Why even watch Smackdown?

In my WrestleMania rant, I noted how the Raw announce team was strangely providing commentary for virtually every interpromotional match....and even the Big Show's match with Floyd Mayweather, despite the fact that Show is a member of the Smackdown roster. So, for some reason, two of Smackdown's most high profile matches -- Flair's career threatening match, and Big Show's media frenzy -- were called by the Raw announce team.

If that's not bad enough, two HUGE reasons for people to turn into Smackdown (Flair's farewell address, and Big Show's reaction to Mayweather's victory) appeared on RAW! On top of that, Big Show's interview built up a feud with The Great Khali.....ANOTHER SMACKDOWN SUPERSTAR! Hell, even to a lesser extent, you had Matt Hardy's in-ring return, which also happened on Raw.

The worst part is that none of these Smackdown Superstars needed to appear on Raw. HBK could have still given his interview and been judged by people backstage (Flair's interiew wasn't contingent on this). You could have even had Hardy attack Orton to avenge what Orton had done months back, but saved his in-ring return for his own show (or even built it up for a PPV). This way the story isn't completely ignored, but at the same time you don't kill Hardy's momentum by serving him up a loss in his first match back.

For the life of me, I don't know why Big Show's segment appeared on Raw. If they had done Flair's speech on Smackdown (the show he's a member of), his promo would have still been relevent. And, like I said, as it was, the only person to interrupt was a fellow Smackdown Superstar.

With practically all the top Superstars building their feuds on Raw anyway, why even bother watching Smackdown?

That said, Flair's farewell address was a truly touching scene. It really was quite beautiful. Flair's great and all, but I truly do hope he stays retired. Between his epic match with Michaels at WrestleMania and this scene, he'll never top this departure.

Read more!

A Case of the.... Smallville - Episode 7-15

In the last episode before April 17, this week’s episode of Smallville focused on the Illuminar….um, Veritas, the secret society preparing for the arrival of, and sworn to protect, the traveler. Along with that, Lex continues his downward spiral towards the dark side.

And by the way, aside from the brown hair, Brainiac was looking awfully Spike-esque this episode, wasn’t he?

http://primetimepulse.insidepulse.com/2008/03/30/a-case-of-the-smallville-episode-7-14-2/

Due to some very, very generous people at work, I have reached $275 in MS Walk donations. That's awesome, and I am extremely appreciative to their kindness. However, I'm still short of my $500 aim....which I hope to surpass. So, if you're willing to make any contribution whatsoever -- whether it's $5, $10, $20, or more! -- it's going to a great cause. Thank you for your consideration. Here's the link:

http://main.nationalmssociety.org/goto/mattbasilo

Read more!

Initial WrestleMania Thoughts

So I just finished watching WrestleMania, and as you can see, my predictions didn't go all that well (I correctly predicted exactly three and a half matches). Nevertheless it was a really, really good show, and really didn't drag for any noticeable period of time (pretty impressive for a four hour show). Pretty much every single match delivered.

One thing that struck me, though, was how absolutely dominating the Raw announce team was. I mean, JR and King called both JBL vs. Finlay and HBK vs. Flair, even though both of those matches involve one Smackdown competitor. Even stranger, though, was that the Raw announce team commentated for Big Show vs. Mayweather, even though Big Show is a Smackdown Superstar. Of the nine matches on the card, JR and King called 5. King also provided commentary for the Batista vs. Umaga match (with Michael Cole), and all three announce teams worked the Money in the Bank Ladder Match. That means that there were only TWO matches on the entire card that didn't involve a Raw announcer. And poor Joey Styles and Tazz only got to call a 30 second match.

I'm a bit of a uniform-mark, so one reason why I look forward to WrestleMania in particular is because the wrestlers tend to whip out pretty cool new uniforms. I was ESPECIALLY pleased that Ric Flair did so, even though he's now retired. For basically his entire second WWE run (which has been, like, seven years), he's only worn either his red or black trunks, red or black boots, or red or black knee pads. Actually, scratch that. There was a very weird period in Evolution when he'd wear his black trunks (with red sewn monogram), his lavender boots, and his purple knee pads. That was atrocious. Anyway, I've heard from numerous sources that he's donated a vast majority of his robes to charity.....but what about all those trunks? The blue ones? The green ones? The purple ones? This guy had quite the collection! So, with that said, I was glad he went all out and departed from the black or red variety.

Oh, and it's awesome that 'Taker brought back the sleeveless black leather trench coat. I've actually always found it his coolest entrance attire. Very nice.

Anyway, it's tough to pick a match of the night, because so many matches stood out for various reasons (HBK vs. Flair for the emotional significance, Money in the Bank Ladder Match for the crazy and innovative spots, Edge vs. Undertaker for its psychology, and Orton/Cena/Triple H for its overall suspense). If I had to pick one match, I'd probably go with Edge vs. Undertaker. The ONE thing that hurt it is that the ending was such a foregone conclusion, especially since Coach declared "the streak is over!" during any realistic Edge pin attempt, giving away that 'Taker would kick out.

Overall, though, it was an awesome match, and the right person went over. And I'm thrilled that this match ended the show, because Undertaker deserves it, it was a great moment for Edge, and it gives a lot of prestige to Smackdown.

Read more!

WrestleMania Predictions!

First off, anybody that has visited my pledge page may have noticed that the goal is now $500 instead of $200. Some people at work were nice enough to offer some donations (which was exceptionally good of them), but the more money the better! Once again, it's going to a great cause, so even if you want to donate $10 or $20, please don't hesitate. It would be genuinely appreciated. Once again, the link to my page is below:

http://main.nationalmssociety.org/goto/mattbasilo

Now, onto some predictions....

While people have complained that the build has been less than stellar (it's long been said that the WrestleMania name -- and not one particular match -- sells the show. I feel like they took that philosophy to heart this year), but from top to bottom, the card really does look pretty good and entertaining.

