Ugly Betty Or Soap...y Betty?

Okay so the title sucks. I don't care. Ugly Betty sucks. I know, I know. You're saying to yourself right now: "Why am I reading this blog?" And maybe somewhere in there you're also saying to yourself: "Why do you know anything about Ugly Betty?" Well, the simple answer is I have a girlfriend, who watches a lot of TV. The longer answer is that I can't tune out ANYTHING so if there's loud noises around me I have to pay attention. It's a very big problem when I go out places.

Regardless of all that, I don't feel like Ugly Betty has to be a bad show, even though it is. It's just odd because it doesn't really seem to know what it is. According to Wikipedia, the show is a "dramedy" (god how I hate that term), and according to Netflix it's a TV Sitcom/Comedy. In reality, it is neither of those things. In reality it is a soap opera. Don't believe me? Take some of the plot from season 1. The show is about the eponymous character Betty, who as you may have guess from the title is not by any means the typical fashionista. Despite this she attempts to make it in the difficult world of fashion magazines. So the show, obviously deciding Ugly Better is not interesting enough, goes into a great deal of unnecessary information about her boss (Daniel)'s father who once had a wife and a mistress (whom he may have killed), and his other son, Daniel's brother, who faked his own death in order to have a sex change operation (I am not making this up) so that he/she can come back to the show and help a woman who's job at the magazine is rather unclear become editor-in-chief in a dramatic power struggle that doesn't really make sense to begin with. She seems to barely be able to handle what power and responsibilities she already has. She's also really gullible. So she wants more power? Yeah, great plan.

Now, I realize this is a show for women, but let's face it: not every woman likes soap operas. And even besides that, this is a show about a fashion magazine, meaning there was a really big chance to have lots of pleasing things available. The office could have been "fabulous," but instead looks like something out of Star Trek. They could have adorned the show with flamboyant gays in ridiculous outfits, instead they mostly reigned them in and you might actually have to be paying attention to tell they're gay. Maybe. Maybe not. They also could have had lots and lots of interesting clothing. Now, I realize I'm a guy and thus not the best person for this job, but too me most of the clothes look either like fashion disasters or too simple to really be noteworthy.

Of course, quite likely the show's creators were trying to appeal to as wide an audience as they could. Likely they were aware that there would be many people who, like me, are straight men watching a show about fashion because they have girlfriends. I realize this, and I understand that they've likely attempted to work the show into something more people could watch. But what's the point? I mean, really. In the end, the people who are going to keep coming back to your show, the people who going to be wanting to watch you show are going to be of a certain demographic, and you're doing as little as possible to appeal to those people? Really?

I know it's a bit late to be talking about this, what with the show already having been canceled, but the show's creators are still out there, no doubt, working on other projects. Maybe in the future, they can try to suck less at their jobs and maybe show a little focus. I bet not. Because TV is pretty much always going to suck.

What Ever Happened to Saturday Night (Live)?

Remember when Saturday Night Live was good? Me neither. But hey, let's not be too hard on them. Coming up with new jokes, especially when it involves writing for a different celebrity host each week, cannot be easy. I'm supposed to update this blog that often and I can't even do that. And that's nothing compared to an hour and a half variety show. Right?

Well I don't know. Let's look at a few things. First, there's the commercials. The commercials during the show are so long that the actually come back from the commercials just to show the set, and then return to the commercials without having done a single new skit. With that much time spent in commercial, that means nearly have the episode is commercials! Once you factor those out, the musical guests out, and the weekend update segments that are written by Seth Meyers alone, then what you're left with is only about 40 minutes of actual material. And considering that most hour long TV shows have run anywhere from 42 to 48 minutes per episode, that mens in this hour and a half show you are getting less material then your standard hour long TV show! That's almost nothing!

Then to make matters worse, they seem incapable of actually filling those 40 minutes most of the time. There is at least one skit EVERY. SINGLE. WEEK. that seems to be written specifically as filler. They're easy to spot. They go on kind of forever without ever really making any kind of joke, but the sort of half joke they have they keep doing over and over again until this thing that wasn't funny from the beginning has been beaten into the ground until death is more than certain.

