Wesley Snipes. Somewhat underrated actor-I think better sometimes in character roles than leads. Allegedly, the onetime abusive boyfriend of Halle Berry. Now, a literal fugitive from justice.
Call out the U.S. Marshalls.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
I'm not normally much one for collectable figures
But by God, if I were...
Ah, Cordelia. Sweet, sweet Cordelia and her too-tragic end (or do I mean too-tragic Cordelia and her sweet, sweet...ahem!).
Brought to life by the underrated acting of Charisma Carpenter and killed because Joss Whedon apparently can't think of anything better to do with strong women characters.
I just hope they haven't followed in his footsteps on Veronica Mars-I stubbornly insist on the "We did not see a body" rule.
But anyway, Cordy's character was actually not so sweet-that's why I loved her.
Cool story for any and all of you who watch The Colbert Report
It's the story of the woman who won the "Stephen Colbert Green Screen Challenge!” If you watched the episode on which she won, you know they pulled a very funny joke. It was announced that it was down to two finalists, Bonnie R, who was on the phone and, there in the studio, one "George L." From Marin, California.
Until he walked out it didn't occur to me that it would be, as it was, George Lucas. Sometimes I'm slow. Lucas' people had put together their own entry using the, shall we say, many resources they had at hand.
One or two of you may know that I've had certain, shall we say, "issues" with Lucas in the past-for what I see as his cyncism, sexism and general insults to the intelligence. But I was giving him lots of credit for showing up and going along in the spirit of the joke. He had more of my goodwill than he's had for literally years.
Then they played his video. Even on a 30 second satire, the man can't write dialogue. Which is only one of the reasons I was smiling inside and out when Bonnie won (what was, after all, not a contest!).
Until he walked out it didn't occur to me that it would be, as it was, George Lucas. Sometimes I'm slow. Lucas' people had put together their own entry using the, shall we say, many resources they had at hand.
One or two of you may know that I've had certain, shall we say, "issues" with Lucas in the past-for what I see as his cyncism, sexism and general insults to the intelligence. But I was giving him lots of credit for showing up and going along in the spirit of the joke. He had more of my goodwill than he's had for literally years.
Then they played his video. Even on a 30 second satire, the man can't write dialogue. Which is only one of the reasons I was smiling inside and out when Bonnie won (what was, after all, not a contest!).
Here's a couple clearly headed for several happy, fun-filled years
I really can't overstress what a resource avore de pensamentos (whatever that means) has turned out to be.
To cut a long story short I lost my MIND
Media Life Magazine:
Meanwhile, I find myself continuing to really like it. Not only because of Sorkin's dialogue, or because the show is original and smart, or even fannish loyalty (though all those things are factors).
I'm starting to really care about the characters, especially Matt & Harriet. Which is one of the reasons the next paragraph of the article makes me madder the more I think about it.
I'd argue that just because the characters aren't jumping into bed with each other with the rapidity they do on "Grey's Anatomy" -I'm led to understand-it doesn't mean the love story isn't going anywhere.
I think it's clear they are going somewhere, but it's going to take a little time (if only they have it). Especially since with Matt & Harriet, Sorkin has set up a love story that has more obstacles than the umpteen variations on Sam & Diane or David & Maddy we've been seeing for the past 20-25 years.
What do you do when you love and admire someone who loves and admires you but who believes, at her core, something almost diametrically opposed from what you believe at yours? It's a bigger question than most shows even think to ask, and I almost want to say shame on the reporter above for not recognizing that.
And "no overall plotline giving the show urgency"? What the hell? When did that become a requirement of weekly, episodic, network television? Shows like "Lost" are the exception, not the rule. The closest most shows come is a certain soap opera element, other than that it's mostly "this week's case."
Even on "West Wing" there wasn't an "overall plotline" outside the place and the job. Same for "Sports Night." And in both of them, and now "Studio 60," for me the overall plotline is really about getting to know these people and seeing how they handle the big questions in their lives.
I don't need to see them trapped on a mysterious island for that to be "urgent."
NBC's 'Studio 60' tumbles to new low
Troubled drama falls 18 percent, to a 3.1 in 18-49s
After recording its first week-to-week uptick in ratings last week, NBC’s highly touted drama “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip” dipped to a series-low for last night’s episode, erasing all of the previous week’s gains and then some.
The 10 p.m. show averaged a 3.1 in adults 18-49, according to Nielsen overnights, down 18 percent from last week’s 3.8.
Meanwhile, I find myself continuing to really like it. Not only because of Sorkin's dialogue, or because the show is original and smart, or even fannish loyalty (though all those things are factors).
I'm starting to really care about the characters, especially Matt & Harriet. Which is one of the reasons the next paragraph of the article makes me madder the more I think about it.
After an excellent pilot, the show has slumped into inertia of sorts, with a love story that doesn’t go anywhere and no overall plotline giving the show urgency.
I'd argue that just because the characters aren't jumping into bed with each other with the rapidity they do on "Grey's Anatomy" -I'm led to understand-it doesn't mean the love story isn't going anywhere.
I think it's clear they are going somewhere, but it's going to take a little time (if only they have it). Especially since with Matt & Harriet, Sorkin has set up a love story that has more obstacles than the umpteen variations on Sam & Diane or David & Maddy we've been seeing for the past 20-25 years.
What do you do when you love and admire someone who loves and admires you but who believes, at her core, something almost diametrically opposed from what you believe at yours? It's a bigger question than most shows even think to ask, and I almost want to say shame on the reporter above for not recognizing that.
And "no overall plotline giving the show urgency"? What the hell? When did that become a requirement of weekly, episodic, network television? Shows like "Lost" are the exception, not the rule. The closest most shows come is a certain soap opera element, other than that it's mostly "this week's case."
Even on "West Wing" there wasn't an "overall plotline" outside the place and the job. Same for "Sports Night." And in both of them, and now "Studio 60," for me the overall plotline is really about getting to know these people and seeing how they handle the big questions in their lives.
I don't need to see them trapped on a mysterious island for that to be "urgent."
Monday, October 16, 2006
Fun with polls
According to a poll in the current issue of Time Magazine, when asked the question:
Did the disclosure about Foley's sexually explicit instant messages to teenage pages and the handling of this sistuation by the house Republican leadership make you less likely to vote for the Republican candidate in your district, more likely, or did it really have no effect on how you will vote?
25% said it made them less likely
4% said it made them more likely
68% said it had no effect
I'd like to repeat that. 4% of registered voters said Foley being exposed as a pedophile, and the GOP congress having covered it up...made them more likely to vote for a Republican. Not only that, Time Magazine knew that was a possibility, and allowed for it on the questions in their poll.
Even allowing for the margin of error, I find that signifigant. Heck, in Republican mathamatical terms, one percent is enough to turn a dead heat into a mandate-giving landslide.
Proof positive that talk of Hollywood values being out of touch is completely exaggerated
According to this post, Robin Williams was paid "only" one million dollars to star in his new movie, Man of the Year. "Only" one million dollars. And they're reporting it like he was digging at the bottom of a trash can for cheese or something.
"Only" one million dollars. Would anyone out there like to pay me "only" one million dollars to make a film with some great characters and dialogue?
"Only" one million dollars.
It's times like this I think I'm playing for the wrong team in the culture wars.
"Only" one million dollars.
Sheesh...
"Only" one million dollars. Would anyone out there like to pay me "only" one million dollars to make a film with some great characters and dialogue?
"Only" one million dollars.
It's times like this I think I'm playing for the wrong team in the culture wars.
"Only" one million dollars.
Sheesh...
Random Flickr-Blogging: IMG_5854
Source
Ever notice how some dicks can just completely fuck up an otherwise perfectly good landscape?
And now, the completely unsubtle political version of that joke: In the background, we have the beautiful landscape of Capetown, South Africa. In the foreground, we have a stupid white man. And now, while the analogy sinks in, let's move on...
It was sometimes said that Samantha was just a tad too defensive around men.
Source
I know with absolute cold-iron certainly that the same dick who fucked up the landscape above also owns this car, that he apparently thought was more important than the pleasant mountains green behind it.
Source
Bob Dylan fans, take a look. That's right. Take a good long look. This is what you really look like, and anyone who tells you otherwise must love you very much.
Source
When his head lolled to one side, betraying the lack of any spinal column to keep it upright, Susanne realized to her horror the awful truth: She had been speaking to a Democrat. Our cameras caught her in a frozen grin, even as she tensed her leg muscles, preparing to leap away.
Source
Sunday, October 15, 2006
To any of the rest of you who may have been watching Comedy Central's autism fundraiser
Yes, I saw that the generous young woman who won the in-theater auction to appear onstage in the finale...was named Keitha. Freaky.
Anger and passion are always the fashion
In Unclaimed Territory this morning:
Read the whole thing, to which I'll just add by asking the question: What does it say about what spineless fucking jellyfish they are that after six years of this shit, three weeks before an election we still have to phrase it:
If the Democrats win.
What does it say? It says, the Democrats are still the party of John Kerry. They're going to lose. They deserve to.
The problem is, we don't.
...the fear-driven advice to avoid strong positions because those positions are unpopular becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy over and over and over. When Democrats are continuously told to avoid taking a stand for their positions, their positions will inevitably be unpopular because they have failed to advocate them forcefully. Viewpoints become popular when persuasive leaders make a passionate and persuasive case for those viewpoints. If the public sees one party viciously attacking Position X, while the other party defensively and half-heartedly says that Position X is not as awful as it seems and, besides, they only half-believe in Position X, the public will inevitably conclude that Position X is wrong and even toxic. What other conclusion can one draw if nobody is willing to advocate that position?
If Democrats win in three weeks, it will be for one simple reason -- because the country has been so awakened and stirred by anger and intense dissatisfaction with our system of one-party Republican rule that they will be motivated to turn out incumbents in large numbers and even change their normal voting patterns. Nobody disputes that this passion is one that is oppositional in nature. It is driven by a disgust for the views and behavior of Republicans, not by an embrace of Democrats.
Read the whole thing, to which I'll just add by asking the question: What does it say about what spineless fucking jellyfish they are that after six years of this shit, three weeks before an election we still have to phrase it:
If the Democrats win.
What does it say? It says, the Democrats are still the party of John Kerry. They're going to lose. They deserve to.
The problem is, we don't.
If only it were funny.
Columnist and Python Terry Jones welcomes George W. Bush to an entirely different kind of flying circus.
If you need to get the bad taste out of your mouth-not from Jones' writing but from the implications of his biting satire-here's a little Peter Cook. From back in the days when they still used to laugh at it:
I write to you in my capacity as secretary of the World League of Despots.
It is with great pleasure that I am finally able to extend an official invitation to you to join our ranks.
I cannot, however, disguise the fact that we adjudicators were extremely anxious when you announced your intention to remove from office one of our most stalwart members, Mr Saddam Hussein. However, we need not have worried. According to a recent UN report, you have ensured that there are now even more human rights abuses in Iraq than there were under Saddam. No less than 10% of those in custody are being physically or psychologically abused. Well done!
Of course, your unstinting efforts to make torture an internationally accepted aspect of human life have surpassed everything we could have ever hoped for. I don't think there is a single member of the league who could have imagined, six short years ago, that our activities in tormenting our fellow creatures would once again be recognised as acceptable, civilised behaviour, as it once was in the middle ages.
