So normally I don't post personal stuff here that's too distant from pop culture or the entertainment industry or film or movies or whatever, but this is an identity thing and as someone who identifies herself by her relationship to the arts more than probably anything else, I thought this wouldn't be too out of place. It's a letter/essay I wrote on the War Against Women happening right now in the dear ol' U.S. of A. and you can find it here on tumblr: http://jackrosejackrose.tumblr.com/post/19470050879/the-war-on-womens-identities
Enjoy, I hope. Critique or share if you like.
Showing posts with label please fix this. Show all posts
Showing posts with label please fix this. Show all posts
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Friday, October 22, 2010
"Emmy" TV Shows. Not Unlike "Oscar" Movies.
Sorry for the long absence. I'm a busy student/employee/television addict/etc.
But as I catch up on last night's television shows, I started to wonder to myself about "the Academy." See, lots of people complain, whine, and moan over both the Academy that decides the Emmys and the Oscars. The thing is, though, I haven't seen many people spend all year discussing the Emmys, declaring this show an Emmy show and that show not an Emmy show, whereas even everyday movie-goers will easily be talking about the Oscar chances for The Social Network or Toy Story 3.
At first glance, this might indicate that the selectivity for the Emmys is not so severe as it is for the Oscars. You'd think an Academy that would nominate True Blood might actually have its marbles in a way an Academy that shut out The Dark Knight doesn't. I think though that you'd be wrong. True Blood, for example, has certain things going for it, including an Academy Award-winning main actress, a respected premium cable channel, and a "message" (y'know, how vampire rights in the show parallel modern day LGBT rights).
Don't fool yourself; the Emmys like the same things the Oscars do. Pedigree isn't everything though, as former Academy Award nominees Mary McDonnell and Edward James Olmos will tell you, having worked for years on a never-nominated critically-acclaimed little series called Battlestar Galactica everyone who knows me knows that I adore. It takes a certain class that comes, especially these days, with being on a premium cable network, which is why even though I haven't seen an episode of Boardwalk Empire, I'm convinced it will land several nominations next year. Because it's on HBO, it's classy like Mad Men, and it takes itself seriously.
As I'm sure the Buffy fans have lamented for ages, taking yourself seriously can be a big thing. I feel like one of the more common complaints about Mad Men would be a sort of "stuffiness" about it, coming from its slow, melodious pace and seriously fragmented (and often disliked) characters.
But the comedy category, you declare! Comedic shows are appreciated for irony! Just look at Glee? Though I decry Glee and watch it, such a contradiction as I am, Glee is actually something of an interesting anomaly in my opinion. It's a high school show, it's a musical, its pedigree is really not that impressive (Matthew Morrison and Lea Michele are the main show there - I won't count Jane Lynch, despite loving her more, because an unfortunate amount of not-young people don't realize how much she did pre-Glee). Glee's popularity comes from a more modern High School Musical approach - but you didn't see High School Musical get nominated for Best TV Movie, did you? Despite whatever sucks about Glee, it is kind of impressive for it to have gotten the formal recognition it has.
Besides Glee, however, the comedy area remains pretty locked for sitcoms and serious premium cable comedies (i.e. Weeds, Entourage, Curb Your Enthusiasm). And, to be honest, the only reason Glee might get nominated again next year is because the current freshmen sitcoms are rather slim pickings, so I'd be prepared for a full-on repeat in the comedy series category.
Sitcoms are cute and quaint. They're very old-fashioned. Even Modern Family, which I watch and like and is lauded for its advancement, follows your old-school format of following a family around and seeing all their funny, morally-inclined hi-jinks in a short half hour. If there was a movie equivalent to sitcoms, actually, which there really isn't anymore, I'd be surprised if it got nominated for the Oscars, actually, because that area is even too backwater for them. When people talk about potential Oscar comedies, they think of raucous shit like The Hangover, which is more of a premium cable type show than a typical network sitcom.
But back to the drama category, where this all started for me as I thought longingly of The Vampire Diaries, the shockingly good show I have fallen in love with despite not being a big vampire fan and aware enough of trends to usually not be susceptible without my consent. The Vampire Diaries is a good show, hands down. Interesting characters, good plots, amazing pacing, problems are rectified, everything is reasonable, and as a bonus, the cast is gorgeous (and, so far as I'm aware, come across as respectable and scandal-free). The problems? The show doesn't take itself so seriously. Not in the same way, say, my beloved Chuck does, becoming a little bit too much of a self-parody at times, but there is an air of fun and danger that comes from a show willing to take risks, kill off a main character pretty quickly, and do a lot of things most shows aren't really willing to do. Second, the show doesn't have pedigree. It's highest pedigree right now is probably Ian Somerhalder, best known otherwise for his season-long and small recurring bit as Boone on Lost. Nina Dobrev did Degrassi. Matt Davis might be most recognizable for Legally Blonde. Seriously, this is not your A-list cast. But they're not just pretty, they're good. And, finally, The Vampire Diaries is on The CW. The CW may technically be a network station, but it is essentially trash to the bigwigs. The CW is home of Smallville and Gossip Girl, not a show that's better than Emmy-nominated True Blood (sorry, TB fans, I'm with you, but did you see the third season compared to TVD? Just, no).
Everything that might make a series worthy of Emmy recognition is simply not in this show, which is probably derided by people who've never seen it as part of the Twilight craze, as a teen drama with lots of skimpy clothes and scandal. I'm sorry, but this is neither True Blood nor Gossip Girl; there are few if none unnecessary shenanigans. High school is a setting, not a defining characteristic of the show (especially as of late; Mystic Falls is more the setting anyway, one of the coolest, cult-like towns ever). Skimpy clothes? Are you kidding me? Besides the car wash episode, there have been so few scantily clad moments. I can remember all of one legitimate sex scene in the entirety of this series. There are some sexy flashbacks, but it is nothing compared to the wild orgies of True Blood season 2, or even the least sexy of True Blood episodes. Scandals? I bet there are about five thousand more scandals in a single episode of Desperate Housewives than a full season of The Vampire Diaries. Vampire Diaries is more concerned with drama and action and zigzagging plots and surprises than with the kind of ~drama that fuels shows like Gossip Girl or One Tree Hill or Gilmore Girls (which I loved, but was soapy as hell sometimes).
Essentially, every stigma that The Vampire Diaries would attract is false. But that's true about a lot of shows that would never qualify for an Emmy nomination. There is no "Blind Side" slot in the Emmy nominees. The Emmys are probably even more out of touch with popular culture than the Oscars. Sci-fi has been at the Oscars for ages, from Star Wars to Avatar (more of a crowd-pleaser than it's-all-about-the-analogy District 9). Battlestar Galactica, despite being declared by many as one of the best DRAMA television shows ever, or at least a very good one in general, never got more than a technical nod at the Emmys.
So we bitch and moan and complain a lot about the Oscars, about the Academy Awards being old and how certain great movies will never be Oscar movies, but the Emmys are no better, if they're not even worse, especially since they can repeat old favorites in place of strong up-comers. While movies year after year can emulate and imitate older films, keeping that certain "old Hollywood" or "period movie" place in the Best Picture nominee line-up, Emmys can literally keep the same show in the running, even past its prime (I mean really? House? That show has been good at best, horrendous at worst, and meh most of the time for a couple seasons now).
And yet, few shows are looked at, saying, "this show was made for the Emmys" when one could look at, say, The King's Speech, and declare immediately "it's an Oscar movie!" There isn't a lot different between what makes television and movies appeal for "bigwig" Academies. If anything, audience size and critics matter more for the Oscars - I doubt you'll find many champions of House's last season (praise the mental institute episode all you want, there are over twenty other episodes in the season), but even The Blind Side was well-received by many, though certainly not everyone. House's audience has dwindled (and it was probably the most-watched series nominated for Best Comedy/Drama last year; remember, Glee's audience was pretty modest for most of the first season), but Avatar, District 9, The Blind Side, and Up were huge money-makers.
My point has been made clear by this point. Just like with the Oscars and movies, there will be brilliant shows that will never win an Emmy, that never won an Emmy, and probably were never seen by those who vote on the Emmys. And that's disappointing, sure, but that's life, and tastes change, though slowly, and one day all the types of shows we champion now will be detested by future generations as backwards and unworthy of admiration and we'll be clinging on.
But as I catch up on last night's television shows, I started to wonder to myself about "the Academy." See, lots of people complain, whine, and moan over both the Academy that decides the Emmys and the Oscars. The thing is, though, I haven't seen many people spend all year discussing the Emmys, declaring this show an Emmy show and that show not an Emmy show, whereas even everyday movie-goers will easily be talking about the Oscar chances for The Social Network or Toy Story 3.
At first glance, this might indicate that the selectivity for the Emmys is not so severe as it is for the Oscars. You'd think an Academy that would nominate True Blood might actually have its marbles in a way an Academy that shut out The Dark Knight doesn't. I think though that you'd be wrong. True Blood, for example, has certain things going for it, including an Academy Award-winning main actress, a respected premium cable channel, and a "message" (y'know, how vampire rights in the show parallel modern day LGBT rights).
Don't fool yourself; the Emmys like the same things the Oscars do. Pedigree isn't everything though, as former Academy Award nominees Mary McDonnell and Edward James Olmos will tell you, having worked for years on a never-nominated critically-acclaimed little series called Battlestar Galactica everyone who knows me knows that I adore. It takes a certain class that comes, especially these days, with being on a premium cable network, which is why even though I haven't seen an episode of Boardwalk Empire, I'm convinced it will land several nominations next year. Because it's on HBO, it's classy like Mad Men, and it takes itself seriously.
