This is the end, my friend. It's a line we all know, and it brings with it a certain sense of doom, but the end of the world may actually be a good thing.
First of all, it's not happening. Experts have weighed in on the Mayan Calendar debate and their consensus is that the end of a long cycle does not mean the end of the world. It's pretty likely we will all be around, at least for a little while longer.
Second of all, it's good to think about the world on a larger scale and to think of our lives in a realistic manner. We are not going to live forever. We should not live like we are going to live forever. Thinking about ourselves as mortal beings with a limited time on earth should force us to think about the harder questions: what does our life mean? What do we want out of it? How do we want to be remembered? Who do we love?
Most of us are consumed with a routine lifestyle where our ambitions don't take us much beyond what we want to have for lunch that day. We worry about inconsequential and material things like the size of our tv or whether or not it's a good time to buy a car. We put off the things that we desire the most, sometime shelving our dreams for another day that never comes. We put off being with the people that we value the most or telling them just how important they are, assuming that they either already know, or that we will have plenty of time to tell them later. We take everything important for granted.
And then something happens that temporarily jolts us out of this mindframe. A doomsday prophecy, a natural disaster, or something horrific like a shooting. Sometimes the incidents are closer to home, as we survive accidents, fires, or other dangerous times. Those are the times that we have to face our mortality and ourselves.
It's a good time to take a moment and ask ourselves those questions we generally try to avoid. What do we truly want? What is holding us back? What are we afraid of? Are any of our fears real or do they belong to someone else? What is the worst that can happen? We're all on the clock; our time is coming at some point. What do we need to do to make that time worthwhile?
If asking these questions makes you feel uncomfortable or unsettled, that's also a good thing. Fear is not always your enemy; sometimes, it's your friend.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
It's just a joke
With the controversy still raging over the tragic consequences of a prank pulled by two Australian DJs personating the Queen for information on Kate Middleton's pregnancy, it's probably time to re-visit the ethics of pranking in general. It doesn't appear to be a matter of just a joke anymore.
First, consider that pranking is a very popular reality television model which people generally enjoy. From classic Just for Laughs Gags in Canada to Punk'd celebrity prank moments, pranking for entertainment purposes is a huge trend, with the internet and social media just making it easier. Pranks are also getting more elaborate, and let's face it, mean and crazy. Sometimes, they're even dangerous, putting unsuspecting people into potentially life-threatening situations, scaring the hell out of them- and then having a good laugh at them later.
The good clean fun of Just for Laughs Gags don't spark the same amount of controversy because they're usually obvious. Dogs driving the mail truck, or guys in gorilla suits in trees throwing bananas at unsuspecting people in the park- these are good for a giggle. The pranks that are borderline are the ones meant to illicit strong reactions from them, either by scaring or angering them or putting them in an awkward position. Even if that position or those emotions are staged, the effect it has on people are generally real.
Aside from embarassment, the potential to inflict real harm on people through pranks in a very public forum has increased. It's hard to justify how this form of media has become so popular in an age where people are increasingly sensitive to issues like bullying and political correctedness. We are contradicting ourselves when we say that we want to protect people from being socially polarized when we do exactly that by exploiting their fears and emotions for entertainment.
In fairness, it is not possible to fully understand the potential consequences of our actions. What some of us consider to be a harmless prank, others consider to be something more serious- provocation, for example, or intent to harm. We need to be mindful of these things when we set people up.
And perhaps we should re-think these shows and their so-called entertainment value. While some people think it's hysterical to scare the living daylights out of people by temporarily disabling elevators or putting spiders on them, it can be traumatic for prank victims. And as always, we only hear prank reprimands when they're already gone too far or if they have dire, unexpected outcomes. We should not only think before we act, we should think before we laugh.
First, consider that pranking is a very popular reality television model which people generally enjoy. From classic Just for Laughs Gags in Canada to Punk'd celebrity prank moments, pranking for entertainment purposes is a huge trend, with the internet and social media just making it easier. Pranks are also getting more elaborate, and let's face it, mean and crazy. Sometimes, they're even dangerous, putting unsuspecting people into potentially life-threatening situations, scaring the hell out of them- and then having a good laugh at them later.
