What is wrong with AMC?

I know very little about the television business behind the scenes. I don't know what it really takes to make a show/movie/etc. The money, the organization, shooting, I know it's a large effort. A 30 minute episode usually takes at least a week to shoot. That's all I know.

So anyway, AMC has been producing quality programming since 2007 with Mad Men. Between Mad Men, Breaking Bad, and Walking Dead, they've got three of the best shows right now in television on their network. Usually that's something only HBO could ever claim. But this small (lame) cable channel which usually only plays old movies 8 times a day pulled it off. The shows are winning multiple Emmy's for Best Drama, Acting, and so on. This isn't happening by accident.

These shows cost significant money to make. Again, I don't know the financial scheme that goes into making these shows. What I do know is that AMC is trying to cut costs to make these shows. They did it a few months ago to Mad Men, trying to cut characters, lowering costs of production, etc. Then they cut production costs to Walking Dead by about $200k an episode (which speculated why show creator Frank Darabont left the show). Now they're taking on Breaking Bad - opting to cut $250k an episode or making the show's fifth (and presumed last) season to 6-8 episodes.

I know everyone wants to save money to make more money of spending less money. BUT -- when you are making an established, quality product, it will eventually cost more to maintain the level of quality. Cutting the costs of a show can consequently cut the quality, which cuts the fans faithfulness to the show.

AMC doesn't really have any leverage here. They have 3 top of the line shows that cost money. It's not like this is a terrible show on CW that is barely staying alive. The shows have all the power because of their critical acclaim, so AMC just looks selfish instead of honoring the shows that made the channel actually worth watching. It's definitely brought in more business and helped boost revenue for the station, so why can't they respect that? What does that say about AMC when future shows consider having their show made by AMC? Might steer them away towards a HBO or something else.

I don't know, it's annoying that shows that so many people enjoy/adore cannot be seen the way it was intended. Shows cost money. Making shows that are critically acclaimed usually cost more money. To keep making critically acclaimed shows costs more money than that. That is business. And AMC is showing their lack of knowledge over business. All this arguing over a few million dollars? You're going to tell me AMC doesn't have it? Their parent company doesn't have it? Can't they charge more for advertising? Seems to make too much sense.

Tony Soprano Died

As my craziest high school teacher would say (almost every day) - I'm going to eat crow.

I wrote a few months ago that I didn't think Tony Soprano died. Then I read this. And, not only is it the most comprehensive post I've ever read regarding a 3-5 minute scene, it all makes sense. I agree with everything.

So after reading it (found courtesy of Bill Simmons the Sports Guy. If I ever write as well as he does [and somehow have a job like his] I will consider my life a better-than-expected success) I decided I need to watch season 6 again. All of it. Knowing what I knew previously from watching it a few months ago, I think he died. It had to have happened. All of the signs and things they talk about point that it has to have had happened.

Why did I not think so before? Because I was trying to be positive? (which, if you know me, that's rarer than the Dodo) I'm not sure. Maybe it was just my naiveté. I'd bet it's because I knew how it ended, but I didn't really know how it ended (if you missed it, I accentuated the second how there. I'm not that dumb to write the same thing twice. Well, wait.)

It makes sense that he died. Everyone else had died. It was a changing of the guard. The new young people wanted their turn. And that, as they say, is that.

The Sopranos

Okay, so I finally saw The Sopranos all the way through for the first time ever. I know, I wanted to have it done much longer ago too. Whatever.

Preface: I had seen bits and pieces of the show, I received Season 6 Part 2 on DVD as a gift when it came out in 2007ish, but I never saw the episodes prior to. Seeing the last season of a 7 season show is as brutal as it gets; no clue what was really going on, just enjoying 9 episodes and saying "okay, well, that's how it ends." In between I had seen some of seasons 3/4/5 through friends and On Demand, but I never really saw the whole thing. This past December Best Buy had a deal on it (and I was going stir crazy) so the timing was great. Add in the cold weather and lots of long Bolt Busses between NYC and Philly, I've had enough time on my hands to bang this out. That's also why I haven't been blogging much. I didn't forget you kids. I'm coming back to you.

So my verdict? I really enjoyed it. I didn't love it. I think it really messed me up that I knew much of what happened - especially key things in the second half of the series. Especially the ending. Try watching Lost for the first time when you know how it ends with all the smoke monster/Jacob/flash sideways crap from the very beginning. It ruins the whole show.

To be honest, the first and second seasons really weren't that great to me. It felt like an early Mad Men where every episode has a new "client," and the new "client" is "dealt with," and then you never hear about it again. There wasn't as much flow, so it didn't work for me. In that same sense, some of the story lines really didn't add up - and I think it's because "x" amount of time is supposed to pass between each episode, but for me it was about 3 seconds. AJ goes from coming out of suicide ward to getting a girlfriend, blowing up a car, getting a job, and getting a new car in about a episode and a half. When did Bobby Bacala become a serious player? Some of the things shows do to keep it interesting - new characters, or the short story arc characters - most of it felt forced, like you knew they weren't going to be here past the season anyway. Like Julia Stiles' character on Dexter.

I think there's two things that lead me to my verdict: a) I'm 100% biased by The Wire, and because I believe that they set the bar so high, it's hard for anyone else to really compete with it (in my mind anyway). In seeing that first, Sopranos never had a chance to be the best. Reason b) because everyone says Sopranos is good/greatest/best ever, it makes you look harder at the series because you want to be able to justify it for yourself. I can justify The Wire, I don't know if I can justify this in the same way. Not yet anyway - let me watch it again in a couple months knowing the whole story and let me analyze it again. I said the same thing about Mad Men, when I first saw it, I thought it was as boring as a PBS telethon. Now I can justify it better after having it in my system for almost a year. It's also been almost 14 years since the original premiere of the pilot. It's safe to say a lot has happened in the real world that effects the way we tell stories - mainly with the way we communicate over cell phones and the internet.

Quick side note: I would love to see one more season of Seinfeld with e-mail/cell phones/texting/facebook/youtube/twitter/wikileaks/Antoine Dodson and just see the dysfunction. They started with e-mail on the finale, but now that we're so techy, it would be great to see how George would handle the Facebook breakup. Kramer could make a killing on eBay. Elaine is on match.com. Jerry's get's videos on YouTube of how much his acting sucks, etc. It would be beautiful. That's what season 7 of Curb was missing.
It's so different watching a show on demand/DVD in succession because you can go through episode after episode without having time to really process/think/ponder/speculate on what's next, instead you just go into the next one. Obviously I used this blog last year as my Lost brainstorm, where every week I'd go "OMFG THIS IS WHAT I THINK MIGHT HAPPEN, BUT IF IT DOESN'T, THEN IT WILL BE THIS, BUT I COULD ALSO SEE SOMETHING BETWEEN THE TWO, BUT, THEN AGAIN, I'M TOTALLY WRONG WHAT IS GOING ON AHHHH." That conversation basically went on in my head for a week straight, until a new episode, when I'd start the process all over again. I'm not kidding. Anyways, you don't do that when you can watch multiple episodes at a time. Or maybe I'm just growing up. Probably not though.


There felt like there was too many people on the show. I couldn't keep up, they all looked the same and would come/go/die too quickly for me to tell the difference or to care about the minor characters. I say the same thing about Boardwalk too. Speaking of that - I realized I just really don't like Steve Buscemi's style. He plays Tony's cousin in Sopranos, and I wasn't sure the difference between that and Nucky Thompson except for speaking style and attire. Feels like the same character. Clearly I'm in the minority, as Stevie is winning all these awards for Nucky. Good job kid.


