Hollywood Is Dead

Hollywouldn't be this bad if we ran it. I'm Maggie. I'm a mtf transgender lesbian. I bitch about media (games, movies and more) and sometimes get paid to so do.

[hollywoodisnowdead]

Modern Re-Run

Recently, USA started replaying Modern Family.

This was great because it isn't on netflix, or really any other channel besides the one it airs on, so it was a chance to see a lot of episodes I'd never seen as I was never a religious viewer, but had always enjoyed what I had witnessed. I started to tune in every day at dinner and I realized very quickly that I'd see the same episodes almost daily. Then I realized this actually happens a LOT with shows that are still on the air but are now syndicated, like How I Met Your Mother. It hit me that the reason for this is a brilliant marketing ploy. 

Think about it...you never really watch the show simply because you either work, or are just busy with life in general, or maybe you were interested but missed it when it started and now simply can't catch up because of the means of catching up (don't wanna buy the DVD or iTunes or whatever). A dozen simple and logical reasons you didn't watch it. So what do the networks do? They syndicate shows to other networks and the other networks promote it as saying, "Modern Family is now on USA!". You get all excited and want to watch it now, until you realize it actually is, "5 episodes of Modern Family are now on USA!" and so you get tired of those episodes quickly, and want to see new ones, but you still don't wanna pay for them. What do you do? You find out when new episodes air and you start to tune into those.

BAM. NEW VIEWERS.

BRILLIANT.

I mean, it really is absolutely brilliant. I think a lot of this is now happening thanks to Family Guy having been on Adult Swim. They gained a ton of viewership, people actually went and bought the DVDS and Fox brought the show back from cancelation! The show may be hurting for views or not-I don't really know, honestly-but it does bring in new viewers who hunger for episodes they don't have to pay for and aren't the same ones they've already been subjected to 80 thousand times. It's also a way to get around licensing your product to things like Netflix, which come with HUGE tags. Netflix will put your program on their service for a yearly fee but it also will expire and NBC will have to renew it (which may cost more, I don't know) and it keeps people who have Netflix from buying the DVDs or iTunes or Amazon episodes because why pay for something if you can have it for 7 dollars a month along with tons of other content. So they skirt around that danger zone by simply syndicating it and then gaining more viewers for new episodes via their syndication.

For once, it's a marketing ploy I don't have a problem with, because it's worked. I now generally tune into new episodes when they air. Well done.

[hollywoodisnowdead]

Why Jumanji, The Mummy & Avatar Are Important

Rotten Tomatoes is both a godsend AND a curse. On one hand, they can save you from watching a legitimately atrocious movie such as The Unborn or Suckerpunch, but then they praise other movies too highly (Cabin in the Woods) and give actually somewhat decent movies too low of a score. It's all because it's user based and the user rating is what the people visiting the site pay attention to. There are 3 films in particular that I'd like to discuss, 2 of which have a pretty low score and the other has a high score but is panned by the people who saw it and critics alike. Those films are Jumanji, Avatar and The Mummy (not in the correct order). Avatar has an 83%, Jumanji has a 50% and The Mummy has a 55%. 

Both The Mummy and Jumanji are actually rated higher than I thought they'd be, as they're right on the cusp of being rotten AND fresh, but they are-using the RT system-considered rotten. However, both these films are incredibly enjoyable, entertaining and easy to watch, and they both came out in the mid to late 90s, when we were trying to push our technology with graphics and cgi and special affects forward, so that movies like Avatar could be made. That's why-despite the rotten rating and the fact that they're actually pretty enjoyable-these films are VERY important. Yes, Jumanji and The Mummy are both incredibly silly and often times off the wall cheesy but it WAS the 90s. Yet, I will show Jumanji to my children and I STILL love The Mummy. Both are so fun to watch, and both have special effects (well, Jumanjis CGI stuff anyway) that hold up EXTREMELY well comparatively today. This is why these films are important. Take away the ratings and you're left with movies that had to exist purely to push our technological advancements forward. I believe Roger Ebert said about Jumanji that the director had made a career off flashy big budget special affects films and the film is lifeless and dreadful, and while he has a standard point-films don't NEED special affects to be great, or any effects at all-he's also missing the fact that without movies like those then, we wouldn't have the effects we have today. That's a big thing. These films deserve the credit for taking the chance of pushing our special effects forward and being pioneers in a way. Also, there's a BIG difference between a "film" and a "movie". All 3 of these are movies. They aren't meant to be artistic or life changing. They're just meant to be entertaining. That's why as kind of shitty as Avatar was and the pans it got, it was still decent because it was entertaining. Films are things that make you think and make you look at the world in a new fresh perspective. Things that are artistic like "The Artist" or "Citizen Kane" or "Gravity". These are films. Avatar is a whole other beast, though, because while the movie went on to be the highest grossing movie of all time, it's not by ANY means a "great artistic endeavor". I understand the rating it has because it's certainly a mainstream hit. It was a cultural thing to go see. Plus, with James Camerons name attached it was a surefire box office draw, which usually happens with these insanely respected directors. BUT...I also understand the pans it got. It has a LOT of flaws. I mean, all I REALLY have to say is the "unobtainium" (which may have been named to BE bad on purpose, I don't know) and you get the problems. It's a formulaic story we've all seen a billion times before. It's Pocahontas meets Ferngully in space. I don't like any of those things and I don't want the meeting anywhere, much less in space. In fact, it's SO formulaic, and we all know it so well, any one of us could've sat down after seeing that trailer and wrote that script, almost beat for beat. BUT, it needs the credit for doing what it did technologically. Avatar to me is the payoff for things like Jumanji and The Mummy. We saw the beginning and the end result, and we'll see even more of the end result later on down the road. Someday something will come along with the effects of a movie and the artistic integrity of a film and be a perfect 100%. Life of Pi has already set us further down that path. Hugo was a great example. Shit, even A.I. (Artificial Intelligence) is a wonderful example of it, and that was eons before Avatar. So yes, these movies may not be great and they may not be the best things you've ever seen, but give credit where credit is due because without movies like these, we wouldn't have the effects we have today.

If you like my work on tumblr, please visit and share (and comment) on my website at www.hollywoodisdead.tk!

[hollywoodisnowdead]

Bully: Review

There are some documentaries that become commercial and mainstream to the point where you question if they're legitimate. Supersize Me would probably be the best example, where years afterwards a lot of Spurlocks statements and research has been debunked, or so they say, but the thing about Supersize Me is it was pretty entertaining, and Spurlock is a pretty cool guy. The Cove would be another good one. Completely from the american point of view, and not going into the history of the japanese food culture itself, The Cove is another mainstream documentary that shows that these pander to people who don't want both sides of the story. They simply buy whatever they are told and shown on screen. Who are WE to say what people can and cannot eat, or how they do it? Japanese people have been catching and eating dolphin for thousands of years. I guarantee you that if tomorrow someone made a documentary about cows, we'd all still go eat cow. We wouldn't stop.

