Have Posts Sent To Your Inbox!
Enter your email address:

Monday, October 29, 2007

Chuck, Yes! Heroes, Yes! JourneyMan, Aww...

:) :) :(


I was reading the information on tonight's NBC 3-hour lineup, and "Chuck" and "Heroes" both sounded pretty good. But then "JourneyMan"'s info comes along, and says, "Everything's all messed up for our hero, and his life is falling apart! Stay tuned..." It just seems like a huge downer.

When I read a book, or watch a movie, I enjoy a nice, uplifting ending. That's just the way I am. Some people think it's fancier or more artistic to have a tragic ending, but I don't really enjoy walking away from something with a bad feeling. I like things to end on a good note. That's exactly why I was mildly disturbed by the way the three NBC shows were organized. It's like, "Are they trying to make me stop watching 'JourneyMan'?"

I'll be watching "Chuck" tonight, and thinking, "Awesome! I love this show." It really is great. Follow that up with the amazing "Heroes," which thankfully is still going strong... And then "JourneyMan," with a cool concept, but full of major bummers no matter where you look. Why isn't there anything good to focus on? Sure, he's helping the timeline, and allowing people to improve their lives, but the main focus on each episode is how his condition is impacting him, and in a negative way. And a lot of his and his wife's "suffering" just seems unnecessary. I find it difficult to pity them, because it feels like they're just causing their own problems, and have no one to blame but themselves.

So for two hours tonight, I'll be cheering NBC on. And then for the third...I don't know how I'll feel. Maybe JM will surprise me. Let's hope. (Sarcastically:) 'Cause TV is my life!!

If you enjoyed this post, please think about becoming a subscriber to my RSS feed.

Sunday, October 28, 2007

The Greatest Simpsons Halloween Special

Which one is the greatest? I'd say the one that takes itself the most seriously. And for me, that's Treehouse of Horror VI (1995). The three segments featured were entitled, "Attack of the 50 Feet Eyesores," "Nightmare on Evergreen Terrace," and "Homer 3D."

I think most of the other Halloween episodes poke fun at themselves. I always look forward to watching a "scary" Simpsons, just because all bets are off. And the other night, to my delight and surprise, the 6th special was on. I only caught the last two portions, but they seemed to be more hard core than usual. I think it's because they so explicitly rewrote the laws of what you're going to see on a Simpsons, and even on a Halloween Simpsons.

The dream sequence where Bart and Lisa nearly die was, I think, scarier than the times when characters really do die, because it kept you wondering, "Are they gonna make it? Are they going to be all right??" And then, BAM! They're back at home, awake, and safe.

Some of the scariest things can only happen in the midst of pure chaos. Do you remember when you were a child? Your parents (hopefully) took pretty good care of you. But then, every so often, you'd have a nightmare in which they were totally different. In the nightmare, your caregivers act bizarre, irrational, and totally uncaring. At that point, there's nothing left to hold on to. You've hit the 9th circle of Hell. The scariest part is no longer being sure of what's going to happen. And that's exactly what an episode like the T of H VI does. It shakes things up.

But besides being scary, it's also entertaining! I loved the 3D realm Homer and Bart stumbled into. And at the end of the episode, Homer crossed over to a higher dimension, never to return to his beloved family. That too is way out there as far as T.V. shows are considered, since most often things will revert back to normal at the end. But not on Halloween! It's like, "Homer is gone, and he's never coming back. He's stranded somewhere out there...all alone in a world of flesh-colored weirdoes."

I love it!

If you enjoyed this post, please think about becoming a subscriber to my RSS feed.

Saturday, October 27, 2007

Chester Cheetah vs. Joe Camel

Hey kids, addiction is cool!

I've only just realized that's the message that has been put out there for years by ad executives, and not just the ones advertising cigarettes. A lot of product mascots, it would seem, have severe problems in their lives, in that they are addicted to one thing or another. And their conditions are glorified. Even Sonny the Cuckoo Bird is an addict, frequently going "cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs." But there are two that stand out for me, even more so than poor Sunny, because these guys are especially cool: Chester Cheetah and Joe Camel.

Both have similarly-shaped heads. Both wear dark sunglasses. And both have that certain something that makes people like them.

In "Family Guy," Chester Cheetah was depicted as snorting a line of ground-up Cheetos. Joe Camel smoked cigarettes. Who's worse?

Now that Joe's dead of cancer, he doesn't seem so cool. But a few years ago, he was everywhere. I like Chester, and am glad he survived. I can look past his addiction because I myself am not *munch* *munch* addicted *munch* *munch* to cheesy snacks -- oh CRAP! Well forget that.

What's so bad about these guys?

First off, the worst thing is the insidious nature behind them. Their mystery emphasizes their evil, because the fact that you have to take a moment to think before you understand the true nature of CC and JC proves that they're supremely talented at living a caustic lie. The lie is they're cool, and they should be looked up to and emulated. The truth is they are pawns, addicts, and out of control in every way.

Cheetos pays Chester to make public appearances, but because he's addicted to their cheesy product, they probably pay him in snack bags. Joe was addicted to cigarettes, and though he tried many times to quit, the company wouldn't let him. They had invested too much money in him as a representative, and forced him to make appearance after appearance, all the while smoking it up. In the end, it killed him, but not before convincing children that smoking was something you did to be cool.

What did Chester teach? That it's perfectly ok, even admirable, to be a slave to some product, to have it own you and not the other way around. "I have to get this, I have to buy it and eat it, because, I just have to!" Chester taught us not to use our minds, not to make decisions, but rather to emulate the habits of a role model who is cool enough, even when those habits are destructive. So we buy cheetos because the cool cat does. Then one day we meet Stan the drug dealer, and he seems extra cool. He recommends buying his full supply so that we can “toughen up” with a raging binge, and before we know it, we've OD'd, all because the cool guy said to.

