A Few Thoughts on the Oscars

Seth MacFarlane was about what I expected: not raunchy enough for the Family Guy crowd, too raunchy for Hollywood. For the most part, I thought he handled himself well. The monologue was pretty clever, though it could have used some editing (the sequences showing what MacFarlane did in Shatner's future would have worked better if they were shorter and not just, you know, the entire sequences) and I appreciated that MacFarlane didn't disappear later in the evening, popping up occasionally to move the show along and drop a joke or two. It bugs me when the host just pops up to bookend the show.

In terms of his actual jokes, some hit, some missed, but that's true of all hosts on all shows. In particular, I liked, "Argo tells the previously classified story about an American hostage rescue in post-revolutionary Iran. The story was so top secret that the film’s director is unknown to the Academy", and "tonight’s ceremony is being watched by close to a billion people worldwide–which is why Jodie Foster will be up here in a bit to ask for her privacy." And, of course, the bit about saying how the next presenter needs no introduction, then walking away.

A Few Thoughts on the Oscars

In general, I found the ceremony (and Billy Crystal's much-ballyhooed return to the hosting gig) generally affable. It's wasn't bad, nor was it terribly good. It was safe, and after last year's debacle, that's probably exactly what the Academy and ABC wanted. So even if the show wasn't as entertaining, in its own way, as watching last year's train wreck or when the host, the show, and the nominees combine to make for a genuinely good show, it wasn't as awful as some on the internet would suggest. And for good or bad, it delivered exactly what it promised. Which is an achievement all its own.

I did like the overall premise of the show's design, hearkening back to classic movie theaters, and thought the various stage designs rolled out throughout the evening (as well as the title cards that appeared on screen when nominees were read) did a nice job of "celebrating the movies" without being too garish or attention getting. It tied in nicely with the fact that many of this year's best picture nominees were also about the history of or a celebration of movies.

A Few Thoughts on the Oscar Nominations

The nominees for the 84th Annual Academy awards were announced this morning. Check out the full list here, and some quick reactions from me below.

The Magic Number is Nine
The big question going into the morning was how many best picture nominees there would be. The new rules put into effect last year allow for a variable number of nominees, depending on how many receive at least 5% of first place votes. Most pundits had been predicting anywhere from five to seven, but we ended up with a surprising nine.

Also, Eleven
Which is the total number of Oscars Hugo is nominated for, including Best Picture and Best Director, making it the film with the most nominations, despite failing to receive any acting nominations. It is followed closely by The Artist, with ten, which puts Hugo back into the Best Picture discussion alongside the current front runners, The Artist and The Descendants. 

And Two
There are only two, literally two, nominees for Best Original Song, a sad commentary on the state of songs written for movies, which makes this category an Oscar pool gimme. The two nominated songs are "Real in Rio" from Rio and "Man or a Muppet", which was my favorite of several great songs from The Muppets.

A Few Thoughts on the Golden Globes

In general, this was a pretty lackluster show. The awards themselves are either so predictable or ridiculous that it's hard to get too worked up about who does or doesn't win, and the Globes' role as an Oscar prognosticator has lessened in recent years as awards season gets ever lengthened. So the real appeal of this show is to see who says what once they've had a few drinks, and hope the host gets in a few good zingers.

After all the hubbub last year when Ricky Gervais dared to tweak the sensibilities of some of Hollywood's finest (but then, it turns out, he didn't really), it was kind of a big deal when he was asked back to host again this year, but he was pretty tame throughout. He certainly had some good lines, but there wasn't anything terribly "Gervais-ian" about his schtick this year. Whether asked to rein it in or choosing to do so himself, his biggest sin was being unmemorable.

A Few Thoughts on the 63rd Annual Emmys

The opening number, with Jane Lynch singing her way through various TV shows (that all apparently exist in the same building, for some reason, and Leonard Nimoy doesn't want us to know that...?) was pretty lame, and that's coming from someone who loves these big, over-the-top openings to award shows. The lone highlight was when Jane stumbled into Mad Men and flirted with Peggy before being thrown out by Don Draper, outraged at her news that in the future, people can fast-forward through commercials.

A Few Thoughts on the Oscars

I'm one of those (apparently rare) people who enjoys the Oscars as much (or more) for the pomp and pageantry of the ceremony as the announcement of the winners. So while normal people grouse about montages and overlong shows, I tend to just enjoy it.