But the best example would be the 2011 documentary Bully. Unlike the other 2-which did actually have some good messages in them-this thing pissed me off. When this thing caught fire, it began the anti bully campaign that I LOATH. As someone who was bullied, you'd think I'd be all for it, except nobody made laws for me and the other kids. Nobody made a documentary. Nobody GAVE A SHIT. Kids need to learn to handle things on their own; survival of the fittest. It's harsh, yeah, but it's the world. Otherwise, everytime your kid comes into a problem even as an adult they're going to think they can run to mommy and daddy, which is half the problem because by bringing in parents-as they did at some points in this film-and getting the bullies in trouble, all you're doing is making the bullies ANGRIER and they're going to hurt your kid more. Opening rant aside, I HATED this documentary. I found it INCREDIBLY one sided, biased to the "victims" and you're trying to stop something that has gone on forever and will never be fully stopped. It's completely biased towards the "victims" of bullying, because they make the bullies in this film out to be these absolutely terrible kids who just hurt other kids, but where's THOSE kids side of the story? Actions have reactions. There's a reason someone does something. Perhaps those bullies are being bullied themselves or facing abuse at home. But do we see that? Does it ever even COME UP? NO. It doesn't. We're supposed to just buy it at face value that these kids are evil, awful, heartless people and they don't deserve any sympathy. It's so wrong. Not only that, but these kids are caught on camera saying things like, "I'm gonna stab you" and "you're my bitch". I'm sorry, but kids are smart. I guarantee you-even if they were told to just act like they normally do-no kid, NO KID WOULD EVER, allow themselves to be caught on tape saying and doing the things they were caught saying and doing. They know there's repercussions to that. Imagine if their parents saw it! This documentary is selling a point of view. And that's the problem with mainstream documentaries I feel. Documentaries are supposed to show you something and allow you to see both sides of it and decide where you fall on how you feel about it. These mainstream documentaries-bully, the cover, supersize me-they don't do that. They don't sell truth, they sell biased one sided opinions and then attack anyone who says that's wrong. That's the other thing I really hate about the anti bully campaign. If you say you're against it-even for good reasons-the anti bully people are bullies themselves, because they will verbally abuse you to the point where you just give in and have to be for anti bullying. It's sickening. It's downright sickening. You're not allowed to have an opinion in these matters. Just shut up and follow the crowd. If you're not with us, you're against us; you're our enemy. How is that RIGHT? AND...and this is the worst part to me...the director of this film said he made it because he himself was a victim of bullying. Ok, I can get behind that.  For sure. It's therapy. As a writer, as an artist, I can TOTALLY get behind that. But then he goes and makes this movie with the hopes that he can shed light and open eyes to this "epidemic" that has been going on forever and maybe better things. Alright, he didn't do it in the best way, but his intentions were good, right? That does count for something. But then he SELLS IT. I'm sorry, I understand movies need to be profitable, but this is the thing that bugs me, because as Kyle said so well in South Park's parody of the anti bully campaign episode: "If this video needs to be seen by everyone, why don't you put it on the internet for free?" To which Stan had no reply. It boils down to pure market capitalism. This is darwinian capitalism at it's finest. I get you need to recoup your cash from making this thing, but yeah, if it's THAT important you wanna make THAT big a difference...shouldn't it be easily accessible to everyone who needs to see it? Sure, a movie ticket is 8 bucks or so, but that 8 dollars still holds people from going to see this thing. Bully isn't without merit. It shows something that is a problem, for sure, but it shows in the wrong way, and it ultimately is only making the problem WORSE. "Raising awareness"? I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure people are AWARE of bullying, cancer and aids. What we need are SOLUTIONS. Not awareness. Do I have solutions? No. Nobody really does. We deal with it. It's a part of life and it makes us stronger. Bully tried, but it didn't work. FINAL GRADE: C-

[hollywoodisnowdead]

Juno Vs. The Film World

There's a few people in the film industry who I think get hated on purely because it's considered "cool" to hate them. Wes Anderson for example, is one of the ones I hear the most but honestly-and this is coming from a girl who went to film school and has made video content herself-almost all his films are totally fine. Andersons work is cool too because he's got the Tim Burton disease (the "this is all i know how to do and i'm gonna beat you over the head with it") where once you've seen one of his films, you've kind of seen them all, but not to the degree Burton has, because, while Anderson does make quirky indie films, each one of his films is different enough that you could mistake it for someone elses work. Example: The Life Aquatic was shot kind of open, and with some handheld, and on a larger scale and unless I knew who made it going in, I'm not sure I could've figured it out BECAUSE Moonrise Kingdom is EXACTLY the opposite. It's tight, and concise and claustrophobic almost. It feels like a play. Two movies, made by the same guy and they feel extremely different. That's talent.

But then there's another person who gets shit on rather constantly by the mainstream audience, and that person is Diablo Cody. Now, it's understandable to not enjoy something just because it's "not your thing". I get that. Some people just don't like quirky independent flicks. Alright. But the criticisms I've read-from legitimate reviewers-is almost...sad. Juno in particular doesn't deserve HALF the hate it gets. First off, one of the main criticisms I read constantly is that the dialogue in the film isn't believable to real teenagers. Well, I'll have you know I was a teenager when this came out, and uh, yes, it IS. That WAS how people talked. Maybe not to that exact degree, as Codys writing was almost an over the top parody of the teen vernacular, but it was pretty similar. The ironic thing here is the people making this criticism are 40 year old film critics who obviously haven't been around a high school in 20 years outside of picking their kids up at the drop off spot. But let's take this to the next level, shall we? If you're going to criticize the teenagers, why not the adults? The adults act and speak just as unrealistically as the kids in this film do, and yet nobody seems to say a goddamn word about THAT. In fact, Vanessa (Jason Batemans wife in the film) is the only person in the film who acts and reacts in a believable and rather realistic manner. That's why you sympathize with her. You shouldn't sympathize with Batemans character or even Juno because-yes while the are in rather bad situations-they're both kinda assholes. Even Juno, to a degree, is just a little asshole. But guess what...TEENAGERS ARE ASSHOLES. Batemans character is realistic in the sense of the overgrown man child who can't let go of his past dreams, but he's also an asshole. This is why you want to see Vanessa get the kid and just be happy. This is why she's relatable. Because in a sea of assholes-much like the real world-there's always one really good person. Juno is nothing if not a parody of ridiculously cheesy cliche teenage drama pregnancy flicks that take themselves far too seriously to be taken seriously by the audience themselves. Does the film make some flaws? Every film makes some flaws. Are the films flaws because "the film is only something a dumbed down teenage white person" would like, as I've read? No. If anything, that just shows you're a judgmental asshole. While I said before, Codys work can certainly be seen as polarizing-much like Andersons-her work isn't BAD. Young Adult was a really good character study, Juno was nothing if not purely entertaining (which is all a movie really all a movie has to be anyway, you hypercritical bastards) and her TV series The United States of Tara is BRILLIANT. Absolutely brilliant. Does she warrant the kind of hatred she gets? I don't think so. As I said, I think the mainstream audience needs an indie person to pick on and hate because it's cool, and she's the target. Juno is a confidently shot and directed, humorously well written and decently acted film that I believe really began the age of hypercritical film review. And I realize that makes me sound RIDICULOUSLY hipster ("rah rah mainstream audience!") but I'm coming purely from a filmmaking point of view, as a viewer of the public. Roger Ebert loved it. Shouldn't that speak for something? Or are you too fucking cool for him too?

[hollywoodisnowdead]

Phoebe In Wonderland: Review

There's a few general themes and motifes that I love:

people who are possibly crazy/hallucinating

sad, mentally ill little girls

Felicity Huffman

And when you put all of these together, you get a movie tailor made for me. Phoebe In Wonderland may have felt about 20 minutes too long-and I say felt because the movie is relatively short, it just FEELS long towards the end-but other than that this thing is great start to finish. Elle Fanning plays Phoebe, a girl with-clearly-some sort of mental illness and her family as they cope with her acting out at school after she gets the lead in the school play for Alice In Wonderland. The film is brightly colored, vibrant and yet has this sad undertone that somehow doesn't manage to run the bubbly film completely off the rails, which is rare.