The good clean fun of Just for Laughs Gags don't spark the same amount of controversy because they're usually obvious. Dogs driving the mail truck, or guys in gorilla suits in trees throwing bananas at unsuspecting people in the park- these are good for a giggle. The pranks that are borderline are the ones meant to illicit strong reactions from them, either by scaring or angering them or putting them in an awkward position. Even if that position or those emotions are staged, the effect it has on people are generally real.
Aside from embarassment, the potential to inflict real harm on people through pranks in a very public forum has increased. It's hard to justify how this form of media has become so popular in an age where people are increasingly sensitive to issues like bullying and political correctedness. We are contradicting ourselves when we say that we want to protect people from being socially polarized when we do exactly that by exploiting their fears and emotions for entertainment.
In fairness, it is not possible to fully understand the potential consequences of our actions. What some of us consider to be a harmless prank, others consider to be something more serious- provocation, for example, or intent to harm. We need to be mindful of these things when we set people up.
And perhaps we should re-think these shows and their so-called entertainment value. While some people think it's hysterical to scare the living daylights out of people by temporarily disabling elevators or putting spiders on them, it can be traumatic for prank victims. And as always, we only hear prank reprimands when they're already gone too far or if they have dire, unexpected outcomes. We should not only think before we act, we should think before we laugh.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Parenthood part 2
Nick Crews' bitterly disappointed letter to his three children was so riveting, why not try to visualize a child's bitterly disappointed letter to their parents?
For full effect, see full letter here: http://ca.shine.yahoo.com/blogs/shine-on/nick-crews-bitterly-disappointed-dad-blasts-three-kids-171712177.html
Dear Father Dearest (and presumably Mum too if she's around),
I can now tell you that I for one, and I sense my siblings feel the same, have had enough of being forced to live through the never-ending bad dream of boring lectures and domestic choredom. I want to hear no more from any of you until, if you feel inclined, you have success or an achievement or a REALISTIC plan to cease your relentless judging of others. I don't want to see others burdened any more with your miserable statements- it's not as if they ever asked of your opinion in the first place- far less re-iterated. So I ask you to spare others further unhappiness. If you think that I have been unfair in what I have said, by all means try to persuade me to change my mind. But you won't do it by simply whinging and saying you're always right. You'll have to come up with meatheaded reasons to demolish my points and build a case for yourself. If that isn't possible or you simply can't be bothered, then the case should be put to rest.
We are constantly regaled with chapter and verse of the happy, successful lives of the families of your friends and relatives. I wonder if you realise how we feel — constantly being compared to the so-called perfect children of others who have built up careers in the more desirable, money-making professions. We don't ask for your sympathy or understanding — we know what a collossal disappointment it is to not be a part of society's driven, its' winners. Having done our best — probably misguidedly — to win spelling bees and science trophies with our feeble minds and lop-sided baking soda volcanoes, we naturally hoped that it would result in a cold half smile of appreciation or a goood old fashioned loving jab on the chin.
It is obvious that none of you has the faintest notion of the bitter disappointment the two of you has in your own way dished out to us. We are seeing the miserable death throes of familial love through constant guilt mongering and episodes of intermittent self pity.
I am bitterly, bitterly disappointed.
Children
For full effect, see full letter here: http://ca.shine.yahoo.com/blogs/shine-on/nick-crews-bitterly-disappointed-dad-blasts-three-kids-171712177.html
Dear Father Dearest (and presumably Mum too if she's around),
I can now tell you that I for one, and I sense my siblings feel the same, have had enough of being forced to live through the never-ending bad dream of boring lectures and domestic choredom. I want to hear no more from any of you until, if you feel inclined, you have success or an achievement or a REALISTIC plan to cease your relentless judging of others. I don't want to see others burdened any more with your miserable statements- it's not as if they ever asked of your opinion in the first place- far less re-iterated. So I ask you to spare others further unhappiness. If you think that I have been unfair in what I have said, by all means try to persuade me to change my mind. But you won't do it by simply whinging and saying you're always right. You'll have to come up with meatheaded reasons to demolish my points and build a case for yourself. If that isn't possible or you simply can't be bothered, then the case should be put to rest.
