Whitleypedia

Thursday shows roundup - 2/2/12

2012-02-03T10:16:00.000-08:00

This Groundhog's Day was excellent for our favorite shows on Thursday night. All three were winners.

#1 Parks and Rec

Of course Parks and Rec kills this, jumping the gun on a Valentine's Day episode that delivers enough love for the whole year. Ron's on point in a Da Vinci Code spoof, April shows her heart of gold, and Leslie's masterminding romance for Ann was delightful. Great call back to earlier episodes (Lil Sebastian, the gay bar, "Gal"entine's Day, etc.).

#2 30 Rock

This is a close second this week. The show was dense, like Arrested Development dense, with three terrific storylines: Liz v. Jack, Kenneth climbing the ladder, and Tracy/Jenna antics that didn't bother me. Good cameos (Suze Orman, whoever that girl page is) and Liz with aRachel Maddow's haircut (that they never point out, letting the joke just hover there like an angel) made this a top-knotch ep.

#3 The Office

So I think they figured out how to get on without Michael Scott: make the episode totally the crap about Dwight. Anchoring the A story (about Jim's ducking work) with Dwight and making him the crescendo of the B story (about Angela's baby) worked brilliantly. Creed also had some great one-liners along the way.

Thursday roundup - 1/12

2012-01-13T07:16:00.000-08:00

No. 1 - 30 Rock

Out of the gate for its sixth season, 30 Rock proves that it's better to wait and do something right rather than rush something to production while your star is having a baby.

The 30 Rock pilot outlined "three kinds of heat" for TGS (Jenna Maroney, that kid Josh they got rid of, and then Tracy Jordan), which has always been the show's success: three kinds of comedy (women-centric jokes (Liz), parody of corporate entertainment (Jack), and broad humor (Tracy)). This episode burns with so much of those three kinds of heat that it overcomes the one-note, time-wasting subplot with Kenneth.

Bravo. And to Liz Lemon, brava.

No. 2 - The Office

The trivia contest story was terrific, especially with the Kevin punchline at the end. In this episode, you didn't notice Michael Scott's absence.

The raccoon at the beginning was funny -- reminded me of the episode where Dwight tries to hide a feral raccoon in Holly's car.

No. 3 - Parks and Rec

Rare is it that PnR comes in third place, but it's only because the other two shows were so strong. Naturally I became a fan of Knope 2012 on Facebook before the episode was over.

The Chris/Ben subplot was great; it showed they're truly part of the ensemble now and not just guests on the show that they can carry a storyline on their own.

Thursday roundup - 12/8

2011-12-10T09:26:00.000-08:00

No. 1 Parks and Rec

PnFnR is back on top with a terrific episode about Leslie as a private citizen. The stuff with Ron getting choked up all the way through is perfect.

No. 2 The Office

The absence of Steve Carrell still weighs heavy on the The Office. This episode was good, but not great -- the Erin/Andy stuff just isn't interesting, but the Jim/Dwight reverse pranking was hilarious. Especially the bit with Henrietta the Porcupine.

No. 3 Community

This is a pretty good episode ... and I do appreciate that they're pranking Glee, but the episode is all pledge: no turn, no prestige. Also there's a rule in parody that you have to love the thing you're spoofing ... and there was no real love in this. (PS I hope they make it to Regionals!)

Am I "crack"ing up?

2011-12-06T21:15:00.000-08:00

So I had an article in Cracked yesterday. Available here. I've been pleased with it. As a test, I added a link to Whitleypedia -- in the last 48 hours the site has gotten 1,450 hits linking in from the site -- which is about a quarter of the hits this site has gotten since I started it. Hah!

My original draft of my article is on the Cracked forums here.

Thursday shows roundup - 12/1

2011-12-02T13:48:00.000-08:00

No 1. - Community

This episode was a great example of how great embodying the standard Community model: two or three storylines with rotating groupings of the seven principles; comedy based off of the interplay among the characters' personalities, a couple over-the-top gags, and just enough touching stuff at the end.

The Dark Knight storyline on this is the best viral advertising for The Dark Knight Rises that I've seen so far -- everything else has been really weak. (Oh? Another picture of Anne Hatheway on a bike? Neat!)

Community seems to have gained some of its former glory, albeit perhaps too late?

No. 2 - The Office

Without Steve Carrell, the show lives or dies by Robert California. This episode thrives ... including a guest appearance from WNYX's very own Lisa Miller as Mrs. Robert California.

No. 3 - Parks and Rec

The whole Ben/Leslie/will they or won't they hasn't been working. Just put them together and let them be in a relationship. The best comedy from that pairing has been watching them do silly stuff together (ie role-playing as Reagan and Thatcher) and NOT on the tired "they must but they must not" business. Hopefully this episode signals the end of it ... not even a cameo by Tami 2 could save and episode that was begging for a second (and third) storyline.

Exception: Ron's business with the Internet in the cold open was brilliant as was April's attempt to sabotage the court proceeding.

Oh Come All Ye Faithful ...

2011-11-28T14:04:00.000-08:00

Yes.

A Muppet Caper, Albeit Not A Great One

2011-11-26T20:52:00.000-08:00

In Greek, nostalgia literally means the pain from an old wound. It’s a twinge in your heart, far more powerful than memory alone. This device isn’t a space ship, it’s a time machine. It goes backwards, forwards. It take
s us to a place where we ache to go again. It’s not called a wheel, it’s called a carousel. It lets us travel the way a child travels. Round and a round, and back home again. To a place where we know we are loved.

- Don Draper (video here)

The Muppets are the one thing from my ch

ildhood for which I feel genuine nostalgia, the

refore it was with a skeptical eye that I viewed the new movie “The Muppets.” While a film like this has the advantage of a built-in fanbase and material, it also runs up against the challenge of competing against all of the pre-established Muppet canon: ie in order to be successful this movie has to be better than watching three back-to-back episodes of “The Muppet Show” on DVD.

It is not. The film is a failure, albeit an admirable one.

What they did right

The smartest thing the filmmakers did was with their protagonist, Walter. Using him,

a was a very clever idea. And his serving as the impetus for Kermit to “get the band back together” and host a reunion show, with hijinks along the way, was a great premise. There were also a ton of great in-

jokes and references to reward the long-time fan. long-time Muppet fan, as the vehicle through which we rediscover these beloved characters

The music is terrific, particularly the opening song (“Life’s A Happy Song”), which is wonderfully catchy, upbeat, and non-ironic.

The movie left me expecting a cameo from the Flight of the Conchords (which of course would have been perfect), though I didn’t know that FotCC’s Bret McKenzie was the music director. That is an indication that he’s succeeded in setting the same tone with the film as his TV show.

Pixar’s opening short “Small Fry,” a cartoon showing the “Toy Story” cast with their new owner, is the best part of the whole film. (This is, I will freely admit, a back-handed compliment.)

Kermit has a robot butler named 80s Robot. I found this hilarious.

What they did wrong

Well, basically everything else. First off the movie is horribly paced, dragging through an unusually long 98-minute run time full of too many maudlin sequences and too few actual jokes. Like an episode of the old timey “Muppet Show,” this movie needed to be jammed with sight gags and throw-away lines that the director hurls at the audience at a frenetic pace. Instead we got a lot of filler, much of it involving some falling out between Piggy and Kermit that wasn’t funny the last 12 times they did that.

The human characters were not terrible, but they also added exactly nothing. What was the title of the movie? The Muppets not The Humans. Every scene with them was an unnecessary distraction from the huge cast of Muppet characters, the movie’s villains, and our protagonist Walter. Gonzo, who was basically the star of every Muppet movie from “A Muppet Christmas Carol” on, has maybe five lines in the whole thing!

They did a lot of breaking of the fourth wall (“This is going to be a short movie!”, etc.), but they don’t really go all the way with it. One of the beauties of this kind of Muppet humor is the way they would always make fun of themselves and their own reliance on stilted clichés … and yet for a movie that is full of clichés and hackey plot contrivances, they leave a lot of jokes on the table. The movie is full of product placement, but they never make fun of it. The villain’s scheme is eye-rollingly uncreative (oil? really?), but never gets made fun of.

Also the cameos could have been cooler … while they have a lot of great cameos, they’re a bit mismanaged:

Jim from The Office doesn't even have a line
As mentioned above, a Conchords cameo would have been great
David Grohl appears but not during the Nirvana song
Elmo should have volunteered as their celebrity guest star
Tina Fey needed to appear alongside her Muppet alter-ego

How they could have fixed it

WHAT THEY NEEDED TO DO

Jim Henson

Then Walter sings “Rainbow Connection.” You’d have to establish along the way that he had learned to play the banjo, which would have made sense if he hero-worshipped Kermit. It’d be easy to do something like that … which of course they didn’t with his bizarre, super-human whistling abilities. Then right after “Rainbow” cut straight to the denouement without any more business with the villains.

Also they go to copious lengths to set up that Animal’s anger management prevents him from playing the drums, but it never delivers. He just starts playing the drums at some point, and nothing happens. Animal should have lost control and wiped the villains out in one stroke, instead the day is saved by this random character from the episode with Vincent Price...

...a character who has an oddly large presence in the film and more lines than Gonzo.

Conclusion

I do not understand how this movie is getting such good reviews. Rotten Tomatoes has it at an astonishing 98 percent, but it’s a cinematic failure. However, you can definitely tell that the people who made it love the Muppets, which is why it’s less obnoxious than you might expect. I really wanted the film to be good, and if they’d made some changes it could have been great. But if people enjoy something that I didn't, it doesn't bother me and if it gets a few more kids watching “The Muppet Show” on DVD, then that’s a success.

Thursday shows roundup - 11/17

2011-11-22T07:39:00.000-08:00

OK so this is going to be pretty weak, but that's what it deserves. The only one worth watching this week was Parks and Rec, and even then that wasn't great. The will-they/won't-they with Ben and Leslie isn't working. We've seen this a million times before and we don't want to see it here. We want Leslie to be happy.

TV show round up - 11/10/2011

2011-11-12T10:18:00.001-08:00

#1 Community

So in an unusual turn of events, Community wins this week. The episode relies on eccentric interplay between the different characters in an everyday situation without becoming gimmicky. We see the classic "Jeff is kind of a rogue and has to learn lessons" and the Britta/Shirley interchange in the car works really well. Note that they seem to have completely forgotten that Shirley got pregnant, had a baby, and remarried her ex-husband -- a storyline which was completely forgettable. Allison Brie is perfect in this ep too.

#2 The Office

The antics between Dwight/Pam and Jim are hilarious. Robert California owns every scene he's in.

#3 Parks and Rec

So this has gotta be the only time Parks and Rec came in last place on this ... the episode isn't terrible, but the Ben/Leslie "they want to but they musn't!" is such a played trope and it's not much fun to watch. All the stuff with Ron and Tom is terrific, of course, and April insisting that she's "the moon" hits just the right tone for the character.

I do love how the typically self-effacing, modest Leslie can finally brag on herself talking about Model UN.

Thursday shows roundup - 10/13

2011-10-17T11:51:00.001-07:00

#1 The Office

Robert California continues to be a great addition to the line-up, and is doing a journeyman's job of filling the space left by Michael Scott. Truthfully, since the character's shtick is new, he's actually a refreshing change of pace from Michael.

The exploration of Andy's character was good too, showing some insight into the reason for the character's quirks. Also the scene with Oscar and Darryl arguing about "Citizen Kane" was terrific.

#2 Parks and Rec

This show where Leslie and Ron have competing boy/girl scout troops was a great set-up, but the execution isn't great. Having all the boys leave Ron's troop because it wasn't any fun was fine, but having Leslie throw together a pity party for him because of it was a bad way to resolve it. Instead the Goddesses should have been presented with a problem (like a fire or a bear or a malfunctioning fire alarm or anything) that only Ron could swoop in and fix. We don't want to see Ron as pitiable. He's everyone's favorite character - we want to see him as the g.d. hero.

It's ok for him to be pathetic in fish out of water scenarios (ie with his ex-wives) but not when he is in his element (ie survivalism). The lesson, particularly with the ongoing meme of the fall of men/rise of women in American society, should have been to show the value/necessity of a traditional expression of masculinity.

Far better than the A story was the B story. The bit with Ben learning to relax with Donna and Tom was a lot of fun, continued the Leslie/Ben romance-line, and smartly showed how to do nerd humor on TV. Ben's insistence that Game of Thrones will never be cancelled "because it's a cross-over hit" was more clever than anything ever done on Big Bang Theory: you can make good nerd jokes without making nerds retards.

The C story with Jerry and Rob Lowe was ok too, but more for the chance to see the two characters interact with each other rather than for the delivery of a fairly obvious punchline at the end.

#3 Community

This episode isn't terrible, but it certainly isn't great. The show is continuing to suffer from the problem of needing gimmicks to get through an episode. This episode is the antithesis of the backwards Seinfeld episode, which used the backwards gimmick to great humorous effect, but would have been a funny story even without it.

The episode also reminded me of one of the highlights of last year's season of Community, where the gang all goes a bar for Troy's 21st birthday, which consisted of a bunch of random character-based scenes without much of a connecting plot. There this narrative format worked; here it doesn't.

Since Britta smokes pot in the episode, it would have been more interesting to make that the focus, and the episode is about how she sees the world when she's tripping balls OR do more with the different timelines several months/years down the road. The "alternate timelines" thing isn't awful, but serves to actual purpose and feels more like filler than a clever storytelling device.

Plus side? No Chang. Downside? Show is still struggling to justify the existence of the Shirley and Pierce characters.

Thursday shows roundup - 10/6

2011-10-07T12:08:00.001-07:00

OK here's how Our Favorite Shows did last night

#1 Parks and Recreation

The story about Leslie writing a book about Pawnee is beautiful. The way the secondary characters and interwoven throughout the story affords them all the exact right amount of time while still maintaining that Leslie is indeed the star of the show. Ben's speech about ascendant nerd culture is something I've been saying for days!

#2 The Office

The Office is (so far) succeeding without Steve Carrell. The "upstairs/downstairs" aspect of the story with our characters unable to figure out how to run the warehouse was terrific.

You can definitely feel something's missing, and there's the pitfall that Andy might just be Michael Scott-lite.

#3 Community

This episode was ok. But there's still too much Chang. Making the weakest part of the show the star of an episode is a bad idea. Also the constant infighting in the group about who's popular and who's gonna get kicked out is played. Soooo played ... (The Todd guy was funny though.)

Stormtrooper 9/11

2011-09-11T18:23:00.000-07:00

Funny beyond words.

2011 Summer Movie Recap ...

2011-09-02T08:44:00.001-07:00

Here's a list of the films I saw this summer, from what I liked best to what I liked least. Note that I (bizarrely) avoided movies that I thought I wouldn't like.

Super 8 was the best film I saw this summer. It was both a creative concept and a loving homage to kids-adventure movies that came before it. JJ Abrams justified to me his delaying Star Trek 12.

Cowboys and Aliens deserved better reception than it got. It was a solid Western, clever twist on the alien invasion trope, and great character vehicle for a terrific ensemble cast.

Thor and Captain America are mostly equal in my mind – no doubt a product of how the films' designed synergy. By and large, I enjoyed the Captain America story more, but I am going to put Thor slightly over Cap because 1) better use of humor, 2) better romance element, and 3) I didn't feel like anything was missing. I prefer Chris Evans as an actor and Cap as a character, but the film lacked any kind of actual patriotic sentiment (like, say, American flags) or a great speech by Cap speaking to the current meme of declining American primacy.

X-Men First Class was just ok in my mind. It certainly wasn't bad, and the two leading actors were perfect as Xavier and Magneto, but my biggest problem with the film was that it wasn't about how Charles Xavier became Professor X. We don't see him learn about how to use these powers or develop his ethical code. From the first scene, as a 12 years old boy, has already done all that.

Pirates 4 could have been better than the other three, because they'd dumped the dead weight of the Orlando Bloom/Keira Knightley romance business. But instead they introduced a replacement lame romance. Weak.

Films I missed I want to see: Harry Potter 7.2, Horrible Bosses, 30 Minutes or Less.

Slate on Community: Paradigms of Human Memory - the season that wasn't

2011-08-25T12:58:00.001-07:00

Interesting article today on Slate about "Community," namely how the episode "Paradigms of Human Memory" is "the most insanely self-referential 22 minutes in sitcom history."

o

I recommend the article to "Community" fans -- the writer makes some very insightful comments, about how the show is a sit-com about sit-coms and such, but he misses the main point of the episode.

Oh - what's that? You'd like me to explain? Well ok.

This was probably the best episode of the show's second season, which crashed hard after it's fantastic first season, going from the show that I was most excited to watch on Thursday nights to the show I was least excited to watch. They even acknowledge the precipitous drop in writing quality in one episode with a clever (albeit sad) sight gag:

In its first year, show always had a fun, engaging formula where there were two or three different storylines that all converged beautifully at the end. The best example was the "Somewhere Out There" montage (available here).

But the show's creators moved from that format to a very soap operatic one and an increasing number of gimmick-shows (meant to replicate the success of the paintball episode), including TWO MORE PAINTBALL EPISODES. The worst thing that happened was the mismanagement of the Ken Jeong character, as Slate points out here.

(Note that given that he appeared in two of the three most successful films of 2011 (Hangover 2 and Transformers 3), the reaction will no doubt be to use his character more rather than less.)

So this episode, "Paradigms of Memory," was IMO the effort for them to make the episode that showed the season they wished they'd made. By saturating the episode with a litany of no doubt VERY expensive flashbacks to stories we've never seen, they were trying to wipe the slate (ah hah) clean and provide retroactive continuity (or "retconning").

(Also I appreciate that when the author of the original Slate articles talks about flashbacks and cutaways that he mentioned "30 Rock" and "ARD," but -not- "Family Guy," although "Family Guy" is easily the show that has popularized cutaway gags __however__ the show's creators stole the trope from early episodes of "The Simpsons.")

The Avengers teaser trailer leaked!

2011-07-22T20:03:00.000-07:00

No, alas, I do not have video footage of the Avenger teaser trailer leaked online. But I did just see it at the end of Captain America ... and indeed it did rule.

Thursday roundup

2011-04-29T21:29:00.000-07:00

#1 Parks and Recreation

Yes, I know that this was Michael Scott's last episode of The Office, and you'd think that'd get him the win. But it doesn't Parks and Rec had a fantabulous episode which, while a silly premise (Jerry being a master painter), was executed in a hilarious way gave many of the characters the chance to shine, particularly the show's star, Leslie, who - because she is the show's "straight man" - often does not captivate the audience like Ron or April.

Great product placement with the B story at Bed Bath and Beyond.

#2 The Office

This was an episode full of both humor and heart as we bid farewell to Steve Carrell. Real opportunity for Carrell to demonstrate how the character has grown, particularly in the last year. The thing the episode suffered most from was the presence of Will Farrell. A big guest star should not detract from the most important episode of the show's anchor.