If you need to get the bad taste out of your mouth-not from Jones' writing but from the implications of his biting satire-here's a little Peter Cook. From back in the days when they still used to laugh at it:
It's a wonderful league, the World Domination League. The aims, as published in the manifesto, are total domination of the world by 1958. That's what we're planning to do. We've had to revise it - we're hoping to bring a new manifesto out with a more realistic target. How we aim to go about it is as follows: we shall move about into people's rooms and say, "Excuse me, we are the World Domination League - may we dominate you?" Then, if they say "Get out", of course we give up.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
A tinker's cuss
I'd tinker with some of the language, but basically Anonymous Liberal has a good suggestion for a Democratic campaign ad.
May not have been so exciting?
You scored as The Fifth Doctor (Peter Davidson). The quiet Fifth Doctor is the one for you. He may not have been so exciting, but his steady calm kept you interested. Maybe you just like cricket.
Which Doctor Who are you?
created with QuizFarm.com
The Fifth Doctor (Peter Davidson) | 81% | ||
The Sixth Doctor (Colin Baker) | 75% | ||
The Fourth Doctor (Tom Baker) | 44% | ||
The Seventh Doctor (Sylvester McCoy) | 31% | ||
The Ninth Doctor (Christoper Eccleston) | 25% | ||
The Eighth Doctor (Paul McGann) | 25% | ||
The First Doctor (William Hartnell) | 19% | ||
The Third Doctor (Jon Pertwee) | 13% | ||
The Second Doctor (Patrick Troughton) | 13% |
Which Doctor Who are you?
created with QuizFarm.com
Doctor Who geek-out moment follows while I unravel this. Those of you who don't speak the language may feel free to move on to the Godley & Creme video.
The above damnation with faint praise (not only that, they've spelt his name wrong) only goes to show you: Peter Davison is the Rodney Dangerfield of Doctors Who.
It wasn't his steady calm that kept me interested, it was that he was the best damn actor ever to play the Doctor, with some of my best-loved scripts. I expected to see him, Tom Baker, Christopher Eccelston and Sylvester McCoy in the top third or so.
They are my favorite Doctors, in roughly that order, though McCoy gives Eccelston more of a fight for third place if we're including the novel, New Adventures version. I am surprised to see Colin Baker score so high-though I suppose it's not him I think was so bad, just 98% of his scripts.
He had the worst ones until a few, shall we say, "controversial" episodes David Tennant (who doesn't appear on this list) was lumbered with. But: Paul McGann above Hartnell, Pertwee or Troughton?
I don't think so! If it were up to me, McGann would be relegated to Peter Cushing-like status. He'd certainly come after all of the above including Tennant in any list I made...
Geek-out moment ends.
Friday, October 13, 2006
It's the sound of my tears fallin', Or is it the rain?
I wanted to run this as a fitting conclusion, I thought, to the "songs that make me cry" post last month. But at the time the only versions YouTube had started with the most hideously inappropriate voice-over announcer I've ever heard.
Fortunately, I just looked again. Here's the excellent and beautiful "Cry."
Roger's (on the way) back!
Roger Ebert writes from rehab. No, not that kind...I mean physical rehab, as in he's having to learn how to walk again, but
I don't know if he'll ever write those memoirs, but I'm anxiously waiting for my copy of the new anthology "Awake in the Dark: The Best of Roger Ebert" to come in at my local library.
During all of this, I didn't lose any marbles. My thinking is intact and my mental process doesn't require rehabilitation. Visits from colleagues at the Chicago Sun-Times, "Ebert & Roeper," ABC-7 and the film world kept me informed -- although, curiously, I found myself more interested in plunging into the depths of classic novels ("Persuasion," "Great Expectations," "The Ambassadors") than watching a lot of DVDs. I prefer to see the new Oliver Stone, Martin Scorsese and Clint Eastwood films on a big screen, for example.
I have discovered a goodness and decency in people as exhibited in all the letters, e-mails, flowers, gifts and prayers that have been directed my way. I am overwhelmed and humbled. I offer you my most sincere thanks and my deep and abiding gratitude. If I ever write my memoirs, I have some spellbinding material.
I don't know if he'll ever write those memoirs, but I'm anxiously waiting for my copy of the new anthology "Awake in the Dark: The Best of Roger Ebert" to come in at my local library.
No you didn't, Mel
I've been avoiding the Mel Gibson sit-and-spin tour '06. But then I read this. Gibson told Diane Sawyer,
No you didn't, Mel. You got to make your film, presumably the way you saw it in your head. You got to release your film. Widely. Your film even made lots of money, but if it hadn't, you still didn't have your rights violated as an artist.
Your rights as an artist do not include bullet-proof vests whenever someone wants to take a metaphorical shot at you. Your only rights as an artist should be the right to make what you want, the way you want, and get it seen and/or heard. You get to do that.
And on behalf of artists everywhere who are losing their minds trying to bring something beautiful into this world and finding nothing but walls everywhere they turn, fuck you. Fuck you for trying to trade on the "suffering artist" card.
Especially to cover-up the fact that a drunken slip of the lip revealed your bigoted feelings for what they are, but really, fuck you for doing it at all. You have artistic opportunities available to you that most of us can only hope for, and fuck you for pretending for one second that we should have sympathy for you because "the Jews made you feel bad."
In fact, goddamn you for treating your privilege so callously.
he admitted that his anger towards the Jews might have been triggered by lingering resentment for charges of anti-Semitism he took in the aftermath of "Passion": "I had my rights violated...as an artist,"
No you didn't, Mel. You got to make your film, presumably the way you saw it in your head. You got to release your film. Widely. Your film even made lots of money, but if it hadn't, you still didn't have your rights violated as an artist.
Your rights as an artist do not include bullet-proof vests whenever someone wants to take a metaphorical shot at you. Your only rights as an artist should be the right to make what you want, the way you want, and get it seen and/or heard. You get to do that.
And on behalf of artists everywhere who are losing their minds trying to bring something beautiful into this world and finding nothing but walls everywhere they turn, fuck you. Fuck you for trying to trade on the "suffering artist" card.
Especially to cover-up the fact that a drunken slip of the lip revealed your bigoted feelings for what they are, but really, fuck you for doing it at all. You have artistic opportunities available to you that most of us can only hope for, and fuck you for pretending for one second that we should have sympathy for you because "the Jews made you feel bad."
In fact, goddamn you for treating your privilege so callously.
Vengance is mine, sayeth the writer
Better Off Dead writer/director Savage Steve Holland on his much-loved film:
YES!
Better Off Dead is a true story, pretty much. It’s an exaggerated true story.
So there was a girl you were that broken-hearted over?
SS: Oh yeah.
Have you ever spoken to her again? Does she know the movie is about her?
SS: That’s a great question. It’s really weird but she really broke my heart, and even through college I was still bummed out about it, but life went on. Then I made this funny movie. And like 6 years later, I got a call, I don’t know how she got my number, and she said, “I’ve been in therapy because I saw your movie and I had no idea."
YES!
Death of a comedy writer, slightly revised
Jerry Belson, Emmy-winning comedy writer, dies of cancer at 68
His best-known work is probably the sitcoms he wrote with his friend and former writing partner Garry Marshall in the 1960s and '70s, the two developed the series "The Odd Couple" from the play and film by Neil Simon.
He also did some good screenplay work, both credited and uncredited. I'm a particular fan of the 1975 film "Smile", a good satire of beauty pageants that Belson wrote 25 years before "Miss Congeniality." According to the IMDB, which we have every reason to trust, he contributed to Spielberg's 1989 film "Always," which I've long thought deserved a second look.
I remember seeing the 1987 film "Surrender," with Michael Caine, which Belson wrote and directed, and thinking that it had a lovely first act, rich with possibilities. Almost none of which grew into anything. And late in life I used to see his name on "The Drew Carey Show," but it probably wasn't his best work (and it certainly wasn't Carey's).
There are one or two good stories about Belson in Marshall's autobiography, "Wake Me When It's Funny." A couple of my favorites:
When he saw a new house my sister Penny had bought, he said, "What a lovely place to live if life were worth living."
When told about a ninety-eight-year-old woman who had died in an accident, he said, "Skiing?"
Given Belson's oft-remarked skill for the darkly comic, I like to think he'd have liked the fact that his obituaries are running on Friday the 13th.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
This is getting freaky
Hey, you guys remember a couple of weeks ago when I decided to try Law & Order: Criminal Intent, which I'd never seen before? And as luck would have it, found a guest star that week was Anton Yelchin, formerly Byrd on Huff?
Well tonight, I decided to give Supernatural a try again. The show had stopped doing it for me before the end of the first season, but I'd seen an ad for this week's episode that made it look good.
Next thing you know I'm watching the episode opening credits, and whose name should flash up as a guest star? Amber Benson, formerly the late, lamented witch Tara on Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
A good and very un-Tara-like performance, I thought (and I mean that as a compliment). I wish the part had been larger, but I would, wouldn't I? I also noted with some satisfaction that the character seems to have possibilities for return. It seems likely there are some people writing to the producers and/or network to suggest that even as I type.
That's twice in less than a month I've tuned into shows I don't normally watch, only to find after the fact that actors I've admired in other series were appearing in them. Not only that, both were in series that disappointed me late in their runs (at least Buffy made it for five seasons before falling off, Huff lost me before the end of year two).
And just to complete this week's freaky feature, it happened right after I invoked the image of Buffy herself (see previous post). Oooooooooooh...
Well tonight, I decided to give Supernatural a try again. The show had stopped doing it for me before the end of the first season, but I'd seen an ad for this week's episode that made it look good.
Next thing you know I'm watching the episode opening credits, and whose name should flash up as a guest star? Amber Benson, formerly the late, lamented witch Tara on Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
A good and very un-Tara-like performance, I thought (and I mean that as a compliment). I wish the part had been larger, but I would, wouldn't I? I also noted with some satisfaction that the character seems to have possibilities for return. It seems likely there are some people writing to the producers and/or network to suggest that even as I type.
That's twice in less than a month I've tuned into shows I don't normally watch, only to find after the fact that actors I've admired in other series were appearing in them. Not only that, both were in series that disappointed me late in their runs (at least Buffy made it for five seasons before falling off, Huff lost me before the end of year two).
And just to complete this week's freaky feature, it happened right after I invoked the image of Buffy herself (see previous post). Oooooooooooh...
I was waiting for somebody to say it-or, ok, the Woodward/State of Denial thing
With all the praise the new book's been getting, I've been wondering: Wasn't it less than a year ago that Bob Woodward was in a mess of trouble for being, as Firedoglake put it, "an official peddler of lies told by powerful people to whitewash their criminal activities"?
Why yes, yes it was.
Didn't he abdicate his responsibility as a newspaper writer in favor of launching his books at the bestseller lists?
Why yes, yes he did.
Isn't he just another one of the many journalists who simply didn't do their jobs, along with his colleagues at other major newspapers and broadcast networks?
Why yes, yes he is.
Why are we listening to him? Just because (now) he's come around to conclusions that some of us reached before 655,000 Iraqis and 3,000 Americans died? I'll listen to Bob Woodward, and this goes for any other celebrity Bush-boosters past or present, when they go on "Larry King Live" with someone like Howard Dean and say this:
"You were right, and I was wrong."