We are constantly regaled with chapter and verse of the happy, successful lives of the families of your friends and relatives. I wonder if you realise how we feel — constantly being compared to the so-called perfect children of others who have built up careers in the more desirable, money-making professions. We don't ask for your sympathy or understanding — we know what a collossal disappointment it is to not be a part of society's driven, its' winners. Having done our best — probably misguidedly — to win spelling bees and science trophies with our feeble minds and lop-sided baking soda volcanoes, we naturally hoped that it would result in a cold half smile of appreciation or a goood old fashioned loving jab on the chin.
It is obvious that none of you has the faintest notion of the bitter disappointment the two of you has in your own way dished out to us. We are seeing the miserable death throes of familial love through constant guilt mongering and episodes of intermittent self pity.
I am bitterly, bitterly disappointed.
Children
Parenthood Is Not For Everyone
If you're tired of smarmy Hallmark style made for tv parent loving television, does the internet have a treat for you: an email message from a bitterly disappointed retired British nuclear submarine commander Nick Crews has just gone viral.
The full text can be found online. It is a unique and delicious medley of condescension, judgement, acidic social commentary of the old school variety, self-pity and self-congratulation, all in one. There is sufficient stuffy language to go above and beyond regular chiding or finger-wagging and goes all out for a no-holds barred 'you are what's wrong with society today' one-two kick to it.
To summarize, Father Dearest's main issue with his offspring is primarily with their underachievement in the professional world and their domestic ineptitude. There is an allusion to several marriages near the end of the letter, which is probably where the domestic ineptitude comes from, so it doesn't appear to be a reference to their ability to fold napkins.
The biggest concern, of course, is for the grandchildren, the precious offspring of their seemingly less cherished offspring- it appears that the love of one's fruit of the loins skips a generation and goes directly to the next group. It is the opinion of Father Dearest, and Mum too, because presumably he speaks for her as well, no doubt a sign of the domestic non-ineptitude that he possesses, that they are not providing properly for their futures.
Father Dearest takes particular offense at not being consulted in the decision making process of his children's lives, which is by no means to blame for the poor quality of the decisions taken- at one point, he describes their events as copulation-driven- and how his unsolicited advice is not taken. He also doesn't want to hear more 'whinges and tidings of more rotten news', while he goes on to whinge of his own situation of not being able to brag to his friends about his children. It seems that whinging is a popular family activity, but Father Dearest will not tolerate it in others no more than he would tolerate one of them joining in on his Solitaire game.
Father Dearest is bitterly disappointed at having gone to such great expense to educate his three children who have apparently accomplished nothing worth mentioning at a garden party. Such a pity.
There are probably parents of children with meth labs in nurseries who have less disappointed parents than this.
Many of us have been fed with the idea that parental love is unconditional; that, as long as we tried to be as good as we possibly could, as long as we were law-abiding and healthy, we would be loved and accepted by our family. Like having your head held under icy water, this new take on parenthood is somewhat refreshing. And it reinforces that idea that parenthood may not be for everyone.
Children of the world owe a debt to Nick Crews today. We can all be happy and rejoice that he's not our father.
The full text can be found online. It is a unique and delicious medley of condescension, judgement, acidic social commentary of the old school variety, self-pity and self-congratulation, all in one. There is sufficient stuffy language to go above and beyond regular chiding or finger-wagging and goes all out for a no-holds barred 'you are what's wrong with society today' one-two kick to it.
To summarize, Father Dearest's main issue with his offspring is primarily with their underachievement in the professional world and their domestic ineptitude. There is an allusion to several marriages near the end of the letter, which is probably where the domestic ineptitude comes from, so it doesn't appear to be a reference to their ability to fold napkins.
The biggest concern, of course, is for the grandchildren, the precious offspring of their seemingly less cherished offspring- it appears that the love of one's fruit of the loins skips a generation and goes directly to the next group. It is the opinion of Father Dearest, and Mum too, because presumably he speaks for her as well, no doubt a sign of the domestic non-ineptitude that he possesses, that they are not providing properly for their futures.
Father Dearest takes particular offense at not being consulted in the decision making process of his children's lives, which is by no means to blame for the poor quality of the decisions taken- at one point, he describes their events as copulation-driven- and how his unsolicited advice is not taken. He also doesn't want to hear more 'whinges and tidings of more rotten news', while he goes on to whinge of his own situation of not being able to brag to his friends about his children. It seems that whinging is a popular family activity, but Father Dearest will not tolerate it in others no more than he would tolerate one of them joining in on his Solitaire game.
