Ultimate(ly not) Spider-Man

This year sees not one but TWO reboots of Spider-Man going on in media outside of the comic books. That's right, Amazing Spider-Man, the summer blockbuster film starring Andrew Garfield (wait, that sentence didn't come from my nightmares? How can that be!?), as well as the brand new, Disney (yes, Disney) cartoon, Ultimate Spider-Man. So this year will also see a lot of me sighing in great frustration and cursing the sky with an angry raised fist. Why? Let's start with what will, maybe surprisingly, be the worst of the two. Ultimate Spider-Man.

I have yet to see this show, and I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt, but what I have seen has me intensely concerned. Luckily, the show continues what appears to be the Spider-Man cartoon standard of flat out skipping the origin story and getting straight to him having been the web-slinger for some time, in this case for one year. So at least there's that. But this cartoon is still a reboot. And why did we need a reboot? I have absolutely no clue, except for the possibility that maybe they planned having these two reboots come out within the same year. But just before this show was running (and should still be running) Spectacular Spider-Man, not only the best Spidey cartoon to date but also one of the best superhero cartoons to date. So why it was canceled is absolutely beyond me. The show was doing an amazing job of mixing concepts from the original series and the ultimate series together to develop an entirely different plot line that was fresh, original, and entertaining. Considering the way the show was already so heavily based on the ultimate comics, that makes doing an Ultimate Spider-Man show even more pointless.

Then there's the fact that the show doesn't really seem to be based of the ultimate comics either. You have some basic stuff: Peter's general look, Nick Fury being black, and SHIELD being aware of Peter's dual identity. But whereas the comics made the wise move of informing us about SHIELD's awareness of this fact and then backing off and LEAVING IT THE FUCK ALONE, the show takes the turn with Nick Fury essentially offering Peter a job. And training. And gadgets.

Now, I don't know what others think, but I'd say one of the best things about Spider-Man has always been how self-contained his little corner of the Marvel Universe was. Not only that, but how little Spidey ever relied on others within his own little group. There were no sidekicks, no long-lasting or sincere copycats, no anything but Spider-Man on his own, trying to do the right thing with no training, no help, no money. He could embody our human faults, failings, and difficulties even while having the proportional strength, speed, and agility of a spider. And for around 40 years that formula not only worked, but flourished.

Then along came Brian Michael Bendis, who just had to ruin everything. Bendis essentially took a step back and slapped the entirety of Spider-Man fans in the face. When forming the "New Avengers" following the disastrous "Avengers: Disassembled," he had Captain America ask ol' webs how well being a lone wolf has worked out for him.

Well.

As a matter of fact, Bendis, it's worked pretty fucking fine. For 40 damn years. For 40 years Spidey, solo, with no money, no government backing, no team, and no training, saved the world at least as many times as the Avengers with all their money and numbers and training and prominence. So yeah, I'd say he was doing just fucking fine.

And that's why people like Spider-Man. That's why, for 40 fucking years, people were attracted to Spider-Man on the whole. Because he's an average guy doing everything he can against insurmountable odds and somehow, every time, he manages to pull himself above it and succeed. That's why he's the Amazing Spider-Man. Or did you not read the title of the book before sodomizing it?

When you take that away from him, he's just another self-serving, self-righteous man in pajamas. When you give him money, and training, and gadgets (seriously, gadgets?), you're making him someone else. You're making him...Batman, really. Well, but younger and with more wisecracks. So Robin. And do you really want Spider-Man to become Robin? Does anyone?

(The answer is no. I just wanted to clarify because if you can make such a pivotal mistake, I'm not sure you're the keenest brain on the shelf).

So while the cartoon may be an enjoyable show in its own right, while it may have certain positive things working for it (though if it does I have yet to see those things), it won't be Spider-Man. And that's why the show is bad. That's why the show might as well not exist. That's why they should give up on it now and go back to making more Spectacular Spider-Man. Okay, not really, I just really like that show.

One last note, after the miserably, miserably bad MTV CGI Spider-Man cartoon, who really, really thought it would be a good idea to give Bendis another chance at making a cartoon? I mean, really.

I'll talk about the movie next time.

Scott Pilgrim vs. The Dead

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World was not the best movie ever. In fact I would hesitate to even call it a good movie. It wasn't a bad movie. It had a number of very typical Edgar Wrightisms that I enjoyed so greatly from Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. But having now seen this as well as Paul, I have come to the conclusion that any combination of these people (Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Edgar Wright) that doesn't involve all three of them is mostly a waste of time. It's not that the products of their creations are bad, it's just that the three of them together makes for some of the most awesome movies of all time. Them separated makes for some pretty mediocre movies.

