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?

I Can't Believe I Watched the Whole Thing...

So last night my boyfriend and I were flipping channels wating for our new favorite show The Borgias and Twilight was on. Normally I would have kept flipping through but my boyfriend, who has no real knowledge about Twilight other than what I've told him, said, "Oh, lets watch it for the hell of it."

I think he began to regret that decision almost instantaneously. Thankfully I knew what to anticipate. A little too well. I hate being able to quote movies I've only seen once. In fact one quote I made during the evening was, "I'm doing lines of Twilight....Is that like doing lines of crack?"

It really started with Edward's line of "I feel very protective of you." This line came before they even started dating and before she began to like him in that fashion. Later, Skippy (the boyfriend) started throwing a fit (about 2.5 on the Dune film scale) about Bella wandering off into the woods with Edward when she doesn't even trust him and is pretty sure he's going to kill people and has no reason to trust him.

He started asking why Bella was doing such stupid shit and I had to answer with the in-book correct answer, "She loves him." He seemed confused so I continued, "She's known him for a month and is head over heels in love with him. They're soulmates." Now I don't buy into this at all, I have mad my disdain of these books clear, but this was the intent.

We went the rest of the night making snarky comments about the questionable quality of the "Twilight Saga" (which is in no way a saga, but I digress). Mostly he questioned, "Why are things moving so fast?" "What was the point of that?" "Why aren't these valid claims being listened to?" "What happened to their powers?" To which I had entirely too much fun providing the 'in book logic' "Because it's meant to be!" "To show how "silly" they (the normal humans she shirks off) are." "Because that character is blonde, therefore a bitch." "Hell if I know. That wouldn't have worked in the book."

Yeah, on top of being based off a shitty book Twilight is an even shittier movie that defies it's own 'logic' quite frequently and if possible makes the rest of the plot even worse. Without the purple prose giving a false sense added time the movie moves at breakneck pace truly demonstrating the wrecklessness of the characters. God knows what this is going to do come Breaking Dawn.

This quickly turned into a fun comparison game between Twilight and the Borgias (most definitely not what Stephenie Meyer would approve of), which I will demonstrate thus:

Edward Cullen gives bad reasoning for falling 'in love' (The afore mentioned "I feel protective of you" line.)
Rodrigo Borgia gives bad reasoning for falling 'in love' ("She needed my help!")
Edward Cullen is an American played by a British actor, Robert Pattinson.
Rodrigo Borgia is a Spaniard played by a British actor, Jeremy Irons.
Edward Cullen is a man from the early 1900's caught in a modern world and is an outsider, who could easily rule the world.
Rodrigo Borgia is a man from Spain caught in the city states of Italy and is an outsider, who is the POPE back when that mattered.
Edward Cullen is a Vampire.
Rodrigo Borgia is a priest (same thing).

One of these men is romanceable, with reasoning behind his motives and an interesting, if flawed, character that allows you to question your morality and faith. The other is Edward Cullen.

Which really shows, if you are trying to create a romantic lead, he shouldn't be comparable to a borgia unless that's your intent (meaning intentionally creating a questionable figure, not creating a questionable figure and claiming he isn't.)

Never Have..

I admit I haven't done everything out there. I am sad to admit that many things on this list are considered classics so I thought I'd list some things I haven't seen/read/played but know I should. Just to say I'm human too. I want to see/read some of these some day, but until then they'll stay on this list.

Mostly these are things I want to do eventually.

Movies:
Citizen Kane
Casablana
Brazil
Dream Girls
Ponyo
Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas
Pulp Fiction

Books (*also includes books I started but haven't finished):
To Kill a Mocking Bird*
Hamlet
Phantom of the Opera*
Pride and Prejudice*
Les Miserables
Anything by Mark Twain (seriously have NEVER gotten through an entire book of his)

Musicals:
Mame
Hairspray (on stage)
Lion King
The Unsinkable Molly Brown

TV shows:
Babylon 5
Arrested Development
More Classic Doctor Who
Swiss Family Robinson

Video Games:
Any Final Fantasy Installment
Portal
Fable
World of Warcraft

Public Interaction

Don't think you haven't suspected that someone talking to their friends isn't genuine. I know I promised no personal posts, but this was just a thought I had. I didn't actually make this poll, but if you want to give your opinion.

I see so many people having these public interactions that I can't genuinely believe are real. When I want to talk to friends I call them or text them. If I have to use facebook for something important I try to use private ]message first to not be public. Or do people really having meaningful interaction this way?

Is this actually a personal post? I'm not talking about any one and as you see by large black squares I'm protecting my friends. I also apologize for the wonky format, I'm having trouble getting it to cooperate.

Oh My God, Name Change!

I changed the name and description of my blog. There are many reasons for this so I thought I'd share them.

1) Yarsian Talks About is a hell of a lot more google-able than that previous mouthful of a name I had before. Seriously you'd have to get like 30 words to make sure your search went well. You also might want to invest in a good luck charm of some kind, to be sure.

2) While the previous name was fun and snarky it doesn't reflect that many of my posts anymore. I've slowly been transitioning to a more thoughtful and easily approachable blog. It's become less personal and less whiny over the past couple of months so I thought I needed a new title to fit the new format. If I can find a clever name for that accurately describes the new changes I'll change it again, in the mean time it stays "Yarsian Talks About..."

3) It was about time. I was getting tired of the old title about a few months after I changed to it. So now that it's been a long time after that I think its as good of a time as any.

With a new title comes bigger changes too. From now on I'm going to focus soley on TV shows, movies, and books (and songs when I can think up enough material and video games I guess, when I can). My personal posts are done. Occasionaly I may ask some hypotheticals around my life as it is, but for the most part I'm going to keep things supremely vague when it comes to my personal life. If I want readers I need to get word out, and right now that means going to friends and family. I can't have friends and family reading my old whinings and expect to keep my followship up. So I'll probably delete/hide some of the older ones. If anyone actually has a problem with this, let me know. Silence is agreement in this case so speak up. I may save back ups of these somewhere, but don't count on it. They'll be gone by this time next week if all goes well. Besides the personal posts were really self-therapy anyway and I've found better ways to channel my emotions (well, at least more private ways). The only recurring character other than me will probably be my current boyfriend, because many of the things I watch I watch with him so his opinion will probably be heard a lot throughout this blog.

