Tuesday, May 26, 2009
You couldn't move your camera, NBC News?
I hate to nitpick the news, but I just had to say something about the way NBC News covered President Obama's announcement of Sonia Sotomayor as his pick to replace David Souter on the Supreme Court. This is the sort of thing Phil Farrand would call a "production problem": For most of the time Obama talked about Sotomayor, with her standing to his left (our right), NBC allowed this stand with a square at the top to block our view of the lady. True, it was a semi-opaque square rather than a fully opaque square, but would it have been that hard to move your camera so there wasn't that distracting square over her face? Well, maybe it was, for after all, there must've been every major news organization in that room. CBS News had a boring two-shot with Obama and Sotomayor head on, but at least her face wasn't covered by some distracting square. What NBC News could've done is zoom in on Obama a little bit for his remarks. There was a lot of range between the shot with Biden, Obama and Sotomayor and the close-up of Sotomayor when she took the podium. Was it really that important for NBC to have a partially obstructed view of Sotomayor? Didn't they know in advance that she's say a few words?
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Unverified Griffin Family History
The show: Family Guy
The episode: "Peter's Progress," first aired on FOX this past Sunday.
What happened: Cleveland introduces his cousin Claude, who claims to be a psychic. Claude tells Peter Griffin that his ancestor Griffin Peterson is the true founder of the Quahog colony, way back in either 1670 or 1760, contradicting the myth of chatty Miles Musket and the Clam (which Quagmire cites). Claude tells the story of how Griffin Peterson fell in love with Lady Redbush (who looks a lot like Lois) and asked her to marry him. Lady Redbush said yes, but King Stewart III (who looks like Stewie) decided he wanted Redbush for himself and sent Peterson off to the British colonies in America. His shipmates include versions of Joe Swanson and Quagmire. They land in what would become Rhode Island.
Why it makes no sense: Since when are psychics historians? Watch an episode of Medium: Allison Dubois tells fairly recent history, such as someone having been killed a couple of years ago, and not pre-Revolutionary War history. A psychic is supposed to read what is in someone's mind, and apparently this whole story of Griffin Peterson and the true founding of Quahog was news to Peter. If Claude really was reading Peter's mind, shouldn't she have come up with a story much like the one Peter told in "Untitled Griffin Family History"?
I'm perfectly OK with the Miles Musket story (from "Fifteen Minutes of Shame") being either a complete fabrication of Adam West's, or a commonly accepted myth (like Benjamin Franklin flying a kite in a thunderstorm). But it's not OK to rewrite Peter's genealogy because there is so much material already, a lot of it a lot more reliable than some random new character. This latest rewrite of Quahog history can't be taken seriously because it makes no sense and it can't be taken humorously because it's not funny. I watched the whole episode and laughed only once, at Brian announcing new shows on FOX, and even that must've been me being generous.
In fact, the Griffin history given in "Untitled Griffin Family History" is a thousand times better: it can be taken seriously, because it builds on previously established continuity, namely the story of Nate Griffin, the slave owned by the Pewterschmidts and given credence by historical records Peter found at the library and which were convincing enough for Carter Pewterschmidt to pay Peter reparations (in the episode "Peter; and it can be taken humorously because it actually was funny (at least to me).
In conclusion, this was a boring episode with little laughs and no usable continuity.
The episode: "Peter's Progress," first aired on FOX this past Sunday.
What happened: Cleveland introduces his cousin Claude, who claims to be a psychic. Claude tells Peter Griffin that his ancestor Griffin Peterson is the true founder of the Quahog colony, way back in either 1670 or 1760, contradicting the myth of chatty Miles Musket and the Clam (which Quagmire cites). Claude tells the story of how Griffin Peterson fell in love with Lady Redbush (who looks a lot like Lois) and asked her to marry him. Lady Redbush said yes, but King Stewart III (who looks like Stewie) decided he wanted Redbush for himself and sent Peterson off to the British colonies in America. His shipmates include versions of Joe Swanson and Quagmire. They land in what would become Rhode Island.
Why it makes no sense: Since when are psychics historians? Watch an episode of Medium: Allison Dubois tells fairly recent history, such as someone having been killed a couple of years ago, and not pre-Revolutionary War history. A psychic is supposed to read what is in someone's mind, and apparently this whole story of Griffin Peterson and the true founding of Quahog was news to Peter. If Claude really was reading Peter's mind, shouldn't she have come up with a story much like the one Peter told in "Untitled Griffin Family History"?