Already I have to be sad that there are so few Mel Brooks comedies and so few Zucker, Abrahams, and Zucker films. Actually, that's a great example. Together, Zucker, Abrahams, and Zucker (or ZAZ for short) made movies like Airplane, Top Secret, and Naked Gun. Individually, they made movies like Baseketball, Scary Movie 4, Mafia!, Ghost, and First Knight. So together they made some of the greatest comedies of all time, and individually they made some mediocre to bad comedies and some terrible dramas.

Pegg, Frost, and Wright are the British ZAZ. Together they're a force to be reckoned with. Individually... well, let's just say the world doesn't need another Baseketball or Ghost. Ever.

EVER.

The Future Sucks

At least, if Star Trek has anything to say about. Oh sure, it claims to present a revolutionary view of the future, where racism, sexism, war, poverty, and money have all been eliminated. It claims to offer hope for a better future. But that's not the reality, is it?

It's interesting to me that such a popular American show can have certain ideals that seem so blatantly not American. They live in basically a socialist dream society, where money has been unlimited and no one is either rich or poor, but rather all are on an equal social level. In fact, the only capitalists who really appear in the show - most notably the Ferengi - are demonized, villain-ized, or both. It's not that I disagree with this vision of the future. A world without poverty does sound nice, but I can't help but be surprised this didn't bother more people.

Maybe it's because, despite all their pontificating about social justice and equality, the show didn't really manage to achieve much of that. For the forward thinking and prescience they touted about like a badge of honor, some of their faults seem incredibly glaring, particularly in the original show. The Enterprise crew had no hesitation to refer to Spock by low pejoratives, particularly from McCoy. You can argue this is counterbalanced by them being friends, but that doesn't really erase the litany of expletives the doctor hurls at the Vulcan race in general.

Then worst of all is the treatment of women. The gain some degree of reasonable accomplishments in the later series, but in the original? They served as nothing more than secretaries and servants. Even Uhura, a main character, was actually little more than a glorified receptionist. Her job on the ship, in a very real sense, was answering the phone and making calls. That's it. She didn't even have the xenolinguistic skills she would be given in the reboot movie that gives her an actual purpose on the ship. She was the most prominent and advanced female on the ship, possibly in all of starfleet. And she was a glorified receptionist. Just. Wow.

I mean, really? Really? In a show were the writers make a point of taking current trends to logical conclusions in order to create events for episodes in a future more than 200 years in the future, and all these "brilliant" people couldn't see the growing trend of women in the work force leading to a time when women became leaders of humanity? Not only do they fail to spot the trend, but they actually directly deny it, on multiple occasions! I don't know if I've ever seen a more sexist show, in fact. Take the final episode of the original series, "Turnabout Intruder," in which they not only deny one woman's ability to Captain the ship, they declare no woman is level-headed enough to EVER pilot ANY starship. Ever.

Really?

I mean... Really?

Women aren't level-headed enough? They're too prone to emotional outbursts? Really? Like Kirk was never prone to emotional outbursts? Like even fucking Spock never did something purely as an emotional reaction? Are you fucking kidding me? There is no excuse for this. No excuse for this. A forward thinking show, one that wanted to present a future of equality and justice should have known better. There is no reason why they wouldn't. But this is what's bound to happen, I guess, when you're show is spearheaded by a flagrant womanizer like Gene Roddenberry (though with a name like Rod and Berries what else can he really be?) who saw women as little more than sexual objects to be enjoyed but otherwise ignored.

More recently, J. Michael Straczynski and Bryce Zabel had given a proposal to reboot the universe in order to draw back fans. Among other ideas, they put forth the possibility of changing Chief Engineer Scotty, my personal favorite character from the original series, into a woman in an effort to "prove" that women can be good at math as well. Woopdedoo. What a leap forward. Or sideways. Maybe more of a step, really. Granted, I realize this wasn't an idea they were exactly pushing, but still. If you want to go about arbitrarily transforming main characters into female counterparts, why not correct a glaringly offensive problem from the original series and make Kirk female? Prove a woman can helm a starship after all. I know we've already had Janeway, but that show had a female Chief Engineer too. If nothing else, it would make for a particularly uncomfortable moment when Spock enters Pon Farr and his best friend is now a woman. Fan fiction could have a field day with that one. That's right, I mentioned pon farr. I have actually watched the shows. What, you thought I was bullshitting you?

Pon farr, bitches.

South Park: An Old Wound Revisited

I like South Park. Well, sometimes. Sort of. It has been capable of making good jokes here and there. I won't deny that it has its moments where it can shine. I have various qualms with the show, but my concern on this blog is primarily with storytelling, and South Park, whatever it's faults may be, usually has a pretty solid storytelling style. So my only real complaint is a very old one, but one that I'd say probably still effects the show to some degree. That's right. Cartmen's dad.