And the worst part of all is that it seems to be an absolute requirement that they hire at least one person who is guaranteed to not be funny. Like Kevin Nealon. Or Dennis Miller. Or Jimmy Fallon. Ugh. Jimmy Fallon. I thought he was the lowest point, the absolute bottom SNL could have sunk. He was so bad, he blamed Will Ferrell for making him laugh in each skit. Too bad he continued to laugh in every goddamn skit regardless of whether Will Ferrell was still in the cast or not. But despite everything, he did not prove to be the worst. Oh no. However bad he was, skits could still be funny with him in them. He didn't suck the funny right out of it, not in the way that only Kristen Wiig could.

Kristen Wiig has hands down got to be the LEAST funny person to ever exist. I have a theory that she is not a person at all. Much like evil to good, she is the actual opposite, the antithesis, if you will, of funny. She is a black hole that sucks all the funny in existence straight out of the universe until nothing remains for the rest of us to enjoy. Yet despite this she appears CONSTANTLY on the show, in almost every single skit. It seems almost as if someone is paying to have her on the show so much, because I couldn't possibly imagine why else she'd be there. It's as though it were part of the Devil's secret plan to ruin life for all still upon the earth. I know this is going kind of far, but trust me when I say that she is that bad.

And in the end, they are paid mucho dolares and I am paid nothing, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to compare my failure to do, to theirs. SNL isn't always bad. They've been funny from time to time, and of course no TV show is always going to be funny. Nothing that runs for 30 years is always going to be perfect. I know that. You should know that. But that doesn't mean the show doesn't have some serious faults. Quite the contrary. And what I do on this blog is point those faults out. So SNL: fire Kristen Wiig and then attempt to fix yourself from this hole you have sunk in. I'm sure you can get out of it. You have before. Just...never that well.

Concern for Comedy

I know comedy, like most things, is subjective. I also know that it isn't my place to tell people what is funny and what isn't, because it's necessary for people to discern for themselves. Despite this, there are certain things I don't feel anyone could find funny, and yet I've seen a surprising amount of it in the past few years. Let's take a look at a few of them.

One of my biggest problems with Comedy movies has been the "Genre" Movie movies, i.e. Scary Movie, Disaster Movie, Epic Movie, Dance Flick. I've complained about them before, their tendency to simply re-hash a scene from another movie, throwing it at you hoping that it might be unexpected enough to elicit a laugh. The unexpected itself can be funny, but entire movies full of this takes the element of the unexpected away after a time. And when that's the entire joke during these segments, then it's bound to just start being tiresome. It's a clear sign of tired, uninspired writing. And whatever opinion writers may have of their audience, I think audiences have a tendency to pick up on this. You have to respect your audience. This is something I will probably say a lot to a lot of people for a lot of reasons. It was a big complaint for me regarding fantasy novels. Give your readers/viewers some credit. I know these "Genre" Movies are kind of brain dead comedies, but that doesn't mean the people who watch them are brain dead. Mix things up. At least try to provide some entertainment.

Another disturbing trend I see is pain to animals as comedy. A lot of comedies seem to end up involving animals being hurt or even killed. It deeply, deeply disturbs me that someone might find harm to living creatures to be funny. I guess it makes sense, in the vein of slapstick where the comedian receives physical punishment in order to elicit laughter, or the retributive pain to assholes with the idea that if it's justified then it can be funny. Even if you find this kind of thing to be funny there's still an important difference here. In those situations the people are basically asking for the physical pain. The asshole is asking for it, again, as retribution, and the slapstick character is asking for it by being ridiculous. You know it's coming and you expect it. But animals are not asking for it. The animal did not do anything wrong beside not being able to voice out opposition. Even Kant, who considered animals "things" and not good enough to obtain the ranking of "personhood" felt that animals should not be mistreated for fear of your personhood. Yet comedians seem to have a sickening fascination with this idea. I would like someone to explain to me why this sort of thing is supposed to be funny, because I don't really see why this would be anything but disgusting.

Which leads me into my last point. Much like what I described last week, the sense that assholes are not heros, neither are they comedians. I know there are "comedians" who's every joke is saying something incredibly mean, but that doesn't mean they are actually funny. I know I've said a number of particularly mean things on this site, but I don't do it to be funny. I do it to be mean, because I feel those people get far too much praise for being really bad at what they do. So what I'm saying is, Paul Rudd. YOU ARE NOT FUNNY. Sitting there, spouting out off-handed insults to the rest of your cast members does not make you funny. It makes you an asshole. And being an asshole is not interesting. It's insanely boring. I realize assholes are the fault of the writer, usually the writer lashing back with his (probably only) talent at a world he doesn't quite belong too. Wow. Self-reflective moment...aaaaaaand I'm back. What I suggest, writers, is that YOU GET THE HELL OVER YOURSELVES. Making one of your characters a sharp tongued asshole doesn't make you clever. It makes you trite. So cut it out already.

