The Looney Tunes Show vs. Looney Tunes vs. Batman vs. Kingdom Come
I tried. I really did. I’ve tried to like The Looney Tunes Show. But I don’t. It’s just…
Let me start at the beginning. Being a good dad, I introduced my boys to one of the funniest, best shows ever made. The original, 1940s & 1950s Looney Tunes. Bugs Bunny. Daffy Duck. Elmer Fudd. Admit it – doesn’t reading those names conjure up great memories of waking up early on Saturday morning (a day off from school!) just to watch these cartoons? (If you are under 25 and reading this, ask your parents what I am talking about here.) Except for the Coyote/Road Runner cartoons. Man, did I want Wile E. to catch that smug Road Runner.
Then along comes “The Looney Tunes Show.” I thought ‘I’ll give it a try. How bad could it be?’ As it turns out, it’s pretty bad. At first, I kind of liked it. I figured, well, it’s pretty cool that they’re making new cartoons with these characters again. It could be interesting. And then – I watched. It’s hard to say exactly what it is that’s so unappealing about the show. The animation is fine. The voices are pretty good. There’s just something missing.
It’s like the 1989 “Batman” movie…or the band Kingdom Come….Pardon me whilst I non-sequitur. I remember the 1989 “Batman” movie well. I was geekily excited about it. I couldn’t believe it – the first major motion picture featuring comic book characters since the sad, oh so sad “Superman III” (I don’t count “Superman IV”, as I didn’t see it. Did anyone?). And then I saw “Batman.”
For the most part, I liked it. I thought there was too much Jack Nicholson. I felt that campy acting by Jack Palance was overdone and out of place. My friends and I used to address each other (no, not all the time – just to annoy one another) using the stilted Palance delivery. “… you are my number one …. guy.” Fine – that’s probably not the right intonation, but that’s how I remember it sounding.
So, anyway, I thought it was pretty good. And I now realize that it was probably more because they’d taken a serious stab at it, than that it was actually a good movie. I liked it because it existed. So then the second movie comes out, and I pretty much hated it. And with that, my ‘great’ feelings about the “Batman” movie changed to ‘good’ feelings. They didn’t descend into ‘neat’ because I didn’t even bother to see the third or fourth movies. From what I heard, this was a sound decision.
And Kingdom Come? Anyone remember them? Around 1988, they appeared – Led Zeppelin clones, playing songs that could have been Zep tunes that the real band decided not to record. Most people criticized them for being Zep clones and dismissed them. I actually kind of liked their first album, but I concede that listening to Kingdom Come is really not even close to listening to Led Zeppelin.
Which brings me back to my original point. (And makes me think that there really ought to be an actual antonym for non-sequitur). I don’t like the new “The Looney Tunes Show,” and I dread it when my boys put it on and I wind up watching it.
One of the first things I noticed – after watching a few of the episodes – is that there are hardly any appearances by Elmer Fudd. I know – What??? That was, like 50 percent of the original Looney Tunes. And it was funny about 95 percent of the time. “Pronoun trouble.”
The other issue, and I think this is the main issue, is that this new version just has no…soul. The original Looney Tunes were clever, funny as hell and just flat-out fun to watch. Even if you’ve seen “Rabbit Seasoning” 20 times, the 21st viewing is still a riot.
If those cartoons had been 17-18 minutes long, with a ‘plot’ – they wouldn’t have been as funny. And they surely wouldn’t resonate 50 years later. It’s like a Ramones song – guitar, lyrics, guitar – in and out. Say what you gotta say and end it. Simply put – the new cartoons are too long. To me, they get tripped up by trying to be too clever. And they’ll never be as good or as clever as the originals. I don’t think any cartoon (and many many TV shows) ever will be.
It’s too bad, really. It would have been nice if they’d been able to make a cartoon series today worthy of the original. They should have just called the show “The New Bugs & Daffy 17 Minute Show With a Song and a Shorter Cartoon” instead of “The Looney Tunes Show.” At least then, they wouldn’t be inviting geeky dopes like me to compare the two. And really, do you want to be the Dan Quayle (“The Looney Tunes Show”) to Lloyd Bentsen’s Jack Kennedy (original Looney Tunes)?
Looney Tunes stands alone in the pantheon of great cartoons. Seriously. Just watch any one of these. You have to give the producers of “The Looney Tunes Show” credit for trying. But nothing beats the original. “Th-th-th-that’s all folks!” ( as if you’d have resisted). 🙂
Penny of Big Bang Theory: We Like Her Despite…
Ah, the alluring, lastnameless Penny. The Big Bang Theory’s yin to Leonard’s yang. We were perfectly willing to suspend our disbelief enough to go along with the inevitability that she would date Leonard. The producers pretty much hit us over the head with this idea from the first conversation Leonard had with Penny.