The cinematography is OUTSTANDING. Whoever shot this thing should be proud as hell for themselves, because this is one of the most gorgeous films I think I've ever seen. Everything is surreal, and magical and yet realistic. Bravo to you. The film does tend to drag in some spots but it's not often, and for the most part the pacing is pretty good, and the acting is absolutely top notch from everyone involved, including the kids which is not something I praise often. Child actors are usually hit and miss (and more miss often than not, sadly) but every kid in this is pretty outstanding, which is a true achievement in and of itself. Now, perhaps it's because I dealt with a lot of this kind of stuff myself when I was a child that I'm more biased towards the plight of the lead but I don't think that's it. I'm really trying to be as unbiased as possible, and I really do think if you DON'T feel bad for this girl, you have no soul.

Some of the scenes when she's sad, or being consoled by Felicity Huffman (who played her mother) are just heartwrenching. 10/10 would tear up again.

I think this movie has some very good statements, especially with the best line in the film from Huffman to the child psychologist at one point, which is thusly: "You're so ready to put a label on things; medicate and move on. Your field is so scared to just let kids be kids."

As someone who's ex is in school studying for child psychology and someone who's been to therapists on and off since her childhood myself, I COMPLETELY agree. While there's obviously people in the field who do care and want to help children-and as Huffman herself eventually admits, some children DO need help-there's a LOT of kids who are highly over medicated or wrongly diagnosed simply because they're different or do things that adults don't think kids should be doing. 

SPOILER It's revealed towards the end of the film that Phoebe has tourettes syndrome, but at one point-after watching her daughter count rocks and wash her hands multiple times, and thinking it was OCD-Huffman says to her husband: "When I was a child, I counted telephone poles from the backseat of our car and if I missed one we'd crash and die. It's just what kids do." I couldn't agree more here either. We all had imaginary friends as kids and we all lived in a fantasy type world at one time or another (unless you had no imagination at all whatsoever, in which case, I feel sorry for you, truly) so it's ridiculous that we just label children today with medical problems before realizing, "Wait, they're children..."

The acting is superb, the cinematography is top notch, the MUSIC IS OUTSTANDING and overall the film is gorgeous to watch and a very pleasing viewing.

I HIGHLY recommend this film.

FINAL GRADE

A+

[hollywoodisnowdead]

You're Getting Old: A Message To The Fans

Season after season, episode after episode, you can log onto facebook and see an endless stream of comments stating that tonights South Park was "the worst episode ever", "terrible", "stupid", "shit", "garbage" or some other version of that phrase. I think these people missed the message of an episode a few seasons back.

A few seasons ago, an episode titled "You're Getting Old" was released, and it blew fans and critics alike away because of how honest and raw it felt. At first-and I admit to this too-we all thought that it was Trey & Matt saying, "We're kinda getting tired of making this program." However, after the last 2 seasons, I've come to realize something. "You're Getting Old" wasn't a message for Matt & Trey. It was a message FROM Matt & Trey. To their fans. Their fans who now say the show sucks.

Let's get one thing straight before I continue, shall we? South Park, much like The Simpsons, has been on the air for a LONG time now. The Simpsons is in Season 25 now. They've been on the air so long that one of their cast members died recently because of old age and health issues. When both these shows began (1997 and 1989 respectively), the audience for them were MUCH DIFFERENT than the audience today. And not just the audience, but even the people who watched it then and are watching it now are different people because they got old. THAT's what the episode is referencing. Your taste in humor. Your personal tastes in what you find funny or good are changing, because...YOU'RE GETTING OLD.

And that's what it is. AND, if you want proof that others are starting to realize that, here's a screencap from a user on facebook I spotted tonight before I started writing this article:

Now, spelling error of "shot" aside, he's right, and it's nice to see others realizing this. People change. What we once found funny, we no longer find funny. Case in point, I went back-when Netflix still had Viacom content-and watched some Nick cartoons I LOVED as a kid. Now some are brutal to watch. Some stuff holds up well, like old Spongebob, but a lot of it is just...not good. Why? Because I got older. I grew up. It's not the shows fault, it's just life. The show is still funny, and it's funny to people who like what they're doing NOW. Comedy is subjective. What's funny to one person isn't going to be funny to everybody, that's why "offensiveness" exists. But to BLAME a show is just downright stupid. For instance, after Marcia Wallace died this last week, I tuned into The Simpsons because I wanted to see the little tribute they were going to do for her at the end. Much to my surprise, the episode was pretty funny. I haven't even seen a lot of the show after Season 10 because it just wasn't as good TO ME anymore. Not in general, just TO ME.

But that episode was good. I noticed though the show is much faster paced, and just in general written differently than the seasons I loved, and that's because it's being written for an entirely different audience. The people who grew up watching these shows may still watch them, but they aren't the same exact people.

I get the feeling Matt & Trey got really fuckin' tired (I listened to the commentary for the episode and of course they'd never admit this on it obviously, but subtext is enough to discuss right?) of hearing every single week "your show sucks" when they're giving you, essentially, FREE FUCKING CONTENT. That's GOT to be infuriating to a degree. Here they are, busting their nuts to give YOU free content and you FUCKING WHINE ABOUT IT. Freedom of speech, everyone's got an opinion, blah blah blah, whatever I get it. But jesus. Shut up. That's what the episode is basically saying:

"You don't like our show anymore? You grew up. You changed. STOP FUCKIN' WATCHIN' IT."

It's my personal favorite episode of the series, it's one of my favorite episodes of television EVER and I think the message of it holds true to themselves, the fans and everyone in the world. We get older and we change.

The end.

[hollywoodisnowdead]

How To Make It In The Music Industry As Rebecca Black

You ever hear the phrase "Even bad press is press?"

In this age, relevancy is how you stay...well...relevant. There's an abundance of bad music on youtube by amateur kids like Rule This City or-god help you-My Jeans. However, Rebecca Black doesn't fit in this category. The internet thrives on hatred and anger. Just look at it, half the articles on the internet is people saying they hate the thing they're discussing. Video games are ridiculously overly criticized, movies and tv are ripped apart and most discussions regarding music is how it's all "terrible" now.

Shit, look at music on Youtube and half if not ALL the comments are, "I'm 13 and this song is amazing, my generation has such bad music :(", as if your age has anything to do with what music you like or what music is good or how smart you are. There's 45 year olds who are stupid. Age has nothing to do with it.

That's what leads me to Rebecca Black. She took the idea that the internet latches onto hate and thrives on anger, and churned out what many considered to be the worst song ever, and became famous off of it because people talked about it so much. BAD PRESS IS PRESS. Now I'm not defending Friday. The song is shit. But I'm pretty sure she KNEW it was shit. She made something she knew would make her famous because of how people would react to it.

And how am I going to back this up?

If you listen to her other songs following Friday, they aren't all that bad. Person of Interest is catchy and fun in all the right ways, and overall the songs are decent. But you ride that stardom of hatred to the top, and why? Because whether they liked it or not, once Friday was viral, people were AWARE of her. Awareness breeds a fanbase of any kind. They were people out there who legitimately liked Rebecca Black and Friday. So, an installed fanbase from a shitty viral music video leads to a thankful and loyal fanbase who'll REALLY defend you when you start churning out actually decent content. Genius? ABSOLUTELY.

While My Jeans is hilariously bad too, and you get the feeling Jenna Rose was attempting the same trajectory as Rebecca Black had taken, the problem is her follow up tune, "OMG" is not only barely better than My Jeans, but she's 12 IN THE VIDEO DANCING IN A SKIMPY ANGEL OUTFIT DOING STRIPPER MOVES. That's creepy as SHIT.

Rebecca Black knew EXACTLY what she was doing. Friday is nothing but a parody of shitty tween pop songs.

And if you want a really truly great example of parodying shitty tween pop songs, check out Dustin Mclean & Jason Nash's music video, "You Can't Tell Me What To Do". Perfection.

