The (Supposed) History Channel

So, the other day I was watching the History Channel and it made me question the validity of their channel name.

The show I was watching was called Ancient Aliens, and it was on all day, the way History Channel has a 'theme' every day.

Now, in my more youthy youth I fully enjoyed the occasional ghost/alien/conspiracy theory special (...okay, a lot of them). The problem is even as a ten year old I had this wonderful ability called "Critical Thinking" and while it wasn't as strong as it is now I still had the ability to realize things that were unlikely if not outright impossible.

But, even then, I don't think that the crazy conspiracy shows were THIS freaking crazy.

I used to be able to get to about the 35-45 minute mark before conspiracies generally got too crazy (History Channel alien/ghost/conspiracy documentaries have pattern of starting tame and working their way up). Meaning I could tolerate a decent amount of crazy before the skeptical part of my brain took over.

Now, with the conspiracy shows (Ancient Aliens, Brad Meltzer's Decoded) start with the stretching that most shows didn't get into right away. And when I say stretch, I mean Mr. Fantastic style stretching.

Here are the tweets I made while watching this show when it was on: "Hey, remember when History Channel was about history? What happened? Ancient Aliens isn't history its baseless speculation, at best." "Seriously, I don't mind them showing alternative theories, but actually try to portray all sides fairly. Don't give into the crazy!" "It's almost like coincidence doesn't exist to these people. Seriously? Now you're trying to convince me a pharaoh might've been an alien? No" "No, no Egyptian pharaoh was ever an alien. No. Where is the sane archeologist calling out these idiots? Where is the science? DNA test even?" "Ancient Aliens, I hate you."

Yes, you probably read those tweets correctly, Ancient Aliens tried to say that Pharaoh Akhenaten (whose body we have probably found) was either an alien, or of alien descent explaining his unusual appearance (in artwork) and religion. This was Thirty minutes into a two-hour program. No expert was called in to say, "That's bullshit his DNA is completely human."

More on the decline of the History Channel later. 

Bridesmaids (A So-so Film)

I know this isn't an exactly timely review, but who reads this anyway? But, if you are, there be spoilers ahead.

The film I saw last week with my good friends was "Bridesmaids" and it was... all right?

The film had potential. It really did! However, I felt it squandered it trying to do the same things it did well. Let me explain:

I felt this film did a really good job of Showing as opposed to telling. In the film's opening act you really get a feel for who the characters are and how they are all, mostly, interconnected. You can feel the friendship between the main character Annie and her best friend Lillian. Also, when the rest of the cast is introduced you do get a feel for their personalities and what kind of plot you'll be seeing out of them.

However, this made for a very lengthy act 1. And I mean very lengthy. Probably 20-40 minutes of the total 125 minute run time. Normally, I wouldn't complain about a lengthy set up, but the payoff isn't there. The end is just kind of an end, no real resolution of plot lines. The only plots that are resolved are: Annie's fight with Lillian, Annie's fight Helen, and Annie's fight with Nathan. While that seems like a lot here are plots that weren't resolved, but set up: Annie's bakery, Annie's joblessness, Annie's living with her mother, Helen's comeuppance, Lillian's moving into a richer culture, the two married, to different men, bridesmaids making out, Annie's mom and the mechanic, and so on.

Seriously, this movie sets up a million different plot lines that go nowhere. TV Tropes, which as you know is a wiki so info from there is variable, says that this film is a deconstruction of the plucky girl who's life is shit turns it around kind of movie, and while I could maybe deal with that, the fact that it's a deconstruction doesn't mean a film can just not resolve plot lines willy-nilly.

Another problem with this film is that, for showing really well, some scenes drag on and on. While I understand "Crossing the Line Twice" I never felt some of the scenes crossed back over. The two scenes that really seemed to outstay their welcome were: The Engagement Party Speeches Scene and the Food Poisoning Scene. They started off funny, and established what the meant to do: Establish Helen's character for the former and be down right grossly funny for the latter. They did that at first, but began to outstay their welcome and should have been cut down, which annoys me even more because of the aforementioned lack of resolution.

The acting was brilliant, like I said about showing earlier, you could feel each character come alive and shine each time they were on screen, especially Helen, as played by Rose Byrne. Helen is the closest thing we have to an antagonist and damn I hated her, in a good way. The way you're supposed to hate a villain.

Overall, it's an alright, if sometimes oddly paced, film. I don't regret seeing it, but wait until it's in the cheap theatres if you're dying to see it.