As I'm sure the Buffy fans have lamented for ages, taking yourself seriously can be a big thing. I feel like one of the more common complaints about Mad Men would be a sort of "stuffiness" about it, coming from its slow, melodious pace and seriously fragmented (and often disliked) characters.
But the comedy category, you declare! Comedic shows are appreciated for irony! Just look at Glee? Though I decry Glee and watch it, such a contradiction as I am, Glee is actually something of an interesting anomaly in my opinion. It's a high school show, it's a musical, its pedigree is really not that impressive (Matthew Morrison and Lea Michele are the main show there - I won't count Jane Lynch, despite loving her more, because an unfortunate amount of not-young people don't realize how much she did pre-Glee). Glee's popularity comes from a more modern High School Musical approach - but you didn't see High School Musical get nominated for Best TV Movie, did you? Despite whatever sucks about Glee, it is kind of impressive for it to have gotten the formal recognition it has.
Besides Glee, however, the comedy area remains pretty locked for sitcoms and serious premium cable comedies (i.e. Weeds, Entourage, Curb Your Enthusiasm). And, to be honest, the only reason Glee might get nominated again next year is because the current freshmen sitcoms are rather slim pickings, so I'd be prepared for a full-on repeat in the comedy series category.
Sitcoms are cute and quaint. They're very old-fashioned. Even Modern Family, which I watch and like and is lauded for its advancement, follows your old-school format of following a family around and seeing all their funny, morally-inclined hi-jinks in a short half hour. If there was a movie equivalent to sitcoms, actually, which there really isn't anymore, I'd be surprised if it got nominated for the Oscars, actually, because that area is even too backwater for them. When people talk about potential Oscar comedies, they think of raucous shit like The Hangover, which is more of a premium cable type show than a typical network sitcom.
But back to the drama category, where this all started for me as I thought longingly of The Vampire Diaries, the shockingly good show I have fallen in love with despite not being a big vampire fan and aware enough of trends to usually not be susceptible without my consent. The Vampire Diaries is a good show, hands down. Interesting characters, good plots, amazing pacing, problems are rectified, everything is reasonable, and as a bonus, the cast is gorgeous (and, so far as I'm aware, come across as respectable and scandal-free). The problems? The show doesn't take itself so seriously. Not in the same way, say, my beloved Chuck does, becoming a little bit too much of a self-parody at times, but there is an air of fun and danger that comes from a show willing to take risks, kill off a main character pretty quickly, and do a lot of things most shows aren't really willing to do. Second, the show doesn't have pedigree. It's highest pedigree right now is probably Ian Somerhalder, best known otherwise for his season-long and small recurring bit as Boone on Lost. Nina Dobrev did Degrassi. Matt Davis might be most recognizable for Legally Blonde. Seriously, this is not your A-list cast. But they're not just pretty, they're good. And, finally, The Vampire Diaries is on The CW. The CW may technically be a network station, but it is essentially trash to the bigwigs. The CW is home of Smallville and Gossip Girl, not a show that's better than Emmy-nominated True Blood (sorry, TB fans, I'm with you, but did you see the third season compared to TVD? Just, no).
Everything that might make a series worthy of Emmy recognition is simply not in this show, which is probably derided by people who've never seen it as part of the Twilight craze, as a teen drama with lots of skimpy clothes and scandal. I'm sorry, but this is neither True Blood nor Gossip Girl; there are few if none unnecessary shenanigans. High school is a setting, not a defining characteristic of the show (especially as of late; Mystic Falls is more the setting anyway, one of the coolest, cult-like towns ever). Skimpy clothes? Are you kidding me? Besides the car wash episode, there have been so few scantily clad moments. I can remember all of one legitimate sex scene in the entirety of this series. There are some sexy flashbacks, but it is nothing compared to the wild orgies of True Blood season 2, or even the least sexy of True Blood episodes. Scandals? I bet there are about five thousand more scandals in a single episode of Desperate Housewives than a full season of The Vampire Diaries. Vampire Diaries is more concerned with drama and action and zigzagging plots and surprises than with the kind of ~drama that fuels shows like Gossip Girl or One Tree Hill or Gilmore Girls (which I loved, but was soapy as hell sometimes).
Essentially, every stigma that The Vampire Diaries would attract is false. But that's true about a lot of shows that would never qualify for an Emmy nomination. There is no "Blind Side" slot in the Emmy nominees. The Emmys are probably even more out of touch with popular culture than the Oscars. Sci-fi has been at the Oscars for ages, from Star Wars to Avatar (more of a crowd-pleaser than it's-all-about-the-analogy District 9). Battlestar Galactica, despite being declared by many as one of the best DRAMA television shows ever, or at least a very good one in general, never got more than a technical nod at the Emmys.
So we bitch and moan and complain a lot about the Oscars, about the Academy Awards being old and how certain great movies will never be Oscar movies, but the Emmys are no better, if they're not even worse, especially since they can repeat old favorites in place of strong up-comers. While movies year after year can emulate and imitate older films, keeping that certain "old Hollywood" or "period movie" place in the Best Picture nominee line-up, Emmys can literally keep the same show in the running, even past its prime (I mean really? House? That show has been good at best, horrendous at worst, and meh most of the time for a couple seasons now).
And yet, few shows are looked at, saying, "this show was made for the Emmys" when one could look at, say, The King's Speech, and declare immediately "it's an Oscar movie!" There isn't a lot different between what makes television and movies appeal for "bigwig" Academies. If anything, audience size and critics matter more for the Oscars - I doubt you'll find many champions of House's last season (praise the mental institute episode all you want, there are over twenty other episodes in the season), but even The Blind Side was well-received by many, though certainly not everyone. House's audience has dwindled (and it was probably the most-watched series nominated for Best Comedy/Drama last year; remember, Glee's audience was pretty modest for most of the first season), but Avatar, District 9, The Blind Side, and Up were huge money-makers.
My point has been made clear by this point. Just like with the Oscars and movies, there will be brilliant shows that will never win an Emmy, that never won an Emmy, and probably were never seen by those who vote on the Emmys. And that's disappointing, sure, but that's life, and tastes change, though slowly, and one day all the types of shows we champion now will be detested by future generations as backwards and unworthy of admiration and we'll be clinging on.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Glee: The Rachel Problem & More
Been a little busy with the kick-off of the semester, but I'm going to try for a minor new blog post.
So. Glee.
Sometimes cute. Often talented. And also quite often a piece of gooey, unkempt, poorly-defined messes.
I like Glee for some reasons, I really do. The cast is talented, there have been some stronger episodes (particularly toward the beginning of the first season), the musical numbers are usually quite entertaining, and lately when the show just gives in to its messes (i.e. Power of Madonna and last night's Brittany/Britney) it is quite enjoyable in that format. I mentioned earlier to a friend that if Glee just devolved into incoherent musical numbers (which, to an extent, it already does) I'd still watch it and truly enjoy it for the variety/cabaret like quality it could be and is best at.
There are also many problems with Glee. The writing is often weak, continuity is crap, the "realism" is pathetic, and the treatment of minorities often stumbles off the fine-line between embracing and exposing stereotypes, not to mention giving heavy-handed speeches hand-in-hand with satirical nonsense. It's these weaknesses that make me think Glee could be just as successful and twice as entertaining if it abandoned plot all together and just played with its cast of characters as is and ran it like the best, most epic variety show/cabaret. I've always wanted cabarets to make a comeback though...
Amongst my many issues with Glee, I'd probably say the biggest one right now has a name: Rachel.
Sure, many of the characters are mishandled, underused, overused, given too much credit for their lack of abilities (I'm looking at Finn's singing AND dancing), etc.... but Rachel really takes the cake for me.
The thing is, Lea Michele is undeniably talented. She's got a great voice. I'm not sure if it's my favorite voice, but it's definitely good. Clearly, it makes sense that Rachel is often the lead. She's assertive and talented. The problem? She's an unrestrained diva who never learns from her many mistakes. Rachel is not only annoying, she is often insufferable. All together, these two episodes in the second season, I think I may have liked her for all of about ten seconds, in the latest episode, when she tells Finn that she'll stop being controlling since she's discovered her own empowerment. AWESOME. GREAT. ...and then, she goes back to her crazy, dramatic ultimatums. And I think to myself, WHO DOES THIS? What kind of crazy pills is this girl on?
Rachel has no redeeming qualities. Her personality is horrible. She is controlling, obnoxious, rude, self-centered, and displays somewhat sociopath-like behavior (her "I'm doing this because I love you" shtick in the season opener, much?). Rachel also has an obsessive personality, which means when she gets on about something, she harps on about it incessantly, because she's also a loud-mouth. Sure, she "owns up" to her mistakes, sometimes, but then she goes and does another horrible thing next week. And whoops, again, and then another thing, and then she's got a clean-slate again. Seriously, I used to wonder what Rachel saw in Finn, but what the hell does Finn see in Rachel? She's pretty and talented, and that's about it.
And the show exploits this. The show is convinced that Rachel is our hero, that Rachel really does mean well, and that Rachel is worth loving despite her flaws... because why? Because she sings really, really well, and here, let's demonstrate by having her sing a big, dramatic number at the end of the episode (the modus operendi for this season thus far, and used a bit last season as well - Episodes 2, 17, and 18). We're led to believe that Rachel is redeemed because she sings a heartfelt song, but she still resorted to crazy-ass, selfish means to keep Sunshine out of the club, and she still gave Finn a crazy-ass, selfish ultimatum. I don't see how being talented makes up for being a shitty person.
