EnterBrainment

Today's Vid 11/28/08: Transporter 3

Claire light — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 22:12:22 GMT

I'm kinda looking forward to Transporter 3, and more half-naked Jason Statham.

Aren't you?

Things I Am Thankful For

Claire light — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 20:10:38 GMT

In no particular order:

The existence of eggs and bacon, or eggs and toast, or eggs and toast and bacon. Bring it!
My cat, Charlie.
Battlestar Galactica, and especially, Starbuck.
In-born gifts and gifts acquired.
My friends.
That Watchmen is coming out in March.
Food, and the plentifulness thereof. That's, at base, what thanksgiving is about anyway, isn't it?
Books, especially the good ones, but even the bad ones.
Art scenes with lots of stuff to do and see in 'em.
Blogosphere!
Buffy comics.
My family, especially my parents.
Getting to know my Panama family much better this year and understanding our history better.
The Golden Age of TV Serial Drama.
The Second Golden Age of YA.
Speculative Fiction in general.
Having people out of your life when it is time for them to go.
Finding the concept of balance, if not the thing itself.

There's more, but this is a good start.

Happy Thanksgiving, all! What are you thankful for?

Twilight Was Boring!

Claire light — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 23:39:58 GMT

I was actually counting on it being entertainingly bad. But no such luck! It was just boring!

And I went to see it first run so I could review, just for you guys! And it bored me.

I actually sighed out loud with boredom and impatience several times throughout the movie! Of course, I did that with the book as well. BUT THE BOOK WAS BETTER!

Argh!

Okay, yes, Pattison can't act. It's true. And he's not that pretty and he has a pretty heavy blue beard for a permanently 17-year-old vampire. And, although Kristen Stewart CAN act, seeing the way Bella behaves in the book made real through the magic of film only underlines what a selfish, uninteresting character Bella is. She treats her friends badly, won't take an interest in anything they do, and ignores them the moment she gets the cute guy.

She breaks every girlfriend rule. Personally, I wouldn't have hung out with her for one second after what she pulled on the prom-dress-buying trip to town. She sulks in a corner of the shop, reading, and won't pay attention or give an opinion on her friends' dress picks. What an annoying bitch!

Worst of all, though, is the constant emo for no apparent reason. Sure, they're teenagers (or teenager and hungry vamp) so they're not in control of their emotions. But do WE have to suffer for that?

At least in the book you can skip over the boring stuff and get to the meat. And you can imagine for yourself how everyone looks. But the MOVIE! OMFG! If I hadn't drunk so much diet coke, I would've fallen asleep.

Oh, and one last thing: can't you take some of that budget and use it to make the vampires paler digitally? The white make up just ISN'T working for me, and never has.

Oh, and one more last thing: the one thing everybody complained about was the skin-sparkliness, but that actually worked for me. Disco vamps!

Brief Rant About Corporations

Claire light — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 22:38:44 GMT

I'm not gonna belabor this, but I'm pissed off. I just signed up with MTV.com so that I could comment on one of their articles and their system is fucked up and won't even give me a sign-in page when I click on "sign-in."

So, like a good netizen, I went to look for their contact page (hah!) to let them know about the problem, and only found some "suggestions" and "feedback" forums where you can't even find a place to post a comment. Presumably, if their system were working correctly, you'd have to sign in to participate, but, of course, their system is fucked up, so I couldn't sign in. Fine, but can't you have an email address somewhere in case everything goes down?

What boggles me is that they don't seem to want to know when their shit isn't working. They're so damned concerned with protecting themselves from the people they're supposed to be serving, that they forgot to serve us.

I don't really care that much about MTV, but this is kind of a last straw. This happens a lot with services and products that are somewhat, or very, essential to me ... not just on a lifestyle level, but also on a basic survival level, like food or medicine.

I think it's that the people who run the companies don't understand the internet and are frightened by the quickness and volume of communication on the internet. They don't seem to realize that websites are ABOUT communication. If you can't use a company's website to communicate without clicking through for half an hour or selling your firstborn, then no one's gonna communicate with you, mofo, you're gonna lose touch with your customer base, and then they'll be primed to be stolen away by a company that DOES understand the internet.

