With Family Guy finally switching to 16:9, the show remains mired on many of its familiar tropes of more or less recent vintage, such as Quagmire's weird out-of-left-field hatred for Brian or James Woods' obsession with Quahog. But one old trope dusted off for last night's episode "And Then There Were Fewer" was Stewie's supposedly matricidal intentions towards his mother Lois, declared from the very first episode and examined in the episodes "Stewie Kills Lois" and "Lois Kills Stewie."
But let's not forget "Death is a Bitch," in which, with Death incapacitated, Stewie throws Lois down the stairs, followed by an armoire and a grenade. Lois is none the worse for wear, because Death's broken ankle has not healed. Various nitpickers have pointed out that if Stewie really intends to kill his mother, he could've done any of the things he does in that episode when Death was infirm.
In last night's episode we get more evidence that Stewie's matricidal rants are just talk: before Diane Simmons can kill Lois, Stewie uses a long-distance rifle to kill Diane, then declares that if anyone will "drop" Lois, it will be him. Well, Stewie, you missed your chance: why couldn't you kill both Lois and Diane? Did you only have one bullet with you?
Monday, September 27, 2010
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Quick note to Ann Curry on the Fifth Amendment
In a quick check of the headlines on the Today show today, Ann Curry said that one egg company exec "took the Fifth Amendement." The popular expression is just "took the Fifth." The appropriate legal expression would be "invoked his Fifth Amendment rights." It's OK for a journalist to use either expression, but to mix them the way Ann Curry did today sounds a little weird.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
The mysterious forces of money
The film: Bruce Almighty (2003)
What happened: God (Morgan Freeman) gives Bruce Nolan (Jim Carrey) all His powers and responsibilities (though mostly limited to Buffalo, New York). However, like God Himself, Bruce can't "mess with free will." Bruce uses his new powers for his own personal gain. After failing to propose to Grace (Jennifer Aniston) at the restaurant where they had their first date years ago, Bruce starts hearing thousands upon thousands of prayers, which he had so far ignored. God tells him he must do something about the prayers before they pile up further. So Bruce puts them on a computer as e-mail and spends the rest of night trying to answer many of them. The next day, having barely made a dent, Bruce decides to grant all requests. At the next lottery drawing, some 400,000 players, all of them from Buffalo, win, reducing each individual's prize money to $17.
What doesn't quite make sense: If God created the universe, surely He has the power to let a few thousand people win the lottery simultaneously. But how would this particular 'miracle' be accomplished, exactly? Especially given the respect for free will explicitly stated in the movie: Bruce can pull down the Moon and give his girlfriend a remote orgasm, but he can't make her love him. Can we even assume that those who pray asking to win lottery actually play the lottery?
The thing is that playing the lottery involves quite a bit of free will, even after making the decision to play the game. In the State of New York, according to the New York Lottery website, there are a number of different lottery games people can play: Mega Millions, Powerball, Sweet Million, etc. The film does not specify which of these games the simultaneous winners played, but it does seem clear that they won the grand prize, which is usually shared by all those lucky enough to hit on the right numbers (splitting a few million with two or three other players still leaves you a heck of a lot of money).
And after you choose your game, what numbers do you play? Maybe after Bruce decided to let everyone win the lottery, God whispered into the prayers' ears the numbers to play. If they are not as resistant to God's messages as Bruce is, they could be convinced to play something other than their usual numbers. Or maybe God told them to let the computer pick the numbers, and then He made the computer give them all the same set of numbers? After that it would have been a simple matter of guiding the number balls accordingly at the drawing. And yet this explanation seems somewhat unsatisfactory.
There is another detail: the matter of the suddenly rising tech stocks. The stock market may seem even more mysterious and capricious than the lottery. But free will is also involved there. After you buy shares of a stock, you are free to sell them at any time afterwards (as long as they don't go all the way down to $0).
A quick note: I've been tempted to refer to God as "She" or "Her." In a Kevin Smith film, I could do that. In this film, and its sort-of sequel Evan Almighty, I can't do that.