WWE Championship:

Randy Orton (C) vs. Triple H vs. John Cena

A couple weeks ago, on JR's blog, somebody asked why Triple H always needs to be in the main event. JR's ever-so-snarky in an ever-so-subtle remark was "he wasn't in the main event last year, was he?" What a douchebag. No, he wasn't....because he was INJURED and missed the show. But on the new John Cena DVD, Triple H explicitly states that he was SUPPOSED to fight Cena in the main event. It just goes to show you that the plan is always Triple H vs. ??? in the main event, and they fill in the blanks along the way.

That said, considering that the H's hasn't had a lengthy title reign since before WrestleMania 21, I think he's taking home the gold title. Personally, I think the best case scenario, should this happen, would be for Triple H to turn heel after (or during) the match. That way they can continue Cena vs. Triple H, while opening up some possibilities for the Money in the Bank match.

Winner (and new champion): Triple H

Complete Match Preview

World Heavyweight Championship:

Edge (C) vs. The Undertaker

While I don't think Edge has ANY chance in Hell of ending The Undertaker's WrestleMania win streak (15-0, going into this match), I am really proud that he's in a main event. Since about WrestleMania X-8 (which I attended!) he's been destined to be in a top match, but around Royal Rumble time they take a huge step back, and he ends up simply winning a "high card" match. Amazing that the first year he's in the main event is also the first year he's not on the same show as Triple H (the same person who stuck his big nose -- and I do mean big -- into the other brand's title match). Since before his Brood days, Edge has been one of my favorite wrestlers, so his recent success has been really fulfilling for me.

That said, there's a better chance of Eddie Guerrero making a run-in to attack Edge for screwing around with his wife (too soon?) than there is of Edge beating 'Taker. But hey, there's no shame in losing to him at the big show.

Winner (and new champion): The Undertaker

Complete Match Preview

The Biggest vs. The Best:

The Big Show vs. Floyd "Money" Mayweather

Speaking of the Big Show.... I don't know much about boxing, so I can't really comment on Mayweather's ability. While I don't see him losing, I don't see him winning clean either. This is a tough match to predict, because, considering all the press its received, I don't see them doing a lame screwjob finish either. I guess I'll say that, in the end, somehow, some way, Mayweather ends up victorious.

Winner: Mayweather
Complete Match Preview

Career-Threatening Match:

Ric Flair vs. Shawn Michaels

It seems like a foregone conclusion that Flair is retiring at the end of the night. As such, it seems logical that HBK is going over here. I'm going to go against the grain, and instead predict that Flair wins -- clean -- and having just successfully competed in an awesome match with one of the best, he decides to retire anyway. As such, the match (and show?) ends with these two great Superstars embracing, with HBK raising Flair's arm.

I actually think this would be a much more appropriate end to Flair's career. Having spending a significant part of his second WWE tenure jobbing to pretty much everybody, I think it'd be really nice to have him end things with a victory, after a pretty impressive winning streak. Since November of December (whenever this angle started), he's beaten WWE Champion Randy Orton more than once, former champion Triple H, and future champions Mr. Kennedy and MVP.

I think the bigger question is whether or not they'll have the cajones to have this match finish off the show. I think it'd be a really nice moment, but the smart money is on the WWE Championship triple threat.

Winner: Ric Flair

Complete Match Preview

Money in the Bank Ladder Match:

Chris Jericho vs. CM Punk vs. MVP vs. Shelton Benjamin vs. John Morrison vs. Carlito vs. Mr. Kennedy

With Jeff Hardy no longer in the match, this has become the toughest one to predict. First and foremost, I see Matt Hardy coming in as a surprise entrant. But I don't see him winning. Instead, I see him and MVP fighting to the back near the conclusion, essentially taking them out of the match. The problem now is that, with faces likely holding both World Titles for an extended amount of time, I feel like a heel has to win (after all, holding onto the briefcase waiting for just the right opportunity seems more like a heel tactic than a face one). Kennedy is probably the top heel in this match, however he's already stated that if he wins, he's using the briefcase THAT night. I don't see the show ending with him winning either World title, and I don't see them squashing him either, so that may rule him out. I'm not also sure I see them "wasting" the briefcase -- which they have successfully made into something prestigious -- on solidly midcard acts like Carlito, Morrison, and Benjamin. I could easily see MVP winning it, but I had previously predicted that he's taken out of the match.

The problem with CM Punk winning is that he's already the top face on ECW, so he doesn't need the briefcase to be inserted into the title picture (and I think it would be a big mistake to remove him from that brand). I suppose I could see Jericho winning it, as he is the biggest name in the match, but again I don't really see him challenging Undertaker, Cena, or Triple H (the guys most likely to walk away with the gold).

I guess I'm going to have to go against my original prediction, and go with "logic" and say that MVP wins it. If not him, then Jericho.

Winner: MVP

Complete Match Preview

Smackdown vs. Raw (:: rolls eyes ::):

Batista vs. Umaga

How the mighty have fallen....in both cases! Last year, Batista was arguably stealing the show in a title match against The Undertaker, while Umaga was in the ultra-publicized Battle of the Billionaires match. Now, they're in one of many interpromtional matches that, for reasons not made entirely clear, will determine brand supremacy. Anyway, Batista is the bigger name, and he's still over, so I'm going with him. Either way, I see Umaga moving to Smackdown should they do another Draft Lottery.

Winner: Batista

Complete Match Preview

Belfast Brawl:
Finlay vs. JBL

My predictions have been very "face" heavy, so I'm tempted to pick JBL here. But based on the storyline here, I really think that Finlay needs to get the win to avenge his son. And with JBL and Finlay on separate brands, I don't really see the point in extending the feud.

Then again, Triple H spent months making racist comments towards Booker T, only to squash him, so what do I know?

Winner: Finlay

Complete Match Preview

BunnyMania Lumberjack Match:

Maria & Ashley vs. Beth Phoenix & Melina

Pity that the Women's Championship is being wasted on this match. Nevertheless, I see the Playboy bunnies taking home the win here, with Maria pinning Melina.

