Who Got Lucille'd

I've written about the Walking Dead here before. It's a bit embarrassing to look back on, as I thought the show deserved to be canceled five years ago, but I still stand by the points I made in that post. Many of the problems have been addressed, but a few of the big ones remain. Characters are still inconsistent and tend to change depending on where the plot needs to go instead of vice-versa.

But if you've been watching since then, you probably know about the latest season finale and the shitstorm that ensued. In short, fans allege that the writers (and the network) took one of the most heart-wrenching, game-changing moments in the comic and neutered it for hype and to ensure audience draw when the show comes back next year. What we know is that someone (surprise!) died, and they didn't show who.

So theories abound and comic comparisons and contradictions are launched, and the fanbase plays into the hands of the people making all the money. So I'll do it, too. What the hell? Who died? Who got Lucille'd? Let's go in order of least to most likely candidates. And spoilers for both the show and comic follow, so be prepared.

This is Lucille. She is awesome.

8. Rick & Carl

It's straight-up not them. Negan says, as he begins to swing on his victim, "Anybody moves, anybody says anything, cut the boy's other eye out and feed it to his father and then we'll start." That tells you right there that it's neither of them. Plus, writer Robert Kirkman has confirmed that he never plans to kill Carl. So bam.

7. Aaron, Sasha, & Rosita

This is more of a practical reason. These characters weren't on the receiving end of a beating simply because the audience wouldn't care. Not to say they aren't likable characters. They just don't carry the weight that some of the others do. There's weight to six months of buildup for these characters. If the show came back and it had been Rosita bludgeoned to death, the audience would shrug and move on, and Negan's big moment would be stunted. They're fine.

6. Maggie

If the show didn't have the cajones to kill Judith the baby when she dies in the comic, they're not going to have a fetus beaten out of a woman. Plus, Maggie just got an important haircut that tells us something is on the horizon for her character. Additionally, the baby has to survive so the audience can have something to cling to while my number one choice gets the bat.

5. Michonne

The joke so far is that everyone Rick sleeps with gets killed. Michonne will break that trend. She's one of the long-running characters in the comic, she's stepped into the slot that TV-Andrea left empty, and from a merchandising standpoint, she's one of the most iconic characters. Michonne will be with us for a while.

4. Abraham

Now we get to the controversial picks. In the comics, Abraham is dead by now. That arrow that went through Denise's head a few episodes before? That was meant for Abe. So, as it stands, Abraham is technically on borrowed time. This means the show is free to do whatever they want with him. Do they want him to take the bat instead of the comic's choice? It could work, but for the same reason as the group in my point number seven, I don't think it would carry much weight. Abraham hasn't been around or done much to make the audience really care for him very much. His breakup with Rosita might even make a few people say "good riddance." There was a small detail in the finale where Eugene, Abraham's partner in crime, hands him the "recipe" for making bullets in the newly discovered refinery. This effectively makes Eugene redundant, as this becomes his major contribution for the rest of-- wait a sec.

3. Eugene

--for the rest of the series. Now that Abraham has access to that same knowledge, Eugene can effectively be phased out. What's more, Eugene has quickly become a fan favorite with his awkward way of talking and biting his would-be executor in the nuts. He's also generally an innocent, as far as these characters go. Showing Negan just not caring at all about that would really set him up to be hated. Eugene is one of the few characters that people would really feel anger for, I think. He's also one of the three I can see the wait being worth.

2. Daryl

If you want to make an impact on your audience, you have to do something big. I believe the character that is killed here has to A) Have an effect on the group and B) Have an equal effect on the audience. Daryl checks both of these boxes. We've seen Daryl change since the beginning of the show. He's had several character arcs where he became more empathetic, lost his brother, did a selfless search for a lost little girl, etc. He's the face of the show. This could also be a reason not to kill him, however. Daryl brings in the cash. There are legions of fans who subscribe to the "If Daryl Dies We Riot" mentality, and with the fan backlash after than finale, I wouldn't be surprised if they backed off of him to garner some good will. What's more, Daryl is the single most successful TV show-only element. Without him, the show is essentially a visual novel. Daryl helps the two stand apart. Sure, he just got a new show on AMC, and a new show usually means a departure from the current one, but that could be because of Norman Reedus's appeal. Why not double that exposure? Hell, maybe they'll write him into Better Call Saul, too.

The last few episodes of TWD also introduced a rival for Daryl in Dwight. It could easily be a continuation of the "If Daryl never met the group" narrative that pops up every once in a while, but there's no real reason to begin that story and rivalry if Daryl is dead. Plot decisions affect the next plot decisions.

You know, unless you're Beth and the show makes a big deal out of you sacrificing everything to save Noah, only to have Noah get killed for no reason a couple episodes later. I'm still bitter about that.

