I failed to try...

So after coming (relatively) oh-so-close to fulfilling my new year's resolution yesterday evening, yet another opportunity came onto my lap today. Yes, once again, Little Miss Bilson was filming her segment in "New York, I Love You" (sans the blond wig) except this time, I got the friggin' ADDRESS that she's filming at. Not the general area, the actual SPOT.

Yet I couldn't take advantage. Alas, I had work....and even though I did manage to sneak out a half hour or so early, according to radio reports, traffic was an absolute MAD HOUSE because the Pope is in town. The drawbacks of living just outside the city, opposed to the city itself.

So, despite all those times that I've asked God for assistance in allowing me to meet my beautiful and beloved, he sends his messenger boy to act as my greatest obstacle.

In order to actually make this thing happen, here's hoping that within the the next 8 months, she either returns to New York City, or I get myself to LA.

Read more!

I tried....and failed....

I've made it known throughout the past few months that my new year's resolution is to meet -- and take a photo with -- the beautiful and beloved Rachel Bilson, sometime before the end of 2008. But hey, I'm realistic. I know she's (probably) not going to just show up at my front door.

So when I find out she's going to be in New York City to film a segment for the appropriately titled "New York, I Love You" -- AND that I would have off of work the very day she was filming -- the opportunity was just too good to pass up.

Unfortunately -- and not many people know this -- New York City is a pretty big place. Using my limited resources (basically entertainment and gossip websites, and a couple of filmmaker friends), all I could find out was that she was filming in "the downtown area." Again, that's a pretty wide spectrum to attack.

So, ultimately, I was unable to find the filming location. Making matters worse, when I got home, one of my sources had updated its information to the slightly more specific "Greenwich Village." So, alas, perhaps if I had known that earlier, I'd be posting a photo of myself and the lovely blond-wig-wearing actress.

But hey, I still have 8 months before the end of the year. Lets make this happen!

Read more!

Still gives me chills....

Unfortunately, this is the best video I could find of the closing moments of Heroes' first season finale. The background music really couldn't be any more inappropriate, as it really, REALLY takes away from the overall tone of the scene.

Really, everything about this scene was perfect. I still get chills when Nathan swoops in from the sky, turns Claire's gun away, and tells her that the future isn't set in stone (echoing what she had said to him earlier). And his "you saved the cheerleader, so we could save the world" may go down as one of the greatest lines ever uttered in television history.

Unfortunately, this finale acts as such a massive contrast to the second season's finale (which, I suppose, can be somewhat excused since it probably wasn't supposed to be the REAL finale). After this finale, it truly felt like everything was going to be different. Hiro had seemingly achieved his mission and was now in a different time period, preparing to meet his childhood hero. Nathan had come full circle and was possibly dead. Peter fulfilled his destiny and perhaps suffered the same fate. The tumultuous relationship between Claire and HRG (who we had finally learned the first name of) had climaxed with their touching reunion, and Nicki overcame her psychosis, reunited with her family, and proved that she was ultimately good and heroic. It truly felt like the culmination of a well built season. We got Peter vs. Sylar, Hiro vs. Sylar, Nicki and DL vs. Linderman, and HRG vs. The Company.

We also got some nice mirror-scenes. Peter had spent the first half of the season trying to save Claire's life, and now, in the finale, she was going to have to take his.

While season one's finale made me feel like everything would be different in season two, the second season's finale made me feel like season three would be much of the same. Nathan was possibly dead, again. HRG was back with the company and would make personal sacrifices for his family, again. Sylar was going to be the main antagonist, again.

And while season one ended with what felt like the culmination of all the main stories, I personally felt really gipped when I finished watching the end of season two. The last few episodes were clearly leading up to a Claire vs. Elle smackdown. And aside from that being enormously sexy, it made sense too. You had one girl who was protected by her Company father, and you had another who was manipulated and exploited by her Company father. One could heal, the other could inflict immense pain. Instead, we got Claire punching a window and Elle sucking up to her daddy.

Along with that, practically the entire season featured HRG and Mohinder against The Company. I feel like we got nothing out of that, at all. I appreciate that Mohinder drank the Kool-Aid and began to believe in what The Company was selling, but nothing really happened with that, either. If that was the path they were going to take, they should have had Mohinder shoot HRG in the eye in the finale, with the last scene being HRG's resurrection. That would have been cool, and would have been a proper send-off.

