You, Me and Dupree) versus the stupid comedy starring mostly black actors (Little Man). Let the laughs begin!

Is it too much for me to ask that both these films crater with opening weekend returns similiar to Gigli? (That would be less than $4 million.)

Honestly, is anyone looking forward to seeing these films? Did anyone camp out last night so they could be the first in line and catch the noon showing?

These movies one-joke potential is competely played out in the 60 second commercials that have been overplayed. Dupree is an idiot that repetitively does stupid and annoying things, but his heart is in the right place (Awwwwwwwww!) The Little Man and his partner in crime hatch an incredibly complicated and unfocused plan to get back a diamond that they stole and dropped in the wrong purse (or something). They are supposed to be crooks. Why don't they just stick a gun in someone's ribs and demand the diamond back? It's not like the characters would have moral issues about such things.

The audience is conditioned to believe that summer movies are light and breezy, and we should (in Shawn Wayans words "Take your brain out of your head, sit down and just have a ball." ) Yeah, just be sure to leave you $10 with the cashier. So we can continue to have summer after summer of movies like these.

The Madcap Passes On

2006-07-11T12:22:00.000-07:00

To me, Syd Barrett was the ultimate reclusive figure in rock. I didn't find much interesting in the 'death or disappearance" of Jim Morrison or Elvis Presley (although the respective estates milked the artist's fans for every last dollar). Much more interesting was the man that hid in plain sight.

The stories of Elvis and Jim always centered around when/if they were coming back, and what they were doing when they were gone. Who cared? And the more bizarre the stories got, the more attention that was paid to them. My favorite was when a Pittsburgh radio station played a tape "Elvis" made in 1981. He was signing a song (I think it was "I Love A Rainy Night") when he suddenly stopped, because he was just told (in the middle of recording???) that Reagan was shot. Instead of continuing to sing, he babbled on about the fact that Reagan was shot. On one hand, it seems like a waste of studio time, on the other, it's a better performance that any other one I ever heard Elvis give.

Both estates churned out substandard product for years (and will continue to do so). I remember all the hype of The Doors "Alive, She Cried" in 1983. Morrison (Jim, not Van), will sing "Gloria", and it will be dirty! They made a video, and it will be shown on MTV (Take that, new wave fans)! The album sucked, I can't even find evidence that it is in print anymore.

By contrast, Syd quietly disappeared after Pink Floyd's second album. The story of his disappearance never changed. He was an acid casualty/victim of mental illness. He spent his remaining days mostly painting and gardening. He released two albums shortly after leaving Pink Floyd. A third album was released in 1988. There was no noisy promotion, no flashy video, no trotting him around on tour to make a quick buck.

By accounts, Syd's family took care of him, and the other members of Pink Floyd also took care of him, making sure he continued to receive the royalties to which he was entitled.

Syd lived his remaining days, and died with dignity, while Morrison and Elvis are crassly promoted to this day. What a difference it makes when people who genuinely care about you take care of your legacy.

The 40-Year Old Virgin is supposed to be funny?

2006-07-09T12:21:00.000-07:00

I was not feeling well last night, so I tried to find something to watch on cable. Since I was under the impression that this was a comedy, I decided to watch it.

This movie should be called "The 40-Year Old Script" or "The 40-Year Old Jokes". There was nothing original in the concept or the execution. Hey, the guy that can't get laid collects toys! When he tries to bag a drunk girl as easy pickings, she throws up on him! The guy who acts all nonchalant about women actually had his heart broken! All of these concepts come from the cliche hall of fame!

Why do people like Steve Carell and Paul Rudd continue to get to make films? In here and in Anchorman they play one-note charcters that never say or do anything funny. Unless you think Steve Carell stitching together an incongruous series of obscenities is worth paying 10 dollars. If you do, I wish I made tapes of Bluey in college. He perfected that act 20 years ago. I could have got a movie's worth of material every semester. We could have released a movie every year and been billionaires by now. Maybe it's not too late. We could start a nightclub act. Or maybe if you pay us $10 and feed us, we'll come to your house.

Also, there is nothing visually interesting about this movie. It has the visual splendor of a sitcom.
Yet the movie had an estimated budget of $26 million, and took in around $110 million. Where did the money go? It certainly doesn't show on screen on in the script.

TV-G????

2006-07-09T06:36:00.000-07:00

Say you have a 10 year old, and the kid says he saw an ad for a new TV show he wants to watch, and asks you if he can watch it. You monitor your kids viewing habits, and you have never heard of the show, so you ask your kid to describe the ad.