I'm perfectly OK with the Miles Musket story (from "Fifteen Minutes of Shame") being either a complete fabrication of Adam West's, or a commonly accepted myth (like Benjamin Franklin flying a kite in a thunderstorm). But it's not OK to rewrite Peter's genealogy because there is so much material already, a lot of it a lot more reliable than some random new character. This latest rewrite of Quahog history can't be taken seriously because it makes no sense and it can't be taken humorously because it's not funny. I watched the whole episode and laughed only once, at Brian announcing new shows on FOX, and even that must've been me being generous.
In fact, the Griffin history given in "Untitled Griffin Family History" is a thousand times better: it can be taken seriously, because it builds on previously established continuity, namely the story of Nate Griffin, the slave owned by the Pewterschmidts and given credence by historical records Peter found at the library and which were convincing enough for Carter Pewterschmidt to pay Peter reparations (in the episode "Peter; and it can be taken humorously because it actually was funny (at least to me).
In conclusion, this was a boring episode with little laughs and no usable continuity.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Pregnant in the 23rd Century
The new Star Trek film begins with the USS Kelvin losing a showdown with a massive Romulan ship from the future, and George Kirk, Sr. having to go down with the ship while his pregnant wife escapes in Shuttle 37. I think Bill has gotten most of the nits (see his May 15 post) and this is the only one I could find which he didn't already catch:
Why does Winona Kirk give birth sitting up on a bed? One would think that by the 23rd Century doctors and women would have realized that the 20th Century hospital childbirth method is woefully inadequate in many ways. I realize that they were under rather exigent circumstances, what with the ship about to blow up and the shuttle being at risk for the same fate, but one would think the medical staff would try to assist in the childbirth in a way that is closer to ideal circumstances. When you want something to come out of your body, which way do you point the aperture? Down.
And if the medical staff has to tell Winona to push, doesn't that mean that the baby can wait at least a few minutes, say, until the shuttle is at a safe distance from the warring ships? There doesn't seem to be a good medical reason to hurry the baby out. In fact, it may very well be just a script contrivance to get the baby boy out in time for George to hear him in the last few minutes of his life. And why did they wait until the kid was born to discuss what to name him? So that the screenwriters could put on screen the "official Star Trek moment" of how James Tiberius Kirk got his name, and fit it into the frenetic pace of the movie. (And did Winona keep her maiden name at all? Or does tradition win out over feminism in the future?)
Their discussion makes it sound as if they had never discussed it before. In the 17th Century it may have made sense not to name children until they were actually born, because of the high rate of stillbirths. In the 20th Century, at least in the developed world, babies stood a much better chance of being born, in spite of all the unnatural interventions of doctors (painkillers for the woman, slapping the newborn, and so on). By the 23rd Century I would hope that good prenatal care and diagnosis would be available to all women, whether she's some unknown woman or the wife of a starship captain (or a starship captain herself).
Why does Winona Kirk give birth sitting up on a bed? One would think that by the 23rd Century doctors and women would have realized that the 20th Century hospital childbirth method is woefully inadequate in many ways. I realize that they were under rather exigent circumstances, what with the ship about to blow up and the shuttle being at risk for the same fate, but one would think the medical staff would try to assist in the childbirth in a way that is closer to ideal circumstances. When you want something to come out of your body, which way do you point the aperture? Down.
And if the medical staff has to tell Winona to push, doesn't that mean that the baby can wait at least a few minutes, say, until the shuttle is at a safe distance from the warring ships? There doesn't seem to be a good medical reason to hurry the baby out. In fact, it may very well be just a script contrivance to get the baby boy out in time for George to hear him in the last few minutes of his life. And why did they wait until the kid was born to discuss what to name him? So that the screenwriters could put on screen the "official Star Trek moment" of how James Tiberius Kirk got his name, and fit it into the frenetic pace of the movie. (And did Winona keep her maiden name at all? Or does tradition win out over feminism in the future?)
Their discussion makes it sound as if they had never discussed it before. In the 17th Century it may have made sense not to name children until they were actually born, because of the high rate of stillbirths. In the 20th Century, at least in the developed world, babies stood a much better chance of being born, in spite of all the unnatural interventions of doctors (painkillers for the woman, slapping the newborn, and so on). By the 23rd Century I would hope that good prenatal care and diagnosis would be available to all women, whether she's some unknown woman or the wife of a starship captain (or a starship captain herself).