And why not? He’s a nice guy, makes a good living, is very kind and always willing to put himself out there and pretty much do anything for Penny. He’s exactly the kind of guy the viewers would root for to get the girl.
As for Penny, let’s face it, she’s:
- Kind of a tramp: According to Sheldon and Amy Farah Fowler’s calculations, she’s slept with at least 31 different men since she moved in.
- Kind of a drunk: She’s frequently drinking by herself, and has been shown on multiple occasions relying on drinking when things are tough.
- She takes advantage of her allure: Lets Leonard do things for her. And this is something that Raj and Howard have talked openly about. In her defense, this is probably something that should be explored as much from the perspective of Leonard allowing it to happen as much as Penny taking advantage.
- She’s always broke: And yet is always partaking in the frequent takeout dinners with the guys and is rarely, if ever, shown contributing the the cost. Yes, it is true that the guys are also not seen paying for these meals, but I get the impression that, in a chivilrous manner, they are covering the cost for Penny.
And yet, she’s a pretty likeable character, right? She’s funny, sassy, fun, pretty and has helped to smooth out the rough edges that Leonard had. And she’s not dumb – she holds her own with the guys. However, she’s also been kind of mean to Leonard and broke his heart. But that happens in relationships – there’s no guarantee that they will last forever.
She’s like that girl in college that I had a crush on but could never figure out how to actually get from acquaintance to girlfriend. (The reasons for this are probably better suited for a psychological journal rather than a blog post, so I will skip over that). I suspect that the same idea could be put forth for women, substituting a stereotypical good looking guy in place of the Penny stereotype character. At least, in a TV show. Reality is a bit different.
But I’m not here to blather on about reality. I’m here to talk about a TV character that represents Hollywood’s ideal girl-next-door. The girl, like Laura Prepon in “That 70’s Show,” who would never have actually dated the Topher Grace character. But in the confines of a television show, that’s exactly what happened.
In reality, that stereotypical character is often not as interesting or appealing once you get through the surface chit chat and really get to know them. More often than not, people are forced to realize that they were chasing an ideal, and the reality of the situation is not as wonderful as what Hollywood has led them to believe it is.
So, what should we say about this? Nothing, really. It’s just an observation. If we really need a moral, then I’ll say that Hollywood should continue to churn out shows and movies with these types of characters. Even though we’ve been trained to believe (more often than not) that the women in the relationship are superior to the men, and that the man is lucky to have her. Hollywood has even gone further with this idea, and would have us believe that should the relationship end, the man would be devastated, and the woman will easily bounce into another relationship fairly quickly.
This might sound like women bashing, but it really isn’t. It’s more formulaic TV/movie writing bashing. Try to think of TV shows or movies (of this genre) where the above scenario isn’t true. Or, better yet, try to think of TV shows or movies that have a boy-next-door thing going on. Not many of those. The girl-next-door scenario is a comfortable, proven vehicle for movies and TV shows. In most cases, the woman is ‘out of his league’ but he manages to win her over despite all of his obvious physical faults and his immaturity. This probably has a lot to do with Hollywood being a male-dominated industry during its formative years. Apparently, vulnerability in men was something that was deemed crucial to silver screen relationships.
Sometimes, we get the happy ending where they live happily ever after. More often than not, though, we get the breakup. This provides some emotional connection to the characters and keeps us coming back to see what happens next. It was true of Moonlighting, That 70s Show, Knocked Up and it is true of Penny & Leonard.
The main thing to take away from this is that Penny, like all the women Hollywood has planted in the girl-next-door role, is likeable. Often, as in this case, that likeability is something that can’t be explained. By any reasonable evaluation, we should not like Penny at all. However, she is very likeable. Despite whatever flaws or failings are attributed to her character.
In the end, she’s nice to Leonard, and she makes him happy. Sometimes she makes him miserable, but more often than not, they make a great couple. And how can you not root for that? Isn’t that something that we all want? Go, Leonard!
What’s Up With 5-Hour Energy, Anyway?
Surely you’ve seen these commercials extolling the wonder of the 5-hour energy drink. You know – it’s 2:30 and everyone is falling asleep at their desk. Well, anyone who works in an office can certainly attest to the accuracy of this phenomenon! It’s reaching a crisis point, quite frankly.
Fortunately, we have the magical 5-hour energy drink. Just gulp it down and you’ll get all the pep you need to finish that report, enter that data and make it to that after hour party refreshed and ready to go.
But what happens at 7:30? Is it like Aquaman if he’s been out of the water for exactly one hour? Is it like Cinderella, who reverts back to rags and a pumpkin at exactly midnight? Actually, I think they’ve updated Aquaman so that the whole “hour out of water” thing isn’t so much of a concern for him. Hey – maybe he swigs 5-hour energy to get around that whole thing. Cinderella ought to try that.