So how will this new format work? Pretty similar to what I've already been doing for the past couple of months. I watch/play/listen to/read/random verb something and then I talk about whatever strikes my fancy. It could be a simple review, basic rundown followed by my thoughts on it. I could occasionally get a little more in depth about why I think these thoughts (Like saying Speed Racer is underrated). I could analyze it more in depth (Like I did with Friday). Or I could go and create a zany, yet intellectual analysis (The Room). Similarly, I could just talk about something I like or dislike in general when it comes to movies (my least favorite cliches).

If my blog's popularity goes up soon I'll probably add advertisements to it, that way I'm actually getting paid for these as they take a fair amount of work. I'm not whining or asking anyone for money, I'm just saying that it takes about a while writing a decent post. And I'm hoping these will be better than decent.

Cliches That Bug Me

Doug Walker, as made famous portraying The Nostalgia Critic, released a video stating his most hated cliches in movies (that can, usually, be applied elsewhere). This gave me the idea to talk about my least favorite cliches.

The Belief that popular=good looking & the corresponding losers=ugly. I've never been what anyone would consider popular, however I'm not ugly by any means. To prove this I'm going to take a picture of myself right now.  No, seriously, right now in the middle of this post.

Seriously just took this. No make up. No Photoshop. Just hair dye.

While I'm not proclaiming I'm hot shit, I know it's not my looks that determine my social status. They might have done so in the past, but it's also my behavior, which I'll get into in a moment. I used to have braces and I didn't have contacts therefore I wore glasses, but I wasn't popular during the few years I had both. I also wasn't popular before I got my braces (I got glasses young enough it didn't matter) and my popularity didn't shoot up the day I got contacts or the day my braces were removed. Part of the reason Mean Girls (which is still one of my favorite movies despite this) 'works' is because Lindsay Lohan is far more 'beautiful' than the other losers in her highschool who she initally hangs out with. In movie-land this immediately keys the audience that she'll be climbing the social ladder soon enough. However as I hinted already there's another cliche that bugs the crap out of me.

Geeks like Star Trek and Star Wars and are all Science Nerds . In several films/TV shows/books/ect. the second most defining feature in geeks/nerds is that they are all really into science and math and classic literature. The few pieces of pop culture they are familiar with are generally nerdy shows and movies (and generally bad ones at that). Now, I like shows like Doctor Who, Star Trek, and X-Files over shows like One Tree Hill, Jersey Shore and True Blood. I like that type of show because I like that type of show. My social status never affected my interests, except for maybe giving me more time to enjoy the things I like. But I also shows like Glee, House and Say Yes to the Dress. These are all popular shows that normally 'nerdy' people like me wouldn't like in Movie-world. Also, my science and math grades are not what a normal geek would get. I'm right brained, therefore I'm better at art and more subjective things. Yes I like classic literature, but that's because I'm an English major (or I'm an English major because I like classic literature...) but it's my love of books I've had since I was a child that drives this. On the flip side, there have been plenty popular people I know who have done much better than me in certain classes. I knew people who were popular who were really into weird shows which were loved as equally by people less popular than me. Interests in real life have nothing to do with social standing. Again Mean Girls shows that the easiest way Cady is a "geek" is because she's good at Math, however her love interest is in the same math clas and while he's not great at it he obviously was smart enough to get into advanced math.

Geeks have No idea whats going on in pop culture. Just because I don't like Jersey Shore doesn't mean I don't know what it is. I may not be able to give a synopsis of everything that's happened, but I know who Snooki is and that she got punched in a bar one time. I also know what's going on in the world right now, probably more so than popular people. I don't know that many people who are considered 'popular' who regularly watch or read or listen to the news, but this may just be personal bias on this subject matter. However, I do know that many memes start in corners of the internet most non-geeks don't know about. Geeks were rick-rolling way before Oregon's state congress did it. Similarly, the V mask (or rather Guy Fawkes mask) has been the mark of anti-Scientology protests for quite a while, but I doubt any 'popular person' knows either what it is or where it came from. Or that it is actually Guy Fawkes.

Geeks are Loners. While we don't have quite the insanely busy social schedule as other people Geeks are not depressed and lonely (no more so than the average). While I do like to sit at home and read a good book or watch Myazki Films I like to go out and have fun too. I like to dance and act goofy with my friends as much as the next person. One of the nerdiest traits you can give a person in a movie is to have it come out they play Dungeons and Dragons. In the land of fiction this means they are loners. However, as any real D&D player can attest to, this is not true in the slightest. Dungeons and Dragons is played in a group, of at least 3 people but generally 4-5 is an ideal size. You hang out with friends, eat junk food, go on adventures and connect with your friends on different levels. This isn't what Hollywood thinks it is, but I think it's just an honest "We haven't played, we've only heard the name" misunderstanding and nothing malicious.

And now I'd like to try and move off this topic of Geeks vs. Popular people because honestly I don't know what popular people do.

The Completely Out of Touch Parent. This Cliche is all about parents 'who just don't understand.' Whether they be overprotective or just plain clueless as to what's going on with their child's lives. Apparently, in Hollywood a good parent doesn't exist. I know there are just as many examples of good parents in films, but they aren't as common. While I treat the threat of abusive parents seriously I feel that this kind of fictional parents are just plain neglectful. Whenever I see a film where the child has to be an adult because the adult is more like a child but the child seems completely normal and adjusted just mature it feels off. Just because I wanted to be an adult I still regularly relied on my parents for almost everything and they're still helping me out today (I am only a freshman in college). The only book I've seen handle this type of parent well was The Hunger Games. Katniss positively freaks out when her mom checks out and goes through all kinds of hell just scraping by caring for her and her sister and her mother. Similarly, the overprotective stereotype and the clueless stereotype are just that stereotypes to make the young protagonist look better in a lazy way.

The Spoiler Credit. This one mostly applies to TV so books/movies get a pass (generally). Back when I actually watched Heroes it was really obvious when certain characters would pop up because their actor would be listed in the opening credits. Like I don't mind if someone is in the credits and then they're in the episode for a while actually doing stuff in that episode. It gets annoying when credits list someone who is in an episode and the character showing up is a surprise/twist at the end of an episode.  Yeah, there isn't a lot to say about this (I don't know if this is a cliche) but it sucks when this takes me out of an episode/movie series (maybe?) when a character is a twist that shows up in the credits. I realize you want to credit your actors and stuff, but seriously spoiling a twist is a pain in the ass. The only way this works is if you show flashbacks elsewhere in the show where you can hide it. Oddly, Heroes did this too, but too many times it didn't work right.

I'm having trouble thinkinging of cliches. I can think of the type of stories that bug me, but it's not the same as a cliche, but that's another post.