Father Dearest is bitterly disappointed at having gone to such great expense to educate his three children who have apparently accomplished nothing worth mentioning at a garden party. Such a pity.
There are probably parents of children with meth labs in nurseries who have less disappointed parents than this.
Many of us have been fed with the idea that parental love is unconditional; that, as long as we tried to be as good as we possibly could, as long as we were law-abiding and healthy, we would be loved and accepted by our family. Like having your head held under icy water, this new take on parenthood is somewhat refreshing. And it reinforces that idea that parenthood may not be for everyone.
Children of the world owe a debt to Nick Crews today. We can all be happy and rejoice that he's not our father.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
TV Fall 2012 reviews so far
With the NHL lockout and a lot of new time on my hands, I've decided to reconnect with an old friend of mine: television. It hasn't been an altogether smooth experience. Let's begin with a few observations:
The Outdoor Life Network OLN: do any of these shows take place outside anymore? What's with the people fighting over storage space? How does this qualify as outdoorsy? Wasn't this network famous for hunting, fishing and other outdoor manly type ventures that you could ironically watch from the comfort of your own home?
The History Channel: does anything on this channel occur in the past? Because that's traditionally where history is placed. This channel took a lot of flack for being the 'Hitler Channel' because it used to play Nazi documentaries ad nauseum, which was a great ratings grabber, but something of a narrow view on history. It appears that the channel has decided to do away with this altogether and go straight to shows that look like they should be on OLN: trucking, commercial fishing, dangerous professions. The new motto is that History will be made. But the point is that history HAS been made and generally, a network entirely devoted to history should focus on the past.
The Learning Channel (TLC): it seems like this channel exists so that it can 'learn ya'. And not in the strictest educational sense, or else the educational system is in way more trouble than I initially feared. The home network of reality series on polygamists, Amish, unusually large families and midgets is maybe learning us something but the lesson always seems to be that people can be pretty different yet the same. Unfortunately, the sameness has less to do with the good things we're capable of and more with our pettiness and silliness. And if anyone thinks that Honey Boo Boo is here to learn us something good, I think I hear the hoofs of one of the Horsemen of the Apocalypse approaching- or at least I hope.
Ok, so tv has gotten a little weird. Some of their channels are a bit less than perfectly named. There are a ton of maudlin new shows on the air which likely won't last more than a season because their silly weak premises are all things that we've seen before, cheeky doctors who can't manage their personal lives, sexy dramas about people in dangerous professions and dysfunctional sweet families. Yawn. But there are a few worth watching in all this:
Person of Interest (this is a must-see): This compelling drama asks many philosophical and moral questions about security, surveillance and vigilante justice. It also probes into fundamental questions about human nature, like our inherent goodness or badness, and the secret around 'the machine' is worthy of any sci-fi enthusiast's half-skewed vision of a bleak future. The machine has almost become a character in this series, opening it up to more questions. It also features a fair amount of ass-kicking from a man in a suit. The only possible flaw in this series is that it over-promises and under-delivers, something it has been able to avoid so far, but could be a potential pitfall in the future.
Elementary: the frenetic energy of the new Sherlock Holmes makes his brilliant deductions irritating and fascinating all at the same time. Arrogant, insensitive and utterly devoted to finding out the truth, the audience is thankful to have the calm female Watson on the scene. The costume choices for the new Watson seem absolutely determined to remove Lucy Liu's former sex bomb status by disguising her as one of New York City's bag ladies. No matter. It works and the tension/chemistry of the two main characters which has always been played on between two male leads is promising with one male and a female- but we expect things to stay platonic, just the same.
Vegas: Anyone who's enjoyed watching John Wayne films with dad is going to like this series. The mix of cowboys and gangsters is irresistible and fun to watch. The feel of the era is a little all over the place. It claims to be 1960s, but some of those gangsters look more 1930s and those kitschy showgirls aren't helping any. There aren't a lot of surprises and you will probably find yourself calling everyone a wise guy afterwards, but you could do a whole lot worse.