Lynette needs to learn a few things about 中国
The show: Desperate Housewives
The episode: "Everybody Says Don't," first aired on ABC this past Sunday.
What happened: Lynette's husband Tom (Doug Savant), while trying to convince his son to go to college, decides to go back to college himself in order to major in the Chinese language. Lynette (Felicity Huffman) thinks this is a silly idea and decides to sabotage Tom's college admission test by getting him drunk. After the test, Tom tells Lynette he thinks he bombed the Chinese test. Lynette suggests he buy a book, to which Tom says he can't learn Chinese from a book and explains that China is an emerging market and that he'd be more valuable to employers knowing Chinese. Lynette is surprised at all this, realizing that wanting to learn Chinese was not some kind of midlife crisis.
Why it doesn't make sense: So, Joey Murphy and John Pardee, you mean to tell me that Lynette, an executive in an advertising agency, didn't already know that China has a fast-growing economy? That she didn't know that in this age of globalization, American workers would be well-advised to learn Chinese?
Now, I have no trouble believing that Lynette would sabotage her husband. But I would think she'd choose her battles a little better. How about thwarting him from buying any more vehicles?
The episode: "Everybody Says Don't," first aired on ABC this past Sunday.
What happened: Lynette's husband Tom (Doug Savant), while trying to convince his son to go to college, decides to go back to college himself in order to major in the Chinese language. Lynette (Felicity Huffman) thinks this is a silly idea and decides to sabotage Tom's college admission test by getting him drunk. After the test, Tom tells Lynette he thinks he bombed the Chinese test. Lynette suggests he buy a book, to which Tom says he can't learn Chinese from a book and explains that China is an emerging market and that he'd be more valuable to employers knowing Chinese. Lynette is surprised at all this, realizing that wanting to learn Chinese was not some kind of midlife crisis.
Why it doesn't make sense: So, Joey Murphy and John Pardee, you mean to tell me that Lynette, an executive in an advertising agency, didn't already know that China has a fast-growing economy? That she didn't know that in this age of globalization, American workers would be well-advised to learn Chinese?
Now, I have no trouble believing that Lynette would sabotage her husband. But I would think she'd choose her battles a little better. How about thwarting him from buying any more vehicles?
Friday, May 15, 2009
Star Trek
Because the NitCentral webmaster is asleep at the wheel, Lisa has granted us an exception to nitpick the new Star Trek film (2009, directed by J. J. Abrams). Haven't you heard? It's the #1 movie in America (this week). Those of you who haven't seen it yet, read a review instead. Then go see it and come back to read this. Or don't go see it, but don't base your decision to go see it or not on this blog post, it's not meant as a review of the film.
Before getting underway, let me tell you a few things I accept without explanation in any Trek film: First, I accept it without explanation that the computers on this new film will look a heck of a lot better than those on the original series. Second, I accept it without explanation that any alien language dialogue will be conveniently translated to English so we don't have to read any subtitles. And thirdly, I would accept it without explanation if Klingons appeared with or without ridges on their foreheads, but alas, a ridiculously tortured explanation has already been given in a Star Trek: Enterprise episode.
So, on to Star Trek (2009). The director, the writers, and even a couple of the actors (Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto on Saturday Night Live) have assured hardcore fans that the new film respects the canon. But it does so with all the integrity of Jew eating turkey bacon. In the year 2387, Ambassador Spock (Leonard Nimoy) fails to prevent a star in the Romulan Empire from going supernova. Aboard a mining vessel, Captain Nero (Eric Bana) witnesses the destruction of Romulus and chases Spock into the black hole, which takes them to the past. Nero destroys the USS Kelvin and later the Vulcan homeworld. These two events, and possibly others, inevitably alter all that follows, and the writers made sure to put this into the dialogue: Uhura realizes that now they're in an "alternate reality" and young Spock (Zachary Quinto) hammers the point home by declaring that their destinies have now changed. The writers have written themselves a license to write anything into the Trek universe. But is it really necessary? Would it have been that hard to write an exciting movie without discarding everything that had been written before?