Like I hate Mary Sues, but who doesn't? I also hate title dropping (or in other ways alluding to other) great works of literature, especially when the author gets it wrong (Stephenie Meyer, I'm looking at you). I also hate seeing the same plots over and over in my films.

Just for Fun

So I was just goofing around on facebook when I saw my friends were playing with this Einstein picture manipulator. I thought it was kinda funny, so I went meta with the whole thing and made this image:

Grammar issues aside I thought it was a clever little thing and will probably use it when I'm an RA next year.

But this wasn't the fun image I made. There's a side link for a dumbledore image manipulator. I clicked on it, and it was Richard Harris's Dumbledore. I had too much fun making this image:

Oh Camelot, will you ever stop kicking ass? I don't think so. So yeah, not serious post is not serious, but at least I'm not whining about my friends. 

One of the Most Underrated Movies Ever (Speed Racer)

If you did a double take at the title of the blog post you are exactly the kind of person who needs to be reading this post. Well, maybe not needs, but strongly encouraged to read and understand.

Speed Racer is (originally) an anime from 1967. Because it was one of the earliest Japanese programs brought over to the US, it has left an indelible mark on it's culture. This is perhaps assisted by the delightfully cheesy dubbed dialogue (that rarely matches the lip flaps and is ridiculously fast paced and contrived) as well as insane plots. In Japan it was called Mach Go Go Go! If you have ever seen an anime parody that featured terrible dialogue (that didn't match lip flaps at all) featured a ridiculous plot and had bad animation and it was before the big anime boom it was probalby making fun of Speed Racer.

 On top of all of this: it was awesome. Warning: Spoilers past this point for those who don't want to know the plot.

The plot centered around a young man by the name of Speed Racer. He wants to be a race car driver, but his father is strongly against it because Rex Racer (Speed's elder brother) was in a terrible crash that he miraculously survived. Pops was furious and forbade him from ever racing again. Rex, having none of it, ran away and adopted the secret identity of Racer X, Speed's chief rival (who, just in case the viewer forgot, had narration every time he came on reminding the audience that unbeknownst to Speed, Racer X is secretly Rex Racer). Through out his career as a professional race car driver Speed faces many interesting foes, such as Snake Oiler, Captain Terror, and other gimmicky names. The races themselves were always dangerous with rain, snow, and collapsing rocks.

An interesting feature of this show that is impossible to ignore would be the cars the races took place in. Speed Racer drove the most popular car, the Mach 5. Not only could these cars hit ridiculous speeds and looked nothing like normal cars, they could also do amazing stunts. The Mach 5 had jump jacks, a homing pigeon robot, bullet proof dome, the ability to go under water, super grip tires, saws that popped out the front and seat two people comfortably and fit a child and chimpanzee in the trunk! There was rarely an episode where Sprite and Chim-Chim, Speed's little brother and his pet Chimp, snuck into the trunk of the Mach 5. Racer X drove the almost as iconic Shooting Star, which is the most masculine yellow car ever. Perhaps the true second most iconic car was the mammoth car. It was nearly as long as a train and made ominous noises, on top of this it was driven by mobsters. It was later revealed the car was secretly made of...get this....solid gold. You find  this out after it crashes and catches on fire. Have you figured out what kind of show this is yet?

The show was slightly more violent than many other cartoons at the time (dealing with violent car crashes and mobsters trying to fix races). People actually died and would stay dead. Guns were fired (thus the need for bullet proof glass).

This show was delightfully cheesy the way Doctor Who used to be (and to some still is, but that's another post) delightfully cheesy. If delightfully cheesy isn't your thing then I cannot help you. You'll always hate Speed Racer.

In 2008 the Wachowski Brothers, of Matrix fame, released a live-action adaptation. And they meant Live-Action adaptation of Speed Racer.

The plot of the movie is slightly different than the description of the anime above. Speed is a rookie driver who is taking the World Racing League by storm driving a car of his father's creation, the Mach 6 (the Mach 5 is a street car in this continuity). He is offered a spot on the Royalton Racing Team by corrupt corporate excutive, Royalton, himself. After Speed turns him down Royalton reveals that racing has been fixed for years and that since Speed is turning his back on a corporate sponsor he's giving up the ability to win a race ever again. Speed begins to believe Royalton after he fails to finish his next race, just as Royalton had predicted. Shortly afterward Speed is approached by Racer X and a fellow driver named Taejo to race in the rally, Casa Cristo 5000, the same rally that killed Speed's elder brother Rex after he stopped racing for Racer Motors. IF Taejo can win this race, he'll testify that Royalton fixes races. Pops forbids Speed from driving in the race. Trixie and Speed sneak off to compete in the race anyway and are soon found out by his family. They agree to let him finish the race. After many dramatic race scenes, as well as a fight with a ninja, Speed, X, and Taejo win the rally. Taejo's father then sells his company for a lot of money, and Taejo reveals he was never going to testify. This pisses Speed off and he drives around the track Rex used to take him to. He meets X there and X reveals he is NOT Speed's brother.

Shorly afterward, Speed almost leaves his home the way Rex did when Pops tells him Speed is always welcome back (a flip from what he told Rex all those years ago). Taeko's sister, until now a fixture in the background, gives Speed a ticket to the Grand Prix (the big final race). Despite having a MILLION DOLLAR price on his head he not only gets tied for first in record time, he then restarts his car, through just sheer will power and WINS the race! Racer X watches the whole thing and reminisces about how he had plastic surgery and had to leave his family behind, his family being the Racers, duh. Speed changes racing forever and Royalton goes to jail. YAY!

That right there is just like the TV show. Sure the plot isn't a masterpiece, but it was fun and had energy. The way it slightly tweaked the formula of a Speed Racer plot worked and updated it for a modern audience. The race scences were dramatic and had lots of fun especially the insane visuals that happened during them. Every character was true to form and yet highly enjoyable. Even Spritle and Chim Chim who I didn't like that much on the TV show.

The amazing parts though are the editing and the visuals. I think I'll tackle the editing first. All exposition and various edits are done in a full rotation. The camera will start on a character and it will rotate to either back story, or a different view. It is handled particularly well especially in cases of exposition. It shows how the flash back actually is affecting the character having the flash back. It is spread out enough it doesn't feel  weighty and yet it comes quickly enough you don't feel left out.