"Well, Dad," your kid says, "Here's what happens. A teen-age boy wakes up naked in the middle of a forest. He gets up, and starts walking around. He comes across a tent. He opens up the tent and sees a teenage couple getting ready to have sex. The boy gets sent to juvenile hall. Down there, they figure out this kid is somehow not right, so a woman decides to take him into her home, although she knows nothing about him and the boy does not seem to know how to act around people, she figures he can't do any harm. The teen-age boy continues to do inappropriate things, like leer at the teen-age daughter as she runs around in a bath towel, and hide behind the shower curtain so he can watch a 10 year old boy sit on the toilet and look through pornographic magazines."

You have heard enough. "Absolutely not!" you tell your kid. "I will not let you watch anything that inappropriate!"

"But dad, the show is OK. The show is callled Kyle XY and it's on the ABC Family Channel!"

Oh, yes the Faamilllyyy channel. What is it about this country that everytime the word "family" is used that people shut down the thinking part of their brains and drift into the images of a Norman Rockwell painting? Families are all about baseball, ice cream, apple pie and everything that is supposed to make America great. Stick the word "family" into anything you are trying to sell, and people will no longer question your motives or actions.

Over the months, the ABC Family channel (which also airs The 700 Club) has aired such "family" friendly fare at the first Austin Powers movie, Blazing Saddles, and (my favorite programming choice of theirs) Cruel Intentions.

What I don't understand is why the Brent Bozells of the world, those people that worried that we are all going to hell because Janet Jackson's floppy tit got airtime during the Super Bowl, those people that photocopied and sent letters to the FCC that ulimately resulted in hefty fines for the incident, never direct their attacks against the ABC Family Channel? Instead, they rail on about The Sopranos, South Park, and other shows that are clearly not designed or marketed towards children.

Could it be that they are hyprocrites, that they would never take on of their own (Pat Robertson) to task?

And why doesn't the media ever point out this inconsistency? Brent Bozell gets a lot of coverage when he makes a statement about a show, but no one ever questions the shows he chooses to attack versus the ones he lets get a free pass (like Kyle XY).

Daily Double on Family Feud

2006-07-06T15:04:00.000-07:00

Still on in the backgroud...you need 200 points to win the grand prize, the family just got 199.

Notably Bad Performance

2006-07-06T14:32:00.000-07:00

I have GSN on, and they are rerunning an episode of "Family Feud". In the bonus round, a guy got a total of 2 points. Since earlier in the show his family insulted "Yankees", I am not feeling too bad about it.

9/11 Movies

2006-07-05T06:04:00.000-07:00

On Love's Forever Changes (a lost 60's classic released on CD in 2001, a Beukey "get") there is a line that states "The news today will be the movies for tomorrow". That line has stuck with me since the first time I heard it.

The line was written in decaying flower power era in the late 60's; I first heard the song in 2001. It made me think of all the movies that were made to try and explain the events of the 60's. That period is well before my time; but my conception of the era is no doubt shaped by what I saw in those movies. I can still recall scenes from the movie version of "Hair". Although I never went before a draft board, participated in an anti-Vietnam march etc., I somehow think that movie is representative of what actually happened.

But after I heard the line, it made me think about how accurate such a movie could be (and how people would accept the movie as being accurate). I doubt the filmmakers strove for historical accuracy, they wanted to tell a visually compelling story, not bore anyone, and make some money. Not that these are bad things, but one should be aware that what you see on the screen is not history.

Which leads me to the 9/11 movies. The events are recent and significant enough that we all remember it, but movies are not a substitute for history. And since we are still reacting to and trying to understand what happened on 9/11, people should take the time and effort to read about and think about the events. Not watch some movie studio's dramatic interpretation and recasting of events.

I have not seen the movie United 93, nor do I have any interest in seeing it. Whatever you think of that movie (or its underlying concept), it has a limited (if any) sense of historical accuracy. No one on that flight is around to give a first person account of what happened. Therefore no filmmaker can make a historically accurate recreation of the events. This movie should not serve as our nation's official memory of what actually happened on that flight.

I shudder to think that 10 years from now instead of someone reading a serious historical document about the events of 9/11, they will pop in a DVD of United 93 and think "Oh, so that's what happened."