Coming up later this month: Book Vs Film II: Howl's Moving Castle!

Unusual Role Association Because of My Childhood

As much as we don't want to admit it typecasting happens to even some of the greatest actors. But I'm not talking about the normal kind of typecasting/role association. This is far more of a personal typecasting. You firmly get the idea of someone as a character and no matter what role they take in the future that role influences you to believe things about that character, even if it's untrue.

Because of this unconcious typecasting I've come to believe certain things bout certain actors. Here are just a few.

Derek Jacobi:

He may look like a friendly old man, and he probably is, but I will forever associate him with the role of Professor Yana/The Master from Doctor Who. It was the first role I saw him in and he can't escape it. I see him as a bad guy in everything. It didn't help the next role I saw him in was in The Golden Compass where he played a bad guy as well. Even when he was in the King's Speech, playing a fairly nice character, I interpereted everything he did as quasi-evil. All because of Doctor Who.

Tim Curry:

Going in the opposite direction I don't see Tim Curry as a bad guy on first appearance. I know, you're probably listing twenty different roles in disagreement with me right away. I can do that too: Frank N. Furter in Rocky Horror, Pennywise the Clown in IT, just about every role he's ever had ever.... I get that. However, I grew up watching Wild Thornberries. In this show Tim Curry played the kind and loving father Nigel Thornberry. Yes, you read that correctly, kind and loving. In fact, he was the goofy if slightly ineffectual parent, because he was the British one. I'm not kidding you. I associate his voice with Nigel Thornberry, one of the coolest dads I know.

Micheal Caine:

Micheal Caine has recently been known as the Bad-Ass Alfred in Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy. This was, while not shocking, an interesting break from his kind and thoughtful old mand appearences in the past, like in Cider House Rules While not exactly weak in either Second Hand Lions or The Prestige he still wasn't the former action man that he was in The Dark Knight or Batman Begins. However, the role I have of him permanantly lodged in my brain is a much younger role, that was Bad Ass. In the original Italian Job, Micheal Caine plays Charlie Croker, a criminal mastermind and ladies man(well, not really a master mind, but he does add a lot to the plan) and this doesn't really gel with his current persona. That is what I associate him with.

Roger Allam:

This is another perpetual bad guy for me. I can't help it. The first two films I saw him in were V for Vendetta and Speed Racer and he played a bad guy in both. He didn't play slightly evil people, he played  truly heartless people. He played Royalton in Speed Racer (the big bad) and The Voice of London in V for Vendetta (where he played an evil general turned evil talkshow host). This colored my recent viewings of The Queen, where he played an aide to her majesty. Even though he just seemed quiet and had good intentions I still felt he was a jerk, even though there is NOTHING to support this.

I just realized this list is full of British men. I didn't mean it that way. It's just sort of funny.

More Shows I Never Want to Be On

After chatting with my boyfriend about this post I thought of more shows I'd never want to be on, unoriginal I know, but schools almost out.

Wife-Swap/Trading Spouses- I don't know if these shows are even on anymore, but I'd never want to be on them. No one comes out looking good. The wives look like whiny bitches for the first half and then the husbands follow suit during the second half. If I ever get put on one of these shows it means I'm not willing to compromise or work with someone who feels different than me, or the few things I'm unwilling to compromise on will get blown out of proportion (curse crafty editing!). When I say I try and maintain an open mind, I mean it. I don't want to be caught in a lie.

Hoarders/Hoarding: Buried Alive/Confessions: Animal Hoarding: I'm already an untidy person, but I stop before things get too far. If I'm even considered for one of these shows that means I not only have a mental health problem, but I've let my untidiness get too far. Besides, there's a point where things are too gross even for me and I doubt I would let myself live in that unsanitary of an environment. Especially animals. As much as I love animals, if I can't count them all on one hand I'll know I'm in over my head (not counting fish/water frogs because they live in one tank).

Baggage- For similar reasons I don't want to be on any of the above shows I don't want to be on GSN's baggage. No one comes out of this show looking good. If you haven't seen it, by the way don't!, the premise is contestant A has one large secret, they sort through opposite gendered contestants B, C & D's small secret, then anonymously go through their medium sized secrets (one of which is chosen as a 'deal breaker') and eliminates one contestant. Finally, the remaining contestants big baggage is opened and contestant A chooses to accept one of the ramaining contestants baggage. The tables are turned however when the last remaining contestant examines contestant A's baggage and deciedes to accept it or not. The secrets, even the small ones, are deal breakers for me. Last night one small piece of baggage was "I eat dog food." I kid you not. If that's what passes for a small secret on this show I don't want to be on this show.