666 Park Avenue: It's interesting, but there are many potential pitfalls in this show. The naive young couple who moves into the Drake Hotel to become full-time live-in concierges are entirely uninteresting, so the audience gets to watch interesting things happen to them. The young woman's boundless curiosity is seemingly never counterbalanced by a healthy fear for her life as she explores the mysteries of the world's creepiest laundry room. The basement lit by a single light bulb on a string is usually fair warning that something horrific is about to happen. And horrific, unexplainable things do happen in this show. The potential pitfall of this show will happen if they try too hard to explain everything. There's a supernatural quality to this show that appears more kitschy than fascinating at times, yet works because of the creepy authority of Terry O'Quinn. But remember, even he couldn't save Lost.
The Outdoor Life Network OLN: do any of these shows take place outside anymore? What's with the people fighting over storage space? How does this qualify as outdoorsy? Wasn't this network famous for hunting, fishing and other outdoor manly type ventures that you could ironically watch from the comfort of your own home?
The History Channel: does anything on this channel occur in the past? Because that's traditionally where history is placed. This channel took a lot of flack for being the 'Hitler Channel' because it used to play Nazi documentaries ad nauseum, which was a great ratings grabber, but something of a narrow view on history. It appears that the channel has decided to do away with this altogether and go straight to shows that look like they should be on OLN: trucking, commercial fishing, dangerous professions. The new motto is that History will be made. But the point is that history HAS been made and generally, a network entirely devoted to history should focus on the past.
The Learning Channel (TLC): it seems like this channel exists so that it can 'learn ya'. And not in the strictest educational sense, or else the educational system is in way more trouble than I initially feared. The home network of reality series on polygamists, Amish, unusually large families and midgets is maybe learning us something but the lesson always seems to be that people can be pretty different yet the same. Unfortunately, the sameness has less to do with the good things we're capable of and more with our pettiness and silliness. And if anyone thinks that Honey Boo Boo is here to learn us something good, I think I hear the hoofs of one of the Horsemen of the Apocalypse approaching- or at least I hope.
Ok, so tv has gotten a little weird. Some of their channels are a bit less than perfectly named. There are a ton of maudlin new shows on the air which likely won't last more than a season because their silly weak premises are all things that we've seen before, cheeky doctors who can't manage their personal lives, sexy dramas about people in dangerous professions and dysfunctional sweet families. Yawn. But there are a few worth watching in all this:
Person of Interest (this is a must-see): This compelling drama asks many philosophical and moral questions about security, surveillance and vigilante justice. It also probes into fundamental questions about human nature, like our inherent goodness or badness, and the secret around 'the machine' is worthy of any sci-fi enthusiast's half-skewed vision of a bleak future. The machine has almost become a character in this series, opening it up to more questions. It also features a fair amount of ass-kicking from a man in a suit. The only possible flaw in this series is that it over-promises and under-delivers, something it has been able to avoid so far, but could be a potential pitfall in the future.
Elementary: the frenetic energy of the new Sherlock Holmes makes his brilliant deductions irritating and fascinating all at the same time. Arrogant, insensitive and utterly devoted to finding out the truth, the audience is thankful to have the calm female Watson on the scene. The costume choices for the new Watson seem absolutely determined to remove Lucy Liu's former sex bomb status by disguising her as one of New York City's bag ladies. No matter. It works and the tension/chemistry of the two main characters which has always been played on between two male leads is promising with one male and a female- but we expect things to stay platonic, just the same.
Vegas: Anyone who's enjoyed watching John Wayne films with dad is going to like this series. The mix of cowboys and gangsters is irresistible and fun to watch. The feel of the era is a little all over the place. It claims to be 1960s, but some of those gangsters look more 1930s and those kitschy showgirls aren't helping any. There aren't a lot of surprises and you will probably find yourself calling everyone a wise guy afterwards, but you could do a whole lot worse.
666 Park Avenue: It's interesting, but there are many potential pitfalls in this show. The naive young couple who moves into the Drake Hotel to become full-time live-in concierges are entirely uninteresting, so the audience gets to watch interesting things happen to them. The young woman's boundless curiosity is seemingly never counterbalanced by a healthy fear for her life as she explores the mysteries of the world's creepiest laundry room. The basement lit by a single light bulb on a string is usually fair warning that something horrific is about to happen. And horrific, unexplainable things do happen in this show. The potential pitfall of this show will happen if they try too hard to explain everything. There's a supernatural quality to this show that appears more kitschy than fascinating at times, yet works because of the creepy authority of Terry O'Quinn. But remember, even he couldn't save Lost.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Not So Revolutionary
The much-anticipated new J. J. Abrams television series 'Revolution' does not deserve its grandiose title by a long shot. The show's premise is great; a world gone dark, the total loss of electricity and the fate of a planet reduced to a pre-industrial agricultural world. A major blow to the pride of civilizations grown soft and dependent on trivialities and luxuries, too busy to look up from their phones to realize that they've lost their strongest asset: adaptability. The philosophical, moral implications are huge. There's more than enough material in there to cover endless seasons of questions, not just on the premise, but on the foundations of civilization, their rise and fall, our relationship with technology and our connection to the earth that sustains us.