That said, this was a pretty terrible Oscar ceremony. Anne Hathaway was enthusiastic (and gorgeous) but didn't have the best material with which to work, and James Franco looked more or less stoned throughout (which is just how he is, but doesn't make for the most dynamic host). The whole "history of the Oscars" schtick (which felt random in the 83rd Oscar ceremony) amounted to very little, featuring brief snippets of classic films so far upstage they lost any sense of immediacy. Clearly, the producers realized they weren't working, and they got downplayed. But then, when bits came up which relied on the theme (such as Billy Crystal's routine), the whole thing felt even more out of place. I'd have just preferred some montages.

A Few Thoughts on the 83rd Oscar Nominations

Check out the full list of nominations here.

Thankfully, the Academy eschewed the Golden Globes and didn't nominate any songs from Burlesque, so we'll hopefully be spared listening to Cher's botox-y man voice at any point during the ceremony.

I'm bummed Carter Burwell's score for True Grit wasn't nominated. I thought it was a great throwback to the kind of music you'd hear in old school Westerns while still sounding like a contemporary film score. 

A Few Thoughts on the Golden Globes

I still miss the clips of nominated actors' performances after their names are read (and yes, I will continue to complain about this until they bring them back). 

Christian Bale looks like Jesus. Apparently, the part of his speech that was bleeped out was when he noticed Robert De Niro in the audience and referred to him as "the shit".

A Few Thoughts about the Emmys

The opening, in which Jimmy Fallon, members of the cast of Glee, Tina Fey, Joel McHale, and Jorge Garcia (amongst others) sang and danced their way on stage to Springsteen's Born to Run was pretty awesome.

A Few Thoughts on the Oscars

That opening bit, with all the nominated actors coming out on stage to wave at the crowd? Weird and random.

Neil Patrick Harris' opening number was a pleasant surprise. If there was internet scuttlebutt suggesting he'd be there, I missed it. NPH is always welcome.

A Few Thoughts on the Oscar Nominations

Check out the full list of nominees at Oscar.com

A Few Thoughts on the Golden Globes

A Few Thoughts about Heroes

Frankly, I don't think I have the energy to do a weekly "Heroes" post this season. I still watch the show, but I find a hard time caring about it much, especially since it's become clear that the producers want to create a show drastically different from the one I want to watch: they're creating a show about ordinary people trying to live a normal life despite having super powers, whereas I'd rather watch a show about ordinary people realistically figuring out how to live a life with super powers. It's a subtle distinction, sure. But, for example, in my show, the characters would be using their powers more instead of pretending they're an addiction that needs to be controlled.

That said, last night's two hour premiere of the fifth volume, "Redemption", did spark a few thoughts and opinions I'd like to share.

A Few Thoughts on the Emmys

I don't usually watch the Emmys (at least I don't go out of my way to watch them) because they usually celebrate shows I don't watch or can't watch (cuz they're on HBO/Showtime). This year, three words made me tune in: Neil. Patrick. Harris. I dig his work on "How I Met Your Mother" and in "Harold and Kumar" and his gig on SNL last year was one of my favorites. Plus, he hosted the Tonys earlier this year (an awards show I have even less interest in watching than the Emmys) and did a bang up job. Also, thanks to the magic of DVR, it's much easier to watch a show like this when I can fast forward through commercials and overly long and boring acceptance speeches.

A Few Thoughts on the Oscar Nominees

The Little Independent That Could
Slumdog Millionaire (or "Slumdog", as the kids say) received 10 nominations, second only to Benjamin Button's thirteen, which suggests, along with its Golden Globe wins, that this the current best picture favorite. Of course, sometimes the film with the earliest best picture buzz fades in the time between the nominations and the ceremony, but for now, it seems that "Slumdog" has the best shot yet in recent years to become the first token "plucky indy" best picture nom to actually win.

A Dark Day
I'm bummed Dark Knight didn't get the fifth "up for grabs" Best Picture nomination (it went to The Reader instead). After winning a handful of guild nominations recently (including the Producer, Writer and Director Guilds), I thought it had a good shot at a best picture nom (it did get nominated for eight Oscars in all, but aside from Heath Ledger's nod, they're all technical awards).

Not that I necessarily think it deserves to win (I honestly haven't given it much thought) but a nomination for the highest grossing film of the year would have ensured that a greater number of people would have tuned in to watch the ceremony, and there would be less grousing from people about how "out of touch" the Academy is with the average moviegoer. It's rare enough that the film the "average moviegoer" likes (ie the movie that makes the most money) is good enough for consideration at the Oscars; when those two stars align, I think the Academy should make the most of it.