The volume --titled "Generations" -- also promised to provide us with information on the previous generation of heroes. Sure, we got a BIT of a history lesson on The Company, but we found out absolutely nothing about the abilities of the parent characters (Nathan and Peter's mom, Hiro's dad, etc). I understand that they may not want to make all of those revelations at once, but when you build an entire volume on the premise of the previous generation of heroes, that's the time to do it.

Honestly, at the end of season one I was not only salivating for season two....but I couldn't wait to buy the DVDs so that I could watch the whole season again. With season two....well, lets just say I wasn't devastated when I found out, after the writers strike, that the should wouldn't be coming back until September. I'll still watch it, and I am fully confident that it will be one of my top five favorite shows. But when it comes to comparing the two finales, there's no competition.

Read more!

THANK YOU!!!!

So tomorrow is the MS Walk, and I want to sincerely thank everybody who made a donation. Thanks to everybody's enormous generosity, I was able to exceed my goal of $500. In addition to the $430 in online pledges, I also received $155 in checks.

If you haven't made a donation, but you'd still like to, it's not too late! Pledges can be made until May 15th. Even if you can only sacrifice $5 or $10, it's still for a great cause so please do not hesitate.

Thanks again to everybody who made a donation. Your thoughtfulness is appreciated and will not be forgotten.

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

Read more!

Paranoid much?

http://coaches.aol.com/love-and-sex/julia-hartley-moore/cheating-tips?icid=100214839x1159802205x1080132693

So according to this private investigator, if your partner wears a new shirt, changes his hairstyle, and uses his cell phone a lot, it should be a neon sign that he's cheating. This type of crap annoys me, how these supposed experts prey on people's fears in order to shill their book or latest product.

So guys, be sure to never try to improve yourself or -- GASP! -- lose weight, because that evidently means you're cheating. Crap. Utter crap.

Read more!

An elephant painting an elephant

Pretty incredible, actually (not to mention that it's a fairly impressive drawing by human standards). I love how the elephant does the phantom paint strokes before making contact with the canvas, like many real artists do.

For anybody skeptical, Snopes.com has confirmed that this is in fact authentic:

http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/elephantpainting.asp

As a side note, I love how the spectators go from absolute, utter amazement to saying things like "what about the tail?" about halfway through.

Read more!

Beyond Belief: Fact or Fiction

So I recently ordered the first season of Beyond Belief: Fact or Fiction on DVD, and I just finished watching it (disappointingly, the first set only includes six episodes). For those of you not familiar with this show, it's basically a mix between the Twilight Zone and Unsolved Mysteries. Each episode tells about five stories, each of which have something supernatural or peculiar happening, and at the end of the episode, the host reveals which stories are fictional, and which were inspired by true events. It's a neat little show for anybody who enjoys freaky, ghost story around the campfire type tales.

Anyway, while I'm still a huge fan of the show (I will be buying each season as they're released), I do also realize I was probably remembering the show with some rose-colored glasses. The acting isn't all that great, but that's expected (although every now and then you'll recognize an actor from before he or she landed a "big" break). But the two things that jumped out at me was the need to hammer home certain points to a ridiculous extent, and the apparent inability for most characters to "act" things out.

The latter observation was especially noticeable in the story titled "E-mail" (from Episode 4). We couldn't simply watch the secretary exchange e-mails with the spirit.....nor could we just allow the natural flow of logic transpire. Instead, we needed her to narrate every action she took. She'd read each e-mail she received out loud, then she'd orally respond before she types out what she had just said. When the spirit instructs her to find his niece, instead of showing her thinking, and then looking in the phonebook (as anyway would naturally do), they have her say "How? How do I find her?" and then practically spells it out with "I know, I'll look in the phone book!"

The second episode's "The Subway" is a great example of using a sledgehammer to drive home a point. In that episode, a couple get onto a subway that goes nowhere, with some creepy looking guy as the only other passenger. They're so thoroughly freaked that they get off at the first stop, which turns out to be the one they originally got onto, and immediately return home. Upon their arrival, they discover that their neighbor accidentally left the gas on. They're able to save her, but only because of the freaky subway ride. When they're in their neighbor's apartment, they see a picture of her late husband, which is of course the creepy man on the subway. The neighbor then feels the need to absolutely, positively dumb down the entire segment for us by stating that her husband promised to always protect and look over her. It's like, yeah, we already pieced together that message, despite its immense complexity, a while ago.