The show was bursting with potential. And then it aired.
The premiere was more than disappointing. It was annoying. It's hard to know where to begin: the wooden acting, the predictable writing, the cheesy fight sequences, the stilted attempt at a 'story', the lack of chemistry between everyone in the cast, or the way it overpromised on its superb premise to underdeliver with all of the aforementioned.
Let's start with the starry-eyed optimism of what appears to be the main character, Charlie. She's a young woman who seems to believe in the inherent goodness of people and remembers a time when electricity still existed before her not-so-bad-looking life on a farm. Her father was one of the few people to understand the blackout and appears to have a clue from that time on how to get the power back. So ends the life of the most interesting person on the show, as he gets shot in the pilot within minutes of it starting. As for Charlie, you would expect that someone who had witnessed what was probably a traumatic shift for humankind, would be a little, well, harder.
As a matter of fact, this is one of the main problems with the show. You would expect a show with such a dark premise to be, well, darker. In a post-apocalyptic world gone dark, you would expect that there would be chaos, violence, blood, harrowing tales of human survival. Instead, you have this watered down, family friendly drama where everyone looks ridiculously clean and the dialogue is the only thing stiffer than the acting. There are no emotional connections formed with any of the characters, with the exception of a mild affection for the soft-bellied former Google tech wizard who can't fight, or the mild respect for the bad ass black dude who rocks the militia.
The attempts at 'romance' between Charlie and the militia man who, for some reason, can't stop himself from saving her multiple times despite the fact that he's tracking her as some sort of enemy of the state, are pathetic. The very fact that she needs so much saving is also a contributor to the annoyance factor. J.J.Abrams brought us such strong female characters as Sidney in 'Alias' and Kate in 'Lost' and then with this production, delivers a character who needs to get saved in the pilot-twice.
The attempts at creating family drama are even worse. Two episodes in, I couldn't care less whether or not they save her asthmatic brother. I'm also not sure why Miles even bothers with his little family, unless living has suddenly become boring. Apparently he's the family bad ass, but even he can't resist the doe eyes of his niece.
The show's format breaks down roughly into this: 20 minutes of boring drama, 10 minutes of fighting, 20 more minutes of boring drama, and 10 minutes on the actual conspiracy story which is of some flickering interest to the viewer. Unfortunately, the conspiracy story is not going to be enough. After suffering through two episodes of periodically yelling at characters and saying their lines with them because the script was so trite, I couldn't care less why the world went dark. Maybe someone spilled coke on the switchboard. Maybe someone at Apple got pissed off. Maybe it's the Russians. In any case, this is a series that deserves to stay in the dark.
The show was bursting with potential. And then it aired.
The premiere was more than disappointing. It was annoying. It's hard to know where to begin: the wooden acting, the predictable writing, the cheesy fight sequences, the stilted attempt at a 'story', the lack of chemistry between everyone in the cast, or the way it overpromised on its superb premise to underdeliver with all of the aforementioned.
Let's start with the starry-eyed optimism of what appears to be the main character, Charlie. She's a young woman who seems to believe in the inherent goodness of people and remembers a time when electricity still existed before her not-so-bad-looking life on a farm. Her father was one of the few people to understand the blackout and appears to have a clue from that time on how to get the power back. So ends the life of the most interesting person on the show, as he gets shot in the pilot within minutes of it starting. As for Charlie, you would expect that someone who had witnessed what was probably a traumatic shift for humankind, would be a little, well, harder.
As a matter of fact, this is one of the main problems with the show. You would expect a show with such a dark premise to be, well, darker. In a post-apocalyptic world gone dark, you would expect that there would be chaos, violence, blood, harrowing tales of human survival. Instead, you have this watered down, family friendly drama where everyone looks ridiculously clean and the dialogue is the only thing stiffer than the acting. There are no emotional connections formed with any of the characters, with the exception of a mild affection for the soft-bellied former Google tech wizard who can't fight, or the mild respect for the bad ass black dude who rocks the militia.