Pregnant Naked Retouched Britney

2006-06-29T07:39:00.000-07:00

How did I manage to go this many posts without mentioning Britney Spears? Also notice I avoided some variation of the "Oops...I Posed Naked Again" or "...Baby (With Baby) One More Time" tired joke that will be used as a headline for this picture. Click the link to see the cover. It's a good picture (especially now that she is a brunette). At least she doesn't look like a sideshow attraction on Coney Island.

Which would be where the retoucihng came in. If you saw any pictures from her recent interview (in which she was pleading to be left alone, but now she's posing naked on magazine covers), you know she looked like a train wreck that fell over a cliff.

Britney is going to have her own wing in the pop culture hall of fame. I can't think of an artist whose career is similar to hers, (Don't say Madonna, it's not true) especially since her initial rise took place as the average American was getting comfortable with the internet. She's really the first 21st century megastar, even though her career took off in 1999. Her career trajectory is unique and unpredictable, which is why at some level people are interested in what happens next.

On one hand, I am grateful her initial sunny cheerfullness chased off the pathetic "rock" acts popular in the day. Anyone still playing their Hanson CD's? When's that next Semisonic tour passing through town? How about Smashmouth? Britney (and also the teen boy bands) brought forth a younger audience willing to spend money (their's or daddy's) on younger artists singing pop songs. I would rather listen to the well assembled in the studio "...Baby, One More Time" than an earnest Jewel singing oh so seriously about her hands. You do not become an artist just because you sound serious about something.

But the trend Britney started never (in a macro-sense) went away. Now we get the Ashlee Simpsons and Hilary Duffs of the world trying to recreate the first phase of Britney's career. No one has figured out how to shift the focus away from teen acts and onto another type of music. You may get a few months of a trend, but never a complete shift.

Which is why I think people still pay attention to what Britney does. She is still the leader of the trend, so acts still look to her for guidance (although guidance is about the last thing she seems capable of today). Until someone knocks her off the pedestal, she's the blueprint of the 21st century star.

And's she's been on that pedestal for seven years now...

Star Jones Clucks Off From The Hen Party

2006-06-28T10:08:00.000-07:00

Lisa de Moras is my favorite TV critic. She covers the issues with the amount of reverence (or irreverance) that the topic deserves. And she's consistently hilarious. Click on the title to read her summary of Star's supernova and all the fallout that ensued on Day 1.

I can't believe these 4 magpies have been cawing away on TV for 10 years (well, they have mixed a few different magpies over the years). Have they ever discussed anything of importance? Or is it all self-important drama where they make pronouncements about themselves and how they are feeling that day?

Sleater-Kinney on "Hiatus"

2006-06-28T10:02:00.000-07:00

A hiatus is never good news. I really enjoyed this band's music, but their last CD featured a new sound that I never warmed up to.

Also, Lou Reed reissues with bonus tracks. As Cartman would say "Sweet!"

Frasier's Dog is Dead

2006-06-28T04:30:00.000-07:00

Not that I care, but it made me think about this highly overrated show.

Frasier was always given respect like it was an Oscar Wilde play. Just because they threw in a few references to opera or Greek Mythology, people acted as if the comedy on this show was sophisticated. The erudite Frasier Crane meant "intelligent" comedy (and, in turn, the audience felt "intelligent" because they watched). The show won 37 Emmys.

It was all a sham.

You will certainly remember a show called Three's Company. In every episode of this show, some version of the following happened:

Janet got up early, and went into the kitchen to make an omlette. She went to the refrigerator to get the eggs. She opened up the fridge, but there were no eggs. She would then say out loud: "Oh my, no eggs! I am completely out of eggs! What will I do?" As this was happening, Jack was just ready to enter the swinging door to the kitchen, but Janet's loud voice made him stop. He heard what she said, but instead of entering the kitchen and addressing the matter at hand, he turned around and ran into Chrissy's/Cindy's/Terri's bedroom. He annouced to whatever blonde that was on the show at the time: "I just heard Janet say she's infertile! She can never have children! And she doesn't know I know!" Then everyone would jump around on pins and needles for the next 20 minutes, and do a lot of over-the-top stuff to avoid revealing the "secret", until finally the secret was revealed, everyone realized it was all a big "misunderstanding" and they all hugged.

Three's Company is not considered "sophisticated" for many reasons, but mainly for this reliance on contrivance to set the show in motion.