1. Glenn

For fans of the comic, this is no surprise. And that's part of why writing this was too easy. Glenn's death is the single most famous spoiler for the comic. Everyone knows it happens, and for good reason. Glenn was with the group since the beginning. He was Rick's first contact after the apocalypse. He was the heart of the team. He was the underdog, going from pizza delivery boy to marrying the hottest lady on the show. That's why it seems like the show would pull a 180 at the last second and fake out the audience. This could be a classic Princess-Bride-never-go-against-a-Sicilian-when-death-is-on-the-line-overthinking-the-scenario move, but wouldn't the fact that everyone knows make you want to surprise the audience? It seems likely.

Unfortunately, even with that in mind, the odds have built up against him. He has a child coming into the world. Sure, Maggie had those terrible cramps in the finale and needs a doctor, but that'll be the miracle that the audience needs to recover from Glenn's death when it happens. Hey, at least his kid survived. There's also a shot when he leaves the compound of Maggie in the rear-view mirror. That's never a good sign when used in visual media. Or how about when they raid that compound? Glenn loses his innocence on screen when he stabs those guys through their eyes while they sleep. That's usually a sign that a character is about to get his comeuppance. Then Glenn comes across a wall of past Lucille victims' photos. That's a pretty clear instance of foreshadowing.

The only thing in Glenn's favor is lazy writing. This season already had a Glenn fakeout death at the midpoint. People discussed his possible death for weeks on the internet before everyone came to the conclusion that he was under the dumpster. Would the show play that same hand again? Would they be willing to mix it up because they just had a very similar situation? Beth's death makes me a little unsure.

Glenn has the right combination of character and audience sympathy. He's important to the story being told, he's an emotional anchor, and he's not very prevalent in the marketing blitz of the show. All of these signs point to a sad end for our Korean friend.

But at least his kid is gonna live, right?

This article was edited on 6/28/16 to include notes about Dwight and Glenn's midseason skirmish.

Why You are the Problem with The Muppets

I love the Muppets. I’ve owned more Cookie Monster shirts in my adult life than I’ve owned dress shirts. I have the Electric Mayhem listed as one of my favorite bands on Facebook. I think Gonzo generally has a better grasp on what it means to be human than most people. For my  26^th birthday I went to FAO Schwarz to make a Muppet of my own. My love for the felt critters runs deep.

That’s why it hurts to say this, but ABC’s “The Muppets” sucks. When ABC announced that they wanted to relaunch the Muppets for a more adult audience, people got scared. They asked, “How could these characters make crass jokes and say things like ‘hell’?” To which I asked, “I guess you’ve never seen 1981’s  'The Great Muppet Caper.'” The show isn’t even offensively bad. It’s not trying to be an “extreme” version of a kid’s show, like “Death to Smoochy” or “Meet the Feebles,” but inversely, it’s another safe, boring, by-the-numbers sitcom, and that’s really the worst thing you can do to the Muppets.

Since the 70s, the Muppets have been a cultural staple, and in the ensuing four decades, the ragtag band of rags have cultivated their own quirks and personalities; Piggy is brash and selfish, Fozzie is dense and optimistic, Gonzo is adventurous and artistic, and Kermit is the straight man trying to keep everyone in check. Even the secondary characters like Rowlf and Bunsen and Sam the Eagle are all recognized and known for their distinct personalities. So how, with all of this work that has gone into cultivating these puppets into fully realized characters, has the new show fallen so flat? Part of it is, I believe, the setting. The Muppets takes place backstage at a talk show. On its face, this is an excellent idea. After all, the classic “Muppet Show” had Kermit at the Muppet Theater trying to keep it all together and deal with the drama of the week while Peter Sellers or Julie Andrews or Mark Hamill scrambled around with our fuzzy friends and tried to put on a good show. So what changed?

The choice to shoot the show in documentary-style has severely neutered the personalities of the characters. When Kermit used to be the lens we saw the world through, we could see the Muppets for what they were, because we didn’t have to relate to them. We only had to relate to Kermit. As everyone ran around trying to electrocute their costars and shoot themselves out cannons, we rooted for Kermit, who tried to “get things started” week after week. The non-Kermit characters were allowed to be as crazy as they wanted, and through Kermit’s constant frustrations as they tried to steer things off the rails, we had comedy.

The Muppets, in all of their movies, also loved leaning on the fourth wall. Every movie has the troupe acknowledge the fact that they’re playing parts, or has a celebrity friend pop up, or, in the case of the Segel film, reference the fact that it’s really weird when people break into song every time there’s a musical number.

By removing the fourth wall and having the Muppets directly interact with the audience, we lose something. Gonzo isn’t allowed to be experimental and crazy anymore because we have to care about his online dating. Kermit can’t address an aside to the audience, because he has to wait for the next scene to explain his feelings directly to the cameraman. And the characters don’t have to talk to each other or interact anymore because they can talk directly to us, instead, to say what’s on their minds. When there is no fourth wall, there is no boundary to break, and when the Muppets are given no boundaries, there isn’t any anarchy for them to wreak.