[hollywoodisnowdead]

Escape From Tomorrow: Review

Aside from having one BAD ASS poster, no film has made me more intrigued in my lifetime (perhaps The Poughkeepsie Tapes) than the insane "Escape From Tomorrow". Filmed in absolute secrecy as "home movies" in DisneyWorld in Florida and edited in South Korea to keep Disney unaware of the project, it really is a modern day marvel of how far amateur filmmaking has come. Here we are, 2013, and this guy not only decides to make a film-which is fine, lots of guys do this like Kevin Smith or a better example is the Blair Witch guys-but do INSIDE a usually restrictive DisneyWorld. Thank god Disneyworld had lax rules on uploading footage to the internet and cameras and whatnot, otherwise this thing would NEVER have been made.

However, it IS the type of film where the story behind it is kind of more interesting than the film itself. The hype is much more worth it.

That isn't to say that the film is bad. For a first film, it's shot EXTREMELY confidently and the people in it-children too-are very very good. I have a few problems with it though. First off, sound. Now, I can't gripe too much because of the way it was shot, and so it's understandable sound would be an issue from time to time but a lot of times I had a hard time hearing what was being said and it made me actually miss key plot elements. That's not good. Secondly, it becomes rather incoherent around the 40 minute mark or so. See, this film was sold to me as a "horror" movie, so I expected more stuff like when they were on the rides. I expected horror. Instead, I now understand what they mean when they compare it to the likes of early David Lynch, because it is extremely Twilight Zoneish and odd to the point of wondering if you're on drugs while you're viewing it.

I think somewhere in this movie is a great 40 minute short film, but I think as a feature there was a lot of padding. A lot of when the father was just following the french girls around...yeah...kind of padded.

But don't make it out like I'm attacking or criticising the film in any way. It really is worth it to see, especially because of how it was made alone. One thing I noticed was in high traffic areas where they needed dialogue scenes-lengthy dialogue scenes-they actually greenscreened the actors over background footage of the park. Frankly, it not only didn't look too bad but it was a smart move. Here they are, making a film in a place you're not supposed to be making a film in, and to take some of the heat off themselves, they did the smart thing and digitally created some of the scenes. Very very smart way to stay safe.

The film is shot in black and white, which DEFINITELY helps. The atmosphere would be downright silly and absurd if they had shot this in color. No question. I had a hard time taking it seriously at points, but the whole film would've been a joke had it been in color. Probably the smartest thing they did in the production was that noir pallet choice. They also replaced some of the music in rides and attractions, which was probably to take some of the heat off themselves legally (they actually have a banner on their website that reads "number of hours since release that we haven't been sued") but also makes it WAAAAY creepier. Intentional or not, worked like a damn charm.

So is the movie good?

Well, it's a curiosity. It's worth seeing because as one reviewer put it so perfectly, "It shouldn't by any logical means exist and yet it does." It's definitely more for film buffs than a mainstream audience, but it's certainly worth seeing one time. Beyond that just depends on your general interest.

I definitely view it as an artistic triumph, I reward them for what they accomplished with what they had and I give ESCAPE FROM TOMORROW a rating of:

A+

[hollywoodisnowdead]

Party Down: The Truth About Hollywood

What Freaks & Geeks was to Dawsons Creek, Party Down was to Entourage.

What that insinuates is that these shows are the anti-shows of their more popular counterparts. While series like Dawsons Creek & Entourage found mainstream recognition, their dirty cousins did not for one simple fact: They were better and more realistic, and America doesn't like realism in their TV.

And what do these two things have in common? Well, Martin Starr was in both, and is in league with co-creator Paul Rudd, who is friends with Judd Appatow who wrote for Freaks & Geeks.

Party Down follows 5 (4 always constant, as one role was later taken over in Season 2) people in the hollywood business just trying to make it or become ok with the fact that they didn't make it, who work as caterers for the catering company Party Down. The funny thing is, it's a lot like Freaks & Geeks where everyone who was in both shows is now famous. Adam Scott is now on Parks & Rec, Ken Marino is doing Childrens Hospital and Lizzy Caplan is ALL OVER THE GOD DAMN PLACE, as she should've been since her great role from The Class back in 2006.

Party Down is not only hands down one of the top probably 5 funniest sitcoms I've ever seen in my life, but it did something a lot of shows didn't do and that is that it spend a lot of time in development. In fact, this show was developed for 6 years before it ever even got to air, making the characters feel entirely fleshed out and instantly relatable because the writers weren't figuring them out as the show went along. It really does make a difference. But maybe I'm biased; because while, yes, the show IS absolutely 10/10 stars would watch again, it also hits home for me as someone who has been trying to be in the entertainment business for years myself. I mean, this entire blog is dedicated to tearing down and praising (but mainly tearing down because I'm a bitch) stuff IN entertainment, for god sakes. I went to film school for 2 years, I worked with crews, I created a cult webseries that ran for 19 episodes before a brutal falling out with most of the cast and I know the pain felt from failure after failure and FAILURE.

Party Down is looked down on because of that by mainstream audiences. It's not about winners. It's about PEOPLE. Who wants to watch people become successes? There's nothing there to see. Now we've changed a bit in the last few years since this show's been off the air, as you can see with Breaking Bad being so popular. Half the fun of that series was knowing you'd eventually witness the downfall of Walter White. But when this show was on, we didn't want to watch people fail. Entertainment is escapism. We want to watch people be successful because we often times are not successful ourselves, so we lose ourselves and root for people we wish we were. That's not what Party Down is. Shit, it isn't even an underdog story. These people are FUCK UPS. They definitely have the means to be successful-hell anyone does-but it's about reality. "Making it" is HARD. It's 50% talent and 50% luck, honestly, and if the luck doesn't factor in, you can't rely on talent alone. That's what Party Down does so well is prove that this is a difficult life to follow and these people may never become what they want to.

Just. like. us.

How many hopes and dreams have gone unfulfilled simply because it just didn't work out? Party Down is the anti-entourage. It was bold and brave and had the balls to say "Sure, something like Entourage COULD happen, but here's what actually happens to 99% of hollywood." And what did we do, as a viewing society? We shunned it, because we didn't want to watch people fail. The thing is, Henry (Adam Scott) seems pretty ok with the fact that he failed, because at least he tried. It's why I'm pretty ok with being where I am, because at least I'm trying. Not only is it perfectly cast, hilariously written and has a super simple but brilliant premise (a different catering event every episode with slight serialization through characters and dialogue), but it just was REAL, man. It was REAL. It was as honest about hollywood as I think we're ever going to get, and the irony coming from that stems from the fact that the men behind it are the men who are pretty successful IN HOLLYWOOD. Rob Thomas is a co-creator of this, and he made Veronica Mars. Paul Rudd is a successful actor/filmmaker. I mean, it's nice to finally have people-famous people-stop and really tell us why being famous kind of fucking sucks.

The series used to be on Netflix but thanks to Starz getting dicks up their butts they canceled their contract and now it's only available on digital delivery or DVD but I sincerely 100% recommend picking it up. Trust me. It's 20 episodes of pure brilliance.

Are we having fun yet, Henry?

I certainly fucking hope not.

[hollywoodisnowdead]

Exit Through The Ironic Gift Shop

Today, this news article popped up from a friend in my facebook feed.

His comment was that "even if you bought a Banksy original for $60 dollars, you still got ripped off", leading me to believe once and for all that a good majority of people-even those who like Banksy-don't understand what he represents. This story alone is about the fact that while it's good publicity, he's also making a statement that people don't appreciate the art for the message. A lot of people-even art collectors-only like art because of the monetary value it's assigned.

Banksy is making a joke of everyone.