Not that I'd want them nominating it JUST for those reasons, but in this case, I think the movie is definitely worthy of nomination regardless of its commerical success.

No Doubt About It
I think its cool that all four of Doubt's main actors received acting nominations: Meryl Streep, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, and Viola Davis.

Surprise!
A number of surprise nominations in the acting categories (and by "surprise," I mean nominations for actors that I hadn't heard much about it in the "likely nominee" discussions): Richard Jenkins's best actor nod for The Visitor and Melissa Leo's best actress nod for Frozen River (two films I've never heard of), Robert Downey Jr.'s best supporting actor nod for Tropic Thunder (a critical acclaimed performance, for sure, but it's rare for the Academy to recognize the work of a summer comedy) and Michael Shannon's nomination for Revolutionary Road (when both his leading costars were shut out).

Do You Feel Lucky, Punk?
Of course, for every surprise inclusion, there's the surprise exclusion, the biggest, perhaps, being Clint Eastwood not getting nominated for Gran Torino (in fact, the film received zero nominations). The Academy loves Clint, so I'm surprised he or his film didn't get a nod SOMEWHERE. Similarly, Kate Winslet, who won two Golden Globes, received only one Oscar nomination, Best Actress, and it was for the role for which she won the SUPPORTING actress Globe (in The Reader). Both hers and Leonardo DiCaprio's work in Revolutionary Road went unrecognized by the Academy.

Second Time's the Charm
In the crap-shoot of a Supporting Actress category, I think a win for Marisa Tomei could be a slight repudiation of the wrong-but-still-persistent urban legend that her win in the same category for My Cousin Vinny years ago was simply because Jack Palance read the wrong name.

This Is The Last Song
Only three Best Song nominees this year, one from Wall-E and two from Slumdog Millionaire. That category sure isn't what it used to be.

Battle Royale
The nominations of Frank Langella, Mickey Rourke, Robert Downey Jr. and Heath Ledger means that in a ceremony presided over by Wolverine, Skeletor, Marv from Sin City, Iron Man and the Joker will be battling it out for Oscar gold.

A Few Thoughts on the Golden Globes

• Kate Winslet's dual wins (Best Supporting Actress in The Reader and Best Actress for Revolutionary Road) should make for some interesting Oscar handicapping, especially if Doubt, which was fairly quiet at the Globes, makes its expected impact on the Oscar nominations. Also, consider this: the last time someone won two Globes for two different movies was Sigourney Weaver in 1989 for Working Girl and Gorillas in the Mist; she went on to win no Oscars that year.

• Has anyone else noticed that the older Bruce Springsteen gets, the more he sounds like Bob Dylan? The lyrics to his Globe-winning song from The Wrestler that played last night were approaching an almost Dylan-esque level of unintelligible-ness.

• Heath Ledger's win for Best Supporting Actor makes an Oscar nomination, if not a win, all the more likely.

• Tina Fey's acceptance speech was hilarious: "If you ever start to feel too good about yourself, they have this thing called the Internet and you can find a lot of people there who don't like you. I'd like to address some of them now. BabsonLacrosse — you can suck it. DianeFan — you can suck it. CougarLetter — you can really suck it because you've been after me all year. What do y'all have to say now?!"
  

• Mickey Rourke, already generating Oscar buzz for his performance in The Wrestler, continued his march towards that end with his Globe win, especially if the response to his win amongst his peers is any indication. I also love that he thanked his dogs.
  

• Slumdog Millionaire, already the favorite to earn the "plucky indie" Best Picture Oscar nomination (following in the tradition of Little Miss Sunshine and Juno), raised its profile and Oscar chances with its four Globe wins, including Best Director for Danny Boyle and Best Picture. Granted, the Globes are handed out by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, so they are more inclined to appreciate an Indian film by a British director, but at this point, I'll be surprised if it doesn't win something on Oscar night, and it's a serious contender for best picture.
  

• The announcer that led into and out of the commercial breaks irritated me. Everything he said was spoken like some grand proclamation: "Tomorrow's news is happening tonight!" That kind of stuff. Dude, settle down. It's just the Golden Globes.