The death of George Samuel Kirk Sr. (Chris Hemsworth) undoubtedly alters the destiny of James T. Kirk (Chris Pine), while the destruction of Vulcan makes many storylines of the various Trek series and earlier films untenable. What will happen when Spock gets the pon farr? Will Kirk know well enough to not to strand Khan on Tau Ceti Alpha V? And if he still does, will Spock have the sense to come up with an alternative to transfering his katra to McCoy and killing his body in the hopes of being restored on Vulcan? And how exactly can the Star Trek: The Next Generation two-parter "Unification" play out now that a Romulan is responsible for the destruction of Vulcan? In short, the original series is now invalid for nitpicking the new film. In fact, the only valid prior series or film valid for nitpicking might be Star Trek: Enterprise. Ugh. But there are still plenty of nits to be had using the film by itself.
When Uhura goes to the bar in Iowa, she orders several drinks, including a Cardassian sunrise. I seriously doubt that Nero's incursion to the past would have caused the xenophobic Cardassians to share their mixology with the Federation.
The child Kirk drives an antique car with a Nokia phone. Really!? If money is obsolete on Earth, why would a company feel the need to stamp their brand on every product? And don't talk to me about the Picard Dom Perignon champagne bottle, that's a matter of tradition, not commerce. And why would the police be patrolling the desolate Iowa highways? Maybe the policeman beamed in with his hover bike from some central police headquarters.
When Captain Pike (Bruce Greenwood) talks to Kirk, he gets the Federation and Starfleet mixed up. He explains to Kirk that "The Federation is an armada..."? Let me stop you right there. That's like confusing the United States for the United States Armed Forces (Army, Navy, Air Force). One is a political entity with civilian leadership, the other one is a defense organization that answers to the civilian leadership of the political entity. It would be understandable for an alien to make a mistake of this sort, but a captain in the defense organization? That would be like General Shinseki saying "The United States is the most powerful army on Earth."
So much of this film depends on coincidences. Isn't it a coincidence that Kirk tried to have sex with Uhura's roommate the same night Uhura intercepted a strange Romulan message and told her roommate about it? Isn't it a coincidence that after being grounded for cheating on the Kobayashi Maru test, Kirk went straight to the one person who could figure out an unorthodox way to get Kirk on the Enterprise anyway? Isn't it a coincidence that when young Spock orders Kirk off the ship, Kirk's pod lands close to both the Starfleet facility where Scotty is currently on duty at and the cave where Ambassador Spock was hiding out? Maybe not, given that the Enterprise was just coming from where Vulcan used to be, and young Spock would not strand Kirk on a planet with no Starfleet presence, thus narrowing down the choices, and also given that Nero wanted to place Spock someplace from where he could watch the destruction of Vulcan. But Nero wouldn't feel any obligation to place Spock close to a Starfleet facility; the only consideration would be placing Spock on the hemisphere of the planet that would give the view of Vulcan during its destruction. How differently would the story have turned out if Spock had been placed 2,000 miles away from the Starfleet facility! Earth would be added to the list of destroyed planets.
But what is Nero's motivation? Is he a blithering idiot? He's smart enough to know he's in the past, and that Spock exists in the past. But in 25 years of cruising around Federation space, it doesn't once occur to him or to his crew that maybe they can get back to the future at just the right time and kill Spock before he destroys Romulus. Or maybe kill both Spocks, to make sure. Or maybe realize that it wasn't really Spock's fault. Or how about just warning Romulus to evacuate the planet a year before the catastrophe? The shallowness of his character is made clear at the end when Kirk offers to help Nero escape the latest red matter-induced black hole. Nero says he would rather suffer the destruction of Romulus a thousand times than accept Kirk's help! And maybe offering help was just bravado on Kirk's part (which Spock understandably failed to realize), because how can the little Enterprise pull that huge ship out of the black hole when the Enterprise herself has trouble breaking free? But Nero's response only shows his rabidness.
There's more to nitpick in this movie, I'm sure, and hopefully the comments will have nits I've overlooked. But now I'm going to turn to nitpicking some of the reviews. Scott Mantz of Access Hollywood says this film is "the first 'Star Trek' for everyone!" That means that what everyone wants in a movie is non-stop action, with no time for reflection whatsoever. I can just picture the writers worrying that the audience would fall asleep during Kirk's conversations with Ambassador Spock, which is why Kirk couldn't just walk to Spock's cave and why Scotty had to beam into a water tube aboard the Enterprise. No, the first 'Star Trek' for everyone is Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. An argument could be made for Wrath of Khan. I respect Roger Ebert's opinion, but in his review he gets confused about which planet it is that Kirk, Sulu and the red-shirt dive into: Vulcan, not Earth. As for his comments on the science of Star Trek, it has been established in the canon that black holes can lead to other times and places and deliver materials intact; to what extent this is true in real life is of little concern to most viewers.