Rachel is the center of Glee's problems for me, because Glee has disillusioned itself into seeing her as someone that she really does not come off as: a victim. In the first season, somewhat, when Finn was actively ditching her, I could see it, but now she's only a victim of her own behavior. Likewise, Glee has disillusioned itself into seeing its show as a well put-together, honest, real show, when it's really just a fun hot mess. The problem is that Glee has got an epic fanbase, a great appeal, lots of merchandising, and the ratings to keep going for years.
It reminds me of the second season of Heroes, however. I knew Heroes wasn't the strongest show, but I was in love with it anyways, in love with its possibilities and its conceits. Heroes too was a huge hit when it started, if anyone can remember that a few years back. But Heroes too lost itself in numerous characters, bad writing, weird plotting, and stock in unchanging characters (including, also, an unlikable heroine with Claire). Heroes fell off ratings-wise, however, killed by the writer's strike. Heroes also didn't have built-in merchandising. It was, however, also hailed for its originality. Heroes brought superheroes to network television, Glee brought the musical. Neither were first, exactly, but they were hailed as successes moreso than others, though. It seems odd, because Heroes and Glee are nothing alike in actual context, but I simply see a lot of similar problems. Glee is so in love with itself, so doting on its fanbase, and so inconsistent, doubting that it could ever go wrong. Maybe Glee will improve; I think it has the possibility, but I doubt it will.
I'll just keep on watching Glee until it's too much of a train wreck to stand anymore (give it another season). It's still enjoyable and has its moments, but I'm not recommending it to anyone anytime soon. I learned my lesson about corrupting my poor friends when Heroes was in a downfall. There I thought it would get better and was wrong. Maybe if I expect Glee to keep on descending in quality, it will actually get sharper.
And so ends my mega-long ramble on Glee. g'night folks. I'm off to watch No Ordinary Family! I also hope that is better than Heroes. >.>
So. Glee.
Sometimes cute. Often talented. And also quite often a piece of gooey, unkempt, poorly-defined messes.
I like Glee for some reasons, I really do. The cast is talented, there have been some stronger episodes (particularly toward the beginning of the first season), the musical numbers are usually quite entertaining, and lately when the show just gives in to its messes (i.e. Power of Madonna and last night's Brittany/Britney) it is quite enjoyable in that format. I mentioned earlier to a friend that if Glee just devolved into incoherent musical numbers (which, to an extent, it already does) I'd still watch it and truly enjoy it for the variety/cabaret like quality it could be and is best at.
There are also many problems with Glee. The writing is often weak, continuity is crap, the "realism" is pathetic, and the treatment of minorities often stumbles off the fine-line between embracing and exposing stereotypes, not to mention giving heavy-handed speeches hand-in-hand with satirical nonsense. It's these weaknesses that make me think Glee could be just as successful and twice as entertaining if it abandoned plot all together and just played with its cast of characters as is and ran it like the best, most epic variety show/cabaret. I've always wanted cabarets to make a comeback though...
Amongst my many issues with Glee, I'd probably say the biggest one right now has a name: Rachel.
Sure, many of the characters are mishandled, underused, overused, given too much credit for their lack of abilities (I'm looking at Finn's singing AND dancing), etc.... but Rachel really takes the cake for me.
The thing is, Lea Michele is undeniably talented. She's got a great voice. I'm not sure if it's my favorite voice, but it's definitely good. Clearly, it makes sense that Rachel is often the lead. She's assertive and talented. The problem? She's an unrestrained diva who never learns from her many mistakes. Rachel is not only annoying, she is often insufferable. All together, these two episodes in the second season, I think I may have liked her for all of about ten seconds, in the latest episode, when she tells Finn that she'll stop being controlling since she's discovered her own empowerment. AWESOME. GREAT. ...and then, she goes back to her crazy, dramatic ultimatums. And I think to myself, WHO DOES THIS? What kind of crazy pills is this girl on?
Rachel has no redeeming qualities. Her personality is horrible. She is controlling, obnoxious, rude, self-centered, and displays somewhat sociopath-like behavior (her "I'm doing this because I love you" shtick in the season opener, much?). Rachel also has an obsessive personality, which means when she gets on about something, she harps on about it incessantly, because she's also a loud-mouth. Sure, she "owns up" to her mistakes, sometimes, but then she goes and does another horrible thing next week. And whoops, again, and then another thing, and then she's got a clean-slate again. Seriously, I used to wonder what Rachel saw in Finn, but what the hell does Finn see in Rachel? She's pretty and talented, and that's about it.
And the show exploits this. The show is convinced that Rachel is our hero, that Rachel really does mean well, and that Rachel is worth loving despite her flaws... because why? Because she sings really, really well, and here, let's demonstrate by having her sing a big, dramatic number at the end of the episode (the modus operendi for this season thus far, and used a bit last season as well - Episodes 2, 17, and 18). We're led to believe that Rachel is redeemed because she sings a heartfelt song, but she still resorted to crazy-ass, selfish means to keep Sunshine out of the club, and she still gave Finn a crazy-ass, selfish ultimatum. I don't see how being talented makes up for being a shitty person.
Rachel is the center of Glee's problems for me, because Glee has disillusioned itself into seeing her as someone that she really does not come off as: a victim. In the first season, somewhat, when Finn was actively ditching her, I could see it, but now she's only a victim of her own behavior. Likewise, Glee has disillusioned itself into seeing its show as a well put-together, honest, real show, when it's really just a fun hot mess. The problem is that Glee has got an epic fanbase, a great appeal, lots of merchandising, and the ratings to keep going for years.
It reminds me of the second season of Heroes, however. I knew Heroes wasn't the strongest show, but I was in love with it anyways, in love with its possibilities and its conceits. Heroes too was a huge hit when it started, if anyone can remember that a few years back. But Heroes too lost itself in numerous characters, bad writing, weird plotting, and stock in unchanging characters (including, also, an unlikable heroine with Claire). Heroes fell off ratings-wise, however, killed by the writer's strike. Heroes also didn't have built-in merchandising. It was, however, also hailed for its originality. Heroes brought superheroes to network television, Glee brought the musical. Neither were first, exactly, but they were hailed as successes moreso than others, though. It seems odd, because Heroes and Glee are nothing alike in actual context, but I simply see a lot of similar problems. Glee is so in love with itself, so doting on its fanbase, and so inconsistent, doubting that it could ever go wrong. Maybe Glee will improve; I think it has the possibility, but I doubt it will.
I'll just keep on watching Glee until it's too much of a train wreck to stand anymore (give it another season). It's still enjoyable and has its moments, but I'm not recommending it to anyone anytime soon. I learned my lesson about corrupting my poor friends when Heroes was in a downfall. There I thought it would get better and was wrong. Maybe if I expect Glee to keep on descending in quality, it will actually get sharper.
And so ends my mega-long ramble on Glee. g'night folks. I'm off to watch No Ordinary Family! I also hope that is better than Heroes. >.>
Friday, July 2, 2010
Yet Another Reason I Hate Twilight... and some gender ranting
'scuse me that I'm bringing this up, but there's something interesting that was touched on in this article over on Entertainment Weekly that I addressed in the comments but felt was really worth sharing.
The quote that bothered me most?
“A grand paradox in all this is that a great many professed Twilight haters are young men who, though they may not acknowledge it, are threatened by this pop-cultural juggernaut.”
My response?
"To be quite fair, I am the exact demographic, a young woman, that Twilight is aimed at and I know plenty of young women just like me who are professed Twilight-haters. Sure, I believe that there are plenty of young men who hate Twilight, I know quite a few myself, but for young women like me, it’s hard not to be insulted by the creation of these books and their aim at people like me. The belief that I am a sucker for anything dazzling romantic just because I’m a young woman? Insulting. I mean, I can stomach some rom coms every now and then and sometimes I even actively seek them out, but story still matters, even then. Just like how I can’t stand a shrill heroine (a la Katherine Heigl in Knocked Up – TBH that girl has every right to trash that role), I can’t stand a, not only passive, but downright inconsiderate and selfish heroine like Bella. Why would I ever want to watch or read about a girl who is supposed to be like me, but doesn’t appreciate anything in her life despite parents and friends who care about her? I would never want to be like Bella, and I think it is incredibly insulting that people think I should want to be like her just because I am a young woman."
All in all, women have more of a reason to be Twilight haters than men.
Men have plenty of their own say in pop culture - people make the argument that it's all them for the superhero movies, for things like Transformers and James Bond flicks or things like Star Wars or Star Trek. To be quite honest, that's a stupid, sexist stereotype as I am hardly a tomboy (love me some stilettos and skirts) but I have seen at least one movie in each of the aforementioned franchises and enjoyed them immensely. My favorite effing movie is probably Star Wars. But regardless, if the argument is that men are jealous of Twilight hogging some spotlight in pop culture, I think it is an immensely weak argument. If men were supposed to be the sexist stereotypes people write them out to be, they'd probably be thrilled that women were drawn into something so bad rather than going to the movies for incredibly intelligent fare which would show them as a true threat.
Of course, this is all complete bullshit. Sure, there are sexist stereotyped men out there, but it's unfair to say the whole gender is that way, just as it is equally unfair to say that women love Twilight.