And now to the visuals. The visuals were stunning, if a little overwhelming at first. The colors are hyper saturated. The sky is blue. The clouds are white. I realize this all sounds incredibly obvious, but this film is colorful and fully uses the brightest colors it can. The world is a live action cartoon minus actual cartoon characters, so basically it was Avatar before Avatar (James Cameron not Nickleodeon). The world draws you in and blinds you for looking at it. I know words are failing me here, it's just very hard to describe Speed Racer without seeing it. All I can say is that is is a live action cartoon with all the silliness that generally happens in this type of cartoon.

In many ways the Avatar comparison works really well. Both had immersive, fully CG worlds. Both would benefit from 3D technology (Avatar is better in 3D and Speed Racer is the one movie that may actually be improved with Hollywood's 3D obsession.). Both have more focus on the visual over plot. Both plots are old and used. The problem is Speed Racer was slightly ahead of it's time.

So, if you like fun movies with cheesy plots or if you just want to see the insane visuals I cannot recommend Speed Racer highly enough. I'm not saying it's a perfect movie, but I love Speed Racer for what it is. That's why I love the movie.

Shameless Pimping, Away!

One of my favorite TV shows growing up was a little show called "Whose Line is it Anyway?" every Thursday night at 8 on ABC. Yeah, I go that far back with Whose Line. It is honestly one of my favorite shows. I love it so much I still watch reruns either on ABC family at 11 o'clock or I'll watch some of my favorite clips over and over on Youtube.

There was a British veion and later an American version. I'm obviously talking about the American version, though the clips of the British version I've seen  are also really funny. I'm only going to be talking about the American version today.

The show featured great comedians doing improved scenes. The show was hosted by Drew Carrey (during the time that The Drew Carrey Show was popular) and featured some great improvers. You may know some of their names from other shows or films. Here is a small smattering of their names: Colin Mocherie, Ryan Stiles, Chip Esteen, Wayne Brady, Greg Proops and even Stephen Colbert himself was on an early episode.

Why am I going on and on about this old show that hasn't put out a new episode in years (Not counting Drew Carrey's Green Screen Challenge, which sadly was on TV when I couldn't watch it)? Because a new show is coming to GSN called "Drew Carrey's Imrov-a-Ganza" and I'm so excited for it.

I really want this show to succeed. I love improv and I love Whose Line so I want it to succeed so badly. If I have any followers at all, and if I can ask you to do me a favor: Please watch this show. I promise you'll find something funny, or at least something that impresses you. After all, "Everythings made up, right off the top of thier heads."

Another Friday Analysis

Hey Guys! I found yet another analysis of Rebecca Black's 'Friday' online and I thought I'd share it with you all: Friday Analysis.

My thoughts on this analysis are as follows: I thought my analysis was dark, but this one beats mine. Hands down. Even my second look at the song. It dove much deeper into the darker themes then I had and found new ones. Kudos. I enjoy dark and depressing things so I throughly enjoyed this analysis. Yeah, it may be a joke, but I think it hits on stuff that is in the video and music video whether their intentionally or not. Probably not, but still.

I also just want to reiterate something thay may have been lost: I don't hate Rebecca Black. I don't think this song was her idea. I think she's just a victim of a particularly evil corporate machine (I'm also not saying all businesses are evil, but ARK Music group....) and parents paying $2000 to try and raise a star. If it was her idea, then I apologize to her parents. I would also like to say I never thought she herself wrote the song. As seen in my analysis I fully blaimed some coprorate executive.

That's all I'm going to say about Friday for now. If more stuff comes up, I may talk about it, but until then. Toodles.

Lisa Was Justified (The Room)

April Fool's day was not to long ago and for those in the know that meant marathon showings of the infamous film, "The Room" from Tommy Wiseau on Adult Swim.

For those of you who don't know: "The Room" is an independent movie that was first released as a drama in 2003. After being critically panned and also reviled (or more often than not, loved for it's terribleness) by audiences director/producer/star/executive producer/writer (as listed in the opening credits) Tommy Wiseau attempted to rebrand this terrible movie as a "Black Comedy" and fooled no one but maybe himself. I say maybe because he still reacts poorly when anyone is making fun of the film without 'permission' despite reviews and parodies being covered under Fair Use Laws. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if I get some take down notice or request for writing this analysis.

For an excellent review of this film I suggest the Nostalgia Critic's as he nails several of the key points of fail and provides a better summary of the film.

Here's a synopsis for those who haven't seen "The Room": Johnny (who is totally not Tommy's Mary Sue) is a 'sucessful' 'banker' who is engaged to Lisa who's 'computer job' cannot support her on her own. Johnny is also helping their neighbor Denny pay for school because his parents are MIA (we assume because NOTHING is said about them). Lisa gets bored in her relationship and has sex (repeatedly) with Johnny's best friend Mark. Eventually, after about a million and a half pointless scences and random subplots that go no where, at Johnny's surprise birthday party Johnny figures out Lisa is sleeping with Mark. Johnny goes nuts and destroys his apartment before turning a gun on himself. The next day Mark, Lisa and Denny find his body and scream at eachother while deciding what the fuck  they'll do now because they have nothing. Fade to black as police sirens wail.

However instead of rehashing some of the same parts every other review has done ("You're Tearing Me APART, LISA" or "I did not hit her, I did not. Oh Hi Mark!"), in my brief viewing of a few scenes of "The Room" on Cartoon Network I noticed something different than all that. This was about the character Lisa (Johnny's fiance).

The main thing I noticed is (as you've probably guessed by the title) is that Lisa's affair is almost completely justified, albeit in an accidental sort of way. You can tell from the dialogue that Lisa is supposed to be the supreme evil being in this film, barely passing for human. Her stated justifications for her affair are that she's bored and she doesn't love Johnny anymore. In movie and TV land, these are generally unacceptable reasons for divorce, much less cheating therefore, for this movie, she is evil. She states she's unhappy in this relationship and wants out of it and is willing to manipulate Johnny and Mark as well as a few of her other friends to get what she wants, even if it's just this vague idea of 'interesting' she keeps going on about.

However, the clumsy writing of the script actually gives Lisa far more justification that Wiseau ever intended. Oh Literary Criticism, I love how at times you can just throw out authorial intent. Almost every character who talks to Lisa about the affair talks about Johnny and his feelings. The secondary and minor characters thoughts are all variations of, "You can't do this Lisa, you'll hurt Johnny's feelings." This applies to Mark and Claudette (Lisa's mother) as well. Mark has to constantly remind Lisa that he is Johnny's best friend, even after their first time together and then he's still blase toward her feelings and enjoys screwing with Johnny more than loving Lisa. Claudette is the only person to remotely consider Lisa's feelings and her thoughts are, "Love doesn't matter, money does. You just have to put up with it" and then she too joins in defending Johnny and his feelings.