Before getting underway, let me tell you a few things I accept without explanation in any Trek film: First, I accept it without explanation that the computers on this new film will look a heck of a lot better than those on the original series. Second, I accept it without explanation that any alien language dialogue will be conveniently translated to English so we don't have to read any subtitles. And thirdly, I would accept it without explanation if Klingons appeared with or without ridges on their foreheads, but alas, a ridiculously tortured explanation has already been given in a Star Trek: Enterprise episode.
So, on to Star Trek (2009). The director, the writers, and even a couple of the actors (Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto on Saturday Night Live) have assured hardcore fans that the new film respects the canon. But it does so with all the integrity of Jew eating turkey bacon. In the year 2387, Ambassador Spock (Leonard Nimoy) fails to prevent a star in the Romulan Empire from going supernova. Aboard a mining vessel, Captain Nero (Eric Bana) witnesses the destruction of Romulus and chases Spock into the black hole, which takes them to the past. Nero destroys the USS Kelvin and later the Vulcan homeworld. These two events, and possibly others, inevitably alter all that follows, and the writers made sure to put this into the dialogue: Uhura realizes that now they're in an "alternate reality" and young Spock (Zachary Quinto) hammers the point home by declaring that their destinies have now changed. The writers have written themselves a license to write anything into the Trek universe. But is it really necessary? Would it have been that hard to write an exciting movie without discarding everything that had been written before?
The death of George Samuel Kirk Sr. (Chris Hemsworth) undoubtedly alters the destiny of James T. Kirk (Chris Pine), while the destruction of Vulcan makes many storylines of the various Trek series and earlier films untenable. What will happen when Spock gets the pon farr? Will Kirk know well enough to not to strand Khan on Tau Ceti Alpha V? And if he still does, will Spock have the sense to come up with an alternative to transfering his katra to McCoy and killing his body in the hopes of being restored on Vulcan? And how exactly can the Star Trek: The Next Generation two-parter "Unification" play out now that a Romulan is responsible for the destruction of Vulcan? In short, the original series is now invalid for nitpicking the new film. In fact, the only valid prior series or film valid for nitpicking might be Star Trek: Enterprise. Ugh. But there are still plenty of nits to be had using the film by itself.
When Uhura goes to the bar in Iowa, she orders several drinks, including a Cardassian sunrise. I seriously doubt that Nero's incursion to the past would have caused the xenophobic Cardassians to share their mixology with the Federation.
The child Kirk drives an antique car with a Nokia phone. Really!? If money is obsolete on Earth, why would a company feel the need to stamp their brand on every product? And don't talk to me about the Picard Dom Perignon champagne bottle, that's a matter of tradition, not commerce. And why would the police be patrolling the desolate Iowa highways? Maybe the policeman beamed in with his hover bike from some central police headquarters.
When Captain Pike (Bruce Greenwood) talks to Kirk, he gets the Federation and Starfleet mixed up. He explains to Kirk that "The Federation is an armada..."? Let me stop you right there. That's like confusing the United States for the United States Armed Forces (Army, Navy, Air Force). One is a political entity with civilian leadership, the other one is a defense organization that answers to the civilian leadership of the political entity. It would be understandable for an alien to make a mistake of this sort, but a captain in the defense organization? That would be like General Shinseki saying "The United States is the most powerful army on Earth."
So much of this film depends on coincidences. Isn't it a coincidence that Kirk tried to have sex with Uhura's roommate the same night Uhura intercepted a strange Romulan message and told her roommate about it? Isn't it a coincidence that after being grounded for cheating on the Kobayashi Maru test, Kirk went straight to the one person who could figure out an unorthodox way to get Kirk on the Enterprise anyway? Isn't it a coincidence that when young Spock orders Kirk off the ship, Kirk's pod lands close to both the Starfleet facility where Scotty is currently on duty at and the cave where Ambassador Spock was hiding out? Maybe not, given that the Enterprise was just coming from where Vulcan used to be, and young Spock would not strand Kirk on a planet with no Starfleet presence, thus narrowing down the choices, and also given that Nero wanted to place Spock someplace from where he could watch the destruction of Vulcan. But Nero wouldn't feel any obligation to place Spock close to a Starfleet facility; the only consideration would be placing Spock on the hemisphere of the planet that would give the view of Vulcan during its destruction. How differently would the story have turned out if Spock had been placed 2,000 miles away from the Starfleet facility! Earth would be added to the list of destroyed planets.