#3 30 Rock

30R also had a dynamite installment, with some excellent meta humor ("Who was the white guy in Invictus?'"), good continuity humor (bringing "back" Condi Rice), and some classic Tracy hijinx which were, while not terribly new, not terribly old either. The "three kinds of heat" that have made the show great.

#4 Community

I watched the first five minutes and gave up -- non-teacher Chang has been a dismal failure and they need to get rid of him. The storyline with him and Shirley has been even worse -- and that's what this episode was about. Let me know if it was any good.

Last Call - Trib op-ed

2011-04-28T07:10:00.000-07:00

OK so yesterday was the first day my op-ed slipped out of the top 10 on the Trib website -- but four days was a pretty good run. The comments are up to about 450 now, which is probably where it will top out.

At this point I'm like, "Everyone I know has probably read it. Probably." And you wonder how many higher-ups in Salt Lake City have read it and if it will have an effect. One hopes that at least the Dollahite guy will realize, "Oh yeah - duh - feminism," and change his rhetoric ... and one likewise hopes that the "lack of initiative" girl will calm down a little bit and remember that "Nagging is nowhere near as charming as, say, charm."

Trib article follow up #2

2011-04-26T19:30:00.000-07:00

OK so as of right now:

My article was No. 2 most read on the Trib's site yesterday and it's No. 2 again today -- behind only an article with "porn" in the title and the Bagley cartoon respectively. This is indeed a good thing.

There are 423 comments. I'm still on the first page of results on a Google search. That's good Internet.

Trib article follow up

2011-04-24T20:01:00.000-07:00

SO! My Trib article has been very heavily read (note that because some have reacted negatively, I did not say "popular).

Metrics:

#1 Most read on SL Trib on Saturday

#3 Most read on SL Trib on Sunday

and #7 Google result when you type "lds"!!!

Trib published my LDS marriage article

2011-04-23T09:02:00.000-07:00

Greetings, friends. The Salt Lake Tribune published my article on LDS dating/marriage habits. Tis indeed awesome. Article here.

Thursday shows recap 3/18

2011-03-18T08:39:00.000-07:00

OK so here's the roundup of our favorite shows. Note: there was no new episode of "The Office"

No. 1 Parks and Recreation

"Parks and Rec" hits it out of the park with this fantastic episode, which is so dense with character moments, intersecting storylines, and jokes that I thought it was an hour-long episode once I'd finished. Great conclusion to the Harvest Fest storyline, good use of supporting characters, and a winner all around. Leslie Knope is impossibly loveable, and Ron Swanson is a rock star of traditional midwestern moustachio'd manliness.

Best line: "You know with Pawnee's history, it's difficult to not be offensive."

No. 2 30 Rock

Season 5 of "30 Rock" has been a success so far methinks. While not as hilarious as the first three seasons, it's still been very good. This episode spoofs the reality TV show model extremely well, lampooning not only the theatrics of reality show "stars," but small details like the title sequences, transitions, and even the editting. Jack owns the episode of course, struggling against the idea that he might be portrayed as clumsy, unathletic, or gay.

No. 3 Community

This episode of "Community," like most this season, was so dull, lifeless, and unfunny that I stopped half-way through. While the bit with Britta and Troy/Abed was nice (especially since they've never really had a storyline with the three of them and I love Gillian Jacobs), everything with Chang/Shirley and the rest fell flat, and the show's soap operatic nature is continuing to advance in exactly the wrong direction. The only good joke was this sight gag:

which is actually, if you think about it, kind of sad.

The End of Hollywood Story-telling?

2011-02-24T12:20:00.001-08:00

Just in time for the Oscars, here's a great article from GQ about how marketing demands has turned Hollywood from an institution that creates films to one that adapts reliable brands. Here's an excerpt:

For the studios, a good new idea has become just too scary a road to travel. ...
With that in mind, let's look ahead to what's on the menu for this year: four adaptations of comic books. One prequel to an adaptation of a comic book. One sequel to a sequel to a movie based on a toy. One sequel to a sequel to a sequel to a movie based on an amusement-park ride. One prequel to a remake. Two sequels to cartoons. One sequel to a comedy. An adaptation of a children's book. An adaptation of a Saturday-morning cartoon. One sequel with a 4 in the title. Two sequels with a 5 in the title. One sequel that, if it were inclined to use numbers, would have to have a 7 1/2 in the title .*

* Captain America, Cowboys & Aliens, Green Lantern, and Thor; X-Men: First Class; Transformers 3; Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides; Rise of the Apes; Cars 2 and Kung Fu Panda 2; The Hangover Part II; Winnie the Pooh; The Smurfs in 3D; Spy Kids 4; Fast Five and Final Destination 5; Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2.

Now I understand that people want to feel like the creative environment is one in which, y'know, creativity can flourish. But let me play devil's advocate here for a while.

Simply because an idea is new, it is not automatically better than something which is adapted. Let's remember that:

The re-imagined Battlestar Galactica was orders of magnitude better than the original.
"The Empire Strikes Back" was better than "Star Wars."
"The Godfather" was based on a book.
"The Wizard of Oz" was also based on a book.
The first "Pirates of the Caribbean" movie vastly outstripped the original ride in public interest.
"The Ten Commandments" was a "reimagining" of the book of Exodus.

Now I'm sure we could all go on about this ... but would the first "Pirates" have been better if it hadn't used a pre-known name and a couple images from the ride that people only know because they're in the movie?

No.

People like familiarity. The expectation that people can only enjoy something that's new speaks to a predilection for ADD and infidelity. Also if something is new, and is good, is it too much to expect that people might want to see more of that? Or does something have to be new to be good?

No. "Cars" was new when Pixar did it ... and it was drastically inferior to "Toy Story 2" or "Toy Story 3."

Having said that ... they are releasing "Cars 2." So ... well, maybe these people have a point.

But then again WHO CARES? If you want creative films, go to the Sundance Film Festival. If you just want quality story-telling, there is more better writing on TV than ever before: were there dramas as good as "Mad Men" in the 1990s? No. Were there comedies as good as "The Office" in the 1980s? Hardly.

Or forget about traditional entertainment entirely: if you want to find creative work, there is the whole g-d Internet. Movies are the laziest, greediest form of entertainment we have. If that medium has one foot in the grave, I say push the rest of it in.

Note: The Red Letter Media review of the Star Trek reboot has some good insights on this subject.

Book of Mormon musical? I believe

2011-02-22T18:28:00.000-08:00

The one thing I like most about “South Park” is the fact that it’s based in Colorado, neighbor to my home state of Utah. It’s probably too much to hope for a show based in Utah that isn’t overtly, sappily religious (“Touched By An Angel”) or that isn’t overtly, scatchingly anti-Mormon (“Big Love”) – so Colorado is going to have to be good enough.

And growing up in the Mormon-concentrated Intermountain West, it’s no surprise that show creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker would show some examples of the faith in their show. What’s surprising, though, is how much of the show has been dedicated to the LDS Church. This includes items such as Joseph Smith’s membership in the “Super Best Friends” (where he uses his ice powers to help save the day) and the fact that in the South Park-verse, although Jesus is Catholic and God is a Buddhist, only Mormons go to Heaven.

Matt and Trey have gotten a good amount of press coverage lately because of the Broadway musical called “The Book of Mormon.” (This Slate article on the subject is great.) Exactly what that entails remains to be seen; obviously the LDS leadership doesn’t like anyone else branding them … but if the episode “All About The Mormons” (available for viewing on the South Park site here) is an indication of their perspective, the musical will treat the religion favorably, which is why predictions that the LDS Church will boycott it are ridiculous.

If you (or someone you love) are LDS, I strongly recommend you watch this episode before forming an opinion about the musical. The basic premise is any religion’s super-natural tenets will look bizarre to outsiders, but the important thing is how those tenets affect their members’ behavior. The LDS family in the episode is portrayed as somewhat silly, yes, but overwhelming positive, loving, and civic-minded, whereas Stan and his family are portrayed as dysfunctional, intolerant, and violent. The episode’s closing lines speak for themselves:

Gary (the Mormon boy): Look, maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make absolutely no sense, and maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up, but I have a great life. and a great family, and I have the Book of Mormon to thank for that. The truth is, I don't care if Joseph Smith made it all up, because what the church teaches now is loving your family, being nice and helping people. And even though people in this town might think that's stupid, I still choose to believe in it. All I ever did was try to be your friend, Stan, but you're so high and mighty you couldn't look past my religion and just be my friend back. You've got a lot of growing up to do, buddy. Suck my balls.

Cartman: Damn, that kid is cool, huh?

From a rhetorical standpoint, the message of this episode is a more authentic, convincing advocacy of LDS teachings than anything church PR could come up with, because it's their job to say nice things about Mormonism, but it isn't Matt and Trey's. Modern-day audiences are too sophisticated to accept PR as anything other than PRopoganda, no matter how well it’s packaged, whereas an endearing portrayal by outsiders, set against the backdrop of a message about religious tolerance, reaches audiences that would never watch a church PSA. It sounds like "The Book of Mormon" is going to be in a similar vein, in which case I can't wait to see it.

And hey -- at least we have people talking about something other than Prop. 8.

Thursday shows recap 2/17

2011-02-18T18:21:00.000-08:00

Well it shouldn't be a surprise who came out on top this week.

No. 1 The Office

Returning to an idea that had been mentioned once in season 2, The Office debuts Michael's movie, Threat Level Midnight. It was a departure from their standard fare, in that clips of the movie were intermingled with their standard mockumentary style. Worked brilliantly with lots of laughs, and gave the show some great cameos from Karen, Jan, etc.

No. 2 Parks and Recreation

Also a clever episode, developing the character of that one guy they appear to be grooming as a love interest for Leslie. The creation of a small town pair of shock jocks, Crazy Ira and the Douche, was clever and felt painfully authentic. Also the Alta Vista jokes? Brilliant.

No. 3 30 Rock

Pretty clever business with Liz sleuthing at the end ... they have been building up to this with her dropping hints about her obsession with The Mentalist for a while. Well done.

No. 4 Community

This episode was cool in that a) it hopefully resolved the Pierce-as-dirtbag storyline and b) had Levar Burton, but no big laughs. Also good work from Abed as the documentary filmmaker. The show is still too soap operatic, but this was a pretty good installment.

Thursday shows recap 2/10

2011-02-13T14:58:00.000-08:00

Couple days late, but you can all forgive me. Here's the round-up of Our Favorite Shows from last Thursday.

No. 1 - Park and Recreation

Impudently grabbing the No. 1 spot is this week's "Parks and Rec," which beats out the other shows by bringing back whatshername from "Will and Grace" as Tami Swanson. While it can be tricky to bring back a guest star and without just recycling the script from the guest's original outing. "PnFnR" succeeded admirably by having Tami Swanson remarry Ron to become Tami Swanson Swanson. Good dynamic between Ron and Tom, and the other characters all had great moments too. (Especially Rob Lowe when he asked his assistant to join him in Indianapolis, but not his girlfriend.)

No. 2 - Community

"Community" puts in a great sophomore Valentine's episode, with hilarious jibes at Britta's faux-tolerant liberalism, a cute love story for Troy and Abed and some hot librarian, and lots of John Oliver being oh-so British. They still have no idea what to do with Shirley, and the problem is it's rapidly becoming obvious that's not a problem for the show. Hopefully they figure something out. But until they do, hope their episode quality stays this high.

The Barenaked Ladies debate was brilliant. Especially when Annie calls them "BNL."

No. 3 - The Office

This episode was also entertaining, as the office has to deal with Michael and Holly's PDA. The show continues to successfully balance its many characters. Good episode - not great - but highly watchable and very Valentines-propriate.

No. 4 - 30 Rock

"30 Rock" has grabbed the bottom slot on my weekly countdown and just run away with it! There is no stopping the levels of mediocrity this once-great show can satisfy itself with. The jokes about Canada were predictable and trite (except the ones about meth labs -- told by former stoner Harold). There were a couple other storylines, but they were likewise uninteresting. C'mon, guys! Do you think they gave you all those Emmys so you could scratch your backs with them?!?!?

Weekly Thursday comedy redux

2011-02-05T13:23:00.000-08:00

OK I haven't been as diligent on this as perhaps I could have been, but here's your weekly Thursday evening NBC comedy redux:

No. 1 "The Office"

Yet again The Office steals the top spot. This unquestionably beat the rest of the shows this week, as it makes use of its remarkably deep bench of primary, secondary, and tertiary characters. Everyone had something to do but it didn't feel jammed. Further proof that the series will survive without Michael Scott, as Steve Carrell is only in a few minutes of the episode.

Great Dwight-isms ("I can't take my car - it's full of fox meat.") and a happy resolution to the Erin-hates-Holly runner before it ran out of gas.

However, this show did violate its own rule about acknowledging the presence of the camera crew: if Michael were really lost, they could have called the camera guy trailing him.

No. 2 "Parks and Recreation"

Very funny episode that plays to the show's strengths (Leslie's overeagerness, April speaking Spanish); a few good jabs at Twilight, and Leslie's great line "I'm more of a Harry Potter girl." Also I love her trying to armchair quarterback the reporter on what her headline should be ... as an award-winning small-town newspaper headline writer (cough, ahem, pats back), I got a huge kick out of it.

No. 3 "Community"

Community has been suffering from some serious sophomore slumps, with the writers demonstrating no idea what to do with about half the characters (Shirley, Pierce, Chang, and half-ways Britta). This season has featured far too much soap opera and not enough humor, and this episode is no exception.

Also, I have to point out that they wouldn't be playing Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. A college-student in 2011 would have been born in the late 1980s or early 1990s, after the game had switched to second edition. If he had started playing the game when he was 10 - 12, he would have played Third Edition D and D, or far more likely, Everquest.

The main problem:

This episode is about a character we've never seen before, and therefore less relevant, and Pierce is completely out of character as a selfish a-hole. (In the first season he was clueless but always avuncular.) These two problems are exacerbated by the fact that it's heavily implied that this new character is one step away from suicide. Not funny.
Chang in drow black face was funny, but that lasted about 5 seconds. Making the episode so serious made it unpleasant to watch -- it would have worked much better if it had been revealed that Jeff had played AD n D as a kid, which thing Troy and Abed stumble across and decide they should play together as part of a research project FOR THEIR ANTHROPOLOGY CLASS. That way they could have had a cameo from John Oliver, the bright spot of this season, and cut out the new character entirely. Oliver, or the Dean, could have done the voice over --- they have talented actors and should use them.

Note that this idea of mis-placed nostalgia was also a problem with the Scott Pilgrim movie: 20-somethings in 2010 would not feel nostalgia for 1980s-era video games, even though their 30-something creators would.

No. 4 "30 Rock"

Strange that an episode featuring Tina Fey tromping around in nothing but a bra wouldn't win No. 1, but the key to comedy is comedy, which this episode mostly missed. The quality of 30 Rock has been sinking like, well, a rock. Turning Jenna into a duplicate of Tracy hasn't worked anytime in the last two years that they've tried it, but that hasn't stopped them. Jack's struggle with the new corporate leadership was OK, and Avery's trying to conceal her pregnancy from a rival broadcaster was funny -- but they shouldn't be getting their best (only) laughts on an episode from a supporting character.

A Time To Mourn And A Time To Dance

2011-01-30T18:42:00.000-08:00

Recently I attended another in a long-line of parties populated by fellow saints from my singles ward – a dance party at the home of a group of reasonably high-profile girls whom I’d previously home taught. I thought it would be fun to support my former home teach-ees and eat their brownies.

My roommates, however, disagreed, noting that Mormon dance parties are pointless. “Why should we go to a party just to watch all the girls dance together?”

I hadn’t thought of things that way, but my friends’ prediction proved uncannily accurate: About 20 girls were dancing in a big, impenetrable glob – getting oh-so worked up when Beyonce’s “Single Ladies (Put A Ring On It)” came up – while the half-dozen attending men shuffled in the corner, talking amongst themselves about sports and eating brownies.

An utterly bizarre phenomenon, an outsider might observe: why would so few men come to an event where women are literally boxed in for them, and why would those who did come be so timid?

But to the Mormon single, particularly the male, this is a quintessential Kobayashi Maru, the no-win scenario.

Dancing is a casually intimate event, potentially enticing to continued romantic pursuit – a perfect ice-breaker in a typical setting. But even something as harmless as trying to initiate a non-threatening dance in a church-confined situation such as this can make a man seem too aggressive physically, and LDS girls are brought up to spurn physical aggression of any kind. So any girl a boy approaches will no doubt reject him publicly (either on the spot or amongst her friends after he’s departed).

In fact, the only thing more repellant to a girl in this scenario than being approached boldly by a man at this party is not being approached boldly by a man at this party. He’s got one shot with one girl, and then he’s ruined any hopes with the other 19.

It’s lose-lose. Because of this, many men will simply blow the event off, regardless of the fact that they would much rather carouse with girls on a Saturday night than stay home and play video games with their friends. Given this, the surprising thing to me is not that so few boys come to a Mormon dance party, but that so many do. It reminds me of a line from my favorite romantic comedy, “Annie Hall”:

This guy goes to a psychiatrist and says, “Doc, uh, my brother's crazy; he thinks he's a chicken.” And, uh, the doctor says, “Well, why don't you turn him in?” The guy says, “I would, but I need the eggs.”

Well, I guess that's pretty much now how I feel about relationships; y'know, they're totally irrational, and crazy, and absurd, and... but, uh, I guess we keep goin' through it because, uh, most of us... need the eggs.

Mormon men need eggs. Oh boy, do they need eggs, but when they can’t get that, most will settle for brownies.

No Gays On Trek? Oh Behave

2011-01-27T00:51:00.000-08:00

So this week my Google alert for "Star Trek" picked up the following article from afterelton.com, where former Trek writer/producer Brannon Braga bemoaned the lack of outed gay characters on Trek during its entire 40-year run. A not uncommon observation about the franchise, this complaint has rung loudly for years, and was featured prominently in that awful "Trekkies" documentary.

Now before we proceed, I need to mention that Braga, although he has more Trek writing credits to his name than ANYONE ELSE, is also generally regarded as one of the worst things to ever happen to the franchise. (Strange that these two facts coincide.) He presided over Trek's fall from unprecedented popularity in the mid-90s to its utter ruin by the mid-2000s.

This ski slope graphic is the ratings of Enterprise: Braga's brainchild.

And he wrote the teleplay for what is widley regarded as the "worst episode ever" -- Voyager's "Threshold." Yes, this is the one where the Voyager crew somehow comes up with the ability to travel at infinite speed, which evolves Tom Paris and Capt. Janeway into lizards who then mate.

SFDebris hates "Threshold" so much, he did FOUR videos on it.

Now of course I don't say that to invalidate Braga's comments, but I think it's important to remember that the guy who had more free rein inside the Trek universe than anyone else does not remotely understand that universe.

