That's EASY... It's basically his Specialty

A friend asked for a list of the "delightfully trashy" movies of Nick Cage...

...Oh that's easy... He pretty much specialized in it...

1. The Rock
2. Gone in 60 Seconds
3. Face Off
4. Con Air
5. National Treasure 1 and 2
6. Lord of War
7. Kick Ass
8. Raising Arizona
9. Wild At Heart
10. Bringing Out the Dead
11. Matchstick Men
12. Ghost Rider
13. Valley Girl
14. Fast Time at Ridgemont High
15. Red Rock West
16. Bad Lieutenant Port of Call New Orleans
17. Snake Eyes
18. Drive Angry
19. Vampires Kiss
20. Peggy Sue Got Married
21. Fire Birds
22. Honeymoon in Vegas
23. Guarding Tess
24. Bangkok Dangerous
25. The Sorcerers Apprentice
26. Mandy
27. Running with the Devil

That's just off the top of my head. I haven't seen the last two but have been told they're great delightfully trashy movies.

Now, my friend specifically asked for delightfully trashy... that's the delightfully trashy part of his filmography... This includes both good and bad movies... Roughly the first 15 are actually GOOD movies, and the last 12 or so are not actually good, but they're all at least fun, or interesting, or entertaining, or amazing to watch because of the Cageness.

There's also just BAD trashy like the wicker man remake, which some consider so bad its good... I am not one of those people.

And there's the good, but depressing part of his filmography like "Leaving Las Vegas", or trashy but very much NOT delightful like "8mm"... Both categories of which I left off... And of course there's the great but not trashy bits of his filmography I also left off.

There's a surprising number of oscar winners involved in the movies in that list.

Honestly... Nobody has ever done "Delightfully Trashy" as well as Nic Cage... as an actor.
I just wish he had done something great with John Waters, who is the ultimate "Delightfully Trashy" director.

Creators Are People Too

For many people who are not serious con-goers, or who don't go to a lot of live music shows, or who don't participate very much in the "author" or "independent/genre flim/tv" or "independent musician" regions of social media; the people who create the art they love, are seemingly remote... set apart from "normal" folks.

Sometimes these folks wonder how it is I have met and/or know so many authors, actors, producers, directors, musicians and other artists and creators that I like; and how I've been lucky enough to have become friends with more than a few.

Simple...

1. Find out where they are going to be in public, be it a con, a book signing, a reading, a lecture, a showing, a festival, a small show, a big show you can get a backstage pass for, a public event of some kind...
   
   It's easy... they'll tell you when these things are happening, and ask you to show up and support their work.
2. Go there, while being reasonably well groomed and bathed, preferably with a few friends who also like the creator in question (though not a huge gang all at once... that can be overwhelming). Big Plus if you include an item of swag you bought from them in your accouterments. Big minus if you go as them in cosplay, because that's just creepy.
   
   Bringing me to...
   
3. Say hi, and tell them you like the stuff they create.. but don't be creepy. You may love everything they have ever done, it has changed your life, you have defined yourself by it... but don't gush... too much anyway. A little gushing is OK.
   
4. Remember, creators are fans too... And if you're a fan of their stuff, there's a good chance they're fans of other stuff you like, and you're fans of other stuff they like.
   
   Most creators were fans... and very big intense fans at that... long before they were creators themselves, and becoming a creator doesn't stop them being a fan. You may love their stuff... but you may both gush together over your mutual love of someone elses stuff.
   
   .. actually I can say without doubt, I have spent far more time with my creator friends, obsessing about the stuff that we love that other people have created, than every other subject combined
   
5. Say hi on Facebook, or twitter, or their blogs, and add them. Follow their posts, interact with them. JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE.

Because creators are people too... No matter how remote they may seem

Often, they're very lonely people, especially on the road stuck away from their families for weeks or even months at a time. Someone being genuinely nice to them and liking their stuff, and being genuine and human and real, and not just wanting a piece of them... is great.

One step beyond...

Now... here's the advanced level course, for those of you who would like to be IRL friends with your favorite authors, or at least hang out with them:

Creators are often broke (or at least not rich and not on big expense accounts), and often like things such as steak and beverages.

Yes, really, you and everyone you know may love everything they do, but most authors, actors, directors, and other creators in general, don't make very much money most of the time.. and often, most of what they do make goes into trying to make more of the stuff you like.

It may be years in between books, or gigs with decent pay. In between, they're just trying to get by,often while living in the stupidly expensive New York or Los Angeles...

...and no matter what, creators have lots of non creators to pay... Lawyers, agents, accountants. publishers... It's not cheap to be a creator who wants to make a living from their creation

So, when they're out on the road promoting their creations, creators are often trying to maximize enjoyment and fan engagement, while minimizing cost to their personal wallets (most creators are eating on their own "thank god this is tax deductible" dime most of the time. Even if you can get one to do so, every dime another company fronts you for "promotional expenses" is probably 2 dimes taken out of your earnings).