• On the subject of bad writing, some of the banter amongst the presenters seemed especially forced and/or painful this year. I know the stars booze it up at this awards show, but inebriation usually plays a role in acceptance speeches, not the presentation banter.

• The big draw of the Golden Globes is that it's a party; the stars sit at round tables, mingle with friends, and there's an open bar so "you never know what's going to happen," all in contrast to the more formal Oscar ceremony. But I do have to say I still like the Oscars better. I'm not saying the Globes need to be come solemn and dignified (it is fun to watch a more laid back awards ceremony) but I missed some of Oscar's spectacle: the montages, the musical performances (in some cases, that's the only time I ever hear the nominated songs), and especially, the clips of nominated performances (there were a few last night, but the choice of which categories got them seemed almost random). The Golden Globes could easily up the production values of their ceremony without sacrificing the sense of frivolity and fun that is their trademark.

A Few Stereotypical Generalizations Observed One Sunday While On Register at Barnes and Noble

Old people want their bags, consarnit!

When I’m on register and someone purchases two items or less, I usually ask them if they’d like a bag, rather than automatically putting their stuff in one. I find that very few people will go out of their way to decline a bag, but most of the time, if asked directly, will (unless it’s raining/snowing outside). However small a difference this makes, I figure this saves the company a few cents (they won’t have to reorder more bags as often) and does a small part to help the environment (one less bag getting trashed as soon as the customer gets home).

However, I said that most people will decline a bag; you know who never declines a bag? Old people. Doesn’t matter if they’re purchasing a gift card that will be dwarfed by our smallest bag; they want a bag for it. It’s like they couldn’t bag their purchases bagged during the Great Depression so they have to make up for it today by having everything, no matter how trivial, put in a bag.

We're old! Give us our bag!

If a vaguely college-aged looking male is purchasing a Christian Inspiration book, he goes to Bethel.

The store at which I work is very near Bethel University, a private college known for the Christian fervor of its students and faculty. And there’s nothing wrong with that-I’m not making a value judgment here, just an observation. I can almost guarantee you, at my store, if a guy that looks like he could be in college is buying a Christian Inspiration book, he’s a Bethel Student.

Jesus rules!!

And when I say “Christian Inspiration” I don’t mean they’re purchasing a Bible, or a catechism, or some kind of theology book. We have a different sections for those kinds of books within the general “religion” area: Bibles, Comparative Religion, and Christianity, respectively. I'm talking about Christian Inspiration where you’d find works by televangelists like Joel Osteen, Billy Graham or Robert Schuler and authors like Joyce Meyers or TD Jakes. Again, I'm not making any kind of value judgment here; it's just that in my experience most college-aged males don't buy these kinds of books-unless they go to Bethel.

Anyone who has “See ID” on their credit card will want their receipt “with them.”

Just like the bag question, I ask every customer if they would prefer their copy of the receipt with them or in the bag. Most people just have me toss it in the bag. A few take it themselves and stuff it into a billfold or purse. But I can guarantee you, if the customer has “See ID” written on the back of their card in addition to/instead of their signature, then they want their receipt with them, and how dare you even ask, and are you trying to steal my identity?

My assumption when I read “See ID” on the back of a card is that the person is more paranoid than the average person about identity theft. So I then assume their desire to tightly clutch their receipt in hand stems from the same paranoia: they wouldn’t want to risk that receipt falling out of their bag, or worse, being found by one of the scores of identity thieves that WCCO news tells us routinely pore through everyone’s garbage for such things.

I myself am admittedly more cavalier about the subject than I probably should be (I often like to joke that if someone wants to steal my credit cards, they’re welcome to them. Enjoy all that debt, moron) but I think some people take it a little far. For example, on this same Sunday, I had a gentlemen enter his debit card pin into our customer credit card reader with his other hand up to block my view of the numbers he’s entering. Assuming, apparently that:

1. I actually gave a damn and was paying any attention to his pin.
2. Possessed a desire to unscrupulously and illegally access his account, presumably to fuel the heroin habit he must assume I possess.
3. I had some intricate and devious plan to gain access to his debit card itself, without which knowledge of his pin would be worthless, thus forcing me to either go through withdrawal or sell my body on the street.

So thanks dude, since you were “saavy” enough to put up your hand up while you entered your pin, now I’m a man-whore.

Quit looking at my pin, man-whore.

Writing checks is really, really slow.