The attempts at 'romance' between Charlie and the militia man who, for some reason, can't stop himself from saving her multiple times despite the fact that he's tracking her as some sort of enemy of the state, are pathetic. The very fact that she needs so much saving is also a contributor to the annoyance factor. J.J.Abrams brought us such strong female characters as Sidney in 'Alias' and Kate in 'Lost' and then with this production, delivers a character who needs to get saved in the pilot-twice.
The attempts at creating family drama are even worse. Two episodes in, I couldn't care less whether or not they save her asthmatic brother. I'm also not sure why Miles even bothers with his little family, unless living has suddenly become boring. Apparently he's the family bad ass, but even he can't resist the doe eyes of his niece.
The show's format breaks down roughly into this: 20 minutes of boring drama, 10 minutes of fighting, 20 more minutes of boring drama, and 10 minutes on the actual conspiracy story which is of some flickering interest to the viewer. Unfortunately, the conspiracy story is not going to be enough. After suffering through two episodes of periodically yelling at characters and saying their lines with them because the script was so trite, I couldn't care less why the world went dark. Maybe someone spilled coke on the switchboard. Maybe someone at Apple got pissed off. Maybe it's the Russians. In any case, this is a series that deserves to stay in the dark.
Monday, September 17, 2012
NHL Lockout- plan B?
Now that the NHL lockout has become official, it's time for us fans to have a little fun at the expense of the players and consider some plan Bs for NHL players across the league.
Watching It: Dustin Byfuglien has been getting some flack for a little weight gain over the summer. He probably now knows how Jessica Simpson feels after the high-waisted jeans fiasco. Maybe it's time for the two of them to team up for Weight Watchers? Simpson's making a cool $4 million on her deal to shed the baby weight- Byfuglien's lockout weight deal should clock in at half of that. That's more than he makes playing hockey and all he has to do is eat lettuce. Not a bad deal.
The Battle of the Roses: Dion Phaneuf has gotten engaged over the summer to Elisha Cuthbert, the kind of hockey royalty wedding that could be splashed all over People. With so much time on his hands, could Phaneuf move on to become the worst Bridezilla we've ever seen? Somehow, the mental image of Phaneuf man-handling florists and terrorizing bakers seems all too possible.
Mad Hatter at the Tea Party: Tim Thomas was way ahead of the curve; he said no to this season before it even looked like a lockout year. He's taking a year off to devote to his personal matters, like his family and the Tea Party. He looks to be a shoe-in for Mad Hatter status, especially with that stache. If I was Alice, I would run like hell.
Staying at Home: Zach Parise and new BFF Ryan Suter both wanted to spend more time close to home. Wish granted.
Have some great ideas of your own? Why not shout it out on Twitter at #NHLLockoutplanB?
Watching It: Dustin Byfuglien has been getting some flack for a little weight gain over the summer. He probably now knows how Jessica Simpson feels after the high-waisted jeans fiasco. Maybe it's time for the two of them to team up for Weight Watchers? Simpson's making a cool $4 million on her deal to shed the baby weight- Byfuglien's lockout weight deal should clock in at half of that. That's more than he makes playing hockey and all he has to do is eat lettuce. Not a bad deal.
The Battle of the Roses: Dion Phaneuf has gotten engaged over the summer to Elisha Cuthbert, the kind of hockey royalty wedding that could be splashed all over People. With so much time on his hands, could Phaneuf move on to become the worst Bridezilla we've ever seen? Somehow, the mental image of Phaneuf man-handling florists and terrorizing bakers seems all too possible.
Mad Hatter at the Tea Party: Tim Thomas was way ahead of the curve; he said no to this season before it even looked like a lockout year. He's taking a year off to devote to his personal matters, like his family and the Tea Party. He looks to be a shoe-in for Mad Hatter status, especially with that stache. If I was Alice, I would run like hell.
Staying at Home: Zach Parise and new BFF Ryan Suter both wanted to spend more time close to home. Wish granted.
Have some great ideas of your own? Why not shout it out on Twitter at #NHLLockoutplanB?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)