Yes Star Trek dealt with the subject of sexual minorities on multiple occasions BUT yes it always in the context of an alien race -- never regarding humans. I think if I were gay I would find that somewhat patronizing: it's like saying "oh, I know you exist but you're so weird I can only think about you if you have blue skin, goop on your forehead, or a slug in your belly. They did one episode of DS9 with the franchise's first "same-sex kiss," but - I'm sorry - when male producers have two attractive, white females kiss it's not a proud statement of sexual identity: it's soft-core porno. (See also "Vampire Slayer, Buff: Diversity check list.")

Also to those who object, I would hope most would forgive Trek because so much of its content was generated before the on-screen gay liberation of shows like "Will and Grace." However, those installments which came after that liberation were "Voyager" and "Enterprise" -- the shows for which Braga was himself the EXECUTIVE PRODUCER. In his interview, he explicitly blames the lack of gay characters on affiliates "you know, in Salt Lake City" rather than you know, HIMSELF.

So while we're talking about diversity and Salt Lake City, Mr. Braga, how many Mormon characters were on Star Trek? Zero. Okay. Well, how about more mainstream Christian religions like Catholicism or Methodism? Oh? Zero again? Wow -- in 40 years? You couldn't even ret-con Chekov to being Russian Orthodox, or say that Deanna Troi's human father was Greek Orthodox out of respect for Marina Sirtis's Greek heritage?

Now before someone thinks I'm, like, a whining Christian who thinks his value system is only portrayed negatively in popular culture (the type Kevin Smith is begging will revitalize his career with protests), let me expand this diatribe to include ALL Earth religions.

In the entirety of its run, Star Trek did not feature a single character who expressed a religious predisposition -- except again, as with gays, aliens: Kira (a violent terrorist) and Worf (a violent barbarian). And when I say religions, I am also including atheism and agnosticism! This show that was all about exploring the human condition completely ignored one of the biggest aspects of human existence. (It did the same to economics, but that's another matter.)

According to my encyclopedic knowledge of Star Trek, I can recall only two conversations about religion in the entire run of Next Generation. Both involved Data.

In this one, Nagilum has threatened to kill the crew, so Picard is blowing up the ship. Data asks him what death is (starting at 1.45), and Picard gives him a big speech wherein he admits that he lacks any spefic beliefs about the after-life (that is, a religion), but he hasn't even really thought about it!

(Actually it's not even Data, it's a holographic version of him.)

Okay and then in this bit, Data confides in Worf that he had a "crisis of faith" about his own existence. It's actually a pretty cool scene, but again -- doesn't really say anything about human religious experience. (Starts at 5.57.)

Loyal readers will recall my redux on TNG, in which I outline how every space show since then has positioned itself by what TNG was not -- including religion. Because of Trek's failing in this regard, other space shows have gone out of their way to portray religious characters more, I would speculate, than any other typical drama does specifically to distance themselves from Trek.

"Firefly" featured a free Evangelical preacher (Sherpherd Book), a Jewish Internet superstar (Mr. Universe), a disillusioned ex-Catholic (Mal), and a high-end Buddhist prostitute (Inara).

"Babylon 5" featured not only standard Earth religions, but a religion which were started in the future (Foundationalism - named after Asimov's book series).

"BSG" was entirely about religion, though of course it was all otherworldly.

And I can understand that sexual minorities might feel left out of the Roddenberrian perfect future, but let's also remember that Roddenberry was himself pretty prejudiced against religion and specifically crafted a John Lennon-esque utopia that is insultingly built on a premise of a-religiosity. And yes, I can understand that in the 1960s he didn't want to alienate (haha) Catholics by making Kirk a Protestant (which he almost invariably would have been, at least culturally, as a small-town hick from Iowa), but if we're going to start bemoaning the holes in Star Trek's perfect future, let's bemoan all of them.

The Oscars Grouch: "Social Network"

2011-01-20T10:02:00.000-08:00

OK so I really am not a movie guy. I recall a line from an episode of "News Radio" where Joe says "I don't go to movies, most movies suck." Frankly I think movies are long and boring and do not fit as well into my life as, say, an episode of "Parks and Recreation" that I can watch during dinner.

Now having said that, I also don't get too caught up into movie awards, mainly because the kind of movies I like typically go unnoticed. (Example: the first Star Trek movie to receive an Academy Award was the 2009 reboot.) The anti-elitist in me tends to bristle at the, uh, elitism of honoring films because they're supposed to be honored. A glowing spoof of this phenomenon is last year's brilliant "Movie Title" from my friends over at Cracked.com:

Of course by the same token, I don't really go in for awards to popular movies because they're popular --- that's what, after all, the box office is there to prove. But I am nonetheless fascinated by the zeitgeist informing what constitutes "best" every year.

So we come to it at last: the Whitleypedia grouchy analysis of this year's Oscars (before the nominations are announced). I'm not literate enough in all of 2010's films to go through everything bullet-point by bullet-point, but I will say that I hope "The Social Network" wins best picture.

It was an extraordinary film with no weak points, at least that I detected when I saw it last fall. It's a film that everyone can identify with -- not just because 500 million people are on Facebook -- but because everyone can identify with the protagonist: a sort of loser who thinks he's better than everyone else and, after having been pushed around, has extraordinary success and is basically able to say f--- you to the world that ignored him.

This move is, in effect, a super-hero film. "Mark Zuckerberg" is a Peter Parker-esque nerd who gets super-powers that both ruin and exalt him. His arc is portrayed with a more realistic assessment of how the supernatural affects the mortal than even "Watchmen" could possibly have done.

The other leading contender for best picture is "The King's Speech," a very conservative, traditional Oscar heavyweight. I am sure that everyone involved in creating and promoting the film is brilliant -- and I do believe that Geoffrey Rush is probably the best actor alive today. But the King's arc is far less interesting than "Zuckerberg's," regardless of how well it's portrayed, and as this EW article points out, we don't need yet another best picture about the awesomeness of Great Britain.

The Academy is full of old people, so they may not recognize the significance of "The Social Network," but this year, they may not be able to ignore it.

Book list 2010

2011-01-05T06:53:00.000-08:00

This year was a pretty good year for me literarily. I believe that I read more this year than ever before – including perhaps in college. Certainly I read more books of my own choosing than any other year. 2010 – the year of the book (or if you will book on CD).

I read the following books:

• Swords Against Death
• Treasure Island
• The Road
• Wishful Drinking
• Death Troopers
• I Am Spock

I read only the following Discworld books – frankly I think I'm tapping out on those. But there are 35+ books in the series, so that's understable:

• The Last Continent
• The Wee Free Men
• Witches Abroad
• Interesting Times

I read or reread all of the Chuck Klosterman books:

• Downtown Owl
• Fargo Rock City
• Killing Yourself to Live
• Chuck Klosterman IV
• Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa-Puffs
• Eating the Dinosaur

Because of time spent in my car on the daily commute, I've been able to "listen" to a lot of books this year, including:

• My Life
• Earth (The Book)
• Freakonomics
• Superfreakonomics
• Outliers
• I, Robot
• Adventures of Sherlock Holmes 4
• Anansi Boys

And I reread the following books on CD:

• Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
• Restaurant at the End of the Universe
• The Old Man and the Sea
• A Christmas Carol
• The Hobbit

I read a lot more nonfiction this year than is typical for me, because I've found it's easier to absorb on the commute. I think my favorite book this year was Freakonomics, certainly in that nonfiction category.

Episode III review up

2010-12-31T12:12:00.001-08:00

Anyone who knows me knows that I love the Red Letter Media Mr. Plinkett reviews of the Star Wars prequels. In my mind, the awesomeness of these reviews justifies the existence of the lousy films. Plinkett has released the capstone review, for "Revenge of the Sith," which is available here:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

It's beautiful, and this version has less of the weird serial killer stuff which puts off a lot of people.

Thursday shows recap 11/18

2010-11-19T12:56:00.000-08:00

Greetings friends of the Interwebs. Here's my recap of our Thursday-night shows.

No. 1 The Office "WUPHF.com"

I confess that this one had won before it even aired. References to "wuphf-ing" something are made on a semi-weekly basis in my office. This episode didn't disappoint though, effectively juggling four different stories (WUPHF, Jim's commission issue, Dwight's hay-play, and Angela's contract business). This episode is another in a long line of shows indicating how well the writers have grown the characters, featuring a particularly poignant scene where Pam tells Michael that Ryan doesn't really like him.

See, two years ago, Pam wouldn't have cared. But through everything - dating her mom, coming to her art show, helping them with the baby, the Michael Scott Paper Company - Pam has come to genuinely care about Michael.

Also, I'm glad they finally dropped the "intercourse contract" issue with Angela and Dwight. It was funny at first, but it got played pretty quickly.

No. 2 Community "Conspiracy Theories and Interior Design"

This episode was enjoyable, and shows how popular the Dean character is: his role in this episode is bigger than everyone else's except Annie and Jeff. If Community makes it to season 3, I predict the Dean moving up to main cast. Clever spoofing of conspiracy movies, great cinematography, and great twist-within-twists at the end.

No. 3 30 Rock "College"

This episode was OK. While it gave Tina Fey a great opportunity to shine as a nerd-trying-to-be-cool-until-she-realizes-she's-a-nerd, there was still too much absurdism in the episode. "30 Rock" always works better when the comedy is understated rather than over the top. The throwaway referencs to the "puridonil cyst" or whatever was funny though.

A Smoking Freducation

2010-11-18T09:10:00.000-08:00

So in honor of today, the Great American Smokeout, I offer this important PSA of the Flintstones smoking:

Ew - Zombies!

2010-11-16T12:13:00.000-08:00

Watch "The Walking Dead" on AMC:

Though, technically, this zombie is crawling. Not walking.

Thursday shows recap 11/11

2010-11-13T13:15:00.001-08:00

So I have decided to start doing a weekly round up of the Thursday comedy shows I watch -- The Office, Community, and 30 Rock. I have been doing that sort of "ad hoc" for a while, so now I'ma gonna do it every week. I will rank them each against the others for the week.

#1 The Office - Viewing Party

OK so the thing with The Office is Steve Carrell is a great front man, but the show has a deeper bench than the '97 Bulls. The danger for many Office episodes because of this is that the Michael Scott storyline becomes too awkward or too over the top and it distracts from the other characters. This happens in the second act of the episode, with Michael's tantrum taking too much attention, but the storyline resolves itself terrifically with the reveal that Erin (who was raised as a foster child and hero-worships Michael) views Michael as her father figure. Once he realizes that, his spirits change immediately. This follows the general Michael meme that he is stupid but loving.

Also, the bits with Dwight and the baby, and Phyllis talking about human intimacy, were dynamite. Moreover, as a person who hates Glee, but is nonetheless intrigued by the idea of Glee, I love Kelly's rant against the show.

#2 30 Rock - Brooklyn Without Limits

This episode was classic 30 Rock, excelling in everything that makes 30 Rock a great show:

1) lampooning Jack's commitment to his company's political expedience (through a great guest appearance by John "Roger Sterling" Slattery)
2) likewise poking fun at Liz's knee-jerk liberalism
3) a storyline which is intrinsically female-centric (pants that make your bum look good)
4) portraying Jenna as eccentric, while not truly crazy (this is something they screwed up last year)
5) hardly any Kenneth

#3 Community - Cooperative Calligraphy

Although I generally like Community better than the other two shows, this week they had the weakest installment compared to the other two. It was still good though, with the tongue-in-cheek reference to "bottle shows" (low-cost episodes of a TV show that involve no new sets or guest stars -- term comes from the phrase "a ship in a bottle"), continuity with the rest of the series (Shirley's pregnancy scare), and some great performances. Community can't kill the goose by always doing over-the-top fantastical episodes like the paintball one or the zombie one; they need to rely on the strength of their characters and this was a pretty good way to showcase them.

Further proof Simpsons has lost it

2010-11-02T07:49:00.000-07:00

Hey check it out! "The Simpsons" did this great episode called "Elementary School Musical" -- a spoof of "High School Musical" !!!

So creative! Oh but wait, "South Park" already did this, using the EXACT SAME TITLE two years ago! (Video here.)

Keep in mind that several years ago, the creators of "South Park" gave such deference to "Simpsons" that they titled an episode "Simpsons Already Did It" -- conceding that they could never compete with the grandaddy of their genre. Maybe it's time for "Simpsons" to do an episode titled "South Park Is Funnier"?

I submit that "Simpsons" has now finally and completely nuked the fridge.

At DC Rallies, Liberals Clearly Have The Home Court Advantage

2010-10-31T19:35:00.000-07:00

On Saturday, I went to the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear.

...

All it restored was disappointment.

In terms of execution, even the most liberal apologists acknowledge that the program was a bumpy ride, with a lot of waiting and very few laughs. For those who traveled hours (or more) to join the throng of people on the Capitol Mall, the rally was a stunning disappointment, as poor preparation (Comedy Central predicted only 60,000 would come) and inadequate audio/visual equipment left most with nothing to do but people watch.

See but the goal wasn't really to enterain the people who came -- it was to humiliate Glenn Beck.

The Stewart/Colbert rally had vastly more people than the Glenn Beck one in August. CBS News estimated 215,000 attended, compared to about 90,000 for Beck’s. The accuracy of head counts at events like this is greatly disputed, as supporters will tend to overestimate and detractors will underestimate. But regardless. I went to both -- this one had way more people.

But how useful is that of a gauge of relative national influence? Unlike, say, web traffic, book sales, or TV ratings, a rally represents the mood of a community far more than a country. And given that, liberal organizers have an obvious advantage over conservatives for an event like this: demographics.

The District of Columbia is probably the single most Democrat municipality in the country. Its population is primarily African-Americans, college students, and rich, white liberals – Obama’s base. He did get 92 percent of the vote here, and DC was the only place, beside Walter Mondale’s home state of Minnesota, that Ronald Reagan didn’t win in his 1984 sweep. Moreover, the rest of the northeast seaboard is also heavily Democrat and could attend something like this with no more effort than a short bus trip.

If Beck had wanted an overwhelming crowd at his event, he would have held it at some conservative stronghold – he probably could have gotten more people at a rally in Salt Lake City than in DC. But he wanted to show that he could still get a huge crowd without home court advantage.

Comparing the influence of the political ideologies behind the two rallies is certainly not to be gauged by the rallies themselves.

But by that measure, the advantage is clearly to the Republicans.

Freshen your tea?

2010-10-25T13:56:00.000-07:00

So I wrote an article abou the Tea Party, and The Daily Caller picked it up!

The link is here.

I start the article with a quote from "TNG" and I end it with a line from the Joker in "The Dark Knight."

...

All in all, a pretty good day.

The Hobbit Movie - Peter Jackson prepares to take us there and back ... again

2010-10-20T12:58:00.000-07:00

So it is with glorious adulation that I learned the movie adaption of "The Hobbit" has been greenlit. As The Telegraph reports:

The project had been delayed by financial problems at the beleaguered Hollywood studio MGM. No location has been named for filming amid an ongoing union threat to boycott the production if it takes place in New Zealand.

The films, with a budget estimated at up to $500 million (£315 million) will be shot in 3D. Peter Jackson, who was behind the award-winning Lord of the Rings trilogy, was confirmed as the director.

This is of course wonderful. Initial reports indicate that Andy Serkis, Sir Ian McCellan, and Hugo Weaving are all signed on to reprise their roles as Gollum, Gandalf, and Elrond respectively. While I kind of hope they don't go overboard with it, they could also have Aragorn, Arwen, and Legolas appear as cameos ... and John Rhys Davies could easily play Gimli, Gloin's father.

If he'd liked it, then he should have put a ring on it.

While it is both lame and irritating that the film(s - yes, there will still be two of them) has been delayed so much, I think in the long run this will be better for the franchise. The superhero genre is already waning (the Spiderman reboot, while it will probably be cool, indicates how quickly the meme is burning out, and the Avengers franchise will disappoint). Harry Potter will cast his last spell early next year. And this whole vampire crap has got to burn out eventually.

Note the spike in the Alexa score of theonering.net, the main fansite for Middle Earth:

So there will be a void for cool, nerd cinema. (Note: Star Trek 12 will come out it 2012 and will probably be as awesome as No. 11 -- take that prediction however you choose.) The two Hobbit movies will dominate the dojo, and all the teenagers who grew up watching the trilogy will be 20 somethings with cash to spend on nostalgia for the franchise.

Captain Poll...

2010-10-15T12:56:00.000-07:00

Poll on Startrek.com:

Now I know that online polling of this kind is hardly scientific, but it does prove a point I made last month - that Trek fans like Picard better than Kirk (or at least certainly Stewart better than Shatner).

Note this other poll:

What is your favorite Star Trek series?

The Original Series - 89 (28%)
The Animated Series - 2 (1%)
The Next Generation - 81 (25%)
Deep Space Nine - 76 (24%)
Voyager - 51 (16%)
Enterprise - 22 (7%)

TNG, DS9, and TOS are all in essentially a dead heat. The numbers for VOY, ENT, and TOS line up almost exactly with the popularity of their respective captains, but TNG takes a nosedive and DS9 soars over Sisko's ratings.

What will marketers do with this? Find some way to get Patrick Stewart into "Star Trek 12." ... Frankly I wish that Stewart had been cast as Sarek in "ST11," but that may have been too distracting from the new crew.

"30 Rock" Live -- win.

2010-10-15T09:47:00.000-07:00

OK I haven't even finished watching this and I'm stunned by its brilliance.

"30 Rock" is back on top, baby! And last night's "The Office" was terrible.

When copycats surpass the originals...

2010-10-09T10:01:00.000-07:00

So as I indicated, the blog counter has been going up much faster than it ever has before with my whole "Star Trek Week" that turned into "Star Trek Month." I have more posts I could make on the subject, and will later, but for now let me talk about this subject: when copycats surpass the originals.

Case study # 1: Lindsay Lohan

Hey I'm not going to lie -- I once signed an online petition "make Lindsay eat." Would that anorexia were our only concern with this one! Alas after being blessed with remarkable opportunities, luck, looks, and talent, Lindsay altered her trajectory from the next big star to the next big reality show star through drugs and crime.

Now while she was still relatively successful, movie producers wanted someone in her same vein, but much much cheaper. And thus was Emma Stone discovered.

Cast for an unremarkable role in a surprisingly tender, enjoyable movie ("Superbad") -- a role that would have been beneath Lohan -- Stone parleyed her performance here into progressively larger roles until she has now been tapped as Gwen Stacy in the second Spider-man trilogy. (Note: they have yet again wasted a perfectly good redhead to play this blond character.)

Emma looks like Lindsay ... and she now has her career.

Case study # 2: Michael Cera

Pity poor Michael Cera -- such a lovable character actor, but, man, he cannot perform at the box office. While he's been very prolific, he has not proven he can lead a film: Year One, Youth in Revolt, Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist, Paper Heart and Scott Pilgrim vs. the World have all been duds, even though Pilgrim was still a great film.

Ironically, he's still been able to ask enough of a salary that tight-pursed producers started turning to Michael Cera look-alike Jesse Eisenberg for Adventurelandand Zombieland in roles that were obviously written with Cera in mind.