So, if you're cool, and you're not creepy, and after interacting you seem to like them, and they seem to like you... If you get the opportunity, offer them free food and beverages.

This works particularly well if that food is something that your city is particularly good at that they haven't tried, or it's one of their favorites, or if it's beyond their normal budget.

How do you do that?

Again, simple:

"Hey... we really like what you do. We're going to get some of this awesome food. If you've got time and are up for it, we'd love to have you come get some of this awesome food with us. Because we love what you do, we'd be really happy if you'd let us buy you lunch/dinner/breakfast/elevenses"

Yes, really, it's just that simple...

If they have time, and you've been cool and non-creepy, there's a very good chance they'll take it. And if they don't have time, they'll still be happy you offered, because they know it means you like them, and their stuff.

Because the most important thing you have to remember, is that mostly, CREATORS ARE JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.

...except usually more broke, and with less time, and less room in their heads for stuff other than what they are creating.

The concept of "Cultural Appropriation" is both false and harmful

So... The subject of "cultural appropriation" is coming up again, this time in regards to Iggy Azalea (born Amethyst Amelia Kelly), a young, extremely white, woman from Australia, who spent the last 7-ish years in the American south (mostly Atlanta); who raps in a "dirty south" style and accent, common to black rappers from Houston to Atlanta.

If you're unfamiliar with the concept of "cultural appropriation" here's a definition (from wikipedia):

Cultural appropriation is the adoption of elements of one culture by members of a different cultural group, specifically the use by cultural outsiders of a minority, oppressed culture's symbols or other cultural elements. It differs from acculturation or assimilation in that cultural "appropriation" or "misappropriation" refers to the adoption of these cultural elements, taken from minority cultures by members of the dominant culture, and then using these elements outside of their original cultural context.

Cultural appropriation, is often taken to be an act of racism, or at best racial insensitivity or intolerance, and in some cases, this can be a valid interpretation... SOME cases.

To be clear, Iggy Azalea doesn't claim to be black, pretend to be black, doesn't "act black" (whatever that's supposed to mean) in her normal speech, accent, or mannerisms etc... She simply raps in a style commonly used by black rappers.

Here's a video of her biggest hit to date "Fancy"(which hit number one earlier this year):

Overall, there is outrage, among the easily outraged, that a white woman is "acting black", and that this is racist, disrespectful, and cultural appropriation. Also, that she is racially insensitive... even stupid... And that in general, she sucks.

While I don't disagree that Iggy Azaelea sucks (actually, she's quite capable as a performer... she sucks on purpose, because it makes her... and her producers who really run the show... a lot of money), I hold the entire concept of "cultural appropriation" as a negative thing... or even as a thing... as not only false, but harmful.

If it was done mockingly, or deceptively, sure... but we're talking about a performance style, not someone actually passing themselves off as a different race.

More importantly, nothing is being STOLEN... You can't steal a cultural identity, or a performance style, or a form of artistic impression.

She isn't copying anyone in particular, she isn't plagiarizing, and she isn't stopping black people from rapping in the same way, or making money doing so.

No race "owns" any type or style of art. Just because someone of one race chooses to create or perform a style of art most commonly created or performed by another race, does not invalidate that art, or make it racist.

To suggest otherwise is to suppress freedom of expression.

It is also to suggest that Nat King Cole, Charlie Pride, and Harry Belafonte were illegitimate... or that the Beatles, Rolling Stones, The Who, The Yardbirds... Yeah, I could go on, about both sides... for hours.

I personally sing blues and soul. I love the music, it moves me, and I sing it very passionately, and well, with a great deal of emotion and expression...

If I preform this music as it is intended to be performed... or at all... Is that racist cultural appropriation?

I love Indian, and Mexican food... is it racist cultural appropriation if I cook and serve these foods in a restaurant?

Or is that just ridiculous?

Now... to criticize Iggy Azalea for racial and cultural stupidity... I'm right there with you.

But the whole cultural appropriation concept... or the notion that it somehow diminishes anyone or disrespects anyone... really needs to die.

Car Geek Flame War... The Definitive Best Looking 'Vette Debate

Ok... best looking vette debate...

This is not about the most desirable, the most expensive, the best engines, the best handling... Simply the best looking vettes.

Primary weighting is on exterior looks, but tiebreakers can move to the interior.

Only production or copo models, road legal, and available for sale to the general public count (so no grand am, GT, or true grand sport vettes for example, as they were track only cars), nor do road legal replicas of track only cars.

On the other hand L-88 and ZL1 (vettes which really were meant to be track cars) with the big block hoods and the side pipes etc... DO count, because they were actually sold to real buyers as street legal road cars.