As for my take on the "final scene" - I don't think he died. That's such a stupid idea. They called a truce, it was over. The smash cut to black is just a way to end the show. Meadow walks in, they sit down, it's all fine. It was a way to have it go out with a bang instead of a "fade to black" as they all sit at that diner. Whoop-ti-do. It got your attention. It worked. Everyone can't be content with the way a show ends, that's just how it works. You love it or you hate it.
I think we're a little obsessed with the idea of the mafia, and as we heard in the news lately, it's much more real than some of us admit/realize. I have no idea how "real" any of this really is. I'm sure some of that stuff goes on. I'm sure some of it doesn't. I would like to believe that the FBI would have developed enough technology to stop these shenanigans, but I also believe that since 9/11 our attention has turned towards protection than fraud - similar to the cry we hear in The Wire, where nobody cares about the drug addicts as long as no bodies are dropping. This story isn't totally about the mafia, that's where people who haven't seen it are misled. It's called The Sopranos, not The Mafia. The story is about impact of real family as it's impacted by it's father is a mafia boss. How Tony balances being a boss while being a father. The special treatment by others. The arrests. Etc. That's the story here, not just the mafia. That's the wrong answer.

Speaking of The Wire (is it clear how hard I crush on that show? This post is about another show and I'm already over it) I've got two great articles I've been meaning to share - the first is from Wire creator David Simon, as he bashes back against the Baltimore PD who claims Baltimore will take years to overcome the "smear" that was left from The Wire. Awesome "Eff You" letter.

The other is very stupid, but I love it. Social Media According to The Wire. If you've seen the show, you'll agree, if not, don't waste your time.

If you don't laugh at this then we can't be friends.

I'm getting very sidetracked, so before I stop, I do want to say that James Gandolfini did an excellent job as Tony Soprano, the mob boss we all kind of picture in our head, really is one of the reasons of the shows success. An actor like him who has such a presence and ability to play so many different roles on one; Mob boss, father, husband, nephew, cousin, therapy patient, etc.
I'm looking forward to watching The Sopranos again in a couple months, and I'm sure upon a second take will have further appreciation for it. Next up on my TV conquest - Breaking Bad. or I'm re-watching The OC. That wasn't a joke.

Picking on the NFL some more

Because it's just too damn fun to call out hypocrites!

Okay, so this week my beef with the NFL is two fold, and both happen off the field. We'll start with the one that makes the most sense: The Rooney Rule.

The idea of the Rooney Rule is to require teams to interview at least one minority for the position of head coach when they have an opening. Essentially, it's affirmative action. They aren't required to take a minority, but must give them a shot.

I'm not sure if I should get into my whole affirmative action thoughts - I think because I'm feeling trapped as the white male is losing all of the power they once had, and now seem at a somewhat disadvantage. Okay, maybe I said too much already. Just watch Fight Club and Tyler Durden's speech on being the middle children of history. That's the best way I could describe it.

What makes this rule dumb: when coaches have an interim head coach, who has been doing a good job, they choose to hire him, but they are required to still interview a minority. It's a walk through jerk-off motion, and really insulting to the candidate that has to go through the bullshit interview. They know they have no shot. The team knows they have no shot, but they do it anyway to appease Big Brother and make their "public image" look "good" because they are "equal-opportunity".

Where does this make any sense? Is this really a rule?

Just a quick thought - when do we really become equal? Does that ever happen? If we always talk about people in terms of "minorities" "blacks" "middle class", then no one is ever really equal. Something like the Rooney Rule is admitting that everyone is not equal, and requiring the "minorities" to be given an opportunity. And in the instance listed above, an opportunity at a position that they have zero chance of getting, it's make them feel even more like a minority and unequal. We won't be all equal until we stop talking about the differences between one another.

Next topic: I'm not sure what to label this as, but let's call it the NFL turning a blind eye to the whole Brett Favre situation. I'll be totally honest, I don't know everything about it myself, because it's stupid, but it's something that shouldn't be ignored.

Brett Favre is arguably the most talked about athlete in the sport. Mike Vick has been a close second this year, but over the past several years, he's constantly coming up, weather it's the retirement talk or the streak or the injury, etc. It's gotten annoying for everyone, since he clearly has no idea in his head what he's doing, and somehow manages to capture the attention of the entire country.

So whatever, he made these advances towards Jenn Sterger, sent "aggressive" and "visual" text messages to her because she wouldn't "come over" or whatever. The NFL launched an "investigation" which took extremely longer than it should have, and determined there was "inconclusive evidence" so that nothing would happen. They fined Favre $50k for "not cooperating" with the "investigation." Favre makes $50k in 4 1/2 minutes of playing time. A game is 60 minutes long. So in 1/12th of one game in a 16 game season, he's already paid that debt. Good penalty NFL. Good. Penalty.

This week came out new rumors that the Jets fired two of their massage therapists after they complained about "harassing" text messages from Favre. Jets and Favre are obviously claiming there is no validity to this claim, but who really knows? Nothing can be proven, but it's just a claim. To me, it seems too ridiculous to make up on their own, so I totally believe it.

I think in sports in general we turn a blind eye to the power we give these players off the field, where they think they are rock stars and can get anything the want, specifically women. (note, the fact that I make the connection to rock stars shows you how America thinks, and we've just come to terms with it) We don't want to accept it, which is why the Tiger Woods thing was such a big deal, because we never thought it was possible. We made Tiger to be more than he was. He wasn't that private, polished, or any of that jazz, he just seemed so confident we decided he did.

So Favre sends these texts and pictures, and the NFL doesn't want to address it, because it's Brett Favre. He gets away with it. He's supposed to be a role model for everyone, and here he is sending out pictures of his penis. It makes you lose faith in all athletes, similar to the way the truth about steroids made you doubt every player. Every athlete that seems polished like Tiger or Favre probably aren't, probably aren't faithful, and probably think they are God's gift to the world.

I'm not sure I blame them, because of the way we hyper-glorify them. The celebrity lifestyle makes these people think they are a deity. They lose all sense of morals. It's our fault. There are people (girls and guys) who would do anything these people ask. There are still many who couldn't care less. So they treat everyone like they are an object. Yet our society says this isn't acceptable for everyone else, these athletes and celebrities get away with it.

So bringing this back to the NFL, they want to act like they are such a professional league, but when they have these national headline stories about inappropriate action towards women, they act like nothing's happening, and when people question it, it's blown off with such vague terms as "ongoing investigation." Why don't they grow some balls and take a serious hard look at this? Like the way MLB took a very serious probe into their steroids usage. It was a brutal and disheartening truth that we discovered, but it was eye-opening. I'm not saying I want to know who's sending/saying what, but let's try to hold these people accountable in some fashion. This just gets absurd.

(I'm sorry, this post is taking multiple days and consequently broken thoughts)

The other problem: Favre gets away with it, while Ben Rothelisbergr (one day I'll spell his name right) gets a 4 game suspension for alleged claims. Sure, Favre's course never went to trial, but how is it any different really? But they won't suspend Favre 4 games because it would of ended the streak and potentially his career. It's really easy to read through their BS. I'm tired of it. Seriously, if the Eagles were not in contention, I would probably have zero reason to watch any of these playoffs. Who cares? The league is corrupt.

Go Flyers.

The TV 'Hook'

I've been posting my TV thoughts over the past couple weeks and talking with my friends about shows etc and I keep talking about the "hook" and nobody seems to understand what I'm talking about. I think I know a bit more on shows than my friends - maybe I have too much time on my hands or I'm a loser, either/or I'm okay with. I am who I am.

When I talk about the "hook" it's really simple - it's something to get you really invested into the whole show. When you watch a new show you're really "eh" on it until something happens that really makes you want to come back next week. The problem is we typically don't have the patience for it to develop - or the patience to watch. As critically acclaimed as The Wire is, they were on the verge of being canceled almost every season because it didn't see any success at the time with the limited viewership. Arrested Development was recognized as the best comedy on TV, but couldn't stay alive because of ratings. That new show - Lone Star - was heralded as one of the best new shows of the fall, but it couldn't make it past two episodes.

My point is - the best shows don't always make it because they don't have a hook - they can't keep people's attention. I wouldn't necessarily say it has to be some cliff-hanger or truly "shocking" event, just something that says "I really want to keep watching." And when it's a new show fighting to survive it needs it in the pilot or it's going to need a network with enough faith in it to see a few more episodes.