Seriously, who writes checks anymore (well, old people, but that’s another generalization)? I write maybe two checks a month for bills that I can’t pay electronically, and one of those will be changing soon. Otherwise, a friend might get a check as reimbursement for something since I rarely have cash.

But there are people out there who still insist on writing checks for the most mundane of purchases, including books, instead of using the almost universally used check/credit/debit card. And when they decide to do so, the whole rhythm of the line grounds to a halt (like those credit card commercials where someone decides to use cash instead of their Visa or whatever). But cash we can handle; with all the swiping and authorizing that goes on with credit cards, they take about as long to process as it takes to make change. But checks are just SLOW. And people that write checks are oblivious to this, of course, (obviously, since they’re writing a check in the first place). Do they bother to have all but the amount filled in when they reach the counter? No. Do they at least start filling it out as I’m ringing up their purchases? No. They don’t even bother to pull their checkbook from the cavernous maw of their purse until after I’ve given them their total.

So I’ve decided that whenever someone decides to slow things up with a check, I am going to ask them for their phone number (if it’s not on the check already) and write it down. I will also ask for their ID. And write their driver’s license number on the check. And the expiration date. Oh, I’m sorry, is this taking too long? Well, the 90s called and it said to use a friggin’ check card!

The 90s also want their clothes back...

A Few Thoughts on the Oscar Nominations

• I hope the strike is settled so we actually get an Oscars ceremony, and not just a press conference. I know, I’m weird, but I actually like the show itself, with its inflated sense of self worth and long winded production numbers. Plus, Jon Stewart is hosting again. Latest word on the strike is that the writers and producers are talking again (or at least talking about talking again) so maybe they’ll get something worked out. The recent DGA settlement will surely help things along.
  
• No big surprises here regarding the best picture nominations. Michael Clayton was a little surprising, since it came out a few months ago and academy voters have short memories, but it did get nothing but rave reviews when it was released. And Juno, despite countless positive reviews, was a bit of surprise for a best picture nomination, simply because it’s the kind of light-hearted, humorous movie the academy tends to overlook despite its quality (thank last year’s Little Miss Sunshine for helping make the inclusion of such films seem less surprising then they once were).
  
• Javier Bardem is my first official lock to win his award; for a film about which nothing but positive things continue to be said, he received more praise than anyone else for his role as the heartless and unstoppable assassin Anton Chigurh.
  
• Speaking of Best Supporting Actor, I think they should change the name to the Phillip Seymour Hoffman Award; the dude gets nominated every year it seems.
  
• We can now say “Transformers: Nominated for Three Academy Awards.” Still a shame Judd Nelson’s stellar voice work in the original Transformers movie went unnoticed by the academy…
  
• In the Best Original Song category, I’m flashing back to the early nineties, what with Alan Menken nominated for three different songs from one Disney movie. Traditional wisdom has it that multiple nods for one movie in one category cancel each other out, but that didn’t stop Menken from cleaning up awards back in the second Golden Age of Disney films.
  
• For the record, as a native Minnesotan, contrary to what our media may think, I don’t really care about all the “Minnesota connections” to the Academy Awards this year. Seriously, are other states as desperate as Minnesota to connect, no matter how tenuously, all national news items to the local scene somehow?
  
• I’ve actually heard of two of the best documentary feature nominees (No End in Sight and Sicko) this year.
  
• I continue to have never heard of (let alone seen) any of the live action or animated shorts noms.
  
• Surfs Up gets the third animated feature nomination? Seriously? I mean, it’s obvious Ratatouille will win the award, but still, don’t just hand out the third nomination. I mean, sure, the Simpsons movie isn’t going to win, but I’d rather see it get the nod than yet another animated penguin movie in which the penguins all participate in a specific human activity.

A Few Thoughts on the Writer's Strike

You know what really grinds my gears? The Writer's Strike. As most everyone probably knows by now, the Writers Guild of America went on strike last weekend. Although it’s been widely discussed all over the blogosphere, here’s my take on it. No one ever said originality was a hallmark of the Gentlemen of Leisure…

Near as I can tell, the sticking point between the writers and the producers is how much of the profits of DVD sales the writers get, and some issues regarding compensation for “new media” (internet and cell phone downloads, crazy futuristic holographic downloads or other such things that haven’t been invented yet). Last I heard the dispute over DVD sales amounted to this: the writers currently get $.04 for every DVD over $20.00 sold. That’s right, 4 cents. They would like to double that, to $.08. This is apparently too much for the producers to part with. At a negotiation session before the strike, the writers agreed to drop this requirement in an effort to avoid the strike, and focus solely on the new media revenue. The producers still have yet to budge.