But of course, all the companies are doing this now, so it's just considered standard practice. The company that's easier to communicate with has to deal with a higher volume of email--HIRE people to deal with a higher volume of email--so maybe they think it's a competitive disadvantage.

And it IS a disadvantage if: 1) you don't DO anything with the information you gather that way and 2) you're dealing with a consumer base that's been trained not to mind that companies providing them with their food, medicine, and lifestyles are impenetrable monoliths. Which is the case with kids these days.

I really think it's time that consumers got more proactive and started boycotting companies that put too many layers of communication between themselves and their customers. Because if the customer isn't always right, then you don't get the customer's money, asshole.

Who's with me? What should we do?

Axl Rose vs. The People's Republic

Claire light — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 22:49:03 GMT

You really gotta wonder what all of these people were thinking.

The Chinese government made an official statement condemning Guns 'n' Roses' new album Chinese Democracy, especially its title track, for attacking the Chinese government and, just generally, promoting ... er ... democracy?

Did I just lose my mind?

First of all, apparently, the song is about the Falun Gong controversy, which is several years old. (I haven't heard the song.) This lack of topicality has to do with the fact that this album has been 17 years in the works ... that's right, they started recording in 1994 and were writing material even earlier than that.

Secondly, what the hell do Axl Rose and company know about China and politics and why are they attacking China? You get the feeling that this song was written in 1999, when the controversy blew up, and they got all excited about the cool title, and it just stuck. (Of course, I don't know that this is what happened, but it's all just so peculiar.)

Third, what the hell is China doing objecting to a rock album? Way to sound incredibly dense and stuffy, People's Repub! Seriously, does anyone in China think that publicly repudiating this album will do anything but let people know about it and get them curious?

And fourthly, since when did Chinese socialism not call itself "democratic"? Marxist movements around the world have, for a long time, used the words "democracy" and "republic," both of which mean--essentially--"of the people", because, well, they DO tend to start out as collectives, using collective decisionmaking processes. And the fact that they quickly become authoritarian dictatorships ... well, we're just coming out of eight years of W. Bush's kidnap-people-in-the-night-and-torture-them, "I'm the Decider" rule; we don't get to call the kettle black. Just because Western capitalist democracies have tried to corner the market on the word "democracy" doesn't mean that nobody else gets to use it.

So that's why it's so peculiar that an increasingly capitalist China is so allergic to the word "democracy." What gives?

And why are we letting all this make Axl Rose relevant again?

Top 100 Singers

Claire light — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:56:17 GMT

Rolling Stone's Top 100 Singers of all time list is out, and it only includes about three singers who appeared on the national scene since 1990: Kurt Cobain, Christina Aguilera, and Mary J. Blige.

I think that's okay ... sorta. Because it does take years--decades--to sort out whose voice is good, and whose is great. But it does make me wonder: which of today's singers will be accounted great in 2020 or 2030?

Norah Jones' name keeps popping up in my head, even though I'm not really a huge fan. I like her, but don't love her, so I wonder why I'm fixating on her name. I rather like Shakira, but she needs a lot of seasoning, a bigger emotional range, and much better songwriters.

Who else? I wonder how Justin Timberlake is gonna shake out. He's a good candidate: he's only put out two albums, but has dominated the Top 40 with them for five or six years. He's not just a versatile singer and musician, he's also smart about choosing collaborators.

And I'm keeping my eye on Chris Brown--although he's still just cheesepoppy--and his girlfriend Rihanna--although her voice isn't super versatile at the moment. Brown's voice could become an instrument of true power if he's as smart as he needs to be. And Rihanna has really smart folks feeding her good music; if she works more on the voice, she could have one of those convergences of decent style with pulse-taking savviness that makes a trend-setting singer.

I also think KT Tunstall's a good bet. Her voice is also not terribly versatile ... yet. But it's strong, and her songwriting is good. Give her a couple of years and she could be a Bonnie Raitt, with less roots rock and more pop.

Any ideas? Who are your favorite current singers?

Star Trek's Dirty Secrets

Claire light — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:17:42 GMT

So basically, what it comes down to is that JJ Abrams' version of Star Trek will be the vision of a Trek-hater with a hard-on for X-filesish woo-woo, wispy-haired heroines, and too much damaged-childhood backstory.