Tina Fey’s 30 Rock had a similar setup and it worked because the characters had to live with each other and their decisions. There was no retreating to a room with the crew to express their frustrations. If Tracy was having a problem with Jenna, he’d go to Liz Lemon to complain, or come up with a crazy plan to address it himself. If Gonzo is having a problem with Piggy, he needs to plot with his fellow writers, Rizzo and Pepe, or go complain to a beleaguered Kermit. Instead, the newly boring Gonzo calmly tells the camera that Piggy is annoying and makes a snarky comment as we see Piggy do something funny in the background. The Muppets thrive in interplay and anarchy, not solitude and order. By removing the fourth wall and showing us that the Muppets are just like us, they’ve made them boring by making them just like us.

The throwaway gags are another huge letdown. An offhanded mention of Gonzo’s mother on vacation, or the Swedish Chef wanting an autograph signed “Meghan” exists only for a momentary chuckle, but the lines don’t even deliver that. They’re predictable sitcom fare. Fozzie’s relationship with a human was a hilarious setup that had no followup outside of one episode (so far.) Despite her participation in the marketing of the show, we haven’t seen Denise since episode one. Rowlf has been completely wasted in his one appearance. His one joke was one repeated from the reel used to pitch the show. The Electric Mayhem drug jokes, in particular, are the laziest kind of joke. And what’s more is that any of these jokes could be inserted into any other show and nobody would know the difference. Why bother using the Muppets at all if you’re not going to cater to your “actors”? There’s a whole history of television and film that can be drawn from, and we barely get more than a drug joke. Even Ron Swanson, himself, Nick Offerman, couldn’t escape lazy joke writing with his extended “I owe you one” sequence where he asks for a cappuccino machine, and then a boat. It’s not clever. It’s a joke a 10-year-old would roll his eyes at. It’s as if the crew of the show is playing it safe, but there’s no reason to. They’re the Muppets. They don’t need restraint. New viewers won’t watch because it’d bland, and old fans won’t watch because it’s not true to the Muppets franchise.

Speaking of celebrities, they’ve been used all wrong. That may be because each episode has been bursting at the seams with celebrities, not giving them a chance to breathe. Josh Groban was wonderful as Piggy’s boyfriend, and widened the scope of the show and made room for world-building. It felt more real, mostly because the characters were given time to interact, rather than retreat to the camera crew. Kermit’s reversal of the situation was the show’s best segment, as far as characterization goes, so far. Lawrence Fishburne had one of the greatest cameos I’ve seen, and I’d love to see him pop up to randomly antagonize Kermit more often. On the flip side, Christina Applegate and, again, Nick Offerman, were just there to be there. The fact that they’re celebrities isn’t enough of a joke. “The Muppet Show” usually only had one guest per episode, and that was a much longer running time. The guests should be treated like characters, used as cameos, or just omitted entirely.

There are a few shining spots, however. Sam the Eagle at S&P is brilliant. Scooter has thrived in his gofer role, having some great character moments with Elizabeth Banks and Kermit, himself. He seems to have become a willing participant in the chaos; knowing that something crazy is about to happen, but going along with it anyway. Bobo the bear cracks me up every time he’s on screen. Even the new I.T. guy, Chip, was worth a few laughs in his first appearance.

I had high hopes for The Muppets, and with every episode, I keep praying it’ll find its voice. The pieces are all there. We know these characters. Let them be their crazy selves. Unless they go whole hog (wocka wocka), The Muppets will be remembered the same was as the D.O.A. “Muppets Tonight,” and that’s not what they deserve. Embrace the felt. Let The Muppets do what they do best, and let Kermit worry about the consequences.

Dead Show Walking?

Disclaimer; This post is inspired by this article.

AMC's "The Walking Dead" just ended the first half of its mid-season. This post will contain spoilers for the show, as long as a few surprises. Tread at your own risk.

This show started out very promisingly. It took a familiar concept and expanded it beyond the realm of cinema to allow for an expansive world, homage, and character development. Something, unfortunately, got lost in the shuffle.

"The Walking Dead" starts off with Rick, a southern cop. We learn throughout the first episode or two that Rick is a humble, just, empathetic character. He fights for what's right no matter what. The first few episodes of TWD are very character-driven as we meet Rick and, through his eyes, find out about the world he is in. We see the familiar ruined cities and shuffling bodies expected in any zombie story. Rick's story quickly becomes a story of adapting his old-world sensibilities to a warped, post-apocalyptic world. We see him try to adapt the traits that made him a successful sheriff to a world where the law no longer exists. As a guide to this quest, Rick is given two huge plot threads; 1) Find his wife and son, and 2) try to help Morgan and Duane Jones, the father-son duo who introduced him to the world he woke up to, to safety.