I cant decide between:

1. Tunnel back C3 coupe (with or without the big block hood, flares, chrome bumpers, and duck tail or slant tail)
   
2. C3 convertible (with or without the big block hood, flares, chrome bumpers, and duck tail or slant tail)
   
3. C2 convertible (with or without the big block hood)
   
4. Single light side cove C1 convertible ('56-'57)
   
5. Double light C1 convertible, double taillight round tail ('58-'60)
   
6. Double light C1 convertible, quad taillight boattail ('61-62)

Subsidiary question... sidepipes are awesome... but are they always better on every model they originally came on? I can't decide.

Oh and yeah... I don't think anything C4 or later is even in the top ten, or even top 15 of best looking vettes (given that 1 and 2 above are actually a half dozen different models each).

...MAYBE the ZR1, and square taillight C4s make it into the top 20... maybe.

Marvels and Panthers

Alright my geek brothers and sisters... now that marvel has announced their movies, who should play T'Challa (Black Panther) and Carol Danvers (Captain Marvel/Ms. Marvel/Warbird/Binary)?

Supposedly, a relative unknown, Chadwick Boseman, has already been cast as T'Challa (who will be introduced in the third Captain America movie, due out in 2016 I believe). Frankly I've seen the guys work and I'm not impressed thus far.

Marvel has been known to recast... I can see them doing so here, so the game is open on both characters.

First, Black Panther.

If he wasn't already Heimdall, I'd have said Idris Elba was the perfect T'Challa. Similarly, Don Cheadle and Djimon Hounsou are already in the Marvel cinematic universe, or I'd say either of them would be decent possibilities.

You've got to have someone who is physically impressive (not necessarily big, though most artists have drawn him that way; but definitely fit and with great physical presence) yes... but more importantly, you've got to have someone who can project the same air of genius that Benedict Cumberbatch (Dr. Strange), Mark Ruffalo (Bruce Banner), and Robert Downey Jr. (Tony Stark) have. T'Challa is supposed to be the intellectual AND emotional AND spiritual superior to almost all in the marvel universe. He's specifically noted as the "eighth smartest man in the world", and is wiser, and more spiritually connected than any of those who are his equal in intelligence.

There aren't a lot of actors who can pull that off... and as I said, most of them are already playing characters in the MCU.

Maybe Chiwetel Ejiofor? He can do it physically, and emotionally, and intellectually. Hell, he's even an ethnic Igbo (his parents were Nigerian, though he was born and raised in England).

How about Captain Marvel?

Carol Danvers is actually much tougher.

First thing is, you can play around with looks a bit... but you can't completely change her entire physical presence, it's actually very important to the character.

Carol is a VERY BUSTY LADY... Even by comic book standards.

Not only that, but she's not some willowy little thing. She's tall (in universe she's 5'11"), and she's muscular, and she's STURDY.

She's bigger, taller, stronger, and tougher, than almost all of the male heroes, even without her powers (with her full powers, she is by canon, the most physically powerful Marvel hero. Only Hulk is more physically strong and damage resistant, and he doesn't have the energy powers that she has). Think of a near 6 foot tall womens fitness competitor... not a tiny little gymnast or hollywood actress type. That's really very important to who she is.

Basically, she is the second biggest (and second bustiest), of the main human (or human-ish anyway... it gets complicated...) female heroes in the Marvel universe (both behind Jennifer Walters, AKA She-Hulk... and actually in "human" form, Walters is shorter than Danvers by 1"... Though if you want to count Psylocke as a main hero, she's pretty much exactly the same size as Danvers, and some artists draw her just about as busty... The asgardian women are taller, but they're aliens... and Valkyries... so... you know...)

Note: If you think Marvel are ridiculous about their female heroes breasts, DC are FAR FAR worse... Four words: Power Girl Boob Window.

Yes, really, it may seem shallow and sexist, but honestly her physique really is an important part of her character, as is her sexuality. In particular, the fact that she was a tall and good looking but not either ridiculously muscular nor super busty woman before she was transformed and received her powers; and that her transformation made her into this "turned up to 11" body, as well as changing her personality (and these changes took her years to integrate and resolve, and accomodate)... it's really important to her character, her personality, her emotions, her psyche etc... and they are very relevant to the stuff that happened to her over the course of her career as a hero.

Importantly, she's incredibly competent, capable, and well trained; a veteran of the Air Force, NASA and SHIELD (sort of... it gets weird...), even before she received her superpowers.

Emotionally and personality wise, she's tough, she's hard in many ways, brittle in some, and insecure in many ways. She can be quite cruel and heartless, but she can also be overly emotional and irrationally sentimental... and VERY funny, sometimes in a cynical, sarcastic, and biting way, sometimes in a goofy way.