Easy examples of "the hook":
Dexter: Dexter was able to do it in the first episode - establish Dexter the character and the antagonist of the Ice Truck Killer in the opening 60 minutes. The end of the episode where Dexter says "Yes, I want to play." actually got me really excited to watch more.

Lost: This one is too easy. Watch "The Pilot" and there's so much you want to know - what happened? Where are they? What is that noise? What's everyone's background? And can I marry Evangeline Lilly?

24: Mmmm, how about every episode? When I was younger and first started watching it every week and was innocent and thought that Jack might actually could die, I thought to myself "Ohmygod what's going to happen?"

Sometimes though, the hook doesn't really come in the pilot, and it takes the whole first season to really get into it. Surprisingly, these shows turn out being some of my favorites.

The Wire: I'll be completely honest, when I first started watching it I didn't like it. Too slow, too boring, not enough actually happening it was all talk. I think a few things - I was spoiled by Lost and 24 where every episode you'd go "what the hell" and think about it all week until the next episode. The Wire kept building and building and building. It's real 'wow' (read: I was hooked) moment came when Kima got shot and they ended the episode with Foxtrot and police everywhere. It was gripping and real, and I was addicted ever since.

Mad Men - I'm in the middle of re-watching the whole series - the first time since I've first watched it and didn't know what was going on. The hook here didn't really come till around the 5th episode, "5G", when we find out that Don's not really Don. The entire show then becomes, who the hell is Don? It takes some turns and doesn't just stick to Don, but let's not kid ourselves - Don Draper is the focal point here. His past, his present, his free-fall, and the unknown of where he'll end up, all encompassed in the 1960s.

Boardwalk Empire - I really should watch this again before I can fairly say when it is, but I'm going to commit anyway. The pilot was great, but I didn't think the show was great until about halfway through, when the FBI came and arrested some of Nucky's Irish 'brothers' for illegal possession of alcohol. It was the first real confrontation - and outside of the pilot it's felt like the only action in the whole season. There was a lot of talking and everyone literally looked the same - too much abstract talk to follow everything.

Sometimes though, shows need a game-changing moment to recapture people's attention after waning interest - a few years on air. The moment leaving you staring at your TV with your jaw open and the only thing you can say is either "what just happened" or "holy shit." (Queue Fred Ward's "Pardon My French". What a classic line.)

The perfect example of this is:

Lost. In season 3 when everyone's going "they're just spining their wheels, they don't know what they're doing, they ran out of stuff" they drop the "WE HAVE TO GO BACK" bomb that literally shocked everyone. That was when I went nuts for the show. Even I was losing interest in season 3, as they had such bogus episodes that felt like wastes of time. Of course, the Season 4 island-disappearing act was just as game-changing. That's part of what made Lost Lost. It's why there were endless discussions on sites like Lostpedia and other outlets to discuss and try to theorize what in the world was going on.

Other "game changing" examples:

24 - Two things, all happened in the same episode of season 6. Come season 6, we sort of know a few things, mainly that Jack won't die and that he'll always protect the country. But then they actually detonate a nuclear device. The post-bomb chaos was uncharted territory that showed more than we ever wanted to see. It wasn't the worst terrorist attack ever, but it was devastating. Then, Jack shoots Curtis. I never thought he was actually going to do it. But that is why Jack Bauer is Jack Bauer. Didn't hesitate, didn't miss. It upset him - the most upset we've seen him since Teri was murdered - and that was part of what made it so important and qualifies as game changing

Entourage - I know it seems random that I included this in here, but I really believed that the end of season six - Ari's Terinator scene, E dropping the "will you marry me" bomb, really got the "feel-good nature" of the show back and gave me renewed interest.

You see other shows pulling some kind of a stunt at the end of the season to make the next season seem interesting - Nip/Tuck moving from Miami to LA, Weeds moving from the rich white suburbs to Mexico, the ever-evolving name of where Don Draper works, Jack Bauer moving from LA after 6 years to DC then New York, when Heroes introduced Villains. It's all kind of a cheap way to renew interest.

Anyways, I'm starting to ramble, but I've gotten my point across. I'm not sure why I really felt the urge to post this, and realize I probably watch way more TV than most of my friends.

Do you guys still want to be my friend?

Fall TV Thoughts

1) Walking Dead

I'll be honest, I didn't hear anything about this until right around the day of the show's premiere. And I originally wasn't hearing how great it was, just that it was super scary. It wasn't. It was however, instantly compelling because of the way the story was told - and the aftermath. It's kind of Lost-like, in that we have to pick up the pieces after something catastrophic - like Oceanic 815 crashing or a virus turns everyone into the undead, hungry for more flesh - and the story is about how the survivors have to 'live together or die alone'. Man I really miss Lost.

I caught on late, but really like the overall concept. It's not just blood/guts/gore/death, it's really about the human connections made in times of panic. It's weak that the first season was so short and ended on such a rather open-ended note. There's alot of things that leave me scratching my head (how the doctor was going to let everyone die, how they didn't save Merle but went back to try to find him, etc).

With all that said though it is easily my favorite new show, and I have huge expectations for season two now that it's a a 'real' show and has been picked up.


2) Boardwalk Empire

I've said it before how I really want to like this show, but I just need a hook. Something to get me saying "wow." I realized I was treating it more like a Entourage when it's like The Wire in that the story is best appreciated after the last chapter is told. I couldn't agree more - they finally tied up some of the loose ends that started 12 episodes ago, with a really well-shot murder/press conference montage of Nucky.

I'm still not sold with Steve Buscemi. I said it before, I'm still not. I talked before how I think sometimes the people on Mad Men act too proper, and Boardwalk they act even more proper. That's our perception of how things were, we'll never know if it actually was. Maybe I just cannot fathom being in that time period and speaking in that manner. In the future they won't believe how we speak I suppose.

The end of the season set things up for an amazing second season with Darmady and Nucky's brother trying to truly "take back" AC. It was finally worth the long three months of the show.

3) Dexter

This season is really great. I originally thought that the first few episodes were so weak that this season was going to be such a drag. It picked up very, very quickly and getting Jordan Chase has become this huge priority. I still don't think it's better than the Trinity Killer of season 4, but it is interesting. I'm also guessing Lumen dies or takes the fall or something. It wouldn't be Dexter without him losing something.

Also, real quick - that might be the worst promotional poster I've ever seen. Just looks dumb.

4) Treme

Okay, so this isn't a new fall show, but it's been on my list since the summer and for some reason I didn't get around to it. I finally am getting around to it on round two of my "funemployment" experience.

I knew Treme as David Simon's latest creative show since the end of The Wire. Clearly, I'm a huge Wire guy and still believe it is the best show ever created on so many levels. That's what originally draw me to Treme. I heard about Treme as "Serious Glee." I've never seen Glee, but from what I've heard it doesn't sound like the type of thing I would be into. Except if they do a Bruce Springsteen episode, and even that might be brutal. Anyways, the Glee comparison scared me a little bit, but I gave it a shot because of The Wire connection.

I believe Treme is actually excellent. It looks at something that we as a country never really wanted to acknowledge - the aftermath of New Oreleans following Katrina. We were too worried about how we failed - on so many different levels - to worry about what the people still there were doing, and how this devastating event actually changed them and their way of life. I really don't think we can ever comprehend. Our country is so East Coast Bias with regards to the Northeast that we tend to ignore things going on elsewhere. It's a big country.

I personally didn't know much about the New Orleans musical history, or Indian heritage, and found it all to be fascinating and captivating all at the same time, mainly because it really happened. We can waste all the time we want talking about Lost, Dexter, Walking Dead etc, but none of them actually happened. Treme actually happened. Maybe not the exact way it's portrayed, but similar types or stories did occur all over the area.

I realized what makes David Simon so great is his authenticity. The Wire felt real. Treme feels real, as if you're watching a real reality show. Or reading a graphic novel. Other shows dumb things down to appease the viewer. This doesn't. The thing that's interesting is there hasn't been a hook - something that really captures my attention, but for some reason it has. Nothing really happens, there is no resolution to even the smaller plot lines. And I love it. Really looking forward to season two.

Is it time for Jersey Shore Season 3 yet?????