But what is Nero's motivation? Is he a blithering idiot? He's smart enough to know he's in the past, and that Spock exists in the past. But in 25 years of cruising around Federation space, it doesn't once occur to him or to his crew that maybe they can get back to the future at just the right time and kill Spock before he destroys Romulus. Or maybe kill both Spocks, to make sure. Or maybe realize that it wasn't really Spock's fault. Or how about just warning Romulus to evacuate the planet a year before the catastrophe? The shallowness of his character is made clear at the end when Kirk offers to help Nero escape the latest red matter-induced black hole. Nero says he would rather suffer the destruction of Romulus a thousand times than accept Kirk's help! And maybe offering help was just bravado on Kirk's part (which Spock understandably failed to realize), because how can the little Enterprise pull that huge ship out of the black hole when the Enterprise herself has trouble breaking free? But Nero's response only shows his rabidness.
There's more to nitpick in this movie, I'm sure, and hopefully the comments will have nits I've overlooked. But now I'm going to turn to nitpicking some of the reviews. Scott Mantz of Access Hollywood says this film is "the first 'Star Trek' for everyone!" That means that what everyone wants in a movie is non-stop action, with no time for reflection whatsoever. I can just picture the writers worrying that the audience would fall asleep during Kirk's conversations with Ambassador Spock, which is why Kirk couldn't just walk to Spock's cave and why Scotty had to beam into a water tube aboard the Enterprise. No, the first 'Star Trek' for everyone is Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. An argument could be made for Wrath of Khan. I respect Roger Ebert's opinion, but in his review he gets confused about which planet it is that Kirk, Sulu and the red-shirt dive into: Vulcan, not Earth. As for his comments on the science of Star Trek, it has been established in the canon that black holes can lead to other times and places and deliver materials intact; to what extent this is true in real life is of little concern to most viewers.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
The female sharpshooter
The show: JAG
The episode: "Touch and Go"
What happened: Lieutenant Bud Roberts (Patrick Labyorteaux) advises Corporal Lisa Antoon (Jolene Blalock) in her application to Officer Candidate School (OCS). Antoon is an exemplary Marine, the only woman in a Light Armored Vehicle (LAV) platoon. The only obstacle is that her Commanding Officer is demanding a picture of the tattoo on her butt, and she is reluctant to provide such a picture. The Commanding General, who is a woman, refuses an appeal to waive the requirement. In the end, Antoon takes the suggestion from Lt. Simms that Antoon have a female nurse take a picture of the tattoo and attest that it is indeed a picture of Antoon.
What has me wondering: To see Roberts at JAG, Antoon wears a Service Alpha uniform with a Rifle Sharpshooter badge on it. Shouldn't Antoon be a Rifle Expert? Actually, I'd even believe a Rifle Marksman badge on her uniform more than the Sharpshooter badge. Rifle Marksman is the lowest level at which you can qualify, and Rifle Expert is the highest. Rifle Sharpshooter is the middle level, and one which for some reason lots of men qualify at but hardly any women.
The common wisdom is that women are either very good or very bad with rifles. The first time I heard that, I thought that it was a misguided misogynist stereotype, but when I joined the Corps I saw that it's actually true. Many female recruits use up all their chances at the rifle range to obtain a score that is just barely Marksman (if you fail on your first chance, you get Marksman even if your second chance score is Expert-level), and many female recruits get Expert on the first try. Not to toot my own horn, I was one of the latter. You have to qualify each year, and generally career Marines' scores go up each time, until their final years when their scores might take a sharp dive.
In my four years in the Corps, I never saw a woman wearing a Rifle Sharpshooter badge. It is possible that I did see a woman who had earned that badge, but wasn't wearing it on her uniform because you normally don't put shiny things on a camouflage uniform (the episode correctly reflects that in the scenes with Antoon going to the field in camouflage uniform to talk to the CO).