Who's worse, Chester Cheetah or Joe Camel? Well, despite the fact that JC has the same initials as Jesus, and he was used to market death sticks to children, I'm gonna have to go and say Chester Cheetah is the worst. All Joe Camel did was look cool, act cool, and nonchalantly smoke cigarettes while being cool. He never screamed a slogan like, “If I don’t have my Pops, I’m gonna pop someone...” or “I’d kill for a Klondike!” His addiction was a subtle part of his image, an image that was then shown in conjunction with cigarettes. No more, no less. But Chester… He preaches that slavery to junk food is a good thing. Essentially, he does with Cheetos exactly what Joe did with cigarettes, but takes things to a whole new level. He goes nuts, gets into crazy dangerous situations, and then verbally excuses himself with, “It’s not easy being cheesy.” Meaning, “Hey kids, it’s ok to risk your life for something, as long as you’re addicted, and as long as the cool people like it too.” Pure Evil.

But if you can look past all that, he does seem pretty cool…

If you enjoyed this post, please think about becoming a subscriber to my RSS feed.

Friday, October 26, 2007

Fighting Racism vs. Preserving Free Speech

Is it right to fire a racist employee? Society seems to say yes, it is right. Don Imus got canned for racist remarks, and Nobel laureate James Watson, who helped discover the design of a molecule of DNA, was also forcibly retired for the same reason. Sure, Watson is 79, and even he said his retirement was overdue, but it makes me wonder if in a truly free America, firing someone for racist remarks should be allowed.

Say Imus and Watson didn't get fired. In our current situation, their coworkers would tell them, "You can't say stuff like that. It's offensive and ignorant, and just spreads the wrong ideas." Which is true. But should free speech be used as a tool to preserve racist ideas? Bad ideas should be put to rest. But we should all have the right to speak our minds. Bad ideas shouldn't be allowed to infect the next generation and spread. But is the limiting of a bad idea wrongful censorship? Who decides whether an idea is bad or good?

I've heard the argument put forth that once you say, "That's bad, and you can't talk about it," about just one thing, then someone else will limit speech on another subject, and pretty soon the dictionary is filled with omissions.

When the Constitution was created, racism and slavery did exist. Nowadays, we aspire for true equality. Limiting one freedom (speech) does seem good and necessary when that freedom is used as a tool for evil. But limiting any freedom just seems wrong. Can there be world where speech is truly free?

When you get too serious about religion, it can and often does lead to unnecessary wars and bloodshed. When you get too serious about insults and stereotypes, I believe other problems can result as well. It is nice not to have to deal with toxic speech. But wouldn't it be better to be immune to it? It's like we're fighting a disease by limiting our exposure to the disease. The virus knows it can still do damage if it gets past the "outlaw" defenses, because we can't handle it. But if we take a different approach, and rather than using the antibiotics of censorship, we instead rely on our own immune abilities, and build up our tolerance to the point where the virus no longer phases us, maybe then it will finally go away - for good. And free speech will live on.

If you enjoyed this post, please think about becoming a subscriber to my RSS feed.

Thursday, October 25, 2007

I Like Smallville's New Directorial Style

When "Smallville" first came out, I couldn't get enough. Then I got busy, and couldn't find time to watch it. When I caught a few recent episodes last year, they seemed corny. Kind of like those Batman movies in between "Batman Returns" and "Batman Begins." I thought, "I guess 'Smallville' just can't compete with 'Heroes.'" But now it's back!

Somehow, for some reason, the direction on the show seems different. Before, they'd use dialogue to push the story forward. Now they use silence, with stunning visuals. It's awesome. The show is now saying even more, and in an eloquent way, than it ever did when it was overly wordy. I like it a lot.

One of the recent "new" types of scenes that stuck out for me was Lana's reunion with Clark. They didn't say a word to each other. They just looked at one another and embraced. It was great.

I hope they stick with this new style for a long time.

If you enjoyed this post, please think about becoming a subscriber to my RSS feed.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Caveman Show Explains Why Tap Water Tastes Bad



Last night on ABC's "Cavemen," one of the three main cavemen got a job as a substitute teacher. Dissatisfied with the fascist textbooks, he decided to explain to his class as to how things really work. One of the many topics he covered detailed why tap water tastes bad.

Why does tap water taste bad? So you'll buy "clean," "pure" bottled water, shipped and trucked all the way from some magical, far-off mountain. Who benefits from all that trucking? Big Oil. BAM! Simple.

Tap water tastes bad so Big Oil can make some extra coin. Use this knowledge at your own risk.

If you enjoyed this post, please think about becoming a subscriber to my RSS feed.

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

JourneyMan Theory: Professor Tachyon Is A Time Traveller Being Manipulated By The Government



Last night on JourneyMan, JM spoke with a professor or educated man on the subject of tachyons, particles that can travel faster than the speed of light, and therefore theoretically go back in time. JM lied that he was working on a book in which the hero had the same problem he does. The guy travels through time haphazardly.

The Tachyon guy said, With such a tremendous power, it's a wonder no one is taking advantage of him. He acted oddly mysterious. JM hinted at the fact that while he was in the past at one point, he received a phone call from the Tachyon guy, apparently in the present, but possibly in the past instead.

My theory is that while JM was hinting that his "book's" hero was him, the Tachyon guy was hinting that what might happen to the hero (i.e., being manipulated by a higher power) is already happening to him. He had mentioned that God might be controlling the "leaps." Maybe he's right, and he time travels to do good works, but unfortunately the government or some organization holds him hostage and forces him to manipulate the timestream to their benefit.

If this is true, the show could take an exciting new turn.

If you enjoyed this post, please think about becoming a subscriber to my RSS feed.