The Star Wars Condundrum

I have to preface this by saying I grew up a huge Star Wars nerd. I'm not embarrassed to admit it. It used to be my world. I played the video games and read the books and used to have all of these toys. If I could I would be a Jedi. I know I'm not alone in this - in fact I'm probably in some kind of a majority for young boys growing up in the 90s. I grew up a little bit (read: not too much) and don't watch Star Wars everyday like I did when I was seven, and I don't think about it everyday like I did when I was seven, but when people talk about it, I usually - quickly - transform back to the seven year old. I probably knew more about the Star Wars universe than I did about America's history. Again, I've grown up a little bit since then. Now I obsess over TV shows and sports.

Anyways, this isn't about my Star Wars knowledge - although I guess it fueled this conversation - but more about the series new place in movie/Hollywood/sci-fi lore now that the new movies have been out for over five years now.

I don't really know anyone that liked the "new trilogy" - because it was so radically different than the original. The acting was terrible, the special effects were too much, everything felt rushed. The only thing that people could say - as hardcore fans - was that they appreciated the story of Anakin becoming Vader. But I was thinking about it from a kid standpoint, like when I saw the originals when I was young, and what will they think? Because after all, it's always about the kids.

They can't possibly understand. The new three have all of these special effects and CGI and seem so bad ass, while the originals are so simple and just straight up look different (and by different I mean worse.) They can't understand why Yoda is moving around and kicking ass in the first three and then in the last three he can barely walk; why the clone troopers look so much cooler/effective/stronger/intelligent than the stormtroopers, any of it. It doesn't make any sense. Is my kid going to love Star Wars as much as I did? Or is s/he going to want to be a wizard of Harry Potter's world (ps the new movie sucked)? It's not up to me, but I'm just curious on what will be the future for the next generation of youth.

I almost think that it will change the legacy of the movies because they look so different. And the thing to blame I think is CGI - it gave Lucas too much freedom to do what he thought in his head. It's not a terrible idea to be constricted to the 80s special effects - which I really never thought were THAT bad. I've seen bits and pieces of all six movies on SpikeTV this long weekend, and I actually really liked the originals effects with space flying etc. I haven't seen the films for at least a year, so I realized some problems that I must have missed (like how come the lightsaber doesn't destroy everything it touches? Sometimes, it didn't. Puzzling) but I see now.

I'm not sure if I'm losing my childhood innocence/imagination but the original stories don't really make sense. It's almost like George Lucas made them up as he went along. The whole Vader being their father? Luke and Leia were into each other, and then they find out their twins? Building a second Death Star? All seems kind of crazy.

Either way, what's done is done. They had to make the prequels because people were clamoring for them. It would of been better if they made them about 20 years earlier, but that wasn't up to me.

I still really love the films. I can't say they're my favorite anymore - I think I lost my passion for films when I started watching good TV shows and our ADHD continues to cripple us so that we really are unable to sit and watch without multitasking or talking or doing something else that takes our attention away from whatever we were planning on doing.

The films are still classics. They continue to be a part of pop culture, as people reference and quote etc. about them. Everyone knows who Darth Vader is. They always will. It may not be on the tip of their tongues or something they think about ever, but they know.

To close, I wanted to put up my favorite image from the series - the twin sunset on Tatooine. It may or may not have been my background on my desktop for a while....

May The Force Be With You.

The Genius of Larry David

This post can't even begin to do justice to Larry, but I'm going to try.

I'm a huge Seinfeld fan. I used to watch three episodes a day when it was on TBS and Fox. I've seen every episode and can usually tell the episode within a line.

I think I'm an even bigger Curb Your Enthusiasm fan, because it gives the Seinfeld fan in me insight into how the series was made, and the basis of George Costanza, which of course is Larry David.

Larry is an interesting guy. He doesn't like how society operates - in fact he's got plenty of problems with how "we do things". He's a smart ass. He plays with a huge system - broadcast television - and created a show that was literally about nothing. A billion dollar industry is turned on its head by such a backwards concept that only a twisted mind like David could conjure it up, pitch it, and see it become the most successful sitcom in television's short history.

Larry's perspective of the world is interesting - it's what we should think, but instead we've told ourselves to think otherwise. For example (which could be one of many) - The doctor sign in sheet. It's something everyone does when we get to the doctor's office, and usually don't think twice about it. Larry hates this idea for a few reasons; people seeing his name listed, and for the pecking order - why schedule an appointment if your order goes based on when you sign in?

Such simple concepts like that irk Larry (I just used the word irk). It makes sense when you think about it. But we don't. We go along and don't ask questions. It's these type of thoughts that put him into trouble on the show - and put George in trouble on Seinfeld. It's surprising how much real-life instances that happened to Larry inspired the George story lines.

I've obviously never met Larry, but there's a part of me that thinks his self portrayal on Curb is pretty accurate to how he acts in real life. He may not always find himself in situations where he is getting yelled at by everyone, but he has some kind of a problem with everything that goes on. He'd rather not comment on things because it gets him in trouble, but chooses to anyway.

I thought of Larry when I wrote my post about tips. It's very Larry-esque. He's talked about it on Curb - how much to tip, to leave the same tip, were they worth the tip, etc. These are all things Larry would talk about, get caught up in, and it would bother him for the rest of the day.

The funny thing is the Seinfeld curse. Aside from Julia Louis-Dreyfus' recent success with that show I've never watched, none of four have been successful at another show. Larry David is the most successful person coming out of Seinfeld. Curb is really just Seinfeld without the national TV boundaries. No holdback from the FCC about language or content. Part of the genius of Seinfeld was them playing around with words and using innuendo to reference what they couldn't say. Larry comes straight out and says it - which makes it even more hysterical.

It's weird, because when I talk about my favorite TV shows, Curb and Seinfeld don't usually come to mind - mainly because it's something you don't get invested into like The Wire, Lost, Dexter, Mad Men, etc. The comedies are simple and you can watch one episode at a random time and still enjoy it. I think most comedies suck - that's why I don't watch them. In fact, outside of Larry's brainchildren, the only other two I watch are Eastbound & Down and It's Always Sunny. All the rest are lame.

Anyways, I'm starting to ramble, but my point is, I think Larry David, to sum it up in his own words, is pretty good.

Pret-tay, pret-tay, pre-tay, pretty good.

Conan's Back

I waited until after episode two to write this, mainly because I wanted to see if it could follow up with a great opener.

If you've been reading my blog since the beginning, then you've read my huge Conan/NBC breakup rant that lead into several long posts. I was furious. Conan's been the only late-night personality I really liked, since Leno and Letterman seemed too professional and corporate. Conan didn't He was crazy and spastic and it was awesome. Conan had to tune it down when he got moved to 11:30, and it wasn't totally the same. NBC is run by morons (even tho Zuckerberg is on his way out finally) and they're in last place behind king of network reality trash Fox.

The whole Conan/NBC breakup must of been humiliating for Conan. He was metaphorically slaughtered in front of national television over several weeks. He stuck to his principles and paid the price for it. NBC put him off for 9 months. While he was in limbo with NBC and still doing shows, it's the funniest he's ever been. Angry Conan was awesome.

While he was off the air, he did a comedy tour and built a huge social media campaign to keep his name out there and his popularity at a continual high. So Conan's finally back. It doesn't really matter what he says or does, it's just nice to have him back. The first few weeks will be all about how everyone supported Conan and he took less money and stupid jokes like that. It's nice to have him back and it's even better that it's on at 11. Makes it more time-friendly for East Coasters who need to be up early for something called work. I don't know anything about that concept, but most people do.

What gets interesting now is how Conan's competing with Leno/Letterman and now Jon Stewart too. I used to love watching Stewart but fell off the wagon before college. And, after the first two shows, Conan is killing everyone. He's got the popularity over the rest of them and the timeslot to win. And I think TBS will do anything they can to keep him content. To NBC he was just one of many, to TBS he's one of one. (I'm not considering George Lopez anything worth anything). TBS might be on a lower budget but they're making network-money off advertising to spend on this show.