When Zombieland (which was a clever idea but still only an OK film) made over $100M, Eisenberg was tapped to headline The Social Network, which has been doing well enough that Eisenberg has got to be feeling pretty good about his future.

Now of course Michael Cera would have been able to play the role, and it would have been nice to see him play a character other than George Michael Bluth.

* * *

Just because someone gets there first doesn't mean they'll be best. Frequently the first generation of a product gets improved by the person watching their mistakes. The examples are copious: Goldwater/Reagan, Gobots/Transformers, Old Testament/New Testament, and (germane for this post) Myspace/Facebook.

But it isn't terrible when one of your favorite stars drops a bit, because that means they might take boutique roles they'd overlook otherwise. Though at this rate, maybe Jesse Eisenberg will play George Michael in the Arrested Development movie, and they'll get Emma Stone to play Maebe Fuenke.

Interesting reading

2010-10-07T10:36:00.000-07:00

Interesting reading here, here, here, and here.

ST Top 10 Redux – The Next Next Generation

2010-10-02T18:47:00.000-07:00

OK last one on this topic for a while. It's going to be time for "South Park Week" soon, so...

Today we’re talking about “TNG’s” legacy – or rather the way subsequent sci-fi shoes have followed in its footsteps by wearing a completely different pair of shoes. The imprint is so strong that you have to defy that standard or you're "doomed to repeat it." For the last 15 years there has been a tendency whenever a spaceship show -- EVEN A PRE-EXISTING ONE is unsure what do to, they default to a "TNG" mindset. Take the Star Wars prequels:

The ships were too clean and sleek. Queen Amidala's ship in "Phantom Menace" felt more like the Enterprise-D than the Millenium Falcon.
Techno-babble about "meta-chlorines"? Yeah, that's "TNG" speak right there.
Endless space politics? Remember "if this is a consular ship where is the Ambassador" ... sessions of Congress are not exciting.

We can summarize it with the following chart. A “win” means the show defied the unsuccessful “TNG” paradigms listed across the top, a “fail” means it didn’t.

There are a couple notes to make on this chart. One is that the least-loved of these seven shows is the one with no anti-“TNG” “wins” – “Voyager.” The show’s concept was cleverly designed to conform to Roddenberry’s “vision” while correcting the problems of limited resources and conflict among characters: strand the ship 70 years away from the rest of the fleet and make one-third of the crew terrorists.

While there are a few key episodes that kept this premise, most of the show did not.

This episode shows actual conflict between crew members, legitimate to the show's premise.

If anything, "Voyager" was even more touchy-feely than "TNG," and the level of technology displayed surpassed even that on the NCC-1701-D. Ron Moore – who wrote masterpieces for “TNG” and “DS9” – was inspired to reimagine “BSG” because of how far “Voyager” fell short of its basic premise. He said:

“Voyager is not true. If it were true, the ship would not look spic-and-span every week, after all these battles it goes through. How many times has the bridge been destroyed? How many shuttlecrafts have vanished, and another one just comes out of the oven? That kind of bullshitting the audience I think takes its toll.”

The kid-sister show of “TNG,” “Deep Space 9,” made as radical departures as they could, not only from the failed “TNG” paradigms, but from other key Roddenberry concepts:

Holodeck: The “DS9” holosuite is not a technology that’s simultaneously omnipotent and utterly unreliable (O’Brien jokes that the Enterprise crew could do anything “except keep the holodeck working”). It’s main use is for simple recreation and (ahem) personal indulgence.

Ferengi: Ira Steven Behr on “DS9” realized that no one took seriously an alien that looked like a mutant monkey and wanted money, not conquest. They were much better suited as comic relief, and as the occasional sarcastic jibe against the Roddenberrian standard of “All praise humanity!”

"Farscape’s” greatest success was with the presentation of aliens – they all look truly alien, and some were created by Jim Henson’s creature shop. Way better than goop on the forehead. And “Babylon 5” was good too, beating “DS9” for a make-up Emmy in 1995.

The shows that do the best along this spectrum are the ones that were most critically/commercially successful (“BSG”) and most devotedly beloved (“Firefly”). On the DVD, Joss Whedon names the failures of “TNG” (without naming “TNG”) as the source of “Firefly’s” strengths: he said real people don’t ever deal with ambassadors; real people worry about getting a job. Characters on “Firefly” are openly religious (one of them is a preacher), and the constructed religion of the “Lords of Kobol” on “BSG” is an integral part of the show.

But the most profound factor is the “homogenous characters who are never in conflict with each other” – every one of these shows avoided that problem. The characters argue with each other, sometimes even coming to violence. “Voyager” tried the whole Marquis-vs-Starfleet idea, and that was OK, but at its best it felt like a ho-hum “DS9” episode. Then they added Seven and she helped.

So then wait: if everyone’s did the opposite of “TNG,” maybe it actually sucked?

The answer to this is easy. No one (including “TOS”) can really compare to “TNG” on its strengths – writing, acting, directing, production values – so they go after its weaknesses. If you have to compete against Michael Jordan, challenge him to a game of darts not basketball.

ST Top 10 Redux – Why No Love For “TNG”?

2010-09-30T20:05:00.000-07:00

So let’s talk about “TNG.” With the benefit of history and the context of so much other content (notably the recent reboot), we can ask the question: why is there so little love for the franchise’s best installment? Only about half the episodes for “The Original Series” are watchable, and only about half of those are truly great – so just about 15 to 20 remarkable episodes. Season 3 of “TNG” alone has that many fantastic episodes. (Now you’re going to ask me to compile a list. I will. Eventually. Probably tomorrow.)

I think someone designed this after watching "Superman"...

Regardless of this fact, people are endlessly nostalgic about “TOS” and somewhat aloof toward “TNG.” While the explanation for the former is simple, the latter is more complicated.

People love “TOS” because the movies were so good. Those movies that boiled down the essence of the show and told their own story were beloved (2, 3, 4), while those that were most like “TOS” were despised (1, 5). “ST6” is well thought of, but it’s not really about “TOS” – it’s really a “TNG” movie with the original cast. (Given how poorly No. 5 did at the box office, No. 6 would likely not have been made were “TNG” not so popular at the time.)

Moreover, per our discussion that Star Trek fans don’t really like William Shatner, they adore Patrick Stewart.

This is my friend Olivia in New York ... with Patrick Stewart. (Sigh.)

He brought unforeseen gravitas to the franchise, and was even voted the "Sexiest Man on Television" by TV Guide in 1992. Plus he embiggened his nerd street cred with his cromulent performance in the X-Men franchise, and he has always been humble about his relationship to “TNG.” He once said:

“The fact is all of those years in Royal Shakespeare Company -- playing all those kings, emperors, princes and tragic heroes -- were nothing but preparation for sitting in the captain's chair of the Enterprise.”

Stewart infused his love of Shakespeare into the Picard character. He’s said he appreciates having introduced so many Trek fans to the Bard, and is grateful there’s always a contingent of (non-uniform wearing) Trek fans to support him at his plays.

I didn’t realize it until yesterday, but Gener al Chang in “Undiscovered Country” is intended to be a Klingon Picard: he’s bald, speaks with an English accent, and quotes Shakespeare. They needed a Klingon rival for Kirk who wasn’t pure evil (like Kruge) or totally mindless (like Klaa), so who did they use as their model? The other captain of the Enterprise. (Note: Chang's name is also one letter away from "change," because that's what the movie is about -- changing from a Cold War to no war, and from one generation to the next.)

OK so then why is there so little nostalgia for “TNG”? (I have pondered this greatly given that “TNG” is the only part of my childhood for which I am nostalgic.) The people who are nostalgic for “TOS” didn’t see it when it first aired 45 years ago. The easy answer is because the “TNG” movies were so bad – and that is certainly true, but it’s more than that. The other easy answer is that the market was over-saturated by three inferior spin-offs – and that’s mostly true (certainly where “Voyager” is concerned), but “Enterprise” was explicitly intended as a nostalgia piece for “TOS” – with all its Vulcans and Andorians and Tellarites – not as a continuation of “TNG.”

Shran was an old-school alien with a new-school look.

The more complicated answer, and ultimately most comprehensive one, is that “TNG’s” legacy was a victim of its creator: Gene Roddenberry. Returning to yesterday’s post, this can be summarized by reviewing the following:

a) A money-less economy because of “technology unchained”
b) Homogenous heroes that are never in conflict with each other
c) Starfleet is not a military organization and too much space politics
d) Goop-on-the-forehead aliens
e) Total religious secularization

So the problem with these three points is that they robbed the show of drama. You couldn’t have any conflict related to a lack of resources, because no one “needed” money (though it was then never explained how society operated or how humans bartered with species that did use money) and their technology (replicators, holodecks) could solve so many problems so effortlessly. The lack of appropriate militarization made it difficult to do action pieces. On “TNG,” ever week we met a new alien only different from last week’s by the design of make-up on his forehead – in “TOS” you either looked like a human or you were a damn Gorn. And the secularization left everyone thinking that Roddenberry’s utopia was one in which religious people were not welcome: so much for all that tolerant embrace of humanities differences!

Then the most salient point – main characters who never disagree with each other – removed another source of potential conflict and therefore storytelling. There wasn't a lot of this kind of scene in "TNG":

And the main reason that “TNG” generates so little nostalgia is its influence on these four points. EVERY science fiction show about a spaceship since “TNG” has defined itself by defying these resoundingly unsuccessful, yet integral, aspects of an otherwise successful experiment, as we’ll see tomorrow.

ST Top 10 Redux – Coon Hunting

2010-09-29T14:47:00.000-07:00

So maybe I went a little bit overboard on both content and time-dedicated to the “Top 10” of Star Trek project … I was “rewarded” in terms of interest in the project. My blog counter went up about 250 during the “countdown” – more than 10 percent of the total hits since I started the counter a year ago. Turns out nerds use the Internet.

Now while I need to move on to pointlessly bashing “Glee” or making whatever political comments I don’t send to Utah Policy, I want to end on one item in terms of the “legacy” issue I mentioned several times in previous posts. Some of this will be summation, but most of it I formulated (or learned) as I was writing/researching the “Top 10.”

Star Trek does not owe its success to Gene Roddenberry.

Okay yes it does, but not really. While Roddenberry may have built the ship, a lot of other people deserve the credit for taking it to warp speed. The creative person behind so much of what became signature Star Trek concepts was not Roddenberry, but Gene Coon. Because he died in 1973, he wasn’t around to contribute to the movies or “TNG,” so he gets mostly forgotten, but Coon created

a) Klingons
b) Khan
c) Zefram Cochrane
d) The Prime Directive
e) The horta
f) The Gorn
g) Tribbles (with David Gerrold)
h) The term “United Federation of Planets”

Moreover, the high-point of the franchise – movies 2, 3, 4 and 6 – had virtually no input from Roddenberry. The movie he had the most to do with creatively was “The Motion Picture,” which was lame and boring but financially viable. Paramount realized that they had a good product, but not a great leader. So they tapped outsiders Nicholas Meyer and Harve Bennett to do “Wrath of Khan,” and then they – with Leonard Nimony – became the guiding force of the movies.

Roddenberry harrumphed his way through this, and his consolation prize was total control over the spin-off in 1987. While he created the characters for “Next Generation,” Roddenberry is also responsible for a lot of the truly lame stuff in the series. That first season, that’s virtually unwatchable? Yeah, guess who was in charge for those. “TNG” didn’t really start to get good until Roddenberry let go of the reins. And though he’s been denounced by Trek fans for years, Rick Berman was the driving force behind its most excellent work. He became executive producer at season 3, hired Ron Moore and Mike Piller, and the show went to warp factor 11.

Now some of the damage was undone in later seasons, but while Coon’s “TOS” first-season legacy reads like a hall of fame speech, Roddenberry’s “TNG” first-season legacy is like an FBI most wanted list. These include:

a) Counselor Troi’s “pedantic psychobabble” and constant space-PMS (quickly done away with)
b) Data’s “witless exploration of humanity” (Create a daughter? Yes. Learn about comedy on the holodeck? No.)
c) Wesley saves the day (though now Wil Wheaton is a hero to nerds)
d) Q (the first-season Q episodes are awful)
e) Ferengi as the legitimate adversaries (the “new Klingons”)
f) The holodeck

Now these are just details. But the biggest problems were intrinsic to the show’s premise:

a) A money-less economy because of “technology unchained”
b) Homogenous heroes that are never in conflict with each other
c) Starfleet is not a military organization and too much space politics
d) Goop-on-the-forehead aliens
e) Total religious secularization

Now one of my key issues is the fact that “TNG” has virtually no legacy – despite the fact that it (and more affordable, realistic-looking special effects) ushered in a veritable Renaissance of TV sci-fi and fantasy shows. And I think Roddenberry’s influence is responsible for this. Though Berman and others were able to work around some of Roddenberry’s constraints, they were duty-bound to pretty much keep a lot of the problems he created, as we'll discuss tomorrow.

But in short, we can summarize that if Gene Roddenberry had enjoyed as much editorial control as George Lucas had with the prequels, the "TOS" movies would have all looked like No. 1 and the "TNG" run would have looked like No. 2.

Top 10 run down...

2010-09-27T20:06:00.001-07:00

OK so the Top 10 were, in order:

10 - The reboot
9 - First Contact
8 - Star Trek 6
7 - Unification
6 - Start of the Dominion War
5 - Galaxy Quest
4 - Voyage Home
3 - Search for Spock
2 - Best of Both Worlds
1 - Wrath of Khan

No. 5 (a surprise!) and No. 10 (also a surprise, albeit it less of one)

2010-09-21T19:38:00.000-07:00

So continuing on from the last entry, let's explore the topic Trek fans don't really like William Shatner. This is typified in the universal dislike of "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier," which the Shat directed and help wrote -- so it's really the only occasion where we can separate the man (Shat) from the myth (Kirk).

This leads us to No. 5 on our list:

"Galaxy Quest"

There is speculation about "what killed Star Trek" -- was it the "TNG" films? Was it "Voyager" or "Enterprise"? Or was it simply fatigue from over saturation? Well it may have been all of these, but I think the real culprit was "Galaxy Quest" -- a deconstructionist Star Trek movie that tells an action/adventure that surpasses so much of its inspiration. "GQ" pays loving tribute to not just the series, but the fandom experience (which is ultimately more meaningful because that's the part fans are involved in personally: the hero worship, the conventions, the fixation on minutiae, the shipping).

Now the casual viewer looks at "GQ" and says "Oh, they're making fun of Trek!" Hogwash. This is a love-letter to Star Trek fans that Rick Berman couldn't have written on Valentine's Day if St. Valentine were helping him with a multi-phasic, anti-matter-powered love-letter writing replicator. (I recently amended the Wikipedia entry "References to Star Trek" for the film.)

The fans are the biggest heroes of the show, as my brother Mark has pointed out to me:

1) the redshirt (Guy) who loves the show and doesn't fall victim to its most pointed cliche (being redshirted)

2) the nerdy kids help save the day at the end

3) the aliens who adore the "historical documents" end up leading the ship on its own voyages

Just watch this clip:

If anyone is mocked in this movie it is William Shatner. And in this film he is not only mocked but he is redeemed. For the only time in the history of Star Trek William Shatner becomes as magnificent as James Kirk. (There's video of Shatner interviewing Allen here.)

Now again I want to stress that Trek fans, and myself included, don't hate Shatner. And truly we don't really dislike him. But there is some resentment and maybe even some discontent. Everything he has he owes to Star Trek, but he probably won't admit that. Compare this to the fans' feelings for Leonard Nimoy, who is as magnificent as Spock. Remember, Nimoy was a guiding creative force behind Star Treks 3, 4, and 6 -- and it was his idea to kill Spock at the end of "TWOK." And Nimoy's crossover with "TNG" ("Unification") was spectacular, while Shatner's crossover with "TNG" ("Generations") was the (wait for it) "worst episode ever."

Watch this video, where Whoopi Goldberg (Guinan) essentially baits the four actors to make fun of their fans, and Nimoy goes out of his way to say how great they are while the others make wisecracks.

Notice that there's no figure in "GQ" that lampoons Leonard Nimoy -- the Alan Rickman character is meant to be an exaggerated Patrick Stewart, and his alien character -- with chants of strength of cries of vengeance -- is far more Klingon than Vulcan.

The success of the franchise is due to the personal, professional, and creative involvement of Leonard Nimoy and his success portraying the series' best character.

Which leads us to No. 10:

"Star Trek: The Star Trek"

Now I've already said a lot on the reboot (my review: here), so I'm not going to say a lot more about it now, and if you want a really thorough exploration of the "ST11" -- both its successes (of which there are many) and its shortcomings (of which there are only a few) -- watch the the recent Mr. Plinkett review:

But I will talk about the reboot in the context of the two ideas I've presented here: "Galaxy Quest" and Nimoy.

First: "Galaxy Quest" is such an important part of the Trek legacy that J.J. Abrams said "How do you watch Galaxy Quest and then go make a Star Trek movie?" His answer? Copy them!

The reboot pays loving homage to the Trek franchise -- including completely gratuitous references to Jonathan Archer as a nod to "Enterprise" and Cardassians as a nod to "DS9." And while they used a lot of names and images from Trek lore, the filmmakers allowed themselves to make their own story, just like in "Galaxy Quest." Qapla!

Second: The casting of Leonard Nimoy to "pass the torch" (or better said, "relight the torch") is I believe the main reason the film succeeded. Fans wanted to see Nimoy come back. They did not want to see Shatner come back. Bringing Spock back in a movie about Romulans also connects the film to "TNG," and answers the question "What happened to Spock on Romulus?" in a way we were teased with whenever someone said "cowboy diplomacy," and were totally shortchanged on with "Nemesis."

Moreover, while Zachary Quintos does an excellent job modeling Nimoy's Spock, Christopher Pine goes out of his way to not sound like William Shatner. Had Pine spoken in Shatner's trademark staccato cadence, people would have rolled their eyes. Jim Kirk is more beloved than William Shatner, while Leonard Nimoy is as equally loved as Spock.

Now I may be over-selling the reboot, because we haven't had time to see what its legacy effect will be. If it manages to revitalize interest in the franchise, gets people going to conventions again, and generates successful sequels, then I'll feel justified leaving it in my top 10. For now, I think it deserves a spot here for two important reasons. This is the only installment of the franchise, besides "The Voyage Home" and the very height of "TNG," that has been both

1) financially viable with a larger, non-sci-fi crowd, and
2) not despised by legions of Star Trek fans.

That last one may not sound like much, but it is. Because in the final equation, the only thing that Star Trek fans enjoy more than loving Star Trek is hating Star Trek.

And the final entrants are...

2010-09-20T20:21:00.001-07:00

So it's taken more than a week to pack all these in, and today we're going to close the loop, as we go into the numbers 5 and 10 on our list. But first, before we get into it, let me disclose one film that isn't on this -- or probably any -- top Trek list.