Most importantly by far though, is that she is VERY VERY BADLY DAMAGED.

Carol Danvers is one of the most screwed over women in the history of comics... and that's REALLY saying something. I won't go into it here because... really I couldn't... it takes too long to explain and is way too screwed up... but trust me (look up her full back story and the various controversies therein if you want to know).

This a woman with PROFOUND PTSD... for VERY GOOD REASON

Oh and she's a (just barely) recovering alcoholic on a scale so epic that TONY FRIKKEN STARK thought she was hitting the bottle a little too hard.

So... who the hell can play that?

Honestly... I'm not sure who I'd pick... I suppose the most important variable is what age they decide to make her at introduction.

If they go for a younger Carol, either an origin story, or relatively recently  come into her powers... Canonically, that would make her 31 years old or thereabouts.

Maybe Yvonne Strahovski?

She's still too small (only 5'9-1/2" and very fit, but not very muscular, and she's quite slim), and she has the "look" except being a bit too small breasted (not an insurmountable problem in hollywood). but I think she's got the chops for it.

If they went a little older, Julie Benz would be nearly perfect if she wasn't so small. She's only 5'4" though she's actually quite fit and muscular (and rather busty for her size).

Both play tough and competent very well, and both play badly damaged very well.

Charlize Theron might be good. Maybe Anna Torv.

Jeri Ryan, Peta Wilson, Tricia Helfer, Lucy Lawless, Dianne Kruger, Kristianna Loken, Abbie Cornish, Ali Larter... all physically right, but not right as actresses.

Lots of folks like the idea of Katee Sackhoff, who I love... but she just doesn't feel right for Carol Danvers to me. Also a lot of folks are speculating about Emily Blunt, who I also love... but again, she doesn't feel right to me.

Really, without knowing how old they want to go, it's impossible to figure out the right casting choice.

So... drop dead choices?

I'm gonna go with Yvonne Strahovski, and Chiwetel Ejiofor... but I'm really iffy on both. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

Pilot Season reviews, part 1: "Scorpion" and "Madam Secretary"

So we started watching the timeshifted pilots tonight... mixed bag thus far.


Scorpion:

Interesting premise if done well, interesting characters if written and handled properly, cast may be a bit hit or miss, but it's hard to tell because...

...Unfortunately, the writing and direction has the worst case of "pilotitis" I've ever seen. Nothing but quick cuts, bang bang go go, no regard for plausibility, nothing but smash bang yell smash bang...

It's Bayhem, done badly.

And I quote...

Bobby: Dear gods, their writers are idiots 

Chris: No Bobby... their technical consultants are idiots. Good technical consultants could have made this work. People who know aviation, communications, security, computers and networks. 

...Well, that or the showrunner just ignored the tech geeks while they screamed "dear god no, that's incredibly stupid, you just can not do that". 

Bobby: ...Chris... 

Chris: Yes Bobby? 

Bobby: Why aren't we working in Hollywood as technical consultants? 

Chris: Because we'd be homicidal within minutes.

And:

Bobby: Hmm... Scorpion might actually be good... as a drinking game.

I sincerely hope that this level of crapitude was because for the pilot, the plot, and the details, were effectively "lorem impsum BOOM!!!", so that idiot network execs to get interested in the show.

I will bet money that the elevator pitch... or at least the first line in the script coverage... on this was "It's 24, meets "Criminal Minds", meets "The big Bang Theory".

We'll give it a couple episodes, see how it does in the initial order.


Madam Secretary:

Another elevator pitch show: "It's "Zero Dark Thirty", meets "The West Wing", meets "Scandal", but the lead is a hot blonde, with a hot college professor husband, who has sexy students.

... and it's BLOODY AWFUL. 

Basically, everything is wrong. The cast should be great... nope. The writing is simultaneously mundane and melodramatic. The cinematography, sound design, and production design are entirely wrong... The show looks, feels, and sounds wrong.

Tea Leone demonstrates all the animation and expression of a somewhat wobbly block of pleasantly shaped wood. Every character (or performance) seems to be from a slightly (or dramatically) different show than every other character.

Stay away... stay far away.

Pilot Season... Give it a little time...

It's TV premier season, and this year has a lot of reasonably ambitious pilots, some of which show some potential for being great, but are going to take some establishing before they get good... if they get good: Gotham, The Flash, Constantine, Forever, Scorpion etc...

So, what happens if you see the pilot, and really WANT to like the show, but the pilot is only "Meh"?

...or worse, it's really close to like... halfway great, but there are a few things which subtract from it to make it either "meh" (Agents of Shield anyone?), or a couple specific things which really turn you off?

Let me just say... give it time...

Don't dismiss something which has the potential to be great, just because they didn't get it right at first.

There are a lot of shows that are now considered all time greats, where the first half season wasn't great, but they found their feet in the second half.