Winners: Maria & Ashley

Complete Match Preview

24-Man Battle Royal - Winner faces ECW Champion:
Chavo Guerrero (C) vs. ???

The way I see it, the Battle Royal will go one of three ways:

A sentimental favorite wins: In this case, I see Tommy Dreamer defying the odds and winning the battle royal, but coming up short in the title match (I just can't see them switching all three titles, with a face beating a heel in every match). But considering these guys just fought on ECW, I'm skeptical.

The winner is based on who can deliver the best match: Part of me feels like they're not even setting up the ECW Title match to be "prestigious." Instead, they just want to open the show with an incredible match. In that case, I see Jamie Noble -- or perhaps Jimmy Wang Yang -- winning the battle royal, but cleanly losing to Chavo.

The winner will be the person highest on the card: Basically, the biggest "name" that doesn't have a 'Mania match will win the battle royal to face Chavo. If that's the case, Kane wins. I'm tempted to say that the match ends with Chavo intentionally getitng himself DQ'd or counted out, but I'm not sure if they'd open the show with a screwjob ending.

Battle Royal Winner: Kane

ECW Championship Match Winner: Chavo

Complete Match Preview

Read more!

Hair Loss

No, I'm not going bald.

Sadly, I read in the paper today that Paul, the barber I've been going to for well over 20 years, had passed away. Paul had surgery on his leg a couple of years ago, and decided to retire while he was recuperating. Since then, I've been going to his partner.

I'm sure many people are reading this and wondering why I even feel the need to blog about it. I mean, it's obviously sad whenever anybody you know passes away....but your barber? Truth be told, Paul did feel like family to me. Consider that before he retired, I had been more or less seeing him once a month for, like, 20 years straight. He's watched me grow since before I was in Kindergarten. To this day, I still remember when I was little and, having not mastered the art of tact, I told him -- in awe -- that he speaks English and Italian at the same time. Even more impressive than his accent was the fact that he was a male barber and straight (of course, I never mentioned that to him)!!

It's amazing to think that I followed his barber shop from two different locations in Englewood, all the way to the not-so-convenient Fort Lee.

I will close this up with one of the lovely messages in his obituary:

He will be forever missed. May God bestow all of the graces and glories of heaven upon him.

Rest in peace, old friend. You will truly be missed.

Read more!

Your Money, Please.... (IMPORTANT!!)

On Sunday April 13, I will be participating in the MS Walk in Ridgewood, New Jersey (no snarky comments, please). You're supposed to raise a minimum of $50, but super ambitious Matt here decided, "hey, lets do four times that!" Disregarding, of course, the fact that the average person evidently raises $294. What an odd number.

Anyway, if anybody is willing to make ANY donation whatsoever, it's obviously going towards a great cause (rabies prevention). Please visit my pledge page (link below) to do so, or if I know you personally, feel free to give me a check or cash or whatever.

http://main.nationalmssociety.org/goto/mattbasilo

Upon checking out my pledge page, you will probably notice how sad and depressing that empty "Donations" thermometer looks. Well, YOU have the power to change that!

As a motivator to all you potential donors, if I exceed my current expectations and manage to raise $294, I will fork over the $6 to make it an even $300!!!!

Thanks in advance for any donations.

Read more!

A Case of the.... Smallville - Episode 7-14

I complimented last week’s Smallville for advertising without coming off as blatant (as they incorporated the product into the episode’s plot). This week, I’m going to criticize them for doing the opposite. Not only was the product placement blatant, it was awkward and distracting. Like, do we really need an out-of-nowhere shot of Chloe using her mouse so that we can see the Dell logo? Or the unusual panning of Chloe’s car so that we can see that it’s a Toyota? I recognize that the CW is not the cash cow that the big boy networks are, and that TiVo and DVRs have really roughed up the whole commercial advertising industry, but let me offer a little suggestion: If you’re going to do product placement, use your Stride gum model, not your Toyota/Dell method.

http://primetimepulse.insidepulse.com/2008/03/26/a-case-of-the-smallville-episode-7-14/

Read more!

When Q & A Sessions Go Bad....

Let me preface this by saying that I don't consider myself a Republican or Democrat. In fact, I am very critical of the whole two party system (I think it works in theory, but not in practice. But that's a separate argument for another entry). As a general rule I'm willing to discuss politics, but I'm not willing to argue about politics. It's been my experience that, in the history of these such arguments, nobody has ever, EVER changed their mind. I've never once seen or heard of somebody saying, "You know what, you're right. I will vote for that candidate." Along with that, most people that want to argue about politics are far more impassioned about it than I am, so it's not personally worth getting all riled up over.

As it stands right now, I like McCain, I like Obama, but I don't like Hillary. Never have. It has nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman (on the contrary, I think the prospect of having a black or female President is wonderful, as long as they're qualified), there's just something about her that I find exceptionally unlikable. I don't think it's a prerequisite that the President should be somebody you'd want to go out and grab a drink with, but I really do feel that if Hillary Clinton was somebody who existed in my day-to-day personal life, she'd be somebody I'd have a tremendous dislike towards.

On Tuesday, a student at Butler University asked Chelsea Clinton (who was kinda sorta campaigning for her mom, but not totally) to respond to the criticism regarding Hillary's reaction to the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Chelsea responded by saying, in a rather snarky tone, "Wow, you're the first person actually that's ever asked me that question in the, I don't know maybe, 70 college campuses I've now been to, and I do not think that is any of your business."

Don't get me wrong, I can completely understand how personally and emotionally painful that question must be, but the fact of the matter is that this issue IS our business. The President of the United States is a public figure and the measure of a candidate's character is a very significant factor for many individuals when trying to determine who they are going to support. For many people (I'm sure women in particular), standing by a man who cheated on you and lied under oath about it is a sign of weakness. There are also some people who perceive that she stayed with Bill for her own political aspirations. If that's the case, she comes off as ingenuine and manipulative. This event was a huge hot button issue for quite some time (hell, it almost led to the President being impeached), and while Bill was the perpetrator of what happened, Hillary's reaction played a major role as well. While I can sympathize with the difficulty of having to respond to this matter, I think it's insulting for Chelsea to tell somebody "it's none of your business" when they ask a legitimate question regarding the way she handled a nationally publicized event.