"Star Trek V: The Final Frontier"

"ST5" was the first film from the original series released concomitant with "TNG," and - unlike "ST6" - no effort at all was made to synergize the production with the TV show. "ST5" is generally seen as a low-point in the franchise, if not the absolute lowest. It is widely regarded as non-canonical, Gene Roddenberry - the Great Bird of the Galaxy himself - considering it "apocryphal at best." Elements such as Spock just suddenly having a half-brother seemed out of place, and people have tried to sweep it under the rug.

So then ... why was it even made?

The answer, of course, is that the Shat hit the fan. William Shatner was extended "favored nation status" by Paramount, because his participation was so vital to the franchise. He demanded the director's chair and they just had to say yes, or risk his not participating at all.

This is why it was made; this is also why people hate it.

You see, "ST5" really isn't that bad. Some elements of it are actually fantastic, and fit perfectly in the theme and style of both "The Original Series" and the greater Star Trek mythos, such as:

The scenes in Yosemite National Park are all fantastic: Kirk climbing a mountain "because it's there," Spock roasting "marshmelons," McCoy using Kentucky bourbon to flavor his chili and telling Kirk "You know, you really piss me off, Jim," and Sulu and Chekov getting lost hiking.

The "planet of galactic peace" is a rare and delightful piece of sarcasm in Trek lore. The Romulans, Klingons, and Federation have established this project to show how they can work together and it all fails because none of them really want to work together. Contrary to Trek's typically egocentric presentation of "the human condition," the human ambassador is an alcoholic, chain-smoking pessimist, and the only one who cares about the planet of misfits is the Romulan.

The assault on "Paradise City" is good action, with a great set and nice effects on the night-time phaser shots. Uhura's fan-dance to trick the guards is one of the best moments the character ever got.

Humor. Spock's line: "Please, captain. Not in front of the Klingons" - is vintage Trek. Or when Kirk is chewing out Spock for not shooting Sybok and Bones volunteers, "You want me to hold him for you, Jim?" There's also a line I love where the Admiral says "This is an emergency -- we need Jim Kirk!" and Kirk mutters under his breath "Oh please."

The "secret pain" business. See Sybok brainwashes people by using the Vulcan mind-meld to erase the memories of their greatest, unspoken sufferings. This is actually very similar to what Roddenberry wanted to do with the episode "The Naked Time," where the crew experiences intoxicating effects and they reveal their inner character. His goal with this, early on in the show, was to demonstrate what was inside these people who otherwise keep everything locked up. He felt this was such a good way to provide character exposition that he did a sequel to it in the second episode of "TNG" - "The Naked Now." The only problem with the "secret pain" notion is that we don't really get to see what everyone experiences. We see it with McCoy and Spock, but that's it! What is Chekov's secret pain? Or Uhura's? Or KIRK'S for that matter? (Though that one's not so vital, because I think he came to terms with his "secret pain" in "ST2.)

Of course these all get ignored because the climax to the movie is somewhat heavy-handed and weird: The business with the "God" entity. It felt out of place for everyone along the religious spectrum.

Now even though the presentation could have been a bit more polished, I don't understand why people object to the "God" creature at the end of the movie. Star Trek, particularly "TOS", is FULL of God-like entities. Here are a few of them:

And this is just off the top of my head -- I didn't do research on this because I'm sure there's even more.

SO if Star Trek is full of god-like beings, how was this climax at all out of place in the Trek mythos? It actually seems to fit really well. After all, what could be more Star Trek than the idea that Captain Kirk not only finds God, but he beats him up? That's pure Trek right there! Kirk had already beat up Trelane, Gary Mitchell, and Apollo during the series.

People complain about the "God" story, but the true reason they hate "ST5" is because of one simple, undeniable fact of Star Trek:

Trek fans don't like William Shatner, and this was his pet-project about himself.

Now Trek fans don't hate Shatner, and as one guy in a "TNG" episode said, "I have many friends who don't like me." But they resent him. They resent him for lampooning himself, and by extension them. They resent him for not taking ownership of Trek as the reason for his fame. And most importantly they resent him for being a jerk to his co-stars (notably George Takei).

Furthermore, Trek fans have never identified with Shatner/Kirk -- a dashing, handsome, aggressive leader who wins himself a new girlfriend every week. Who do you think Trek fans identify with more: that guy or the outcast scientist who has sex once every seven years?

And the answer to that question, is why I've ranked the last two movies on our list... (cliffhanger!)

No. 1 ... on Day 7?

2010-09-15T21:21:00.000-07:00

OK you knew this was coming: No. 1 is "Wrath of Khan," but what else would it possibly be?

Among Trek fans, "TWOK" is the uncontested king of the heap (and among non-Trek fans it's still regarded as a fine piece of cinema) -- I'm going to recap it quickly because everyone knows the drill already:

1) Best villain. Montalban chews the genetically superior scenery. Every Trek villian is billed as "the best one since Khan..." and it's never true
2) Best Kirk. Director Nicholas Meyer forced William Shatner to do his scenes over and over so he'd be too tired for his typical bombastic schtick.
3) Death of Spock. "It was a helluva thing when Spock died..." - George Costanza

And speaking of "Seinfeld" references:

"TWOK" successfully works the "same but different" angle that I've mentioned. It's the same, in that its a sequel to a "TOS" episode, but it's different in that the look and feel are more like a submarine movie than a sci-fi movie. It's also different in that Kirk, the man who's always "cheated death and patted [himself] on the back for his ingenuity" finally has to deal with defeat: he's getting old, he fails to see himself walking into a trap, he disregards orders and people die because of it, he's confronted with the son he never knew and the "life that could have been, but wasn't," and his best friend dies. We'd never seen this from Kirk before, and seeing him more human also made him more heroic.

Fill in the hyperbole -- this is the benchmark for Trek. Here's the director describing his masterpiece:

Day 6, No. 6 ... and heresy!

2010-09-14T15:30:00.000-07:00

We’re through about 60 percent of the list here, and those familiar with the franchise have probably already figured out which movies I’m not going to include, speculation turns to the various series. There have been only 11 movies, but there have been 40 two-parters, and many more multiple story arcs. Which of these will make the Whitleypedia cut?

I’m going to reveal now that nothing from “Voyager” met the cut. I do not feel bad about this. Nothing from “Enterprise” is on the list either. I feel slightly worse about this.

The challenge of an ongoing franchise like Star Trek is the demand from the fans for something that is both the same and different at the same time. This is remarkably difficult to pull off, particularly given the precise memories of Star Trek fans. “TNG” made conscious efforts to be the same as its predecessor in key areas while radically different in others. For example, the basic premise is identical: a ship named Enterprise explores the galaxy boldly, encountering dilemmas that serve as thinly veiled commentary on social issues of the day, particularly as seen through the eyes of a tangentially human “mascot” (Data instead of Spock).

But key details of “TNG” were significant departures from “TOS,” such as

1) The presence of families and children on the ship, including a teenage main character
2) A more mature, dispassionate captain (who was also not an American)
3) Protocol that the captain should not lead dangerous away missions
4) An absence of Vulcans
5) Klingons are our friends now, and one serves among us
6) A security chief who didn’t die every episode
7) An onboard therapist

In brief, I believe all of these changes worked well, except No. 7. The idea of a “ship’s counselor” was a great one, and Marina Sirtis has oodles of charm (yes, I have seen her at a convention), but they never used her character as well as they could have as a therapist. If you don’t think a therapy session can help the drama of a show, you need to watch “The Sopranos.” But the problem is when Guinan was introduced in the second season, she became the defacto counselor and got all the good scenes that could have been Troi’s.

But largely the “TNG” experiment was a success. However, as the franchise progressed, the challenge to be the same but different increased. This was the fundamental problem of “VOY.” It’s fundamental character dynamic (a non-Starfleet crew working with a Starfleet crew) was basically a less-effective copy of “Deep Space Nine,” and its signature characters (Janeway, Neelix, The Doctor/Seven of Nine) were basically less-effective copies of those on “TNG” (Picard, Guinan, Data). At its best “VOY” was watered-down version of its progenitors; at its worst it was a sci-fi “Gilligan’s Island.”

“Enterprise” suffered unavoidably from the “same but different” conundrum, although it turned into a much better show than anyone gave it credit – mainly because everyone had stopped watching. Despite the show’s selling points (heavy intertextuality, strong story arcs, Linda Park’s midriff), it didn’t capture people’s hearts like “Firefly,” nor their minds like “Battlestar Galactica.”

SO having said all that, let me make the second-most heretical statement I’ll make in this series:

My favorite Star Trek is “Deep Space Nine.”

“DS9” mastered the art of delivering the “same but different.” It kept true to its roots of Roddenberry’s peaceful vision of the future without feeling like a Hallmark Card the way “TNG” sometimes did. They could do stories that were “about something” without coming off as heavy handed as “TOS” did. Their action-heavy episodes didn’t sacrifice character or story, and they pulled off extended story arcs with a large supporting cast in a way “Babylon 5” could only dream.

Also, I appreciated that on “DS9” people had relationships rather than interstellar one-night stands. Through the whole series, Captain Sisko only sleeps with two women – his wife (who died) and his second wife. He and several other characters also had children they were raising rather than just shooting through space as carefree bachelor(ette)s. Distinct characters, Quark and Garak in particular, allowed for different kinds of stories than we’d seen before but that still fit into nicely into the Star Trek mythos.

Then the question is which “DS9” two-parter to feature. Most of the show’s actual two-parters weren’t that notable (“The Marquis,” that “we have to ruin paradise to save it!” one), but its ongoing storylines were innovative and well done. So, having said that, the “DS9” episode on my list is the eight-parter that started the Dominion War, which is No. 6 on my list.

The “same but different” factor for all of “DS9,” and this sequence particularly, was off the space-charts. Each of the three Dominion races was a super-charged version of a previous Star Trek villain: the Jem’Hadar were tougher than Klingons, the Vorta were more cunning than Romulans, and the changelings were more insidious than the Borg. By making the villain archtypes similar we felt we were in familiar space, but by making them different we didn’t feel like our legacy was being flouted. Klingons were Kirk’s bad guys, the Borg were Picard’s bad guys. This is another reason “VOY” failed – they co-opted “TNG’s” signature villains in a way that trivialized some of the best installments in the franchise.

My favorite episode of this was “Rocks and Shoals,” where the Defiant and a bunch of Jem’Hadar are marooned on a planet and have a fight to the death. There’s a scene where the crew is debating the ethics of wiping out their enemies and Sisko says something beautifully Republican: “In the choice between them and us, there is no them.” They never would have said that on “TNG.”

No. 3 is No. 3 ... (Day 5 though)

2010-09-12T22:55:00.000-07:00

There has, historically, been the saying that ODD-NUMBERED Star Trek movies are bad, but even-numbered ones are good. This long-standing notion was discarded with the last two films: "Nemesis" (No. 10 -- a stinker) and the reboot (No. 11 -- a winner).

However, I always struggled with the odd/even paradigm because of the No. 3 on our countdown -- "Star Trek 3: The Search for Spock."

Now there are some key reasons why "TSFS" might not make the cut in some people's minds, and I understand them. The film is not without its shortcomings, which include:

1) Positioning.
"TSFS" is sandwiched between the two best films in the franchise: "Wrath of Khan" and "Voyage Home." Often times the second installment in a trilogy feels weak compared to its bookends (the writers of the Lord of the Rings films called "Two Towers" their "neglected child"), and in this case, virtually any movie would struggle to compare to "TWOK" and "TVH."

2) Production values.
"TSFS" has some pretty weak production values, with some less than impressive effects shots. (No. 4's budget was 50% higher than No. 3.) The scenes on the Genesis Planet look corny, the space cantina scene is no Mos Eisley, and a lot of the costumes have a distinctly "It came from the 80s" vibe.

3) Saavik.
Yeah, I'm gonna complain about this now. Kirstie Alley was terrific as Spock's protege, and it was a disappointment that she didn't return for the character's two subsequent outings (because the studio offered her _less_ money, even though she was a bigger star now). While the replacement actress, Robin Curtis, was fine -- and good enough to come back as another Vulcan in two "TNG" episodes -- but it would have helped the film the original could have continued.

Now, having said those things, I still like "TSFS," and I place it higher than "TVH." And the reason I do this is because, when it comes to the "legacy" criteria of my countdown, nothing beats "TSFS." Ahem:

1) Klingons.
So Klingons are the signature alien race of Star Trek (yes, they even edge out Vulcans), and "TSFS" is where the Klingon model was finalized. "TSFS" gave us:

a) The look. Klingons did appear with head ridges in "The Motion Picture," (see right) but those guys looked more like Calibos from "Clash of the Titans" than what we would come to know as Klingons. Kruge (see below) and his crew sported the head ridges, hair, and armor as the first standardized "new" Klingons.

b) The language. The real Klingon language you may have heard jokes about on "Family Guy" or wherever was created for this film by Marc Okrand. And since the franchise has shown off its Klingon-speaking chops whenever anyone would listen. Moreover, "TSFS" introduces the signature Klingon word - qapla! - which is translated as "success" when Kruge uses it, though I think idiomatically it should be translated as "victory."

c) The ship. After the Enterprise itself, no Star Trek ship is as instantly recognizable as the Klingon "bird of prey," which was first created for "TSFS." Actually, arguably this ship is ubiquitous than the Enterprise because it has appeared in virtually every iteration of the franchise ("TOS" films, "TNG," "TNG" films, "DS9," "VOY," "ENT") while no individual version of the Enterprise has.

d) Etcetera etcetera. "TSFS" also featured the first appearance the Klingon "daktag" knife and targ (wolf-like dog), and established the Klingons as warriors more like samurai than as a metaphor for the Soviet Union.

Now, in his autobiography, "I Am Spock," Leonard Nimoy says that the bad guys for this film were supposed to be Romulans, and he changed it to Klingons. Had that been left unchanged, I think Romulans would have become the signature race of the franchise, not Klingons.

2) Spirit.

"My God, Bones. What have I done?"
"What you had to do. What you always do. Turn death into a fighting chance to live."

- Kirk and McCoy, as the fiery Enterprise plummets

"Search of Spock" has left a lasting imprint on the spirit of Star Trek, and unconsciously or not, future iterations all followed its model: the focus on the small group of friends whose personal bond is more important than their careers, the emphasis on individual sacrifice and a de-emphasis on their advanced technology (as demonstrated by the destruction of the Enterprise to save Spock and the flippant disregard for the Excelsior). Some of these themes were certainly extant in the series previously, but "TSFS" perfected them.

This spirit is summed up in the closing lines:

"What you seek has not been done since ages past, and then only in legend. Your request is not logical."
"Forgive me, T'Lar. My logic is uncertain where my son is concerned."

- T'Lar and Sarek, on the request of fal-tor-pan for Spock

The only way Sarek can express his love for his son is to say "my logic is uncertain." Then the echo to Spock's speech about the "needs of the many" at the end of the film is equally tender:

"My father says that you have been my friend. You came back for me."
"You would have done the same for me."
"Why would you do this?"
"Because the needs of the one outweighed the needs of the many."

- Spock and Kirk

3) Humor.

"TSFS" includes some of the best one-liners in Star Trek, such as:

"That green-blooded son of a bitch! It's his revenge for all the arguments he lost."

- McCoy, on realizing he is suffering from a Vulcan mind-meld

"Keeping you busy?"
"Don't get smart, tiny."

- Sulu and Security Guard

"Don't call me tiny."

- Sulu, after knocking out a security guard who called him "tiny"

"Sorry about your crew. But as we say on Earth, c'est la vie."

- Kirk, to Kruge

"I do not deserve to live."
"Fine, I'll kill you later."

- Maltz and Kirk

"Nice of you to tell me in advance."
"That's what you get for missing staff meetings, Doctor. Gentlemen, your work today has been outstanding. I intend to recommend you all for promotion... in whatever fleet we end up serving."

-McCoy and Kirk

And "TSFS" includes my favorite line in all of Star Trek:

"How many fingers do I have up?" (Makes a Vulcan hand salute)
"That's not very damn funny."

- Kirk and McCoy, in McCoy's cell

There are some other highpoints of "TSFS" -- like Uhura's "Mr. Adventure" scene, the hijacking of the Enterprise, and the connection between "TOS" episodes "Amok Time" and "Journey to Babel" and the "ENT" "Forge" trilogy. Despite some of its shortcomings, it's a worthy successor to "Wrath of Khan" and a linchpin part of the trilogy that gave the original crew such a lofty reputation while laying the foundation for "TNG" and all that came after.

Also, "TSFS" is the favorite movie of Kramer on "Seinfeld," as featured in the episode "The Foundation." (Jerry's favorite is "TWOK.") Video here and below.

Day 4 ... No. 4 ... Film 4 ...

2010-09-11T21:51:00.000-07:00

So I've talked a lot about "TOS" passing the space-torch to "TNG," and before I leave that point, I need to talk a little bit more about its genesis:

"TNG" premiered in September 1987 under the nervous premise "Could lightning strike twice?" Paramount was not sure they could pull off a sequel to a show that'd been off the air for 18 years, and only has a small (but loyal) fan base. Remember, the film franchise started by basically picking up George Lucas's slop in the post-"Star Wars" sci-fi frenzy of the late 70s. What could similarly give the Trek franchise enough confidence to risk a second weekly series with a mass audience?

The answer to that is No. 4 on my list: "Star Trek 4: The Voyage Home."

Now let me preface this by saying that I don't particularly like "ST4." I don't think it fits well within the canon. Yes, I know that the time "slingshot" effect had been used three times before in "The Original Series," but I still don't time travel stories, because they completely destroy dramatic tension. (William Shatner actually says the same thing in the DVD commentary to "ST4.") Because if you can travel through time, then when you screw something up, you can say:

Hey, did that Klingon kill your son, Kirk? Let's go back in time and save him!
Hey, did that super-human madman kill a bunch of scientists and steal the Genesis Device? Let's go back in time and fix that!
Hey, did that redshirt get killed because he didn't duck in time? Let's go back in time and save him!

Moreover, this sets up the precedent that time-travel is really easy . Kirk pulls it off here in a half hour, in a substandard alien vessel that lacks the Enterprise's superior database OR a full crew complement, and with a science officer whose brain is Swiss cheese. This is not technically a plot hole, the way the time travel aspect in "First Contact" is, but taken outside of the context of this story, it empowers the characters too much. This is why the effect was never used again.

See, I'm of two minds where the "legacy" aspect of "ST4" is concerned, because on the one-hand:

a) Released in 1986, "ST4" was, unadjusted for inflation, the most successful installment of the film franchise until the reboot. This movie is the one that was most successful with a mass audience because it's easy to understand and it uses a lot of humor. Without the success of "ST4," studio executives probably would not have been confident enough to start a sequel TV show less than a year later, which also had the broadest mass appeal of any Trek series. And without "TNG," the franchise would have disappeared 20 years ago.

b) The events in "ST4" had virtually no effect on subsequent movies or TV shows, unlike movies 2, 3, and 6. As said earlier, no one ever uses the slingshot effect again, no one ever talks about whales or the probe, and Gillian never reappeared anywhere. The only reference ever made to "ST4" is a line in "ST6" where the head of Starfleet says to the President of the Federation "Those men [Kirk and McCoy] have literally saved this planet," and frankly at that moment he could have also been talking about when they saved it from V'Ger. For the franchise's most successful installment, it's bizarre that they never tried to return to it. (Note: there's an episode of "Enterprise" where they passingly quote a Vulcan philosopher mentioned in "ST4" -- but that's about it.)