It is because of this second assumption - that young women should be very interested in the Twilight franchise according to market research or whatever - that is the reason I think many a woman hates Twilight. We are insulted by these assumptions about ourselves and what kinds of stories we like. I think men should be just as insulted when things like "men have to love Transformers 2 even if it sucks, but because things blow up" pop into the conversation.
All in all, trying to figure out the success or failure of a franchise still, unfortunately, comes down to this sexist crap. Women movie-goers fit into one category, men movie-goers into another. When an audience is over 70% one gender, CLEARLY the movie is made for that gender. But 30% of the other gender is nothing to sniff at. And it's rare that you hear such a huge percentage for one gender. Most of the time, I see the range is usually smaller, the difference usually less than 30%. It's sometimes a big gap, but I doubt there's a single movie that has never drawn both genders for whatever reason.
Women and men both like crappy movies. Women and men both like good movies. Women and men hate the same movies. Women and men hate different movies. For every girl who says a war movie is too bloody for her, you get a girl like me who adores a good war movie, no matter how bloody it is. For every guy who complains about chick flicks, you get a guy who can actually enjoy a clever enough chick flick.
I know marketers have a job to do when they're selling a movie, and they're trying to find the right demographic. I understand that, but stop boxing us up too. Just because Twilight draws a female-heavy box office doesn't make "women between the ages of 18-34 love Twilight" accurate because I am in that demographic and I can't stand that crap. You're just making me hate it more by assuming I like it.
The quote that bothered me most?
“A grand paradox in all this is that a great many professed Twilight haters are young men who, though they may not acknowledge it, are threatened by this pop-cultural juggernaut.”
My response?
"To be quite fair, I am the exact demographic, a young woman, that Twilight is aimed at and I know plenty of young women just like me who are professed Twilight-haters. Sure, I believe that there are plenty of young men who hate Twilight, I know quite a few myself, but for young women like me, it’s hard not to be insulted by the creation of these books and their aim at people like me. The belief that I am a sucker for anything dazzling romantic just because I’m a young woman? Insulting. I mean, I can stomach some rom coms every now and then and sometimes I even actively seek them out, but story still matters, even then. Just like how I can’t stand a shrill heroine (a la Katherine Heigl in Knocked Up – TBH that girl has every right to trash that role), I can’t stand a, not only passive, but downright inconsiderate and selfish heroine like Bella. Why would I ever want to watch or read about a girl who is supposed to be like me, but doesn’t appreciate anything in her life despite parents and friends who care about her? I would never want to be like Bella, and I think it is incredibly insulting that people think I should want to be like her just because I am a young woman."
All in all, women have more of a reason to be Twilight haters than men.
Men have plenty of their own say in pop culture - people make the argument that it's all them for the superhero movies, for things like Transformers and James Bond flicks or things like Star Wars or Star Trek. To be quite honest, that's a stupid, sexist stereotype as I am hardly a tomboy (love me some stilettos and skirts) but I have seen at least one movie in each of the aforementioned franchises and enjoyed them immensely. My favorite effing movie is probably Star Wars. But regardless, if the argument is that men are jealous of Twilight hogging some spotlight in pop culture, I think it is an immensely weak argument. If men were supposed to be the sexist stereotypes people write them out to be, they'd probably be thrilled that women were drawn into something so bad rather than going to the movies for incredibly intelligent fare which would show them as a true threat.
Of course, this is all complete bullshit. Sure, there are sexist stereotyped men out there, but it's unfair to say the whole gender is that way, just as it is equally unfair to say that women love Twilight.
It is because of this second assumption - that young women should be very interested in the Twilight franchise according to market research or whatever - that is the reason I think many a woman hates Twilight. We are insulted by these assumptions about ourselves and what kinds of stories we like. I think men should be just as insulted when things like "men have to love Transformers 2 even if it sucks, but because things blow up" pop into the conversation.
All in all, trying to figure out the success or failure of a franchise still, unfortunately, comes down to this sexist crap. Women movie-goers fit into one category, men movie-goers into another. When an audience is over 70% one gender, CLEARLY the movie is made for that gender. But 30% of the other gender is nothing to sniff at. And it's rare that you hear such a huge percentage for one gender. Most of the time, I see the range is usually smaller, the difference usually less than 30%. It's sometimes a big gap, but I doubt there's a single movie that has never drawn both genders for whatever reason.
Women and men both like crappy movies. Women and men both like good movies. Women and men hate the same movies. Women and men hate different movies. For every girl who says a war movie is too bloody for her, you get a girl like me who adores a good war movie, no matter how bloody it is. For every guy who complains about chick flicks, you get a guy who can actually enjoy a clever enough chick flick.
I know marketers have a job to do when they're selling a movie, and they're trying to find the right demographic. I understand that, but stop boxing us up too. Just because Twilight draws a female-heavy box office doesn't make "women between the ages of 18-34 love Twilight" accurate because I am in that demographic and I can't stand that crap. You're just making me hate it more by assuming I like it.
Monday, June 14, 2010
The Cultural Importance of Harry Potter and the Lack Thereof of the Twilight Saga.
I've never been a Twilight fan and I doubt I ever will be. This is unlike my initial distaste for Harry Potter when it first exploded onto the scene, because I've actually read parts of Twilight, I've seen the movies, and I still can't stand it. After I watched the second Harry Potter movie, I actually quite liked it and decided to give the books a shot and fell in love.
But the main thing that bothers me about Twilight is the fan culture, and I'm not talking about the rabid Taylor Lautner/RPattz fans. I'm talking about some of the major differences between the tiny generational divide of my age group, which grew up with Harry Potter, and the tween/teens now, who are growing up with Twilight.
The Harry Potter craze brought us fans who invented a musical genre, who helped kick off a renewed interest in reading and writing, and brought the famed sport of the books to life. Whereas the Twilight fans seem only capable of adorning their rooms with as much memorabilia as they can hunt down. Thanks to Harry Potter, I decided that I had wanted to be a writer, I actually ran a freakin' Harry Potter website for eight months (while having been a member of said site for nearly four years now), I downloaded albums of wizardrock (The Remus Lupins! Draco and the Malfoys!), and I have the guidebook to Quidditch because my school added a Quidditch team and I hope to bother to join soon enough.
It doesn't matter that, in my opinion, the Harry Potter books are much more well-written than the Twilight books (not sure I'd call them masterpieces, but they introduce interesting themes, well-rounded characters, and tell a classic, fascinating story) - what really matters to me in the debate of Twilight versus Harry Potter is the fandom. The question: What do these books contribute to the world?
Honestly, what can we say Twilight has contributed to the world? Heightened expectations in women of their perfect men that create FML stories like this one. Not to mention what a creepy-ass "guy" Edward Cullen is and how it's disappointing to see women of all ages wishing they had a man like him. Twilight has also spawned totally crazed fans that frighten me to death far more than the most rabid Harry Potter fan.
Sure, it's easy to say this now, three years after the final Harry Potter book was released and now that the storm has calmed, but even in my tween years, when I was one of those crazy Harry Potter fans, I was not adopting Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, or Tom Felton as my future lovers. Nor was I wishing that I could meet a man like Harry Potter. Why was that? Oh, because Harry isn't perfect - he's human, so to speak. A young man who spends paragraphs yelling because his hormones are out of whack and with a hero complex to shame... someone else with a huge hero's complex. J.K. Rowling treats her characters with enough respect to make them real.
Stephanie Meyer, however, has created Edward Cullen as a complete object. He is a dreamboat of perfection, of riches and chivalry and beauty. Bella is not much different with her Mary Sue flaw of clumsiness and beautiful individuality that attracts EVERYONE. Of course Harry gets attention; he's famous! What's Bella's excuse? And she hates it (whereas there is that beautiful moment in the sixth Harry Potter movie where Harry says defensively to Hermione, "but I AM the chosen one" and receives a thunk on the head), can't stand being who she is, is never comfortable with herself.
What kind of lessons can anyone take away from a story about a girl who has caring parents, is popular with girls and boys, beauty, and a bright life ahead of her but cannot be happy with any of it unless she has her man. It's worse than a Disney Princess! At least Jasmine gets pissed at Aladdin for lying to her, but Bella mopes and cries and tries to kill herself when Edward isn't around.
Harry Potter, on the other hand, teaches lessons of appreciating all those things in your life. Harry would be nothing without the strength of his friends, mentors, and everyone in his life. Harry is happy with himself most of the time - though being famous is hard work and he isn't pleased to be an orphan, even when he lives under the tyrannical rule of his aunt and uncle, he doesn't complain about it, merely makes the best of it with his wit and knowledge that life goes on. Seriously, we start off the first book with Harry pleased to look forward to going to a different school than his cousin so he could develop his own life. Even the much-hated epilogue of the final book provides that message: life goes on and it's worth living.
Twilight? Nothing's worth living for except hunky vampires and immortality.
Lessons aside, I've already listed the other cultural implications Harry Potter brought along. It has spawned so many excited and participatory fans that it is incredible. I met Harry and the Potters - I bought one of their freakin' T-shirts. I've dreamed of remaking the Harry Potter movies one day (though I doubt I'd bother nor would I probably be let to; it'll be too soon and the movies, for all their faults with continuity aren't bad). Harry Potter inspired me to do great things. I doubt Twilight could ever encourage such spirits. Musical genre? Collegiate sport? Literacy? Well, considering that Twilight is written the way that I wrote when I was thirteen...