Anyway, when 7:30 strikes, do all those exhausted people collapse in a heap? What happens then? Unless they have another 5-hour energy drink at the ready, this sounds like a real problem.
I think a few serious questions need to be asked here.
(1) What’s so damn special about 2:30, anyway? What if you’re tired at 2? Or even 1? Are you allowed to take it then? After all, the commercials are very specific about the zero hour being 2:30! Clearly, the scientists who developed this wonder elixir did a lot of research to determine that this precise hour is the hour that the human body starts to shut down. Does this stuff even work if you drink it at another time?
(2) What’s in this stuff anyway? How does it work? I know, I know – who cares as long as it works? After all, it’s high time to kick 2:30 in the teeth! That time’s had it coming for years. Obviously, this is like the Coca-Cola formula. It must be a carefully guarded secret in order to protect the integrity of the product. Imagine what could happen if that information fell into the wrong hands.
(3) Why five hours? Why not 6? Or even 7? I know, this sounds a lot like that dude’s exposition about 7 minute abs in “There’s Something About Mary.” But really, it begs the Aquaman question. Is the composition of the formula so precise that it’s exactly five hours of invigoration? Or is there some wiggle room? Perhaps you can get 5 1/2 hours from one batch. Or even 5 3/4 hours! Of course, it’s also reasonable to assume that you might get a batch that only gives you 4 1/2 hours. Luck of the draw, I guess.
I just had a crazy thought. Maybe this 5-hour energy thing is a secret government plot. Yeah, that’s it! They get us to drink this stuff and get us addicted. Every 5 hours. It’s beautiful in it’s simplicity! Go along with it or suffer the consequences. And you know what happens if you don’t keep drinking the stuff, don’t you? Well, you turn into a zombie, of course! But that’s a big ol’ double secret government kinda thing and a subject for another blog post…
It’s An Interesting Idea…
Yes, the folks behind America’s Got Talent are looking to shake things up. Frankly, it would take research and interest for me to opine on this show. Research I don’t feel like doing, as my interest in the show is pretty much non-existent.
What is interesting to me – and is very likely the sole interesting thing to many other potential TV viewers – is the addition of the guy that should be the undisputed Godfather of radio, Howard Stern. He’s always been thought provoking, funny, informative and has always worked against the grain – in the best possible way. He’s also ruffled a lot of feathers, as he refuses to be pigeonholed and one of the crowd. And, let’s face it, he does revel in teasing, taunting and sometimes mocking his opponents.
As has always been the case when Howard Stern’s name was connected to anything with which the general populace might come into contact, the cited article goes to great pains to try to sanitize Mr. Stern and attempts to reduce him to the type of lame, ‘safe’ sort of TV ‘personality’ that we see on the screen all the time. Stern was never that sort of entertainer, and never should be talked about as such. Who really cared about talk radio before Howard Stern? And does anyone really care about it now? I suppose if you are a Sirius subscriber, you probably do. But, if people are honest – there wasn’t anyone like Stern when he was on mainstream radio. And there isn’t anyone like him now.
The network (I don’t even know which one) and the show AGT should be eternally grateful that they landed such a big fish. When you add a splash of color to an otherwise drab thing, the results can often be striking. And misunderstood and/or resisted the whole time that the colorful influence is trying, often to little avail, to upgrade the product.
Think back for a moment to when Dennis Miller was on Monday Night Football. My guess is that your memory of him is that he was one of the worst voices to ever be featured in that broadcast booth. This is amusing when one considers some of the people who have been in the booth before and after Miller. It’s like they were trying to find the most droning, egotistical and least incisive ‘analysts’ the world has ever known. In my opinion, Mr. Miller was way too smart for the MNF booth, and whoever decided to put him there in the first place made an inexcusable and incomprehensible mistake.
I don’t know how anyone who’d heard Miller’s snarky, smart, obscure and smart (did I say that already?) commentaries could possibly have thought he’d be a good fit for the somnambulistic MNF booth. I don’t want to say that the average football fan (the type that would actually pay more than passing attention to the voices) is … underexpecting when it comes to their broadcasters… But my take on it is that Miller was just too clever for something that commits language trucidation and cerebral cortex numbing as regularly as MNF.
I think that this may be the case here. I think that Howard Stern is great shake up for the vast sameness of Prime Time TV – even in a capacity such as this. I feel that this endeavor is actually beneath him, and I truly wish him well. As was the case in “Star Trek IV” when they intimated that Captain Kirk was to be ‘demoted’ from Admiral to Captain because he was most suited to command a Starship, Howard Stern should be ‘demoted’ to radio (or remain it’s ruler), because he is is wholly suited to do that. Howard Stern does not need television to validate him or his career. Television, on the other hand, may need Howard Stern – or more people like him – for validation.