I know. I know. This is old. It's been done to death. But in the end, the issue was never really resolved. One of Cartman's parents is still, to this day, unknown. And that's fine, or would be fine. If such as big deal had never been made.

For those who don't remember, or weren't there, the first season of South Park ended with Cartman trying to figure out who his father was. We didn't learn, and the episode ended on a cliffhanger promising to answer the question next time. As an April Fool's joke, the returning episode began as it should, and then was "interrupted" by a special presentation of Terrance and Philip, and the rest of the show was theirs. People's reactions were pretty overblown, and Comedy Central was flooded with angry e-mails and even, apparently, phone messages. It's pretty ridiculous that people would get this angry over a cartoon. Similarly, people have praised Matt Parker and Trey Stone for being willing to do their own thing rather then simply bowing to audience demand. And while taking a stance regardless of what your audience might think can be commendable, it isn't always a good thing. And in the end, you have to respect your audience, because if you don't, you are a douchebag.

Let me repeat that. If you don't respect your audience, you. Are. A douche. Bag.

No matter how cool, indy, or anything else along those lines you think you might be for disrespecting your audience, in reality you are nothing but a douchebag. And the reason is not because going out on a limb shows some sort of daring-do, some sort of willingness to go places that might not be comfortable to some people. The reason you do it is because, when you raise these sorts of questions and then leave them unanswered, your audience loses the ability to care when other questions are raised. If your audience feels that can't trust you, then they will fail to have their interest perked when other major events occur. What if the Simpsons had never resolved who shot Mr. Burns? Even long-time fans would be annoyed and have trouble coming back to the show after that. It's nice that they wanted to have a little fun and mess with peoples head, but the novelty of the joke is completely lost in reruns and on DVD collections because people who weren't there at the time won't even understand the point. And the fact that they simply dodge around the point rather then ever resolving the issue just makes it all that much more annoying.

I feel silly beating this dead horse. South Park has managed to do things right enough times to warrant a degree of forgiveness, and bringing up this old issue by now is unnecessary. But the point goes for more than just this one show. You can't disrespect your audience.

Sex sells!

At least, that's how the adage goes. But despite the credibility of such sayings, they aren't always true. In fact, frequently they present a half truth, or merely a believable statement. Whoever said laughter is the best medicine never had to watch someone slowly being eaten alive from the inside out by their own cancer. Whoever said you starve a fever and feed a cold was a fucking idiot. I guess in the end, though, if people want to believe something enough, often they will whatever it's inaccuracies. I think more likely than not, that is exactly the case here. At least, with television producers.

The Fox network is perhaps historically the most guilty of pushing the supposed sexual themes in their TV shows during advertisements, though this may have moved on to the CW. This is maybe unfortunate, because as bad as Fox may be it's shows tend to maintain a production quality level that the CW has never, will never, and will never try, to reach. But it's maybe not unfortunate because really, what are we losing? Growing up, I remember Fox splashing the overt sexuality of "Melrose Place" across the screen time and time again, apparently hoping to pull in horny teenage boys to watch a show depicting dramatic events for rich white people living near Hollywood. Yeah, wah-wah, it must really suck to be rich white people in Hollywood. Pfft.

Whatever my complaints, Fox may have seen a degree of success. Every episode or so the sexy advertisements probably did manage to pull in a new crowd. The crowd would then watch a terrible show for an episode, waiting to see something that could only be pretty minor (it is, after all, basic cable), then after only disappointment give up and move on. It may have been a successful antic for a time, but before long you run out of gullible idiots who haven't already fallen for your trick and don't already know better. In the end, who even remembers that Melrose Place was a show? Apparently the CW, who have apparently remade it. So let me ask this question instead: who cares? Probably no one. And that's exactly the problem.

While titilation may appealing initially and enough satisfaction for a time, eventually people are going to move on to porn or, you know, actual physical contact with another person. Candy may soothe your sweet tooth for a time, but eventually you're going to want some real food. Eventually, titilation is not going to be enough. And when that happens, when you remove the "sexiness" and sex is your main selling point, then you aren't left with a whole lot. What you're left with is some bad drama that even network execs, who probably aren't even watching the show, realize isn't good enough to keep anyone's attention. You really need to focus on making the show good before you even bother throwing out "sexy" ads. Because if a show is good enough, it doesn't need any cheap lures to bring in the audience, and cheap lures aren't ever going to be enough to save a show. Just look at movies. Cheap horror films tend to have tons of naked women and sex, but you don't see movie-goers flocking to those films. If it's good enough, it can stand on it's own. And if it can't stand on it's own, maybe consider not having it on the air at all. It would probably cost less to find a good idea then it would to throw money at a sinking ship.

I guess it may be wrong to question the saying "sex sells" with this example. Whether sex sells or not, the cheap promise of some hinting at sex doesn't. And that's all you're really gonna get from basic cable.

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.