Sure, I'm mean to Twilight, I'm hard on its fans. I can't blame people for liking the series; I'm sure that the right readers enjoy such tales. But there is nothing beneficial to take away from the books, and that they have succeeded Harry Potter as the "it" books is depressing because it is such a huge step down.
Oh popular culture. How interesting you are and how much I hate you until the Twilight movies are all made and freakin' over with.
...btws, rant was inspired by this interesting post over on incontention.com.
But the main thing that bothers me about Twilight is the fan culture, and I'm not talking about the rabid Taylor Lautner/RPattz fans. I'm talking about some of the major differences between the tiny generational divide of my age group, which grew up with Harry Potter, and the tween/teens now, who are growing up with Twilight.
The Harry Potter craze brought us fans who invented a musical genre, who helped kick off a renewed interest in reading and writing, and brought the famed sport of the books to life. Whereas the Twilight fans seem only capable of adorning their rooms with as much memorabilia as they can hunt down. Thanks to Harry Potter, I decided that I had wanted to be a writer, I actually ran a freakin' Harry Potter website for eight months (while having been a member of said site for nearly four years now), I downloaded albums of wizardrock (The Remus Lupins! Draco and the Malfoys!), and I have the guidebook to Quidditch because my school added a Quidditch team and I hope to bother to join soon enough.
It doesn't matter that, in my opinion, the Harry Potter books are much more well-written than the Twilight books (not sure I'd call them masterpieces, but they introduce interesting themes, well-rounded characters, and tell a classic, fascinating story) - what really matters to me in the debate of Twilight versus Harry Potter is the fandom. The question: What do these books contribute to the world?
Honestly, what can we say Twilight has contributed to the world? Heightened expectations in women of their perfect men that create FML stories like this one. Not to mention what a creepy-ass "guy" Edward Cullen is and how it's disappointing to see women of all ages wishing they had a man like him. Twilight has also spawned totally crazed fans that frighten me to death far more than the most rabid Harry Potter fan.
Sure, it's easy to say this now, three years after the final Harry Potter book was released and now that the storm has calmed, but even in my tween years, when I was one of those crazy Harry Potter fans, I was not adopting Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, or Tom Felton as my future lovers. Nor was I wishing that I could meet a man like Harry Potter. Why was that? Oh, because Harry isn't perfect - he's human, so to speak. A young man who spends paragraphs yelling because his hormones are out of whack and with a hero complex to shame... someone else with a huge hero's complex. J.K. Rowling treats her characters with enough respect to make them real.
Stephanie Meyer, however, has created Edward Cullen as a complete object. He is a dreamboat of perfection, of riches and chivalry and beauty. Bella is not much different with her Mary Sue flaw of clumsiness and beautiful individuality that attracts EVERYONE. Of course Harry gets attention; he's famous! What's Bella's excuse? And she hates it (whereas there is that beautiful moment in the sixth Harry Potter movie where Harry says defensively to Hermione, "but I AM the chosen one" and receives a thunk on the head), can't stand being who she is, is never comfortable with herself.
What kind of lessons can anyone take away from a story about a girl who has caring parents, is popular with girls and boys, beauty, and a bright life ahead of her but cannot be happy with any of it unless she has her man. It's worse than a Disney Princess! At least Jasmine gets pissed at Aladdin for lying to her, but Bella mopes and cries and tries to kill herself when Edward isn't around.
Harry Potter, on the other hand, teaches lessons of appreciating all those things in your life. Harry would be nothing without the strength of his friends, mentors, and everyone in his life. Harry is happy with himself most of the time - though being famous is hard work and he isn't pleased to be an orphan, even when he lives under the tyrannical rule of his aunt and uncle, he doesn't complain about it, merely makes the best of it with his wit and knowledge that life goes on. Seriously, we start off the first book with Harry pleased to look forward to going to a different school than his cousin so he could develop his own life. Even the much-hated epilogue of the final book provides that message: life goes on and it's worth living.
Twilight? Nothing's worth living for except hunky vampires and immortality.
Lessons aside, I've already listed the other cultural implications Harry Potter brought along. It has spawned so many excited and participatory fans that it is incredible. I met Harry and the Potters - I bought one of their freakin' T-shirts. I've dreamed of remaking the Harry Potter movies one day (though I doubt I'd bother nor would I probably be let to; it'll be too soon and the movies, for all their faults with continuity aren't bad). Harry Potter inspired me to do great things. I doubt Twilight could ever encourage such spirits. Musical genre? Collegiate sport? Literacy? Well, considering that Twilight is written the way that I wrote when I was thirteen...
Sure, I'm mean to Twilight, I'm hard on its fans. I can't blame people for liking the series; I'm sure that the right readers enjoy such tales. But there is nothing beneficial to take away from the books, and that they have succeeded Harry Potter as the "it" books is depressing because it is such a huge step down.
Oh popular culture. How interesting you are and how much I hate you until the Twilight movies are all made and freakin' over with.
...btws, rant was inspired by this interesting post over on incontention.com.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Because Nobody Likes a Total Snob.
Two things.
One - I hate film snobs. I love movies. I love good movies. I love bad movies. I love commercial movies. I love experimental/artsy/etc. movies. Not all of any of those categories... but I can't help that. There are good movies I dislike (Let the Right One In... that's supposed to be a good movie, right?). There are bad movies I dislike (...this list would be much longer, but let's limit it to a piece of trash like You Don't Mess with the Zohan. Yeah, I wasted money on that movie). There are commercial films I dislike (er, again, this would make a long list, but I think Zohan fits here too). There are experimental/artsy/etc. movies I dislike (I don't see a lot of these, to be frank, but film class helps expose me to them and some just are not my style). But no matter what movie I see, even if I go in thinking I will hate it or like it or whatever, there's still a clear opinion that I cannot deny myself. Like Avatar, which I went into expecting to not be impressed, determined to not be impressed and was... impressed. Like Let the Right One In, which I'd heard was awesome, which people told me was great, but I walked away not really enjoying it. Like Twilight, which actually had some awesome moments for so bad a movie I will happily admit to (and honestly, with such shitty material, snaps to Catherine Hardwicke for doing it any decency).
So, pretty much, I just really hate people who rip on commercial films because of the industry. Or people who rip on foreign language films because for whatever reason people hate subtitles (honestly, I love me some subtitles; I used to watch movies in English with subtitles for kicks). Or people who rip on independent filmmaking because they think it's too snobby (unfortunately, too often, they're right). I dislike the pressure some people put on me as a socially conscious individual to avoid commercial filmmaking, to avoid Hollywood, to avoid supporting the big guy. And y'know what? I would love to focus in on independent fare. And I love independent fare. But you know what else? There are some major pretentious jackasses over there, just like there are some obnoxious full-of-themselves douchebags in commercial filmmaking. Wherever you go, there will be jerks. So I might as well watch and make movies that I like, whether it be through a big distributor or a small one. 'Cause, really, in the end, we can generalize all we want about each field, but there's no right or wrong way to make a movie. And I tend to prefer movies made for art rather than money, but there are some SHITTY movies made for art rather than money too.
To all you film snobs out there determined to hate big movies, to diss on The Dark Knight because it's too commercial to like, like my former college film advisor, who complained about the Hollywoodization of Milk: shut the fuck up and just enjoy the movies. You can criticize the roots separately, but the movie itself is something worth approaching and appreciating without major critique to where it is coming from. Just enjoy the experience without the jadedness while you're watching it. Relive that innocence within you. It's refreshing, believe me.
On that note, yes, I do like Juno. No, I do not think it is the bee's knees, I think it is wildly overrated but still a good movie. Yes, I do have something against Diablo Cody and it's not just her "dress" she wore when she won an Oscar. Although I appreciate where her attitude of "I'm so awesome" comes from, I dislike what she does with it, promoting the most crappy eclectic things as she can and being the ultimate hipster goddess. Jesus H. Christ.
I can get a bit snobby about movies, but believe me, I like my fair share of crappy movies, commercial products, and movies from many walks of... production. I rented Maid in Manhattan like once a week when I was 12. I LOVED that movie. I still think it's kind of cute. >.>
Two - I am seeing Up in the Air tomorrow. I am excited.
One - I hate film snobs. I love movies. I love good movies. I love bad movies. I love commercial movies. I love experimental/artsy/etc. movies. Not all of any of those categories... but I can't help that. There are good movies I dislike (Let the Right One In... that's supposed to be a good movie, right?). There are bad movies I dislike (...this list would be much longer, but let's limit it to a piece of trash like You Don't Mess with the Zohan. Yeah, I wasted money on that movie). There are commercial films I dislike (er, again, this would make a long list, but I think Zohan fits here too). There are experimental/artsy/etc. movies I dislike (I don't see a lot of these, to be frank, but film class helps expose me to them and some just are not my style). But no matter what movie I see, even if I go in thinking I will hate it or like it or whatever, there's still a clear opinion that I cannot deny myself. Like Avatar, which I went into expecting to not be impressed, determined to not be impressed and was... impressed. Like Let the Right One In, which I'd heard was awesome, which people told me was great, but I walked away not really enjoying it. Like Twilight, which actually had some awesome moments for so bad a movie I will happily admit to (and honestly, with such shitty material, snaps to Catherine Hardwicke for doing it any decency).