I mean, have you seen the trailer yet? It's all "Oh, I'm Kirk and I'm such a bad boy! Look at the trouble I got into with the police when I was ten!" and "Oh, I'm Spock and I'm a tragic mulatto! Whatever will I do, especially since I'm played by a guy who's a serial killer!"

Yesterday EW.com's "popwatch" blog asked the geek-horror question: If you could only watch one, which would it be? Watchmen, or the new Star Trek? And I had to say, without hesitation, Watchmen. This is partly because Watchmen is awesome, only gonna come around once, and we've never seen a film of the classic comic book before.

But it's also because Star Trek will just keep coming back and coming back. It's devalued itself through endless iterations, certainly. But since Roddenberry's death, the franchise has devalued itself even more by departing radically from Roddenberry's vision and set of values.

The series Enterprise was a perfect case-in-point. The series literally moved backward in time from the original's starting point: literal retrogression. It also retrogressed in terms of the series' politics. The series had, over four different versions and several movies, established the MO of moving diversity and politics forward with the times: having a black captain, having a woman captain, having an increasingly diverse cast, having a cast with multiracial characters. Enterprise went back to an almost all-white-male cast.

So this film reboot will be another retrogression: taking the original series back to the childhoods of its main characters and being about their establishment as an effective team ... something that happened before the start of the original series.

This is a part of the current trend of Freudian storytelling that has ruled literature and, increasingly, first film and then television since the 80's. Everything: motivation for action, characterization, clothing, gesture--everything--originates in some trauma of childhood. I've complained about this before with my favorite character, Starbuck of Battlestar Galactica, who isn't allowed to just be enchanting and destructive ... she has to be little girl lost. And now that people seem to have run out of ideas for Star Trek (or not "people" but JJ Abrams), all they can think to do is fill in the backstory ... which we DON'T NEED.

Here's an idea! Why not MOVE FORWARD with the story? Everybody wants to see a series with Hikaru Sulu as captain; why not make him gay, like the actor who portrays him, and have the franchise move forward with its first Asian and gay captain? The rest of the crew can include: a lesbian, more multiracial humans, and more multispecies folks.

Also, maybe this can move forward a bit into the future when the Federation is demilitarizing a bit and the ships are not so hierarchical anymore. Maybe they can have a leadership council on board and model a new way of organizing things.

Okay, that might be going too far. What do you think? What would a truly progressive Star Trek series be doing now?

Wacko Bites the Hand

Claire light — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:21:25 GMT

I'm not interested in Michael Jackson. I think he's was a super-damaged child who turned into a total, delusional creep.

But as a case study in self-destruction, the news this week is ... well, instructive.

Jacko is being sued by his Bahrain buddy, Sheikh Abdulla bin Hamad Al Khalifa, son of the king, governor of the Southern Province, and the dude who wanted to help Wacko get his career back in gear.

The Sheikh befriended Jacko, hosted him at his house in Bahrain for a year, sent him and his entourage on vacation in Europe, etc. etc. All, it doesn't need to be said, at his own expense.

He's now claiming that most of it was part of a recording and publishing deal he donne with the Crazy One to get Jacko's career moving again ... and possibly to involve the Sheikh's amateur songwriting skillz. The Sheikh gave Jacko 7 million dollahs Jacko sez was a gift and da Sheikh sez was an advance on a book and record which Wacko never delivered.

I suppose the Sheikh could be outright lying--I don't know anything about him--but Jackson doesn't exactly inspire confidence. The dude got in serious financial trouble during his child molestation trial--I'm sure I'm not the only one who remembers him overestimating his fortune by about 1000% in that interview--and was, in a way, "saved" by the intervention of the Sheikh. Maybe he was so frightened by his own financial collapse (and how little he, apparently, understands about his own finances) that he agreed to whatever the Sheikh wanted, just to get some cash in pocket.

Okay, I'm bored with Jacko again. Somebody get this trainwreck into a safe house ... and keep him there!

Virtual Affair, Real Divorce

Claire light — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:18:32 GMT

So, the world progresses, and internet relationships get more ... er ... serious?

The news from the dignified UK is that a husband caught canoodling with another woman on Second Life (the online world where you can live inside your digital "avatar" and spend digital dollars) is now being divorced by his real world wife.