You might point out that "ST4" established that Starfleet Headquarters (and the Academy) are located in San Francisco, a point that's heavily referenced in many subsequent episodes. However, this was actually established in "The Motion Picture," not "ST4." So you would, in fact, be wrong.

Now the exception to my point b) would be the reboot, which includes "ST4" as one of its four prime influences (the other three are "Wrath of Khan," "Journey to Babel," and "Unification.") The first act of 2009's "Star Trek: The Star Trek" takes its cues from "ST4," showing a Vulcan training scene reminiscent of the one in "ST4" and showing that Kirk was, indeed, from Iowa (which "ST4" established).

So I'm torn on "ST4," but because of its pivotal role in advancing the franchise, it has to be on the list. Moreover, it's ridiculously well made, with a great screenplay, believable special effects on the whales, a fun soundtrack, and humor. "ST4" is also pure science-fiction -- there's no villain, no fighting, and a phaser is fired ONLY ONCE: when Kirk locks the doctors in the closet.

The best part of the film is the way they share the action. Yes, Kirk and Spock are the stars, but because there was no villain, the filmmakers had more time to show attention to the other seven members of the crew, who all enjoy more screen-time and character-moments than ever. These include:

Scotty "burying himself" in the part of the plastics engineer (OK wait, this is also where they introduce the term "transparent aluminum," a phrase that would be used subsequently).
Sulu flying a helicopter and saying "San Francisco ... I was born there."
Chekov, a Russian, facing off against an Naval officer while innocently unaware of Cold War politics. (Note: "ST4" also continues the trend of Chekov's tendency to get screwed.) This movie is also where the term "nuclear wessels" was coined.
McCoy mocking 20th Century medicine ("the g--d--- Spanish Inquisition").
Uhura didn't get a lot (nothing to compete with "Mr. Adventure" in "ST3" or the fandance in "ST5," but she is the one who isolates whale song at the beginning.

This is another way in which the film's invisible, but strong, legacy can be felt: "TNG," DS9," and "VOY" all featured ensemble casts rather than following the "TOS" model of focusing on just a couple main characters. This is another reason why "TNG" was so successful and popular is that they were following the model set by "ST4," even if no one ever followed its details. "ENT" would return to the "TOS" standard of only three truly main characters, but even then Hoshi Sato got way more character development than Uhura ever did.

She also has an awesome mid-riff.

So "ST4" -- mass appeal, humor, ensemble cast, spawned "TNG." Some would insist that it should be higher, but I will argue that the No. 3 spot should be reserved for .... (cliff hanger!)

Star Trek Week ... day 3

2010-09-10T14:59:00.000-07:00

OK so yesterday I quoted the Wikipedia page that said "Best of Both Worlds," my No. 2, was the sign that "TNG" had come into its own and was no longer in the shadow of its predecessor. This statement is true. "BoBW" came out at the midpoint of "Trek"'s apex, 1989 - 1991, starting half way through "TNG" seasons 3 and culminating with Numbers 7 and 8 on our countdown: "Unification" and "Star Trek 6." (Part 1 of "Unificiation" available below.)

These two installments signaled the passing of the proverbial space torch from "TOS" to "TNG" with Leonard Nimoy appearing as Spock in two episodes of "TNG" and Michael Dorn appearing as Worf's grandfather in "ST6." They dovetailed together, spaced just a month apart from each other, with Spock teasing the audience about Captain Kirk's then-unknown fate in "Unification." From the script:

SPOCK Perhaps you are aware that I played a small role in the first overture to peace with the Klingons...

PICARD History is aware of the role you played, Ambassador.

SPOCK Not entirely. It was I who asked Kirk to lead that peace mission. And I who had to accept the responsibility for the consequences to him and his crew. Quite simply, I am unwilling to risk anyone's life but my own on this occasion. I would ask you to respect my wishes and leave.

What did this mean? Was Kirk going to die in "ST6"? Of course, he didn't -- he flew off into the sunset. "ST6" was a glorious way to end a mission that had extended 20 years past the mere 5 promised. The trailer for "ST6" captures the highlights of the original crew's voyages, and gave every Trek fan a lump in his throat: (The voice work is Christopher Plummer, and he was the bad guy in "ST6," the music is from "Search for Spock.")

Magnificent way to send them off, with a montage of a classic moments. I wish they could have done something so classy for the "TNG" crew.

Part of my criteria for this list has been the legacy aspect of the episodes/movies highlighted: how well do they honor long-standing themes in the Star Trek universe and/or how well do they start these themes? These two installments beautifully do both, which is why "Generations" was so pointless. The torch had already been passed.

The scenes with Spock and Picard were more compelling than any of the Kirk/Picard stuff in "Generations." I think the reason that the scenes work so well is because

Stewart and Nimoy are in the same league as actors (Shatner is not, though he's better than he gets credit).
Picard and Spock can interact more meaningfully because of pre-existing relationships: Picard with Sarek and Spock with Kirk. Picard is the only man alive who a) can tell Spock that his father loved him (because of the mind-meld), and b) Spock can talk to with nostalgia. My favorite line in episode is where a very tired Spock says "Walk with me, Picard" -- you can hear the tenderness for Kirk that he can only express to a fellow captain of the Enterprise.
I never felt that Picard would have grown up idolizing Kirk, and that there would be some great moment with the two of them. (The guy on "TNG" who was always talking about Kirk was Riker, who would have been the much better partner for a Kirk story.)
Spock and Picard are more similar (as Spock says, "There's an almost Vulcan quality to the man") in personality, but they're different in their function, making the interplay between the two more dynamic. Everyone was excited to see the scenes with Data and Spock, because they were the non-human "counterparts" in each show, but they didn't have any of the poignancy or drama as the Picard/Spock stuff. (Wait, not that I'm implying there's any Picard/Spock stuff...)

Moreover, "ST6" and "Unification" prove one of my theories of Star Trek -- the main character isn't Kirk, it's Spock. Demonstrably, the best sign of this fact is the 2009 reboot, which was successful because they picked Nimoy and not Shatner to join them. Note also, in terms of legacy, that the only "TNG" episode referenced in the reboot was "Unification."

Spock is also the driving figure of "ST6." He's the one who essentially manipulates Kirk into undertaking the mission with the Klingons, he's the one who rescues Kirk, he figures out who's responsible for the treachery. Kirk just gets swept up in the action. Kirk has more of an arc -- he goes from "never trusting Klingons" -- to overcoming his prejudice (continuing his character thread from "TSFS"), so I guess he's the protagonist, but only in the same way Frodo is the protagonist of "Lord of the Rings" (while Gandalf runs the show).

Now of course I also need to mention Worf in this, because he had to be the one from "TNG" to reach back to "TOS." Worf (technically his grandfather) is Kirk and McCoy's lawyer -- so we have a Klingon trying to save Captain Kirk. This is another sign that "TNG" had overtaken "TOS" -- we were more accustomed to Klingons being our allies than we were to them being our adversaries. ("DS9" would make the Klingons bad guys again, but it didn't last long because it didn't feel right anymore.)

Returning to the pointlessness of "Generations." If there was a character from "TNG" who would have fit well with Kirk from the movies, and the arc he completes in "ST6" -- overcoming his prejudice against Klingons -- IT WAS WORF. For Kirk to team up with a Klingon would have been more meaningful than teaming up with Picard. The Kirk and Worf characters would have presented a more dramatic element despite the fact (and in truth because of the fact) that they did not have corresponding positions on their respective ships.

Some of the allegory in "ST6" is a little dated at this point (Klingons = Russians, Gorkon = Gorbachev, Praxis = Chernobyl), but it still works, and its production values, for a Star Trek movie are second only to "First Contact" (and probably the reboot). And as far as a way to send off a crew, it's never been matched.

Star Trek Top 10 Part 2 ... Number 2!

2010-09-07T21:34:00.001-07:00

I was pleasantly surprised by feedback on yesterday's post and hope everyone can stay with me through the list. Most of these entries will be a lot shorter than that one, but to elaborate: The problem with the "TNG" movies is that none of them really had any point, any real story to them.

The premise of "Generations" was "Hey, uh, we should do one with Kirk and Picard, right?"
The premise of "First Contact" was "Hey, people like the Borg right? We should put that on the big screen!"
Then "Insurrection" was "Hey remember how 'Search for Spock' and 'Wrath of Khan' were pretty grim, and then they did a light one about whales that everyone loved? Let's do a light one!"
Then "Nemesis" was "Dude, I don't care any more ... how about we just throw them in a dune buggy? and just end it."

See, there was no real story, there was no "so what" to them. For "First Contact" they knew the Borg plot was thin, so they added the interesting story on the planet, but apart from that, the whole franchise is listless and compares terribly to their own earlier work. There was also no sense of building. All of the "TOS" movies build off their antecedents (except possibly No. 5) to create a series rather than just an isolated string of vignettes.

See and that's why "TOS" is better loved than "TNG," even though "TNG" is irrefutably the better show -- the "TOS" films were fantastically better than the series, while "TNG" suffered from the reverse. The "TNG" movies just can't hold up to the average episode of the show, therefore they left everyone feeling worn out while the "TOS" films made everyone feel fulfilled to have been friends with these characters for so long.

So on that note, let's talk about a "TNG" installment that knew exactly what it was doing, the achievement "First Contact" was trying to emulate: "The Best of Both Worlds." I put it at No. 2 on my list.

This is the episode that really put "TNG" on the star-map. From its Wiki entry...

"Many fans and critics regard them as the best episodes of the Star Trek saga, having achieved an almost cinematic level of story and scope. With this episode, and with its embarkation upon an unprecedented fourth season, The Next Generation was considered to have finally emerged from the shadow of its predecessor. It won Emmy Awards for "Outstanding Sound Editing for a Series" and "Outstanding Sound Mixing for a Drama Series" and was nominated for two others: "Outstanding Visual Effects for a Series" and "Outstanding Art Direction for a Series." It appeared in TV Guide's 100 Most Memorable Moments in TV History feature in its July 1, 1995 edition, and also in another issue on the 100 Greatest TV Episodes of All Time."

Not a lot more I can add, except that I also think this episode is why I became a hard core Trek fan as a kid. I watched this as a cock-eyed 12 year old and was just breathtaken. My brother, Mark, saw the first part just a few weeks before he left on his mission and had to wait TWO years to see the conclusion. I distinctly remember him shouting at the television when he saw the "To be continued..."

Incidentally, I made some edits to the Wiki page on Sunday, adding the "Legacy" section.

Given the popularity of the episode, it has been revisited several times in the Star Trek franchise. The subsequent episode, Family, detailed Picard's struggle to cope with his captivity and assimilation. The Borg conflict is referenced in episodes later that season: in The Wounded, Captain Benjamin Maxwell tells Riker that "we all owe you" for defeating the Borg, while in The Drumhead Admiral Norah Satie interrogates Picard about his assimilation to try to humiliate him. Picard's desire for vengeance against the Borg is also a theme of the film Star Trek: First Contact, with flashbacks depicting his capture.
While viewers saw only the aftermath of the Battle of Wolf 359 in the episode, Star Trek fans would see scenes of the actual battle three years later in the pilot episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. The series' protagonist, Benjamin Sisko, had served as executive officer aboard the USS Saratoga, which was lost in the battle along with Sisko's wife. In the episode The Die Is Cast, when a group of Cardassian and Romulan ships are destroyed by the Dominion, Sisko compares the massacre to Wolf 359.

I don't have much more to add, certainly not the level of analysis that I had with yesterday's, but I will say that the further significance of this episode was cementing Patrick Stewart as the show's protagonist. Previously, it had really been Riker -- he got more of the girls, he got more one-liners, and he led the away teams. I understand, from a simulationist standpoint, why you wouldn't have the most important guy on the ship going into harm's way every week, but from a narrativist standpoint, it doesn't help to cut out the most important guy on the show like that.

Having said that, "BoBW" is a Riker vehicle -- the whole episode is about how he's always hid behind Picard to avoid getting a command of his own, and then now he has no choice but to be in command because Picard's gone. But Stewart's masterful performance both as Picard and Locutus really jolted that, as the series focus' quickly shifted from Riker to Picard. Influencing this, perhaps more than "BoBW" itself was the show's aftermath, "Family," which "has been named in a number of polls and surveys as one of the two most popular and best episodes of the entire Next Generation series, along with the episode 'The Inner Light.'" These two episodes, plus my personal favorite "Tapestry" (I even have a signed copy of the script from Ronald D. Moore), all feature Picard to the virtual exclusion of every other major character.

Stewart was just too good of an actor to not be the protagonist. Ironically Stewart's gravitas was one of the things that ruined the "TNG" movie franchise, as Stewart demanded constant action scenes for his character, whom he somehow forgot was not - technically - Bruce Willis. From the Memory Alpha article on "Insurrection":

"I said three things: One was, I thought that Picard's involvement in the action line of First Contact had been very successful and I wanted to continue that. My feeling was that the captain should be in the thick of things. You've got to have the captain in jeopardy. Then I talked about perhaps trying to find a lighter tone for this film, I wanted to see our heroes having fun. And the last thing I suggested was that we should develop a romantic storyline that went a little further than the one that I had with Alfre Woodard in the last film. That was a fairly competitive relationship, which ultimately became respectful and fond towards the end - but it was just too late."

This is the kind of role he should play -- cerebral, not swinging around making action movie cliches.

So there's nothing wrong with a lighter tone, that's why "The Voyage Home" and "Trouble With Tribbles" are so popular, but here Stewart is demanding sex and violence for his character, which were not what made his character so distinct and therefore compelling. Jean-luc Picard was a bald British man playing a pacifistic French man who quotes Shakespeare, constantly adjusts his shirt, and calls his first officer a synonym for peeing.

Star Trek Top 10...

2010-09-07T19:34:00.000-07:00

So around this time of year I get a lot of emails and sexts demanding that I blog even _more_ about Star Trek (since I'm not quite nerdy enough on a good day), because - as everyone knows - September 8 is the anniversary of the airing of the first episode of Trek on NBC in 1966.

So this year I'm going to try to pull off a "Star Trek Week" on Whitleypedia, expostulating the 10 best movies in the franchise. Ten best, you say? But there were only 11 films, and several of them were bad. Ah, Gentle Reader, I'm going to include along with that every two-parter from the various series -- that gives us a pretty big sample size over the show's 44 year run.

I'm basing this ranking on a complicated set of criteria, but the main one is the movie or two-parter's legacy: how well did this fit in the Trek canon, honoring the tradition that lead up to it and inspiring subsequent installments.

I don't want to do a traditional "countdown," especially since obviously "Wrath of Khan" is going to be No. 1. So instead I'll just count out according to my own will and pleasure. This time, I'll start with No. 9 -- "Star Trek: First Contact."

Now there's a lot of fan-boy praise for this film, which might make some bristle at ranking it so lowly on the list. But there's also a lot of fan-boy criticism of "First Contact," such as from the inimitable Mr. Plinkett:

So adding my own observations to those in the Plinkett review, here are the problems with "First Contact":

1) The entire story makes no sense. So the Borg travel through time to prevent the Federation from ever happening -- to prevent first contact with the Vulcans, right? The obvious problems with that are

If the Borg can travel through time, why wouldn't they have done it before invading Earth and having gotten destroyed by star ships?
The Borg exist to assimilate technology. Why would they assimilate a primitive species? Isn't it in their interest to let this civilization develop new technologies and assimilate that? Why would they be interested in this primitive world? Out of spite?

2) The presence of the Borg Queen makes even less sense. Everything we'd heard about the Borg up until then was that they were a collective -- no individuals at all. The reason they assimilated Picard in "Best of Both Worlds" was because they idea of a leader was something new to them. Also, if there is a Queen, why would she be on this vessel? And why would she wear lipstick?

3) The Borg are themselves dumb villains. The Borg were fantastic in small doses - no more than one episode per season on "Next Gen," but in large doses they just get ridiculous. One is because they're shown as so powerful that it's inconceivable that they wouldn't conquer the Enterprise immediately once they show up en masse, and two is because they are - as Lily describes them in the film - "cyborg zombies." The Borg are just zombies. They walk slow; are pale and deathly looking; when they kill you, you become a zombie; and they want to eat your brains (not technically true). This is a zombie movie in space. That's why they had to add the Borg Queen, because otherwise there would have been nothing to do in the third act of the film.

See the thing with the Borg, is that if they're not zombies, then they're a Doctor Who villian -- the Cybermen, who were only cool for being lame. (And there's an episode where the Brigadier tells the Doctor, "We've even got gold-covered bullets in case of you-know-what!" I loved that episode.)

4) The movie retcons the Borg. So the thing with the Borg is that they're, as Q says, "the ultimate user" -- "not a he, not a she" -- and otherwise expresses that they have no personality, no humanity, they exist only for technology. This is obviously capturing the zeitgeist of the late 80s where people were afraid that technology would consume their lives to the point that they had no lives (such as staying up late to write a blog post about a 14-year-old movie on a blog no one will read).

When Picard tells a drone,"We mean you no harm. Do you understand me?" Q mocks him with, "'Understand you'? You're nothing to him."Okay but then in this movie the Borg's whole deal is that people matter to them, they want to add their "biological and technological distinctiveness to our own." Now, I could accept it if this were, like, a new thing that the Borg were doing, but even then why would they wait until now, after centuries of living as mindless parts in a machine, start assimilating people? Also, everything about the Borg in "Voyager" (see below) follows this trend, ignoring Q's initial description of the Borg in one of the series' best episodes.
The thing about when Q says something, is he's "all-knowing, all-seeing," so when you change things that he says, it subtracts somewhat.

There are some other points to nit-pick, but those are the big ones. So, now, moving on to the good things about the film:

1) Best soundtrack in a Star Trek movie.

This is the only music CD I have in my car. It's majestic. It's almost as good as a "Star Wars" movie's soundtrack. Not only is the main title terrific for this, but they final gave the Klingon theme to Worf in a couple scenes. And they play "Magic Carpet Ride."