So what goes wrong? With Rick, his plotlines are wrapped up (in the case of his family) or placed on the back burner (The Joneses and their fate) until it's convenient. The problem with this is that it immediately sucks all the drive of Rick's character, and therefore the drama, out of the show. As soon as Rick meets the rest of the supporting cast, the show begins to unravel. This is not to say that the show should be about only Rick, or that multiple characters cannot be handled well in a weekly serialized drama. Say what you will about where it ultimately ended up, but "Lost" knew how to make you care about a character. A few examples;

-We care when Jin begins to come around to Sun's independence because we saw the difficult origins of their life together and the obstacles they overcame to make their marriage work.
-We cared when Locke was murdered because we saw the struggles he had with his faith and with his fellow survivors. We saw his goal to get everyone back to the island and how it was stopped short by his murder, despite the passion he had for the goal.
- We cared when Desmond finally reunited with Penny via phonecall because we saw how hard he fought for her father's approval and how he was betrayed while trying to win it.
-We even cared when Ben, the show's villain, had his daughter executed in front of him by this point we understood how difficult it was for him to form a loving relationship after seeing his childhood and the abuse from his father.

With TWD none of this character depth exists.

It tries in very few instances. As I said before, Rick gets some development in the first few episodes. He is set up and established right away. Unfortunately, despite the ever-threatening zombie hoard, his character is never challenged. Any challenge is immediately overcome and tossed aside. The character set up simply coasts through the show, never having any kind of real challenge to his methods or mindset. In fact, his methods are proven to be correct most times, leading to a rather boring main character. Wife is pregnant? Fine. Wife slept with your best friend? Okay. Young girl goes missing? No problem. Rick stays in is comfort zone and never budges. We simply get to see him take it on the cheek and never get his feathers ruffled. The sad truth is that Rick's character arc plateaus as soon as he reunites with his wife and son. Even witnessing his son being shot mere feet in front of him has a minimal effect on him as a character. He panics at first, and begs to give all the blood he has, but his choices are reaffirmed when his son pulls through and everything turns out fine.

The supporting cast has a few gems, but most suffer the same one-note personalities as Rick.
Carol, Sophia's mother, is not a character at all. She's a plot device. She exists only as a vessel for the audience to feel sympathetic toward. Name one personality trait she has. I'll wait.

Carol is written only to appeal to our base emotions. Her husband beats her. That's bad. her daughter goes missing. Oh, that must be awful for a mother to go through! But not once do we see her do anything about it. She cries. That's how we know she's sad. She'll urge other people to go the footwork all day, but she just sits and camp and allows the audience to feel bad for her. Sophia, her daughter, suffers from almost all the same problems. She's around just so we don't feel bad when her father, who smacks her around, gets eaten alive my zombies. We're glad to see him go.

The real problem comes with Sophia's fate. In the mid-season finale, Sophia shows up as a zombie, and without hesitation, Rick steps up and shoots her down in front of her mother. Where is the character development? Just days before, Rick saw the same exact thing happen to his own son. Where's that pause? Where do we see Rick doubt his actions and have a self-reflective moment? When does he look at Carol and convey that look that says "I'm sorry I have to do this"? Hell, with all that happened, why can he do it so easily? Wouldn't it make more sense in the context of the show for Shane to kill Sophia? The character continuity just isn't there.

There are other examples in Andrea and T-Dog, but those are explained in the link above. This is just the most interesting one to me.

There are two supporting characters, however, who are actively getting some development. Shane, whose jealously of Rick is eating him up inside and destroying his psyche (making an interesting allegory/comparison between his losing his mind and the zombies, who are mindless) and Daryl, who found himself on the verge of death and hallucinated his racist brother, who seems so foreign to him after all he has gone through with the group of survivors. Interestingly, both of these characterizations are purely products on the show, suggesting that the problem may actually be with the source material.

Who is not on that list? The Joneses. They haven't shown up since Rick left them, but I'm sure we'll be expected to care about them when then finally pop up down the road.

So what IS the show doing right? Well, fans have blasted season two for not doing a lot so far. Zombie attacks have been few and far between, and the characters have been trying to solve problems amongst themselves and ignoring the huge, undead elephant in the room just outside the gates of the farm. I argue that this is exactly what the show needs.

Rick and company stumbled across Hershel's farm this season. Hershel runs it the way he wants to, and they have to abide by his rules if they want to stay. The problem is that Hershel sees the zombies as sick people and does not approve of Rick and company's urge to kill them on sight. By this point in pop culture we've seen zombies, well... done to death. Aim for the head, don't get bit, we don't have a cure. It's tired. This new angle and the shift in the norm are exactly what the show needs to bring to the table. Use the old, but don't be afraid to innovate.

The sequence with the Well Zombie is exactly what TWD is doing right. It's a unique, small-scale, day-to-day problem that serves as a synecdoche for the world of the show, itself.

Homages to "Dawn of the Dead" (The whole mall sequence) and "28 Days Later" (waking up in an abandoned, zombie-infested world) are fun, but the show is going to survive by presenting audiences with subversions and genre-expanding scenarios of zombie tropes they already expect.

Overall, TWD suffers from a lot of the same problems "Heroes" suffered from a few years ago. They both featured large casts and fantastic but familiar ideas. Both had great starts, but neither was sure where to go beyond the initial pitch to the network.