Not this:
With a hat tip to BAGnewsnotes for both links.
Why yes, yes it was.
Didn't he abdicate his responsibility as a newspaper writer in favor of launching his books at the bestseller lists?
Why yes, yes he did.
Isn't he just another one of the many journalists who simply didn't do their jobs, along with his colleagues at other major newspapers and broadcast networks?
Why yes, yes he is.
Why are we listening to him? Just because (now) he's come around to conclusions that some of us reached before 655,000 Iraqis and 3,000 Americans died? I'll listen to Bob Woodward, and this goes for any other celebrity Bush-boosters past or present, when they go on "Larry King Live" with someone like Howard Dean and say this:
"You were right, and I was wrong."
Not this:
On CNN's "Larry King Live," on Nov. 18, 2002, Woodward explained that Bush was "very reflective about how he digested the presidency, what he had learned, what he had learned from his father, some of the convictions he had." (In "State of Denial," we learn some of what Bush ignored from his father.) "Bush is in control," Woodward continued. (In "State of Denial," we learn some of what the president didn't know and when he didn't know it.) Woodward also rebutted the notion that Vice President Cheney had amassed unusual power in his office. "There is this idea out in the land that Cheney is really secretly running things, or somebody else is running things," Woodward explained. "Cheney is the first adviser in many ways, but the president makes the decisions. He's the one who makes the calls." (In "State of Denial," we learn about Cheney's unbound power.)
A month later, on Dec. 11, 2002, as Bush began ratcheting up the campaign for an invasion of Iraq, Woodward appeared again on "Larry King Live," to lend his credibility to Bush's motives. "He is very, being very practical about this," said Woodward. In "Bush at War" Woodward did what the administration could not do for itself. The renowned journalist lent his reputation to the image of Bush as Karl Rove wished him to be portrayed -- as a master of men. Bush's political strategist and others in the administration had figured out Woodward's method and timeworn plot structure and filled it up. They calculated that he would report without context and promote the carefully arranged access as the ultimate truth. The still glistening veneer of Watergate made the sheen Woodward put on Bush that much more believable. But in the run-up to the Iraq war, Woodward's informative method had the effect of helping to cover up the disinformation campaign. Woodward's objectivity was the most convincing mode for spin.
With a hat tip to BAGnewsnotes for both links.
Ratings-wise, I've got some good news and some bad news
The good news is that Tina Fey's sitcom fell flat right out of the gate, which would be enough to make me believe in god. But "The Nine" dropped again, and "Twenty Good Years" got an even lower rating than "30 Rock".
Given how much praise it's received, "The Nine" may be given some time to grow a few more ratings points, at least I'd like to think so. But there's little or no hope for "...Years," I'd imagine, given that its appeal seems to be limited.
the real Wednesday stories may be NBC's sluggish new comedies and a big second week drop for "The Nine."
FOX was third with a 5.2/8 for baseball, just ahead of the premieres of NBC's endlessly promoted "30 Rock" (5.5/9) and "Twenty Good Years" (4.7/7).
"CSI: NY" helped CBS close the night strong with an 11.5/19. NBC's "Dateline" easily outperformed former time slot occupant "Kidnapped" and delivered higher ratings than "The Nine," which slumped to a 5.7/9 in its second week on ABC.
Given how much praise it's received, "The Nine" may be given some time to grow a few more ratings points, at least I'd like to think so. But there's little or no hope for "...Years," I'd imagine, given that its appeal seems to be limited.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
We're living on the edge now, Jeffrey. Women will often strike us.
I felt the pilot of Twenty Good Years, the new sitcom starring John Lithgow and Jeffrey Tambor, was very funny. And when I say that, I say it on this basis: It made me laugh. In keeping with my rebel tendencies, that seems to be a minority opinion, at least among critics.
Even those who think it was good seem to be crediting it more to the series stars' sharp way with a laugh line than the writing of the line itself. I'm not so sure. True, Lithgow and Tambor are everything you could want in a late-middle-age comedy team-not that there's a long waiting list.
But the jokes made me laugh because they genuinely surprised me, there's a snap! to the writing that I appreciated. I also wouldn't be as quick as this guy to dismiss the two younger actors who play Lithgow's daughter and Tambor's son, respectively, Heather Burns and Jake Sandvig, at least not after only one episode.
It's true Burns didn't get much chance to show what stuff she has, if any, but Sandivig had one good moment. His character is a male model, and the way his face fell when Tambor told him that he used to look just like him was worth a laugh.
Just as the show is worth a look. Try it, if my luck holds, it won't be around for long.
In a related story, the second episode of The Nine maintained the smarts of the first. I can't wait to tune in to the ratings sites tomorrow and see how much of the audience it's lost.
Even those who think it was good seem to be crediting it more to the series stars' sharp way with a laugh line than the writing of the line itself. I'm not so sure. True, Lithgow and Tambor are everything you could want in a late-middle-age comedy team-not that there's a long waiting list.
But the jokes made me laugh because they genuinely surprised me, there's a snap! to the writing that I appreciated. I also wouldn't be as quick as this guy to dismiss the two younger actors who play Lithgow's daughter and Tambor's son, respectively, Heather Burns and Jake Sandvig, at least not after only one episode.
It's true Burns didn't get much chance to show what stuff she has, if any, but Sandivig had one good moment. His character is a male model, and the way his face fell when Tambor told him that he used to look just like him was worth a laugh.
Just as the show is worth a look. Try it, if my luck holds, it won't be around for long.
In a related story, the second episode of The Nine maintained the smarts of the first. I can't wait to tune in to the ratings sites tomorrow and see how much of the audience it's lost.
This is national Coming-Out Day
... [commemorating] the 1987 march on Washington for gay equal rights and [encouraging] gays and lesbians (and even politicians on the down low) to live their lives openly and honestly.
This is for anyone that did.
Sigh 2.
TV Ratings:
In retrospect, maybe the fact that a show about high school football appeals to someone like me who is so...not a high school football person, was a bad sign right there. But I'm still enjoying this series, howeversolong it may last.
The acting is particularly strong, and the directing style, lots of hand-held work accentuating close-ups, helps put it over. Another great score by Snuffy Walden, too. The writing is not flashy-great in the way of an Aaron Sorkin, but the words fall easily upon the ear. You believe the characters have depth and an existence away from that moment.
Also, the perhaps-surprising number of strong female characters is lovely.
I glanced at Gilmore Girls again during the commercial breaks for FNL, and saw my first scene with Paris in the new season. I don't know if it was because I love Liza Weil, or just because she's such a ferociously intelligent actress (of course, those two things are not at all unrelated). But it was the first and only time so far I really felt at peace with GG under the new regime.
For the rest of it, based on what I've seen so far and the "next, on Gilmore Girls..." Well, before I say this, I hope you'll take into account what I hope is my well-established at this point love for strong women in general, the Gilmore girls in specific, and Lorelei Gilmore as she was for most of her first six seasons in particular. I don't say this lightly.
But at this point, all I'd really want to say to Lorelei if I could is "Get back with Luke, you stupid whore."
Onward!
The second episode of Veronica Mars this season was a massive improvement over both the premiere last week and the second half of last season. It was so good it immidiately started me worrying that it would be just my luck if they made me like it again just in time for cancelation.
My friend Corey offers that it would be better if it ends on a high, if premature, note than if it gets good, gets renwewed, and then gets bad again. But I'm not so sure. I want to believe that Thomas and his team have regained control of the wheel, but I guess only time will tell.
The first half of this season is said to be a do-or-die time for Veronica ratingswise. If I read it right, the show doesn't seem to be dying on the vine just yet, but it could sure use some more viewers. So I'm going to do something I haven't done for a long time, I'm going to suggest you watch Veronica Mars.
I guess, even though they let me down last season, I'd still rather see them have a chance to race at the long track, even if they spin out again, than get cut before the flag.
One last item about last night's TV shows, even though it's not ratings-related. There's an article here about Boston Legal's endearing habit of letting the characters comment upon the fact that they're inside a TV show ("I've hardly seen you at all this episode").
The item doesn't mention this, but I've come to think of it as an homage, though this may not be intentional, to the Hope & Crosby road films which did the same thing. Come on, can't you see Crane & Shore in: The Road to Boston?
I think Denny's Bob Hope and Alan's Bing Crosby. Which, I guess, given that she's become the object of affection for both men, would make Candace Bergen Dorothy Lamour. Again, I can see it.
Week two of NBC clinker Friday Night Lights lived up to that description, with a mere 4.4/ 7 in the overnights (#4), 6.28 million viewers (#4) and a 2.4/ 7 among adults 18-49 (#3) at 8 p.m. Compared to its already disappointing debut one week earlier (Overnights: 5.3/ 8; Viewers: 7.17 million; A18-49: 2.7/ 8 on Oct. 3), that was a decline of 17 percent in the overnights, 890,000 viewers and 11 percent among adults 18-49.
In retrospect, maybe the fact that a show about high school football appeals to someone like me who is so...not a high school football person, was a bad sign right there. But I'm still enjoying this series, howeversolong it may last.
The acting is particularly strong, and the directing style, lots of hand-held work accentuating close-ups, helps put it over. Another great score by Snuffy Walden, too. The writing is not flashy-great in the way of an Aaron Sorkin, but the words fall easily upon the ear. You believe the characters have depth and an existence away from that moment.
Also, the perhaps-surprising number of strong female characters is lovely.
Although Gilmore Girls on the CW remains a solid player at a fifth-place 4.0/ 6 in the overnights, 4.61 million viewers and a 2.0/ 6 among adults 18-49 at 8 p.m., lead-out Veronica Mars dipped to a 2.4/ 3 in the overnights, 2.99 million viewers and a 1.3/ 3 among adults 18-49 at 9 p.m. Retention was just 60 percent in the overnights, and 65 percent in both total viewers and adults 18-49. Even so, fans of Veronica Mars take note: Veronica was up a healthy 33 percent among women 18-34 (2.4) from it’s year-ago performance. As for Gilmore Girls, a third-place finish in the 8 p.m. hour among adults 18-34 (2.3/ 7) with growth from one week earlier earns it an honorable mention.
I glanced at Gilmore Girls again during the commercial breaks for FNL, and saw my first scene with Paris in the new season. I don't know if it was because I love Liza Weil, or just because she's such a ferociously intelligent actress (of course, those two things are not at all unrelated). But it was the first and only time so far I really felt at peace with GG under the new regime.
For the rest of it, based on what I've seen so far and the "next, on Gilmore Girls..." Well, before I say this, I hope you'll take into account what I hope is my well-established at this point love for strong women in general, the Gilmore girls in specific, and Lorelei Gilmore as she was for most of her first six seasons in particular. I don't say this lightly.
But at this point, all I'd really want to say to Lorelei if I could is "Get back with Luke, you stupid whore."
Onward!
The second episode of Veronica Mars this season was a massive improvement over both the premiere last week and the second half of last season. It was so good it immidiately started me worrying that it would be just my luck if they made me like it again just in time for cancelation.