Obviously I’m biased in favor of the writers. I am a writer, and hope someday to actually get paid to do it. So of course, I am inclined to sympathize with them. But I try to stay open minded about it: I’m not witnessing the negotiations, I only know what I know through the media's filters (granted, most major media outlets are controlled by the people fighting against the writers, so if anything, I should be biased against the writers).

And I’m not some crazy pro-Union firebrand, either. I’m fairly neutral on the subject; unions can be good, and they can be bad. They do some good work, and were certainly necessary a hundred years ago when rich people looked like the guy on the Monopoly game and Teddy Roosevelt was busting trusts with his big stick. But they can also be corrupt, laborious (pun intended) and paralyzed by the weight of their bureaucracy, more concerned with their well being than that of the people they represent.



But the fact remains: the writers demands seem more than fair. According to the information available to me, in this instance, the writers are the good guys, fighting a valiant struggle against their evil fatcat masters. Granted, I don’t know anything about the specific new media demands, but I’m pretty sure that at least meeting the writers halfway will cost less than what the industry is poised to lose if the strike continues.

Of course, another factor in this whole debacle is that the actors (SAG) and directors (DGA) are poised to renegotiate their contracts later this year and the prevailing thought is that the producers are playing hardball with the writers to show the actors and directors (who, of course, are far more important than writers…) what they can and can’t get away with when they come to the bargaining table. If the producers cave to the writers now, then it’ll be that much easier for the actors and directors to get the same kinds of terms. So it sounds more and more likely that the strike will continue on for awhile yet, simply so the producers can show everyone how tough and powerful they are.

Then again, the last strike in 1988 went on for 22 weeks and cost the industry an estimated 500 million in lost revenue (and helped bring about that wretched finale to the second season of Star Trek: The Next Generation, largely considered the worst season finale in the history of existence). In 2007 numbers, that amount would be significantly larger, and the industry today, including DVDs and whatnot, is a juggernaut compared to what it was 1988. So the longer this strike goes, the more money everyone, especially the producers, are poised to lose. And the last thing anyone wants is that (or another episode of Riker flashing back to important events in his life which, coincidentally, all took place during the first two seasons). So maybe the producers will come to their senses ad wrap this thing up early.

In the meantime, what does all this mean to you, Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Couch-Potato? Well, the late night/comedy news shows are already in reruns; I’m sure you’ve noticed Jon Stewart suddenly talking about less than topical news items. Those kinds of shows are written and produced on a daily basis, so without writers they can’t do much. Next to go will be the soap operas; they generally work a few weeks ahead but not much more. Then the sitcoms (I heard today that several sitcoms like The Office already halted production) and dramas, your CSIs and Law and Orders, which should have enough new episodes in the can or scripted to last at least through November sweeps and into December, when they’d be going on hiatus until after the new year anyway. But if the strike lasts, chances are they won’t come back from hiatus. Heroes has allegedly filmed an alternate ending to their December 3rd episode that they can tack on so the episode seems more like a season finale, in the event the show doesn’t return.

Looking further into the future, some yet-to-premiere shows may or may not air. 22 weeks (the length of the last strike) puts this one running until sometime around the beginning of April. The word is that Lost has anywhere from 8 to 14 of its 16 episode season completed (or at least past the point of needing the writers) so presumably, they’ll be back on the air in February as planned. Then again, there is some talk that in the event of a prolonged strike, they may put the kibosh on the whole season, not wanting to risk starting and then stopping after eight new episodes when the strike still hasn’t ceased, meaning we won’t get any new Lost episodes until February of 2009! (Seriously, if this strike cancels Lost, we will have words, producers. We. Will. Have.Words.) 24, which was delayed by a variety of factors, has only 6-8 episodes in the can, and it sound like they’ll pull the season rather than run the risk of airing eight episodes and stopping mid-story. Mid-season replacement shows, like The Sarah Conner Chronicles, should air in their entirety, as they’re done and in the can. Of course, many mid-season replacements suck and get yanked accordingly, but it’ll be hard to get the ax when you’re the only scripted shows around.

There may be no award ceremony for the Oscars this year (someone has to write the jokes for the host, and the stuff the presenters read off the teleprompter) and if the strike lasts long enough, even the film industry could be affected (because films operate even farther in advance than scripted TV, it’ll be awhile before they run out of scripts, but it could happen).