Tosh.0- If I've done something dumb enough to be on this show I'll die. I'll just die.

Again, any other ideas feel free to comment. I hope this will be my last post.

Shows I Never Want to Be On

Secretly, almost everyone hopes to be on TV someday. Wether being interviewed for a movie or book or actually being a TV star people want to be seen on the television. I am no exception.

However, there are plenty of shows I will never be on, or hope to never be on. It may be any number of reasons I won't be on these shows so I thought I'd go over a few of them with you. Most of them are reality shows, so if you're a fan of the genre, here's your warning.

America's Next Top Model- Normally I don't mind competition style reality shows, because generally they involve some kind of skill. I'm not saying modeling doesn't take skill, but this show just bugs me. And really in the grand scheme of surviving the wilderness, singing, having an unusual talent, having intelligence, and dancing, where does modeling lie? Not only are the challenges utterly ridiculous and I'm pretty sure most don't have a lot to do with normal modeling gigs, but the way people are judged drives me up the wall. One week, a contestant is in trouble for not taking it seriously enough, but then a different contestant can be in trouble for seeing it as a competition and not trying to be friendly and just get the job done. On top of all this, Tyra Banks drives me crazy. She takes herself far too seriously (her ego dwarfs Seto freakin' Kaiba's) and she's the main reason for the judging being all over the place.

Supernanny- This should be fairly obvious. If I'm ever on Supernanny that means I've probably failed as a parent. I also might be slightly crazy or in an abusive relationship. I watched two episodes this weekend. Not only were the fathers of both couples featured absolutely nuts, they also seemed to be controlling and semi-abusive jerks. If your family is on that show, there is something terribly wrong with your family, and I don't want that to happen when I'm an adult.

Teen Mom- Similar to why I don't want to be on Supernanny. I don't want to be pregnant any time soon. Thankfuly I think I'm past the stage where I can be on it. I'm 19 and because I wasn't 16 and Pregnant I think I'm okay having missed this oppurtunity. I also don't want to be on this show because of my children getting knocked up. It'll again mean I've failed as a parent.

Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?- If I have to ask myself this I'm already in too deep. Secondly, though this doesn't happen often, some contestestants answer with an answer that's correct, but not in 5th grade level knowlege.

Million Dollar Money Drop- The whole premise of this show is flawed to anyone who isn't on the show. Contestants start with a million dollars, unfortunately the only place they can go is down from there. The show gives you a false sense of security by encouraging you to spread your money around onto more than one answer, thus causing you to lose money quicker than if you were sure of your answer and put all your money on it (even if it might be wrong).

To Catch a Predator- Do I need to explain this? I'm not a pervert, but I'd feel weird even if I just showed up in the background of a shot.

That's all I can think of for now, if there are shows you don't want to be on feel free to comment below.

A Tribute (Elisabeth Sladen)

Wow, Sarah Jane Smith is dead. I can't believe it. She's been a part of my life for quite a while now and I need to do her justice.

I first met Lis Slade it was through Doctor Who, like so many people my age. She was the mom I always wanted and the person I want to most emulate when I grow up. Good bye Sarah Jane.

I know this isn't very timely or very well thought out. Honestly though, I can't compete with Tom Baker's post on his website. Go read that.

Film Vs. Book I: The Princess Bride

As you've probably guessed by the title I'm starting a series of posts. These will be a comparison between books and their movie adaptations. These comparisons won't be a line by line dissection of differences between script and book, but a broader approach.

Major events and major dfferences in characterization are what I'm looking at. I probably won't be doing a thourough read through of each book before I start to try and maintain a big picture focus. At the end of the comparison I will say which works better over all and I'm not always going to side with the book or always with the movie. I plan on keeping things even. I'm not going to be overtly negative when I do these reviews, just an analysis (unless something doesn't work at all), after all I'm doing these for fun, not to be an angry little whiner. I'll also gladly admit bias when I write these reviews.

That being said, lets begin.

Many people are familiar with the classic film The Princess Bride. A movie released in 1987 directed by Rob Reiner it's witty comedy and memorable characters propelled this film deeply into the minds of the people who have seen it. It's not the most popular film ever, but those who have seen it are generally huge fans of it.

What many people don't realize is that is based off a novel of the same name. Released in 1973 this book offers a different look on the characters we've all grown up knowing.

I'll admit I've been watching the film since I can remember, but I only discovered the book a few years ago so I'll be biased toward the movie.