That said, I don’t begrudge Stern jumping into the TV pool, but I don’t think it will last. I think that his appearances on the show will be entertaining and genuine. And I also think that he won’t know a moment’s peace from his detractors. They’ll be there, making statements, arranging protests and making every effort to make TV safe for the children again. In short – stale, redundant and boring. I will be following this from the sidelines, as not even the addition of the King of All Media will get me to watch this show. But I will be intrigued to see what the reactions are.
I think Howard Stern is more than ready for Prime Time TV. I don’t think Prime Time TV is ready for Howard Stern.
Sell By Date and the NFL’s Halftime Show
In a previous post, I opined that the quality of the commercials being churned out by the NFL was somewhat lacking. The NFL also made an less-than-thrilling announcement pertaining to the halftime entertainment for the 2012 iteration of America’s Clio Award preview – the Super Bowl.
Now – the Super Bowl halftime entertainment… It started out pretty tame with marching bands and something called Up with People. Then – starting in 1993 with child molester Michael Jackson – the NFL busted out and started getting some pretty big/decent acts du jour out there: Diana Ross, U2, The Blues Brothers, Indiana Jones (?), ZZ Top, Sting and the Bono/Sting Ego festival.
For the most part, the acts were pretty safe, and drew fans that would not ordinarily check out a football game or a series of somewhat clever commercials sandwiched between a football game. But everything changed on that dark February day in 2004 (Roman Numeral XXXVIII for those of you who can keep track of Super Bowls this way – I sure as hell can’t), when the Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake “wardrobe malfunction” occurred.
Then, it just got kind of annoying. The NFL started trotting out “safe” acts. All your favorite bands from yesteryear – Paul McCartney, The Rolling Stones, Prince (and the Florida A&M Marching Band), Tom Petty, Bruce Springsteen, The Who and, last year, The Black Eyed Peas. Now I can’t deny the popularity of these acts, and I’m sure that oodles of fans loved the performances. But what the hell? Why not have a Mozart rave? Better yet, maybe a Shakespearian minstrel show? Or maybe Nero? How about something a little more contemporary, NFL?
And the NFL has answered. This year’s halftime show is… Madonna. Ye Gods, I can only assume that the NFL wanted to assure that Guy Ritchie and anybody who posseses proper primary auditory cortex functionality will change the channel for at least 25 minutes. Yes, hard as it might be to believe, I refuse to strike a pose.
I can’t understand this move in any way. Has Madonna been relevant in the past 20 years? Maybe she has, but I sure missed that boat. I’m guessing that Roger Goodell wanted Janis Joplin to perform, only to be informed that she is, in fact, still dead. Maybe it’s impossible to get a halftime act that even the majority of the viewers would like, but this smacks of the NFL just giving up. I’ll be Desperately Seeking Boozin’ if I have to watch that.
Spirit of Pete Rozelle, make it end. Please. Sure, maybe I’ve ranted on nonsensically here, but I think my displeasure with the Super Bowl halftime show and being subjected to the stupid commercials that are spawned by the NFL’s ad budget (which are on during football games, so if you watch the games, chances are you’ll have to watch the commercials!!) more than excuses my rant.
I never thought I would long for the marching band halftime show and for the “tastes great, less filling” beer commercials. They weren’t great, but I’ll say this – I’d rather have a marching band than Madonna. And I’d definitley rather have a Miller Lite than… well, maybe not.
Please, NFL, no more dopey Bud Light commercials. And no more halftime shows for acts that have not done anything interesting or even controversial in 30 years. If you really want us to believe that everything you do is to improve the fan experience, learn from the mistakes already made. Seriously, you could do a lot worse than showing three classic Bugs Bunny cartoons on the jumbotron instead. Or even showing a new episode of “The Big Bang Theory.”
NFL, I know what you’re thinking – how about a 25th anniversary celebration of “The Super Bowl Shuffle” instead of Madge? Not bad, considering the source. I think it would be an improvement.
It’s That Freaking Time of Year
Yes, it’s started already. In fact, it started before we even had the chance to enjoy Halloween, let alone Thanksgiving! It’s Christmas time – or Holiday Time if you prefer. I prefer Christmas, but then again, I’ve been brainwashed by years of advertisers spending gazillions to make sure I didn’t miss a Black Friday sale or – fate worse than death – forget someone on my Christmas list!
As it is that time of year, I should point out that you’d better get cracking. You see, even though you may not be aware of this yet, your relationship with your significant other is in jeopardy. This is not idle gossip. I say this as a service to you.
You have no doubt noticed, as I have, that the commercial season has been slammed inexorably into overdrive. And – men, if you are not planning to buy your girlfriend/fiancee/wife something of a gold nature, such as a diamond ring/bracelet/necklace – then you’d better damn well be buying them a brand new car, all wrapped up in a giant red bow. If neither of these are in your sights, well… it might be a long, cold winter for you.