What happened: God (Morgan Freeman) gives Bruce Nolan (Jim Carrey) all His powers and responsibilities (though mostly limited to Buffalo, New York). However, like God Himself, Bruce can't "mess with free will." Bruce uses his new powers for his own personal gain. After failing to propose to Grace (Jennifer Aniston) at the restaurant where they had their first date years ago, Bruce starts hearing thousands upon thousands of prayers, which he had so far ignored. God tells him he must do something about the prayers before they pile up further. So Bruce puts them on a computer as e-mail and spends the rest of night trying to answer many of them. The next day, having barely made a dent, Bruce decides to grant all requests. At the next lottery drawing, some 400,000 players, all of them from Buffalo, win, reducing each individual's prize money to $17.
What doesn't quite make sense: If God created the universe, surely He has the power to let a few thousand people win the lottery simultaneously. But how would this particular 'miracle' be accomplished, exactly? Especially given the respect for free will explicitly stated in the movie: Bruce can pull down the Moon and give his girlfriend a remote orgasm, but he can't make her love him. Can we even assume that those who pray asking to win lottery actually play the lottery?
The thing is that playing the lottery involves quite a bit of free will, even after making the decision to play the game. In the State of New York, according to the New York Lottery website, there are a number of different lottery games people can play: Mega Millions, Powerball, Sweet Million, etc. The film does not specify which of these games the simultaneous winners played, but it does seem clear that they won the grand prize, which is usually shared by all those lucky enough to hit on the right numbers (splitting a few million with two or three other players still leaves you a heck of a lot of money).
And after you choose your game, what numbers do you play? Maybe after Bruce decided to let everyone win the lottery, God whispered into the prayers' ears the numbers to play. If they are not as resistant to God's messages as Bruce is, they could be convinced to play something other than their usual numbers. Or maybe God told them to let the computer pick the numbers, and then He made the computer give them all the same set of numbers? After that it would have been a simple matter of guiding the number balls accordingly at the drawing. And yet this explanation seems somewhat unsatisfactory.
There is another detail: the matter of the suddenly rising tech stocks. The stock market may seem even more mysterious and capricious than the lottery. But free will is also involved there. After you buy shares of a stock, you are free to sell them at any time afterwards (as long as they don't go all the way down to $0).
A quick note: I've been tempted to refer to God as "She" or "Her." In a Kevin Smith film, I could do that. In this film, and its sort-of sequel Evan Almighty, I can't do that.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Tacky cattiness at the expense of plot
The show: Family Guy, once a paragon of animated freshness compared to the stale Simpsons, now degenerated to a platform for offensive jokes for the sake of being offensive, simultaneously tacky and catty attacks on celebrities, and a complete disregard for both inter- and intra-episode continuity.
The episode: "Big Man on Hippocampus," first aired back in January and rerun recently.
What happened: Taking a page from The Simpsons, the writers set up the main story of Peter's amnesia with a seemingly unrelated first act in which the Griffins go on Family Feud. During taping, Peter has an accident and loses his memory. The family tries to restore his memory with some old family videos, but Peter is more interested in watching Pretty Woman. That night, Peter spies on Lois undressing, and Lois re-introduces Peter to sex. The next day, Peter decides that despite how much he enjoyed sex with Lois, he'd rather have sex with other women. That night he brings Tiffani-Amber Thiessen home with every intention of having sex with her. Lois leaves in a huff. Peter asks Tiffani about her necklace. "Is that how you spend your Saved by the Bell money?" Peter asks.
What doesn't make sense: So when did Peter relearn what Saved by the Bell is? And why would he know about that teen comedy but not remember how to drive? So basically, Peter's amnesia is suspended just long enough for him to make a tacky, catty remark to a celebrity. Do the writers feel proud of themselves here? Worse, this is one of those nits that could've been prevented with a simple line of dialogue inserted earlier: besides Pretty Woman, the box of videotapes could have also have had a Saved by the Bell tape. It wouldn't have been necessary to actually show Peter watching that show, but just to mention it eliminates this nit free and clear.