TWD still has time to turn things around before they get to the point of discovering a magical circus in the woods. I hope. They need to steer clear of "Heroes"'s character inconsistency and handling of the idiot ball or I'll be convinced that something has devoured the writers' brains.

Keep Christ in Christopher

It's that time of year again, folks. The time when people celebrate without keeping in mind the man who made it all possible. They sign their names to their $200 gifts with not so much as a thought to their blasphemy. A sin so big, it's a wonder why the "God hates fags" people aren't all over it.

Yes, folks, I'm talking about Christophers.

Not all Christophers, mind you. In fact, "Christopher" is a perfectly fine person and I and the Lord have no beef with him. I'm talking about all of you Chris-es.

You know who you are. You remove the second half of your name because it's "too long" or "not cool" or "confuses people with its 'P-H means F'" sound. Well nobody said life would be easy for you.
When you write your name on that Christmas gift, you're signing a contract with God. You're saying that you agree to live by his rules and love him for all eternity. By shortening it to "Chris" you might as well be wiping your poo away with that contract. God forgive me for that language.

And then we have the most offensive naming of all; Topher Grace. Christopher Grace, despite his last name, hates the Lord so much that he wanted to remove as much of Jesus' name as possible from his own without having to resort to the questionable "Opher Grace."
Well, when Christopher Grace is burning in Hell, maybe he and Satan can get together and make a new TV show called "That 1070 Degrees Show"! Lol!

I added a visual aide in case some of you didn't get it. I'm also not sure if Topher Grace eats babies, but I wouldn't put it past him since he hates Jesus so much.

And don't even get me started on "Christina." If Jesus wanted to have a girl's name, he would have come to Earth as "Juanita" or something.

So this CHRISTmas season, remember to pray for all the Chrises and Tophers out there who deny Jesus in their daily lives by using this sinful name. I hope everyone has MERRY AMERICAN CHRISTMAS, and God Bless!

I love the Disney Channel.

Believe it or not, there was once a time in American pop culture when Disney was the gold standard for a brand. They put out high quality programming, movies, products, and even had a theme park that didn't require you to sell your children to sweat shops to visit. But, as we all know, when you're at the top there's only one place to go, and it ain't a plateau.
In the Disney Channel's infancy it was actually a pay channel like HBO or Showtime. Unfortunately this required them to use effort or people would stop paying for them. It ran shows like "Under the Umbrella Tree" and "Dumbo's Circus" and Mickey Mouse even taught you how to do aerobics.

(Mousercise pics from http://www.platypuscomix.net/history/exercise.html)

Yeah. You're seeing that correctly. That's someone dressed as Donald Duck standing in close proximity to a woman (who is not a young Rue McClanahan) who is wearing leg warmers. And I'm assuming he knows he's in front of a camera. Can you imagine the preparation he must have to put himself through every morning to go to work? Not stretching, but convincing himself that life is still worth living? Plus, I can't imagine Donald wouldn't have a visible erection wearing no pants and being around that many women in tights. Why is he dressed like a sailor even when he's doing warm-ups?

(Not the same person)

At any rate, at some point Disney decided that this was not a quick enough way to bring down western civilization and they became a basic cable channel, bringing you such quality programming as "Hannah Montana" "That's So Raven!" and "The Jonas Brothers Fellate the Neighbors."

This is the Disney Channel you are familiar with. The Disney Channel that has since poisoned every industry from music to TV to clothing to movies to cooking (probably). The Disney Channel that I love.

That's right. I fucking love it. Why, you might ask? Because of a simple theory I have that has thus far proven to be true. Disney gets genetically perfect kids, exploits them for all they're worth, and kicks them to the curb once puberty sets in. Sound about right? Well, let's explore why it's so fantastic together.

Step 1: You're hired!... As a bit player of a currently hot show.

Disney likes to test the waters. Sure, your fourteen-year-old genes might make people born with flippers for arms wish they had a third of your looks. Sure, you may have broken up a neighbor's marriage because the bored husband was taking pictures of you through the curtains, but are you talentless yet pretty enough to carry your own show? Disney will shoehorn you into the background of a currently running TV show to see how well you can follow directions and appeal to the market before the next Demi Lovato becomes the next Hilary Duff. If you're vaguely ethnic, even better. Vaguely ethnic pretty young people appeal to young ethnic kids who are looking for role models and young white kids who want to frustrate their parents.

(I can't believe you got your own franchise either.)

Step 2: Your very own show!