Lisa is trapped in an unfair relationship. Everyone loves Johnny and will do anything to make him happy, even if it includes trapping her where she doesn't want to be. The universe's fixation on Johnny leaves Lisa completely sidelined. Most real world relationship advice boils down to, "do what's best for yourself" and no one ever tells Lisa this beyond 'get his money first.'  Every one focuses on Johnny and how he feels (or would feel) about the situation. No one is looking out for Lisa but herself. This is what drives her to do some of her more questionable acts (Making out with Mark at the party, slow dancing with him, saying she's pregnant when she's not) she's calling out for attention to herself and not Johnny for once since they started this relationship. Hell, I bet that if we would've seen much more of this some characters would say things like, "This pregnancy is going to be great for Johnny! He'll be such a good father." and other such bullshit.

Other evidence for the "crying out for attention' theory can be found when Lisa (falsely) accuses Johnny of hitting her after getting drunk. Claudette's first instinct is to immediately state, "Johnny doesn't drink." This shows Lisa her mother is more interested in Johnny's well-being than her own daughter's. I mean really, her daughter may be in danger from physical harm and her first reaction is that her fiance is uncapable of doing such things. If Lisa inherited her mother's drama queen tendencies it explains things, but still you take violent threats seriously. This is is even more troublesome when later in the film he pushes her down into a chair during an argument.

Hell, the entire cast takes Denny's encounter with a drug dealer more seriously than her own personal struggles, even her own mother. She has to repeat her her problems with their relationship over and over to try and get through to people, but it's to no avail. The lie about the pregnancy was infact the final straw for Lisa. It was probably her final experiment before going public with her affair in the way she did. It was proof to her that she wasn't nearly as important as Johnny in the relationship and therefore needed out in anyway possible. Cue self-destruction at the party by jumping all over Mark and then after the party calling him while Johnny can here.

Whether her intention or not, Johnny's suicide gives her that independence she wanted, however she then clings straight to Mark because she still honestly can't take care of herself (or believes that because of the reinforcement of identity issues).

Now, I'm not advocating infidelity. Lisa went about things poorly and really hurt people with her actions (including causing Johnny's death). I do think she should leave Johnny if she's obviously that miserable which I believe she is. Her life was not her own and she took ownership of it. It's like Tommy Wiseau accidentaly wrote a horrible update of Madame Bovary.

Those are my thoughts, what are yours?

Humorous News Flash/Thogughts on TV while sick in Bed

As you have gathered from the title of this post I'm sick in bed trying to find something to watch on TV and some interesting things have come up and I'll just lump them all together here.

I was flipping channels and came across a movie channel I generally have luck with and I saw an add about John Travolta. Now, I don't have a problem with John Travolta, he's a decent actor and isn't too terribly crazy. The ad was all about some of his more recent great roles (the ad even said some of his best) because they were having a Travolta-Thon soon. Now what confused me was the following: they left out Hairspray but kept Battlefield Earth. Yes. The kept Battlefield Earth...  Words fail. I get they were advertising action movies and therefore wouldn't want to show him in drag, but seriously keeping what is widely regarded as one of the worst movies of all time in your marathon and a prominent place in the advertisement for it? Why? Why? Why?....................Why?

The other day I was trying to decide wheter to watch History Channel or OWN. They were the only channels with something good on that day. History Channel was showing Apocalypse stuff, which I maintain is not History in the slightest. Oprah was showing Mystery Diagnosis. Now, nothing against Oprah, but I think History channel has a serious problem when HISTORY channel is losing the fact war to Oprah Winnfrey.

Which brings me to this problem: When did History stop being history? I mean sure, when I was younger I enjoyed the Nosteradamus special they showed on that very day. The differences are 1) I was thirteen. 2)There was actual fact to Nosteradamus as in he was a real person and his prophecies may (in hindsight) be applicable to certain historical moment as well as plenty of people who debunk this sort of things providing both sides of the argument. Now a days: The newer specials (especially the ones about the Mayan Prophecy) have very few skeptics and debunkers and when (and IF) they are featured are on for a little bit and not featured well at all. Yes, History Channel, is resorting to basic Creationist tactics. I honestly was watching a show called "Ancient Aliens" and the whole  premise of this episode was "What if Angels were Aliens?" And that's it. Just a bunch of people talking about the bible saying, "Well, you see it makes sense if angels were aliens because... because!" and "It's obvious they meant aliens because humans couldn't have done any of this on their own  and wings represent flight not actual wings." I don't see how this is historical in anyway. The Bible is not an accurate historical recording, even the parts that try to be. On top of that there was no evidence, just speculation. Following that interesting program I watched two episodes of "Brad Meltzer's Decoded" where one episode ignored history until the very end (This largely consisted of the eponymous Brad with his fingers in his ears going "NO, IT WAS THE MASONS!" which it wasn't.) and one episode that actually did stuff and proved some history, so at least that show was 50/50.

More thoughts in another one, because this post is too long.

A Case for Season 2 (Glee Rant)

I watched a couple of Tuesday agos night's Glee the following Wednesday night (I was busy Tuesday, sue me). My mind was blown clear out of the water and it fell into small pieces on the walls of my Residence Hall Rooms. (And I wrote part of this post a long time ago, can't you tell?)

The thing is, I don't understand how people don't like this season of Glee. I mean I've heard the complaints but the complaints I've heard from classmates and friends aren't articulated that well. What I've been hearing is "It's different."

And yeah, it IS different, but I realize this is all a matter of opinion, but MY opinion is that it isn't really THAT different and the differences are a step in the right direction. Glee now is what Glee has been aiming for since it began.

What I've noticed this season is more of a focus on the ensemble of the show not the "Will Schuster and Rachel Berry Show with cooky guys Kurt Hummel and Finn Hudson in recurring roles and Sue does things"  the first season had a feeling like. Sure the first season had a few episodes here and there where Artie, Quinn or Mercedez centric episodes here and there but season one focused on things Rachel did and things Mr. Schuster did, occasionally Finn's decisions and Kurt's life or Sue's evil machinations would affect the over all plot but at the end of the day the questions that drove everything were "What's going on with Schu? What's up with Rachel?"