Actually, in some cases like "Cheers", ST:TNG, or "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" even the whole first season was not great, but the networks or production companies trusted the shows enough to renew.

Unfortunately, that almost never happens anymore, because networks don't stay long behind a low rated show... Hell, they'll pull a moderately rated show after 3 episodes if they were expecting higher and have a decent replacement prepped. Sometimes though they'll give a full season pickup pre-air, and the show starts mediocre, but they'll let it run through the whole season to find it's feet.

First thing is to remember, it's just a pilot.

For a pilot, the production values, and shooting scripts... even the characters, and cast in some cases... may be significantly different from the initial pickup shows. You can't really tell from the pilot what the final product is going to look like. If you like the concept and the characters, you've got to give it at least 3 episodes.

If after 3 episodes, you're still in the "Man, I want to like this show, but they're just not quite there" zone, you have to remember those 3 episodes were all written and produced before airing. In fact, the first 6, 8, or even 10 or 12 episodes will have been produced before the pilot is ever aired (though not usually 12... 6 would be common). This means they haven't really seen what the show is doing in front of a real audience yet, and they haven't had a chance to make adjustments.

Sometimes, particularly if it's a production values problem, the show will get better over time because the initial production order was on a lower budget, and the next 3 or 6 will be better.

This is particularly true of higher budget long lead time shows, with a lot of postproduction work... I.E. science fiction, fantasy, and adventure shows like the ones I mention above. They have a much longer lead time, with more episodes in the pipeline simultaneously, so it takes them longer to adjust to the audience reactions.

Also remember, this is the age of six channel multi-terabyte DVRs, streaming services, and bittorrent.

If after 3 episodes you till like the concept and the characters, but not enough to watch every week, or there's still a couple things that turn you off, wait a while, then come back.

If the show doesn't get a full season pickup, then you don't need to bother.

If it gets picked up, let the previously filmed episodes burn off, then watch the first episode filmed after the pickup. If they have the details fixed by then, you can go back and fill in.

... and of course, there's always bingewatching in the winter hiatus, or after it shows up on netflix.

Let's all get screwed over JUST A LITTLE BIT LESS

This... in it's entirety. Not one single word said here is incorrect in any way.

This is not a left, right, or libertarian issue... it's an EVERYONE GETTING SCREWED MORE issue.

Let's all try to get screwed JUST A LITTLE BIT LESS people.

No power on earth can make smooth jazz cool

... But the power of the greatest TV theme since "Dallas" can sure make it suck a lot less:

End of Spring/ Beginning of Summer bingewatch/new show update

Ok... spring/summer bingewatch/new show update.

This year, out of the necessity of circumstance, we have become cord cutters. As such we consume all of our television programming off the internet, either streaming (netflix, hulu, amazon prime), or downloaded.

Mostly, we batched up episodes and bingewatched them a few hours at a time, which is how I now GREATLY prefer to watch TV shows.

This isn't everything we watched, just the stuff I had something to say about that popped into my head.

First, the new full season shows that just wrapped for the season (or will shortly), in no particular order:

1. The Black List: James Spader getting to be 100% James Spader... The 80's movie creepy sociopathic badguy that we all love, 30 years later, and a spy... It's a damn good show, frankly better than I thought the major networks could do these days.
   
2. Trophy wife: We liked it, it's cute and sweet, and it's got good performances from a cast we really like. The writing is spotty though. Worth watching.
   
3. The Millers: Everybody loves Raymond with the "nasty" dial turned WAY up (and that's not a bad thing); except Raymond is Devon Banks, and Marie is Mags Bennet. That's not a bad thing either. Again interesting performances from an interesting cast... but the writing can at times be crude and clunky. Worth watching.
   
4. The Crazy Ones: We LOVE this show. I'm generally not a sitcom lover, but this show is really great... At least when it lets Robin Williams go for a bit... but not TOO far (as he is wont to do). A lot of the show is improvised on the set, and it shows, usually in a good way, sometimes in a great way, occasionally not so good. He is well balanced by the supporting cast, including Sarah Michelle Gellar... Pretty much playing herself... which is a good thing (Williams is also pretty much playing himself).
   
5. Mom: Another new show we love. The cast is incredible (Allison Janney, Anna Farris, Kevin Pollack, Nate Corddry, French Stewart), the performances are great, and the writing is great (it can be somewhat overly goofy at times, but it balances out). Were it not for "The Crazy Ones" this would be our favorite new comedy.
   
6. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D: I made this one last in the section because it's going to take more than a couple lines for this one...
   
   So... I want to love it... at times it's great, at times it's not good at all... Overall I think it's worth watching, and I like it.
   
   HOWEVER...
   
   You have to understand what it is and especially what it is NOT.
   