My friend Corey offers that it would be better if it ends on a high, if premature, note than if it gets good, gets renwewed, and then gets bad again. But I'm not so sure. I want to believe that Thomas and his team have regained control of the wheel, but I guess only time will tell.
The first half of this season is said to be a do-or-die time for Veronica ratingswise. If I read it right, the show doesn't seem to be dying on the vine just yet, but it could sure use some more viewers. So I'm going to do something I haven't done for a long time, I'm going to suggest you watch Veronica Mars.
I guess, even though they let me down last season, I'd still rather see them have a chance to race at the long track, even if they spin out again, than get cut before the flag.
One last item about last night's TV shows, even though it's not ratings-related. There's an article here about Boston Legal's endearing habit of letting the characters comment upon the fact that they're inside a TV show ("I've hardly seen you at all this episode").
The item doesn't mention this, but I've come to think of it as an homage, though this may not be intentional, to the Hope & Crosby road films which did the same thing. Come on, can't you see Crane & Shore in: The Road to Boston?
I think Denny's Bob Hope and Alan's Bing Crosby. Which, I guess, given that she's become the object of affection for both men, would make Candace Bergen Dorothy Lamour. Again, I can see it.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Oh, good
“There is another way, or other ways, to look at the race issue in America. Africa at the time of slavery was still primarily a jungle… Life there was savage … and those brought to America, and other countries, were in many ways better off.”
– Gerald Schoenewolf, a member of NARTH’s Science Advisory Committee.
The “Ex-gay” advocates of the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) have not denounced the above comments from Schoenwolf, a NYC psychotherapist and author of The Art of Hating, (”Many people talk about hate, but few know how to hate well.”)
Via Pandagon, where Pam's entry speaks for itself. But I'll add, to the members of this fine, upstanding group: You always gotta think about the acronym. How is anyone supposed to take your organization seriously when your name sounds like something Pinky would say?
Sigh
TV Ratings:
There's a musical called Merrily We Roll Along, with music and lyrics by Stephen Sondheim, which is one of the more famous underperformers-I'm being generous-in Broadway history. By all reports (I've never seen it staged) it has never fully worked succesfully, either in its original run or in a couple of revivals. Even though it contains one or two of Sondheim's best songs. "Not A Day Goes By" alone is worth a couple of shows.
I remember once reading someone speculate that one of the reasons it never worked is because the audiences didn't relate to the characters. Merrily We Roll Along, as I recall, is about a man who starts out wanting to write for Broadway and ends up "selling out" by writing commercial, pop music.
Well, this person speculated, not wanting to write for Broadway may be the worst betrayal Sondheim and his longtime directing partner, Hal Prince, could think of...but it's not a given that even a Broadway audience is going to care that much.
I wonder whether one of the reasons Studio 60 is doing so poorly (compared to, say, West Wing) is because: There simply aren't that many people to whom the running of a TV show is as interesting as, say, the running of the country.
No matter who's writing it. I mean obviously, they've got people like me-even if if this wasn't a Sorkin show, as a writer a show about a writer would interest me. But how many of us are there?
(Apparently, 8.76 million of us)
About last night's episode specifically: Last week a few of us were discussing over on Sherman's blog whether or not within the world of the series, Harriet's religious beliefs were well known. Enough so that they could be referred to on the show-within-the-show. Sherman wasn't sure, I thought they were.
I am much less sure that in this world or any other, a writer/director/producing team coming back to a late-night TV comedy show is cover story fodder for Vanity Fair. I mean, come on. How often do you see people like Lorne Michaels or even Al Franken (back before he launched his second career as a comedian) making like Jennifer Aniston?
Finally, it may interest those of you who watched to know that last night's plot was, presumably, based in part on a real incident. In his book about his time spent as a writer/performer on Saturday Night Live, (you could read my review here) Jay Mohr cops to having plagarized a sketch and being found out. If memory serves he did not, however, have the "get out of jail free" card Sorkin provided his characters at the end, a final twist I kinda wish they'd left out.
It's a weakness as well as a strength of Sorkin's writing that sometimes, he can't let people be too angry with each other for too long. The strenth of this is that all his characters are too well-rounded to be one-dimensional villains (or heroes). The weakness is that sometimes he lets conflict, or even potential conflict, dissapate too quickly.
Well, come hell or high water, I'm in with Studio 60 until they shut the lights out. I just wish there were more of us.
-Yesterday’s Losers (excluding repeats):
Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip (NBC)
Unfortunately, the news remains bleak for NBC at 10 p.m. with week four of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip at a distant second-place 6.8/11 in the overnights, 8.76 million viewers and a 3.8/ 9 among adults 18-49. The one piece of good news for Studio 60: it beat ABC’s competing What About Brian.
-Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip (Mon. 10 p.m.): Losing steam every week.
There's a musical called Merrily We Roll Along, with music and lyrics by Stephen Sondheim, which is one of the more famous underperformers-I'm being generous-in Broadway history. By all reports (I've never seen it staged) it has never fully worked succesfully, either in its original run or in a couple of revivals. Even though it contains one or two of Sondheim's best songs. "Not A Day Goes By" alone is worth a couple of shows.
I remember once reading someone speculate that one of the reasons it never worked is because the audiences didn't relate to the characters. Merrily We Roll Along, as I recall, is about a man who starts out wanting to write for Broadway and ends up "selling out" by writing commercial, pop music.
Well, this person speculated, not wanting to write for Broadway may be the worst betrayal Sondheim and his longtime directing partner, Hal Prince, could think of...but it's not a given that even a Broadway audience is going to care that much.
I wonder whether one of the reasons Studio 60 is doing so poorly (compared to, say, West Wing) is because: There simply aren't that many people to whom the running of a TV show is as interesting as, say, the running of the country.
No matter who's writing it. I mean obviously, they've got people like me-even if if this wasn't a Sorkin show, as a writer a show about a writer would interest me. But how many of us are there?
(Apparently, 8.76 million of us)
About last night's episode specifically: Last week a few of us were discussing over on Sherman's blog whether or not within the world of the series, Harriet's religious beliefs were well known. Enough so that they could be referred to on the show-within-the-show. Sherman wasn't sure, I thought they were.
I am much less sure that in this world or any other, a writer/director/producing team coming back to a late-night TV comedy show is cover story fodder for Vanity Fair. I mean, come on. How often do you see people like Lorne Michaels or even Al Franken (back before he launched his second career as a comedian) making like Jennifer Aniston?
Finally, it may interest those of you who watched to know that last night's plot was, presumably, based in part on a real incident. In his book about his time spent as a writer/performer on Saturday Night Live, (you could read my review here) Jay Mohr cops to having plagarized a sketch and being found out. If memory serves he did not, however, have the "get out of jail free" card Sorkin provided his characters at the end, a final twist I kinda wish they'd left out.
It's a weakness as well as a strength of Sorkin's writing that sometimes, he can't let people be too angry with each other for too long. The strenth of this is that all his characters are too well-rounded to be one-dimensional villains (or heroes). The weakness is that sometimes he lets conflict, or even potential conflict, dissapate too quickly.
Well, come hell or high water, I'm in with Studio 60 until they shut the lights out. I just wish there were more of us.
Monday, October 09, 2006
President Ursus
Ursus: The only thing that counts in the end is POWER! Naked merciless FORCE!
Glenn Greenwald has some horrifying-at least in their implications-observations about the North Korean nuclear test.
Our credibility to act in the world -- both diplomatically and militarily -- has to be close to, if not at, an all-time low. We are already fighting two wars (in Iraq and Afghanistan) which, by all accounts, have significantly depleted our military resources. And we have been overtly threatening -- and flirting with a passing of the point of no return -- to fight a war against a third country (Iran). We plainly don't have enough troops to devote to our current wars in order to win them, let alone start new ones. And we have close to 40,000 American troops on the border between North and South Korea who are veritable hostages in any military confrontation.
Time and again, the President has demonstrated that he is capable of seeing a complex world only in the simplest Manichean terms. Someone is either Good or they are Evil. And if they are Evil, it means you cannot deal with them or negotiate with them or rely upon diplomacy. By definition, Evil understands nothing but force and threats of force. The only thing that works with Evil is to crush it, not to manage or compromise and negotiate with it.
What do I think?
I think Bush is the gorilla general, we're the human civilization that killed the baby chimp more than decades ago and North Korea is the cult that worships the bomb.
So as you can see I'm quite optimistic about how all this is going to turn out.
Four women in increasingly less clothing
If "increasingly less" is not a contradiction in terms...
Sarah Michelle Gellar, impersonating an old couch, standing next to Amber Tamblyn, who has some very nice-looking legs. [Via Pink Is The New Blog]
Scarlett Johansson, wearing leather, standing next to Dita von Teese, wearing a necklace and heels. [Source]
I choose to believe this is some kind of an anti-leather statement.
Happy Monday, everybody...
Sarah Michelle Gellar, impersonating an old couch, standing next to Amber Tamblyn, who has some very nice-looking legs. [Via Pink Is The New Blog]
Scarlett Johansson, wearing leather, standing next to Dita von Teese, wearing a necklace and heels. [Source]
I choose to believe this is some kind of an anti-leather statement.
Happy Monday, everybody...
Thank god for weblogs
If you missed David Rakoff’s interview on “The Daily Show," as I did, you'll want to follow this link and watch the clip. It's hilarious.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Terry Gilliam reduced to hustling on the street
Shame, really.
No, no, but seriously though, this is him trying to whip up some support for his new movie Tideland. Which may be about to get an extremely abbreviated and only limited theatrical run before going straight to DVD.
Which really would be a shame, since he remains my favorite director. Seeing him again and again find himself on troubled productions, while the terrible Tim Burton goes from hit to hit, gives me a pain in the back of the head like a needle, a big, ice-hot needle.
I'd hoped Tideland might be my longed-for "pure" Gilliam film. One that seems, as co-writer Charles McKeon described Brazil, like taking off the top of his head and peering around inside. Early reviews suggest that may not be the case.
I'll still be watching it, whether on the big screen or small, hoping to love it. It's been too long.
Oh, man. What the hell was that?
Nothing, baby.
"When Album Covers Attack"
If you don't Look Sharp you might get Crushed.
"When Album Covers Attack"
If you don't Look Sharp you might get Crushed.
Stephen Colbert probably isn't reading this
According to this article, he doesn't look at the blogs much, though he does sometimes ask his wife to do so and give him a report. Good evening Mrs. Colbert, my you look lovely today. The article's only so-so; it's better for its Colbert quotes than for the intrusions by the author, Adam Sternbergh.
Sternbergh comes off as the kind of guy who tries to tell jokes but forgets punchlines and thinks a little, but not enough. How else do you explain his trying to descibe Colbert's trademark "Word" bits while leaving out the answer-back commentary captions that makes it funny?
Worse is his digression into a not-fully-thought-out equation of Colbert with Ann Coulter. I think I know what he was trying to say with that, but to my mind he didn't close the loop. Though I have thought about whether there is an equation for Colbert, not with Coulter but with Andrew Dice Clay.
Like Colbert, Clay became rich and famous saying hateful things. He always reacted to criticism of his act by hiding behind the notion that it was "just a character." Colbert, of course, makes similar claims about his on-air persona.