Yet no one ever seemed to notice that sophisticated Frasier relied on the same contrivance. The wellspring for comedy on that show was that someone misunderstood someone else, and it all went from there. I remember one terrible episode where something like 4 of the characters went away to a mountain chalet, and they all somehow got the idea that one person in the group wanted to screw a different person in the group, so they spent the episode misunderstanding every comment made. The chalet managed to have 4 bedroom doors that could fit into one shot, so we were "treated" to characters running in and out of doors like this was some 1930's picture.

Three's Company uses this device, and it gets ridiculed. Frasier uses the device, throws in a joke about "The Ring Cycle", so Niles can compare his latest visit with Mavis to Gotterdammerung, and the audience (and critics) think Frasier is genius.

Classic Movies It's OK To Hate

2006-06-27T06:57:00.000-07:00

The people at The Onion do a great job of thinking up interesting topics of lists. I am glad I am not the only person who does not worship "The Shawshank Redemption".

I would like to add a note about "The Exorcist" regarding the"Where's the subtext?" comment. Dude, get your head out of your ass. Stephen King nailed the subtext in his essay on this movie in his non-fiction book on horror and pop culture "Danse Macabre" (the book is a Beukey "get"). King states that during the social upheaveal of the 60's-70's, parents thought their kids were becoming monsters, "The Exorcist" (the movie) takes this theme to a literal extreme.

You could write a doctorial thesis on the various interpretations of "The Exorcist" (as a book, as a movie, and the differences between the two). However, the best horror movies are explorations of a society's fear at a certain time. Because of this, most horror movies don't age well, and what one generation finds horrifying, another generation finds hilarious. It is hard today to watch "The Exorcist" with all its over-the-top head spinning, cursing, and vomiting and not find it all somewhat silly.

Saw X-Men 3 This Afternoon

2006-06-26T16:49:00.000-07:00

With inches of rain falling the last few days, and travel somewhat limited, I went to the movies this afternoon. I am not "comic book guy" I have never read an installment of the X-Men, Spiderman, Superman, etc., so my comments will not wander into the movies vs the comic book debate.

The movies was OK. It had its high and low points. Even for a comic book movie, the dialogue was cliche (after a female ex-mutant betrays the other mutants, the actor playing the President actually says "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"). The special effects were pretty good. I am also not a special effects guy, but if I am going to see a special effects movie, I would rather see it on a big screen than on HBO. But there was one special effects royal screw-up that I can't believe no one noticed. At one point, some of the mutants attack a laboratory on Alcatraz. To do this, in broad daylight, Magneto moves the Golden Gate Bridge so it extends to Alcatraz. Once the bridge is moved, the sky inexplicably becomes as dark as it would at midnight, and stays that way throughout the fight. I can't believe no one editing the movie noticed this. For the most part the movie moved along, and it didn't get bogged down in that "I love you, but I can't love you and be a superhero" crap that bogged down the Spiderman movies. Who gives a shit about how Spiderman feels?

They ran a few movie promos, her are the instant reactions.

"My Super Ex-Girlfriend" Luke Wilson (of the perpetually unfunny Wilson family) dates and dumps psycho superhero Uma Thurman. So she stalks him and does a lot of shit to make his life miserable. Oh, yeah, this is a comedy. Why are movies about girls stalking guys supposed to be funny, but no one would laugh at a movie where a guy stalked a girl?

The new "Superman" movie: Before the preview, I had no interest in seeing the movie. But the promo looked pretty good, so now I am mildly interested. The director seemed to reign in Kevin Spacey (he is Lex Luthor), so that is a major plus. Spacey has turned into a Pacino, if the director doesn't sit on him, he will chew the scenery to the point where he ruins the movie. The guy that directed "Superman" also directed X-Men 2, which is easily the best superhero movie ever.

"Ghost Rider" This looked really cool. But the whole promo consisted of skulls, and skeleton motorcycle riders with wheels on fire and their skulls on fire riding bikes through the sky while using a huge chain as a whip. How could that movie not be cool, Beavis? Easy. Make Nicholas Cage the lead.

"Pulse" The girl from "Veronica Mars" stars in some J-horror (or K-horror) remake. Dead people live on the Internet. Sometimes they are being tortured, sometimes they are watching you.

There were a total of 6 people at this movie. A guy with his two sons were sitting in front of me, and he felt the need to put the "Ozzie Guillen" seat between himself and his kids.

What I Get, What I Don't Get

2006-06-26T07:50:00.000-07:00

For those of you that don't know me, this would be a good time to introduce you to what I like (get) and dislike (don't get). That way you can get an idea of my tastes and see how similar (or dissimilar) they are to yours.