Being in a LAV platoon, Antoon is already quite unique: LAV Marines are practically Infantrymen with cars, so for a woman to be in a LAV platoon is the closest she can get to being Infantry. Would she also be so unique as to have a badge few women earn? And what woman in the military would go out of her way to get a middle-level badge if she can get the top qualification? In the entire run of JAG, I have never questioned Sarah Mackenzie's Rifle Expert and Pistol Expert badges. Would Mac one year decide to mess up a few shots on purpose just to get a Sharpshooter badge?
Of course it's possible that there were women in the Corps who have in fact genuinely scored Sharpshooter and were given the badge. Also, it's possible that the changes made to Marine Corps rifle qualification since JAG went off the air could possibly lead to more women earning Sharpshooter badges. But in a fictional story, is it worthwhile to costume your character in such a way that viewers question the plausibility of the character?
Oh, and before I forget, there is the issue of what the CO does when he gets the picture of the tattooo on Antoon's butt. Without looking at it, he rips it up and discards it. Please. In real life he would've looked at the picture and said something like "Well, um, everything seems to be, um, in order... um, dismissed." The episode doesn't say where exactly on her butt the tattoo is on, but if we take her remark in Bud's office that she's "sitting on it" literally, it would imply it's low on her... you get the picture, no pun intended. Do a Google image search for "Jolene Blalock" and you will find pictures in which she gets pretty close to showing that area, though still leaving unanswered the question of whether or not the actress, like her character, has a tattoo in that area.
By the way, Jolene Blalock was T'Pol on Star Trek: Enterprise. Bill promised me he'll post his nitpicking of the new Star Trek film tomorrow.
Monday, May 11, 2009
The vicissitudes of rank
The show: JAG
The episode: "Retreat, Hell," first aired February 27, 2001, now available on the Season 6 DVDs.
What happened: Chegwidden gives an overview of the case of Private First Class Rafael Jesus Rivera, who acted heroically at Chosin Reservoir yet deserted from the Marine Corps. Now Rivera is asking for veterans' benefits, bringing attention to his desertion. Gunnery Sergeant Victor Galindez (Randy Vasquez) requests the assignment of escorting Private Rivera to face the music. Once Galindez has taken Private Rivera into his custody, he starts driving him to Albuquerque but is ambushed on the way. Galindez learns that Rivera, who barely knew English back then, could claim some land but needs to hire a lawyer in order to be able to stake his claim. With Chegwidden's help, Galindez and Rivera survive the ambush, and Rivera is finally awarded the medal he earned so long ago in Korea.
What the writers neglected: A lot of servicemembers are very touchy about being called the wrong rank, especially when that rank is lower than their actual rank. For example, Gunnery Sergeant Victor Galindez probably wouldn't like being called just "Sergeant." And if he made Master Gunnery Sergeant, he wouldn't like being called just "Gunnery Sergeant." A corporal making that mistake would probably get chewed out. But, regardless of rank, a Marine has every right to demand to be addressed by the correct rank and name.
Even a lowly Private. But what the writers neglected to realize is that being a "Private First Class" doesn't mean that you're a first-class Private, but that you're one rank above Private. Of course "Private First Class" can be too long to say sometimes, as in say, combat. Dialogue like this would be ridiculous:
Lopez: "Private First Class John Smith, hand me that ammunition magazine!"
Smith: "Aye, aye, Master Gunnery Sergeant Juan Lopez!"
The proper abbreviation is an acronym: P.F.C. (usually given as "Pfc." in print).
However, it's entirely possible that Rivera doesn't care about whether he's called a Private or a Pfc. If he "hasn't been a Private for fifty years," he probably hasn't been a Pfc. for 49 years and 6 months, or something like that. The problem is that at the beginning of the episode, Chegwidden says Rivera is a Private First Class, but throughout the rest of the episode Rivera is consistently referred to as "Private Rivera," by Galindez and by Chegwidden. When Chegwidden was a Lieutenant Commander, he wouldn't have liked being called "Lieutenant Chegwidden" any more than Galindez would like being called just "Sergeant Galindez" now (though perhaps he would've been OK with just "Commander Chegwidden.") I would think Chegwidden would extend this courtesy to all sailors and Marines.
So either Chegwidden was wrong when he said Rivera was a Private First Class at the beginning of the episode, or both Galindez and Chegwidden were wrong several times for the remainder of the episode. Was Technical Advisor Matt Sigloch absent when they shot the case overview scene?
Monday, May 4, 2009
Connie D'Amico
The show: Family Guy
The episode: "Stew-Roids," first aired a couple of Sundays ago on FOX.
