"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!