So, pretty much, I just really hate people who rip on commercial films because of the industry. Or people who rip on foreign language films because for whatever reason people hate subtitles (honestly, I love me some subtitles; I used to watch movies in English with subtitles for kicks). Or people who rip on independent filmmaking because they think it's too snobby (unfortunately, too often, they're right). I dislike the pressure some people put on me as a socially conscious individual to avoid commercial filmmaking, to avoid Hollywood, to avoid supporting the big guy. And y'know what? I would love to focus in on independent fare. And I love independent fare. But you know what else? There are some major pretentious jackasses over there, just like there are some obnoxious full-of-themselves douchebags in commercial filmmaking. Wherever you go, there will be jerks. So I might as well watch and make movies that I like, whether it be through a big distributor or a small one. 'Cause, really, in the end, we can generalize all we want about each field, but there's no right or wrong way to make a movie. And I tend to prefer movies made for art rather than money, but there are some SHITTY movies made for art rather than money too.
To all you film snobs out there determined to hate big movies, to diss on The Dark Knight because it's too commercial to like, like my former college film advisor, who complained about the Hollywoodization of Milk: shut the fuck up and just enjoy the movies. You can criticize the roots separately, but the movie itself is something worth approaching and appreciating without major critique to where it is coming from. Just enjoy the experience without the jadedness while you're watching it. Relive that innocence within you. It's refreshing, believe me.
On that note, yes, I do like Juno. No, I do not think it is the bee's knees, I think it is wildly overrated but still a good movie. Yes, I do have something against Diablo Cody and it's not just her "dress" she wore when she won an Oscar. Although I appreciate where her attitude of "I'm so awesome" comes from, I dislike what she does with it, promoting the most crappy eclectic things as she can and being the ultimate hipster goddess. Jesus H. Christ.
I can get a bit snobby about movies, but believe me, I like my fair share of crappy movies, commercial products, and movies from many walks of... production. I rented Maid in Manhattan like once a week when I was 12. I LOVED that movie. I still think it's kind of cute. >.>
Two - I am seeing Up in the Air tomorrow. I am excited.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Return of the Chuck: How NBC Will Probably Ruin It
So with all the excitement over at EW.com about Chuck's possible earlier return, a lot of good points have been brought up that are very important to Chuck's long term success rather than Chuck coming back as soon as possible.
a) Promotion.
If they suddenly bring Chuck back either because of Southland's recent cancellation or if they cancel the under-performing new series Trauma (or the cancellation that it deserves but hasn't gotten yet for Heroes), there will be next to no time to properly promote the series. Chuck has a loyal following, yes, but if Chuck is to actually succeed (especially in NBC's current fail!environment with very little to offer viewers aside from their comedy block and the handful of people who want to watch Jay Leno every night and the people like my roommate who are Law & Order addicts), it needs to build up an even stronger following of new and curious viewers. Chuck is a great show that can appeal to a whole host of viewers. It's a spy comedy drama with geeks and hot girls alike, episodic and large arcs alike, interesting main characters and a great ensemble, and it's just very likeable and accessible in many ways. But if it doesn't get the proper promotion, if there isn't at least a couple weeks of build up before it gets brought back, it'll get trashed and then we probably won't even manage to see more than a handful of episodes ever again.
b) Timeslot.
Chuck's old timeslot of 8pm on Mondays (when it would lead into Heroes) is now occupied by Heroes. And while Heroes totally deserves cancellation after a dismal third season and a limping fourth, this time slot would KILL as it has, amongst other things, HOUSE to compete with. And House, although I personally have been getting bored with it, still gets excellent viewership. If Trauma got cancelled, 9pm wouldn't be quite so bad a time, but the challenge that CBS' Two and a Half Men and The Big Bang Theory present might be too much, especially since Chuck, as half comedy, would be interested in drawing the same crowd. As for other potential timeslots, the originally intended spot for Southland, on Fridays, would also completely demolish any chance Chuck has at continuing beyond this fall. The best option I heard in the comments was to shorten The Biggest Loser to a one hour show and put Chuck in on Tuesdays.
The main problem that Chuck has is that NBC came dangerously close to not renewing it at all before and give them even a split second's doubt that Chuck can sustain decent numbers and I have absolutely NO faith in NBC's capacity to give Chuck another chance. It took a lot of effort to bring it back for March and although I love Chuck and I would love for it to return sooner, if bringing it back in fall means that either it won't get enough promotion or that it'll end up in a poor timeslot then I would much rather wait until March when it would have a real chance at a future.
Mostly this all goes back to an overall disappointment with NBC. Now, personally, I don't watch anything on NBC anymore except for Community. I know people who watch The Office and 30 Rock, of course, but are any of the scripted dramas on that network any good? Heroes has gotten so bad that even a devout fan like me has given up. And everything else on there is either medical (Trauma, Mercy) or law (Law & Order, Law & Order: SVU) shows. More and more is the Jay Leno Show looking like the stupidest idea ever, cutting out the chance for so many new shows to get a chance, proving that NBC has absolutely no faith in giving shows a chance. And when their most critically acclaimed (and pretty decently viewed) shows is about to return (I'm talking about Southland, which I never saw, but heard only good things about), they cut it out completely. Yeah, it's too dark for the 9pm time slot? Then stop with the madness of Jay Leno five times a week! Sure, it's cheaper, but that just makes your network that much cheaper. As evidenced by Tina Fey's acceptance speech for 30 Rock at the Emmys, even NBC's most stable show has absolutely no respect for the network anymore.
Oh how far the mighty hath fallen.
Oh, and NBC? If you DARE to cancel Chuck before its time, I will join the army of angry fans in setting your studio on fire. You know it'll happen. Stop being pussydicks (excuse my crudeness), and start showing some real television.
PS: If you haven't experienced Chuck, do it. And don't give up if you can't get into the first season. While the first season is definitely good, in my opinion, the show really finds its pace as the second season progresses, and morphs into a truly great television show.
a) Promotion.
If they suddenly bring Chuck back either because of Southland's recent cancellation or if they cancel the under-performing new series Trauma (or the cancellation that it deserves but hasn't gotten yet for Heroes), there will be next to no time to properly promote the series. Chuck has a loyal following, yes, but if Chuck is to actually succeed (especially in NBC's current fail!environment with very little to offer viewers aside from their comedy block and the handful of people who want to watch Jay Leno every night and the people like my roommate who are Law & Order addicts), it needs to build up an even stronger following of new and curious viewers. Chuck is a great show that can appeal to a whole host of viewers. It's a spy comedy drama with geeks and hot girls alike, episodic and large arcs alike, interesting main characters and a great ensemble, and it's just very likeable and accessible in many ways. But if it doesn't get the proper promotion, if there isn't at least a couple weeks of build up before it gets brought back, it'll get trashed and then we probably won't even manage to see more than a handful of episodes ever again.
b) Timeslot.
Chuck's old timeslot of 8pm on Mondays (when it would lead into Heroes) is now occupied by Heroes. And while Heroes totally deserves cancellation after a dismal third season and a limping fourth, this time slot would KILL as it has, amongst other things, HOUSE to compete with. And House, although I personally have been getting bored with it, still gets excellent viewership. If Trauma got cancelled, 9pm wouldn't be quite so bad a time, but the challenge that CBS' Two and a Half Men and The Big Bang Theory present might be too much, especially since Chuck, as half comedy, would be interested in drawing the same crowd. As for other potential timeslots, the originally intended spot for Southland, on Fridays, would also completely demolish any chance Chuck has at continuing beyond this fall. The best option I heard in the comments was to shorten The Biggest Loser to a one hour show and put Chuck in on Tuesdays.
The main problem that Chuck has is that NBC came dangerously close to not renewing it at all before and give them even a split second's doubt that Chuck can sustain decent numbers and I have absolutely NO faith in NBC's capacity to give Chuck another chance. It took a lot of effort to bring it back for March and although I love Chuck and I would love for it to return sooner, if bringing it back in fall means that either it won't get enough promotion or that it'll end up in a poor timeslot then I would much rather wait until March when it would have a real chance at a future.
Mostly this all goes back to an overall disappointment with NBC. Now, personally, I don't watch anything on NBC anymore except for Community. I know people who watch The Office and 30 Rock, of course, but are any of the scripted dramas on that network any good? Heroes has gotten so bad that even a devout fan like me has given up. And everything else on there is either medical (Trauma, Mercy) or law (Law & Order, Law & Order: SVU) shows. More and more is the Jay Leno Show looking like the stupidest idea ever, cutting out the chance for so many new shows to get a chance, proving that NBC has absolutely no faith in giving shows a chance. And when their most critically acclaimed (and pretty decently viewed) shows is about to return (I'm talking about Southland, which I never saw, but heard only good things about), they cut it out completely. Yeah, it's too dark for the 9pm time slot? Then stop with the madness of Jay Leno five times a week! Sure, it's cheaper, but that just makes your network that much cheaper. As evidenced by Tina Fey's acceptance speech for 30 Rock at the Emmys, even NBC's most stable show has absolutely no respect for the network anymore.
Oh how far the mighty hath fallen.
Oh, and NBC? If you DARE to cancel Chuck before its time, I will join the army of angry fans in setting your studio on fire. You know it'll happen. Stop being pussydicks (excuse my crudeness), and start showing some real television.
PS: If you haven't experienced Chuck, do it. And don't give up if you can't get into the first season. While the first season is definitely good, in my opinion, the show really finds its pace as the second season progresses, and morphs into a truly great television show.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Sell Me Your Movie!
I have been really impatient with slow-moving movies lately. Normally, movies that take their time interest me more, but I just finished "watching" Last Chance Harvey, for instance, and I just couldn't focus in on it. I kept getting distracted and playing Solitaire. I could try blaming the movie, but I blame myself more so; I just didn't have the patience to watch Dustin Hoffman and Emma Thompson dance around each other. It felt so much longer than an hour and a half to get through.