What made matters worse was the manner in which she refused to answer the question. She could have said something like "that's a very personal question which I do not feel completely comfortable answering" and then tacked on "I can only imagine how difficult this was for my mother, but I feel that she handled it with dignity and grace." If the person who asked the question pestered any further -- which he wouldn't have, since he's gone on record as stating he's a Hillary supporter -- then HE would have come across as the bad guy, not her. To be honest, she should have been fully prepared to answer this question. If what she says is true, I'm absolutely shocked that this is the first time she's heard that question after making 70 college campus appearances.

Also, the reason I say that Chelsea Clinton is only "kinda sorta" campaigning for her mother is because she evidently refuses to talk to the press, going as far as to demanding that they shut off their cameras in front of her. In my eyes, this does more harm than good. Why not just make one appearance for the press saying "I fully support my mother's bid to become the next President of the United States. However, this campaign is about her and the issues that she stands for, so I have opted not to participate in the campaign trail" or something to that effect, so that her lack of participation won't be misinterpretted as any lack of support?

Demonizing the media -- the means by which the vast majority of people receive their political data -- surely isn't doing her mom any favors. One of the panelists on The Early Show made a great point when she asked why people are pandering to her demands. Why has the press just folded? When she demands that they shut off their cameras, why don't they just say "no"?

It'll be interesting to see if Hillary receives the backlash that Obama did over the comments made by his pastor.

Read more!

Brand Supremacy?

WrestleMania XXIV (I'm soooooo happy that they've returned to the Roman Numerals, by the way) is just around the corner, and as such I plan on posting my predictions at the end of the week, probably Friday or Saturday.

Before I get to that, though, there's one match in particular that makes me scratch my head: Batista vs. Umaga. This match is being billed as Smackdown vs. Raw, respectively, to determine which brand is superior. Normally I wouldn't mind that. I mean, you have a main event face and a main event heel, at relatively the same level on the card, fighting against each other. The only problem is, virtually every single match on the WrestleMania card is Raw vs. Smackdown, or at the very least multi-branded.

You've got Shawn Michaels (of Raw) facing Ric Flair (of Smackdown) in a Career Threatening Match. Then you have Raw's JBL squaring off against Smackdown's Finlay in a Belfast Brawl. Then there's the Money in the Bank Ladder Match, which includes three Raw Superstars (Jericho, Carlito, and Mr. Kennedy), three ECW Superstars (CM Punk, Shelton Benjamin, and John Morrison), and one (or two, depending on what happens) Smackdown Superstar (MVP). Last but not least, we have the 24-Man Battle Royal (including wrestlers from Raw, Smackdown, and ECW) to face Smackdown Superstar (and, ironically enough, ECW Champion) Chavo Guerrero. If you want to get technical, even though the BunnyMania match only includes Raw Divas, women from all three brands will be acting as Lumberjacks.

What makes matters more interesting is that Jerry Lawler explicitly stated that he'll be siding with Umaga, since he's a contracted Raw Superstar. This seems to imply that brand loyalty supercedes the actions that the Superstar commits. Does this mean that Lawler and JR will also be siding with JBL, who savagely attacked a midget, over Finlay, who is merely defending his beaten son?

In fact, there are only TWO matches on the entire card (three if you want to count the BunnyMania one) that consists of Superstars from one brand: The WWE Championship Match (with Randy Orton defending against John Cena and Triple H), and the World Heavyweight Championship Match (which has Edge defending against the Undertaker).

Not to mention the fact that, for the past few weeks, we've seen numerous inter-brand matches on their weekly shows. Last night alone we had Jericho (Raw) teaming with CM Punk (ECW) taking on MVP (Smackdown) and Carlito (Raw), Hardcore Holly (Raw) against The Great Khali (Smackdown), and John Cena (Raw), Triple H (Raw), Shawn Michaels (Raw) and Ric Flair (Smackdown) battling Randy Orton (Raw), JBL (Raw), Umaga (Raw), and The Big Show (Smackdown).

So, my question is: With three Raw vs. Smackdown matches, and two competitions consisting of Superstars from all three brands, what exactly is so special about Batista vs. Umaga? Why is THIS match determining brand supremacy?

Read more!

Really???? Is this a joke????

The following is a (relatively scathing) response to a Lost review that was posted in Sunday's edition of The Record. It includes spoilers regarding "Meet Kevin Johnson," the episode that aired on March 20th. Click the "Read More" link for my review of the review!

Also, be sure to vote in the Aaron/Oceanic Six poll! Only a few days left before it closes...

UPDATE: Click here to read A Case of the.... Lost - Episode 4-8

As you will find out in my upcoming Lost column, I was a big fan of "Meet Kevin Johnson," as I think it did a fantastic job of tying up a lot of the logistical issues, like why Michael would help the people that had kidnapped his son. I also think it did a suitable job of telling us what Michael has been up to, while still leaving enough gaps for another Michael or Walt flashback episode in the future. Perhaps most importantly, it answered a fair amount of questions, and it provided more than a couple of scenes that made you scratch your head (in a good way). Along with all of that, it was an entertaining episode!

As such, I was surprised to read a less-than-complimentary review of the episode. But that's not even what bothered me. Within the first two paragraphs, this article -- ever-so-cleverly titled "Lost & Found," written by Bill Ervolino -- lost any and all credibility. The second paragraph starts off by saying "In an attempt to explain how Michael wound up on the freighter -- as Ben's spy, no less -- the writers brought back Tom (who is apparently alive) and Libby (who apparently isn't) and squished them together into a wheezy Mission: Impossible episode..." and it goes on. Is this a joke? Are you kidding me? Tom is "apparently alive"? Are you daft? Was it not made extremely clear that this is a FLASHBACK and occurred BEFORE Tom was killed off in the finale?