The difference is, Colbert always finds a way to signal from within that character, and without breaking it, what his true thoughts are. Also, he's genuinely funny, another thing that separates him from the Diceman.
Whose sole lasting contribution to our culture remains the "OH!" sample on "Unbelivable" by EMF.
Sternbergh comes off as the kind of guy who tries to tell jokes but forgets punchlines and thinks a little, but not enough. How else do you explain his trying to descibe Colbert's trademark "Word" bits while leaving out the answer-back commentary captions that makes it funny?
Worse is his digression into a not-fully-thought-out equation of Colbert with Ann Coulter. I think I know what he was trying to say with that, but to my mind he didn't close the loop. Though I have thought about whether there is an equation for Colbert, not with Coulter but with Andrew Dice Clay.
Like Colbert, Clay became rich and famous saying hateful things. He always reacted to criticism of his act by hiding behind the notion that it was "just a character." Colbert, of course, makes similar claims about his on-air persona.
The difference is, Colbert always finds a way to signal from within that character, and without breaking it, what his true thoughts are. Also, he's genuinely funny, another thing that separates him from the Diceman.
Whose sole lasting contribution to our culture remains the "OH!" sample on "Unbelivable" by EMF.
Random Flickr-Blogging: IMG_7382
From the rarely-seen "Paul and Jamie experiment with bondage" episode of Mad About You.
Original source credit here.
I would just revel in these poll numbers, but...
Rather astonishing item in Newsweek. What's astonishing is not the words like--
--those words have come to be as predictable as a change of seasons. But a headline to the story asks the question: How Low Can The Republicans Go?
In Newsweek. Not a Democratic blog like Maha or Pandagon or even this one. Not a more moderate but still Bush-disliking blog like News From Me.
Frickin' Newsweek. Wow.
But, as I say up there, there's something that stops me from just reveling in these poll numbers as one or two other bloggers are almost certainly doing. And that is that I'm wondering: Shouldn't the Democratic leadership (I know, I know, contradiction in terms) have said or done something about Foley's disgrace by now?
I mean yeah, it's great that the Republican leaders keep slipping in the mud they've been slinging for years. But the response of the Democrats seems to be to laugh and smile and say "Hey, you're all dirty, man."
Attack the motherfuckers! They're weak! How many times, how many chances, how many opportunities do you have to get to step up, on and over the Republican hari-karis they're leaving in their wake?
A later paragraph states that
Unfortunately, that credibility gap exists for the Democrats, too, thanks to Nancy "no time for responsibility" Pelosi. What do I mean by that? More in a moment.
Emphasis mine.
Can we impeach him nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow?
The answer: No, no we can't, because as re-stated most recently in this item, the Democrats wouldn't impeach Bush if he shot a child in the back of the head on national television.
But this is not that song, and this is not that band. Even if you don't like the video, close your eyes and listen to the song. It's almost 25 years old and it could have been written last month.
And I think I'll stop reading political blogs. I'd say "and start watching more videos and listening to more music from when I was 11," but that hardly seems possible.
the president’s approval rating has fallen to a new all-time low
--those words have come to be as predictable as a change of seasons. But a headline to the story asks the question: How Low Can The Republicans Go?
In Newsweek. Not a Democratic blog like Maha or Pandagon or even this one. Not a more moderate but still Bush-disliking blog like News From Me.
Frickin' Newsweek. Wow.
Meanwhile, the president’s approval rating has fallen to a new all-time low for the Newsweek poll: 33 percent, down from an already anemic 36 percent in August. Only 25 percent of Americans are satisfied with the direction of the country, while 67 percent say they are not. Foley’s disgrace certainly plays a role in Republican unpopularity: 27 percent of registered voters say the scandal and how the Republican leadership in the House handled it makes them less likely to vote for a Republican Congressional candidate; but 65 percent say it won’t make much difference in determining how they vote. And Americans are equally divided over whether or not Speaker Hastert should resign over mishandling the situation (43 percent say he should, but 36 percent say he shouldn’t).
But, as I say up there, there's something that stops me from just reveling in these poll numbers as one or two other bloggers are almost certainly doing. And that is that I'm wondering: Shouldn't the Democratic leadership (I know, I know, contradiction in terms) have said or done something about Foley's disgrace by now?
I mean yeah, it's great that the Republican leaders keep slipping in the mud they've been slinging for years. But the response of the Democrats seems to be to laugh and smile and say "Hey, you're all dirty, man."
Attack the motherfuckers! They're weak! How many times, how many chances, how many opportunities do you have to get to step up, on and over the Republican hari-karis they're leaving in their wake?
A later paragraph states that
The scandal’s more significant impact seems to be a widening of the yawning credibility gap developing between the President, his party and the nation.
Unfortunately, that credibility gap exists for the Democrats, too, thanks to Nancy "no time for responsibility" Pelosi. What do I mean by that? More in a moment.
... While 52 percent of Americans believe Hastert was aware of Foley’s actions and tried to cover them up, it’s part of a larger loss of faith in Republican leadership, thanks mostly to the war in Iraq. For instance, for the first time in the NEWSWEEK poll, a majority of Americans now believe the Bush administration knowingly misled the American people in building its case for war against Saddam Hussein: 58 percent vs. 36 percent who believe it didn’t. And pessimism over Iraq is at record highs on every score: nearly two in three Americans, 64 percent, believe the United States is losing ground there; 66 percent say the war has not made America safer from terrorism (just 29 percent believe it has); and 53 percent believe it was a mistake to go to war at all, again the first time the NEWSWEEK poll has registered a majority in that camp.
Emphasis mine.
Can we impeach him nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow?
The answer: No, no we can't, because as re-stated most recently in this item, the Democrats wouldn't impeach Bush if he shot a child in the back of the head on national television.
Rep. Pete Stark, the decidedly liberal Democrat on the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health, said: "The '08 contest for the White House will be the major moderating influence. I don't think we're going to run out and impeach Rumsfeld and Bush, although a lot of my constituents would like to."
Pelosi, mindful of the power of the Republican charge that the Democrats will spend the next two years on partisan payback, explicitly ruled out impeachment of Bush. "Absolutely," she said in an interview on Thursday. "We don't have time for that."
It's not partisan payback, you stupid, appeasing...! Partisan payback is what they were doing to Clinton!
Clinton lied to cover-up inappropriate behaivor. Bush lied to put American lives in danger and get the country into war. How much more explict a rationale for impeachment could you possibly need?
Okay. Clearly, I need something good here. You regulars know what that means...
This is a video that I first saw when I was around 11. Maybe that's why although some would say it's silly or even stupid, it always carried more weight with me than that, especially the last few shots.
For all that the '80s get caricatured as a decade of low-volume values and high-volume hair, a big part of being a child then was living with the knowledge that there were these bombs out there that could destroy the world. Are you gonna drop the bomb or not, as Alphaville starkly asked.
But this is not that song, and this is not that band. Even if you don't like the video, close your eyes and listen to the song. It's almost 25 years old and it could have been written last month.
And I think I'll stop reading political blogs. I'd say "and start watching more videos and listening to more music from when I was 11," but that hardly seems possible.
This isn't irony, but I like it
SNL Topped By It's Doppleganger
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 10/5/2006 4:28:00 PM
The debut of the 32nd season of Saturday Night Live Sept. 30 averaged a 3.2 rating/13 share in the 18-49 demo. That's up a tad (3%) from last year's season opener.
But it was not enough to top the NBC show about Saturday Night Live, NBC's Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, about a Friday night comedy show on NBS, which averaged a 3.5/9 for its episode Monday night on NBC.
Minor quibble w/the above:
For what it's worth, I think Studio 60 is "about" Saturday Night Live about as much as The West Wing was "about" the Clinton or Bush administrations or Sports Night was "about" ESPN. Drama is not about its setting, it's about-please hold for pretention-the mind, soul and heart of its creator.
Oh, and in reference to my "haven't been paying Amy Poehler the attention she deserves" theory: Having done my token watching of an episode of SNL for the year, I can now safely say this.
Wide, tall, and proud bush or not, the woman is on a show that is only fitfully funny at best. And although she is far from the least funny person on it-that would be Darrell Hammond-it's like not being on the lowest deck of the Titanic...
Saturday, October 07, 2006
That was quick
CBS pulls plug on ‘Smith,’ making crime drama first fall show to get ax
“Smith,” the Tuesday night CBS drama with [Ray] Liotta leading a band of high-stakes thieves, is off the schedule, the network said Friday. It will be replaced temporarily by reruns of “CSI: Crime Scene Investigation” and “Criminal Minds.”
Note to self: Start working on screenplay for beautiful, accomplished and now at-liberty actress. Actually, if I'd ever written the part, Virgina Madsen would be perfect for the role of my character Annabel's mother as I see her in my head...in about 12 years. Which, given the way things are going, may be about as long as it's going to take me to get Annabel's story told in any form.
But I digress. And, should Ms. Madsen or any of her representatives be reading this, and feeling weak at the prospect of her moving from "hot babe" to "mother" roles...
Let me hasten to say I still feel that taking an endless hot shower with Virgina Madsen is what happens to us when we die if we've been good.
I seem to have digressed again.
["Smith's"] last episode had only 8.4 million viewers on Tuesday, according to Nielsen Media Research. It faced tough competition in the time slot from NBC’s “Law & Order: SVU” and ABC’s “Boston Legal.”
Here again we see the differences in perspective and standards. "Only" 8.4 million viewers would keep "Veronica Mars" on the air at least another three seasons, however little it may deserve it at this point.
And if I get my book published and "only" 8.4 million people buy it? I'll be writing this blog from my apartment in San Francisco overlooking the Golden Gate...
Garry Trudeau is a very wise man
Story on the writer and artist of Doonesbury here. Excerpts:
Someone I can't remember once said something like "We have art that we might not die from the truth."
If they gave me a half hour of national television, four nights a week, or even a handful of panels in the newspapers and on computer screens every day? And if I had to talk about President Bush at least part of the time?
I'd have snapped years ago, and all you'd be hearing is outraged, sputtering rants.
One of the reasons I think Jon Stewart is such a national treasure, as is Trudeau, is because they keep it funny.
When you focus on a political theme, do you find that it’s harder to keep it fresh or funny and not just be obvious? How do you avoid the trap of merely pointing your finger and, in effect, saying of your subject, “You’re stupid because I disagree with you”? That’s the art of satire. Sometimes it’s subtle, surprising, and illuminating; sometimes it’s heavy-handed and tiresome. Obviously the former is the ideal, but that’s true on any subject, not just politics.
I’ve grown up with every president since JFK. I remember how froth-at-the-mouth furious Nixon made people; and there was Reagan, who had people pulling out their hair. But compared to George W. Bush, Nixon and Reagan seem like wise men, even sages. But how do you see it? From your perspective, who is the scariest? And how do you keep yourself from getting so sputtering mad that you can’t be funny? Is that tough? Well, you can’t leave Carter and Clinton off the list of presidents who made people apoplectic. But to me, Bush is the scariest because he is easily the most radical. Nixon still caused the most harm — 30,000 Americans and many more Vietnamese died needlessly on his watch — but don’t count Bush out. There are still plenty of countries to take down.
As for not becoming overwhelmed by outrage, that’s exactly the purpose humor serves — an outlet. It keeps me from going sputtering mad.