I think Conan's on a mission. He's not going to be on a smear campaign for Leno, but he's going to be trying his hardest to beat out everyone. And he's got the platform to succeed. He's basically taken his network show to a basic cable channel on an earlier timeslot. His only real competition to me (and my coveted demographic) is Jon Stewart. My only concern is will I keep watching? Will I be watching in 3 months? Will I care? Will anyone still care? The sparkle of the "Conan's back" routine will fade away, and then he just becomes another talk show. Sure, he's the only one I'd want to watch, but do I really want to watch a talk show at 11? How tired do we get of actors plugging their movies? I bet most people would rather watch Jersey Shore re-runs than hearing what Samuel L. Jackson is up to. So who knows. I predict I'll watch the monologue and then peace out - pending the guests.

Either way, I'm happy that Conan's got his show back, and that he can take out the competition that kicked him out. Any joke regarding NBC makes me burst out laughing. It's great. And seeing the Masturbating Bear? It's always nice to see old friends.

Go CoCo.

Back To The Future - 25 Years Later

Today's a special date for geeks/losers/nerds/unemployed like me - 25 years ago today, Marty McFly time traveled from October 26th, 1985 to November 5th, 1955. I'm talking about Back to the Future - one of my favorite childhood movies. It's one of those movies I never grew out of. If anything - I've grown more into it as I've gotten older.

Maybe it's my circle of friends - mainly from high school - but we reference the movie almost every time we hang out. It's kind of sad, but that's why we're friends. I won't go into details of our jokes, because I don't want you stealing them. Or judging us.

It's started a sci-fi thought-process that's the basis of all time travel for me anyway. It came up a lot with Season 5 of Lost - the changing of the past and how it affects your future - including your existence. I know time travel is not real. Relax. It does keep my mind occupied when I'm bored or trying to be creative/imaginative, although I should probably be thinking about jobs/apartments/girls/sports/something normal. This is what I do instead.

The movie isn't even really about time travel. It's about parent-child relationships. Part II and III are more about the absurdity of time travel and different time periods and the life cycle repeating itself. But the original is a story is actually very complex hidden underneath a time travel comedy exterior.

What I think is great is I'm pretty sure when the team making the movie were in production, they had no clue it would of been this successful. It's purposefully corny. A jiggawatt? Or is it gigawatt? The whole concept of putting it into a DeLorean? Hilarious.
As usual I'm trying to find a witty ending to this. This is like my Bruce Springsteen post. I could say anything I want, and it would make me laugh. I'm losing my mind in this house.

Where we're going, we don't need roads.

Other posts I found interesting regarding Back to the Future:
52 Reasons Why Back to the Future Might Be The Greatest Film of all Time.
Going Back to the Future, 25 Years Later
Going 'Back to the Future' again, 25 years later

Social Network

I swear I have more things on my mind than what I watch on film/tv. That's just the only thing I have that's worth blogging about.

That being said, I saw Social Network last night. I was really looking forward to seeing it - the combination of Aaron Sorkin and David Fincher was TOO good to pass up. Add in the idea of the creation of Facebook and it's a home run. I think I wrote this exact same paragraph before about American Idiot. I'm losing my creativity and my brain.

I knew going in that the movie wasn't totally true. It was Hollywood-ified. There were parts added for the convenience of the story. It's my understanding that most of it is true though, based off what I read.

The movie was good. It was neurotic. It really kind of describes how college (and as we grow out of college, the "real world") is now. You friend a girl you meet and class, probably one you don't really know outside of some glances, and determine if you're interested in her or not by her pictures (while she's showing the pictures that show her in her self-perceived "best light" - while you do the exact same thing) and find out the relationship situation and see who she's friends with etc etc. That's Facebook. Maybe not always about girls, but about people. Most likely people you don't know well.

I don't know if me or my friends could imagine college without it. It's such a strange concept. Seriously. And I'm not even talking about "stalking" girls. Just communicating with friends - especially those who you haven't seen in a while. Seeing what others are up to. Sharing your crazy stories. Writing a happy birthday wall post. And so on. I'd go to parties and people would say "Facebook Me." It's just how we operate.

It's changed the generation. We can't socialize normally. I know more about some people thru Facebook then I learned from hearing them speak. We hide behind our phones and our iPods and blogs and don't actually communicate anymore. It's absurd. I can't say I'm not guilty either, it's just the truth of our generation.

The only thing that really killed the movie for me was Justin Timberlake. He sucks as an actor. It was such a joke putting him in. It was just to make some kind of a "celebrity buzz" since most people wouldn't of known who Jesse Eisenberg is. Stop acting JT. Just make some more music for girls to go crazy over. Don't say "Bong hit!" in the middle of a movie. Ever.

I loved Fincher's vision. It was shot so well. It had a "Fight Club" pacing without going Tyler Durden crazy and no fighting. I also love to reference Fight Club and Tyler Durden whenever possible, so maybe I'm stretching it. Sticking feathers up your butt doesn't make you a chicken.

Zuckerberg came across as too smart for his own good - which is probably true. He's brutally honest and unable to communicate the way normal people do. It's interesting. I have never actually seem him talk, but I could believe he's something like this. It's also interesting to see the way the site developed, how the lawsuits came through, among other things. Something so simple that changed everyone's life.

Overall, it was good, I just think there was so much hype. Too much hype kills everything. And too much hype is why Facebook succeeds.

4 Days in October

This post is triggered by my watching the ESPN 30for30 Documentary "4 Days in October," highlighting the four days of games 4-7 in the 2004 ALCS.

It's well established I'm a Red Sox fan. I think it's also been well established that my Red Sox obsession was borderline insane. The level that you've heard about but didn't believe those type of people existed unless you had seen it. Jimmy Fallon in Fever Pitch, without the girl. That was me.

I wrote over a month ago how I feel like I lost my interest in my teams; that I wasn't invested as much as I was. That's still true. You grow up, your life changes, you do things differently, whatever. I still think the best way I can describe it was that we accomplished what we intended - to win a championship. It's not like the relationships over, but it's not as special as it used to be. It's like when you're not trying to impress your job/girlfriend/baseball team (because I was trying to impress an baseball team). The comfort zone. Whatever. There was nothing I wanted more than to beat the Yankees and win a ring. I was also 16. Needless to say, I have a few other priorities. Beating the Yankees isn't as high as it used to be, but it still feels great.


2004 was the height of my obsession. I think we peaked. I remember every day of October. Every single day. How many days do you remember from six years ago?


There was so much built up into the Red Sox/Yankees rivalry that 2003-2004 was truly special. It may never happen again. The entire series of events took place so fast that you easily lose sight of how special/rare/unbelievable those four days were. It was a blur. Like a dream that never seemed it would ever come true.


It really hit me why I love sports; because it's real. It's uncontrollable, unpredictable, yet a perfect chaos. Most of the time it's nothing out of the ordinary. It feels good if it's your team. If it's not, it's just another let down. Take any movie or television show or novel. They aren't real. Real stories rarely have a happy ending. That's what makes the story of the 2004 ALCS real drama. Exciting drama. Once-in-a-lifetime drama. It's not just that the Sox beat the Yankees, it was the way they did it. No other team has ever come back from three games down to win (well until the Flyers did it in the 2010 ECF [what's up Flyers!]) The World Series didn't even matter because it was a boring sweep. Beating the Yankees was better than the World Series. The World Series was just the icing on the cake. And really, this story caught the entire nation. Red Sox Nation was the sportsman of the year for Sports Illustrated, and it was everyone's feel good story of 2004. Or my life.

I was glad to watch the 30for30 documentary. It was a little cheezy, but I loved it. The Simmons/Clarke part was stupid. Kevin Millar milked his 15 minutes. But the images and audio gave me 45 minutes of goosebumps. It reminded me of how happy I was for those 11 days. I would argue it's the happiest streak in my life. A natural high. Isn't that pathetic? Whatever, this was my past. I wouldn't of had it any other way.

Keep the Faith.

