Coming this August, Lost Season Six DVD. According to TrekMovie.com it will feature an epilogue about Hurley's rule of the Island. It will answer a few lingering questions. Remember the joke alternate endings on Jimmy Kimmel Live's how "Aloha to Lost?" I wonder if this one will be serious. Oh, joy. (deadpan)
Before you urge me to buy it to see if there any answers in it, I will make the argument that the producers should have put the answers in the broadcast version. You didn't see Peter Jackson skip important parts from the theatrical version of "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King" and put them in the extended DVD. That would be unfair to the intended audience.
I'm sure Rabid Losties will love seeing the Emperor without clothes. But being a former fan, I refuse to see a naked man.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Reds Win the Ohio Cup!
Reds retain the Ohio Cup by beating the Cleveland Indians, 10-3. They would win it by defeating the Indians 6-4 on Saturday. We are the champions my friend. We'll keep on fighting till the end. We are the champions, we are the champions... no time for losers... Cause we are the champions of the Ohio Cup!
Lost Sucks
Okay, I've spent a week fighting Rabid Losties in the comments section of Choke On Funny's review of the Lost series finale. It's on YouTube. After that, it's time for a new segment in unleashing my rage for having wasted six years of my life watching Lost.
"You can let go now." Rose to Jack on the plane in Sideways World.
No, I'm not going to let go until I get invited to the church by Evangeline Lilly. : ) After fighting with Rabid Losties under the name Basementblooger, I have discovered their favorite defense of this terrible last season. It's interesting because Rabid Losties like Doc Jensen and Dan Snierson of Entertainment Weekly and others furiously defending Lost all bend themselves like pretzels to explain the last season and the finale. Yet, they all have different theories to the show. Anyway the defense you see the most and in the past I've discussed it, is...
"You bring your own interpretation to the show or interpret it any way you want."
Here's what's wrong with that defense. Scripted television and film are not interactive mediums. You cannot control the characters or paramaters because the writers do. I can't make Kate go with Sawyer. I don't have control over them. However, you can write any piece of junk and leave it open for interpretation and run around and call it art. That's not responsible and just plain lazy.
When you read all the different interpretations for the last season of Lost, it becomes clear that mysteries were never going to be answered or maybe the writers didn't know how to resolve them. For example, Terry O' Quinn on Jimmy Kimmel's show says he didn't know he was the Smoke Monster in season five. Alan Dale who plays Charles Widmore said on Kimmel's show didn't know whether he was bad or a good character. First, I feel for the actors who most be able to channel motivation from the script. They had none. Second, it lends proof that the writing was haphazard. So, now writers can just create incomplete junk and offer the "intrepret it your own way" defense.
Of course, Rabid Losties have multiple theories on season six. And by using the "bring your own interpretation" can make season six look like Shakespeare. Let me demonstrate how speecious this is. I was challenged by a Rabid Lostie on the net to use some imagination. Okay, you asked for it, here it is. I'm going to take on the mystery surrounding what happens when the Man in Black (aka Smokey, Fake Locke) leaves the Island and why it would be detrimental.
"Invisible magic fairies live in Jacobs' butt. They would come out and do magical things like heal Locke's paralysis. When Jacob died, the magic fairies went to live in Fake Locke's butt. Should Fake Locke leave the Island, he would take the magic fairies to the world off the Island. The fairies are anti-matter and if they touched real matter, they would cause massive explosion."
See the problem? Nothing prevents my silly story from becoming Lost's story. The writers of the show have avoided all responsibility. Everyone is happy because you have no conclusion or the conclusion is up to the viewer. Let's face it. Every creative artist must face his audience and hope that they like her piece of work. That's par for the course. But in Lost, there is absolutely no artistic courage.
"You can let go now." Rose to Jack on the plane in Sideways World.
No, I'm not going to let go until I get invited to the church by Evangeline Lilly. : ) After fighting with Rabid Losties under the name Basementblooger, I have discovered their favorite defense of this terrible last season. It's interesting because Rabid Losties like Doc Jensen and Dan Snierson of Entertainment Weekly and others furiously defending Lost all bend themselves like pretzels to explain the last season and the finale. Yet, they all have different theories to the show. Anyway the defense you see the most and in the past I've discussed it, is...
"You bring your own interpretation to the show or interpret it any way you want."
Here's what's wrong with that defense. Scripted television and film are not interactive mediums. You cannot control the characters or paramaters because the writers do. I can't make Kate go with Sawyer. I don't have control over them. However, you can write any piece of junk and leave it open for interpretation and run around and call it art. That's not responsible and just plain lazy.