If it sounds like the wife is overreacting, keep in mind that the couple met on Second Life and held their wedding online as well. The husband and the Other Woman are apparently "in love" and engaged, although they've never met in person. I'm suspecting everyone is in for some disappointments, since the husband is 40, the wife 28, and the never-met new fiance, who lives in Arkansas, is 55.

The wife is now seeing someone she met on World of Warcraft.

I could make an effort to spin this, but frankly, I'm a bit speechless. I mean, you can say that the virtual realm is just a new way of meeting people, except that this affair was conducted entirely online. The adulterers have never met each other! I understand why the wife would take it seriously, given her history with her husband, but why would anyone try to conduct relationships online?

Argh. Any insights?

Do Bond Girls Matter?

Claire light — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 19:29:42 GMT

Back when I was a kid, a new Bond flick was a big deal. But this was for a specific reason: not that many new movies came out every year.

Now that I'm all grown up, the release of one of the thousands of movies that come out a year can barely elicit a yawn. People certainly aren't seeing Bond flicks--not even the Daniel Craig reboot--at anywhere near the percentages at which we used to go ogle Roger Moore (yes, I'm old but not Sean Connery old!)

So I'm puzzled about the big deal the media was making about Bond Girls this week. I realize that this is the release of Quantum of Solace and the media is just responding to their press releases. But the media doesn't have to run the stories the publicists tell them to run. Why is everyone so Bond-Girlish?

Part of it is that all the stories are written by men. But even then, why are Bond Girls special? As far as I'm concerned, even in the depths of my seventies child hood, Bond flicks were about the overall experience, and the girls were just eye candy, the way Girls are eye candy in every action flick.

And that goes double now, in this Bond-degraded era. But obviously, there's something I'm missing. What do you think? Do Bond Girls matter in a way that regular eye candy doesn't?

Bad Shows Get Spanked

Claire light — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 22:36:51 GMT

Friends of good TV drama everywhere rejoiced today that NBC is killing My Own Worst Enemy (which is an appropriate title for the show) and Lipstick Jungle, which were both a drag on ratings ... and just a drag.

Not much else to say about this except: yay. Now replace those bad boys with some ... er ... good boys?

Sexy Kickass Abused Girl

Claire light — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 21:44:02 GMT

Okay, it's an official archetype now: the Sexy, Kickass Abused Girl.

I've been getting into the show Saving Grace in the past few weeks via DVD. It's pretty good. On the plus side you have Holly Hunter (love her!) playing Grace, an awesome character, and her character-building is terrific.

On the minus side, it's a cop show with poor weekly arcs, and the other characters, particularly the men, get short shrift. None of them has anything to do except be obsessed with Grace. Also, they don't make a really strong case for Grace being headed for Hell.

But I was getting a strong feeling of affection and familiarity from this show and I finally figured out what it was: Grace is Starbuck! And, as we might (or might not) know from this blog: Starbuck is my favorite fictional character anywhere, ever. (And Battlestar Galactica--at least, the first two seasons--is my favorite TV drama anywhere, ever.)

It's true: they're pretty much the same character: they're both high-ranking officers in traditionally male-dominated military/police jobs; they're both known as mavericks but extremely talented at their work; they both drink a lot, get into fistfights, and sleep with a lot of men, including their coworkers; men tend to get obsessed with them; they're both charming and extremely sexual and extremely aggressive; they both were abused as children and are haunted by this; both carry a huge load of guilt for their indirect part in the death of a loved one; neither has any children, nor wants any, but both get along great with kids; and both have strange, portentious relationships with the supernatural powers that be ... which they both fight, but are also guided by.

For samples, see the two videos directly above, one a fan video about Starbuck and the other, the music video for the theme song to Saving Grace.

So I'm calling it: it's an archetype. Let's call it "The Starbuck," a female archetype that fits into the age range of about 25-45. This is neither virgin, nor whore, nor mother. Too young to be a crone, and too unwise. This is a new female archetype, one that can only arise in a culture in which women have true freedom to act out their damage ... without immediate, social punishment.

Are there any other Starbucks out there that you've seen? Or any other new archetypes coming out of the post-women's-lib era?

Obama Codenames

Claire light — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 22:42:26 GMT

Yahoo's Buzz blog, and everybody else, reports that the Secret Service has picked the Obama family's code names, all of which begin with "R."