Take for example his "documentary" from a few years back titled "Exit Through The Gift Shop". The trailer alone (which you can view here) is a joke on trailers and the films. The reviews that are placed in the trailer are hysterical twists on the cliche review statements we often see thrown into trailers to get people to see the movie. It even has funny versions of cliche quotes, such as

In a world with no rules, one man broke them all

I mean for god sakes, look at this screenshot I snapped of one of them.

I mean right off the bat he isn't even taking the trailer seriously. Exit Through The Gift Shop to me is his version of The Blair Witch Project. It's a fabricated story they sold as "truth" because it proves if you put shaky cam and slap the label "documentary" on something, people buy it with no thought of where the proof is! Banksy created Mr. Brainwash as a joke on the public, showing what fools we all are to rush out and buy stuff only because it's trendy. Popart sells. Lady Gaga is talented-I have no doubt of that-but she's another person in a long line of people who fell into the "hey i'm famous for being weird, like me!" group. A lot of people who like Lady Gaga don't actually like Lady Gaga, they like the IDEA of Lady Gaga and following something that's "unique" and popular because it-by association-makes THEM unique and popular.

THAT is what Banksy is doing. He's forcing us to take a step back and look at how we evaluate things in this world when it comes to art and media.

There's an old saying that art is subjective, which is true. Everyone looks at a painting or reads a poem and we all take away something different from it. However, that's what makes his statement that much better because he's proving that even with how personal art can be to a person, it can be used as a tool to mass market produce products and sell them to an unoriginal and uninspired and unenlightened society who doesn't actually understand or take art at what it's supposed to say or be but instead take it at face value. Liking it because they're told to like it. Pop music suffers from this BADLY. The people who hate Banksy-not all I'm sure-are the people who don't get this.

We hold art-and I'm talking museum art now-up to this ridiculous standard because of the problem we've invented where stuff sells for higher prices after the artist is dead. It's value increases. It's the same problem we have where we berate people to death while they're alive and force them to hear all these negative fucking things about themselves that make them hate themselves, and then as soon as they die they're deified and forgiven of all their faults. If you like someone or like their work, tell them while they're alive or appreciate them while their work is still fresh. The fact that artwork from dead artists sells higher is the problem. We've created a market that panders to people who don't (and I'm sure the entire art world isn't like this) actually buy art because they appreciate it, they buy art because art appreciates.

Big difference.

Monetary value does not equal personal value. That's something we need to realize and change. I think what Banksy is doing is quite wonderful and I hope he continues to do it for years to come.

[hollywoodisnowdead]

Tune In or Die Out

Recently, the television series "Lucky 7" was canceled after 4 episodes. Tonight, the CBS program "We Are Men" was canceled after two episodes. The pilot of We Are Men pulled in a 6.8 million viewership-which ISN'T BAD-and I don't know the numbers for Lucky 7. While We Are Men fell to 5.4 in its second episode, that still isn't terrible enough to warrant cancelation TWO EPISODES into its run. This is one of the biggest things that makes me worried for the future of network television.

When Seinfeld premiered in 1989, the ratings for the 1st 3 seasons were basically abysmal and nonexistent. Still, NBC kept the show on the air and by it's 4th season it became a landmark in tv, and ended up becoming the most famous sitcom of all time. How are we supposed to have character development in 2 episodes of a series, or 4? Shit takes time to build to. Because of these mega hits-that AREN'T GOOD-like Big Bang Theory it makes all other shows on the network have to live up to impossible expectations 2 episodes out of the gate, which, I'm sorry but it's true, is basically impossible. Shows need to GROW. You can't expect something to have an audience automatically, even if it's associated with people who have a built in audience. You have to make reasons for viewers to tune in.

And this has history behind it. Bryan Fuller of the now popular Hannibal series had 3 different series-all critically acclaimed and some award winning-before Hannibal (all original too) that were canceled, one of which after 4 episodes. Hannibal comes on in 2013 and even IT struggles to survive even with his name attached to it. Here's a guy who is known, who's work IS popular after it's gone and he STILL HAS TROUBLE ATTRACTING VIEWERS. Hannibal somehow missed the swing of the cancelation axe, despite pretty rotten ratings, and managed to eke out a second season for the 2014 lineup, but it proves that even with someone famous helming something, you're not automatically guaranteed a smash hit. Shit, you want an even better example? JOSS WHEDON. Buffy was a smash and ran for 7 (?) seasons and nothing he makes after that stays on the air for more than 2 seasons outside of Angel, which ran for 5 and was canceled anyway. It's proof. These network executives need to understand that people have to have time to get involved emotionally with characters. Nobody is able to connect to some character right out of the gate. I'm sorry. You can't.

Granted, Hannibal may have had some trouble because of people being so fiercely loyal to the source material, but look at what's happened here. Bryan Fuller and Joss Whedon, both very talented people with shows that are very well liked and win awards and neither of them can keep a show on the air. They both come back this year with new programs...and BOTH ARE BASED ON SOMETHING. Fuller now has Hannibal, which isn't an original concept, and Whedon has SHIELD, again, not an original concept. Because of prior cancelations, the executives have scared creators of excellent original content into making a success off of STUFF THEY DIDN'T MAKE. So that's where we are now. Granted, Lucky 7 was a remake of a foreign show (because we haven't had enough of THOSE) but We Are Men was original! Were they good? Well that's subjective, and I didn't watch either of them but still, they were more original than SHIELD, or hell, even Hannibal which I'll admit, for as much as I love it. The network says they want original content, they get original content (a lot of it VERY GOOD), it does moderately well to poorly depending on said content and alot of times on their lack of promotion of it (nobody to blame but themselves), they then PULL original content and blame the viewers for being too stupid to tune in.

There's something fundamentally wrong with the television landscape right now.

Now factor in networks like FX or AMC. AMC gave Breaking Bad-a critically adored, award winning show with pretty low numbers until the final season-5 seasons. They just kept it going. Similarly, FX has done the same for Wilfred which shouldn't have gotten a second season, a third and not the 4th they're getting now purely based on the ratings. Now sure, there could just be the "president loves this program" thing goin' on here at times, but both shows-especially Wilfred-did pretty damn poorly and still managed to eek out 5 and 4 seasons, respectively. That's because they recognize there IS an audience for these programs. I said it a while ago, and I'm repeating it here: ratings aren't the end all be all anymore, but the old networks still haven't caught up that idea of digital delivery. Sure, they sell DVDS and episodes on iTunes/Amazon/their website players and do the DVR thing and whatnot but in the end they don't stop and recognize those numbers (well the DVR I'm sure they do), not like FX and AMC do anyway or else these shows would be lasting much much longer. And for the record, 6.8 million viewers ISN'T BAD for a pilot. The blame for ratings doesn't lie entirely on the executives, because-again as I've said before-pirating kills television. If you look at a list of the most pirated shows and how many times those shows were pirated, you'd go "Shit, if these numbers were RATINGS this show would go on INDEFINITELY!". A lot of people don't understand that for something to be on TV at ALL, you NEED TO SUPPORT IT, anyway you can. Tuning in live definitely helps that. They don't count pirates views.

And then what happens? The internet throws a gigantic stink, gets a series renewed using the ol' petition trick, the show comes back next year...AND NOBODY TUNES IN. They just continue to pirate it. Sure, you tricked the network into giving you another 13-24 episodes, but you can't pull that trick twice, nor was it a good thing to do in the first place. All that time you spent pirating and petitioning you could've spent tuning into the live show. And you can't say "Well I don't have time to" because you're clearly watching it, just at a different time. So if you can't tune into the live show-which is a legitimate thing, people have work and whatnot-buy it on iTunes/Amazon or buy the DVD. DO SOMETHING. Otherwise your content goes the way of the dinosaur.

There's a viewer/network disconnect. We need to find a happy medium. A balance. Otherwise pretty soon, we won't have original content at ALL. If nobody tunes in, there's no money to be made, and if there's no money to be made, there's no money to be spent making content that won't make money, so why make anything at all is how they see it.