One more thing: Yes, I'm still watching this on FOX. Supposedly the jokes are funnier on Adult Swim. Why? Because they can use all the swear words and racial slurs they want? Hey, look at me, I find humor in the prevalence of racism in this country! Give me a break. Besides, bleeps can be exploited for humor much funnier than any catty stereotype that could air on Adult Swim; this is something which this show has actually done in the past. In my opinion, this bit from "PTV" is the funniest in all of post-cancellation Family Guy:
The episode: "Big Man on Hippocampus," first aired back in January and rerun recently.
What happened: Taking a page from The Simpsons, the writers set up the main story of Peter's amnesia with a seemingly unrelated first act in which the Griffins go on Family Feud. During taping, Peter has an accident and loses his memory. The family tries to restore his memory with some old family videos, but Peter is more interested in watching Pretty Woman. That night, Peter spies on Lois undressing, and Lois re-introduces Peter to sex. The next day, Peter decides that despite how much he enjoyed sex with Lois, he'd rather have sex with other women. That night he brings Tiffani-Amber Thiessen home with every intention of having sex with her. Lois leaves in a huff. Peter asks Tiffani about her necklace. "Is that how you spend your Saved by the Bell money?" Peter asks.
What doesn't make sense: So when did Peter relearn what Saved by the Bell is? And why would he know about that teen comedy but not remember how to drive? So basically, Peter's amnesia is suspended just long enough for him to make a tacky, catty remark to a celebrity. Do the writers feel proud of themselves here? Worse, this is one of those nits that could've been prevented with a simple line of dialogue inserted earlier: besides Pretty Woman, the box of videotapes could have also have had a Saved by the Bell tape. It wouldn't have been necessary to actually show Peter watching that show, but just to mention it eliminates this nit free and clear.
One more thing: Yes, I'm still watching this on FOX. Supposedly the jokes are funnier on Adult Swim. Why? Because they can use all the swear words and racial slurs they want? Hey, look at me, I find humor in the prevalence of racism in this country! Give me a break. Besides, bleeps can be exploited for humor much funnier than any catty stereotype that could air on Adult Swim; this is something which this show has actually done in the past. In my opinion, this bit from "PTV" is the funniest in all of post-cancellation Family Guy:
"You know, you're lucky you're good at (bleep) my (bleep) or I'd never put up with you. You know what I'm talking about, when you (bleep) a lubed up (bleep) of toothpaste in my (bleep) while you (bleep) on a cherry (bleep) Episcopalian (bleep) extension cord (bleep) wetness (bleep) with a parking ticket. That is the best." — Peter Griffin
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
No soap writer watches legal dramas
I don't know what crime Hope Brady (Kristian Alfonso) plead guilty to on today's episode of Days of Our Lives, but the ensuing sentencing hearing served to confirm that the soap's writers have no more than a vague clue of how a courtroom actually runs.
Several of the show's main characters got on the witness stand at random to essentially give closing statements rather than to actually testify. Anyone can raise her hand and say "Can I say something, Judge?" and the judge will let her get on the stand.
The extras tasked with the rôles of lawyers were mostly deprived of lines because the episode's writer seems to be completely unaware that in a sentencing hearing, the defense lawyer is supposed to gather witnesses to present evidence in favor of mitigating the sentence, while the prosecutor is supposed to gather witnesses to present evidence in favor of aggravating the sentence.
How do I know all this? Do I have a fancy law degree framed in my office? No. I watch shows like Law & Order (and its various spin-offs), The Practice, Ally McBeal, Boston Legal, JAG, The Deep End, Judging Amy, The Defenders, Perry Mason, Matlock, Crossing Jordan, Family Law, etc. It wouldn't hurt the soap writers to watch an episode of any legal drama they can catch on TV these days.
Several of the show's main characters got on the witness stand at random to essentially give closing statements rather than to actually testify. Anyone can raise her hand and say "Can I say something, Judge?" and the judge will let her get on the stand.
The extras tasked with the rôles of lawyers were mostly deprived of lines because the episode's writer seems to be completely unaware that in a sentencing hearing, the defense lawyer is supposed to gather witnesses to present evidence in favor of mitigating the sentence, while the prosecutor is supposed to gather witnesses to present evidence in favor of aggravating the sentence.