Assholes aren't Heroes

I've been gone quite a while, but I plan to remedy that. From now on I expect to keep a regular update schedule. That said, let's get on with this update.

The more I watch of television and movies, the more I become disturbed by a bothersome trend. Assholes are everywhere. Much like Lord Dark Helmet, I feel like I'm surrounded by them. At one time, long ago, it seemed like assholes were in stories for the soul purpose of receiving their comeuppance. Now it seems that assholes are often in literature as the person you are supposed to cheer for, the person you are supposed to believe in, or even the person who's supposed to be making the funniest jokes. In short, it is much as though assholes have become the hero.

Some might argue that this is the rise of the antihero, but this is simply confusion. Typically, the hero is larger than life, a morally perfect person who continues to do the right thing despite overwhelming odds. Unlikely heroes are people who are relatively commonplace but are thrust into unlikely situations and manage to overcome the difficulties presented them. Antiheroes are people who exhibit morally questionable characteristics, often stumble down the wrong path, but in the end will always do the right thing, or try to. Villains are people who are larger than life, much like the traditional hero, but who maintain a moral ground that is considered morally reprehensible and works only to destroy rather than save or create.

Assholes occupy none of these areas. Why they are often morally reprehensible like the villain, they show no interest in affecting matters right or wrong. If they do act, either for good or bad, it is out of self-interest rather than any other motivation. Assholes also never learn from what they've done wrong, or even if they do learn from it, they fall back into their old patterns.

Yet it seems to me that more and more, assholes are replacing any form of hero in stories. Assholes, motivated by their own self-interest, often find themselves taking the role of the unlikely hero, thrust into extraordinary situations and attempting to make the best of it. On occasion they might befriend other assholes, extending their motivation, but mainly the continue to work for themselves. If they do what is right, it is only out of self-interest, not out of any interest in doing what's right or attempt to redeem themselves.

And for some reason, we're supposed to cheer these people on. For some reason, we're expected to laugh at their crass, biting insults. For some reason, we're expected to think of assholes as heroes. I don't know about anyone else, but I never buy into this. An asshole is always an asshole, and if he makes no attempt to redeem himself, I don't know why I'd stop thinking of him as an asshole. But maybe I'm just part of a dying culture, part of a group who still enjoys believing in heroes. Maybe I'm just not part of this new world order where everyone has caved-in to the idea that all people are assholes, there is no good left in the world, and so why shouldn't our stories at least be about assholes who lead interesting lives?

I guess I just want stories to represent hope, rather than a grim acceptance of a fate I don't believe we've really reached.

Now That Was Just Stupid

There's something that's been bothering me about horror movies that doesn't seem to be going away. It especially bothered me in Zombieland. For being really tricky, clever people, Wichita and he sister certainly did a lot of really stupid things. And why did they do them? To increase suspense.

Dramatic irony is when the audience knows something that the character doesn't. So say in a horror movie, the camera might show the killer waiting around a corner while the character does not even know that the killer is in the building. This is suspenseful, this is dramatic, and this is one of the most powerful pulls horror movies have. But it's also not done correctly probably somewhere around half the time.

In some movies you might see something along the lines of: We know there are zombies here, but we're still gonna leave the doors open, turn all the lights on, and wonder around in the open without our guns. Then, suspense builds as we see zombies getting closer and closer to the area were we know our protagonists are wandering about, blissfully unaware of the approaching menace.

This is NOT dramatic irony. Let's look at the definition again. Dramatic irony is when the audience knows something that the character doesn't. In the situation I just described, it might appear that this definition is met. After all, the characters aren't aware of the approaching zombies. The audience is. Thus, dramatic irony is created, right?

Wrong.