Things I Get: Heathers, Ghost World, Fight Club, Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV version), Natural Born Killers, Blue Velvet, Futurama, The Velvet Underground, The Grateful Dead, Elizabeth Wurtzel, Chuck Klosterman, Horse Racing, Professional Wrestling (although it's in a down period)

Things I Don't Get: Oprah (and any other "self-help" show that peddles the same advice day-in, day-out), The Dave Matthews Band, Why anyone finds Will Ferrell or Owen Wilson funny, Bill Murray (and why any discussion about his genius in movies overpraises his mediorcre movies like Lost in Translation and ignores things like Charlie's Angels and the Garfield movies), commercial fiction, why anyone cares about the Oscars or decides to see a movie solely because it won the "Best Picture" award, why people will watch/buy any piece of crap that Disney attaches its name to.

If you can make a coherent (and short) arguement as to why I should "get" anything in the "don't get" list, please post a comment.

I could go on and on with this list, and probably will in a future post.

Stupidest TV Show Ever

2006-06-26T06:58:00.000-07:00

General wisdom has it that "Gilligan's Island" is the stupidest TV show ever, it is commonly cited as a low point in the medium. But that show has been of the air for nearly 40 years, and certainly dumber things have come and gone. Things that were less humorous, more poorly conceived and executed, and asked us to stretch credibility beyond the point we had to to accept that 7 people lived on an island without killing each other or sleeping with each other. Like Mr. Howell didn't try to get Ginger on the casting couch with some vague promise of bankrolling a major motion picture starring her when they got back to society.

I am only counting TV shows made at a national level, there are far too many local shows to sift through, and in the end their faults are venial.

Before naming the show, let me state I was never a fan or a regular viewer of this show. I am not going to, or feel the need to, watch all the episodes before I make this choice. But I did come across an syndicated episode of this (I had no idea it was being syndicated, but the channel was so far down the chain I was not surprised they ran this show), and it was so bad it brought back all the repressed memories of this televised piece of excrement. Which by the way, was shoved down our throats, we were always told how funny this show (and particularly, the star) was, so much so that people today accept this judgment.

The show was "Mork and Mindy". The "funny star" was Robin Williams.

What makes this show so stupid is that to buy into the premise, you had to believe that an alien came to earth to 'interact" with humans and to report on them to his home planet. And the human chosen from whom this alien could learn something was some woman in Boulder, CO with no life and no friends. And the supposedly superior alien race sent someone who had no idea how to interact with people, so excuses had to be made for his erratic (and supposedly humorous) behavior.

But this was all a big set-up so we could watch Robin Williams be "funny". He could talk in the funny voice, and wear the funny suspenders, and make the frenzied hand gestures, and we were all supposed to find this funny because...well, I could never figure this out. Pop culture just decided that he was some new brand of comedian, and if you didn't find him funny, then there was something wrong with you, you didn't "get" modern comedy, and you should be watching a Bob Hope special with your grandmother.

Instead of getting a comedian, we got a 2 year old doing anything to get daddy's attention, and we are supposed to find this funny. Instead of writing scripts for this show, we got minor plot points around which Robin could do his improv.

This show was so ill-concieved that they had to change direction a few times. In the first season, Mindy seemed to spend all the time hanging out at her parents music store. Then some suit thought it was really odd that an attractive 20-something had no friends, so they made up some friends that worked at a deli. There was no on-screen chemistry with Mindy, so the friends disappeared and the concept kind of drifted back to the parents. Then someone decided they should fall in love, get married and have a kid, but it would be really funny if the guy got pregnant (how original), and the "kid" is a full grown adult that acts like an infant, and hey, let's have have that adult kid role played by Johnathan Winters (I guess the bottom left Hollywood Square was closed for repairs), who is kind of his generation's Robin Williams. And when things get boring, we'll give Mork a pet, a thing that looks like a Tribble and scoots across the floor and makes funny noises (what was with this show and funny noises? Didn't anyone every tell the writers to write dialogue for this show?).

And of course, we had to learn "lessons" when watching this show. Like having emotions is hard and messy but it's part of being human. Actually, we probably just got that lesson over and over.

Say what you want bad about "Gilligan", but at least they actually wrote jokes and tried to make us laugh without the need for a "lesson". Nowadays, you could sit through a "Gilligan's" episode and laugh, and all the episodes are on DVD. "Mork and Mindy" is painful to sit through.