Congratulations! Disney was probably convinced you deserve your own show because you're thin and pretty and can kind of sing! Good for you! Are you ready to churn out CDs to children whose parents will soon lose their minds by listening to your interpretation of "Let's Get Together" over and over again? Hooray! Let's give you a name that sounds kind of like yours and put you in a familiar location and make it completely wacky. Like in middle school, but you're secretly an international rock star! Or in middle school, but you're a witch! Or in middle school, but you can see the future! That's so interesting! That's so awesome! That's so Raven! Now, we're only going to make three seasons of your show. During those three seasons there will be no character development at all. Everyone must stay the way there are and have one character trait. We don't know how to develop people with more traits than that. Characters who we write as your best friends may not have the appeal we need, so we might fire them in the middle of a season, so continuity is a big no-no. Finally, we're only going to give you three seasons because after that our studies show that you n longer have that innocent look and parents will be looking for the next thing to keep their kids sheltered. But don't worry, we'll have a huge theatrical movie that will cap off the series, although almost every secondary character will be missing and it'll be focused on you and a far-off location and a love interest. But you'll get to sing all the music for the soundtrack and this will launch your music career, which we'll manage.

Step 3: Life A.D. (After Disney)

Now that you're too old for TV appeal, we'll keep churning out your CDs until the next thing on the Disney Channel usurps you. That'll be good for about six months. Meanwhile we'll rerun your show for the next five years, gaining any cash from residual marketing and interest. You may feel that you're getting a bit too old for Disney now. Instead of letting you live in obscurity with the money you don't deserve, we're going to keep whoring you out like the cash cow you are. You'll be 26 and still playing a 15 year old, but we won't tell anyone.
You may also be noticing things about your persona now. You're barely 18 now and the media is starting to sexualize you. That tends to happen when genetically perfect children grow up and blossom. You're a hottie. But don't let anyone know. Your nightclub antics are starting to catch up with you. All that cocaine might be good for your figure, but parents tend to frown on that kind of thing. That's fine, but expect us to distance ourselves from you as soon as this happens. If you're still making money for us in "High School Musical 7: The Community College Years," we'll put out a statement of support and let you off with a warning. Next time you're on your own.


4. Ok, ok we get it.

You want to move on. You don't want to be perceived as another kiddie Disney princess, so you'll be looking for breakout roles outside the company. Your career with us has come to a halt. You're tried to explore other things, but they're just not successful. It's almost as if you never had the talent we told you you had. Like all you had going for you was marketability and good looks. Like the only reason you're still relevant is because men just wanted you to turn 18 so they could jerk off without the tinge of guilt. But fine, get out of here. Don't try to come back. But somehow, despite your lack of talent and range, you really want some work that will make people take you as a serious actress and not just someone who could do a double take in a school gym.


5. You're an adult.

So, doesn't it feel good to be away from Disney? What a bunch of assholes. But hey, you're pretty and talented. You're signed with us now. You have this drive to be considered a serious actress even though you don't have the chops for it. And you're desperate to stand apart from that cute role that got you famous. What would be the logical ting for a pretty young girl who wants to be seen as an adult and has been lusted after for years?

Problems with the "Lost" finale

Note: This is kind of a knee-jerk reaction. I know that. It's not going to be completely coherent. Bear with me.

You were so close. So, so close.
You almost had a great show all the way through. You shocked us, you entertained us, you made us feel for the characters.
Missed it by that much.

Here's why;

1. Religious heavy-handedness

Jack's entry into the all-inclusive non-denominational church immediately raised a flag. Everyone had been acting very strangely, and when we saw that casket, we knew something was about to go down. Then we saw Jack's dad, realized everyone was dead, they were in heaven/purgatory without ever quite saying it, etc. The icing on the cake was the name of Jack's father--Christian Shepard--guiding them all to the bright light. It was just too much. I wanted to groan.
The spiritual theme has always been present in Lost. Locke embodied it for years, until he died, of course. Then Jack took up the mantle. Jacob hung around to give us the religious vibe in Locke's absence. I don't mind that the "man of science" was wrong in the end. I was just a bit disappointed that they went for a safe, Jesus-loves-everyone ending. It reeked of cheese and frankly I thought they deserved more. The whole scene still feels surreal to me. Why is that? Well...

2. Mysticism vs. Realism

The Island, post-season 1, opened us to a world of mysticism. We had the Smoke Monster, the healing properties of the island, destiny, time travel, Jacob, etc. etc. The Island was a wonderful place where special things happened. They were trapped there and it was a stark difference from everyday life. Before the island, the survivors were criminals, doctors, musicians, fast food workers. They were normal people. Slowly, The Island transformed their world into something fantastic. Then the flash-sideways grounded us again. We saw the familiar characters behaving in everyday ways. They still had struggles and they were still interesting despite the fact that they no longer had the mystical Island juju to help them. There was no Jacob. However, in the final moments of Lost we find out that the whole "realistic" world is a construct. It means nothing. It was undone. All of the new relationships and redemptions we witnessed meant nothing at all. They were all dead. Who cares? Lost had pulled the rug out from under us before with storytelling methods like the flash forward, but I had never felt betrayed or like I had wasted my time. I liked the flash sideways. It helped me feel like these characters, though they may be dead in the "real" timeline, might have a shot after all. But nope. The survivors left behind a lot of kids they'll never see again; Jin, Sawyer, and Michael all had children that are now abandoned. They'll never see them again. And the flash sideways world, where they could have addressed that, suddenly doesn't matter at all. Speaking of kids--