Without further ado here are some of the major differences:

Backstories: Everyone knows Inigo Montoya's back story. Hell, his most memorable line is, "Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die." I'm not going to say this isn't in the book. That would be a lie, however after Inigo's story about his father's death the book goes into detail about all the fencing masters he studied under and why he was driven to drink and why he joined Vizzini. Similarly, Fezzick is given more of a backstory as  well. His story tells us about his wrestling career and how everyone hated him because he was too strong. He turned to taking on large groups of ruffians and people warmed up slightly. He eventually joins Vizzini as well. This was not in the film, only hinted at with the line, "It's been a long time since I've had to fight just one person." While having these additional scenes is interesting, like learning something about a old friend, they would have bogged the film down considerably, and they bog the book down slightly as well. Here I prefer the movie. However one added piece of backstory certainly adds to the experience. I always wondered why Prince Humperdink wanted to attack Guilder so bad other than it being "Florin's sworn enemy." Well, in the book, Prince Humperdink was supposed to marry Guilder's Princess, however calls it off when he finds out she's completely bald. Feeling tricked, and now not getting his giant kingdom, he deciedes to attack them at his earliest convienence. That scene clears this subplot up immensely. It might not have worked in the film, but I fully enjoy it. It is one of the funnier parts of the book, so I'm going to go with the book on that.  You get a little more info on Buttercup and Wesley too, but it doesn't really add that much for me, it mostly just shows Buttercup realizing she loves Wesley when Count Rugen's wife starts eyeing Wesley up and down when she and the Count happen to be riding by and pop in to see the pretty boy and girl working on a farm. Buttercup confesses this to Wesley and then he decides to go to America to seek his fortune to provide for her. This scene makes the romance make more sense and the scenes actually give Buttercup and Wesley slightly more depth than their film counter parts, while I acknowledge this scene may not have worked in the film I enjoy it too much so my first point goes to the book.

The Zoo of Death: If you haven't read the book, you're probably wondering what I'm talking about. I'm talking about where Wesley was kept when Count Rugen and Humperdink were torturing him. In the book Wesley is in the bottom floor of a secret underground facility (because what other kinds are there?) where ferocious beasts are kept. One level has a snake, one has bats, one is completely empty except for the venomous spider hidden on the door on the other side and the final floor was empty until Humperdink met his greatest adversary, Wesley. There are other floors, but I've forgotten them. Inigo and Fezzick fight there way through all the levels. It's really awesome set of scenes that let you see fan favorites kick ass and take names. While it may have bogged down the film it is an awesome addition to the book, so book gets the point.

Framing device: Obviously in a  book one cannot have a grandfather reading the story to his grandson in quite the same way. And in fact the book has a COMPLETELY different framing device all together. The book tells the (also fictional) tale of William Goldman (author of both book and screenplay) having this book read to him by his father, then sending a copy to his son, only to find out that his father edited the story as he read it, the actual book being weighed down by social commentary on the ruling class of Florin and essays on trees. William takes it upon himself to edit the book down to the 'good parts.' I have to side with the movie on this one. No one really reads the Princess Bride for the framing story, but the one in the film is just so much more touching though we see less of it. The Grandfather truly cares about his grandson and takes his feelings into account. Meanwhile Goldman just sort of "takes a book" and picks out what he remembers.

Ending: When I say ending I mean from the wedding on. As I mentioned before William Goldman wrote both the book and movie and as such there is still a surprising amount of changes, even in the ending. When Goldman wrote the screenplay he patched up one major plot hole the book had. In the book when Humperdink marries Buttercup the characters just sort of hope he dies and run away. By the time William Goldman got around to the screenplay he figured out a better way of ending it and so just changed it. The film works a hell of a lot better. Similarly, the book ends on a cliff-hanger with everyone suddenly getting screwed at the last minute. There has been a sequel has been in the works for years and doesn't seem to be going anywhere any time soon. The film has resolution (mostly) and feels like a good ending for all the characters. So the film wins this as well.

Minor things: Here and there, as necessary with every adaptation little things get lost or added in the process. Some I can remember are: The book provided a helpful map. Shrieking eels are creepier than sharks. The first chapter to the sequel (dedicated to Andre the Giant) is nice and poignant. No matter how character decriptions varied from their movie appearances I still pictured them. Little things are a draw.

So my final verdict is: A Tie. While the film is a classic and no one is disputing that, the book is a nice addition to any collection, especially if you are a fan of the movie. The novel works as a novel and the film works as a film, what more can I say?