I mean, hell, how much clearer can it be? At the time of the finale, Naomi had already arrived on the island. Therefore, obviously, the freighter had already left its port. At the time of its departure, Michael was on board, and had already conversed with Tom. So naturally, all of the events within this episode occurred before the events of the finale. While I totally respect that the episode wasn't universally loved, I simply cannot respect an article that makes such a glaringly stupid comment. What makes it even worse is that he references Tom being alive (or not being dead) several more times throughout the article!

A slightly more fair argument he made was that Rousseau fell into what was an obvious trap that Ben had set up, and that she's far too cunning and un-trusting of Ben to do that. I can understand that point, but I didn't quite see it that way. To me, it felt more like Rousseau was willing to do whatever it takes to protect Alex, and I think that she truly believed that Ben would not harm Alex. So she was willing to sacrifice her own life if it meant keeping Alex safe.

Finally, the author was critical of the fact that the island apparently won't let Michael take his own life, referring to this particular twist as "borderline ridiculous." Really? Is this any less believable than time travel? Or a smoke monster that can pose as dead people? Or a cabin that can magically teleport from one place to another? Or people magically healing of physical and biological ailments? This is definitely the type of revelation that must be considered in the appropriate context.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that Lost has free reign to do any and every unbelievable thing that wanders into the writers' heads. There must be a limit, and it should correlate to the logic and suspension of disbelief that the series has established. Personally, I believe this has. If nothing else, it provides a reason for certain characters to return to the island (in this case with Michael, and later on with the Oceanic Six).

To sum things up...

Tom IS dead, and this flashback occurred before he was killed in the finale...
Rousseau probably knew it was a trap, but she was willing to give up her life to protect her daughter...
And the island not allowing people to kill themselves is an interesting plot device that I'm sure will, at least in part, play a role in the Oceanic Six returning to the island...

And now, I'm going to throw out that article. It doesn't even deserve to be recycled.

Read more!

Chivalry is alive and well!

So I'm perusing the IMDb.com forums the other day, and I came across some really negative comments directed towards the love of my life, Rachel Bilson. I usually ignore this sort of behavior, since IMDb is like a playground for trolls. Honestly, they might as well have their mail sent there.

Nevertheless, the criticism really started to irk me, and I felt like I needed to defend my girl's honor.

Basically, several posters were going on and on about how she's overrated and how she cannot act. I think this is unfair. I'm not blind, I recognize she's not going to be nominated for an Oscar any time soon. But you know what? She's young, and she hasn't had all that many opportunities to spread her wings. Let me offer a comparison: When Will Smith first started The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, I highly doubt anybody expected him to become one of the highest paid actors in the industry, and a multi-time Academy Awards nominee.

Another big criticism was that she always plays the same role. Again, I don't think that's entirely fair. I mean, few would argue that Tom Hanks is an extremely talented actor, yet he basically played the same quirky, lovable guy for about ten or fifteen years. And I think people fail to recognize how convincingly Rachel played Summer as bitchy and shallow, then as sarcastic and sweet, and finally as independent and sympathetic. And she managed to do this while staying true to the essence of the character. The O.C. wasn't Shakespeare, but she was probably the best developed character on the show.

Again, I'm not saying she's going to be the next Meryl Streep (but who knows, she may), I'm just saying that it isn't completely fair to judge her acting chops based on the first five years of her acting career.

Besides which, she's really, really hot...

Read more!

The Aaron Issue - Part 3 - Jack's Testimony

You may as well call me Hillary Clinton (but really, don't ever), because I just refuse to concede no matter how bleak my position looks.

So as Javier mentioned in the previous post, it was apparently confirmed in the latest podcast that Aaron is, indeed, one of the Oceanic Six. I will discuss this more in my upcoming Lost column, but until one of the characters on the show refers to Aaron as a member of the group, I'm still skeptical.

I've pretty much given up on the argument that since he wasn't on the flight, he can't be considered part of the group because that is admittedly up to interpretation. My main point of contentin is Jack's testimony at Kate's trial, shown above. In that scene, he clearly states that only eight people survived the crash, and that two later died. That means that six people who were on the flight survived. In fairness, he was cut off by Kate, so he may have been moments away from making an important revelation, but still.

Call me stubborn, but I still have a sinking suspicion that we're being set up for a twist.

Read more!

The Aaron Issue - Part 2 - A Concession?

Alright, so at the end of tonight's episode of Lost, the preview for the April 24th episode indicated that all six member of the Oceanic Six have been revealed, showing a quick image of toddler Aaron.

While a less stubborn person would likely concede at this point, I'll bring up that the people who do the previews and ads for Lost are NOT the writers and/or creators. They're people at ABC. Not only that, but the powers that be in the Lost camp do not have control over said ads (this was said so in the midst of last season, when every preview stated that a super duper shocking twist will occur).

So until the creators confirm that Aaron is one of the six, I'll still skeptical, as I, again, bring up Jack's testimony.

Awesome episode, by the way.

Read more!

The Aaron Issue - Part 1

A little pre-Lost discussion:

The hot button issue among Lost fans seems to be whether or not Aaron is considered one of the Oceanic Six. The main argument for his inclusion is that the creators have evidently stated that all six rescuees will be revealed by last week's episode. To be honest, I think that's a tad weak. First of all, I haven't personally read/heard the creators state that, only critics and advertisements, both of which could have easily misunderstood the twist at the end of last week's episode. And even if the creators did say that, I can easily see them saying that as a red herring, to further accentuate the shock of the aforementioned twist.

Anybody who has read my columns knows that I am a firm believer that Aaron is not a part of this sextet. The strongest argument I can make I made last week: At Kate's trial, Jack clearly states that eight people survived the crash, and that two later died. That means that six people who were on the flight survived, and those six people got off of the island. Having not been born yet (and not being on the manifest), Aaron obviously cannot be considered a part of this group.

In response, my Prime Time Pulse cohort Mathan Erhardt had this to say:

But what if Jack is Pro-Life and think that Aaron was actually on the plane, thus making Aaron one of the Six?