How do I know all this? Do I have a fancy law degree framed in my office? No. I watch shows like Law & Order (and its various spin-offs), The Practice, Ally McBeal, Boston Legal, JAG, The Deep End, Judging Amy, The Defenders, Perry Mason, Matlock, Crossing Jordan, Family Law, etc. It wouldn't hurt the soap writers to watch an episode of any legal drama they can catch on TV these days.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Closed captioning spoils joke, sort of
The first time I watched the Scrubs episode "My Fault," in which J. D.'s girlfriend Danni (Tara Reid) screams her own name during sex, I'm fairly sure I was watching it at medium volume on prime time NBC. (J. D. and the Janitor drop coy references to popular past NBC shows like Seinfeld and Friends). The joke is that Danni has been cheating on J. D. with a guy named Danny.
Just a short while ago I got done watching it on MyTV 20 Detroit at low volume with closed captions. I already know the joke that Danni did not scream her own name during sex. But if I didn't, perhaps the impact of the joke would have been lessened. Before the sex scene, J. D. tells Danni "Nobody cares, Danni." The captioning shows that her name is Danni with an I. Then, in the sex scene, Danni yells "Oh, Danny," with a Y. The joke is perhaps spoiled.
Although I suppose nitpickers would be complaining if the closed captioners had tried to preserve the joke by captioning Danni's scream with an I instead of a Y, or if instead they spelled her name with a Y instead of an I for the entire episode.
Just a short while ago I got done watching it on MyTV 20 Detroit at low volume with closed captions. I already know the joke that Danni did not scream her own name during sex. But if I didn't, perhaps the impact of the joke would have been lessened. Before the sex scene, J. D. tells Danni "Nobody cares, Danni." The captioning shows that her name is Danni with an I. Then, in the sex scene, Danni yells "Oh, Danny," with a Y. The joke is perhaps spoiled.
Although I suppose nitpickers would be complaining if the closed captioners had tried to preserve the joke by captioning Danni's scream with an I instead of a Y, or if instead they spelled her name with a Y instead of an I for the entire episode.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Sketchy on Bernero's record for job creation
In advance of tomorrow's primary, Virg Bernero has been airing ads claiming he "created/saved 6,000 jobs." I guess he's hoping voters don't start wondering as to what exactly that means, since creating a job is not the same as saving a job.
It's a very obvious difference, but let me spell it out anyway: to create a job means to cause to come into existence a position with a salary or wages that did not exist before; to save a job means to ensure that a position with a salary or wages that already exists continues to exist.
So, how many jobs did Bernero create and how many did he save? Maybe he only created about a hundred jobs (his campaign staff) and saved about 5,900. You can argue that even if he only created 1 job and saved 5,999 that's still a good thing. But then you have to ask yourself: what exactly does one have to do in order to be able to claim that you saved a job? If I tip my barber, does that mean that I saved his job?
However, note that I'm nitpicking his ad; I'm not saying that you shouldn't vote for Bernero just because I find a nit in his ad. After all, I'm not voting for Pete Hoekstra, even though I believe what he says about cutting taxes and spending—how do I know he's not gonna cut spending on the things I like to use, like roads and libraries?
You vote for whom you want to vote tomorrow. Just vote.
It's a very obvious difference, but let me spell it out anyway: to create a job means to cause to come into existence a position with a salary or wages that did not exist before; to save a job means to ensure that a position with a salary or wages that already exists continues to exist.
So, how many jobs did Bernero create and how many did he save? Maybe he only created about a hundred jobs (his campaign staff) and saved about 5,900. You can argue that even if he only created 1 job and saved 5,999 that's still a good thing. But then you have to ask yourself: what exactly does one have to do in order to be able to claim that you saved a job? If I tip my barber, does that mean that I saved his job?
However, note that I'm nitpicking his ad; I'm not saying that you shouldn't vote for Bernero just because I find a nit in his ad. After all, I'm not voting for Pete Hoekstra, even though I believe what he says about cutting taxes and spending—how do I know he's not gonna cut spending on the things I like to use, like roads and libraries?
You vote for whom you want to vote tomorrow. Just vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)