But reasonably trying to focus in on the movie itself, it was a cute little ride with good performances from both of the veteran actors. Overall, however, I think that I can't take all the credit for being easily distracted. In my experience, movies have to give me a reason to be interested and quickly. It's fine to go slow, but you have to grab me first and make me willing to take my time. Whether it is with a stunning transformation of space and time (this is how I don't mind at all how long Lord of the Rings is; I just feel so transported and engrossed in the story) or with a smashbang start (I admit, I like movies that start in the middle of some action or some story) or even just with a few witty lines and already well-developed characters... in some way or another, something needs to convince me why I should be watching it, not assume that some Awesome Cast or some Famous Previous Works or some Based On A True Story will actually keep me interested. It'll keep me from leaving the theatre or turning off the movie, sure, but that's because I almost always finish what I start (save the first time I tried to watch The Notebook; turned it off half an hour in due to boredom).
Not that Last Chance Harvey was hardly an example of a poor movie or a movie without the ability to grab me. This is where I fault my impatience. But other movies (i.e. Public Enemies, for instance) lack the conviction that convinces me I should be watching this. Why yes, Johnny Depp does look fabulous in 1930s garb, why yes Christian Bale's character is a smooth copper, why yes Marion Cotillard is purdy, but why the hell should I care about any of this? Oh right, you told me that John Dillinger was an awesometastic criminal. Why don't I believe you? Oh right, because you haven't really shown me why. Yawn, yawn, in the words of one of the fellow movie-goers leaving the theatre "let's go get wasted." It would be more action-packed at least.
But alas, my criticism of Public Enemies rears it's ugly head once again. I do need to see that film again to get a fully rounded opinion of it, but the first time was enough to tell me that it didn't win me over and I doubt it would the second time (although kudos to the cast and the excellent costumes and art direction for their effort).
Anyway, my point is simply that, especially in this era of instant gratification of internet, I need more conviction. At least In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale, for being one of the worst movies I've ever seen, somehow believes deep down that it is awesome and deserves to be watched. It's wrong, but at least it tries to convince me. Prove your movie is worth my time! But then again, why should they have to, after all? Considering that people pay money to see a lot of shitty movies, I can't say I blame Hollywood for skimming on the conviction.
But reasonably trying to focus in on the movie itself, it was a cute little ride with good performances from both of the veteran actors. Overall, however, I think that I can't take all the credit for being easily distracted. In my experience, movies have to give me a reason to be interested and quickly. It's fine to go slow, but you have to grab me first and make me willing to take my time. Whether it is with a stunning transformation of space and time (this is how I don't mind at all how long Lord of the Rings is; I just feel so transported and engrossed in the story) or with a smashbang start (I admit, I like movies that start in the middle of some action or some story) or even just with a few witty lines and already well-developed characters... in some way or another, something needs to convince me why I should be watching it, not assume that some Awesome Cast or some Famous Previous Works or some Based On A True Story will actually keep me interested. It'll keep me from leaving the theatre or turning off the movie, sure, but that's because I almost always finish what I start (save the first time I tried to watch The Notebook; turned it off half an hour in due to boredom).
Not that Last Chance Harvey was hardly an example of a poor movie or a movie without the ability to grab me. This is where I fault my impatience. But other movies (i.e. Public Enemies, for instance) lack the conviction that convinces me I should be watching this. Why yes, Johnny Depp does look fabulous in 1930s garb, why yes Christian Bale's character is a smooth copper, why yes Marion Cotillard is purdy, but why the hell should I care about any of this? Oh right, you told me that John Dillinger was an awesometastic criminal. Why don't I believe you? Oh right, because you haven't really shown me why. Yawn, yawn, in the words of one of the fellow movie-goers leaving the theatre "let's go get wasted." It would be more action-packed at least.
But alas, my criticism of Public Enemies rears it's ugly head once again. I do need to see that film again to get a fully rounded opinion of it, but the first time was enough to tell me that it didn't win me over and I doubt it would the second time (although kudos to the cast and the excellent costumes and art direction for their effort).
Anyway, my point is simply that, especially in this era of instant gratification of internet, I need more conviction. At least In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale, for being one of the worst movies I've ever seen, somehow believes deep down that it is awesome and deserves to be watched. It's wrong, but at least it tries to convince me. Prove your movie is worth my time! But then again, why should they have to, after all? Considering that people pay money to see a lot of shitty movies, I can't say I blame Hollywood for skimming on the conviction.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Stealing From My Livejournal Part XXVII
As I use my livejournal for little else except for movie rants and decided to switch over here, I thought I'd recruit some older posts so as to show a history. I'll bother with new ones as they come to me.
From February 25, 2009:
"http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2009/02/why-new-clue.html
WHY WOULD THEY DO SUCH A THING?
I am so mad at Hollywood right now for even considering remaking one of my all-time favourite movies!
Heroes spoiler: Unfortunately, my previous entry where I rejoiced over the death of Daphne was inaccurate... she's alive and around to make Matt as annoying as ever again. Ugh. Dammit. The latest episode wasn't as good as the first three were, but it was still better than Heroes has been. It felt like it was trying a bit too hard to relive Company Man but didn't have the same impact.
And life is life. Mostly I'm just still wtf-ing over remaking Clue.
Oh and the Oscars were good; for the first time ever I won at home (I won with 17 right out of 24; my brother and dad got 14 right and my mom got something below them)."
From February 25, 2009:
"http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2009/02/why-new-clue.html
WHY WOULD THEY DO SUCH A THING?
I am so mad at Hollywood right now for even considering remaking one of my all-time favourite movies!
Heroes spoiler: Unfortunately, my previous entry where I rejoiced over the death of Daphne was inaccurate... she's alive and around to make Matt as annoying as ever again. Ugh. Dammit. The latest episode wasn't as good as the first three were, but it was still better than Heroes has been. It felt like it was trying a bit too hard to relive Company Man but didn't have the same impact.
And life is life. Mostly I'm just still wtf-ing over remaking Clue.
Oh and the Oscars were good; for the first time ever I won at home (I won with 17 right out of 24; my brother and dad got 14 right and my mom got something below them)."
Stealing From My Livejournal Part XXVI
As I use my livejournal for little else except for movie rants and decided to switch over here, I thought I'd recruit some older posts so as to show a history. I'll bother with new ones as they come to me.
From February 16, 2009:
"I am so unbelievably happy with Heroes this volume.
I mean, of course the plane crash at the beginning made us all think of Lost and there is some corny stuff going on (but that's always been in Heroes), but, really, the story is coherent, the characters are back to making sense, and reactions happen. Also, I like the new characters thus far.
Let me get a little more in-depth about what I'm loving so far this volume/half of the season. Watch out for some spoilers, of course.
1) Characterization. People are acting within their character. Nathan isn't a total asshole, but he's an asshole, and we're not relying on some stupid "GOD GAVE ME THIS MISSION" bullshit; he genuinely, and understandably, believes that people with abilities are dangerous. Claire is being a whiny bitch, but at her age (she's like 17), she's determined to show her independence and her strength (not just her special power). Sandra Bennet FINALLY got fed up with HRG and kicked him out of the house, which totally makes sense. And Sylar's little speech to miniSylar (Luke) this episode really reconnected us with the purpose of his character: he always has an objective. And yeah, he is a serial killer, although he does it with an objective in mind.
and speaking of miniSylar...
2) New characters: they're doing it better. I like miniSylar/Luke. He's real. He's cool. He's a fucking little punk, but that fits just fine. And he's the surrogate son that took Sylar's place, which actually makes their companionship sensical for a loner like Sylar (who, y'know, butchered Elle, his wooman, last volume). And Alex. Alex, who was introduced this episode. Already has my love. He has a useful ability, but it's really nothing special (like most abilities on Heroes, really; none of them are all too useful on their own save telekinesis, super strength, and the mind manipulation powers; Alex's is the ability to breathe underwater). He is also an adorable looking nerd. And I hope Claire sucks less enough to be worth getting another romantic interest; at least this one already knows her dad's after people like him and that she's not in league with them. Oh and the Hunter. The Hunter is a wonderful new character. I love his cold determination and his kind of extremeist take on Nathan's perspective. The new characters in this volume feel way more promising than last volume.
speaking of last volume's characters...
3) Cleaning Up the Cast. Daphne would have been a really cool character. Really. She was cool until she met Matt last season. The speedster! The perfect villain for Hiro! But no... she just became Matt's little girl. Totally boring and useless. She just made Matt really annoying, and I like Matt. I have to admit, I'm glad she's gone. After she got away from Hiro, she served such little purpose. Matt had more chemistry with the turtle. Really. And I'm glad to not see Maya around. And although I admit that I kinda miss Micah and Molly, I'm glad they're absent in the meantime. And Monica. Well, nobody seems to care about Monica. We haven't seen her since season 2. She had a pretty awesome power for being in such a shitty plotline. It'd be nice to see her back someday, so her mini-adventure in season 2 wasn't totally useless, but in the meantime, like the kids, I'm glad she's absent.
4) The Plot Is Good. This has been a problem for a while. The plot makes sense, for once, and there is one cohesive plot that ties all of the characters together. While they all have their own agendas and plans, there is this overwhelming evil that is constantly going after all of them. And there is a small group (Mohinder, Matt, and Peter, joining up to make their characters much more respectable and less annoying for the first time in a while) that is already focused on the main objective of fighting against this great evil. But there's a plot that affects everyone. Claire is sent to save Alex. The plot is the reason Sandra kicks HRG out. The plot is chasing after Sylar and keeping Tracy detained and et cetera et cetera. You get the point. There is this central elements whilst the characters go develop themselves. Hooray development!