And is it cool to think that Claire was one of the 8?

I think that's a stretch. And a big one at that. Considering that Jack and crew have apparently put so much thought and detail into this lie, I doubt that they'd use language that could be so easily misconstrued. Besides which, as far as I remember, during the first few episodes when Jack (and others) would spew off the number of crash survivors, Claire counted as one person.

Over at EW.com, Jeff "Doc" Jensen has been arguing that Aaron IS one of the six, basically accusing any nay-sayers of taking the whole "Oceanic Six" moniker too literally.

In response, I wrote Jeff an e-mail bringing up the point about Jack's trial testimony, and how that seems to explicitly state that the survivors were six people who were on the flight. He has yet to respond, but when he does, consider that Part 2 of this argument.

As far as my prediction as to who the sixth person DOES refer to, I favor one of the following scenarios:

1) The sixth survivor has appeared, in the background, during a past flash forward episode.

2) Ben, who was obviously not on the flight, somehow stole the identity of one of the passengers that had perished. Perhaps Scott or Steve.

3) Michael or Walt had previously returned from the island, and was essentially "outed" as a survivor before the other five were rescued.

4) The sixth person has not been revealed yet, and will not happen until a future episode.

Anyway, that's it for now. Enjoy tonight's episode.

Read more!

A Case of the.... Smallville - Episode 7-13

So I FINALLY got my Kristin Kreuk/Laura Vandervoort scene together, and what does the director do? He uses a series of crazy ass low panning camera angles so that you can’t even see the both of them at the same time. Laaaaame!

http://primetimepulse.insidepulse.com/2008/03/19/a-case-of-the-smallville-episode-7-13/

Read more!

A Case of the.... Lost - Episode 4-7

In place of a proper introduction, let me rant about something. Every Tuesday, my TV Guide comes in the mail. I love TV Guide (despite their overuse of the term/accusation "Jump the Shark"). But virtually every single edition, there's an article about Lost. One might assume that this would be icing on the case, due to my utter devotion to the series.

On the contrary, this drives me crazy. Reason being, pretty much every single article contains information that hasn't transpired yet. Either they warn you about this right off the bat, or you read about a page worth of interesting stuff only to be told to stop if you don't want to know what's going to happen in future episodes. Imagine getting really into a TV show or movie, and then being told that you have to stop halfway through. It's maddening.

What makes matters worse is that the magazine rarely discusses matters that have happened. Considering it's a weekly publication, the events of the previous Thursday's episode is hardly old news.

More times than not, I don't even bother reading any of the articles because I am so paranoid that I'm going to accidentally read a spoiler. It takes a lot of will power and hinders my enjoyment of the magazine in general.

Anyway, with that rant out of the way, enjoy the column:

http://primetimepulse.insidepulse.com/2008/03/18/a-case-of-the-lost-episode-4-7/

Read more!

"We need you.....we need you....I need you...."

So "Favorite" Jonathan was forced to leave the game in last week's episode of Survivor, because his injured leg was starting to become infected. Should the infection spread, he'd risk not only losing the limb, but his life as well. It was a genuinely touching scene, and I found myself genuinely upset and disappointed to see him have to go. In my earlier "stream of conscious" reviews of this season, I've noted that he's become one of my favorite characters.

That said, there was one thing about this scene that I found absolutely hiliarous: Kathy's reaction. For those who aren't fans of the show, Kathy is the character who, upon meeting one of the gay contestants, asked "that doesn't mean you want to be a girl, right?" Anyway, when Jonathan announced to his tribe that he had to leave, everybody was understandably upset. Kathy -- who had been his tribemate for a grand total of three days -- is in tears. And in the midst of Jonathan attempting to have a personal "good bye" with Eliza (his closest ally in the game), Kathy bursts in, with tears streaming down her face, saying "We need you.....we need you.....I need you!" It reminded me SO MUCH of Trudy Wiegel's desperate and pathetic obsession with the super gay and totally uninterested Lt. Dangle (while Jonathan is not gay, the emotional attachment between him and his fan cohort did not appear to be requited). I couldn't help but think of that as it all unfolded.

If you envision Wiegel and Dangle in this situation, the scene becomes significantly more hilarious. Enjoy:

Read more!

From the inbox...

This one comes from another long-time reader, Dan:

You really think Daniel’s more of a good guy than Frank? He helped save Desmond in his episode, while Daniel manipulated Frank into risking Desmond’s life so he would have a constant.

That's an interesting point. As I've mentioned in past columns, I'm not entirely convinced that Daniel is good. It just seems like he's being portrayed as TOO harmless and TOO innocent -- to the extent that it's almost suspicious. Part of me expects him to pull a President Logan and reveal himself as some sinister master manipulator.

However, until that actually happens, I stand by my original assessment. Keep in mind, this is all based on what we've seen, which is not much, relatively speaking. My current impression of Frank is that he's a good enough guy, but he's more or less indifferent. If he has the opportunity to help somebody, he'll do it. If something unjust is happening in front of his eyes, he'll try to stop it. Based on what I've seen, I'm not entirely sure that he would go out of his way to help somebody he doesn't know, however.

On the other hand, I believe that Daniel would. I think the difference between Daniel and Frank -- and what makes Daniel more "good" -- is that Daniel's has purer motivations. He's certainly shown more concern for the castaways (particularly Kate, Jack, and Juliet) than his cohorts, and that includes Frank.

Read more!

A Case of the.... Lost - Episode 4-6

Last’s week episode of Lost, aptly (and rather cleverly, for that matter) titled “The Other Woman,” has been deemed the weak link of this season. That’s a fair criticism, which is probably more telling of the phenomenal standard this season has thus far set than the quality of the episode itself

http://primetimepulse.insidepulse.com/2008/03/11/a-case-of-the-lost-episode-4-6/


Special note: I have decided to include my latest prediction on how the series will end in this blog entry. Click the "Read More" link to read 'em. As always, comments are encouraged!