Yes, people should tune in and granted I got a bit off topic there but the overall point here is that networks need to give shows more time to grow and develop, otherwise nobody is going to tune into anything anymore because they figure it'll be canceled anyway and the whole system is futile.

And where does that leave us? With Netflix original series, and outside of the 7/10 rated 4th season of Arrested Development, their shows are pretty bad I must admit. Hemlock Grove is a mess, Orange is the new Black is BORING AS ALL HELL (and this comes from a Mad Men fan, so you can't say I don't enjoy slow drama) and House of Cards was just weird, but at least decent. Fuck, their shows AREN'T EVEN ORIGINAL. Everything they have, outside LilyHammer, IS BASED ON SOMETHING.

Is that REALLY the world of content you want us to go to?

Think about that.

[hollywoodisnowdead]

Don Jon: Review

Don Jon is like a college students psychological final essay on pornography and the effects  it may have on a person or a relationship. That isn't to say it doesn't make some good points, because it does, but that's all it is. A film sprinkled with bits of good points. There's no real character development (there's a bit but it's very minor and subtle, which I praise actually because it's almost more realistic that way; very rarely do people actually change in real life the way they do in films) and no real closure, and at times the film is meandering, aimless and unsure of where exactly it's trying to go. It feels like Levitt wanted to make a film that really said something, but couldn't find enough things to say that would warrant an hour and a half film that wrapped around those things.

That all being said, it's a fairly confidently written/directed film from first timer Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and overall IS entertaining. It's just another example of a trailer being better than the movie, and them knowing that and using the trailer to really fill seats. Guess it doesn't work because there were only 6 people in the theater. The acting is pretty excellent, and the use of the sister was especially wonderful-I won't give any spoilers-(especially Tony Danza and especially Scarlett Johansson) and the editing is god damned impeccable. I really hope whoever edited this film gets an award because it was phenomenal. All these things-and the overreaching conclusion that it is entertaining-do make the film a success. I just think it missed what it was ultimately going for. A lot of directors make a first film because they have something they want to say and that's what it seemed like Levitt was going for. I just don't think what he had to say was enough to fill an entire film. The subject matter was great but he got all his real points across in the first half hour or so through 2-3 minute voice overs.

He's right too. Every single thing said in this film about pornography from his perspective is spot on, and I'm saying this as a woman. But the point that's supposed to come from that is to find out what exactly is wrong with him that he likes porn better than real women. I don't necessarily think (he even says a few times in the film "i don't know what's wrong with me" or some variant of) that there IS anything wrong with him because we're human and we're all different. That's what makes us human is our differences. But apparently there's supposed to be-as Julianne Moore points out-something wrong with him because you SHOULDN'T feel that way. It's almost a tug of war. On one hand it seems as if the film wants you to root for Jon and his independence and love of freedom to watch pornography but on the other they want to make this statement that watching pornography ruins your idea of what a real relationship is.

And a few things he says are absolutely incorrect. As much as what he says about porn IS right, there's some that's not right at all. To say all women don't enjoy some of the things that happen in porn or won't do it (blowjobs, anal) is absolutely ridiculous. I have plenty of female friends who love doing these things, and if I myself weren't a lesbian, I would too. Again, our differences is what makes us human. The film says some stuff very well and some stuff kind of poorly.

It isn't that the film isn't funny or isn't serious enough to be taken in a serious manner. It does both things very well. It's just that it didn't know what to do overall, and a movie does need some sort of line to follow. I appreciate the realism involved (the small but subtle almost nonexistent character development and the lack of closure because people don't change much and there really isn't closure to a lot of things in life) but in the end...Don Jon unfortunately fails to live up to what I think they were aiming for, which was a great statement about pornography and relationships. Catch it on DVD or something.

FINAL GRADE: B

[hollywoodisnowdead]

I rarely write about music, but there are the exceptions and as of this post, Lxnnnie is one of those exceptions. This is the kind of artist who takes music as a thing and says "How can I make this art in my own way?" instead of just making music that's generalized into a genre we all know with the same 3 chords and same boring cliche lyrics. The first thing that's worth noting is that Lxnnnie is actually a certified schizophrenic, and this album is his 12 year opus of what it's like to be inside his head. Musically, it's what you'd get if you took Stereopathic Soul Manure era Beck and mixed it with Napoleon XIV, then added a pinch of Brad Sucks. Lxnnnie is the result, and....shit is it just wonderful.

It's all over the place, it's varied, it's often times hard to comprehend what you're listening to, but that's probably what schizophrenia is like, so he probably succeeded in his attempt at what he was trying to accomplish musically. A large part of Lxnnnie I really love is his mysterious air. I can't find his real name anywhere, nor a very good actual photo of him, nor any info about the guy outside of his music and you know what...I prefer that in cases like this. Like how he exists solely to create music, and that's it. He keeps his life private and for all I know, he only exists as Lxnnnie, and he probably prefers it that way. Mystery makes someone much more intriguing (kind of a redundant statement but fuck it). At times, the album is acoustic and folky then switches to techno beats then goes to a little more low fi rock. It's definitely unlike anything you've heard before.

This release is the psychological version of Girl Talks "All Day" in that you HAVE to listen to it from start to finish and not skip around.

Stand out tracks include:

They Said It Would Be Fun

Kill & Kill Again

Wondering & Wondering

Side Effects

Paisley Rain

Always Is All Ways

Is Lxnnnie mainstream, or even semi mainstream? Not one bit. I wouldn't recommend Lxnnnie to anyone in high school, and probably not even anyone in college. Lxnnnie is for a specific niche of people. People who respect music as an art form, and people who enjoy watching someone hone their craft to the point where it's actually audibly gorgeous and yet unnerving. Lxnnnie is for people who are unhappy, or at least constantly questioning every decision they make. Lxnnnie isn't mainstream because it makes you think. That isn't to say that he ISN'T deserving of attention. In fact, he's deserving of attention more so than most mainstream artists, but he just can't break into that group because of the work he creates. It's almost hipster to say it's too "deep", but it is.

I thoroughly recommend Lxnnnie and all his work (all of which are available right here) but especially this album. Be warned though, it's weird, beautiful and tragic. It's only for people of sound mind. He even states this on his website. If you're looking for something different and unique, then Lxnnnie is for you.

[hollywoodisnowdead]

The Big Terrible TV Theory

I've alluded to my hatred for this show in the past, but I feel that after tonight, it's finally time to tackle this thing head on.

I ended up watching-because I'm staying with someone and they have horrid taste in media-the episode of The Big Bang Theory called "The Parking Spot Escalation" which is, from the research I've done, one of the most popular episodes of the series. I remember it being pretty funny 20 years ago when I saw it on Seinfeld, also called "The Parking Spot", but cheap shots aside, let's move on.

First thing is first, it's 2013. I don't need to be told what's funny. Not only is the laugh track insulting to the audience viewing it but it also just grates your nerves. It's a holdover from the safe comedy era of the 50s that we're so close to breaking. It worked in the 90s, it just doesn't work NOW. Even in the 90s we didn't necessarily need it but it was tolerable. Now it just seems outdated. But the laugh track isn't the worst part of the show, because a good number of other shows on TV (Hot in Cleveland for example) have a laugh track, so it's mean to get down on one show for having it. It's exclusionary and that's not fair. The laugh track is not the problem with the show.

So let's move on to my next gripe. It's a live action family guy in the sense of every single joke is a reference. I mean, there's barely a punchline, it's just references to pop culture and often pop culture the mainstream audience probably doesn't actually understand or fully comprehend because it does try and pander that true nerd audience at times but it can't. And now, here, for your amusement, is my example of a Big Bang Theory joke:

SHELDON: Hey Raj, what's the difference between Astrophysics and Particle Physics

RAJ: I don't know Sheldon, what?