Comparing the LOST and 24 Finales

This week I lost a bit of my entertainment soul. For the past 6 and 9 years, I've had Lost and 24 to watch every Monday and Tuesday. It made my week go much quicker. These were shows I was heavily invested in. Of course 24 has been declining steadily for the past few years (I would say Season 5 was the last awesome season, and 6 was just decent. 7 and 8 bordered on absurd, but the change of scenery helped keep it somewhat interesting.)

The shows are two different entries - obviously one that attempts to be "real" and another that started as real and crossed into the sci-fi realm. Both played with time constraints, one on purpose and one using it more liberally than it should have (no way Jack Bauer could stay awake, not eat, not go to the bathroom, and always have a charged phone available for 24 consecutive hours.)

Regardless, the shows provided me with enormous amounts of entertainment during my adolescent and college years. It's kind of fitting that both end at the same time I end college. It's also interesting the main characters of each show is named Jack.

In both of the finales, I realized the differences in the shows. 24 really is a tragedy. It's the story of a man (Jack Bauer) who gives EVERYTHING to preserve the judicial system, including his family and his health, and the system keeps trying to literally tie him down. He's been ordered to be shot on site multiple times, had martial law applied against him, and so on. I already blogged about this. The thing with Jack is that he never gets what he wants. Each season ends with him having to be on the run or on the verge of death or being abducted or something ridiculous. The minute he gets what he wants it gets taken away.

The series ends with Jack literally having to flee the country, but this time for good. He can't speak to his daughter ever again, see his granddaughter, etc.

Lost was a different animal. Beyond all of the mythology and mystery involved, the show was about a group of characters. Although Jack Sheppard died, it ended with him sacrificing himself to save everyone. Technically Bauer sacrificed himself, but never had actually given his life. He came very VERY close, but never all the way.

Jack Sheppard also had a happy ending because of the flash sideways (purgatory) timeline that Jack Bauer will never see. It's never going to be how he wants.

Lost, as I said, was a community-driven storyline. It was about how the people survive and live together. 24 was not. I was actually much more upset about the finale of 24 over Lost because Lost had that happy ending or sorts - they defeated the MIB and were able to move on to the "afterlife" together. Jack Bauer was exiled or would have to face prosecution of the law FOR TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING. It's the true tragic hero that I believe American storytellers are continually drawn towards because of the characters flaws. For as much excitement and great things Jack Bauer has provided, he's flawed, and only has 2 people he can really count on, but he has to leave them behind to keep his country and them safe. It never ends.

These shows were great for television, specifically network television, and I hope that we see shows that match their intensity in the upcoming years.

In the meantime, anyone have any good shows for me to watch?

LOST - "The End" Review

I don't even know what to think. My mind was blown. I was excited. I was upset. I couldn't speak between 11PM-12AM. The finale was an eye opener to me on the whole series. I'm about to get real academic and read probably WAY too into the show.

As much as you can wonder what the Island is and the actual purpose of everything - it doesn't matter. The show is a character-driven story. The Island isn't the main character. Life isn't about trying to deal with all of the random challenges - smoke monsters are a metaphor for greedy opportunities, having to be a 'protector' of something, feeling trapped, etc. They all worked together to overcome these challenges, although they lost some friends along the way.

Rather, Life is about the people you connect with along the way. The Original Timeline was indeed real. Everything that happened. As Christian said, that was the most important time of the castaway's lives. It was when their will was tested the most to survive, to "Live Together" so they don't "Die Alone."

The Original Timeline all makes sense. Well, at a basic level. Of course I have SEVERAL questions relating directly towards what happened - specifically with what was going on in The Source. I'll do that later. But this is my thought process for how it all worked out:

Desmond was somewhat misled - he believed that by pulling the plug (uncorking the wine bottle) that the Losties would teleport to the Flash Sideways. They would be fine. The Island would be gone, but who cares? Desmond was the only one in the Original Timeline that was somewhat aware of the Sideways timeline. He didn't know what it meant necessarily - not that we did.

So Jack makes the "ultimate sacrifice" to save the Island. Hurley and Ben stay behind, becoming the new Jacob and Richard. What happens after that is unknown, and we don't really need to know. The show has always been about Jack. It opens and closes with Jack.

But now the Flash Sideways. As Christian said, it was the alternate reality that the Losties made together so they could "move on" together. Think about how many people have died over the seasons - innocent people. The only people that deserved to die was Anthony Cooper and Michael. They all spent so much time together on the Island that they wanted to move on together - and that was the point of the alternate flash sideways. Everyone was living a life they SHOULD have had - but for whatever reason their flawed lives did not allow in the original timeline. Sure, not everything was perfect, but it was more ideal than previously.

Once they all became "aware" of where they had been, they all came together to move on, lead by a Sheppard of Christians - quite a play on words. They didn't want to move on without each other, so now they move on together, and that was what the flash sideways was all about. They had died at different times, I'm assuming Hurley and Ben died at a later point, along with Kate & Sawyer, but they all wanted to move on together. Anna-Lucia wasn't ready, because she didn't have enough of a connection on the Island to anyone. Michael was stuck because he killed his own people for selfish purposes.

You don't really need to understand everything about the Island to understand the premise of the show. It's about these flawed and somewhat broken individuals who ban together for a life altering experience on the Island - as a group.

In fact --- the Island detracted from the story. The episode "Across The Sea" was VERY interesting, but the episode took away from the story that we cared about. We just saw the death of Sayid, Sun, and Jin. We were upset. People cried. We needed "Across the Sea" to move the story to the finale, but it takes away from the point of the show.

Lost is a story about community. How they react, how they struggle, based on their past, how it establishes their future, and how these people are ultimately tied together forever because of the events that have taken place on the Island.

Random Thoughts/Questions I will forever have:

1) Really excited that it was Kate & Jack.

2) Smokie can't die until the Island is "uncorked?" Can he turn into Smoke or is he then mortal? And couldn't he be killed at the source? That would make the most sense. Is there a need for new Smokie once the form in Locke is gone?

3) Bigger thought/question - What was it that Smokie really wanted to go back to? Doesn't he realize that 2,000 years later his people were gone? What was he going to do when he landed on the other land? Start a blog?

3.5) Same for Richard - where is he going? And he seemed to be showing a gray hair, so he's mortal because Jacob is dead? He has nothing left there.

4) Why was the Source not as light when Desmond went in it? Was that because Smokie had most of the light (turned to darkness) ?

5) What was Ben staying behind for? I assume Alex/Rousseau, but who knows.

6) Still, what exactly is the Island? It was most definitely real, but what was it?

Overall, wow, what a series. I want to rewatch all of it knowing what I know now, but I have very little time to reflect, because tonight we see the end of Jack Bauer. It's like my child/college mainstays are all ending at the same time.

Everything only ends once, everything else is just progress.

I'll see you in another life brotha. (which takes on a whole new meaning)

The Final LOST Post Before The Finale - I Think

Wow. It's finally here. After six season of polar bears, buttons, time travel, others, black smoke, flashbacks, flashforwards, and one strange island, this is the finale. I'm going to use the This Is It reference here, and if you read my previous post, you get the joke. If not, I'm sorry, please keep reading.

The thing I absolutely love about a series like LOST is that we are 2.5 hours away from the complete end of a series, and I still have no clue what is actually going to happen. There's too many possibilities and the writers have done a great job of keeping it wide open to speculation and thought.

SO WHAT I THINK WILL HAPPEN

Desmond is the key here. Jack has assumed role of protector, and Smokie cannot kill him (or any of the other candidates really.) It's also been established that one cannot really kill Smokie. They can push or hit him like a normal human, but they cannot truly kill him. He represents a higher being.

Smokie's plan is to sink the Island. I assume that means to lead Ben to the Source, allow him to take it (how one takes it is a mystery) and then the Island --- and humanity --- ends. However, I'm having a feeling that Ben has something up his sleeve. In my crazed head, he's going to have Miles go back to Widmore's body, find out the purpose of Desmond/why Widmore came back, relay that to Ben, who will then try to help Richard (if he's still alive) and Jack.

