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!