What happened: After breaking up with her boyfriend, Connie D'Amico realizes she has dated every jock in the school. So she decides to choose an unpopular guy for her next boyfriend, picking Chris Griffin. Suddenly Chris becomes very popular and even takes Connie home to dinner. Peter is aroused by Connie. In the subplot, Stewie is beat up by the newborn Swanson daughter, so he takes steroids and quickly bulks up.
Why it doesn't quite make sense: Connie D'Amico has had so much contact with the Griffin family that it's starting to strain credibility when she comes to Griffin house and acts as if she's meeting them for the first time. It's one thing for Peter to forget that he's had his chance with Connie, back when he went 'undercover' to James Woods High as "Lando Griffin." And you can even accept that Connie would have forgotten about Lando by now.
But doesn't she remember how Peter bashed her face into a glass case several times in the more recent episode "Peter's Daughter"? Maybe the beating affected her memory, but that seems like too much shoehorning to explain why Connie doesn't recognize Peter in any way. Why doesn't Connie remember what Brian said to her at the school dance in "Barely Legal"? What about Stewie? Stewie went out with Connie as "Zack Sawyer" in "McStroke" and found out the hard way that he's a baby, as the police led her away handcuffed. (And how exactly did she get out of that legal jam?) In this episode, Stewie is different from his normal appearance because of his steroid-induced muscles. But his head shape remains the same. In fact, the shape of his head is so distinctive in this show that it justifies a joke in the next episode, "We Love You, Conrad," in which Stewie appears on a TV show in silhouette to hide his identity, which is given away anyway by the shape of his head. Certainly Connie would wonder about Stewie's muscles, but shouldn't his head have triggered some sort of recall in her mind? In writing this episode, Chris was the only male member of the family with whom Connie could have a fresh storyline. But bringing her to the Griffins' home needlessly creates continuity problems.
However, this episode deserves some credit in the form of "continuity points" (as Phil Farrand calls them) when Peter asks Joe Swanson as to what happened to his son Kevin. Surely fans of the show wondered if Meg had simply given up on trying to get with Kevin or if he had gone somewhere. Joe simply says that Kevin died in Iraq.
The episode: "Stew-Roids," first aired a couple of Sundays ago on FOX.
What happened: After breaking up with her boyfriend, Connie D'Amico realizes she has dated every jock in the school. So she decides to choose an unpopular guy for her next boyfriend, picking Chris Griffin. Suddenly Chris becomes very popular and even takes Connie home to dinner. Peter is aroused by Connie. In the subplot, Stewie is beat up by the newborn Swanson daughter, so he takes steroids and quickly bulks up.
Why it doesn't quite make sense: Connie D'Amico has had so much contact with the Griffin family that it's starting to strain credibility when she comes to Griffin house and acts as if she's meeting them for the first time. It's one thing for Peter to forget that he's had his chance with Connie, back when he went 'undercover' to James Woods High as "Lando Griffin." And you can even accept that Connie would have forgotten about Lando by now.
But doesn't she remember how Peter bashed her face into a glass case several times in the more recent episode "Peter's Daughter"? Maybe the beating affected her memory, but that seems like too much shoehorning to explain why Connie doesn't recognize Peter in any way. Why doesn't Connie remember what Brian said to her at the school dance in "Barely Legal"? What about Stewie? Stewie went out with Connie as "Zack Sawyer" in "McStroke" and found out the hard way that he's a baby, as the police led her away handcuffed. (And how exactly did she get out of that legal jam?) In this episode, Stewie is different from his normal appearance because of his steroid-induced muscles. But his head shape remains the same. In fact, the shape of his head is so distinctive in this show that it justifies a joke in the next episode, "We Love You, Conrad," in which Stewie appears on a TV show in silhouette to hide his identity, which is given away anyway by the shape of his head. Certainly Connie would wonder about Stewie's muscles, but shouldn't his head have triggered some sort of recall in her mind? In writing this episode, Chris was the only male member of the family with whom Connie could have a fresh storyline. But bringing her to the Griffins' home needlessly creates continuity problems.
However, this episode deserves some credit in the form of "continuity points" (as Phil Farrand calls them) when Peter asks Joe Swanson as to what happened to his son Kevin. Surely fans of the show wondered if Meg had simply given up on trying to get with Kevin or if he had gone somewhere. Joe simply says that Kevin died in Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)