SHELDON: Iron Man

Partially because the writers aren't actually that intelligent in their science based facts so not only can they not actually make good science jokes, but then the punchline is often just a reference to something, sometimes unrelated to the discussion itself, just to elicit laughter. But, to be fair, this is the culture age of the pop culture reference revolution. We are so in depth with shows relying on pop culture references-Arrested Development, Community and even older shows like Spaced for example-that I'm going to let this slide because while it's not great writing (or writing at all) and it's not done well, it's just what comedy is today. So yes, it's stupid but it's not the problem with the show.

So let's move on to my next issue. The girls. In this particular episode, I actually found the female characters to be quite charming in and of themselves and if this were not made by Chuck Lorre and was only about these women and shot in a different format with different writers and was an altogether different show, I'd watch them. They were the only part that ever made me almost crack a slight smile. But they aren't characters. Sheldons girlfriend is a mere female representation of all of his worst traits (which are the only traits he has from what I can tell) and she's annoying. While the actress is good at that role-I will give credit where credit is due-the character is a shell. She's something, like all the female characters it seems, to merely pump in female lines for female laughs that aren't even really funny outside of girls hearing it and going, "I'm a girl, I totally relate!". There IS such a thing as smart female humor. But we're debating the semantics of female humor on a Chuck Lorre show. For god sakes, we're discussing SMART WOMEN ON A CHUCK LORRE SHOW. Women in Lorre's programs are notoriously downright awful and never fleshed out, not even the ones they give a slight crap about like the maid on Two & A Half Men. They're merely hollow vapid shells to dispense barely tolerable female quips into and only exist, as far as I'm concerned, to make the female audience not get mad that they aren't portrayed at all. Instead, they're just portrayed as STUPID. That's even worse. They're bad, but even then they're not the worst part of the show.

So that's 3 things. 3 major things that while are totally horrid, aren't actually the worst part of the show...so then...what is? SHELDON. Dear god in heaven, I have never once wished a television character to be real purely so I can shove his fucking TI83 Calculator up his fucking asshole. While Jim Parsons may do a decent enough job portraying a character (he won an Emmy this year over way better actors, but that's the Emmys. That's a whole other situation I don't even wanna get into), the character of Sheldon is the most unlikeable, miserable, putrid waste of a character with no redeeming qualities that I have EVER SEEN ON TV. And you are saying, "Well what about George Costanza from Seinfeld that you related earlier?" There's a distinct difference between a character who's motivations are selfish and FUNNY and a character who is just a downright fucking asshole. That's what Sheldon is. Not only is he giving a bad name to actual nerds (like those exist anymore, amirite fauxnerds?), but I wouldn't beat this character up because he's a fucking loser. I'd beat him up because he's a fucking douchebag. If I knew this character in real life, I would want to kill him. You can sit there and compare characters all day. Well, what makes Sheldon so terrible in relation to say, Walter White?

First of all, genres are entirely different. Characters react differently due to the genre of the show. Walter White may be just as bad as Sheldon-though not nearly as annoying, in fact, he's actually a puppy dog rolling in daisies compared to Sheldons attitude-but because of his situation he's in in the type of show that he's in and has had actual character progression and has an ACTUAL CHARACTER, you understand him. Sheldon is nothing but a stereotypical idea of what writers think current day nerds are. We're not mean. We're not. In fact, I don't know ANYONE like Sheldon. I also don't know anyone like Walter White, but still, the fact remains. Someone said in best (and I quoted them on this blog before) that this show and these characters are popular because nerds are finally being "Accepted", even though they know this shit is bad and inaccurate, but because it panders to them and introduces them to the mainstream audience, they allow it. It doesn't get nerd culture. It just gets away with nerd culture. Sheldon is an awful fucking character who's attitude I could not understand putting up with for one episode, let alone 7 seasons or whatever.

And the worst part is? This show pulls in 20 million viewers a week. A WEEK. Meanwhile we've got struggling brilliant comedies and dramas that barely pull in a million or 3 million and are on the verge of being canceled daily. Get your fucking priorities in order, America.

And that's what's even worse. I've read a few articles about people saying-intelligent people with well written articles and legitimate complaints-why this show is terrible and all the comments are "It's a tv show, stop being so hypercritical" but the second THEY defend what they love, those same viewers say they're being overly dramatic. You're a hypercritical loser until you're a hypocrite. You can't. fucking. win. And while I agree that we're too hypercritical about media these days-to the point of saying one finale 42-2 hour episode out of 100 episodes or less ruins an entire series which MAKES NO GOD DAMN SENSE-I have just as much of a right to tear this piece of shit a new asshole as the people who hate LOST do. The only difference is, a lot of the people who rip apart LOST are people who've either never seen it or are people who didn't understand it. I'm not saying I'm smarter (cause trust me, I have no self esteem whatsoever) but it's comparing apples to oranges.

I've watched this show, and seeing as it's a laugh track comedy I'm pretty sure it's hard to misunderstand.

At least other bad sitcoms are pretty watchable and at times entertaining, even in a "so bad it's good" sort of way, like Married With Children. This isn't even watchable as far as I'm concerned. I'll be happy to never have to witness this abomination of what passes as entertainment again. This thing doesn't pass as entertainment. It passes as a bowel movement.

And scene.

[hollywoodisnowdead]

Sleepy Hollow: Big Premise & Nowhere To Go

Yesterday I sat down with my DVR and my "Impress Me" face and watched the pilot to Sleepy Hollow. My ultimate conclusion is that this is yet another show in a long line of shows that suffers from a slightly interesting (though not original) premise and has nothing else going for it. We saw a lot of these recently. Revolution, Once Upon A Time, Alcatraz and Terra Nova all suffered this same problem, and 2 of them have suffered cancelation for it. Somehow Once Upon A Time is still on-somebody fucking explain that one to me-and Revolution does have the possibility to get better because of who's working on it, but ultimately they suffer from the Avatar effect. It's all gloss and no substance.

Shows like this are watched because of shows like LOST. The success that had gave us these hyped up piles of garbage. That isn't to say LOST was perfect (though it was damn near), but at least LOST was GOOD and knew how to make compelling television. NONE of these can do that. Thankfully, Sleepy Hollow has a few things going for it and a few things really against it.

The lead actor is phenomenal. I mean that guy needs to be an enormous star right now. Somebody get him on a better program.

The buy in factor: So many people don't want to start watching a show because they don't want some convoluted fantastical story to deal with but with a show like this, we all already know the premise. Familiarity is safe, and so we watch it.

The fuck your familiarity factor: This is the major thing I HATED is that while the show took a nutty premise already with putting Crane in current time (which I admit was more entertaining than I expected it to be, probably thanks to the guy portraying Crane than anything else), it also turned everything we knew about Sleepy Hollow on its head...and NOT in a good way. The 4 horsemen? REALLY? Ugh.

The horseman has no character. None. At all. The horseman was the best part of the Tim Burton Sleepy Hollow. He was hilarious. This guy is just generic badass unkillable bad guy stock character #31. Nothing interesting. Not even his arrow mark.

It's well shot, but in a typical network drama way. Nothing too fancy. Actually, it kind of gave me a visual ice cream headache. There was some cinematography I loved and some I really despised.

Also, the dialogue at times was cringeworthy, and it did fall into a bit of predictability.

Rolling Stones song at the beginning? Hell yeah.