The prez will be "Renegade" (hunh?), Michelle will be "Renaissance," Malia "Radiance," and Sasha "Rosebud." I'm sure these were carefully chosen to sound distinct over a radio. But what's with the meanings?

I'm thinking the Secret Service kinda maybe were Obama-voters. I mean come on. The Dubya Bushes were "Tumbler" and "Tempo," and the Clintons were "Eagle" and "Evergreen" (Mr. and Mrs. respectively in both cases.) Chelsea's was "Energy." That's not exactly "Radiance" is it?

Who down at the Secret Service really, really, really likes the Obamas?

And how much are they rock stars, that all the news is talking about their cool code names today?

I want my Secret Service code name to be "EnterBrainment" or "Brainy." Or "Smarties." Or maybe "Sparky." How about you?

Whedon's "Dollhouse" Endangered

Claire light — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:50:00 GMT

Geek fans of Joss Whedon (of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly fame) have been holding their collective breath for months now, awaiting the premiere of Whedon's new TV show, Dollhouse. (Trailer for the show above and here.)

Dollhouse stars Eliza Dushku, the character Faith from the Buffy and Angel universe, as one of a stable of secret agents who get their memories wiped and replaced by that of an alternate personality for missions. (Of course, we see a version of this in the mediocre NBC drama My Own Worst Enemy starring Christian Slater.)

I don't like the premise, but there's possible complex high drama involved, which is good. I also have issues with Joss Whedon, but am still a Buffy fan, so complexity there as well.

And now it seems that what happened to the mediocre and extremely problematic Firefly (please don't kill me, my geeks!), namely that Fox didn't believe in it, stuffed it into a corner for 11 episodes, and then killed it, is going to happen to Dollhouse, too.

I find these TV network politics weird. Why invest at all in a show you don't believe in? Why premiere a show if you're going to do your damnedest to see that it doesn't succeed ... or at least do nothing to help it succeed?

So much of TV drama seems to be in a fight with itself over ... what? Not money, because shows that promise to do the slow burn and build large, fanatic audiences over time--ultimately bringing in millions in DVD and merch sales--aren't given a chance, and shows with no growth potential whatsoever are preferred. Why do TV networks shoot themselves in the foot over and over again? Is quality really that hard to see?

Any other Whedon fans out there?

TV: What's Been Sticking?

Claire light — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 04:55:14 GMT

Okay, we're well into the fall TV season and I've already checked in several times with my opinion on how much this season of TV sucks.

But what DOESN'T suck? (if anything.)

Well, for me this season, TV-watching has been a process of overcoming reluctance: I go to the websites or hulu and scan the lists of shows, and then try to stay still while the episode I've selected loads and starts to play. Often I don't make it to the first commercial.

I'm just so bored with it all.

What I thought would stick, but didn't: Heroes just bores me so much I can't even bring myself to go to the website. Chuck still interests me on priniciple, but I've been to the site several times and let an episode start, only to stop it, check my email, and never go back. I stopped watching America's Next Top Model, too, because the video player at the CW suuuuuuucks.

What I've stuck with up to now: Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles is actually motoring along. It's not my favorite show of all time, but it keeps the characters growing and the situations interesting, and has a pretty fucking cool bad guy/s. It's building up to a Battlestar Galacticesque sympathetic robot/villain sitch, I can just tell. This is my most consistent watch.

For some reason, I'm still stuck on Life. I don't know why. It's not that good, but it's mostly inoffensive. In fact, it did take a hit from last season, where there was still a season-long mystery arc to solve. The mystery arc this season isn't compelling. I don't recommend it, but I'm watching it.

I went and watched season one of Burn Notice and, while I enjoyed it, it failed the Bechdel Test miserably, and I got bored watching a whole group of people all selflessly dedicated to furthering one handsome guy's life and not their own.

Then I went and watched season one of Saving Grace and really liked it. I'm slowly downloading season two, episode by episode, when I have nothing else to watch.

And I'm also avoiding Ugly Betty a little bit because the ABC video player also sucks. There's no reason not to use Hulu, folks! They have the best player! Don't be fools!

What has stuck with you guys this season, and what's not sticking?