Because the characters may not know that those specific zombies are approaching, but they damn well know that the everybody has turned into zombies, that zombies are fucking everywhere, and that if you let your guard down for a single minute (even just to go to the bathroom), you could be dead. They know better than to be wandering around open spaces with the lights on and no weapons available close by. They know better. But they do it anyway. This is an example of a character being intentionally stupid in order to artificially build suspense. And it doesn't really build suspense, at least not for me. I just find it annoying and distracting. And I guess you can argue that people will let their guard down from time to time. And that's true. But letting your guard down is a lot different than intentionally doing things you know are stupid in order to build suspense.

Is this not bothering anyone else?

Are Vampires Gay?

So Vampires. They're everywhere right now, one can probably only guess as to why. But what exactly is so exciting about them?

Vampires in folklore rarely drank human blood. They were mainly creatures feared by farmers living on the outskirts of settlements. In essence, it was a lot like the chupacabra or Jersey Devil. It killed livestock, drained them dry of blood without leaving a drop anywhere. There was not originally a weakness to sun light, though they did tend to their actions at night probably due to the horrifying blackness that comes with night in a world before streetlights. Nor was there originally a weakness to holy powers or the cross, considering that Vampire tales reach as far back as ancient Mesopotamia, some 3000 years prior to the coming of Christ.

Various tales grew over time, mixing with legends and occasional piece of fiction until the Vampire had changed into something almost completely different.

Le Fanu's Carmilla emphasized a sexual appetite (lesbian and erotic) for the vampire alongside it's thirst for blood. Stoker's Dracula, a much more popular and well-known novel, further emphasizes. But while the reality of these novels may have been sexual, they were still psychological. The horror in the story was almost more towards the things humans were capable of as opposed to the monster lurking in the night.

Eventually, along came writers such as Anne Rice and, still later, Laurell K. Hamilton, for whom the psychological aspects that made Dracula an honest and notable work of fiction meant nothing. Vampire stories, for some reason, became romance-novel trash more interested in matters of sexual perversion and the "seedy underbelly" of society where one's fantasies could become reality. Apparently, places where fantasies can become reality is enough to propel certain so-called "books" into immense fame, but that's a discussion for another time, perhaps.

The next step has, perhaps, been taken, as vampire stories become increasingly adolescent romantic fantasy, the writing trashier, and the story content less remarkable.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is, have Vampires become gay (literally gay)? Were vampires as short, goat-killing monsters more or less interesting? Does Dracula denote a high point in vampire-inspired fiction? Does Twilight denote a low point? Are vampire novels now entirely pubescent female masturbatory romance or are they for everyone? Were Vampires ever interesting at all?

You tell me.

TV Tragedy: Malcom in the Middle

When the gestalt entity Grant Naylor decided to bring their hit BBC series Red Dwarf to America, they found the transition to be a good deal less smooth than they had anticipated. Grant and Naylor were brought into a room with several writers for the American version - among them Linwood Boomer who would go on to create Malcom in the Middle - and the two quickly became known as "The Wave of Negativity."

Why, you ask? Because instead of doing what everybody else in the room was doing - just throwing out as many greasy one-liners as they could in hopes that something would stick - they desired to fix inherent problems with the story. Because, the two British gents knew well, no matter how many one-liners you covered a bad story with, it could not fix the problem.

This event, singular though it may be, is exemplary of what would be to come of Malcolm in the Middle. Though this show lasted an unfortunate seven seasons, it never once bothered to address its inherent issues. Why bother when you can have success by covering up your inherent issues with one-liners?

Well because this show may have been successful while it was running its first several seasons, but it has no lasting power. By the time the show came to an end, who really cared any more?

Because it may be easy enough to watch a handful of episodes and laugh at the silly jokes and the ridiculous situations, but watching a show like this must get incredibly tiresome. The characters are two-dimensional, one-word personalities. They exist for no purpose but to make a specific type of joke every time they appear. If something were to happen to these characters that might be considered "drama," who the hell is going to care? Who has any kind of emotional attachment to a character that literally exists just to make jokes? And perhaps the most amazing aspect of the 7 seasons that the show got was the fact that there was absolutely no character development whatsoever between the beginning and the end of the show.

There wasn't a single character in the show that wasn't entirely annoying by the end of an episode, yet somehow people still sat down week after week to watch this show.

Just goes to show you that people don't pay any attention when they watch shows on TV. They want to laugh at some stupid one liner without having to devote too much of their attention to what's going on.

Fuck you, T.V. And fuck you, Malcolm in the Middle.