Anyway, the premise is cool, and definitely worth checking out if you're a fan of the whole sci-fi genre or if you appreciate shows like Unsolved Mysteries and the Twilight Zone. But be warned, there's only six episodes, and it comes with absolutely no special features whatsoever. This is really too bad, because it would have been cool if the DVD included the details on the actual stories that the "Fact" stories were based upon (of course, this would also reveal how many creative liberties the reenactment took). Anyway, if you've never seen the show before, this may be something you might want to rent before dishing out $15-20 to purchase it.

Read more!

Have you FREAKING lost it?

Lets hear it for Kurt Angle, the latest person to go from highly respected within his industry to an absolute kook who has seemingly lost it. Honestly, who allows this guy to talk to the media? He comes off as an absolute quack. Between TNA management and his supposed handlers, shouldn't somebody be putting a muzzle on him?

Take his latest interview with Fighting Spirit Magazine, for instance. How about these gems....

Kurt on TNA's ratings:

Kurt Freaking Angle: I’m excited about it. I just can’t believe how high our ratings are. I knew that we were doing good ratings, but I didn’t know we were pretty close to the Raw ratings, so I’m real excited.

Um, what? "Pretty close to the Raw ratings"??? The week before WrestleMania, when Raw typically does high ratings, and TNA had their first live edition of Impact (which should, theoretically, bring higher than usual ratings), Raw did a 3.9 cable rating. Impact, meanwhile, brought in a 0.4 cable rating. Raw's ratings were nearly TEN TIMES higher. How in the freakin' hell is that "pretty close"? Damn, even the Hall of Fame ceremony -- where fans are basically watching a black tie gala -- did a 2.1. I don't know a damn soul who watches AM Raw, and even THAT managed to beat TNA, with a 0.8 cable rating. And the show airs at 1 in the morning!

TNA has exploded. We’ve not exploded in ratings, but little by little – 30,000, 25,000 fans a week – it keeps going up. One week we did a 1.1, then a 1.2, then 1.35 – that’s small ratings and it’s about two million people, but the next week, God willing, that’s going to be two point one million. So, after a little while, you’re doing three million people. Now you’re doing the same ratings as SmackDown, so then what do you do? You go after Raw. They’re doing four million, so we take it to that level.

So first you were "pretty close to the Raw ratings" and now you're admitting that you've only achieved 1.35 at your absolute highest? And sorry Kurt, but you're NOT doing the same ratings as Smackdown. ECW, which is the red headed step child of WWE, averages a 1.3 rating.

Kurt on his impact in the industry:

I even heard that he (Jay Lethal) cried for real, because he beat Kurt Angle. It’s like beating Stone Cold or The Rock.

Yeah, Kurt....just like that.

Chris Jericho will never reach the top echelon that Undertaker, Hunter, Shawn, myself and Sting are at.

And later....

I can’t tell you who, but we’re working on a fight with Randy (Couture). If that falls through, Tito’s (Ortiz) up. We’re actually the same weight, so neither of us has to change. It won’t be 205, it won’t be heavyweight, it’ll be me and him at 215 just going at it. I don’t wanna have a warm-up match – I’m too big for that right now, too popular. I won an Olympic gold medal, there’s no need for me to have a warm-up. I’d rather just go against one of the top guys and do it. If I win, great. If I lose, then that’s okay.

Yeah, this guy really has an awfully inflated perspective on where he stands in the industry, doesn't he?

Kurt on being a part-timer:

First he says....

KFA: The thing that separates us from WWE is that you’re going to see the exact same superstars that are on TV. That’s the difference between TNA and WWE...we bring all of our talent to every one of our shows. WWE can’t say that because Shawn Michaels doesn’t come, The Undertaker doesn’t come.

Then he says....

In WWE, I asked for that – I asked to go part time like those guys and Vince said, “I can’t do it. We have five hours of programming – you’re too important”. Well, screw you, Vince. I gave you seven years of my life. Five broken necks. F**k you.