3. David

Jack's son in the flash-sideways was something of an enigma. We didn't know where he came from til the final episode, we don't know what happened to him after Locke "woke up," and we never find out. Since the flash sideways is a construct, it's possible that Jack created him as a son that he could use to be the father he always wanted. But it that's true, then that means Jack unconsciously has some kind of reign in that construct. So Jack's unconscious mind put him in a relationship with Juliet. Does that go against any kind of real emotion the characters had in the main timeline? we saw there that Jack and Kate wound up together, and so did Juliet and Sawyer. They were very happy, seemingly. The flash-sideways undoes all of that. It negates it. It seems less real than it was. It cheapens the relationships that we cared about over six seasons.

4. No finality in the real world

One huge mistake they made in the final season was showing us what happened in the purgatory world. There was closure there. Everything was tied up in a neat little bow and the white light bathed us all and we felt really good about it.
But who cares? None of it actually happened. I didn't care at all about that world by the time it ended. I wanted to know about the real world. What happened to Claire and Richard and Sawyer and Miles? How did Hurley and Ben get Desmond home? Those are the real questions. Those are what mattered. The focus was on the wrong timeline.

5. Negation of the flash-sideways

Obviously I mentioned this above. We spent a whole season redeeming characters (Sayid, Jin, Ben) and helping them learn and discover themselves (Locke, Jack). There was some wonderful character development. Jin and Sun were together despite the oppressive nature of Mr. Paik. Sayid saved Nadia, just like he always wanted to do, but at the same time he learned to move on from her. Ben looked like he was going to have a happy future with Rousseau and Alex. Jack accepted that there was room for faith in his life and Locke realized that faith wasn't everything. These were all the lessons that they should have learned in the real world. This timeline was what they needed. It was what the audience needed. In those last few minutes we realize that none of this matters because the characters were all dead when it happened. They never learned these things in life. They never got to grow from their self-discovery. They never got to live life their way if The Island and Jacob had never interfered. More importantly, the audience never got closure. What's the point of having your characters redeemed when it no longer matters?

6. The Smoke Monster

The Big Bad of season six was the Man in Black. The Smoke Monster. We were told that The Island was his prison and he could never leave. If he did, the world would be ruined.
But that's it.
At the halfway point, the Man in Black was shot and unceremoniously tossed off a cliff. Bu we never really saw the extent of his power. It never really felt like the world was in danger. We needed to see what he was going to do when he escaped. We need to know that Jacob wasn't lying this whole time. We got none of that. The fight was great, but it ended too soon.

Lost seems to have fallen into a couple simple traps; we never saw any real threat in the villain, and they failed to realize what their audience needed. These simple things would have saved us a lot of frustration... or at least it would have saved me a lot of frustration. The finale wasn't even bad. 80% of it was fantastic. I loved Ben's redemption. I loved the final shot. I loved seeing (almost) everyone again. I just wish it would have meant something tangible.

Janice: The Unsung Hero of the Muppets

Anyone who knows me knows that I love the Muppets. The original three movies (The Muppet Movie, The Great Muppet Caper, and The Muppets Take Manhattan) are all fantastic films that rely on a childlike approach to the world but never panders to them. People seem to hail "Shrek" as some kind of revolutionary film that started this trend. Dreamworks eventually took this schtick and ran with it, eventually creating abortions like "Madagascar" but that's another rant for another time.
The Muppets were never afraid to shy away from a joke. They treated their characters like functional adults. This would never happen in movies now, but when the Muppet films were made (at least, the three above) there were sexual and alcohol references in all of the films. They were never forced, but seemed to arise from casual conversations and were natural dialogue in the films. For instance, both Rowlf and Fozzie allude to alcohol in different films. Rowlf says he likes to "have a couple of beers" and "take himself for a walk" before bed. There's a joke there for adults, who laugh at the felt dog drinking, and one for kids who laugh at the phrasing Rowlf uses about going for a walk. Rowlf is a bit jaded as a lounge singer and this dialogue makes sense. On the other side of the spectrum, Fozzie is childlike and comments that champagne would taste like ginger ale if he added some sugar. There's a reason you never think for a moment that these characters aren't real people when you're watching a movie. They behave like real people. They have emotions and they all behave in certain ways.
And despite what politicians might tell you, kids won't start drinking because of this. They know that some activities are for adults.

Perhaps the most subversive character in the Muppets is Janice, the lead guitar player for the house band, the Electric Mayhem. In the Muppet Show she sings "With a Little Help From My Friends" and the writers made no attempt to say that she "gets high with a little help from (her) friends." With her other bandmates including Animal and Zoot, I don't doubt it. This scene even takes place during a "human" sacrifice, as Kermit notes. Can you see that flying now? Of course not.

Janice sings "With a Little Help From My Friends"

But it doesn't stop there.