Someone I can't remember once said something like "We have art that we might not die from the truth."
If they gave me a half hour of national television, four nights a week, or even a handful of panels in the newspapers and on computer screens every day? And if I had to talk about President Bush at least part of the time?
I'd have snapped years ago, and all you'd be hearing is outraged, sputtering rants.
One of the reasons I think Jon Stewart is such a national treasure, as is Trudeau, is because they keep it funny.
And then the corporations will not hesitate to pull their dough
For any of the rest of you who are following the fortunes of "Studio 60, Media Life magazine has a short article you might want to read. It's true there's been "a hefty drop" in the ratings in the first few weeks.
But what really seems to alarm people is that "Studio 60" loses viewers at the half hour mark. I've seen that mentioned in almost every story on the ratings I've read and I'm not sure how to explain it.
When I watch a show I'm in for the half, in for the hour, even when it isn't this one. I have noticed that a problem Aaron Sorkin had in his later seasons of "The West Wing" has carried over to "Studio 60," though.
His act breaks suck. If they're supposed to leave a viewer metaphorically on the edge of his seat so he has to come back, they're usually too low-key. I'm not saying this is a flaw in his writing-even though, much as I admire him, I wouldn't want to say he's flawless.
But it may be a flaw when it comes to writing for commercial network television. I'd love to see what he could do with a show on Showtime or the like where act breaks aren't a necessity. When he leaves me with a weak act break I'm always coming back, because I know he's Sorkin and I know he's got a goody bag. But what about everybody else?
If I had to guess-and it is only a guess, albeit a semi-educated one-I'd say it's because he overwrites and the act breaks have to be found catch as catch can in the editing room. Again, pure speculation, but it doesn't seem totally unlikely based on what I know about Sorkin and the way he works.
Which I would never want to change, BTW-I'm the guy who, when Sorkin's drug bust was made public, said,
"Smokes crack and he wrote "The West Wing, "Sports Night" and "The American President?" Get me the name of his dealer."
But seriously folks, the good news is that in a survey of "media planners and buyers"-the folks who buy commercials-in response to the question:
Emphasis mine. Please God I do hope so.
But what really seems to alarm people is that "Studio 60" loses viewers at the half hour mark. I've seen that mentioned in almost every story on the ratings I've read and I'm not sure how to explain it.
When I watch a show I'm in for the half, in for the hour, even when it isn't this one. I have noticed that a problem Aaron Sorkin had in his later seasons of "The West Wing" has carried over to "Studio 60," though.
His act breaks suck. If they're supposed to leave a viewer metaphorically on the edge of his seat so he has to come back, they're usually too low-key. I'm not saying this is a flaw in his writing-even though, much as I admire him, I wouldn't want to say he's flawless.
But it may be a flaw when it comes to writing for commercial network television. I'd love to see what he could do with a show on Showtime or the like where act breaks aren't a necessity. When he leaves me with a weak act break I'm always coming back, because I know he's Sorkin and I know he's got a goody bag. But what about everybody else?
If I had to guess-and it is only a guess, albeit a semi-educated one-I'd say it's because he overwrites and the act breaks have to be found catch as catch can in the editing room. Again, pure speculation, but it doesn't seem totally unlikely based on what I know about Sorkin and the way he works.
Which I would never want to change, BTW-I'm the guy who, when Sorkin's drug bust was made public, said,
"Smokes crack and he wrote "The West Wing, "Sports Night" and "The American President?" Get me the name of his dealer."
But seriously folks, the good news is that in a survey of "media planners and buyers"-the folks who buy commercials-in response to the question:
Do you think the show will bounce back up eventually? Just under a third of respondents think not, agreeing with the statement: "It has a strong (if somewhat incompatible) lead-in in "Heroes" and still sank. I think the second-half viewer drain is pretty telling. I'm not sure how long this show, which is pretty expensive, will last."
...the largest share, 46 percent, see "60" regaining audience. It's just going to take time. They agreed with the statement: " 'Studio 60' could be a slow builder. It’s smart, it’s got great acting, and critics love it, so they’ll be pounding people to watch. Once 'Monday Night Football' is done at midseason, it could find some new devotees who’ve been catching it online or on TiVo."
Emphasis mine. Please God I do hope so.
Friday, October 06, 2006
I like the best women.
Case in point: Kate Winslet, in this USA Today story. If she didn't smoke, she'd be almost perfect. Excerpts...
Winslet is the only actress to have collected four Oscar nominations — two for supporting (1995's Sense and Sensibility and 2001's Iris) and two for lead (for Titanic and 2004's Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind) — before age 30...
"She has not been eaten by celebrity," say Jeanine Basinger, the head of film studies at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn. Compare her to Gwyneth Paltrow, Oscar winner for 1998's Shakespeare in Love in a role that Winslet turned down, and "the difference in the level of work and projects chosen is quite pronounced. She has defined herself as an actress, not a glamour pinup or a mature sophisticate."
Part of [the decision to make smaller films in the wake of Titanic] was based on advice given to her by her late boyfriend, Stephen Tredre, an actor and screenwriter she met on a BBC sitcom in 1991. He died from bone cancer at age 34 in December 1997, just as Titanic was about to open.
Before signing on for Titanic, "I remember standing in the middle of Knightsbridge on my phone. I had just gotten this mobile phone, and it had been ringing all day with people hassling for answers for this, that and the other, and I was 20 years old. I phoned my boyfriend and said, 'What do I do? What do I do?' And he said, 'What does your heart tell you to do?' "
With those words, Winslet suddenly bursts into tears. "I'm sorry. I'm getting emotional because this person passed away. Go away, Stephen," she says, waving her hands as if shooing a ghost.
Cooooooooooooooooool.
Scientists have found a fossil of a "Monster" fish-like reptile in a 150 million-year-old Jurassic graveyard on an Arctic island off Norway.
The Norwegian researchers discovered remains of a total of 28 plesiosaurs and ichthyosaurs -- top marine predators when dinosaurs dominated on land -- at a site on the island of Spitsbergen, about 1,300 km (800 miles) from the North Pole.
"One of them was this gigantic monster, with vertebrae the size of dinner plates and teeth the size of cucumbers," Joern Hurum, an assistant professor at the University of Oslo, told Reuters on Thursday.
"We believe the skeleton is intact and that it's about 10 meters (33 feet) long," he told Reuters of the pliosaur, a type of plesiosaur with a short neck and massive skull. The team dubbed the specimen "The Monster."
Hurum reckoned the reptiles had not all died at the same time in some Jurassic-era cataclysm but had died over thousands of years in the same area, then become preserved in what was apparently a deep layer of black mud on the seabed.
As every Doctor Who fan in the world thinks to themselves, "Nonsense. Now that's what the Mryka should have looked like. Either that or it's leftover Skarasen technology. Oh, and about that Jurassic-era cataclysm..."
New addition
You've got to cool it now, ooooooh, watch out, you're gonna loose control...no, I'm just playing. As you'll see if you glance to the right, I've added the MediaMatters newsbox to my blog.
I decided to do this after being confronted for the third time in a week with the urge to recommmend their entire page, rather than link to a specific article. MediaMatters has been good for years, but with the Foley thing they've just been on a roll.
So now you can take it as a given I suggest you at least glance at those headlines once or twice a day. Follow up on the ones that intererest you; I may still be recommending specific articles, but not so much.
Thanks to Ink 19 editor/publisher Ian Koss for help with the tech talk.
BTW, any and all of you who use this blog as any kind of a news source, more fools, you-you should be using The Daily Show, of which the beforelinked story writes,
I do recommend one more blog for those of you who are reveling in the hair-pulling Foley fiasco. Glen Greenwald has been going into it at great length, most recently with a post entitled,
Excerpt:
I decided to do this after being confronted for the third time in a week with the urge to recommmend their entire page, rather than link to a specific article. MediaMatters has been good for years, but with the Foley thing they've just been on a roll.
So now you can take it as a given I suggest you at least glance at those headlines once or twice a day. Follow up on the ones that intererest you; I may still be recommending specific articles, but not so much.
Thanks to Ink 19 editor/publisher Ian Koss for help with the tech talk.
BTW, any and all of you who use this blog as any kind of a news source, more fools, you-you should be using The Daily Show, of which the beforelinked story writes,
Jon Stewart may call “The Daily Show'' fake news. But a telecommunications professor at Indiana University said her research shows it has just as much substance as traditional network news.
I do recommend one more blog for those of you who are reveling in the hair-pulling Foley fiasco. Glen Greenwald has been going into it at great length, most recently with a post entitled,
Does the Foley scandal prove the existence of a God?
Excerpt:
The absolute refusal ever to admit error. The desperate clinging to power above all else. The efforts to cloud what are clear matters of wrongdoing with irrelevant sideshows. And the parade of dishonest and just plainly inane demonization efforts to hide and distract from their wrongdoing: hence, the pages are manipulative sex vixens; a shadowy gay cabal is to blame; the real criminals are those who exposed the conduct, not those who engaged in it; liberals created the whole scandal; George Soros funded the whole thing; a Democratic Congressman did something wrong 23 years ago; one of the pages IM'd with Foley as a "hoax", and on and on. There has been a virtual carousel -- as there always is -- of one pathetic, desperate attempt after the next to deflect blame and demonize those who are pointing out the wrongdoing. This is what they always do, on every issue. The difference here is that everyone can see it, and so nothing is working.
Says you.
The good women of Pandagon have been named one of Playboy's Top Ten Political Blogs of 2006. The often-inspirational Amanda had this to say about that:
I’m still trying to decide if I’m offended at having my intellect described as “almost frightening”. It’s hard to be offended when you’re flattered. You try it.
Anyway, hard as it is to believe this, we made it into the pages of Playboy. And I’m like still clothed. And everyone’s like still grateful about that.
A choice of captions
One: Pardon me, ladies...
Two: This is why it's important when drinking to maintain your input at the same constant as everybody else. Otherwise...
Found at my new favorite source for things that make you go hmm, avore de pensamentos.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Jessica Simpson's breasts: smart boy Kryptonite
Damnit. I like artistic women. I like accomplished women. I like skillful women. I like the very best women. I like...
...um....
(source)
...um....
(source)
Okay, yet more on the Foley thing
At the risk of repeating myself, today is another day when I highly recommend going to the Media Matters homepage and reading what they've got on the latest homophobic attempts of the right wing to save their own asses, no play on words intended.
I especially urge you to read William Donohue of the Catholic League telling 15-year-old boys that if they're molested, it's their own damn fault. Speaking of repeating myself, I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again.
The Catholic Church serves no damn good purpose except to tell budding young women that sex is sinful, thus making it more exciting to them, and then sending them out into the world in uniforms that are best described as: Convenient.
Though that is an exceptionally good purpose (ah, those bygone days), it's still not worth jackasses like Bill Donohue's mudslinging.
You can also see Tony "named after a famously closeted gay actor" Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, hauling out the falsehood that gay men are more likely to be child molestors, which is just not true.
I'm enjoying this, except that I keep wondering how former Kid in the Hall, NewRadio star and Celebrity Poker Showdown! host Dave Foley feels about his last name being linked to child molestation...