And then even LATER he says....

KFA: Nah. Listen, we’ve made Kurt Angle bigger than TNA. So, what do you do with somebody that’s bigger than your company – exploit them and run them into the ground? No. Kurt Angle is probably going to do 45 house shows a year instead of 100, so I don’t have to worry about doing too much.

Wow, Kurt, you gave up on that "all of our guys are at every show" stance pretty quickly, didn't you?

So you're criticizing Shawn Michaels and The Undertaker -- and by proxy, WWE -- because they have a part time schedule, yet you quit the company because they wouldn't give YOU that? Interesting....

As a side note, I do fully believe that Angle SHOULD have been granted a part-time schedule when he requested it, due to the condition that he was in.

Kurt on pushing the little guy:

So I asked, “Vince – what are you doing? Why are we picking up guys like Batista, who are 6’5”, 300 pounds and can’t even wrestle?” This was back when he couldn’t wrestle – he can now. I was saying, “Why don’t we pick up AJ – he’s only 190 pounds but he’s f**king awesome!” And Vince was like, “Kurt, you’re the real deal, so you can be 5’10”, 200 pounds, but we need the big guys.” “No we don’t, Vince – don’t discriminate! Let a 5’9” guy win the title!”

With all due respect, Batista managed to headline more than one WrestleMania, quite successfully so, and was essentially one of the top 5 guys in the company. And in the past few years, we've seen Rey Mysterio, Chris Jericho, Chris Benoit, Eddie Guerrero, and Kurt Angle -- all guys who are 5'11" or less (Mysterio is like 5'3") -- hold World Championships. If you want to count the ECW Championship, throw CM Punk, John Morrison, and Chavo Guerrero in there as well. Along with that, guys like Shawn Michaels, Edge, King Booker, and Randy Orton aren't exactly muscle bound freaks.

Incidentally, since Kurt Angle has joined TNA, the only World Champs we've seen are Sting, Angle, Abyss, and Christian. None of THOSE guys are 5'9". In fact, the only time AJ Styles -- the very main Angle praises as f'n awesome -- sees the main event, it's to be the comic-relief lackey for either Christian or Angle himself.

Read more!

The latest Lost theory...

Earlier today I read a Lost theory over at Doc Jensen's column on EW.com, and I immediately fell in love with it. Click below to get the details, with my thoughts. There's nothing particularly spoiler-ific in it, but I suppose you best not read it if you haven't yet viewed "Meet Kevin Johnson."

I'd also like to thank everybody who voted in the Aaron/Oceanic Six poll. I was surprised by two things: The amount of people that voted, and that somebody other than me still feels strongly enough to argue that Aaron isn't part of the group!

Anyway, click below for the super duper awesome theory.

So according to this new theory, the past, present, and future concurrently exist on the island. However, they exist on a different plane, preventing any given character from running into their former or future selves.

This theory carries some weight, if you think about it. It may explain why the island doesn't allow certain people to commit suicide. Perhaps the future IS written in stone. If it has already been determined that Michael and Jack arrive on the island in the future, nothing they do in the past can prevent them from reaching that point. Therefore, they can't die simply because, in the future, they've already returned to the island. This may also explain how Locke has managed to survive numerous wounds which would have likely killed a normal man.

This can also be demonstrated on the reverse side of the coin with Charlie. Recall that no matter what Desmond did, Charlie was still destined to die. If he wasn't struck by lightning, he drowned attempting to rescue Claire. If he didn't get shot in the chest with an arrow, he gave up his life to save everyone else. It's the same principle: In the future, Charlie is dead. And no matter what, in some form or fashion, that will come to fruition.

The other thing I like about the "past, present, and future existing all at once" theory is that it may just explain Taller Ghost Walt. He was unquestionably taller, but what if he wasn't a ghost? It's already been theorized that the "present" and "future" characters cannot co-exist, but what happens when a present character leaves the island? If his future counterpart is on the island, would he magically appear?

This requires you to use your imagination (not an unreasonable request given the premise of the series). Lets say the Oceanic Six does return to the island, but they take Walt with him (perhaps he finds out what Michael did, and decides he wants to reconcile with his father, realizing that he wants redemption). When Michael and Walt left the island, perhaps the future Walt suddenly gained the ability to communicate with the "past"/present characters.