   It is NOT a superhero show. If you go in expecting a superhero show, you will be disappointed and unhappy.
   
   It IS a mission impossible/spooks/covert affairs/alias/dollhouse procedural espionage and adventure show set in a universe with superheros.
   
   Personally, I think that's kind of an awesome premise, and there are times it really lives up to that premise. There are unfortunately times where it very much does not. It's worth watching, but I really wish they'd improve the consistency of the writing. 

The new spring/summer/mid/end-season replacement shows:

1. True Detective: Oh my god... one of the best things I've ever watched. McConaughey is, unrecognizable, and amazing. The writing is spectacular. It's as good in it's genre as Breaking Bad, The Wire, The Sopranos, or The Shield.
   
2. House of Cards seasons 1 and 2: I'm including both here, since they were both single day releases, and you should watch them back to back if you can. I watched the first season in 13 continuous hours that's how good it was. This season I broke it up in two blocks of 6 and 7 hours. It's that good... and again, as good in it's genre as those I mentioned above. This is probably Kevin Spaceys best work ever, and it's certainly Robin Wright's.
   
3. Silicon Valley: Holy christ this is funny. Of course I'm a bit biased because... well... If I were a much bigger asshole, I would be one of these characters; I have lived, worked with, and been friends with ALL of these characters, for much of my working life. And man... Finally someone is tapping the rich comedy vein that is the particular breed of bullshit unique to the alternate universe that is silicon valley. Four shows in, they've already got a two season commitment (the sad part being though, one of the actors playing one of the more interesting and important characters died a few weeks ago), so we are really looking forward to seeing more of this.
   
4. Surviving Jack: Someone combined "Clueless" and "my so called life", but from the dad and sons point of view...
   
   The dad (Christopher Meloni) here being a competent, decent, conservative but strict high achiever (and that's a very good thing), and the son is the awkward and neurotic one (as opposed to the daughter being the awkward neurotic POV character, and the dad being a bumbling but good hearted asshole etc... etc...).
   
   And when I say combined those two other works, I do so advisedly, because the show is set in 1991, and definitely embraces the early 90s aesthetic and culture (though picking through the best parts of the music of the previous decade... a very good choice).
   
   The obvious comparison would be to "that 70s show", and there are superficial similarities (high school, awkward son, strict and sarcastic dad, retro setting 20 years later etc...), but that's all they are is superficial. Otherwise, the shows are nothing alike.
   
   Christopher Meloni is PERFECT here, playing a retired marine, now a doctor; with his wife going back to law school now that the kids are in high school. It's from the creator of "shit my dad says" so dad is... Well, let's just say he is familiar to me.
   
   So far, the series only has an 8 show order, and it's in a death slot, with no promotion around it... I really hope it finds an audience because it's great. 

In the queue:

1. Penny Dreadful (summer show, first episode online now, looks REALLY interesting)
   
2. Blackbox (summer show, just started)
   
3. Friends with Better Lives (summer show, we've got 4 episodes queued up)
   
4. Orphan Black season 1 and 2 (2 just started)
   
5. Orange is the New Black Season 1 and 2 (I watched the first few episodes myself, then stopped so I could start over with Mel, because it's really very good and I think she'll like it. Season 2 starts in a couple months). 

No... really... no... please, just stop saying stupid things like that... it really isn't helping.

So... Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly recently said, live, and without the slightest shadow of a doubt, that Jesus and Santa were white, that it was proven...







Fox News on air personnel.... PLEASE stop saying such incredibly obviously ridiculously laughably stupid stuff while the little red light is on please? Really, it is NOT helping.

Now, that said I'm not going to jump any further down her through, or tear her up any further. Everyone else on the planet has done that well enough already.

I WOULD like to address those who have come out in the last few days saying Jesus was black, or "dark skinned" or even "Palestinian".

... cuz yeah... no... that's all just as stupidly wrong.

First thing... there were no "Palestinians" before 1947. 

There were Syrians, who had historically lived in the Syrian districts of Palestine and Gaza, and Jordanians, who had lived in the west bank district of the kingdom of Jordan.

These were a mix of ethnic arabs (both christian and muslim), ethnic jews (new settled zionists, as well as syrian jews and those who had been on the land for centuries), armenians and lebanese, and egyptians.

There was a massive "resettlement" (basically a forced "reservation" style resettlement a la native americans in this country) of the muslims, christians, and jews, that the surrounding arab dominated states found "undesirable", into "palestine" from beofore the time Britain took dominion of it as a mandate trust territory in 1922 (with the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 actually, even before the Balfour declaration of 1917), until the official partition in 1947.

This was actually predated by an earlier forced resettlement from 1840 on into the Ottoman Mutasarrifates of Mount Lebanon and Jerusalem.