But if you’re a reality TV fan, boy, are you in luck. The reality TV writers (yes, they have writers too) are not part of the WGA so prepare yourself for an even greater onslaught of reality TV. CBS is prepping a post-hiatus launch for Big Brother, and rumor has it NBC may pull some shows from their cable networks and air reruns of shows like Top Chef and Project Runway to fill airtime. And of course, I’m sure American Idol will be back and really, isn’t that all America cares about anyway?

The more I read and hear about this strike, the more it seems the writers are in the right and the producers in the wrong. Bottom line, the writers are hard working and generally under-appreciated; I don’t think there is anything wrong with their wanting some share of the revenue their product helps generate. After all, without the creative talent the producers would have no product to make any money on. From what I’ve read, a lot of the writers aren’t even striking for themselves, but for future writers, so that twenty years from now those writers won't have to go on strike to a get quatloo for every TV show we purchase and download directly into our brains. To me, that’s perfectly fair and reasonable.





It seems like the producers are quibbling over pennies on the dollar while poised to lose millions, maybe even billions, as the industry grinds to a halt, all so they can save face and look like a Big Man. Seems asinine to me. In the meantime, the writers don’t have jobs and we’re left with nothing but crappy reality TV to watch. And that really grinds my gears.

A Few Thoughts About My Honeymoon

Get yer minds out of the gutters, people...

• Universal Studios is a lot like a poor man's Disneyworld. Don't get me wrong, we had a blast there, and the rides/attractions are as fun as anything at Disney. Mrs. Teebore's two favorite rides of probably the whole trip were at the Universal Parks: the Mummy ride and the Spider-Man ride. It's just seemed so clear to me that Universal was trying to emulate Disney in everything: their resort, their service, their City Walk area, their version of Fast Pass and meal plans, and coming real close, but just not quite making it.



• The first night in Florida we ate at Emeril's Tchoup Chop, one of the two "Emeril" brand restaurants at Universal. This one was part of one of the Universal hotels, very quiet and secluded, away from the craziness of City Walk. And we had one of, if not the best, meal of the whole trip there. I had a braised lamb shank with bleu cheese mashed potatoes. I love bleu cheese and am appalled I hadn't thought to put it in my mashed potatoes before. Great service, great food, great wine-a great way to spend our first honeymoon evening.

• One of the two Universal Parks is Islands of Adventure, a more ride-focused park than its Universal Studios counterpart. Of course, one of the "islands" is the Marvel Universe island, home to the awesome Spider-Man simulator adventure ride and easily my favorite of the different islands. I've been there before, but it always blows me away. Huge cutouts of Marvel characters (all drawn by Adam Kubert), all the buildings are Marvel themed (Murdock and Nelson Law Office, the Baxter Building, etc) and one of the souvenir shops even sells graphic novels and comics. Plus they have Marvel characters roaming the streets. Highlight of the trip for me? Getting my picture taken with Cyclops. That's right, Cyclops. We even pounded fists afterwards.


• I know that early October is a down time at the parks, but I was amazed at how quiet they were, especially at Universal. We walked right onto many of the rides-the five minute wait times they posted were basically how long it took to walk through all the turnstiles to get to the actual ride. I'd say we never waited more than 30 minutes for a ride, and that was only a half dozen times or so (Jaws, the Mummy ride, the jungle safari at Animal Kingdom, Space Mountain and the Great Movie Ride at MGM). Granted, we passed on the hour long wait for the Aerosmith roller coaster and avoided the hot new ride at Epcot (the test track-because we can drive a car anytime we want to). It was even a little sad, because both Universal and Disney put a lot of effort into entertaining you while you wait in line, and we both expressed sorrow at missing some of that stuff as we whizzed past it. But I'm not complaining too much.




• It's funny the stuff one watches in a hotel on vacation, the stuff one wouldn't ordinarily watch because at home, there are more channels and more options. One morning I found myself watching billards on ESPN. Not trick billards, just regular billards. Now, I have nothing against billards or even watching it, it's just not the kind of thing I'd watch at home because I could find something better to watch or do. But in a hotel, in the morning, with limited channels, well, that's the best I could find. Beats watching the View...