This leads to a really fun possibility: When the Oceanic Six DO leave, imagine if future Jack, Kate, Hurley, Sayid, Sun, and (ugh) Aaron suddenly emerged from the jungle?

The other really fun possible explanation: What if these "jungle whispers" are actually the voices of the characters from the future? Perhaps when the past and future characters are at the same place at the same time, one side "echoes" to the other....

Of course, this theory isn't without its share of flaws. First off, we've already seen Walt, at his original height, make numerous paranormal island visits. I'm also curious about what happens when one of The Others makes their frequent trips off the island. Does Richard Alpert, from the future, fill Ben in on what's going to happen in the future? It may explain how Ben gets some of his information, but if the future truly is set in stone, why would he bother trying to alter it (surely he of all people would know the rules of the island)?

Like many Lost theories, this may have you saying "that explains it!" just as often as it has you scratching your head. I'm not fully sure that I believe it to be true, but it's definitely a fun possibility that explains many of the show's mysteries.

Read more!

The Paparazzi

A couple of weekends ago I inadvertently instigated an argument between two people regarding the paparazzi, which ended up getting relatively heated. Fret not, as I didn't get out of this unscathed, as I was subjected to a rather uncomfortable car ride.

Nevertheless, the issue got me thinking. One person -- lets call him Tim (not his real name) -- argued on behalf of the paparazzi. The other person -- lets call her Tiff (not her real name, either) -- condemned their actions. I kept pretty quiet and stood someplace in the middle, although I sided more with Tiff than Tim.

My biggest issue with Tim's argument is the fact that everything the paparazzi does can be blamed on somebody else. First it was the celebrities' fault, because they chose that lifestyle. Then it was the public's fault, because they created the demand for all of these personal and intrusive photos. I mean, at SOME point the paparazzi have to be responsible for what they do, right? I also don't believe that people should get something simply because they demand it.

Tim also argued that they're just "doing their job." In my mind, that's a pretty weak point. I mean, hell, a hitman is just doing his job when he murders somebody. That's an admittedly extreme example, but nevertheless, simply doing your job doesn't give you the excuse to do something terrible.

However, Tiff's stance seemed to be the polar opposite. She seemed to believe that celebrities should be immune to having photos taken of them altogether. According to her, they are entitled to total privacy. I can't say I agree with that, either.

While celebrities do have rights, they don't have special rights. Let me put it this way: If I'm walking down the street and I see a really, really hot woman and I snap a photo of her, I'm not doing anything illegal (as far as I know). It may be creepy, but it's not illegal. With that in mind, I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with taking a photo of a celebrity shopping or exercising or pumping gas or while they're at the beach or doing whatever in public. I mean, hell, I'll openly admit that if I ever see Lady Bilson strolling down the street, you better bet your ass that I'll find some way to ensure I have a camera to snap some shots.

There is a limit, though. I find what they're doing to Britney Spears absolutely reprehensible. I mean, they swarm her to the extent that she literally cannot find her car, which is parked on the street. When she DOES finally find her car, she can't even pull out of her spot because there's such a mass of people surrounding her. It's disgusting.

There are other instances where the paparazzi practically initiate a car chase in order to get some precious photo, which is not only dangerous for them and the celebrity, but for everybody else on the street (both driving and walking) as well.

Is there a solution here? I know that government interference is a highly unattractive notion to most people, but why not regulate the whole paparazzi occupation? Force all paparazzi must get a license, and make it so that printed publications can ONLY purchase photos from somebody who has a license. But, there are also some standards, like that you must stay X feet away from your subject when taking photos and that you can't create a public disturbance or unsafe environment. You can create an organization similar to the FCC to ensure that publications are compliant and to determine fines and punishments for failure to do so.

Consider that many occupations require a license of some sort. You need a license for television and radio broadcasts (in some places, anyway), to sell real estate, to drive, to fly, and so on and so forth. I mean, hell, in most places you need a license to FISH. To fish!

On top of that, many occupations have become unionized anyway (despite my general disdain for unions).

Of course, this'll never happen. I do hope that something does, however. If we use the supply and demand justification, eventually the public will demand something even more exorbitant. And after they receive that, they'll want something more. At what point will it end?

Read more!