I cannot make a claim without proof, so here's my proof: The reason we were interested in Quinn's pregnancy was because Quinn was dating Finn, who Rachel was attracted to and wanted to be her love interest.Quinn, along with Santana and Britney, joined Glee club because Quinn wanted to make sure Finn didn't up with Rachel with the added bonus of spying for Sue. Mercedez's temporary crush on Kurt had an attempted interruption by Tina and RACHEL. Finn finds out about the true father of Quinn's baby is through Rachel. She drives and is the reason for lots of drama. Except for shippers of quirky ships the source of a lot of the DRAMA of the first season (school kid side) was 'Will Rachel end up with Finn?' and all the questions that need clearing up to get to that point such as 'Will Finn find out the baby isn't his?' and 'Will Puck actually be able to make a move on Rachel?' This continued into the second half of the season. 'Will Rachel and Finn get BACK together?' 'Will Rachel see Jesse is an ass?' 'Can Rachel find her birth mother/' are big sources of drama in the second half of the season beyond the road to Regionals.

Will drove other parts of the plot of season one much the same way Rachel does. The main source of Will drama are his feuds with Sue, his sham of a marriage and subsequent 'pregnancy' with Terri, and finally his extramarital attraction to Emma and of course holding his rag-tag bunch of misfits, the Glee Club together. The  Will Schuster circle of plot influence is more equal than Rachel's. Sue starts grubbing all the budget in the school leaving Will to fight her for everything Glee club has. Sue is perhaps the only person, Schuster/Berry duo, who has direct influence on the plot and drama of Glee though generally it's in retaliation/reaction to the Will and the club. Even when it seems Will is fighting back with Sue, it's her reaction to his reaction that truly drives the plot (The Madonna episode anyone?). Terri and Emma though, only react to Will, or act on their own attraction to Will. Terri drives Emma to Ken because Terri is attempting to save her relationship with Will. Will's attraction to Emma drives Terri to fake her pregnancy to keep Will. Terri, Emma, even April only exist in their relationships with Will. Their plots genrally only add to the drama of "Will Will end up with the 'totally deserving' Emma?"

Sure sub plots exist and sometimes get more screen time which hints at a wish to be more of an ensemble cast type show. I always thought this would be a step in the right direction as, despite some of the obvious moments of absurdity, a fairly realistic show.

The second season mixes this up a bit and you get more of that ensemble feel. The show allows you to think of different couples through out the first season. Artie is now dating Britney and that is going well (well, except for the Santana drama), Will seems like a good match for Holly, and until Quinn went queen mega-bitch (which wasn't really that bad from her point of view, but it tore up Rachel) on Rachel I thought she and Finn might actually get back together. The subplots are more broad reaching. It doesn't feel like a specific Artie episode or Kurt Episode and like that. The large plot is much more spread out and feels grander in taking on the whole Glee Club (Plus Kurt and Blaine). Mr. Schuster's plot has also slowed down considerably. He has no rush to get back with Emma (as she's been showing up less and less) and it allows him to see more people. We also focus on Emma as a person and her deep problems with life, specifically sex.

Because of the slower feel things feel grander. When Emma still has the hots for Will despite being married to Carl, it's considered shocking because it's been a while since we've focused less on that and haven't seen her as much. It wouldn't be as surprising if he were hanging out with her every episode talking about their lives. When Rachel and Finn have a moment despite not being together or hanging out for a while, it leaves you questioning and it's surpising. Not to mention Kurt's subplot (from Kurofsky to Blaine), being used SO sparingly, has created some of the most heart-wrenching scenes in the entire show because by showing us so little we know what big of an impact it actually has on him.

This is my defense of season two, I'm not saying  there haven't  been missteps or an eyebrow raising moment here and there, but over all this is a good direction for the show to take and I'm excited for the few remaining weeks of Glee once it comes back.

Frustrated and Confused

This may seem hypocritical at first, but bear with me while I sort myself out.

Why is it that whiny, long facebook status posts are frowned upon for some people, but other people can not only totally get away with it, they get comments and likes and everything?

Or do I just save my whining and carrying-on for here? I mean, we all like to air our dirty laundry in various ways whether we admit it or not. People journal (classic), livejournal or blog, write semi-autobiographical coming of age novels, make horrendous movies about a Mary Sue, write Mary-Sue fan fiction and much more. If I can carry on here, some people feel they can carry-on on facebook without worry.

Maybe I'm crazy but I think there are some things you just don't do on facebook and other social networking sites. For example, I don't use people's actually names on this blog and some stuff I don't even talk about here, lest someone I know in real life find this who doesn't read this blog. I want to vent my feelings, not cause people to possibly lose jobs in the future.

But there are people who seriously whine all the time. EVERY single post they make is something like, "my life is terrible. I hate this. This sucks." I understand that sometimes things just don't go your way, but really, people make it seem like NOTHING GOOD happens to them, when you know they are just want all attention on themselves because that's what they do.

I'm not saying something I should, that might make me a little less self-righteous and a little more vindicated in my feelings, but perhaps a little evil for even bringing it up. See, I'm too nice to even  bring up something terrible about someone I really hate and have every right to bring it up. Here it is in the fairest way possible:

The person in question is a drama-whore (Bear with me on the fairness, it's coming). I'm trying to use non indicative gender cues, but I don't think it's working. Everything must be about them, and if anyone has any other 'drama' or REAL things happening to them they are quick to comment how they've gone through something terribly similar and go into minute detail about a story that may be only tangentially related to the original story. These were things I noticed while we were still friends.

The thing that crossed the line, wasn't when we had a public fight. I was ready to walk right past that. Fights happen and I am more mature than to let a fight get between me and a friend stop us. In fact, I apologized to the person about the entire situation almost immediately after it happened, both via a mutual friend and an email that I know she received, because they replied in length. In the email the person accused me of faking depression (or at least the incredibly depressed feelings I've fought with because I've never been officially diagnosed) that crossed a line from friend to jerk. The fall out of this fight isolated me for the rest of my senior year, a WONDERFUL time to feel isolated let me tell you.

So yeah, I'm biased when this person whines up and down her facebook like she has absolutely nothing going for them. I've talked with other friends and they agree when they say she needs attention constantly on her.

But back to the original reason for this post, is it acceptable to whine in front of all your real life friends like that? Especially if it is just for attention?

Is it any more acceptable to whine here? Or Twitter? Or writing semi-autobiographical fiction?

Why am I writing these questions? If a blogger posts a question but no one follows her is there a sound?

I Lied/Pokemon Geek Out

Yeah, my "Lenten Promise" has kinda been full of fail. I wish I could say I was sorry, but really I have so few followers I don't care that much. If you care, comment.