2) Zefram Cochrane. One of the problems with Star Trek movies is that there are so many characters in the cast that the films frequently feel crowded. This film had several supporting characters (and cameos) and none of them feel lost: James Cromwell makes an otherwise forgettable throwaway character from "The Original Series" vibrant and fun. They also avoid the sci-fi cliche of having to go to some lengths to persuade him to join their mission. They just explain everything (off camera) and he says "why not?" Beautiful. When I was watching the film I braced myself for the extended, tiresome exposition and debate, and they just flipped the page. Nice. Which brings me to point 3:

3) Pleasantly surprises for the viewer. So the first time watching the film, you assume it will just be a knock-off of "Best of Both Worlds," with some kind of plot that culminates in a big space battle. But then it isn't. They get the space battle out of the way within about five minutes, and then the movie starts. There are some movies that, after you see the trailer, you no longer need to see the movie. "FC" doesn't fall victim to that. Even though it came out in 1996, the film's special effect have held up remarkably.

The Reg Barclay cameo was fun too.

4) The film is beautifully directed. Jonathan Frakes (Riker) directed this and did a fantastic job. Not only does he juggle the many different characters and locations, but he strings everything together cogently and effectively. It's almost (though not quite as good) as "Terminator 2" in terms of balancing just the right amount of action, then exposition, then action, then character development, then action, then plot twist, etc.

Best evidence of that is how he films the Borg cube in that scene above. Note: it is very difficult to make an evil space ship look evil without looking like a sad rip-off of the opening scene to "Episode IV." The cube is shot vertically, to make it look like a tall, scary building, rather than lengthwise, so the comparison is never made. Brilliant.

5) The "who's your daddy" effect. Here's the thing about Star Trek ... without question, "Next Generation" is the best series. There. Is. No. Question. None of the other series had a lead as strong as Patrick Stewart -- and I said strong, not kitchy, which is why Stewart beats out Shatner, even though Kirk would be more fun to see a baseball game with than Picard. None of the other series produced episodes of the quality of "Best of Both Worlds" or "Tapestry" or "Yesterday's Enterprise." None! There's more nostalgia for "The Original Series," because the characters are so lovable and because they ended on a supremely high note, with dignity and class (except for the three that came back for "Generations"), rather than starting their film franchise on a supremely low note (like "Generations"). "First Contact" makes a concerted effort to incorporate elements from all the installments of Star Trek to show that this is a shared universe, rather than just theirs, while profoundly showing "who's your daddy."

Deep Space Nine. The film pays homage to "DS9" with Worf leading the Defiant into battle. Riker makes a wisecrack about how it's a "tough little ship" (which is also a tongue-in-cheek reference to the episode of "DS9" where Thomas Riker hijacked the Defiant).
Voyager. The film sweetly has cameos for two "VOY" actors - Robert Picardo playing a version of the EMH and Ethan Phillips playing a character one-gazillion times less pointless than Neelix: a night club host. There's even a bit where Beverly makes an utterly pointless reference to the Delta Quadrant, just to tell the audience -- "Hey! There's also this show 'Voyager'! And we're not ashamed of the association!"
Original Series. The entire culmination and surprise ending (though you could kind of guess who it was going to be) of the Vulcans' first contact with humans is a loving homage to "TOS." "TNG" surreptitiously avoided use of Vulcan characters to avoid the obvious comparisons with Spock, but "TNG" reverently acknowledges, at the climax of its best film, that it got to where it was only by standing on the shoulders of the giant who came before: "TOS."

which brings me to

6) Legacy. This is why I place "First Contact" so highly, even though the story - as I said - makes no sense. Everything that came after "First Contact" has tried to duplicate it. You have two storylines - the Borg on the ship and Zefram Cochrane in Montana.

After this movie was released, "Voyager" completely shifted gears to emulate the a) storyline, relying more heavily on the Borg and introducing Seven of Nine. (I don't know if this was for the best, since they took the worst threat ever and made them the monster of the week, but it was probably better than what was going on with the show otherwise.)
The entire show of "Enterprise," which got far worse than it deserved and went before its time, was based on the b) storyline with Cochrane, which is ultimately the much better part of the picture. (Note that all my complaints are about the a) storyline.) James Cromwell appeared in several episodes, the characters make constant reference to him, and there's even footage of the Phoenix in the show's opening credits. The cold open to the episode "In A Mirror, Darkly" is just lifted from "First Contact."
“First Contact” also features a beautiful piece of Trek legacy – both in canon and in fandom – Lily compares Picard to Ahab from “Moby Dick,” which Picard proceeds to quote, chapter and verse. Lily confesses “I never read it,” echoing the fact that most Trek fans know the story, not because they’ve read the book, but because Khan quoted it in “TWOK.”

So despite the fact that the story made no sense, and the Borg had lost relevance as villains after "Best of Both Worlds" (heck, even in "I, Borg," they weren't the bad guys, prejudice against Borg was the bad guy in that one), "First Contact" is still terrific. It's also the only watchable "TNG" film.

Number 9: "First Contact"

Cracked lists

2010-08-05T09:10:00.000-07:00

My love of list-based entertainment is so well known that I'm not even going to bother to link to my previous post about list-based entertainment. But I will post to this hilarious list on Cracked.com that details several amusing crime-stopping anecdotes, such as this one about Elvis Presley sending Richard Nixon a request to be made a "Federal Agent at Large":

"The transcript of the letter can be found here, and reveals some interesting thinking on Elvis' part. He points out that "The drug culture, the hippie elements, the SDS, Black Panthers, etc. do not consider me as their enemy." Yes, Elvis was offering to be Richard Nixon's undercover hippie hunter.

Historians generally agree that what happened next is one of the three awesomest things to happen since God killed all the giants in the Old Testament. Nixon received Elvis' rambling, barely coherent letter that ended "I have a personal gift for you which I would like to present to you and you can accept it or I will keep it for you until you can take it." If that's the closing sentence in a letter from an ex-girlfriend, you're going to want to make sure to never see her again, ever. Proving Nixon either had a way better sense of humor, or a way bigger crush on Elvis than history gives him credit for, Nixon agreed to the meeting with Elvis."

Check it out -- brilliant.

Bear on trampoline

2010-08-02T18:51:00.001-07:00

I think the bear is nature's funniest animal. I mean if this were a dog or cat it would be sad. If it were an opossum it would be gross, but since it's a bear - the only creature that's pound-for-pound more deadly than a wolverine - it's fall out of your seat funny.

Whitleypedia myth/fact

2010-07-30T08:36:00.001-07:00

Myth	Fact
Whitleypedia is not awesome	Whitleypedia is indeed awesome
Whitleypedia causes cancer	Whitleypedia does not cause cancer
Whitleypedia is a “gateway blog” to other, more dangerous blogs	Whitleypedia is not a “gateway blog,” but a portal to a world of new information
Whitleypedia has jumped the shark	The expression “jump the shark” has jumped the shark

Memorable quote...

2010-07-30T07:33:00.000-07:00

You look down, they know you're lying and up, they know you don't know the truth. Don't use seven words when four will do. Don't shift your weight, look always at your mark but don't stare, be specific but not memorable, be funny but don't make him laugh. He's got to like you then forget you the moment you've left his side. And for God's sake, whatever you do, don't, under any circumstances...

Pride and Prejudice

2010-07-26T19:23:00.000-07:00

Wordle of "Pride and Prejudice"

Emmys - I Hate Thee

2010-07-08T06:41:00.000-07:00

OK so the Emmy nominations for this year are out. Here's the complete list.

"Community" did not get a damn thing, not even a writing nom for an individual episode, yet "Glee" got NINETEEN noms, more than than any other show. It reminds me of a "Seinfeld" episode where Jerry says:

Jerry: It's like that episode of "The Twilight Zone" where the guy wakes up, and he's the same, but everyone else is different!
Kramer: Which one?
Jerry: They were all like that.

My consolation? "Family Guy" did not get a nomination for best animated program. And I hope Conan gets some wins for the "Tonight Show" -- great that he/his team got so many nominations.

State Of TV 2010

2010-07-07T10:06:00.001-07:00

So it’s the Wednesday after Independence Day, which loyal Whitleypedia readers will realize means it’s time for our annual state of TV installment.

Well, no, but tomorrow the Emmy nominations will be announced, so that’s enough of a news peg to me. By this time, we’ve all had enough chance to digest the now bygone season’s worth of shows, cogitate deeply upon what we’ve seen, and analyze what it means for the health of our republic. These are my findings:

“Community” delivered the best first season since “Arrested Development.” This should not come as a surprise as “Community” boasts two ARD alums: Joe and Anthony Russo. I haven’t blogged really about how fantastic “Community” is, but in short I'll say it’s witty, it’s fast, it has heart without being cheesy, and they don’t use a laugh track. It's a creative premise (characters are a study group for a Spanish class) and it's set in Colorado - the closest we'll ever get to basing a show in Utah that is not explicitly religious or anti-religious. Also, they have gone out of their way to make fun of “Glee” repeatedly, which thing pleases me. However, unlike “Glee,” “Community” actually produces original songs:

It will probably get snubbed in the big categories (Chevy Chase might get a best supporting), but I predict the show will get a writing and/or directing nod for its paintball episode. (The fact that star Joel McHale is announcing the nominations tomorrow indicates that he probably will not be among them.) This show deserves not only the best comedy nomination but the win, however, if it lost to “Curb Your Enthusiasm” that would be fine, since “Curb” pulled off a “Seinfeld” reunion better than anyone ever thought possible. Bravo – and to Miss Louis-Dreyfuss, brava.

“30 Rock” seems to have jumped the shark and does not deserve repeat awards. There’s a lot on this, so click here for more.

I’m sorry it just has. Despite winning many awards for last year’s stellar season, “30 Rock” just wasn’t funny this year. Yes, there were a few good episodes, but it has gone from a show I watched three times each week to catch all the jokes to a show I just listened to while checking email. The creativity of the show was that its humor was 1) refreshingly female-centric, dealing with such issues as when a co-worker calls you the “c-word”, and 2) post-ironically self-aware of the shortcomings of scripted comedies. In essence, it was a sitcom about television sitcoms, escalating the post-modernism of the genre well beyond even the fourth season “Seinfeld” arc about Jerry getting his own show.

There are two possibilities for this drop in quality:

1) Tina Fey is moving on. She has been the brain of the show and penned its best episodes (i.e. “Cooter,” which featured a shot of the Eisenhower Building in D.C. while I was working there – most cool). With her distracted by projects like “Date Night,” the rest of the staff is left to fend for themselves, and the product is as reliably funny as, well, we would expect the staff of “TGS” could pull off if Liz Lemon were gone.

2) The show has simply run out of material. I struggle to believe this is true, but it doesn’t bode well for its future that “30 Rock” has slumped into stale, predictable sit-com absurdism (i.e. the one where Liz sells Tracy her life rights and Tracy turns it into a porno – um, guys, he already did that in season 2). None of the ongoing storylines gained much traction – Tracy’s trying to get an EGOT and have a daughter (though Morgan is still hilarious). Elizabeth Banks’ recurring character as an anchor babe has been a highlight, but only really funny when she’s leading a Fox News-style interview (which I think happened only twice).

“Glee” is terrible. I do not need to go on at length about this more. I understand why it got the Golden Globe, because the category is “Best Comedy OR Musical,” and “Glee” definitely has entertaining musical chops. But it isn’t a comedy, it doesn’t even try to be a comedy -- it tries to be a soap opera, and a very badly done one at that. It certainly isn’t funny.

“The Office” got its groove back. Though it has been critically ignored since the fourth season, where they began to lose the pace of the outstanding second and third seasons, the sixth season has brought back the funk. Highlights of the year include two sit-com standbys which typically indicate shark-jumpage (a marriage AND birth of a baby) that were nonetheless pulled of extraordinarily well from a dramatic standpoint and from a realistic standpoint. It's fit beautifully with the show’s mockumentary style. “The Office” has also successfully matured the characters and their relationships with each other, where they pull off the impossible of being the same but different year to year.

Also, “The Office” is better at exclusive online content than any other show (“Subtle Sexuality,” which won a Streamy this ye ar) – take note again producers of “30 Rock,” whose online content is always lame (except “Ask Tina,” which they hardly ever do, despite how easy it is to produce -- again, it appears Tina Fey is moving on).

Steve Carrell, who recently announced he will leave the show after the coming season FINALLY deserves an Emmy for best comedy actor. He’s been snubbed every time before, even as the award show has ejaculated praise over his less entertaining British counterpart, Ricky Gervais.

“Mad Men” is still dynamic and impressive, though this year it ran the risk of becoming too cool to be cool anymore (if you follow) – kind of like in 2003 when all the people who liked Homestar Runner in 2000 hated how popular it had become. It will still probably win best drama, and probably deserves it.

This year also saw the introduction of the “Caprica” series on SyFy, a prequel to “Battlestar Galactica.” “Caprica” is so extremely boring I could not make it through the pilot – still a crime its older brother show got snubbed last year. Laura Rosslyn must be spinning in her grave … along with the 40 billion other members of the colonies killed by Cylons.

There’s a lot more on TV than what I’ve mentioned, but I don’t watch it, so I don’t particularly care. “South Park” is still doing great too, and I predict a series of “South Park”-themed blogs soon … their best episode of the year so far as been the Facebook/Tron spoof “You Have Zero Friends,” which is one of their best to date.

Old School Advertising

2010-06-25T13:58:00.001-07:00

This is a collection of "Mad Men"-era advertisements that I find hilarious. My mother forwarded them to me.

We had a Kenwood at my house growing up. This ad looks like it's from the '80s, which is odd methinks...

This one looks like something from "South Park"...

You know, we had a saying on our mission: "The more doors you knock, the cuter your wife gets..." Kind of the same thing, but in reverse...

For a better start in life, start cola earlier? Holy crap! Although that kid kind of looks like my dad did as a baby. I love the statement that "laboratory tests" have proven that cola makes your baby more popular when he's a teenager. How did they purport to prove this?

This one's the same:

OK this one is obviously sexual, with the phallic cigar and the word "blow" ... it seems like the kind of thing from a copy of "Playboy" in the 1970s (I assume).

This one is pretty disturbing. I mean, you'd think that, like the previous one, they might try to use sex to subconciously communicate that you should purchase a product. But this is not a consensual spanking game ... this woman is in genuine peril. Yowza!

The headline on this one is probably probably telling the truth (at the time):

Speaks for itself...

I, Robot

2010-06-08T20:57:00.000-07:00

So I recently read the book "I, Robot," which thing I should have read when I was 14 methinks. It was pretty good. It's like 50 years old, but doesn't feel like cheesy, pre-"Star Trek" science fiction where robots are just there to be mindless bad guys.

The adaption a few years ago did a great job of taking the key concepts and extrapolating them into a full-length story. (The book itself is a collection of nine short stories Asimov wrote over the course of years.) Upon completion, I edited the Wikipedia page for the film to add "Similarities to the Book." I'd recommend it if you're a sci-fi fan. (The book ... or the movie ... not necessarily the Wiki page, though that's good too.)

Samantha Bee: Daily Show coming to D.C.

2010-06-06T12:10:00.000-07:00

So yesterday I went to the Borders in Washington, D.C., where Samantha Bee from "The Daily Show" was there promoting her new book. I went and got some video of it. The most interesting bit was where she said that "The Daily Show" would be broadcasting from D.C. in October leading into the mid-term elections.

More videos of the event are available on my YouTube channel here.

"Glee" - Revenge of the Fallen

2010-06-03T09:36:00.000-07:00

One of the great hallmarks of wisdom is the capacity and the humility to change one’s mind – to thoughtfully re-evaluate one’s perceptions and philosophies based on new perspectives. Therefore, when my friend Blake mentioned on Facebook that he was still watching “Glee,” I thought I’d give it a second chance. So I watched this episode:

My reaction? The show’s fundamental problems had grown rather than shrunk.

My objection to “Glee” is that the creators obviously have no clue about constructing a story. (And without that, as George Costanza said, “it’s just masturbation.”) They seem like they are literally scrambling from scene to scene to fill in time between the songs. The characters are one-dimensional and uninteresting (and the ever-ballooning number of secondary characters is a sign of how weak their mains are, even though I think the lead boy and girl are good actors). I also just can’t stand the hypocrisy of the sassy, fat black girl who – while intended to add racial diversity – is herself an extremely racist stereotype. Her dialogue reads like it was written for an episode of “Fresh Prince” where Carlton was trying to sound "street."

They create drama not through character-driven stories or creativity, but gimmicky clichés: formulaic love triangles; teen pregnancy bereft of any post-“Juno” poignancy or wit; and gay issues that were groundbreaking 20 years ago on “Degrassi Junior High,” but are perfectly safe (and trite) on today’s TV landscape.

Again they contradict themselves: the episode is all about gay gay gay gay young AIDS, but Rachel says at one point, “I love my two dads, but right now I need a mom.” Message? A homosexual parenting pair is inadequate. Is that really what they’re trying to communicate? No, of course it isn’t, but I don’t think they’re intelligent enough to realize what they’re doing.

Now, the songs themselves, the show’s hook, demonstrate great production value. The variety (while obviously focus-grouped) is also good, but even here the creators show they have no perception of story-telling. This offending episode’s climax is a cover of Lady GaGa’s “Pokerface,” which is completely and utterly wrong for the context.

For those who don't know - including, clearly, the production staff of "Glee" - “Pokerface” is about a woman concealing her lesbianism (or perhaps bisexuality) from male sexual partners. It is grotesquely out of context when sung as a duet between a mother and a daughter as an anthem for their coming to terms with each other. Moreover, “Pokerface” is sung, mixed, and Autotuned to specifically be opaque and misleading (except for when GaGa sings the title lines of the chorus) – just like a pokerface – and the “Gleeks” produce the song so you can clearly hear every word being sung, underscoring the contextual dilemma.

Why would they choose this song here? No reason at all, except that it’s trendy.

The trendiness irritates me. “Glee’s” one truly winning moment was the pilot episode performance of “Don’t Stop Believing” – a timeless classic. (Note: when you start typing "Don't Stop Believing" into the YouTube search engine, the "Glee" version is suggested above the Journey original.) They are obviously trying to reconnect with that, as they’re performing another Journey song, “Faithfully,” in their season finale.

“Glee” does not feel like high school. It does not even feel like a show about high schoolers. It feels like a show made by high schoolers. I need to do something drastic … like not watch it anymore.

Bear Ninja

2010-05-26T15:48:00.000-07:00

Third Rock tribute

2010-05-22T14:28:00.000-07:00

Nine years ago, the TV show "Third Rock From the Sun" came to a close.

Here's the alternative ending to the one they used in the finale. This is a much stronger way to go out, reprising their anthem from an earlier episode, and ending on a classically sci-fi note. Speaking of notes, the way Sally harmonizes here always gets me.

"Third Rock" was the first TV show I really got into after my mission, and it was a nice addition to my television diet, after two years of starvation. The show combines elements of slapstick and sci-fi parody that tickled my funny bone, lo these many years later.

Modern Warfare

2010-05-11T10:08:00.000-07:00

Last week's episode of "Community," titled "Modern Warfare," was a work of superlative genius. It referenced Die Hard, Chow Yun Fat's gun-kata, The Warriors, The Terminator, and several other action films that I didn't catch. Other great references to Friends, Simpsons, and of course a few punches thrown at Glee.

This show is the best.

The Guild Season 4 is official!