I’ve also been putting a lot of thought into it, and this is my current prediction for how the series will end. It’s now on record, but of course can change at any time: Sometime in the middle of next season, the series will alter significantly, with the “present” story arc occurring in the “future” (with Jack, Kate, Hurley, and the rest of the Oceanic Six now off of the island). The present story will follow the Oceanic Six as they attempt to return to the island, while the “flashbacks” show what events took place on the island that ultimately led to the six of them leaving (and revealing what happened to those that were left behind). Essentially, the formula that the show has always employed will be reversed.

Sometime during the final season, the Oceanic Six will return to the island, at which point the show will maintain a regular, linear storyline (as in, no flashbacks or flash forwards at all). Before the final episode, something hugely catastrophic and tragic will occur, leading to the finale, where one character (likely Jack) will have to go back in time (his consciousness, anyway) to prevent the flight from ever occurring so that they never end up on the island in the first place.

However, despite the flight being cancelled, these characters still end up crashing onto the island through some other means. In the end we come to learn that these people were destined to be on the island, and that they’ve in fact gone back in time countless times to attempt to prevent it from happening. But no matter what they do, these specific individuals still end up on the island.

While I’m sure this sounds very Matrix-y, it would provide a rather eloquent background for all the seemingly random things that occurred that resulted in each person ending up on the flight. It would also maintain the destiny theme and the “you can’t change the past/future” message that many characters repeatedly argue.

Read more!

See what I'm saying?

http://news.aol.com/health/story/ar/_a/study-deals-blow-to-hands-free-phones/20080310123009990001

The above article echoes what I had said in a previous post: That using a hands-free unit is no safer than holding the phone to your ear, and that the recent ban in New Jersey is more about legislators wanting to look like they're trying to solve the problem instead of actually solving it. According to the article, there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that banning handsheld phones has prevented accidents.

As I mentioned earlier, it irks me that I can be driving safely and following the speed limit, but can still be pulled over for no reason other than me using my cell phone, yet I can have four beers and get behind the wheel and not really worry about getting pulled over unless I actively do something reckless. It also annoys me that people think it's more dangerous holding a piece of plastic against your ear than a lit, smoking cigarette.

So what is the solution, you ask? Well, if the powers that be are actually serious about preventing accidents, you should just ban cell phone use altogether. Except that's wildly unpopular (and unrealistic), so there's no chance of that happening. Honestly, I think treating cell phone usage as a secondary offense was perfect. If you're on the phone but driving attentively and safely, no harm, no foul. If you're on the phone and you do something reckless or get in an accident, tack it on as an additional penalty.

Basically, treat it like you do alcohol (which is a much more dangerous variable in the driving equation).

Read more!

A Case of the.... New Amsterdam - Episodes 1-1 & 1-2

For anybody interested, here is my Prime Time Pulse (great new layout, by the way) article on the first two episodes of New Amsterdam:

http://primetimepulse.insidepulse.com/2008/03/10/a-case-of-the-new-amsterdam-episodes-1-1-1-2/

Read more!

Can you hear me now?

So talking on your cell phone without using a hands-free unit is now a primary offense in New Jersey, meaning they can pull you over just for talking on your phone and fine you for $100. This whole cell phone issue has been a point of contention for me ever since it became a hot button issue a few years ago.

Basically, I feel like forcing people to use a hands-free unit is like treating a gunshot wound after somebody's been stabbed.

First of all, haven't studies shown that the process of dialing or searching for a number the most dangerous part of using your cell phone while driving? The action of holding the phone against your ear and talking is not the part that's distracting -- it's when you have to look away from the road and at your phone in order to find a number. I know people whose cars are equipped with speaker phone technology, and they actively look away from the road and at the touch tone screen to find the number they're looking for. As you can see, a hands-free unit obviously doesn't remedy this problem.

Secondly, it bothers me that holding a phone in one hand is illegal, but smoking a cigarette while driving isn't. Consider that one of these two objects has a tiny flame at its tip and requires frequent ashing out the window. It seems like smoking is easily as distracting.

It also bothers me that you can be pulled over for talking on your phone when you're not actually doing anything dangerous. I mean, even if you're driving in a perfectly safe manner, doing absolutely nothing wreckless, you can still be pulled over and fined $100. Hell, you can have three or four beers and you're still legally allowed to drive. But talking on the phone? Nope, that's hazardous!

The fact of the matter is, a lot of people are just not very good or attentive drivers. If it's not their cell phone distracting them, it's the radio. Or their hair. Or the pretty tree on the side of the road. That's why this issue was perfectly adequate as a secondary law. If you get pulled over for speeding or driving dangerously, or if you get in an accident and you were talking on your phone, then add it as an additional offense. But if you're capable of driving safely while talking on the phone, more power to you!

Hell, I can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time, too.

Read more!

A Case of the.... Prison Break - Episode 3-13

The following comes from my fall finale column, posted on November 20th, 2007:

I can easily see the end of T-Bag’s character occurring at the conclusion of this season (the real finale), either with Michael escaping (and you know the show will follow wherever he goes), leaving T-Bag sitting on his Sona throne, or with T-Bag meeting his maker following an inmate mutiny just as he takes over Lechero’s position. What makes T-Bag’s eventual reign even more enjoyable is the fact that you can clearly see Sammy is trying to do the same, but he’s so much less smooth about it, which will ultimately lead to his failure (and probably his death).

While this may not be the end of his character (that’s to be determined next season), I was pretty spot-on with the rest of my predictions. T-Bag did indeed unseat Lechero as king of Sona in the finale, shortly after Sammy tried to do the same, ultimately leading to his death. Yay me!

One thing I do have to ask, though: In what twisted way does Lechero consider suffocation a quicker death than a bullet to the back of the head?

http://primetimepulse.insidepulse.com/2008/03/06/a-case-of-the-prison-break-episode-3-13/

Read more!

Initial New Amsterdam thoughts

I'll be honest: Due to my long-time friendship with one of the stars, I was going to give New Amsterdam a glowingly positive review no matter what. But I'll be damned if it wasn't actually a pretty cool show. Click below for my thoughts on the first episode.

