i m N s h o

It's fascinating just how fucking clueless the knee-jeek reactionaries we have to put up with these days are. Their obsession with demonizing the concept of "woke" makes it impossible for them to see how fucking wrong they can be.  Robert Picardo on Instagram: "It is interesting to note that ⁦@StarTrek⁩ #Voyager, so beloved in retrospect, was thought "woke" ("politically correct" was the term way back then) at its premiere. https://www.instagram.com/p/DTYOtA-EcpL/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ== I saw another post recently pointing out that the original Star Trek (TOS) was what would have been considered woke at the time as well. Let’s see… just for starters, the main cast included an asian man and a black woman in positions of responsibility. People of color were often featured in lead roles. Storylines often did what good science fiction does best, shining a light on contemporary issues “disguised” by the fantasy element of...

So I've been watching the remastered Star Trek TOS lately (needed something to have playing on in the background while doing chores, working, etc.). That whole background thing maybe not so effective, since I keep sitting down and watching, but hey, it's Star Trek, so not bad, right? Some of the things I've noticed... With these remastered, color corrected episodes, it's amazing just how green Spock really is. As I recall from the old reruns I used to watch, he never seemed all that green... But damn, he's green.  We all know the Motorola flip phone was inspired by Star Trek communicators. But there are other moments of "prescience" or inspiration. Watching Requiem for Methuselah, for instance, there's a scene where the immortal Flint is watching Kirk on a flat screen monitor that wouldn't look out of place on my desk today.  And then there's the infamous third season. Long reviled as the weakest of the original series seasons, I can't argu...

'Judgment Day' predictions threaten to be a bust - CTV News

I've never been particularly… fond of the Sci Fi Channel. Partly it's due to the name. I've spent enough time reading science fiction, and reading about science fiction, to know the difference between Sci-Fi (a generic term used mainly by those unfamiliar with science fiction, or those relatively new to the genre) and SF (as it's generally referred to within the science fiction community). By calling itself the Sci Fi Channel, they put themselves on that broad, lowest-common-denominator shelf that network TV always seems to aspire to (yes, even cable networks). Maybe they thought too many people would see the SF Channel and think it was a channel about San Francisco. Whatever. What I saw was a deliberate decision to cater to the broadest demographic they could reach… which didn't bode well for the type of programming we could expect from them, right? (Obviously, that's what television networks do… they have to reach as many eyeballs as they can so they can pay ...

On this past week's episode of Chuck ( Chuck vs. the Fat Lady ), one of the characters, in describing her ex-boss's paranoia, says that "the log-on for his computer was a randomly selected word from a piece of Vogon poetry ." I'm pretty sure that may be the geekiest moment in TV this season. (Which, when you consider you've got both Chuck AND The Big Bang Theory competing in this arena, is really saying something.)  

I've never been a big fan of serial killer stories. I understand the appeal, from a procedural level. There's a lot of good, juicy stuff for the storyteller, as you dive into the killer's madness and concoct the scenarios that fit his madness. The problem I have is that, from a classical sense, they're not good drama. There's all the buildup and suspense you could want, as your hero stalks the madman and tries to figure out not just what he's going to do next, but why he's doing it. But when you get to the resolution, far too often, the stories simply fall flat. There's no catharsis for the audience… no sense of "there but for the grace of god go I" (though, arguably, maybe there should be). Because ultimately, the reason "Why", the whole cathartic ending of the piece, is simply "Because". "Why did he do it?" "Because he's NUTS!" You can relate, on a visceral level, to the person that kills out of jea...

There's an excerpt from David Chase's new book (or an excerpt from an interview about the book… I'm not entirely sure which) in last week's Entertainment Weekly. In it, he talks about how surprised he was at the reaction to The Soprano's finale ("I knew they'd be angry, but I didn't realize they'd be THAT angry) and his contempt for those who, after following and cheering Tony Soprano for seven seasons, all suddenly wanted to see him punished for his "sins". And all I've got to say to that is bullshit. The problem with the Sopranos finale isn't simply that it's one of those seemingly ubiquitous non-endings that directors are so fond of lately. I think he's right that there's a certain number of fans that would be dissatisfied with whatever ending he came up with for the series, since everyone has their own idea of how these stories should end. But what he's done here is to build up the tension in the closing scene,...

So this little tidbit hit the news yesterday: Court Rebuffs F.C.C. on Fines for Indecency I, for one, couldn't be happier to see it. The FCC, egged on by the Bush Administration, "concerned" members of Congress and the narrow-minded a-holes from the Parents Television Council and other morality watchdog groups, has been on a tear in recent years, attempting to "make TV safe for children" or some such BS. It's a battle that's been raging for decades, but between idiot stunts like the infamous Janet Jackson nipple-baring Superbowl, the power of Internet "activism" (can it really be activism when it takes less than 30 seconds of your time, comfortably seated in front of your PC, to participate?) and the increasingly judgmental mindset that's apparently prevailing in this country, it's gotten much worse in the past few years. So I'm very glad to see the courts start smacking them down over this. We'll most likely have to see how thi...

George W. Bush was on American Idol last night? Yes. The President of the United States was on American Idol. And apparently doing shtick with Laura. If I'm Paul Weitz this morning, my head's about to explode. That's all I've got to say. (For those of you not getting the reference, go here .)

For years now, I've been bored senseless by the morality plays that comprise most sit-coms… certainly those that fall in the "family/relationship" mold. Doofus but lovable dad/male relationship figure, who's not-so-secretly hiding a heart of gold and endearing love for his wife/family/girlfriend. He usually suffers from some "debilitating failure" in the looks department (overweight, unusually tall, simply funny looking, etc.). He's joined by a (generally) hot wife who is absurdly tolerant, wiser, by far, than her schlub of a husband, and the glue that holds everything together. Children come in mixed assortments, but almost always wiser/smarter than their parents, yet always loving and reaffirming by show's end. Each episode begins with some character flaw being revealed, 17 minutes of 3-beat jokes ensue as everyone exposes the foibles of said flaw, then the resolution swoops in and everyone learns a valuable lesson about love, family, relationships...

So I'm bit disturbed by the reappearance of post-apocalyptic themes in pop-culture this year. There was a brief, shining moment between the fall of the Berlin wall & collapse of the Soviet Union and today, where all those nuclear nightmares I'd developed after years of gloom and doom SF in the 70's were just bad memories. Now, thanks to global terrorism, the lunacy of N. Korea's "Dear Leader" and an administration that can't even pronounce nuclear, let alone reassure me that they're on top of the issue, it seems those old bad thoughts are making a comeback. Heroes on NBC has a scattered group of people discovering that they have super-human abilities and will have to work together to avert the disaster that one of them is able to foresee. So far, I'm enjoying the hell out of this one. Interesting characters with cool powers and the overriding mystery of who's going to blow up New York and why… there are enough interesting twists to keep me...

So weeks of hype (I'm pretty sure I read a quote somewhere calling this the best new sitcom of the season) culminated in Wednesday's premier episode of 30 Rock , and, as my title implies, all I've gotta say is "what the fuck?" THIS is "the best" of the new? I guess I fell for the hype, 'cause I went into it really looking forward to the show. I've already decided I can't get enough of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip (god help me if the audience numbers don't pick up) and figured getting the satirical sit-com angle on the sketch comedy genre could be a lot of fun. I don't think I could be more wrong. I was nonplussed from the very start, with an absurd argument over hot dogs and a Mary Tyler Moore'ish opening number (obviously meant to be winkingly satirical), leading to the discovery that Tina Fey's character is the head writer on a late night sketch comedy show called, ironically (?) The Girlie Show. I know they make jokes abo...