Janice has two fantastic moments in "The Great Muppet Caper." The first comes relatively early in the film when Kermit, Fozzie, and Gonzo stop in at the Happiness Hotel for a room. Pops starts up the song and Janice gets the best and funniest lyric; "Still, the management is cheerful, though the whole joint's gone to Hell..."
Happiness Hotel
That's fine. Plenty of kid's shows from "Rocko's Modern Life" to "Are You Afraid of the Dark?" to "The Adventures of Pete & Pete" have mentioned Hell. It was much easier to get away with in the 80s and 90s. Can you see it happening on Nickelodeon or The Disney Channel now between advertisements for the new Hannah Montana album or "That's So Raven" (Is that even on anymore?)?
Her second bit is riskier and funnier. It strikes closer to the nanny state agenda we've cultivated in America; nudity.
The whole Muppet crew (in a group shot that no doubt took several dozen Muppeteers) yells over one another before Kermit can get them to shut up. When he does, Janice gets the final line that everyone hears because the room goes silent. If you've ever shouted something at a party as the music turns off you know this feeling.
Janice's life goals

The joke worked so well that in "The Muppets Take Manhattan" they turned it up a notch; "Look buddy, I don't take my clothes off for anyone. I don't care if it IS 'artistic.'"

Janice is hilarious. You may not have noticed her in the crowd of frogs and pigs and bears and... whatevers, but she's there. And she's awesome.
Disney has really dragged down the Muppet franchise. Did you see "Muppet Wizard of Oz"? I rest my case. When they started catering to kids, they dumbed it down and ruined its appeal. The Muppets weren't popular because they were by-the-books kids' characters. It was because they defied convention. Look at "Shrek" and "Shrek 3" to see what I mean. Hopefully Jason Segel, the Muppets fan he is, can rein then in and get them back on track with his new script.
And hopefully they won't be afraid to break some rules along the way. In the mean time, watch the old films. Count the jokes that would be impossible to do now, and enjoy the films as the great character interactions and hilarious slapstick showpieces that they are.

How I realized I wasn't cut out to be a Believer

I've been tiptoeing around how to get this blog started, so I figured I'll take the plunge and let you know a bit about me. I believed in God and Jesus and all that fun stuff well into my high school days. I can't pinpoint when I started the questioning which led me to where I am today, but looking back I can see a few telltale signs that it just wasn't going to work out.
I was an existential child. When I was very young--younger than nine, though I can't remember the specific age--I lay in my bed at night thinking. I still do this, and I know many of you do, too. You think about all the shitty stuff about life you push out of your head with busy work and video games and masturbation. Too young to realize the fun and glory of these activities, I lay there thinking about death. I come from a Catholic family. Everyone around me was Catholic, so there was no reason for me to think anything that might run counter to the invisible guardian in the sky theory. My first disappointment in God was when I prayed for him to transform my various dog toys into dalmatian figurines overnight. 101 Dalmatians had just been rereleased and I was in a phase, I guess. I thought it would be nothing more than a small paint job while I slept. Hell, if Santa could do it, it should be cake for God.
Of course I woke up to my various brown plastic dogs and not dalmatians, but oh well. I made the best of things. My Cruella De Vil toy would have to settle for a patchwork coat.
Anyway, I was thinking about death. In my mind, people went to heaven and just kind of... hung out all day. Nobody has said anything to me since then that would lead me to believe that Heaven is anything but that. I realized that I would get bored very quickly if I was just sitting around on my cloud all day. Sure, I'd have wings, but what about the Sonic the Hedgehog cartoons? What about drawing? TVs and trees don't have souls, so that was out. I wanted conflict in my Heaven. Life without conflict is boring. Some perfect afterlife that would be, hanging out bored all the time. I had toys at home and I was still bored a lot. What kind of omnipotent being was this God?
Crushed by the overwhelming idea of boredom for eternity, I began to cry. Note that I was sure I would be going to Heaven. I often wonder where that self-assurance went now that I'm older. I climbed out of my bunk bed and went to my parents in the living room, bawling. They asked what was wrong and I said "I don't want to die!"
I don't know what they said to get me back in bed, but I eventually slept. They've never mentioned that night to me.
My second (or third if you count my dalmatians mishap) realization that God wasn't destined to be in my Myspace Top 8 was in Sunday school. We had to look through magazines and find who we thought our chosen Saint looked like. We all picked a Saint. All the kids in class picked their favorite, but I didn't know a damn thing about the Saints. I picked my namesake, Saint David. After flipping through magazines, I found an image of celebrity chef (at the time) Jeff Smith.
Later, of course, we found out he sexually assaulted men who worked with him. Some Saint.

Of course, these stories aren't WHY I stopped going to church or believing, but they are, I think, things that led me down the path to question the world around me. After all, if God can't live up to Santa, what is he good for?

Anne Burrell is a Super Saiyan

"That stove is too cold. Turn it up."
"Over 300?"
"Higher."
"Over 400?"
"Higher."
"450?"
"...that should be fine."