I especially urge you to read William Donohue of the Catholic League telling 15-year-old boys that if they're molested, it's their own damn fault. Speaking of repeating myself, I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again.
The Catholic Church serves no damn good purpose except to tell budding young women that sex is sinful, thus making it more exciting to them, and then sending them out into the world in uniforms that are best described as: Convenient.
Though that is an exceptionally good purpose (ah, those bygone days), it's still not worth jackasses like Bill Donohue's mudslinging.
You can also see Tony "named after a famously closeted gay actor" Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, hauling out the falsehood that gay men are more likely to be child molestors, which is just not true.
I'm enjoying this, except that I keep wondering how former Kid in the Hall, NewRadio star and Celebrity Poker Showdown! host Dave Foley feels about his last name being linked to child molestation...
My streak for picking winners continues
I'm always surprised more than validated when popular tastes happen to coincide with my own. This is not to say that my tastes are better than you common folk, merely different. I was always kind of amazed that so many people were watching The West Wing at its height, when I thought they were making it just for me.
Liking something like Veronica Mars in its first season, when they really were making it just for me (for all intents and purposes), is much more my speed. So I suppose I'm not surprised that all the new shows I like this season seem to be weak in the ratings.
Friday Night Lights, a show about high school football that even I liked, loses to Dancing With The Flippin' Stars. Studio 60's ratings are slipping in reverse proportion to its quality, it keeps getting better and they keep getting worse.
And last night, The Nine. The premise is that in the first few minutes of the premiere, we see a group of people, all mostly strangers to one another, gathered in a bank moments before closing. Suddenly, two gunmen begin a robbery. Cut to first commercial.
When we come back it's 52 hours later. What happens to the survivors afterwards, interspersed with flashbacks of just what the hell happened in there, is the subject of the series. It's a setup ripe for drama, and the direction, acting and writing rises to meet the bar. "The Nine" are now bonded, and the different forms that bond takes (has taken...will take...) has many imaginative possibilities.
This show, as many of the critics have been saying, is one of the best of the season (USA Today has a good review). Unfortunately the ratings, while reportedly strong on their own, did not hold as much of Lost's audience as Invasion last year.
For reasons I don't know if I fully understand, how much audience you hold of the show before you is still a big deal in television. I think it has something to do with the idea that the networks have never really recovered from the invention of the remote control.
They would still like you to tune in one channel at 8:00 and leave it there till 11:00. The fact that no one's watched TV that was in at least 25 years doesn't seem to enter into it. But, like it or not, it does seem to be the way the game is played.
To get back to The Nine, I'm pleased to note this is yet another example of some of my favorite things being connected-producer and director of the pilot Alex Graves was also a director and producer on West Wing.
My only concerns were these: For some reason that I can't quite put my finger on, the last act of the pilot fell a little bit flat for me compared to the rest. This was made up for by an effective, if unlikely, cliffhanger.
One of the hostages is the teenage daughter of the bank manager-who comes out realizing that she remembers nothing of the past two days, and her father will not speak of it even to his wife. The episode ended with her visiting one of the gunmen in prison.
All we hear her saying is "Hi..." Fade to black.
Unlikely that a teenage girl would be allowed to visit a convict without, evidently, her parent's knowledge? Absolutely. But like I said, it was very effective (and maybe there's an explaination coming).
I do wonder, can the show sustain the heightened emotion of the pilot for a whole season, and if it can and it's succesful enough to be renewed, what about next year? I don't know, but I'm hoping to.
Liking something like Veronica Mars in its first season, when they really were making it just for me (for all intents and purposes), is much more my speed. So I suppose I'm not surprised that all the new shows I like this season seem to be weak in the ratings.
Friday Night Lights, a show about high school football that even I liked, loses to Dancing With The Flippin' Stars. Studio 60's ratings are slipping in reverse proportion to its quality, it keeps getting better and they keep getting worse.
And last night, The Nine. The premise is that in the first few minutes of the premiere, we see a group of people, all mostly strangers to one another, gathered in a bank moments before closing. Suddenly, two gunmen begin a robbery. Cut to first commercial.
When we come back it's 52 hours later. What happens to the survivors afterwards, interspersed with flashbacks of just what the hell happened in there, is the subject of the series. It's a setup ripe for drama, and the direction, acting and writing rises to meet the bar. "The Nine" are now bonded, and the different forms that bond takes (has taken...will take...) has many imaginative possibilities.
This show, as many of the critics have been saying, is one of the best of the season (USA Today has a good review). Unfortunately the ratings, while reportedly strong on their own, did not hold as much of Lost's audience as Invasion last year.
For reasons I don't know if I fully understand, how much audience you hold of the show before you is still a big deal in television. I think it has something to do with the idea that the networks have never really recovered from the invention of the remote control.
They would still like you to tune in one channel at 8:00 and leave it there till 11:00. The fact that no one's watched TV that was in at least 25 years doesn't seem to enter into it. But, like it or not, it does seem to be the way the game is played.
To get back to The Nine, I'm pleased to note this is yet another example of some of my favorite things being connected-producer and director of the pilot Alex Graves was also a director and producer on West Wing.
My only concerns were these: For some reason that I can't quite put my finger on, the last act of the pilot fell a little bit flat for me compared to the rest. This was made up for by an effective, if unlikely, cliffhanger.
One of the hostages is the teenage daughter of the bank manager-who comes out realizing that she remembers nothing of the past two days, and her father will not speak of it even to his wife. The episode ended with her visiting one of the gunmen in prison.
All we hear her saying is "Hi..." Fade to black.
Unlikely that a teenage girl would be allowed to visit a convict without, evidently, her parent's knowledge? Absolutely. But like I said, it was very effective (and maybe there's an explaination coming).
I do wonder, can the show sustain the heightened emotion of the pilot for a whole season, and if it can and it's succesful enough to be renewed, what about next year? I don't know, but I'm hoping to.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Okay, more on the Foley thing
I agree with just about every word in this entry by Pam at Pandagon. Especially this 'graph...
Emphasis Pam's. I would have emphasized the bit about it being an insult to abuse survivors.
Yesterday’s purported bombshell press conference by Foley attorney David Roth to announce that the former congressman was molested by a priest — was complete BS, an insult to abuse survivors everywhere. Yes, that and the alleged boozing (which a fellow Republican, Rep. Peter King (NY) calls “a gimmick”) explains how the man couldn’t take any responsibility for his actions. Another nice lesson for the children.
Emphasis Pam's. I would have emphasized the bit about it being an insult to abuse survivors.
What does this mean?
Last night there was a lot of television. But what does it mean that on a night including Gilmore Girls, Veronica Mars, and a show starring Virgina Madsen, the most compelling viewing I found was the show about high school football?
What I caught of GG, again, cofrimed for me that I'm probably right only to be keeping one eye on it this season. For any of you who watch it: I don't beleiev Lane would be that naieve.
Graham and Bledel deserve some kind of JoBeth Williams memorial award for the "fake Asia" scene. I've never seen actresses fight harder to fake whimsy.
At nine, Veronica Mars opened season three with an episode that dissapointed, both me as a viewer, and in the ratings. It really didn't hold a lot of Gilmore Girls' audience after all.
I was never sure they were as great a fit as so many seem to have assumed. In my mind a better match for Veronica would have been a great detective show, Columbo when it was still on regularly. Now I think Veronica leading into House would be a good fit, if only they were on the same network.
Moot point though on two counts, since they're not, and since VM seems to have continued to lose its fire. Ah well. At least the first season still stands as one of the best shows ever made.
What I caught of GG, again, cofrimed for me that I'm probably right only to be keeping one eye on it this season. For any of you who watch it: I don't beleiev Lane would be that naieve.
Graham and Bledel deserve some kind of JoBeth Williams memorial award for the "fake Asia" scene. I've never seen actresses fight harder to fake whimsy.
At nine, Veronica Mars opened season three with an episode that dissapointed, both me as a viewer, and in the ratings. It really didn't hold a lot of Gilmore Girls' audience after all.
I was never sure they were as great a fit as so many seem to have assumed. In my mind a better match for Veronica would have been a great detective show, Columbo when it was still on regularly. Now I think Veronica leading into House would be a good fit, if only they were on the same network.
Moot point though on two counts, since they're not, and since VM seems to have continued to lose its fire. Ah well. At least the first season still stands as one of the best shows ever made.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
I deny
Worthwhile (though-let the clicker beware-somewhat lengthy) entry in The Mahablog. It discusses a couple of things.
First, the would-be-hilarious-if-it-wasn't-about-something-so-somber slow-wittedness with which Bush supporters past and/or present are accepting the fact that he is not...
Well, let me quote, as Mahablog does, George Will, of all people.
Some of us were asking that about the United States before, George, but welcome to the party. Which brings me to the next thing MB takes on. One or two conservatives who were pro-war are trying out a new defense: To claim anti-war liberals who say they knew the war was going to go badly are acting with the benefit of hindsight.
MB's put together a few pretty prominent liberal and/or Democratic voices (Krugman, Dean, Ivins) who were right early and right often.
What I want most of all in regards to the situation in Iraq is for ever single one of our troops to be brought home. I know some claim now that we're in the ditch, we have to stay and dig ourselves out but I subscribe to the Jon Stewart theory: As long as we're looking to the same person who led us into the ditch to lead us out...
But what I want second most of all is for every single policy maker who supported the war (Republican or Democrat) to have to stand up in front of people like Krugman, Dean and Ivins and say:
"You were right, and I was wrong."
And as long as I'm fantasizing, I'd like my novel published with a cover by Paul Chadwick and for Aaron Sorkin to read it and say "This is incredibly good, Ben."
First, the would-be-hilarious-if-it-wasn't-about-something-so-somber slow-wittedness with which Bush supporters past and/or present are accepting the fact that he is not...
Well, let me quote, as Mahablog does, George Will, of all people.
"Where's the leader?" Bush, according to Woodward, has exclaimed in dismay about the Iraqi government's dithering. "Where's George Washington? Where's Thomas Jefferson? Where's John Adams, for crying out loud?" For a president to ask that question about Iraq, that tribal stew, is enough to cause one to ask it about the United States.
Some of us were asking that about the United States before, George, but welcome to the party. Which brings me to the next thing MB takes on. One or two conservatives who were pro-war are trying out a new defense: To claim anti-war liberals who say they knew the war was going to go badly are acting with the benefit of hindsight.
MB's put together a few pretty prominent liberal and/or Democratic voices (Krugman, Dean, Ivins) who were right early and right often.
What I want most of all in regards to the situation in Iraq is for ever single one of our troops to be brought home. I know some claim now that we're in the ditch, we have to stay and dig ourselves out but I subscribe to the Jon Stewart theory: As long as we're looking to the same person who led us into the ditch to lead us out...
But what I want second most of all is for every single policy maker who supported the war (Republican or Democrat) to have to stand up in front of people like Krugman, Dean and Ivins and say:
"You were right, and I was wrong."
And as long as I'm fantasizing, I'd like my novel published with a cover by Paul Chadwick and for Aaron Sorkin to read it and say "This is incredibly good, Ben."
"...if you're gonna have delusions, you may as well go for the really satisfying ones."
-- Marcus in Babylon 5:"The Summoning"
To fill the space inside of yourself with Money, love or...