After all, have you seen these marvelous, slice of life commercials? A pretty young lady and her handsome beau, smiling and smiling. It’s Christmas morning! Here, let me blindfold you, so you can be totally absorbed by the grand gift I have gotten for you! Some jerks would have gotten you a DVD or two, a mani-pedi gift card, a bunch of games or stupid clothes or something meaningless like that. (When what she really wants is real estate!)
There’s the absolutely charming commercial that proclaims that a gift of a gold necklace at the restaurant is a “check please” moment. And how about that lovely commercial that shows us the real meaning of Christmas – where the woman gets a non-car gift (or a lesser car than the neighbor) from her husband, and does not return his embrace, or watches, green with envy (and unable to even look at him) as that hussy neighbor drives off in her brand new red-bowed,-much-better-than-the-one-I-got car?
If you’re like a lot of people, you mull and mull and mull some more (until your muller was sore) to figure out what would be the perfect gift for the one you like/really like/really really like/love. Happily, there is no shortage of web sites dedicated to helping a bewildered, inept and helpless male find the perfect gift.
To be fair, there are, most likely, just as many sites dedicated to the perfect gift for men, but let’s face it – a case of beer, a football jersey or a power tool will do just fine. Besides, the jewel and car commercials of Christmas don’t really give a hoot about him, and are not aimed at finding the perfect gift for him anyway. And it’s really not so much of a concern if the guy doesn’t get a good gift. When the idea of a guy Christmas shopping is considered, it’s usually presented as the guy wandering around aimlessly, with no idea how to even start. Then some plucky salesperson comes along to find the perfect gift, because we all know that men are incapable of doing this kind of thing themselves, right, Madison Avenue?
But – fear not! Thanks to the great device known as reductio ad absurdum I will now provide a beacon of hope as to how you can salvage this Holiday Season! All you have to do is suspend any sense of reality you may have had – and buy into the advertising frenzy! Are you ready?
Here are just a few items that I will suggest gifting this year, and I’m sure that any or all of them will be more than enough to enable you to keep things going in a positive direction.
- A 2011 Cessna 172S Skyhawk SP – add the right bow, and you (moreso even than Jenny Meyer) have really gone to the outer limits to make an impression!
- As Lucy Van Pelt said, real estate. A beach home or a ski home – in some Caribbean location or Europe – should do the trick.
- A small pacific island – the closer to Hawaii, the better. And if you’re feeling especially motivated by Madison Avenue, why not gift Hawaii itself?
- How about Australia? It was good enough for Lex Luthor – it ought to be good enough for the love of your life. Imagine how awesome it would be to go for a quick trip in the new Cessna and show off that giant red bow!
I could go on, but I think the point (that I really dislike the insulting way that advertising is crafted – Christmas advertising in particular) has been made. Now that I think on it, maybe the jewelry or car isn’t such a ridiculous gift suggestion after all. Seriously, if these advertisements didn’t work, they wouldn’t keep making them – and presenting them to us (year after year after year after year), now would they?
The Walking Dead – Holy Crap, That’s Good TV
Well, the last time I wrote about The Walking Dead, I was talking about the slow pacing. At the same time, I did mention that the show was still doing many things right, and that I liked it despite some wandering patches.
Now that I’ve seen the next two episodes, I can say that they’ve picked things up a bit. I am specifically thinking of the most recent episode when I say this. In it, Carl lies still, dying by degrees. Rick, who has been giving his blood for his son, isn’t looking too good, either. Shane, who is a somewhat dubious character now, left the house with Otis – the guy who accidentally shot Carl – to get medical supplies so that the doctor (a veterenarian by trade) can operate on Carl. Got that? Good.
Cut to Shane. This is a good character. He got himself into a situation that isn’t easy to get out of. He had relations with Lori before anyone knew that her husband (and Shane’s best friend) Rick was still alive. Then Rick shows up, and Shane’s life goes to hell. It’s hard to kill him for what he done – after all, there are zombies crawling all over, ready to make any living creature into a 5 course meal.
Anyway, Shane and Otis went to the local high school, where there had been a medical unit set up. The necessary medical supplies were there for the taking, if they could just get past the army of zombies patrolling the area. They did manage to do just that – but not without complications. And then, things got really interesting.
It’s very rare indeed for a TV show or movie to shock or surprise me. Some examples are the end of Birdy, the end of Jennifer 8 and the third episode of The Walking Dead, second season.
Damn – that Shane is a bad, bad man. What he did to poor Otis is positively blood chilling. I don’t know how someone (even a fictional character) could live with the aftermath of what he’d done. At the very least, he could have shot Otis in the head or heart. Give him the mercy of a kill shot.