I've been playing Pokemon more and more. Yeah, that's one excuse as well as general schooling.

But anyway back to Pokemon. I've been playing through Heart Gold and I have a confession to make: I still haven't beaten the Elite Four, ever. I've tried many times, this game alone, and I still am falling behind. So, I've been training like no other and I'm hoping to beat the first half of Heart Gold today or tomorrow.

But the other Pokemon news I have started Pokemon Ruby and I've been considering doing a Nuzlocke Challenge. That basically means fainting=death of a pokemon and you must catch the first pokemon you see in an area. While it is an interesting, and perhaps realistic approach to the Pokemon Universe, I'm apprehensive. I already form ridiculous emotional attachments to computer generated characers in games.

I've never intentionally killed a Sim, I hate it when I lose too many Pikmin, and Pokemon... I hate it when I white/black out. I feel like I've failed as a trainer already when they faint, I can't imagine what I'd do if fainting equaled death.

Next in my Pokemon journeys are to buy Platinum and Black version. Hopefully I can finally start beating elite fours soon.

More Friday Thoughts

Yeah, I've been watching the video more and more. There's just so much to analyze here that one post just won't do.

According to Twitter this is Rebecca's 160 character bio: Rebecca Black is a fun, loving, 13 year old. She loves to sing, dance and act, and she is always looking to try something new. From los Angeles Ca.

She's 13?!!! That's not old enough to have a friend who drives, unless she's some kind of super slut who sleeps around with older kids, or the older kids have no lives. Seriously there is something messed up  there, but I can't figure out what. Although this explains why everyone in the video did not look old enough to be a "teenager."

Another thing: In the second verse when she sings, "Fun, Fun, think about fun!" it sounds more like a reminder to herself to keep her same half-smile thing, not an order to the audience anymore. I swear she's just  a stepford smiler and one wrong step she'll crack and sit in a corner sobbing about how her parents never loved her. There's some skeleton lurking in the closet there, if only I could investigate it.

It's so weird that her bio says she likes to sing, dance and act. Can she not do them all at the same time? Seriously, she was barely singing in the song, but there was no real dancing whatsoever or acting as previously discussed. You'd think they'd try and work in all these "abilities" she claims to have.

Friday (an analysis of a viral song)

So yeah, if you haven't heard this song by Rebecca Black called Friday is being called the "Worst. Song. Ever." To be honest, the lyrics definitely put it as a strong contender in this wonderful category.

Witness it for yourself here:

Wow, go take some ibuprofen before  the stupid headache gets you.

SO I'm going to provide an analysis from an English Major's perspective, because it's too fun not too. I'll start with a verse by verse break down and then do an overview because I'm cool like that...

The first verse explains her morning routine and unlike Ke$ha's (for the time being) immortal "Wake up in the Morning feeling like P. Diddy/ Grab my glasses I'm out the door, I'm gonna hit this city/ Before I leave brush my teeth with a bottle of jack/ Because when I leave for the night I aint comin' back." This leaves no interest in Rebecca's life. I don't care that she has cereal for breakfast or goes to the bus stop everyone does that until they get a friend with a car, which she then meets her friends with a car and can't decide where to sit (because the fate of the world depends upon where she sits). I don't know that many people who want to feel like P. Diddy or  brush their teeth with a bottle of Jack Daniels, that's interesting. The curiosity we, as listeners, feel toward Rebecca's daily routine is the fact that she can't make up her fucking mind about where she wants to sit in her friend's car. Which in the music video is even more peculiar as there is clearly only one seat available in the car (and most cars of that size really don't have a third seat in the back like the video suggests, nay is hoping you'll buy without worrying too much).

The first chorus has her repeating the title of the song ad nauseum and reminding us that she's "gotta get down" today. Because NO ONE parties at all on Saturdays.... She also reminds us everyone is looking forward to the weekend. Which I thought that "Everybody's Working for the Weekend" ? or am I just crazy? She then talks about, no, just says "Partyin'" over and over and everyone in the car agrees with her, though their shouts don't match what you'd think they'd sound like and really don't sound that enthusiastic either in acting or voices (seriously their 'voices' sound like some demon from Hell, possibly Legion). Her friends never just have quiet weekend get togethers where everyone talks and creates meaninful relationships, just partyin'? How superficial,  but of course this is studio manufactured music.

Second Verse and I'm already aching for alcohol for this girl, not me. She talks about cruising down the highway so fast she feels like flying. In the music video she's doing that 'cool' thing where you stand in the back seat of a convertable (By the way: how many teens do you know have brand new convertables?) and stand above the rest of the car which is generally only done at slower speeds because it's a fucking dangerous move. Cars, while fun like toys, are also to be treated with respect because they can kill you. She's just asking to die hanging out of a car going fast down the highway. Remember: she's probably going 55-70 mph so if she falls she's splattering on the ground. She then wants us to think about fun, which is so fun as opposed to going out and actually having fun. She reminds us "I got this, You got this" (don't ask what 'this' is, it's never explained) and then points out her friend is on her right. Now normally I could forgive a nonsequiter like that because sometimes a writer needed an easy rhyme, however that line goes with nothing, not even a half rhyme, it is completely pointless. On top of that she has another girl on her left in the music video who just gets the shaft. I guess they are just superficial friends. And then we know this. Know what? The epitome of bad song writing? She then shows that she can't make her mind up about what seat to sit in AGAIN! Despite being IN a moving car "in" a seat already and it's been the same seat all fucking day despite someone else driving the EXACT same car in front of a very obvious backdrop.

Why yes I'm getting more and more aggitated can you tell?

The second chorus is the same as the first lyrically, but the backdrop is more confusing. She's now at the party (oh thank God she doesn't have to worry about which seat to sit in in the car anymore!), but she's not ineracting with people that much. She waves at one person and some guy touches her shoulder right before it cuts to another scene where she doesn't interact with people except when they shout their standard "yeah" in agreement with her statement of "Partyin' Partyin.'" While the actors shouting "Yeah" are slightly more enthusiastic, the vocals are still the half-enthused non caring ones we heard before.