I think the way to kill Smokie is the same way he came into the world - throw him back into the Source. Only Jack or Desmond can do this, and seeing as how Jack has to protect the Island, I'm assuming that it will be Desmond. Smokie probably will not go willingly, but Desmond has proven to be able to handle the electromagnetism that comes with the Source, meaning he can literally drag Smokie into the Source. Then the spirit that is Smokie is entrapped back in the Source, and there is no evil spirit. Jack truly has nothing to protect the Source from, because everyone will want to leave the Island -- I'm assuming Ben dies somehow.

HOW THIS RELATES TO THE ALTERNATE TIMELINE

I'm still not sure. Which is what is so confusing. It seems to me that the people who are still alive/on Jacob's side are all heading to this concert - ALL CANDIDATES WELCOME - Kate, Jack, Sawyer, Miles, Faraday, Widmore, Desmond, Hawking, probably Charlie, they'll all be there. This massive group brought together SHOULD spark something. Jack seeing Kate (after operating on Locke - which somehow will relate to the OT and having to kill the body of Locke in Smokie)

Sayid is off to another area with Hurley. Probably somewhere with Claire and Jin and Sun - maybe all to the Hospital? Forming of the sides. Hurley is taking Sayid there - but why Hurley? Is this a foreshadow of Hurley? Sacrifice to get Locke dead?

THE THINGS I WANT RESOLVED BUT PROBABLY WILL NOT HAVE RESOLVED

WHAT THE $%^$ IS THE ISLAND

Seriously, how does this thing work. How did the light come to be? How did Mother come? How was the statue built? How special is the "Protector" ? Can he really control the destiny of the people chosen to come? WHY DOES THE SOURCE EVEN EXIST? HOW DOES THIS STUFF WORK??

What I'm kind of thinking, but know I'll never know --- The source represents power. Human nature is to be powerful. Everyone wants more. We have the ability to be powerful in our own right - controlling our lives and the lives of those around us - for good or evil. Hence what the MiB turned into. He turned into incarnate evil - exactly what he wanted. It's helping him the ability to leave, but not fully granting it.

The light is so powerful it's leaking out - hence the several electromagnetic pockets around the island. By Dharma digging into the electromagnetic pocket it allows for a release that COULD release the Source - hence why the button had to keep being pushed - "just savin' the world" - because the release would be the end. How this all relates to the ability to travel through time and the donkey wheel I'm not entirely sure. Humans have been working to chip away at the core of the island and access the power - but because they're dumb they don't realize they're destroying humanity.

ANOTHER THING --> If Smokie is trying to use people to get off, why does he kill them all in "Ab Aeterno"? He needs them to get out.

Who let the Dharma Initiative come and stay? How did they know about the electromagnetic fence that would keep Smokie out and why didn't Smokie kill the "Others"?

How did the Temple/beneath the Temple happen? I doubt Smokie wanted to create that himself. Was it always there?

Finally, just a retrospective - it's been a long six years. I think it's safe to say that Damon and Carlton had no clue what they were getting into when they first started. The topics have moved so quickly from season to season.

Season 1 - What is the Island/Survival/Strange Things

Season 2 - What is the Dharma Initiative/Walt/The Button

Season 3 - The Others/Desmond's Time Travel/Communicating with the outside world

Season 4 - Widmore & Ben/Rescue/Torching the Island

Season 5 - Getting Back/Time Travel/Dharma/Jughead

Season 6 - Saving The Island from Smokie/The New Jacob

Looking back, was all of this relevant to telling the ultimate story? Was all that nonsense over Walt really necessary? It all seems so drug out for this point I'm not sure I'm wholly satisfied that I've watched the series over and over for this. There should of been more of an endgame from the beginning, and slowly introduce them. We shouldn't of first heard of Jacob in Season 3 and never actually seen him until the end of Season 5. I guess part of it creates the mystery of the show - we've sat and asked who is Jacob for 2.5 years. The show just seemed to move so slow in the beginning to set up the characters that it was frustrating.

In the end, I'm going to watch the finale and I'm sure my jaw will be on the floor. And I'm sure I'll write another post about how epic the show is. It can't possibly be better than The Wire, but from a passionate/speculative perspective, this show rocks.

Namaste.

Ode to Fight Club

It's a slow day at work. I've been up since 6:30 AM. I don't have much else to do than blog or apply for jobs. I'm doing both, cause I'm definitely not studying.

Over the weekend I watched Fight Club. It's been a while since the last time I've watched it, probably about a year?

It's always a very thought provoking movie that has caused me to write several academic papers (yes, as in for class) about the current state of the American society in 21st Century America.

Before I start lecturing, I should give my history with Fight Club. In my senior year at the Prep, I took a banned books class. It wasn't really banned books, but it was more "controversial" books. That class might of been the only class I've ever enjoyed reading for school. We read some great books like Fight Club, Harry Potter, Requiem for a Dream, Trainspotting, and American Psycho. My teacher used to call it "cool books class."Couldn't be more spot on. At an all guys school, what could be cooler than reading "real" books, not the traditional "academic" books.

Anyway, so I hadn't read or seen the movie yet. I just wasn't really into movies. I'm still not compared so some of my friends in COM/CFA, but that's also because film is their major, so that makes a difference.

I read the book. If you haven't, do it. It's great. Particularly if you haven't seen the movie. I think it's always better to read the book beforehand - how many times does someone say the book was better than the movie? Almost always. One just takes more time than the other. Sometimes much more time depending on your ADHD.

The book/movie totally change your mind about life. At least for me. We've set ourselves up in this convoluted system where our possessions own us. We aren't free. "The things that you own end up owning you," as Tyler would say. Think about it. We've become so into our cell phones and furniture and iPods and iPads and HDTVs and our nice pair of jeans and our cars and so on and so on. We've enslaved ourselves. We work just so we can buy stuff we don't really need.

The character of Tyler Durden is an interesting man, even though he isn't real. He has a unique way of thinking that's radical yet feels true. People have these dreams but never follow through. For example, if you really wanted to be an athlete, you would have to commit everything you had to it. I'm sure most guys dream of playing professional sports, but don't commit to it. Tyler represents the thinking that we were meant to have - Do what you want to do. Don't have any reason to hold yourself back. If you want to get in a fight, why not? If you don't want to get married, who cares? Instead, do whatever. Keep evolving however, don't settle.

The concept of the "white male" is really what's under the microscope - and it has really evolved, and now they don't really have an identity. As everyone kind of "melts" into the Melting Pot concept, there is no more class that's more powerful than others. In history, it was traditionally the white male. No longer is that the case. Everyone's catching up - and in some areas certain demographics do better. So these relatively "successful" men have no concept of what to do anymore - no longer are they the most powerful people in the room. Not only that - add in the rapid development of divorce - children raised by single parents can really intimidate the masculinity (or femininity in the opposite sense) of the child and leave them without an identity. All they have is their possessions from their money. No personal sense of purpose or accomplishment. Is your life seriously about working as a waiter your entire life? What about a police officer? Or maybe a secretary?

The problem with Tyler's lifestyle is that it's flawed. No one can just afford to stop everything they're doing and sever ties with their situation. In Tyler's ideal world, there is choice. You have the choice to let go everything you have and pursue something serious. Unfortunately it isn't that simple. Tyler is the extreme of one side. We need to find the happy medium. Tyler's everything we want, but without paying the price. It's an interesting sacrifice. There's so many things I would love to do (travel, live on the beach, drink clean water) and I can't because I'm fighting the system to succeed. As is everyone else. I don't usually "read" into movies and books, but I really believe that Fight Club is a great social commentary that really let's out a message under the guise of a sleep-deprived narrator. Anyways, let's go get that life we want. The pursuit of happiness.

My Social Network "Friend" Rules

This post was powered by last Wednesday's episode of South Park focusing on social networking, specifically Facebook. South Park always does a good job of providing some kind of perspective on current event issues. I may not always agree with their message and may not always laugh at how obscene/bizarre their jokes are, but I think there is a message.

Anyway, the concept was how people take Facebook/social networks too seriously. How many friends you have vs. me, why am I not friends with you? Who are you poking? ETC. Sometimes we take it too seriously. People joke about it, but we do.