It's a mish mash. The show isn't actually terrible, which is a wonderful thing, but it has the potential-especially with what it has working against it-to become terrible. But, it also has the potential to become-even with the stupid apocalypse shit-an actually pretty decent program too. It's really 50/50 at this point (granted I have not seen episode 2 as of yet and that may sway me differently). I just don't want yet another case of the week overarching story. I'm tired of that. Especially with scifi or supernatural stuff. Alcatraz had the potential to be fantastic and the case of the week thing just botched it all to hell.

Also, one thing that worried me immensely was the fact that the show was "created" by 4 people. I say "created" because technically it was created by Washington Irving back when he wrote the fuckin thing. I lived in TerryTown as a kid, so maybe I'm just protective of Sleepy Hollow. Anyway, 4 creators, and that screams problems. Each person no matter what is going to have their own vision for what they want the show to become, no matter how much they may agree on things or work together. It'll happen. I guarantee it, and when it does, that will be a very interesting thing to watch.

Overall I wasn't really impressed but I was at least intrigued. It has potential, and it has a lot going for it. I would at last recommend checking it out. 

I'm giving the show-as of now-a rating (based off the pilot anyway) of a C+.

[hollywoodisnowdead]

Finales Aren't Important

M*A*S*H* is the #1 most watched series finale in television history, and also considered to be one of-if not the best-series finale in television history. Since then, it could be said that that show tricked people into believing that finales are important.

They aren't.

At least, not in the way we seem to think that they are. Yes, they matter, but not to the degree that we hold them to. Once again, our hypercritical state of mind in 2013 puts us as the judge, jury and executioner. You have to understand that first of all...they don't write this for YOU. Most of these shows-especially these serialized shows-are written by people who want to tell a story THEY THEMSELVES want to hear. They rarely do it for the audience. When you sign onto watching something, you're almost signing a contract that says, "I know I'm not going to be happy with some of this, but let's do it anyway".

Art isn't about making other people happy. Art is about making YOURSELF happy. Somewhere along the way people got lost and started thinking that series finales had to tend to their every whim and desire. No. If anything, all it really HAS to give you is closure, and it doesn't even HAVE to do that. You're not entitled to JACK SHIT. You're watching THEIR show. You want to write an ending to something? Make YOUR show. For this reason, I am not letting myself get hyped about the series finale to Breaking Bad. Not because I'm not interested in what's going to go down (because I AM) but because I'm sure I'll love some stuff and I'm sure some stuff will just be sort of "meh".

But stuff is sort of "meh" in shows even BEFORE a series finale, so why does the finale get all the hate when a show may have ticked you off or made enormous mistakes episodes or SEASONS earlier? Is it because it's the last episode and they won't be able to fix what they've done that you consider a problem? Honestly, I think a lot of it comes from the fact that they're losing something they love and that's it. They don't want the program to end. A lot of people say "Man, if only this show could've lived on!" when a great series gets canceled, but do you REALLY mean that? Would you want to see it go downhill? Because it probably would happen.

I truly, honestly believe a lot of it stems from the fact that they're just angry the show is OVER.

But on the other hand, it's even stupider when you stop and realize that it really has no consequence to your life at all. It won't affect your future or how you live day to day. And saying, "Well I stuck it out even though it got bad because I wanted to see how it ended!" is a cop out because you admit it ALREADY GOT BAD. Why stick with shit you HATE? At that point, you're just LOOKING for a reason to be angry, as far as I'm concerned. I'm fine with the LOST finale, I'm fine with the ending of Harry Potter and I'm sure I'll be fine with the ending to Breaking Bad as well.

Why? Because as long as it's entertaining, it's succeeded. That's all they're meant to do. Entertain. Even if it isn't perfect, but is entertaining at least, it won. It succeeded. Game over. End of fucking story. And the next day I'll get up, I'll get dressed and go on about my life whether I loved the ending to Breaking Bad or not because dwelling on something as stupid as the ending of a fucking TV SHOW is absolutely INSANE.

People create petitions to change the endings to video games and they send death threats to writers, but nobody gives a FLYING SHIT that at any moment we could be 1 second away from another world war? Is THIS what we have come to? A society of hypercritical socialites, attacking any little thing that we hate JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO? Freedom of speech wasn't put on the bill of rights just for YOU to be a whiny bitch.

Finales suck. Get fuckin' over it.

The end.

[hollywoodisnowdead]

Breaking Bad: Ozymandias

WARNING: SPOILERS

I don't normally do reviews on Breaking Bad but this thing was a masterpiece of cinema. It was all stuff I knew was coming, even from Season 2 to last weeks cliffhanger, I knew some of this would eventually be out in the open or happen and yet...I STILL wasn't prepared for it. I still wasn't ready to see Walt tell Jesse about Janes death, I still wasn't ready to see Flynn learn about his fathers real job and I wasn't ready to see Hank go, no matter how he went.

Hank and Skylar are two characters who I've never badmouthed like the majority of fans seem to have. I mean, put yourself in Skylars situation. She has EVERY RIGHT to be angry at Walt, just as her reactions have been realistic. Does that justify her? No. She's just as bad as he is, as Flynn says at one point in tonights episode, and he's right. As for Hank, I was all for Team Walt until he poisoned Brock. At that point I figured, ok, he did it to save his family and Jesse, but I still wasn't fully against him.

Then he killed Mike.

FOR NO. DAMN. REASON.

THAT'S when I turned on him entirely. Brock was the start, and Mike was the finish. No matter what Walt says or does, he is beyond redemption at this point. I didn't necessarily root for Hank either, but I didn't want to see Walt win. At least Hank was trying to bring justice to light. Walt may have started this with the purest intentions-something that tonights episode was all about-but in the end the thing he did for his family is what destroyed his family. Hank was just doing his job. It all boils down to that, really. Even Marie didn't deserve Hanks death and she's the one character who HAS annoyed me endlessly. Hank didn't deserve that. Marie didn't deserve it. Gomez didn't deserve it. Jesse doesn't deserve this. Walt however...

Walt deserves everything that's crumbling around him.

He brought this all upon himself, and as much as he'd like to blame others, I think he finally realizes he can't. He's clearly mad at Jesse for bringing Hank out there, because had he not, he may still be alive. But even Jesse can't be blamed because had Walt not done any of what he'd done, Jesse never would've ratted on the tape they made. Which brings me to my next point...his family may be safe from the legal repercussions of the police through his alibi for Skylar on the phone, but they aren't safe from Todd and Uncle Jack. Jesse states that tape was at Hanks, which leads to Marie, which leads to Walts family.

And as much as they are trying to show Walt having a bit of conscience left, it doesn't matter because what's done is done.

I'm glad they gave Hanks story more closure than last weeks "everyone shows up at once and they go out in a hail of bullets in slow motion set to sad music" or some stupid cliche shit. This was great. Breaking Bad is now in the point we always knew it would be; watching a man who always could get himself out of anything finally run out of options. He did it last week when he gave himself up. He knew this was it, and that's why he called off the hit. Same thing goes here. Hank wasn't leaving there and he knew it. No matter what, Walt or "Heisenburg" no longer had any tricks up his sleeve. Walt is finished. Heisenburg is finished. The empire is over.

And he's left to watch it burn.

If anything, the only real people who deserve to get out of this clean are Flynn and Jesse. Jesse has only ever done what Walt made him do, and yet I've seen people get angry when he finally rats? Hell, after all he's been through I'm shocked he didn't rat sooner. If you're still actually on Team Walt, you're a FUCKING HEARTLESS, PSYCHOPATHIC LUNATIC. Jesse didn't want to kill Gale. Jesse didn't want to work for Gus. Jesse didn't want to keep cooking. Now he's basically sold into slavery, and people are angry? I guess the shows finally hit that mainstream "i'll watch it cause it's popular but i don't understand it" audience.

But enough about that. This episode represented everything we knew it would build to. It ripped my heart out and shat on my soul.

And there's still 2 episodes left.