All in all, there is a lot I can praise in the past three episodes alone that I couldn't do for the past season and a half. Don't get me wrong, there were some really awesome elements of volumes 2 and 3. Honestly, Hiro's journey to Japan was pretty cool. Long, too drawn-out, annoying, but cool. It developed his character. It introduced the awesomeness-that-I-dearly-miss that is Adam Monroe/Takezo Kensei. But the overall plotline in season 2 was introduced too late and it just became annoying and rather stupid. I read somewhere, I think ew.com, that season 2 would have been way more effective if "Four Months Ago" had happened literally at the beginning of the season; it would have given it so much more direction and focus. And Elle was a pretty bitchin' character. I personally liked Bob, and the evolution of Angela into a bigger character was great.
But... we all know the horribleness. Arthur Petrelli. I think he's probably the worst villain I've seen on Heroes. I'm sorry, the whole Villains volume really sucked in my opinion. You had Mohinderfly in all his annoyingness. You had Maya just hanging around being even more useless than she had been in season 2. And just Arthur Petrelli... a horrible villain. A cool power... but a horrible villain. The shitty chemistry between Daphne and Matt. The ever so annoying Claire. The eclipse shit. Oh my god, I have to say, that may have been one of the stupidest things I'd ever heard of. GOD DAMMIT HEROES, UNDERSTAND CONTINUITY MUCH? Remember "Six Months Ago?" Remember how you introduced all these abilities MONTHS before the eclipse? How tons of heroes had abilities long before six months ago? The concept of the eclipse serving any purpose was really dumb. The only good part? Seeing the funny motions Elle and Sylar make when using their powers... but without seeing their powers!
And, y'know, seeing the ordinary-people-with-powers-you-never-wanted-to-see-with-powers is proving to be interesting. I enjoy the role reversal we're getting with Ando and Hiro. And now that Mohinder is not Mohinderfly, his powers are actually cool. Bah, he was a shitty scientist anyway.
One thing that really did it for me last volume? Peter running around like he uses guns all the freakin' time. Are you kidding me? Didn't he go to MEDICAL SCHOOL TO BECOME A NURSE? I was so glad to see him as a paramedic again.
And, of course, Arthur Petrelli. Arthur Petrelli, Arthur Petrelli, Arthur Petrelli. God, I hated his character. And the whole stupid "Sylar is Angela and Arthur's son" bit. I mean, it helped introduce to us Sylar's current goal of finding his real father, but aside from setting that up, it was just really annoying.
Actually, that's how I feel about all of last volume and most of season 2. It was shitty, but it helped set up where we are now in the show.
Let's hope that Heroes continues to get better and wins back some of its old, disillusioned fans. For those of you who are disillusioned old fans: if you liked season 1 but quit when you saw how crappy the following season and a half were, give it another shot. It's really getting back to being good, in my opinion. I'm really looking forward to next week. And I'm totally going to rewatch the three most recent episodes before next week; they were good. :D"
From February 16, 2009:
"I am so unbelievably happy with Heroes this volume.
I mean, of course the plane crash at the beginning made us all think of Lost and there is some corny stuff going on (but that's always been in Heroes), but, really, the story is coherent, the characters are back to making sense, and reactions happen. Also, I like the new characters thus far.
Let me get a little more in-depth about what I'm loving so far this volume/half of the season. Watch out for some spoilers, of course.
1) Characterization. People are acting within their character. Nathan isn't a total asshole, but he's an asshole, and we're not relying on some stupid "GOD GAVE ME THIS MISSION" bullshit; he genuinely, and understandably, believes that people with abilities are dangerous. Claire is being a whiny bitch, but at her age (she's like 17), she's determined to show her independence and her strength (not just her special power). Sandra Bennet FINALLY got fed up with HRG and kicked him out of the house, which totally makes sense. And Sylar's little speech to miniSylar (Luke) this episode really reconnected us with the purpose of his character: he always has an objective. And yeah, he is a serial killer, although he does it with an objective in mind.
and speaking of miniSylar...
2) New characters: they're doing it better. I like miniSylar/Luke. He's real. He's cool. He's a fucking little punk, but that fits just fine. And he's the surrogate son that took Sylar's place, which actually makes their companionship sensical for a loner like Sylar (who, y'know, butchered Elle, his wooman, last volume). And Alex. Alex, who was introduced this episode. Already has my love. He has a useful ability, but it's really nothing special (like most abilities on Heroes, really; none of them are all too useful on their own save telekinesis, super strength, and the mind manipulation powers; Alex's is the ability to breathe underwater). He is also an adorable looking nerd. And I hope Claire sucks less enough to be worth getting another romantic interest; at least this one already knows her dad's after people like him and that she's not in league with them. Oh and the Hunter. The Hunter is a wonderful new character. I love his cold determination and his kind of extremeist take on Nathan's perspective. The new characters in this volume feel way more promising than last volume.
speaking of last volume's characters...
3) Cleaning Up the Cast. Daphne would have been a really cool character. Really. She was cool until she met Matt last season. The speedster! The perfect villain for Hiro! But no... she just became Matt's little girl. Totally boring and useless. She just made Matt really annoying, and I like Matt. I have to admit, I'm glad she's gone. After she got away from Hiro, she served such little purpose. Matt had more chemistry with the turtle. Really. And I'm glad to not see Maya around. And although I admit that I kinda miss Micah and Molly, I'm glad they're absent in the meantime. And Monica. Well, nobody seems to care about Monica. We haven't seen her since season 2. She had a pretty awesome power for being in such a shitty plotline. It'd be nice to see her back someday, so her mini-adventure in season 2 wasn't totally useless, but in the meantime, like the kids, I'm glad she's absent.
4) The Plot Is Good. This has been a problem for a while. The plot makes sense, for once, and there is one cohesive plot that ties all of the characters together. While they all have their own agendas and plans, there is this overwhelming evil that is constantly going after all of them. And there is a small group (Mohinder, Matt, and Peter, joining up to make their characters much more respectable and less annoying for the first time in a while) that is already focused on the main objective of fighting against this great evil. But there's a plot that affects everyone. Claire is sent to save Alex. The plot is the reason Sandra kicks HRG out. The plot is chasing after Sylar and keeping Tracy detained and et cetera et cetera. You get the point. There is this central elements whilst the characters go develop themselves. Hooray development!
All in all, there is a lot I can praise in the past three episodes alone that I couldn't do for the past season and a half. Don't get me wrong, there were some really awesome elements of volumes 2 and 3. Honestly, Hiro's journey to Japan was pretty cool. Long, too drawn-out, annoying, but cool. It developed his character. It introduced the awesomeness-that-I-dearly-miss that is Adam Monroe/Takezo Kensei. But the overall plotline in season 2 was introduced too late and it just became annoying and rather stupid. I read somewhere, I think ew.com, that season 2 would have been way more effective if "Four Months Ago" had happened literally at the beginning of the season; it would have given it so much more direction and focus. And Elle was a pretty bitchin' character. I personally liked Bob, and the evolution of Angela into a bigger character was great.
But... we all know the horribleness. Arthur Petrelli. I think he's probably the worst villain I've seen on Heroes. I'm sorry, the whole Villains volume really sucked in my opinion. You had Mohinderfly in all his annoyingness. You had Maya just hanging around being even more useless than she had been in season 2. And just Arthur Petrelli... a horrible villain. A cool power... but a horrible villain. The shitty chemistry between Daphne and Matt. The ever so annoying Claire. The eclipse shit. Oh my god, I have to say, that may have been one of the stupidest things I'd ever heard of. GOD DAMMIT HEROES, UNDERSTAND CONTINUITY MUCH? Remember "Six Months Ago?" Remember how you introduced all these abilities MONTHS before the eclipse? How tons of heroes had abilities long before six months ago? The concept of the eclipse serving any purpose was really dumb. The only good part? Seeing the funny motions Elle and Sylar make when using their powers... but without seeing their powers!
And, y'know, seeing the ordinary-people-with-powers-you-never-wanted-to-see-with-powers is proving to be interesting. I enjoy the role reversal we're getting with Ando and Hiro. And now that Mohinder is not Mohinderfly, his powers are actually cool. Bah, he was a shitty scientist anyway.
One thing that really did it for me last volume? Peter running around like he uses guns all the freakin' time. Are you kidding me? Didn't he go to MEDICAL SCHOOL TO BECOME A NURSE? I was so glad to see him as a paramedic again.
And, of course, Arthur Petrelli. Arthur Petrelli, Arthur Petrelli, Arthur Petrelli. God, I hated his character. And the whole stupid "Sylar is Angela and Arthur's son" bit. I mean, it helped introduce to us Sylar's current goal of finding his real father, but aside from setting that up, it was just really annoying.
Actually, that's how I feel about all of last volume and most of season 2. It was shitty, but it helped set up where we are now in the show.
Let's hope that Heroes continues to get better and wins back some of its old, disillusioned fans. For those of you who are disillusioned old fans: if you liked season 1 but quit when you saw how crappy the following season and a half were, give it another shot. It's really getting back to being good, in my opinion. I'm really looking forward to next week. And I'm totally going to rewatch the three most recent episodes before next week; they were good. :D"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