Incidentally, my friend Alexie (who plays Dr. Sara Dillane -- although I will refer to her as "Alexie" until I get used to her as a television character) didn't have a great deal of screentime in the pilot. The way I see it, the reason was two fold: First, the purpose of the episode was to establish Amsterdam's back story. Additionally, the story revolved around Amsterdam finding her, and I think the impact would have been somewhat lost if the viewer was constantly watching her. In many ways, I think it's important that the audience learns about her alongside the protaganist. That said, I think her screentime will increase exponentially once their "relationship" settles.

I read this morning that much of the show was rewritten to make Amsterdam a more up beat character. I guess in the original conception, his immortality had driven him to depression. While I do think that would have made an interesting character, I actually think they made the right choice here. Truth be told, we a huge reason why I enjoyed the show so much was because of the Amsterdam character. He was charming, humorous, and overall very likable. On top of that, it was really cool watching him exhibit the wisdom and quirky knowledge that he had acquired over the past 400 years.

And while he was overall positive, in his own way he was tortured as well. Immortality has a price, that being the loss of people close to you. This shown twice, the first time with Amsterdam discussing the passing of his son, and the second time when he was confronted by an old flame from years (and years and years) ago.

I also like the spin on his immortality. When I initially read about the show, my first impression that his eternal life, which only lasts until he falls in love, was a curse (like with Angel). The way they presented it on New Amsterdam, they made it clear that this was a reward. The Native American woman was granting him immortality so that he COULD meet his soul mate.

Oh, and I loved the culmination of Amsterdam's episode-long desk creation, ultimately revealing that he was actually a famous carpenter (or was it artist?) thus making the desk worth thousands of dollars.

Finally, the show had some really, really cool effects, most notably the photo collage of Times Square, and the montage at the end, showing the high speed evolution of that same area, in addition to its significance (I had joke to my dad earlier in the episode that Amsterdam had wonderful foresight with his original that the area would turn from a barren landscape into a beautiful vista) as the location of where he was awarded his immortality.

Long story slightly less long, they've got a loyal viewer in me! Highest recommendation..

Read more!

A Case of the.... Lost - Episode 4-5

I consider myself relatively wise regarding the inner workings of how television shows are filmed, but there’s something about Lost that I always had trouble with, and it’s especially true with Desmond-centric episodes: How on earth is he filmed with long hair and a heavy beard in the present timeline, and clean shaven with close cut hair in the past? The easy answer is a wig and fake beard (like everybody’s favorite deceased Other), but a quick WireImage search on Henry Ian Cusick (who portrays everybody’s favorite world racer) reveals that, in reality, he does indeed have long hair and a beard. I suppose the next logical answer is that they film all of Desmond’s long hair/beard scenes, and then later have him shave and cut his hair to film his flashback scenes. But that seems really inefficient. Can anybody fill me in on the actual answer? Not even theories….I want THE answer. And cite your source.

Now, onto the episode…

http://primetimepulse.insidepulse.com/2008/03/03/a-case-of-the-lost-episode-4-5/#more-73760

Read more!

A day of green? More like GREED (snap)!!

I completely respect business practices that earn you money, but at what point does an establishment cross the line of being "smart" and into the realm of being greedy? Lets take Hoboken's (early) St. Patrick's Day celebration, shall we?

Evidently, last year the city made in the ball park of half a million dollars in fines for the St. Patrick's Day celebration alone. Excluding the added commerce their local businesses get, that's $500,000 in one day. What do they do in response? They raise the penalties to an astronomical $1,000 per offense. I guess they figured that $500,00 for ONE DAY wasn't quite enough money. I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they raised the fines to discourage illegal activities like public consumption, public urination, and disorderly conduct.

I'd LIKE to give them that benefit, except that the entire day reeks of greed (and alcohol and urine).

Like the bars, which are filled to the brim from the moment they open (usually around 11 am) until last call/close (about 3 am). Instead of appreciating the fact that they are getting a WHOLE lot of heavy drinkers about nine hours earlier than usual, they charge a $20 cover. This rather hefty cost doesn't come with any drink specials or a live band (two usual justifications). It's just what they charge to enter the bar.

What makes this worse is that this cover is only applicable until about 3:00 pm. My friends and I went to Bar None, which does not serve food, and at about 5:00 (six hours after we arrived) we started getting very hungry. Being that they don't serve food, you have no choice whatsoever but to leave to grab a slice of pizza or something. Except when I went to leave, I was told by the female collecting the cover charge that they aren't allowing people back in after 3:00. As far as I'm concerned, $20 should buy you a golden ticket.

Anyway, I explained to the bouncer that I was just going to grab a slice of pizza down the street, and he was nice enough to tell me that if I hurry back, he'd let me back in. Of course, there was a huge line at the pizza place, so it took me about 10 minutes to get back to the bar. Upon my return, there was a different bouncer at the door, who told me that all exits were final and that I couldn't go back in.

I kindly explained to him that the previous bouncer (who I had described to ensure that I wasn't BS-ing) had told me I could go back in, as I was only having a quick bite. He completely blew me off, and again reiterated that all exits are final. I then brought up the fact that this wasn't the case when I left just a few minutes ago, and, again that the previous said I could go back in.

At this point I started getting annoyed, and having been drinking for the past several hours or so, I was probably getting a little snarky. However, in my defense, the bouncer was on a definite power trip. While waiting on line to get back in, I realized that several other people who had been there all day, who had also paid $20, were not being let back in either. Also keep in mind that this was NOT a capacity legal issue, as several people were leaving the bar, and even before that the place was hardly overflowing. Finally, after about 15 minutes of waiting, they let people back in. And thankfully the cover girl remembered who I was, so I didn't have to pay ANOTHER $20 (the same can't be said for others, I'm sure).

Overall the day was a lot of fun, and I don't regret going. But it's not a good sign when everybody but the drunkards are a pain in the ass.

Read more!