2010-04-20T20:24:00.000-07:00

News here.

Love that Guild!

Glee-ave us alone!

2010-04-14T10:19:00.000-07:00

Aigh. Glee is back.

I struggle to find Glee's creative niche or quality. This show has no editorial direction. The pilot was good, but since then they've just been scrambling. People like the music, which is good, and repackaging their covers for iTunes or cell phone ringtones allows the network to effectively monetize an otherwise lackluster show.

It's like Jeff said on an episode of "Community": "I hate Glee. I don't see its appeal at all."

Streamys

2010-04-12T21:06:00.001-07:00

The Streamys recognize online entertainment the way the Emmys do TV, the Oscars movies, etc.

Last night this year's Streamy winners were announced ... my beloved show The Guild won two awards, best actress to Felicia Day (who also should have won for writing, as that is where she really excels - alas!) and a best director. Pretty good. If you haven't checked it out, you should ... well, if you get all the extremely nerdy references such as when Zaboo says "I guess my princess is in another castle." This is the very first episode; quality has increased by an order of magnitude for each successive season. (Ostensibly they are working on season 4 now.)

Also, "The Office's" Subtle Sexuality got a Streamy for best Web/tv tie-in. I hope that means a sequel for them!

Dominion Card List

2010-04-06T19:16:00.001-07:00

I typed up a spreadsheet of the Dominion card list after teaching my nephew how to play. Seemed like it might be useful.

Check it out. Unless you don't play Dominion, in which case, check that out.

Dominion spreadsheet.

Als0 - Dominion Alchemy is just released! Whoo hoo! (Note: for those who cannot speak German, it may be rough to get through some of the info.)

Attack of the Clones Review

2010-04-05T08:43:00.000-07:00

So the good folks at Red Letter Media have come up with a second multi-part review to a Star Wars prequel movie. The "Attack of the Clones" review went up over the weekend.

Some of the language may be NSFW, but it's hilarious and spot-on.

Urban Hike Through New York City

2010-03-31T21:00:00.000-07:00

Recently I participated in an “urban hike” through New York City with my brother and his scout troop. One of the scouts was turning 18 and his departing wish was such an excursion.

Given that it was the first nice day of the season, it was ridiculously crowded. We visited various historical places, including the pizza shop from “Spider-man 2”...

"What's up with you, Parker, you're always late?"

...and that one park where there’s that big arch. There were these acrobatic break-dance street performers there.

They were entertaining, but what was more entertaining were this nearby group of “Sex and the City” wannabe hangers-ons who said things like “Denim’s really in this year!” and argued about who got to be the White Queen at some stupid party that night. Very amusing.

You're probably not going to find a "People with AIDS Plaza"
anytime soon in Salt Lake City

Now I understand the infectious enthusiasm that exists in a place that gets as much attention as NYC -- I feel it to a degree in D.C. But my problem is I feel that everyone in New York is playing a character because their perception of themselves and their city is so informed by the over-saturation of pop culture on the subject. And I also feel that everyone lies to themselves about how much fun they're having while they're "doing New York." It's like that "30 Rock" where Liz Lemon says "Why would anyone want to leave New York? It's the capital of the world!" and then a homeless man spits in her mouth and she decides to move to Cleveland. (Video is here; clip starts at 5:06. Sorry I didn't embed; I had too many photos to clog this up with another image.)

Engrish = funny

Here's the thing about NYC: I can understand (to some extent) the appeal of the city, in that there’s so much there, and there’s this idea of finding “great places” that are hidden from others. It’s like the Internet: the Internet is cool because you can find a fun website that nobody else has heard about and then it’s yours; this is one reason my cousins said Homestar Runner ceased to be cool 'round about 2004: it became big and lost its fringe, alternative cache.

Oooh -- biting social commentary!

But regardless, New York is crowded and smelly. Why would I care about finding "hidden" cappuccino or pizza places in a city so over-populated and filthy that you come home with an indefinable film all over your skin? Who cares if you find the coolest banana peel in the world at the garbage dump ... you're still at the garbage dump!

Maybe that's unfair of me ... maybe I'm just not cool enough for what Washington Irving nicknamed Gotham City ... or maybe one urban hike just isn't long enough to "do" New York!

No wiki love?

2010-03-27T13:00:00.000-07:00

Hey here's something crazy ... when you do a search for "Mike Lee," who's currently running in the Republican primary for Senate candidate in Utah, the second thing that comes up on a Google search is some guy's site using a profane word in his blog title.

Now it doesn't matter who you support in this race ... or even if you don't support anyone at all ... the important thing is when the good people of Utah want to research a candidate, they shouldn't have their eyes assaulted by some nut job whose blog is named "Mother - "effer" - Pack it in." The other irritating thing is that blog hasn't been updated since March '09!

See in my perfect world, the second entry for "Mike Lee" on a Google search would be his Wikipedia entry.

What can you do?

Garn But Not Forgotten

2010-03-16T08:06:00.000-07:00

So given my passing interest in politics, I have found the recent events in my home state quite interesting, wherein no less that the majority leader of the Utah State House of Representatives, Kevin Garn, has resigned pursuant to disclosure of a small impropriety: a naked hot tub party with a 15 year old. He insists there was no touching, but his victim says otherwise in this SL Tribune article.

In his public remarks last week, he "I did not want to be publicly judged by one of my life's worst decisions."

Um ... oh you didn't, did you? Well what a surprise. I mean ... I wouldn't want to be judged by sexual abuse of a minor either, but ... if I were guilty of it ... I'd pretty much be stuck with that, wouldn't I? And what's he doing avoiding a superlative here: "ONE OF MY life's worst decisions"? He's done something else that's worse than the sexual abuse of a minor?

This guy had been her Sunday School teacher and is a former LDS bishop. The shame this brings to him, Republicans in Utah, and the LDS Church is depressing, but at least he's out of office now.

Trailer for Oscar Bait Movies

2010-03-08T13:43:00.001-08:00

This is too good not to circulate. Enjoy.

A Trailer for Every Academy Award Winning Movie Ever -- powered by Cracked.com

Hidden text test

2010-03-01T21:50:00.000-08:00

I am trying to learn how to use the hide/reveal text function in Java Script. This is my test.

To find my hidden message, click here.

John Adams Review

2010-02-28T08:56:00.000-08:00

So two years ago I started seeing all kinds of advertisements in the Metro around D.C. for a forth-coming series on HBO about John Adams, our nation's second president. The tagline was "He united the states of America."

In D.C., stuff goes over really well. Here's the intro:

I didn't see the series at the time, but I'm watching it on DVD right now. It is by every measure spectacular. It's patriotic without being propagandistic.

The birth of America and its first few steps as an infant democracy are well known, and the hagiography of our Founding Fathers is well established. John Adams is easily lost amidst Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and Hamilton. (Indeed, of the five mentioned in the last sentence, only one does not appear on our coinage: Mr. Adams.)

Playing to this -- he in one scene disappoints the French aristocracy when he is introduced as John Adams, rather than Samuel Adams, his charismatic and reactionary cousin -- the film-makers establish John Adams as an under-dog and an every-man. As we are introduced to these world-striding collosuses (notably Washington and Franklin), the viewer is star-struck along with Mr. Adams. He is surprised to be met, on his return from his English Ambassadorship, by cheering crowds ... but the Congress ignores him once President Washington walks into the room 10 minutes later. These scenes reinforce our national ideal that every American can be a great American (even if they don't get credit), but never in a way that is sappy, cheap, or cloying.

Here's the scene where Thomas Jefferson shows his first draft of the Declaration of Independence to Adams and Ben Franklin. It demonstrates that while Jefferson had the eloquence and the prominence to make the document ring, Adams was the driving passion behind it. The poignancy of the scene is underscored by the fact that we know Adam's and Jefferson's friend/partnership will end in bitter alienation.

The best bit is where Jefferson just shrugs and says "Well, it's what I believe."

I'm only half-way through with the series. I may have another post on the subject when I finish.

Eu-Google-y

2010-02-24T06:51:00.000-08:00

I remember when my brother Mark showed me this new website to look for stuff on the Internet. The Internet was still pretty wild west, and I felt reasonably cool to know about this new sheriff in town: Google.

Of course Google is now the most popular website in the world, and for someone to not know about it, they would have to have spent the last 10 years in a cave. With their eyes shut. And fingers in their ears. On Mars.

Anyway -- there's a cool article about Google over on wired.com. It's really long, but here's this interesting time line from the article of Google's dominance:

Backrub
[September 1997]

This search engine, which had run on Stanford’s servers for almost two years, is renamed Google. Its breakthrough innovation: ranking searches based on the number and quality of incoming links.

New algorithm
[August 2001]

The search algorithm is completely revamped to incorporate additional ranking criteria more easily.

Local connectivity analysis
[February 2003]

Google’s first patent is granted for this feature, which gives more weight to links from authoritative sites.

Fritz
[Summer 2003]

This initiative allows Google to update its index constantly, instead of in big batches.

Personalized results
[June 2005]

Users can choose to let Google mine their own search behavior to provide individualized results.

Bigdaddy
[December 2005]

Engine update allows for more-comprehensive Web crawling.

Universal search
[May 2007]

Building on Image Search, Google News, and Book Search, the new Universal Search allows users to get links to any medium on the same results page.

Real-Time Search
[December 2009]

Displays results from Twitter and blogs as they are published.

My Dad On Google Maps

2010-02-17T20:23:00.000-08:00

Check it out:

This is my childhood home, as seen from the west on Google Maps. The individual walking up the hill? My father. The Interwebs -- I love it!

Snowpocalypse

2010-02-07T12:18:00.000-08:00

This weekend was the Snowpocalypse in D.C.

This is my car.

This is after I'd carved a bit of snow off of it.

Here it is (on the right) after we'd unburied it.

List lists

2010-01-31T09:19:00.000-08:00

OK so one of the signs that our popular culture has been over-saturated is the propagation of so much list-based entertainment, such as VH1's "Top 100 (fill in the blank)" shows. The idea is that we have so much distracting us between TV, movies, the Internets, etc., that we can't just consume a single product -- we need to consume micro-versions of these products arrayed as lists for us to consume.

This is a sign we're even beyond that: I found a list of top lists for the year. My favorite is the top 5 cats who look like Wilford Brimley. The Google street view mishaps are pretty funny too. This picture here

I'd already seen on failblog. Fantastic.

Book Report: The Female Brain

2010-01-21T22:04:00.001-08:00

So I just finished this book "The Female Brain" by Dr. Louann Brizendine. I found a copy of it at Goodwill for like 50 cents a few months ago. Then I read the whole thing. It seems to have pretty good scientific chops but it's still concise and easy to get through.

The main premise is that while it has been politically incorrect to say that a woman's brain is different than a man's, it is biologically incorrect to say that it is not. Thanks to modern imaging technology (MRI, etc.) neuroscientists have been able to map out precisely differences not only between men and women, but between men and women at different phases of their life. The bits on the menopausal brain are interesting, but so far removed from my foreseeable future I was not as interested in the other bits.

I'd recommend it.

Left-leaning Outlets Winning Online

2010-01-21T07:23:00.001-08:00

I wrote this article for Utah Policy here about how liberal news outlets are beating conservative news outlets online. (All of them lose to ESPN.com.)

"Stupid"?

2010-01-11T20:09:00.001-08:00

Hey guys - sorry if my posts are ever "stupid." I'll try to smart up for 2010.

Failblog

2010-01-04T21:00:00.001-08:00

Have you ever seen Failblog.org? I realize that this is one of the oldest and most popular Internet sensations, but I was reminded again today of its hilarity.

This video is terrific. One of the few ones where no one gets hurt ... well, no PEOPLE.

Weightlifting Fail
Uploaded by failblog. - Watch more comedy videos and sitcoms.

And this one is even better

Suspect Win
Uploaded by failblog. - See more comedy videos.

New York Times Square

2010-01-01T20:07:00.000-08:00

So we went to Times Square to ring in the New Year. Fun experience. I would never, ever, do it again. Lots of standing (about 6 hours worth) in the rain (about 3.5 hours worth), but still a good thing to HAVE done.

Here's the video:

The coolest part was walking around the streets afterward, all the traffic blocked off, with a large crowd of folks enjoying the night. It was like a sporting event where everyone was rooting for the same team. Everyone was on great behavior - no public drinking, no fighting.

Books I've Read This Year

2009-12-28T17:18:00.001-08:00

Given various exigencies in the career path this year, I've had magnificent opportunity to work through my "to read" list in 2009. Here is a list of books I've read this year:

The Big Sky
Neverwhere
Downtown Owl
The Collaborator of Bethlehem
Eating The Dinosaur
High Fidelity
Tales of Beedle the Bard
Thank You For Smoking
Swords Against Deviltry
Sandman Series (reread; all “graphic novels”)
Scott Pilgrim series (all “graphic novels”)
Master and Commander (on tape)
And Then There Were None (on tape)
The Amazing Adventures of Cavalier and Klay (gave up after 200 pages, sorry)

I also made lots of progress on the Discworld front, reading the following:

Pyramids
Sourcery
Eric
Men At Arms
Feet of Clay
Jingo
The Fifth Elephant
Night Watch
Thud!

Phantastic Phantom Menace Review

2009-12-26T21:40:00.001-08:00

I recognize that saying "The Phantom Menace" sucked would not have been insightful 10 years ago when the film was in theaters, but I found this YouTube video this week detailing in masterful detail how it sucked compared to the masterpiece of the original trilogy.

I highly recommend it. I have watched it or listened to it five times because his commentary on effective story-telling is so compelling. There are seven videos of 10 minutes each, so you don't have to watch the whole thing, certainly, but the final two are fantastic. So at least check those out.

Low-down On the Mt. Vernon Mid-singles Institute

2009-12-08T19:48:00.000-08:00

Tonight I attended the Mt. Vernon mid-singles institute where President Nixon announced the forthcoming creation of a mid-singles ward. The charter for this mid-singles ward had to be approved “personally” by the First Presidency, which has approved only one other mid-singles ward in the last 10 years. Several years ago, the stake presidency petitioned to create this ward and it was rejected by the First Presidency.

Here are the vital statistics:

Name: Potomac Singles Ward

Bishopric: Lew Larsen, Jeff Simmons, Rob Griffin

Location: Mt. Vernon ward until the Crystal City building is up and running

Boundaries: Mt. Vernon stake (though mid-singles from outside the stake are welcome)

Age range: 31 to 55 (he said “What I don’t want is grandfathers hitting on 31 year old sisters”)

Projected population: 260, though the total mid-singles population in Mt. Vernon is 800

Time: 3 p.m.

Start date: Jan. 10, 2010

He said the goal was to create an “environment for courtship, but not be obsessive about it.” He said that mid-singles are welcome to stay in the family wards where they currently worship and that the ward is “not going to draft like the NFL,” and added, “What we don’t want is for you to be lost in the family ward.” Someone asked if there would be a primary for those mid-singles with children (from previous marriages); the answer was no.

Bishop Larsen spoke as well, and said that “singles need more options, not less.”

10th Day of Thanksgiving

2009-11-25T00:04:00.000-08:00

I am grateful that in this article for Utah Policy, they included my embedded video of Tina Fey from "30 Rock." Whoo hoo!

11th Day of Thanksgiving...

2009-11-24T10:06:00.001-08:00

Today I am thankful for YouTube videos of "Curb Your Enthusiasm" with the "Seinfeld" cast. Whoo hoo!

The 12 Days of Thanksgiving

2009-11-23T10:52:00.000-08:00

So I received a text message from a friend of mine yesterday about Thanksgiving-related posts. And it occurred to me that I didn't have anything planned for the big day. So I present to you "The 12 Days Of Thanksgiving!" (Note: 12 days will more accurately be four or five days.)

Today I am grateful for Utah Policy, the website I freelance blog for as their Washington correspondent. The article I have today is relatively awesome; it is about the five Utah members' Facebook pages.

On the first day of Thanksgiving, the Internet sent to me ... one Utah Policy article ...

TO BE CONTINUED

Office post...

2009-11-12T22:25:00.001-08:00

So "The Office" has been outperforming "30 Rock" this season. I would not have thought it possible.

Here's this clever web exclusive they did:

I love the term "Nard Dog."

...

Anyway, I have a job interview tomorrow so I should go to bed.

Jared in the D News again...

2009-10-26T09:20:00.000-07:00

The Deseret News interviewed me for an article in today's paper about Facebook and Internet addiction and whatnot.

I should have sent them a picture of me or something.

Given this whole meta-reporting business, I thought I'd include the transcript of my entire interview, for folks who really want to "peel back the curtain."

1. What kind of technology do you use? Internet? Cell phone? How often do you use it? Can you go a day without checking your e-mail or other things?

I use a cell phone and wireless Internet from my laptop. I recently terminated Internet access to my cell phone because I was primarily just using it to cheat on crosswords or look up pointless minutiae on Wikipedia that I didn't really need to know. I do have a GPS on my phone, without which I would be intractably lost driving around the Washington area.

2. Do you think it's easy for people to become too dependent on technology? Why or why not? What's the ideal amount of time spent online?

For the last four years, I have not had a television in my house, and have not missed it because of the Internet. When I have to really get work done on the computer, I go into the one room in my house that cannot get a wireless signal, so I'm not tempted to perpetually check my email or Facebook or the Drudge Report or whatever. I think if there's a purpose behind your use of technology, then there's no problem. Since there are so many different ways for the Internet to entertain, inform, and connect an individual, anyone can drown in this great ocean called the Internet. Some people, who for example become addicted to MMORPGs, end up spending entirely too much time online.

3. Some people argue that social networking sites actually tend to isolate people and make them lonelier. Do you think that's true? Or, do you find you're better able to connect with people and maintain contact with friends? Why do you use social media like Facebook?

It could, but I am inclined to disagree with knee-jerk rejections of technology. I find, for example, with my church friends that I have much more to talk about with the active Facebook users on Sunday than otherwise. "Oh, your trip to Boston looked cool!" or "Hey, great job with that marathon." I'm able to maintain contact with friends from high school on the other side of the continent whom I'd never talk to otherwise.

Facebook is incalculably valuable to me both personally and professionally. Since I'm in political communication, it's important for me to understand how people use this technology and to network with colleagues, not just in Washington, but back home in Utah as well. Moreover, if you're Facebook friends with someone, you don't need to keep track of their contact information when it changes (cell phone number, email), because they're so easy to contact via that platform.

Jared Snubbed In MUSS Article

2009-10-21T13:21:00.001-07:00

Article in the D News about the "MUSS" at the U of U today.

No props given to yours truly, who came up with the name. Curse you D News!

Bruce Campbell's meaty role in S4

2009-10-20T22:10:00.000-07:00

MTV's Splashpage is reporting that veteran character actor and dude with a big chin Bruce Campbell is boasting about the "meaty role" he'll play in Spider-man 4.

...

The answer is, obviously, that Campbell is going to play PETER PARKER'S BUTCHER. The dude's making a pun. Seriously. Mark my words.