The Bridge: Oh the infamous bridge. In this lovely infamous bridge she goes over the days of the week, but not all of them, because that MIGHT be helpful in the long run. Because the youth of America are struggling in school and someone thought it was a good idea to put in a little reminder of the days of the week like the bridge of Gwen Stefani's "Hollaback Girl" reminded everyone how to spell "bananas, B-A-N-A-N-A-S!" which admittedly is a fucking catchy way to spell bananas. It's almost like Arthur spelling "aardvark" in that one episode. However, the key difference is kids know days of the week, I even learned them in song, but the difference is the catchyness. While "A-A-R-D-VA-RK!" and " B-A-N-A-N-A-S!" are quick and catchy, this is long and droning and says it is Friday, which it might not be whenever you hear this song, thankfully (or not) the music video has a constant reminder while attempting this really bad rotoscoping, flip book thing that is distracting.  It's like they were trying to repeat Ah-Ha's "Take On Me" and failing spectacularly. Then out of left field she loses her ability to use grammar properly. Seriously she just starts repeating "We, we, we, we" like a broken record before finally finishing her thought "so excited." And just when you think she made a mistake because of an actual broken record she repeats, "We so excited." She had grammar before, faltingly so, but now it's just MIA, maybe a POW of the war on America's sanity...? It gets WORSE when she then says "We gonna have a ball today." Yeah, grammar is  gone, dead, no more. Then we go back to our days of the week lesson. You know, the Animaniacs did a better job of teaching things in song, bring them back! She then shouts, "I don't want this weekend to ENNNNND!" My stuffed dog started howling... Obviously a bad sign.

Now for the obligatory rap part, because that's what you do in this kind of music! Yeah rap in this crap fest. Some gangster just cried out in pain and didn't know why, this is obviously the reason. Let me put on a sideways hat and analyze this. The rapper is someone I've never seen before, and his name isn't listed anywhere I can find on the video. He drives while he points out Rebecca's initials and her name, Because we needed to point out more obvious things in this song. He then (oh my god NO!) repeats the front and back seat and back seat thing and celebrates it... Head meet wall, ouch, but not as painful as the song. He goes on to advocate more dangerous driving such as switching in and out of lanes at highspeeds. What is it with this song and dangerous driving? I think the lyrics then imply he has a narrow miss with a car to his side because he hasn't been checking his blindspots. Way to go idiot! All he can say is "Woo." Yes, nearly side-swiping someone is something to "woo" about. It may be a near miss "woo" but he doesn't adjust his driving habits. He then complains about getting stuck behind a bus worring about all the fun hanging with tweens he's missing out on, still hopin he'll have fun this Friday.

The Chorus comes back again, twice. This time at the party which is made to look like it's in full swing. However, everyone has their hands awkwardly placed, generally down by their shoulders, because if they were to put them up they'd be in our little manufactured starlett's face. This is demonstrated the first time the crowd shouts "yeah" and fist pumps and covers her face. However, this wasn't corrected immediately and there are a couple awkward shots where her face is covered for a second. They obviously saw this problem and corrected for the second repetition of the refrain where everyone's hands are far out of the way of her face, even during the fist pumps. Why didn't they fix it in the first part? If I knew anything about this video I wouldn't be making this post. I forgot to mention she's on a stage above her peers, obviously providing the entertainment for the party. Oh, that's why she hasn't been interacting, she's the hired help. Seriously, who'd rather perform than have fun with their friends? Maybe her only friend is her roadie? This is interspersed with clips of the rapper guy driving in his car and largely doing nothing other than reminding us he's there and our little "starlett" in another part of the world. Where she's over-emoting some lyrics I can't make out. If she had just been emoting like this the whole time I wouldn't mind, however this super emotion is really weird and out of place comparison to her vague smile throughout the rest of the video. The video mercifully ends and the party goers applaud while she laughs in a a show of humility.

Overall, there were a couple of disturbing things I noticed throughout the video that were alluded to above but should still be addressed here in my general critique.

The song is incredibly formulaic: Verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, rap section, chorus x2. While normally this wouldn't bother me, as structure can be a useful tool (Look at Shakespeare and the sonnets) it doesn't work when the lyrics have nothing behind them and generally suck. I feel like the song writers deceided, "What do teens like? Friday. What about Friday? Fun and the weekend. What's fun about the weekend? Parties. We need something for the bridge! Just list the days of the week. Ooh kids like rappers and driving fast how can we incoporate this? Oh we can have a rapper rap about driving fast. This is clearly song writing gold. Wait! we can't start with the party, we need a narrative of SOME kind. Just have her talk about her morning routine and tough decisions when going to school."

I also hate how this song kept reminding me of the great songs they were trying to bounce off of. They say bounce off, I say rip off. If you really stop and think about all the better songs they ripped off it goes from bad to horrendous.

I'm also really aggitated by the singer's voice, which I only briefly alluded to in my critique. It's very flat an monotonous. I don't know that much about music, but it sounds auto-tuned to hell and back, or she's just a robot. There is most definitely a metallic tinge to most of the song. Except during the parts  where there's a back up singer (implied to be her) that sounds okay, not great but tolerable. She also sounds average when she holds a longer note, but nothing amazing.

The acting of both Rebecca and the extras was abysmal. Remember what I said about her boring monotonous and emotionless smile, she has it throughout the entire music video (except precious exception, duh). Even when complaining or worrying about which damn seat to take she smiles like she secretly has a million worries behind her. The extras are no better, just watch the second verse and watch her friend on the right. By the way everyone in the back seat has the same hairstyle as her, which she apparently had to straighten like no other in the morning. Because individuality or having curls is a problem.

Again, the advocating of the dangerous driving bugs me, but I'm a car fan who like to drive my car properly, if fun, not like a fucking maniac.

That's my overly long break down.

TL;DR: This already formulaic song rips off actually good music, features a girl who can't sing and has terrible lyrics on top of everything else.

Rambling on King's Speech

I finally saw the King's Speech last night, I say finally because I felt like I saw a ton of Oscar nominated movies this year but took forever getting around to The King's Speech.

It was an interesting and moving experience.

Why that choice of words? Because my boyfriend also stammers.

So as you can see I had a really personal connection to this film. I think that may have taken me out of it/put me into it too much.

I found myself really identifying with Helena Bonham Carter's character, The Queen Mum Elizabeth. I felt myself thinking "Oh, I never realized that's how he feels" or "I know exactly what this feels like."

I realize that this should make me like it more, but I don't know, it felt too real sometimes. I was over associating my boyfriend and myself with these characters.

I'm not articulating this well I realize, but what can I do?

Let me say: I loved this film. I thought it deserved all the awards it won, and more. Helena and Geoffrey definitely deserved oscars, even though they didn't win.

I just feel like I need to see this film over and over again.

Maybe I did like it.

I'm confused.