I was thinking about social network friends while I was at the gym (yes, the gym. I'm really cool I promise.) There's so many, dare I say too many, social networks out there, all with varying and different purposes and "rules" to follow. It's kind of getting obscene, isn't it?

So I thought I'd post how I'm *trying* to follow the social networks. These aren't really "new," but just my opinions.
Facebook - About two weeks ago I wrote another post about how frustrated I am getting with Facebook and how it has spiraled into spam. I'm really thinking about purging most of my "friends" - people I don't talk to anymore (or ever.) I don't care what my friend count is or if I can see people's pictures of what they're up to - I'm tired of the spam. So, SO, tired.

I'd say Facebook should really only be people you know and have a decent connection with. Not someone you just met last night and may never see again. Definitely not people you've never talked to before but seen in class/work/life. Andddd I think you have to put your foot down on old high school friends or ex-flings etc. No deal. There's too much information that they can see. I'd stray away from co-workers too. Too much potential for problems. That's not how it is at where I work, but every place is different.

Oh and also - remove the "invite all" button from events, cause it's gotten so annoying.
Twitter - Simple, any and everything. BUT they have to have something interesting to say. You don't deserve to be followed by anyone if you tweet stupid stuff like "Ugh I'm so tired all day" or "I'm eating ice cream" or emo lyrics about your emotional relationship problems. Smart tweets. Conversational tweets. Sharing RELEVANT information, not worthless information. It's hard, but it makes Twitter actually worth it.
LinkedIn - It's talked about as "for professionals" but as a college student, how does that work? I won't have a big network if I exclude my peers in school, because even if I meet some "professionals" I probably will not have enough of a connection to be "linked." And who do I link to? My bosses? People working at other firms in the area? How do we classify a link. This is still very much to be determined as far as I'm concerned.

Foursquare - This one is the most interesting to me, because it's so new. What's the policy? I don't know. However, I do know that I don't really want to be friends with EVERYONE. A kid from high schol (who I NEVER spoke to) sent me a friend request on Foursquare. Why? I could care less where this kid is. I really believe this should be almost the most exclusive network of the four. I only really want to know about people who come into my day-to-day contact. I don't need to know where my freshman floor-mate is. I probably never will. So let's not be friends.

While typing this post, I just thought about the entire concept of "friending people." I've actually almost become anti-friend requesting anyone anywhere but Twitter. I don't need to be your Facebook friend for us to be friends. Just cause we work together doesn't mean we could/should be LinkedIn. I also think it's kind of weird to find someone on these networks and friend them. It crosses over from being "friends" to stalking. I've also grown cynical.

But what about when you get a friend request from someone i.e. co-worker/parent/ex/random hook up/the random person you met last night/the significant other you're seeing/the dork from high school/the quiet girl from class/AND SO ON. What do you do? When is it okay to say no? In the situation of the kid who friended me on Foursquare, I actually clicked no the first time. Then he sent it again. AGAIN. How desperately does this dude want to know where I am? That's why it's weird.

But in the situation of like Twitter, someone's said to me "why don't you follow me back" and I straight up said "because I don't find your tweets interesting." It sparked a debate, and I didn't cave in. Still don't follow that person. And their tweets still aren't interesting. Situations like that are so unbelievable and frustrating because it doesn't matter. We don't have to be friends. It won't really change my day. It's awkward to say no though. It should just be normal.

It would be really nice to just have one network. That covered everything. It could of been Facebook, but people like options & different things. Tweets are the same as Facebook updates. Facebook chat is the same as AIM/Gchat. But nothing it's not all connected. You can contact someone in 17 different ways. It's too much. It's like that scene in He's Just Not That Into You, but not in a romantic sense. Too many methods, all with too many rules.

I want to hop in the DeLorean and go back to 1985. A time when people had to talk to each other in person or over the phone instead of text. Sometimes it is just TOO much.

OMG WHAT IS GOING ON IN LOST

It's starting to get serious. Really really serious. There's only like 300 some minutes left, and we still have SO MUCH TO FIND OUT.

Let's get started gang!!! (True Life - I'm Peter Klaven)

1) Flash sideways SLASH Desmond

Can't really figure out what is the deal here. The OT Desmond seems to be calm, collected, and care-free. He knows Locke isn't Locke.

I think (but it's a stab) is that Desmond is "aware" of the flash sideways timeline. He knows that something else is going on - and that he's the key to merging the two or some how affecting the outcome. So far, we've only seen people realize their alternate realities via near-death experiences, love, or constants.

Desmond is trying to help everyone realize their other selves. He helped Hurley follow Libby (which was such a corny storyline) and is doing something to Locke.

1.5) WHY DID DESMOND HIT LOCKE

There's a few potential reasons that I'm pondering.

a) My original thought was that the timelines are connected. If Locke dies in the flash, he dies in the original. That doesn't sync up though, because Locke is already dead. Smokie has only taken his shape, not his body. So that doesn't totally work.

b) Locke in Flash Sideways needs to remember the island, so he can become "self aware" - the best way to make that happen is to have something traumatic happen to him, similar to when his father threw him out of the building.

c) Locke will have surgery from Jack, and their touch/interaction will spark the memories of them on the island - which will then lead Jack to become Jacob, and preserve the Island.

2) The Boy

WTF. Seriously. This was a different kid than we saw in The Candidate, but imdb says it's the same actor. The hair is definitely different for a reason though. Makes me think of a young Jacob/Smokie. But Desmond saw him too - is Desmond a candidate? Or is he just special?

The boy could be Aaron, or a young Desmond. Or maybe it's the higher power that Jacob and Smokie adhere to. More on that in another post.

3) The Well

Before I talk about the well, how the hell are we seeing all these things this year that the losties never found before? The lighthouse, Smokies cave, the Temple, this new well. How does that happen? I thought Sayid was some kind of explorer.

The Well HAS to be something, but what? Smokie mentioned the electromagnetism - similar to that in the Hatch/Orchid? Can Desmond move the Island or dig deeper to find the pocket to kill Smokey? (PS - Smokey or Smokie? I can't decide. Smoke is a strange word to say. Try it.) WHICH BRINGS ME TO ANOTHER IDEA ---> When the hatch detonated, shouldn't that have done something to Smokey? It's clear he can't get past the fence, so if a large pocket of electromagnetic energy is emitted, I would think this would do something to him.

random unimportant point - can Jack Bauer just come and drop an EMP ? Wouldn't that do it?

The well has some purpose. It's not just to hold Desmond until he's out. That's foolish. I don't think it's another donkey wheel - how many of those can we have? I think it's just a temporary prison until next week.

4) The Whispers

I'm REALLY unsure about this whole thing. It supposedly can't be Smokie - so far as Ilana knows - because he's supposedly stuck in his current form. Some questions I have:
Why is Hurley the only one that can see the dead people on the island?
Why wouldn't Libby come around to talk to Hurley?
They aren't just stuck on the Island - Hurley saw Ana Lucia off the Island.
It doesn't explain Yemi.
How is Isabella on the Island?
Why was Walt able to do the same things? Where is Walt?
Where/How do these spirits determine when to come out and be visible and where do they go?
Charlie was off the island playing checkers with Hurley. How.

So I don't know what Michael is doing, but I feel like it's not legitimate. I'm not convinced the plane is the way off the Island. Last I remember, it was broken in the cockpit, probably doesn't have enough fuel, and the runway most likely isn't long enough. ALSO HOW DID BEN KNOW TO MAKE A RUNWAY IN THE FIRST PLACE - INTERESTING STUFF.

Maybe if Smokie were to leave, the dead spirits would be free as well. OR another thought - maybe Desmond ignites an electromagnetic release that would stop the plane from crashing - bringing his purpose full circle. He brought 815 here, now he would bring the plane that would destroy the world down.

So what's the point of Michael coming out now? Hurley's been back on the island for a little bit now, but then again I don't know how you count the "being in 1977" thing on the time line.

Lastly I was so souped by the Bruce references - Spanish Johnny's and Rosalita. Good work by the writers - as if I need another reason to love the show.