I was truly shocked by Shane’s actions. We knew he was a guy on the edge. He almost shot Rick in the forest, before Dale caught him. He is more or less on the periphery of the group, with an exit visa punched once things settle down. But who knew he was that vicious? And again, who knows what folks would do in a world overrun by flesh eating, soulless creatures looking to do little more than … than … eat your flesh?!? Maybe Shane’s actions wouldn’t be so shocking if I was in the same position.
Side note one: When they showed the missing hair on Shane’s head (and before they showed the flashback), I thought I had an idea of what had happened. Both men had said that they only had one round left just before they went to commercial. I thought that maybe the two men made a kill pact. Shane shoots Otis, Otis shoots Shane. But Otis missed. While this is still an interesting scenario to me, I have to say I am shocked, surprised and impressed with what actually went down.
Side note two: I looked at The Walking Dead on imdb and found out that Andrew Lincoln (who plays Rick Grimes) was also in Love, Actually – one of the few romcoms that was not totally wretched. It took me a little bit to figure out who he played. He was the guy who did the Bob Dylan “Subterranean Homesick Blues” (later stolen by INXS) type cardboard sign message/lyric thing. Remember? He was silently professing his love for Keira Knightley…?
Back to The Walking Dead: Bravo, AMC and Frank Darabont and Scott M. Gimple, and anyone else working on this show. It’s a breath of fresh air to watch.
Why The Big Bang Theory Needs to Hire Me
First, let me state that “The Big Bang Theory” is quickly becoming one of my favorite all-time TV shows. Over the years, I’ve had a few people tell me that I would love the show. For no good reason, I never followed up on that. My loss. Sheldon, Leonard (yes, named for Sheldon Leonard), Koothrappali, Howard and Penny are must see TV!
It was a geek’s paradise from the first episode, and so far, I have not been disappointed. It’s great to discover a new show and not see any episodes you didn’t like. In addition to the geek culture, it also has the ‘pretty girl who moves in and changes everything’ motif used so successfully in other great shows such as “Moonlighting”, and, to a lesser degree, “The Office” (first three seasons, anyway).
But, at it’s core, the show is geek. Want to hear a discussion about why it would have been more merciful for Superman to allow Lois Lane to hit the pavement rather than catch her after she fell from the helicopter? This is the show for you. Want to hear a good discussion of which is the best of the Star Trek movies (I agree with Koothrappali – it’s “The Wrath of Khan”) and which ones stink and why? This is the show for you. Interested in how science would affect or be applied to comic book, movie or television action heroes? This is the show for you.
And the best part is, the science is accurate and the conversations and discussions about the geek culture are well researched and not condescending. Sheldon even has real comic books and trade paperbacks (not graphic novels) in his room. You really get a feel that these characters (and by extension, the writers and researchers for the show) are into it. It makes it so much more fun, and much more welcoming – and you can feel like you’re in on the joke.
And, of course, any geek product worth it’s salt eventually has to have some sort of scenario that revolves around a Stan Lee appearance. If you’re not sure who Stan Lee is, click here. You may not know Stan, but you know some of his co-creations: Spider-Man, Thor, Iron Man, The Hulk, Wolverine and The X-Men just to name a few. For “The Big Bang Theory” the inevitable transpired, and I just happened to see it. That’s where the trouble begins. That’s when I decided that they need to hire me as a fact-checker.
The episode covers Stan Lee’s appearance for a signing at the guys’ local comic book shop. A bit overly convenient, but that’s forgivable. It would have been a very short episode without this contrivance. The problem with the episode was Koothrappali’s continued rants about the names given to Stan Lee’s characters. Peter Parker. Matt Murdock. Otto Octavius. Reed Richards. Sue Storm. Bruce Banner.
As you can see, Stan often gave the characters alliterative names, or simply used the same letter for first and last name. J. Jonah Jameson. Betty Brant. Dum Dum Dugan. Bucky Barnes. Fin Fang Foom (a nice touch, included in the episode. Not a common character!). Koothrappali complained about this a few times, and the plot called for him to ask Stan Lee about it. Which, of course, resulted in Stan not liking Koothrappali and therefore missing out on going out for gelati with Stan after the signing was over. Sheldon also missed it, but for a different reason, which doesn’t really matter here.
It has been fairly well established, by Stan Lee himself, that the alliterative or duplicated letters of names was deliberate. He said that he had a poor memory for starters, and that he had so many characters to keep straight (he was handling the writing chores for every Marvel comic book in the early-mid 60’s, probably 15-20 titles per month) that these mnemonic tricks would help him remember the characters names. Of course, this didn’t stop him from making a few mistakes, such as the Bruce/Robert/David Banner thing. But it did indicate to me that the show needed a fact-checker for this episode. It kind of put Stan out of character, as he was portrayed as being upset that Koothrappali had asked him about this.