When you read all the different interpretations for the last season of Lost, it becomes clear that mysteries were never going to be answered or maybe the writers didn't know how to resolve them. For example, Terry O' Quinn on Jimmy Kimmel's show says he didn't know he was the Smoke Monster in season five. Alan Dale who plays Charles Widmore said on Kimmel's show didn't know whether he was bad or a good character. First, I feel for the actors who most be able to channel motivation from the script. They had none. Second, it lends proof that the writing was haphazard. So, now writers can just create incomplete junk and offer the "intrepret it your own way" defense.
Of course, Rabid Losties have multiple theories on season six. And by using the "bring your own interpretation" can make season six look like Shakespeare. Let me demonstrate how speecious this is. I was challenged by a Rabid Lostie on the net to use some imagination. Okay, you asked for it, here it is. I'm going to take on the mystery surrounding what happens when the Man in Black (aka Smokey, Fake Locke) leaves the Island and why it would be detrimental.
"Invisible magic fairies live in Jacobs' butt. They would come out and do magical things like heal Locke's paralysis. When Jacob died, the magic fairies went to live in Fake Locke's butt. Should Fake Locke leave the Island, he would take the magic fairies to the world off the Island. The fairies are anti-matter and if they touched real matter, they would cause massive explosion."
See the problem? Nothing prevents my silly story from becoming Lost's story. The writers of the show have avoided all responsibility. Everyone is happy because you have no conclusion or the conclusion is up to the viewer. Let's face it. Every creative artist must face his audience and hope that they like her piece of work. That's par for the course. But in Lost, there is absolutely no artistic courage.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Go For It, Reds!
Okay, the Reds just got swept by the last place Seattle Mariners. And adding salt to the wound, they couldn't score a run against a guy who was 0-6 with and ERA over six before the start of the game. (Ryan Rowland-Smith) Yes, the Reds faced two tough pitchers in Cliff Lee, and Felix Hernandez in the previous two games. But the Reds were once ten games over and in first place. Now they are a game and a half out.
So, why am I saying the Reds should go for it now? There's an adage in baseball, that if you can win it all now, you must go for it. That means you make trades and moves for the short term. You give up valued prospects for guys to put you over the top. Can the Reds win it all this year? Yes. As I have said, the Reds were ten games over and in first place. If this team plays to its potential, they can beat anybody.
That begs the question, what does this team need or could use? Well, Cliff Lee is rumored to be available. He's a former Cy Young winner and a great teammate. And if you watch him silence the Reds bats, he would be a number one guy in a Reds rotation. The Reds do have talent to get him. For example, prospect Yonder Alonso can't get on the field because Joey Votto is entrenched at first. Getting Cliff Lee would send a jolt through the team that the Reds will do what it takes to win. I would also find a solution to getting Drew Stubbs to hit. I want to see less strikeouts and more contact from him. If he can't hit on this level, the Reds should look elsewhere for help. But Reds Nation, don't give up on this season.
So, why am I saying the Reds should go for it now? There's an adage in baseball, that if you can win it all now, you must go for it. That means you make trades and moves for the short term. You give up valued prospects for guys to put you over the top. Can the Reds win it all this year? Yes. As I have said, the Reds were ten games over and in first place. If this team plays to its potential, they can beat anybody.
That begs the question, what does this team need or could use? Well, Cliff Lee is rumored to be available. He's a former Cy Young winner and a great teammate. And if you watch him silence the Reds bats, he would be a number one guy in a Reds rotation. The Reds do have talent to get him. For example, prospect Yonder Alonso can't get on the field because Joey Votto is entrenched at first. Getting Cliff Lee would send a jolt through the team that the Reds will do what it takes to win. I would also find a solution to getting Drew Stubbs to hit. I want to see less strikeouts and more contact from him. If he can't hit on this level, the Reds should look elsewhere for help. But Reds Nation, don't give up on this season.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Toy Story 3 (3-D) Review
I'm going to commit a some film blasphemy here. I never thought Pixar's Toy Story (1995), and Toy Story 2 (1999) were all that great. I mean they were good but these were movies geared towards children and maybe that's why I had trouble enjoying them as much as other critics. I will agree that Toy Story was revolutionary in introducing computer animation for a full length film. It probably spelled the death of 2-D animation, though it was good to see Disney's "The Princess and the Frog" (2009) go old school 2-D. So, when other critics were glowing with praise for Toy Story 3 (99% Fresh with Rotten Tomatoes), I decided to see it.
Toy Story 3 opens with a wild western fantasy that a young Andy is staging with his toys. We're reintroduced to cowboy Woody (voice by Tom Hanks), cowgirl Jessie (Joan Cusack), Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen) Mr. Potato Head (Don Rickles) and others. The scene is a flashback and serves to tell the audience how things have changed. You see in the ten years since the last movie, Andy has grown up and stops playing with his toys, leading the toys to feel lonely. On the cusp of college, he decides to store his old toys in the attic, with the exception of Woody, who he wants to take with him to school.
Unfortunately, they are mistaken for trash when Andy puts them in a garbage bag. The toys escape but crawl into a box slated for donation for a day care center. When they arrive at the day care center, the toys think they are in heaven since they will be played with. The older toys at the center are supervised by Lotso (Ned Beatty), a big furry bear and he assigns new toys to the playroom where the very young kids play. It turns out that our heroes are not age appropriate for these children as the kids abuse them in violent ways. Hey, let's face it, young children usually like the box that a new toy comes in rather than the toy. We discover that Lotso is kind of a dictator, and is enslaving our heroes. The toys decide to escape with the help by a Chatter Telephone. (Teddy Newton) Their goal is to get back to Andy even if that means exile to the attic.
It's been ten years since we last saw these characters, and frankly I wasn't very interested in their lives since the last movie. The early scenes of the toys escaping the garbage bag, and being tortured by little kids were small in scale. I missed any sense of adventure. And don't bother with the 3-D version of this film. The filmmakers seemed to have a snobby view of 3-D and refuse to emphasize it. There are virtually no money shots, i.e., where objects come at you. You don't notice it. If Pixar doesn't use 3-D then they should lose it. Now, that may sound like I hated this film, however, it takes flight during the escape sequence. The action and especially the comedy during the escape were entertaining, and funny. And I have always loved the themes that Pixar puts in their films. I saw compassion, generosity, courage, loyalty and love in this movie. That is enough to melt my heart.
Toy Story 3 looks like the final part of a trilogy. As such, it is a satisfying conclusion. The grade is B.
Toy Story 3 opens with a wild western fantasy that a young Andy is staging with his toys. We're reintroduced to cowboy Woody (voice by Tom Hanks), cowgirl Jessie (Joan Cusack), Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen) Mr. Potato Head (Don Rickles) and others. The scene is a flashback and serves to tell the audience how things have changed. You see in the ten years since the last movie, Andy has grown up and stops playing with his toys, leading the toys to feel lonely. On the cusp of college, he decides to store his old toys in the attic, with the exception of Woody, who he wants to take with him to school.
Unfortunately, they are mistaken for trash when Andy puts them in a garbage bag. The toys escape but crawl into a box slated for donation for a day care center. When they arrive at the day care center, the toys think they are in heaven since they will be played with. The older toys at the center are supervised by Lotso (Ned Beatty), a big furry bear and he assigns new toys to the playroom where the very young kids play. It turns out that our heroes are not age appropriate for these children as the kids abuse them in violent ways. Hey, let's face it, young children usually like the box that a new toy comes in rather than the toy. We discover that Lotso is kind of a dictator, and is enslaving our heroes. The toys decide to escape with the help by a Chatter Telephone. (Teddy Newton) Their goal is to get back to Andy even if that means exile to the attic.
It's been ten years since we last saw these characters, and frankly I wasn't very interested in their lives since the last movie. The early scenes of the toys escaping the garbage bag, and being tortured by little kids were small in scale. I missed any sense of adventure. And don't bother with the 3-D version of this film. The filmmakers seemed to have a snobby view of 3-D and refuse to emphasize it. There are virtually no money shots, i.e., where objects come at you. You don't notice it. If Pixar doesn't use 3-D then they should lose it. Now, that may sound like I hated this film, however, it takes flight during the escape sequence. The action and especially the comedy during the escape were entertaining, and funny. And I have always loved the themes that Pixar puts in their films. I saw compassion, generosity, courage, loyalty and love in this movie. That is enough to melt my heart.
Toy Story 3 looks like the final part of a trilogy. As such, it is a satisfying conclusion. The grade is B.
Brent Spiner Crashes the Q & A with Patrick Stewart
At this year's Philadelphia Comic Con 2010, Patrick Stewart (Capt. Picard, Star Trek, TNG) was asked about one of his most embarrassing roles. Patrick Stewart responds with the 1985 film, "Wild Geese 2" in which he plays a Russian general. Brent Spiner (Data in ST: TNG) then crashes the Q & A session with some funny questions. Check it out.
By the way, the Trekkers in the Q & A, ask better questions than James Lipton of the Actor's Studio. There was interesting stuff about Shakespeare. And here's his good advice on getting your foot in the door if you're an actor.
By the way, the Trekkers in the Q & A, ask better questions than James Lipton of the Actor's Studio. There was interesting stuff about Shakespeare. And here's his good advice on getting your foot in the door if you're an actor.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Star Trek: Enterprise To Be Available Online
I wrote that Paramount should bring Star Trek back on television. My argument was to bring back Star Trek: Enterprise. The reason I want Star Trek back on TV is that the next film may not come out till 2012. That's too long. Well, good news my fellow Trekkers. CBS will make available online and without cost, Star Trek: Enterprise. Hopefully, that will keep the interest in the franchise until 2012.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