You know there's something you need
Right here and now
To fill the space inside of yourself
with Money love or power
Well you want to have the number one, first run anyone
crazy 'til you own them...
Daryl Hall/John Oates
If you look over to the right there and click the View my complete profile link you'll find, among other things, a link to my Amazon.com Wish List. If you're amazed at the quality of posts on this site (I know I am), please consider making a small donation to the Buy Ben CDs And Books Fund.
I thank you.
Oh Boy
Prime-Time Monday Ratings:
...Studio 60 Tumbles on NBC
-Yesterday’s Losers:
...Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip (NBC)
Week three of NBC’s...Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip took another significant hit, dipping to a 7.2/11 in the overnights, 9.05 million viewers and a 3.5/ 9 among adults 18-49. Retention for Studio 60 out of Heroes was just 77 percent in the overnights, 72 percent in total viewers and 66 percent among adults 18-49. Take a look at Studio 60’s three-week track:
Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip – Mon. 10 p.m.
9/18/06 - Overnights: 10.3/16; Viewers: 13.41 million; A18-49: 5.0/13
9/25/06 - Overnights: 8.7/14; Viewers: 10.83 million; A18-49: 4.2/11
10/02/06 – Overnights: 7.2/11; Viewers: 9.05 million; A18-49: 3.5/ 9
And, to make matters worse, erosion in the second half of Studio 60 continued, with a loss of 8 percent in the overnights (7.5/11 to 6.9/11), 650,000 viewers (9.38 to 8.73 million) and 5 percent among adults 18-49 (3.6/ 9 to 3.4/ 9).
The irony is, I thought last night's Studio 60 was the best so far, with many laugh-out-loud lines and a skilled performance by Matthew Perry, who continues to surprise me with how good he is. And as if I didn't love it enough, last night sent me references to a few of my favorite things:
- Harriet doing an impression of Holly Hunter, one of my favorite actresses, doing lines from Broadcast News, one of my favorite films.
- D.L. Hughley quoting the title of "Beat Me Daddy (Eight To The Bar)." This is an old song that was used in (but pre-dates) Big Deal, the last new Broadway musical staged by Bob Fosse, a director I much admire.
- And a cameo appearance by Rob Reiner, whose film The American President introduced me to Sorkin's writing in the first place.
Perhaps a deeper irony is that a lot of last night's episode was about the producers of the show-within-the-show getting good news in the ratings. Of course, there were also references to how many shows many now consider classics (Hill Street Blues, All in the Family, Seinfeld) took some time to grow.
I sure hope this is one of those.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Christ, George, get it together
I can't say that George Michael is one of my favorite singer-songwriters or anything. But I like pop music too much not to know that his knack for putting catchy melodies to foot-tapping beats back in the Wham! days was harder than it looks.
I'll admit that when the Faith album came out it hit me as hard as it hit most of the rest of the world, there was a time when I really loved it. That lasted until I actually dated, for a disasterous two weeks, a woman named Faith.
And a close friend once told me that "Freedom 90" reminded her of me.
I guess what I'm saying is, I have some respect for the man's gifts. And I'm just really sick of seeing headlines like this:
For Christ's sake, George...
I'll admit that when the Faith album came out it hit me as hard as it hit most of the rest of the world, there was a time when I really loved it. That lasted until I actually dated, for a disasterous two weeks, a woman named Faith.
And a close friend once told me that "Freedom 90" reminded her of me.
I guess what I'm saying is, I have some respect for the man's gifts. And I'm just really sick of seeing headlines like this:
George Michael Arrested on Drug Charge
For Christ's sake, George...
Obviously I haven't been paying Amy Poehler the attention she deserves
In fact I've never really paid much attention to Saturday Night Live's Poehler. I do remember one of the last times I watched SNL thinking that she seemed to be in every sketch and wondering if she'd written them all, or what.
She didn't make me laugh that much, but she didn't make me want to scream "God! Release me from this torment!" a lot either, which is more than some.
But enough about The L Word.
Poehler's given an interview to Bust magazine-which seems to have a knack for interviewing female comedians, they also ran the excellent profile of Samantha Bee from The Daily Show I posted about last year.
A couple of gems from Poehler's interview, via Eat The Press--
I'm not sure how the theme of today's posts became Ben's Thought's On The Female Body, except inasmuch as that's the part of the theme every day. But metaphorically, schmetaphorically, I say.
She didn't make me laugh that much, but she didn't make me want to scream "God! Release me from this torment!" a lot either, which is more than some.
But enough about The L Word.
Poehler's given an interview to Bust magazine-which seems to have a knack for interviewing female comedians, they also ran the excellent profile of Samantha Bee from The Daily Show I posted about last year.
A couple of gems from Poehler's interview, via Eat The Press--
What I've been doing now is getting my agents to send me scripts that are written for guys. Because sometimes when guys write for women, they freeze up. I had this friend who said he had trouble writing for women, and I said, "Here's my advice: call the guy Larry the whole time, and at the end change it to Susan. 'Cause there's no difference, really."
And, words to live by, at least metaphorically:
Grow your bush out wide, tall, and proud.
I'm not sure how the theme of today's posts became Ben's Thought's On The Female Body, except inasmuch as that's the part of the theme every day. But metaphorically, schmetaphorically, I say.
Random Flickr Blogging-what is it?
Letters, oh we get letters...Jennifer writes:
This tells me that it's apparently been too long since I ran the explaination of what RFB is and how it came to be. Random Flickr Blogging was the idea of Tom Hilton, who writes for the If I Ran The Zoo blog.
That link will lead you to Tom's first post on the subject and how it works. Basically, you can either start checking each week for the randomly-generated number at Tom's blog late Sunday afternoons, or if you email him he'll put you on the list.
Then when you've made your entry you either post it in the comments or again, email Tom direct and he adds a link from his blog to your post. Ta-da. Yes, it's just that simple.
Just wondered how you got involved with Random Flickr Blogging...where did you sign up, etc. I'm thinking I need to jazz up the old blog.
This tells me that it's apparently been too long since I ran the explaination of what RFB is and how it came to be. Random Flickr Blogging was the idea of Tom Hilton, who writes for the If I Ran The Zoo blog.
That link will lead you to Tom's first post on the subject and how it works. Basically, you can either start checking each week for the randomly-generated number at Tom's blog late Sunday afternoons, or if you email him he'll put you on the list.
Then when you've made your entry you either post it in the comments or again, email Tom direct and he adds a link from his blog to your post. Ta-da. Yes, it's just that simple.
Clearly, the women on the left are both cows
Feministing and Pandagon both have entries about a dandy new "slimming" feature the HP digital camera is offering.
Amanda's headlined hers with her usual acid wit: Skeletal is the new fat. This sort of touches on what always gets me about things like this-by what stretch of the imagination do either of these women need a "slimming effect?" And yes, I know, obviously the broader point is that no woman (or man) does or should. But this is ridiculous. The top model there, especially, looks much better to me in the "Without slimming effect" picture.
Between you and me, ladies, if you want one man's opinion, hips are nice things to have and a woman's body should be soft. I hope I'm not crawling out on a limb to say that...
Hi-diddle-de-dee
Stephen King on The Writing Life, in the Washington Post. Excerpts:
There may be a stretch of weeks or months when it doesn't come at all; this is called writer's block. Some writers in the throes of writer's block think their muses have died, but I don't think that happens often; I think what happens is that the writers themselves sow the edges of their clearing with poison bait to keep their muses away, often without knowing they are doing it. This may explain the extraordinarily long pause between Joseph Heller's classic novel Catch-22 and the follow-up, years later. That was called Something Happened . I always thought that what happened was Mr. Heller finally cleared away the muse repellant around his particular clearing in the woods.
This is the room, but it's also the clearing. My muse is here. It's a she. Scruffy little mutt has been around for years, and how I love her, fleas and all. She gives me the words. She is not used to being regarded so directly, but she still gives me the words. She is doing it now. That's the other level, and that's the mystery. Everything in your head kicks up a notch, and the words rise naturally to fill their places. If it's a story, you find the scene and the texture in the scene. That first level -- the world of my room, my books, my rug, the smell of the gingerbread -- fades even more. This is a real thing I'm talking about, not a romanticization. As someone who has written with chronic pain, I can tell you that when it's good, it's better than the best pill.
Great Headlines In History
BEYONCE SCORES BIG WITH TOP BOTTOM
BEYONCE KNOWLES has scored Hollywood's Best Booty in a new US magazine poll. The BOOTYLICIOUS singer/actress beat out JESSICA SIMPSON and SALMA HAYEK to claim the best bum crown in weekly publication In Touch. The top 10 top bottoms are:
1. BEYONCE KNOWLES
2. JESSICA SIMPSON
3. SALMA HAYEK
4. JESSICA BIEL
5. HALLE BERRY
6. TYRA BANKS
7. SCARLETT JOHANSSEN
8. JENNIFER LOPEZ
9. EVA LONGORIA
10. JESSICA ALBA
Source.
I'll go along with Berry and Johanssen, and even
Jennifer Lopez back in the day. The rest of 'em I don't know what they're talking about.
Okay, the GOP/Foley scandal thing
This is a good day to just go to the Media Matters main page. They have a lot of good coverage about the way spinmeisters like Brit Hume and Newt Gingrich are trying to lessen the damage from the allegations.
At the moment this interests me a lot more than the allegations themseles. If they're true, then Foley should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. My sense of justice in matters of "inappropriate behavior" involving minors is remarkably simple.
Yet I marvel at how quickly people like Hume and Gingrich can try to turn any allegation, no matter what, against Bill Clinton or gay people. Seriously.
At the moment this interests me a lot more than the allegations themseles. If they're true, then Foley should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. My sense of justice in matters of "inappropriate behavior" involving minors is remarkably simple.
Yet I marvel at how quickly people like Hume and Gingrich can try to turn any allegation, no matter what, against Bill Clinton or gay people. Seriously.
On Fox News Sunday, Brit Hume asserted that there is a "difference" between the Democratic and Republican parties because former Republican Rep. Mark Foley is "out of office and in total disgrace in his party" after allegedly engaging in sexually explicit communications with underage congressional pages, while President Bill Clinton and Rep. Barney Frank were not similarly reprimanded for their "inappropriate behavior." However, neither the Clinton nor the Frank allegations involved minors.
Gingrich: House GOP would have "been accused of gay bashing" if it "overly aggressively reacted" to Foley's emails in 2005
Sunday, October 01, 2006
The star of "Underworld: Evolution" thinks Hollywood is too superficial
Kate Might Have To Start Selling Marxist Rag
Kate Beckinsale has just about had it with Hollywood superficiality – and she might end up back on a street corner selling left-wing literature to prove her displeasure. She tells London's Sunday Express magazine, "There is a point where if you have one more person saying, 'Wow I love your belt,' you start to go, 'I'm going to have to start selling 'Living Marxism' on the corner again.'"
Beckinsale, who studied French and Russian literature at Oxford, also says that she wants to write a novel – but not using her own name. "I wouldn't want to be a celebrity author," sniffs Kate. "That sounds highly vulgar to me..."
Ms. Beckinsale's movie career also includes such solemn films as Van Helsing, Pearl Harbor, Click, Underworld, and Serendipity. I'm certainly glad she's taking a stand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)