So, producers of “The Big Bang Theory” – I offer my services to you. For issues of comic book clarity and accuracy, and I will work for a reasonable rate. I would be honored to be part of such a great show. I know that you’d find my services invaluable if you give me the opportunity. And just to show that there is no undue pressure, I will continue to watch the show even if you don’t take me up on this most generous offer. But it should be noted that if you do choose to eschew my offer, I will be watching the comic book references with a very pointed eye. Excelsior!
‘Nuff said!
Epilogue One: two comic book characters that are frequently referenced in the show (and on Sheldon’s many T-shirts) – The Flash and Green Lantern – were not created or co-created by Stan Lee. Nor were Batman or Superman. In fact, all of them pre-dated any of Stan’s co-creations.
Epilogue Two: Koothrappali’s father is played by Brian George, who is probably better known to you as Babu Bhatt of “Seinfeld” fame.
How I Spent My Zombie Vacation – Season 2 of The Walking Dead
All right – so the much hyped “The Walking Dead” season two finally aired. I also watched “The Talking Dead” and heard what some dudes (and creator Robert Kirkman) thought. I had some thoughts on the show as well. What are they? Glad you asked – although you may not be…
Overall, it was a typically good show. I loved the zombie herd, and how the living managed to escape unscathed (mostly) – especially Daryl’s actions to save a guy he probably thought about killing himself. When the blood started to flow, I thought that was it for T-Dog, but he lives to run another day after spending some quality time up close and personal with a dead zombie.
I also loved the interaction between Dale and Andrea – It was clear something was up between them, and the show did a good job of getting it out in the open and moving on.
Now for the things I didn’t particularly like. I thought the episode spent way too much time on the search for Sophia. Now, I’m not saying don’t search – quite the opposite. But this is a TV show – cut to the chase, man. Some of the sequences that occurred during the search were interesting (gutting a zombie, the exploration of faith by different characters at the church), but as a whole…it dragged on a bit. And then they still hadn’t concluded the search by the end of the show? This seems to me to be an unnecessary cliffhanger. There are plenty of other things going on to keep us coming back.
I was also not too wild about the scenes with Shane and Lori. Sure, there’s reason for these two to be at odds with each other, but her pushing Shane to leave the group and Shane’s nastiness to Carl didn’t ring true to me. Of course, I’ve never been chased around by a world of zombies, so what do I know?
I just thought that if Shane had an issue with what went down, he ought to keep the discussions and nastiness between the adults. And how could Lori encourage Shane to leave the group and head off by himself? That just sounds like banishing him to die, as he’d be on his own and most likely become a lunchable for a pack of zombies, as he’d have nobody to help him or watch his back.
Finally, the scene with Shane, Rick and Carl in the woods. The setup was obvious – something was going to happen. I was wondering if the deer was going to attack Carl or something like that. I didn’t expect Carl to get shot. And why, if Lori dislikes Shane as much as she does, and if she’s not thrilled with how meanly Shane was treating Carl, did she let him go along?
But I did enjoy the episode, and am looking forward to the upcoming installments. This is easily one of the best shows around. But since I am actively interested in about 3 or 4 shows, I’m not really sure how much weight my endorsement would carry.
As for “The Talking Dead,” I thought the best part was the behind the scenes stuff and the interview with creator Robert Kirkman (a comic book writer, not a graphic novelist, despite what they kept saying). The one takeaway that I got from the show was that Robert Kirkman reminded me a lot of Philadelphia Eagles head coach Andy Reid – in his appearance and mannerisms. Maybe that’s just me.
They showed a clip of the next episode, but it was hard to put it into meaningful context. I’d wager to say that that clip didn’t change anyone’s mind as to whether or not they’d watch next week. The show is good enough to keep us coming back. It was also interesting to hear Andrew Lincoln speak in his real, british, voice. Quite a contrast to Rick’s accent.
It’s nice to watch a show that is able to give the viewers solid writing, solid acting, over the top gore, classic suspense and enough compelling characters and plot threads (without overdoing it) all in one show. It’s really too bad there aren’t more shows like this!
Given the success of the show, can a spin-off called “The Real Housezombies of Atlanta” be far off? I bet it would be at the top of many must see TV lists. Hell, I know I’d watch.
Andy Blank
Mike Frangione
Depends on What the Meaning of the Word 'Blog' is 
Pleasant TV Surprises – MTV’s “Pants” and AMC’s “Comic Book Men”
I watched a show and I liked it… Two, actually. Yes, that’s right. After years of finding very little on television that I actually liked and/or wanted to watch, I have discovered two shows of which I’d like to see more. Take that, preposition! These are words (prior to that preposition non sequitur) that I didn’t think I’d actually be able to write. Not due to writer’s block or illiteracy, but because I am annoyingly (some might say objectively or charmingly? …ahem!) hypercritical and judgmental of movies and television shows and haven’t seen anything in the past couple of years that made me want to watch. More on this later.