Basically, for a couple hundred years, the arab dominated states in the region viewed palestine as a dumping ground for their troublemakers, criminals, malcontents, and political enemies.

The historical natives of this region by the by were not ethnic arabs as such. They're ethnically... Levantine would be the best way of putting it. They are certainly semitic, and are closest to what we would think of as Lebanese, caucasian syrian, and Armenian today; along with a racial mix of saharan and horn africans, and south and central asians.

Also, this being a crossroads territory of middleman merchant cultures, there was a lot of racial intermixing going on for thousands of years.

In the time of Christ (whether you believe in Christ or not), the area of Judea and Galilee was most definitely NOT arabic. It was a Roman dominated mix of greeks, syrians, egyptians, and the levantine natives.

So, ethnically, Jesus probably looked a lot like a stereotypical "swarthy mediterranean man".

He was most likely fairly hairy, with a tan or olive complexion, brown eyes, and black or dark brown hair, which was most likely curly.

So... Jesus looked a lot more like this (though this reconstruction has been criticized by many scholars as being too arabic looking and not sufficiently "mediterranean"):

Than like this:

... and absolutely NOTHING like this:

Jesus as most western art depicts him is basically a 16th century spaniard; with a smattering of influence from 4th through 6th century romans, and 6th through 8th century "greeks" (Byzantine christians basically, some of whom were greek but mostly they were literally caucasian, as in from the southern caucasian mountains and the countries around them). 

The "Greeks" and Romans, made him look greek and roman. For the Romans had a short beard, as that was the style for priests of their culture. The greeks added a full beard and long hair to his imagery, because that was the style of priests in their culture. 

Post 1600, the vast majority of European artwork depicting Christ (and thus creating the modern western mental imagery of him) was influenced strongly by Bronzino and most especially El Grecos paintings of Christ from about 1565 on. 

Earlier european artists generally just used the earlier Roman and Greek imagery and style. Shorter hair, short beard, still pale and gaunt, but shorter in height; and with byzantine caucasian or roman caucasian features, dark hair, and dark eyes. 

El Greco painted christ as a tall, pale skinned, gaunt man, with long reddish brown hair, blue eyes, and a full reddish brown beard. He had distinctly Castilian... in fact distinctly hidalgo, features in these paintings.

El Greco basically took the greek imagery, and grafted local spanish nobility into it (flattering his patrons). 

This is probably best typified by Christ Carrying the Cross:

El Grecos style and imagery were then widely copied for the next 200 years; firmly setting Jesus in the western mind, as a 16th century spanish nobleman. 

... of course... the history of how the spanish nobility got their looks is another interesting tale of racial mixing...

And returning to the southern caucuses...

Santa claus...

Yeah...

Ok so... 

Santa is a syncretion of several mythological or semi-mythological characters.

Three of those characters are of northern european ethnicity yes...

... but one is an actual historical person. An ethnically mixed greek and turkish man, (a pre-ottoman Christian bishop) of olive complexion.

... and the last three or four are basically unseleighe fae (dark elves, dwarves or "monsters") with black or dark skin.

So yeah no... not "white" there either. Not Coca-cola santa (which, seriously, is where we get the modern image. Coca Cola ad campaigns from the early 20th century, mostly in the Saturday Evening post and similar magazines). 

I am basically Ron Swanson...

In an earlier post, I linked to a video talk with actor and professional fine woodworker, cabinetmaker, and finish carpenter, Nick Offerman.

For those who don't know, Nick Offerman, in real life, is basically a more "sane" and slightly less sociopathic version of his character Ron Swanson (who is based on Offermans own personality, interests, hobbies etc... just taken to ridiculous extremes)... only with a cooler job, and still married to "Tammy" (one of his ex-wives in the show, and played by his actual wife, Meghan Mullally).

Swanson (and largely Offerman), is a burly, blunt, confident, sometimes aggressive, plain spoken, mostly unfiltered (though able to filter and moderate when he chooses to, he just generally chooses not to), libertarian, disgruntled catholic, gun owner, meat lover, stupidity and ignorance hater, history lover, bad science debunker and skeptic, lover of fine spirits, wood and metalworker, believer in personal responsibility and self reliance etc...

For those who don't know me personally (or those who do but don't know the character)...

...I am basically Ron Swanson; except that I sport a vandyke and a high and tight (one of Ron's 3 "approved" haircuts), instead of an epic moustache and mane (though my hair does that exact thing when I let it grow), and I'm not technology hater.

...Well... and I'm slightly more sane, and less sociopathic.

... and I like fruit, as well as meat.

We even have the same red-brown wavy hair and red beard...

Hell we even wear the same clothes.

Seriously, I have a bunch of those same long sleeved collared knit shirts, rugby jerseys, golf/polo shirts, jeans, slacks, casual/dress shoes, and boots, that Ron wears. They're basically what I normally wear, every single day of the year (I never wear sneakers unless I'm working out, never sandals unless I'm at the beach; and never shorts or a shirt without a collar in public, unless I'm working out or at the beach).

...And when I say "the same", I mean not just a similar style... I mean the same shirts, in the same colors and patterns, probably from the same stores (Sadly, they most definitely did not cost him just $40 for ten years of his wardrobe... In fact they're actually damn expensive). We even wear the same styles of watch (... maybe even some of the same watches. We both wear divers and pilots chronometers and chronographs).


...And then theres these:



















... and then theres this 34 minutes and 15 seconds of concentrated Swanson... the vast majority of which strikes me as entirely reasonable, and full of good ideas:


...Yeah... I'm basically Ron Swanson... ... and I'm entirely OK with that...

Say what you will about Miley Cyrus... the girl CAN sing.

Something that has kinda buggged me about the recent crapstrom surrounding Miley Cyrus...

Many people, most of whom have probably never listened to anything she's done; are saying that she's another no-talent pop "starlet" who can't sing.

 That's not actually true.

 Whatever else you can say about her... and yeah, her recent behavior isn't exactly wonderful, but it's doing exactly what she wants it to... Make her a HELL of a lot of money... She CAN sing.

 Here she is doing her hit single "Wrecking Ball" live on SNL, arranged as an 80s style power ballad... and frankly, it kicks ass:




I've never cared for her music, but I recognize when a performer is good and I just don't care for them, vs. when a performer isn't good.

 I'm not saying she's a spectacular singer... but she has decent vocal range (not used much in her singles, but it's there), expression, timbre, and intonation. She is a little too fond of melisma, but that's very common with female pop vocalists; and she often chooses a somewhat nasal expression, but again that's a choice (one I don't care for, but she CAN sing without it... it's just part of her general style, as is "talk singing". Her speaking voice is somewhat tight and nasal, with the tongue against the soft palate, and that transfers over).

 Listen to this A Capella version of her other current major hit single, with "the Roots" (who by the way are still great, and always have been) on "Late Night with Jimmy Fallon":

 

Most importantly, she can sing her songs, in tune, without autotune, which is unfortunately rather rare among pop acts these days.

 Now... if you want an example of a pop singer who IS an amazing singer (but whose music is mostly not good), Christina Aguilera.

Or Pink (who is recently billing herself by her full name Alecia Moore), who can sing (though not as well as Christina), and whose pop music I think is actually GOOD. ...Or for that matter, Lady Gaga, who can both sing and play piano quite well, and much of her music is quite good (the stuff that isn't explicitly meant to be performance art).

 For an example of a big young female pop "singer" who can't sing whatsoever... Oh, how about Kesha.

 ...Smart girl though, literally... it's reported her IQ is something like 160, and she turned down early graduation and college scholarships to drop out of school and take a GED, so she could become a full time song writer; which she did very successfully, before ever recording anything. As of now, she's making a great deal of money on the image she has decided to portray.

 Oh and while she can't sing... she's actually a pretty decent musician (she can play piano, saxaphone, guitar, and drums).

 Oh and the thread between all these women?

Their really awful but very commercially successful music? Much of it is produced, and often written by, the same producer and production team, "Dr. Luke".

 The music industry hasn't really changed much from the 1950's and 60's "hit factory" days really... It's still oriented at selling hit singles to teenage girls, and it's still really the producers who are in charge. It's just that the producers own their own production companies now, instead of the record companies controlling everything.

And NOW you know why we all both love and hate (and fear) G.R.R. Martin

6 word movie reviews

Django Unchained: Not bad... Way too damn long¹

Jack Reacher: Good action... Cruise is too short²

Footnotes:

¹Django Unchained is 2 hours 45 minutes long. If you do a google search of "Django Unchanged" and "too damn long", you get over 100,000 results.

²Jack Reacher the character, is supposed to be a very big man, at 6'5 and 250lbs (and actually as described, would be closer to 285-300lbs).  Tom Cruise is 5'7 (and visibly wearing 4" lifts in the film. His co-star is 5'9" and wears uncharacteristic for hollywood low heels), and about 170lbs. He's buff, but he isn't in any way big.

Boyband singer, or pretty blonde lesbian?

In all seriousness... how did anyone NOT know that Lance Bass was gay?

How'd you do I, see you've met my, faithful handyman...

Winter has been coming for 16 FUCKING YEARS

Holy crap... a place I've been to is on Bar Rescue right now

Kid Chileens Badass BBQ Steakhouse, in Black Canyon City AZ.

Been there a few times... and saw it go WAY downhill over the years... This ought to be interesting.

The best line in the entire series "Elementary" so far

"Hmm... An Arsenal supporter... 

...As if I hadn't reason enough to despise you" 

-- Sherlock Holmes