• At Epcot, we ate dinner at the Biergarten, in the German area of the World Showcase. It was an "all you care to eat" buffet of German food, and man, they had everything. Schnitzel, Rouladen, Veal, German Pot Roast, several wursts, sauerkrat, red cabbage, tons of salads and sausages and mustards and desserts and dinner rolls that were basically pretzels. I had four platefuls. Plus, a liter of beer for ten bucks. Outside in the parks, ten bucks'd buy you two 8 oz. Budweisers. It was a hell of a dinner.




• Mrs. Teebore felt that the revisions to the Pirates of the Carribean ride had too much Jack Sparrow added in. I disagreed; they yelled out his name once, he appeared in the background of two more scenes, and then said goodbye to you at the end of the ride. I was just happy they still sang that awesome "Yo Ho" song.




• I noticed that Disneyworld seems to gloss over a lot of their films from the late 60s-70s-80s (the Michael Eisner years, perhaps, my dad suggested). Throughout the parks, on rides or artwork or achitecture or restaurants, the classics (Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, Peter Pan) are well represented, as are the neo-classics from the late 80s/early 90s (Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, Lion King) and some of the newer stuff (Pocahontas, Tarzan, Lilo and Stitch). But that in-between stuff-Robin Hood, 101 Dalmations, The Rescuers, Sword and the Stone, Fox and the Hound, Great Mouse Detective-are more or less absent. You'd be hard pressed to even find a plush toy from one of those movies, and they have a lot of plush toys. (Jungle Book was around, but that was mainly just because it came out on DVD the week we were there).


• So Fast Pass kind of sucks. At MGM, the wait for the Aerosmith roller coaster was an hour, so we thought, what the hell, lets try this fast pass thing. So we got our passes at 11:15 and were told to return between one and two. Okay, no biggie. We moved on, and tried to catch the 11:30 Indiana Jones stunt show. But it was standing room only (people must like that one earlier in the day-later, we caught the last show around four and it never filled all the way up). Anyways, we figured we'd grab a fast pass for the next show, thinking we'd need it, and then move on to Star Tours and get a fast pass there. Well, it turns out you can only have one fast pass at a time, even if it's for another ride (also turned out we didn't need one for Star Tours-walked right past the animatronic C-3PO and R2-D2 and onto the ride). So until 12:55, we couldn't get another fast pass for anything. Whatever, we moved on. But when the time when we could redeem our fast pass arrived, we were on the opposite side of the park from the Aerosmith roller coaster. So it was either hike across the park or skip it and keep moving along in the route we were on. We decided to skip it. Look, I'm sure some people love fast pass, and I'm sure it can work great. But we just felt like it put too much of a schedule on us, forced us to keep checking our watches, and dictated what we did and when we did it too much for us.



• Disney has this weird sort of control over everything they do (I know, duh, right?). It's at times both scary and kind of comforting. I mean, those people in costume that wander around the parks for pictures and autographs? They don't wander anymore; now they have scheduled appearances, the better for parents to plan their day and make sure their child doesn't miss their favorite. We even joked that Disney was probably capable of controlling the weather around the parks, and when it rained, it was just because they wanted to spike sales in the gift shops on Disney umbrellas and ponchos (if so, jokes on them-we just waited out the rain!).



• So the cruise was loads of fun-nice and relaxing, with tons of food. However, the cruise staff (meaning the people onboard who are basically in charge of the entertainment) were really annoying. Whenever they got on a stage, anywhere, they yelled into the mic and told people what to do. A "party" to them meant playing music and having a cruise staff member yell out dance instructions. "Everybody twist! Okay, throw your hands up!" Everyone rock and roll! Who's not rock and rolling!?!" It was all very summer camp-ish, which is fine for events involving the kids, but at eleven at night in the adults only nightclub? Just shut up. We'll dance when we want, how we want, or not at all. Take a chill pill already.



• Apparently maritime law states that all lifeboats must be orange and white. Except on Disney ships, where the lifeboats are yellow (so as not to clash with the overall color scheme). Also, maritime law says that fireworks cannot be launched from a moving ship. Except a Disney ship (remember what I said above about control?). Now, I'm curious how they pulled that off. I mean, yeah, Disney has the money to pass around some bribes, but that just seems somehow crude, inelegant, for Disney. One theory we had onboard regarding the fireworks was that it's only illegal to launch certain colors of fireworks, and then Disney somehow bought the rights to those exempted colors, making them "Disney colors" so that effectively, only Disney ships could launch fireworks from a moving ship. But I am curious how that arrangement came about.