You see, I have a love/dislike/lack of patience/hate relationship with television and movies. It’s not that I think I could do it any better. That’s not really the point. The point is, that if you’re going to be in a position of making a TV show or a movie, it should be good. Always. There’s a lot of money at stake in these things. And careers. Not only of the actors and writers and producers if the show doesn’t catch on or if the movie flops. But of all the nameless, but essential, people who do the behind-the-scenes work to make the writer’s vision possible.
And then there’s the time investment of the viewer. Too many times in the past I’ve tuned in to a new show only to tune out after about ten minutes. If it looks like it’s going to be the same old, same old, then I’m not going to stick around. A lot of shows are pretty much the same formulaic stuff with a different cast and an altered premise. I always look to see what’s different about a show. Too often I have found that there’s very little that distinguishes one show from another.
Unsurprisingly, then, there are only about five shows currently on television that I could honestly say that I am interested in watching, so for me to say that I liked any show – outside of that five – is pretty amazing. I’m not saying that I am a good judge of what is good and what isn’t. Quite the opposite – I’m sure I’m a terrible demographic for this sort of thing. I’m just saying that it takes a lot to get me to tune in and then to make me want to come back.
So here’s what happened. I was paging through show listings in OnDemand (don’t judge), noting how there wasn’t even one show in the E-J section that I watch – or have ever watched. Then I saw this title: “I Just Want My Pants Back” and was intrigued. Something about the name called to me. I clicked through to the next menu, and voilà! – there were the first two episodes. If you’re following closely, you can probably determine what happened next.
That’s right, I started watching. A bad sign: it’s an MTV show – often not a good thing. But that’s really a generalization (I think many would agree an accurate one) fit for their (I’m hypercritical and judgmental, remember?) putrid reality shows. But, I decided to stick it out and at least see how long it would be before I lost interest. The answer, my friend, was blowin’ in the wind – and 22 minutes. And, I liked it enough to watch the second episode as well. Score!
I don’t know what it was. The characters were kinda quirky, but not in the overdone cliché way that seems to prevail these days (think “New Girl” or any Zooey Deschanel vehicle). And there was snappy, authentic, give and take dialogue that was funny and interesting, and seemed a little less forced than it does on most shows I’ve seen recently. The scenarios of hanging out with friends and sexual exploits were all in place. I just felt like I was watching the exploits of people that I knew in college. Or of people that I’d have liked to have known in college. One of the two.
And I think I (just now) realized what the most appealing aspect of the show was. No laugh track. Imagine that! A show that dares to allow the acting and writing carry the day all on it’s own. And it was good. I discovered, after a few internet searches for the show, that it is not a new show (debuted in 2011) and that it has it’s detractors, but I am undeterred. I really wish more comedies would eschew the laugh track and let us determine whether or not something is actually funny.
And the second show? “Comic Book Men” on AMC. It is done by the very entertaining filmaker Kevin Smith, and centers around his comic book shop in Red Bank, New Jersey, which is called Jay & Silent Bob’s Secret Stash. The basic ‘plot’ is that Mr. Smith introduced a camera to the geek world, complete with the making of a comic book podcast that he does with four of his buddies (three of which actually work at/run the store) and conversations about comic books and comic book characters. As you’d expect from Kevin Smith, it’s pretty damn funny stuff.
The first episode (and it’s very rare that I would see the first episode of any show anywhere near the time it first airs) offered up a couple of collectors coming into the store with some pretty cool things, and encountering the inevitable disappointment that every collector feels when they find out that this item is not as valuable as they thought it was. It’s probably more accurate to say that they weren’t going to get the money that the items were ‘worth’ and were lucky to even hear an amount that was in that same ballpark. It was kind of depressing to watch. To their credit, some of the collectors decided not to sell.
Next, they talked glowingly about the Collingswood Flea Market, and then three of the guys went there and sold stuff for cheap. It would have been kind of cool to have been at the flea market that day. It was refreshing to see something that celebrated the toys, comic books and super cool memorabilia of the 70s that we were all supposed to have outgrown or forgotten. And it’s nice to see all the collectibles in the store, and to listen to these guys talk so enthusiastically about something that they loved when they were kids.
Oh, the responsibility. Two new shows to watch. I don’t know how this happened, but I’m glad it did. It’s always nice to be pleasantly surprised like this. And if you happen to stumble upon either of these shows (or seek them out now that you’ve read these brilliant and compelling commentaries), I’d recommend you do like I did and give them a fair shot.
Related Articles: