Friday, July 3, 2009

Course Correcting Lost

"Doing time travel is a little bit like dating a beautiful girl. It seems really attractive at first and really fun and then you discover that she's high maintenance. Then you discover that she's actually psychotic, and you can't extricate yourself from the relationship. It seemed really alluring at the beginning of the season. By the end of the season we were like 'whew!' We just wanted to escape with our lives."
- Carlton Cuse
Back in April I attempted to tackle this topic with Lost Versus The Temporal Paradox but I just read over that and I didn't explain it well enough. I need to simplify my position. Please understand that's almost impossible given the subject matter. Temporal physics is widely theoretical. Some would argue that at best it is speculative fiction and at worst it's not science at all. Many scientists presume that time travel is not even possible. It's like assuming a comic strip character could magically lift himself off the newsprint and walk around in our three dimensional universe.

We are in fact traveling through time right now at one second per second. You may notice if you are in a fast car or a moving train, that outside it appears that people and things not going your speed and your direction are moving more slowly. In fact they are. Einstein's theory of relativity proves that. The faster you travel, the slower time moves around you. This is essentially why the GPS guys have to resynchronize their clocks with the ones floating in geostationary orbit out in space. Time outside the atmosphere of the planet Earth differs from time here on the ground.

On television, or in the movies, or even in your favorite novel, time works on even more absurd levels of rules. First there's the actual time you use to experience a story. For example, in the first few seasons of Lost we estimate that the average episode reveals to us approximately three days on the Island, however it takes us less than an hour to experience any single episode. This is not consistent w/other shows by the way. Time works differently for all shows but I'm concentrating on Lost right now.

Secondly, time differs inside the show itself. The writers could have chosen to pull a fast one. They could have made us think time worked one way for a given episode, and then for another episode it would work differently. However, for the first few seasons they were mostly consistent w/audience perceptions of time. One episode per every three days, give or take. This is in regards the 'present day' storytelling. Flashbacks are a whole other can of worms. In fact, in some episodes there were flashbacks that gave us information of events transpiring on the Island while other events we already knew about were going on. You can look over a very detailed time line over at LostPedia.com . Wherever possible, the producers of Lost were careful to give us visual and auditory clues to explain when and where they deviated temporally, and how that affected the story. We could tell after a dramatic sound cue and cutaway, that now we're no longer viewing events on the Island, but instead have been transported to Sydney Australia days before the 815 Crash, or years before based on costuming choices, references to calendars or watches, various props and location choices, etc.

Late into season four, things got dramatically different. Some of our Losties left the Island and went home. Other Losties remained on the Island and began to experience temporal distortions that caused them to end up in the same place on the Island, but in different times, and the island was also shifting in space relative to the rest of Earth. This was about the time we were introduced to the idea of Fast Forwards in which some events the producers opted to show us revealed information about what would happen after events currently going on, on the Island.

There were practical reasons why some of these temporal changes occurred. The first has to do with aging. The actor playing Walt started as a little kid, but hit a growth spurt by the end of season two, making it difficult for him to continue playing the part of a child who had aged less than a couple months. So both he and Michael were written out of the story. Walt has been seen very little since then, but usually in the context of years after September 2004, to explain why the actor/character now looks like a young man. Elements such as these simply compounded the extraordinary difficulty the producers had in conveying to we the viewers just where and when each scene was taking place. To combat that, the cast & crew of Lost rose to the challenge. To the best of anyone's ability, I think they were successful, but it's understandable that a large chunk of the audience is still in the dark; still a little.. lost.

In season four, it was explained the Oceanic Six were on the mainland approximately three years. Maybe four. In season five, it was explained that after multiple time hops, Sawyer and his group of survivors hung out in Dharmaville for approximately three years. Maybe four. This means that even though our characters have been separated, when they reunite late in season five, they are all about the same ages as they would have been had they all shared the same normal linear time frame. Maybe they differ several weeks, or months, even close to a year, but not a noticeable time difference. By the way this also means the Losties have now aged about as much as we have, give or take a bit. So if any of the actors look their age, they can show it now, cuz they're supposed to be about the same age they currently are. They can even bring Walt back now if they wanted, because by now the actor would be the right age. They just can't do any flashbacks involving Walt without some camera trickery or CGI.

In fact it's possible that when the crash of Ajira 316 happened, Jack, Kate, Hurley, and Sayid were returned to the island at precisely the second they would have been on the Island had they never left. This brings me.. to Course Correcting.

In the episode "Flashes Before Your Eyes" Desmond meets Mrs. Hawking for his first time, although she seems to recognize him. She tells him that he can't marry Penny, because he's always meant to end up on that island and if he doesn't go, "time has a way of course correcting." If he's destined to do something, it's going to happen, because whatever happened happened and when the island is done with you, it'll kill you. Dead is dead. Up until the island is done with you, you can in theory live forever, but if you're meant to die, you're going to die. Charlie and Desmond learn this first hand, when Desmond begins seeing premonitions of Charlie's death, tries to save him, only to learn he's postponing the inevitable.

Now this is the crux of our problem with time travel on Lost. Many viewers of the show are expecting time travel to behave on Lost the way it does for most television and film. However, it can't. We are used to time travel like on Back to the Future, where you can go back in time and accidentally your own mother gets smitten by you, neglects your future father, so they never get married and you never get born. That's a paradox. The writers on Lost have gone out of their way to avoid paradoxes, even to establish that time doesn't allow them. If you go back in time and try to kill yourself, the gun will jam, or the piano will not fall fast enough, or your younger self will happen to take a drink of a canteen just as the blade flies towards his head. You will not die, because you can't.

People see this on the show and think "The Island" is doing this. It is not. TIME is doing this. During Meet Kevin Johnson, there are times when Michael should by all rights be very dead, but he doesn't die. He can't die, until he's successfully slowed the bomb enough for the Oceanic Six to get rescued, because he was always meant to do that.

Ben says to Jack that he was never meant to leave the Island. From this we are to infer that there was a previous timeline in which he never did, but that something happened to change events. Viewers see this and presume that means there are multiple timelines in which other events have transpired, but there are no other timelines. There is only one timeline.

Look at a body of water. There may be ripples or waves. Perhaps it is still. If you throw a rock into the body of water, it will disrupt the surface of the water temporarily, but it won't cause the water to change irrevocably, and after a bit of wave dispersion, it will return to its previous tranquil state. Time on the television series Lost doesn't operate like something that can be molded and shaped on a whim. Time on Lost also doesn't behave like something that's solid and impossible to alter. Time is fluid. However, once something happens, it happens. What we are essentially witnessing as we see the events of Lost unfold before us, is we are watching a large body of water from late fall into early winter, as it slowly freezes over. Once a part of the ice has frozen over, it remains where and how it is. Once the writers tell us something that happened on Lost, to the best of their ability, they're going to keep it that way. However, in areas they have not yet explained to us, the lake hasn't yet frozen over, so they can still reveal information to us that explains how the other pieces fit together. By the end of the series, the metaphorical lake will be completely frozen over. and we'll see a finished whole.

Many viewers assume that at the end of season five, Juliet was successful at causing the bomb to explode by banging on it repeatedly with a rock. After Sayid and Jack had so roughly traversed with it across a great distance, and after that same bomb fell into a large gaping hole. If that bomb was ever going to go off, it would have gone off long before Juliet banged on it eight times. What we thought was an explosion, when everything went white, was actually another temporal hop - most probably to present day where UnLocke, Ben, Richard, Sun, and the fallen Jacob are awaiting their arrival.

Why? Because The Incident never involved a nuclear explosion. It involved an electromagnetic disturbance that was caused not by our Losties, but by Radzinsky foolishly continuing drilling into the anomaly underground. That always happened. That was always going to happen, whether the Losties were there or not.

Because even though some unnatural things or people have obviously been manipulating events and people for unspecified ends, time has a way of course correcting. You may be able to postpone an event from happening but if it's meant to happen, it will happen. Eventually.

This explains everything on Lost. It explains why Richard hasn't died. It explains why Charlie had to. It explains why Locke could walk on the Island and it explains the times when he could not. It explains why Jin met Danielle. It explains why Hurley is exceedingly lucky. It explains why Susan was such a jerk to Michael. It explains why Juliet was brought to the Island. Not because of The Island, but because of temporal distortion. Time and destiny.

There was perhaps an original timeline before the distortion. A timeline in which events as we know them now transpired a little differently. Maybe Desmond was the one to die underwater at the hands of Patchy, but because Desmond saved Charlie multiple times, Charlie was there to take Desmond's place, allowing him a chance to be with Penny for awhile and have their son. Maybe that didn't happen in the original timeline. We'll never know, because that original timeline without these temporal distortions is gone forever, like a summer rain erasing a chalked hopscotch game off a sidewalk.
"We did dig this whole notion of fate and destiny. You know, can you change the future. How much of their lives is pre-ordained? The big question the audience should have going into the final season of the show is what is the destiny of these characters, and the degree to which that destiny feels pre-ordained is something that we wanted to explore."
- Carlton Cuse
Carlton Cuse mentions whether the lives of these characters is preordained. A lot of Lost fans I talk with speak of destiny and how these characters don't have any control over their lives, then they say they don't understand why, for example, Jack would say no to saving little Ben when we already saw him say yes to saving bigger Ben. I find this frustrating. He had a choice, but given the events, there was only one choice he could make.

People think of destiny as something that is cut and dried. If you are meant to do something it's because you have no control over what you do. However, destiny is far more complex. Your control over your own destiny is what you make of it. If you choose never to leave your house, you were always meant to stay inside, because that's what you do. Maybe something happened in your childhood to make you agoraphobic. Maybe you're just lazy. Whatever the reason, your psychological make up is how you choose your behavior. Not destiny. Now, there are things that happen outside your realm of control that will also influence your choices. The choices of others for example. You can be manipulated, but those manipulations are also 'destined' to happen, by the choices of whatever causes them, or by the physical laws of nature.

Jack has an opportunity to save Ben twice. Jack gave older Ben the benefit of the doubt, and saved him from cancer. Then when Jack was sent back in time, he had a second opportunity to save Ben. Jack chose not to, because of Ben's reaction to Jack's saving him the first time. In that, Jack broke his Hippocratic oath, but he felt justified in not saving young Ben, because of old Ben's behavior. Jack had no motivation for saving Ben as a child, because of Ben's behavior as an adult.

Faraday decides to try and change history, and time sets into motion events that lead Faraday's own mother to shoot him dead, to keep him from changing history. Or so it would seem. How much of this was Faraday's own doing, and how much of it was beyond his control?

Man of Science (Jack). Man of Faith (Locke). Man of Luck (Hugo). How much control do we have, and how much control is beyond our capacity? If we run from our fate (Kate), will it catch up to us inevitably? If we try to con fate (Sawyer), are we destined to fail to outwit it? In the equation of life, are the constants variable (Desmond), or are the variables a constant (Faraday)? Are we destined to fail, like Faraday at the barrel of his own mother's gun, or are we able to put off the inevitable long enough to change history, like when Desmond saved Charlie long enough to allow Charlie to choose to die a hero and not a fool? And was Charlie always meant to die the way he did, or did he replace Desmond? Was Desmond destined to die at the hands of Patchy underwater, or did Desmond inadvertently use Charlie as a sacrifice, so that he may live? Did Locke do the same with Boone, either on purpose or accidentally? Was Locke meant to die when Boone did, had Locke been alone investigating that plane?

This is what Darlton & the cast & crew of Lost have been exploring. Are our lives fated, or do we choose our fate, by the seemingly inconsequential choices we make every day? And if we do what we can to change our own fate, will events around us that we can't control force us into alignment anyway? Does anything we do make any difference?

Either Blackie or Jacob threw a very big hot rock into the placid lake as it was icing up for the winter. Whichever one did, the other one has actively sought to fix things.. To 'patch them up' if you will. You can throw as many hot rocks into the metaphoric lake as you want, but winter is coming, and that lake is gonna freeze over. Nothing can change that. It's fate. Just as surely as a year from now, Lost will be over.

Monday, June 29, 2009

Lost's Zombie Season Is Now, Part Two

This is speculation & not spoilage. Even so, read further at your own risk. You have been warned.

It is very possible that any and all previously killed characters can return. We've witnessed it already. Two phrases so significant in season five they became titles of episodes are "whatever happened happened" and "dead is dead." We've witnessed first-hand that while these two phrases are true, there's something sinister about them. What we think happened may not have happened the way we think, but only because we do not know all the facts. We may see an event in the past from Jack's perspective where he meets Desmond, but then if we see that same night from Desmond's perspective it carries different meaning and significance. We may see Locke fall from a great height in season one and think his survival miraculous but not otherworldly. In season five we witnessed Locke was very dead until Jacob revived him after his fall. This adds new information to what happened, without literally changing the event. Our perception of it is all that changes, given the new information.

Christian and Locke are both very dead. Dr. Jack Shepherd is many things but he is not incompetent in determining conditions of traditional death. However, both individuals are also still clearly walking around. We've also seen other characters we know to be dead reappear on the series as visions or dreams. It's also possible that there were people who died in the crash of Flight 815 or Ajira 316 who appear to still be alive, but are being kept alive artificially through the unique powers of The Island, for Jacob's purposes, or Blackie's, or perhaps another party we've yet to meet.

Although I personally believe there will be few if any flashbacks in this final season, the writers may surprise me and continue the flashbacks for consistency's sake. There certainly is no longer an overpowering need beyond curiosity at this point. I'd like to see Ben meet, kill, and bury Henry Gale for example, but unless the writers come up with a compelling reason why that pertains to the predicaments in the present of Ben & UnLocke, it'd be little more than a novelty at this point.

What's more plausible is the fact that although we've witnessed the phrase "whatever happened happened" to be predominantly accurate, the writers have also made it clear what we see happen is not always what we think we see. In season one we saw Locke fall out of a building, and miraculously survive. It wasn't until the end of season five that we saw why he survived. There are many events we have witnessed which may have had other participants out of our periphery view. We've been told of Hurley's accident on the pier that allegedly killed 23 people. We have no idea who those people are because the show has never actually visited that incident visually. The writers could choose to do so now, if (and only if) it pertained directly to the current present of Ben & UnLocke.

The phrase which is obviously not accurate is "dead is dead" although one can argue it's very true, IF (and only if) Locke is very dead and what we've been seeing walking around in Locke's stead since the crash of Ajira 316 is 0% Locke. If that's the case, then yes dead is dead. So any and all characters who have died on the Island can and probably will return, but as agents of Blackie/Essau/UnLocke/WhateverHisNameIs or as agents of Jacob. In fact it's plenty plausible that all or some of our characters from Oceanic 815 are very much not really among the living.

One of my more fantastical theories is that most who crashed on Oceanic 815 did die, with the sole witness of Kate. She has admitted that she witnessed the entire crash, while others appear to have blacked out. It's possible that she knows who is real and who is not, which might explain some of her aberrant behavior in the earlier seasons. However, it wouldn't explain her love interests, unless she knew Sawyer & Jack were two people who are still normal.

We know that Jacob can bring people back to life. We've seen miraculous cures for disease and disability. We've witnessed instances when someone should have died but did not. These instances could easily be explained away if said individuals are already dead and are being kept alive by artificial, god-like means.

The easiest way to bring Dominic back would be to bring back Patchy. He waits until he witnesses Desmond return to the surface, then fishes Charlie out of the station and brings Charlie back to the Island. Patchy would then pump the water out of Charlie's lungs, wait for him to get his bearings and breath back, and explain to him that he couldn't die in the station, because he already died on the plane. Patchy would then reveal he's an agent of either Blackie or Jacob, and tell Charlie that now he is too.

Is Charlie still the Charlie that we have come to know? Yes and no. He's got self-awareness, but he's being manipulated. To what extent is unclear. We know that Locke has been getting messages from The Island, and was being manipulated, but he had to actually die (by suicide or murder) off the Island in order for Blackie to get to appear AS him. Why? We don't know. It may have to do with rules that Jacob & Blackie set for themselves when all this began, or rules that have been laid for them by whoever is pulling THEIR strings. Cuz there's always someone bigger.

Who is actually alive and who is actually (un)dead is a little murky. Hurley could very well already be dead. He may have died when the pier crashed, and either Jacob or Blackie revived him at an opportune moment, just as we witnessed Jacob revive Locke after his fall. Hurley experiences great luck that keeps him from dying, but people around him suffer the consequences. Hurley and Charlie both crossed a bridge that they really should not have been able to safely traverse, but Jack & Sayid were not able to cross it. They had to go around. This could be one circumstantial indication that Hurley & Charlie are already (un)dead, and are being kept alive by The Island. However, if Jack & Sayid are still very much alive, the writers wouldn't want them to cross that bridge. It may have shown their hand.

If all that I say is true, then it'd be very easy for the writers to bring back all of the characters we've witnessed die, in order to pose as agents of Jacob & Blackie wherever it might be strategically advantageous for them to do so. For example, Alex appeared before Ben in what was obviously a strategic move on Blackie's part to make Ben obey his wishes. Any characters who have died in previous seasons can come back in a similar manner, to impart messages to surviving Losties that came from either Jacob or Blackie.

We could even witness the return of Nikki & Paulo, IF it would be to the benefit of either Blackie or Jacob to do so. Personally, I'd rather see Arzt and Frogurt one last time, but Nikki was easy on the eyes, and Paulo was good for a laugh. We may see them all come back before the series is over. It's entirely plausible.

Saturday, June 27, 2009

Lost's Zombie Season Is Now, Part One

Damon Lindeloff and Carlton Cuse, the two masterminds behind the critically acclaimed and successful television series LOST on ABC, have jokingly said that after the main storyline of the show was completed, an entire season would then be devoted to a crazy free-for-all involving all those characters killed off in previous seasons coming back to life to wreck havoc and mortify those few characters who manage to survive. This has been a joke. It's been said with tongue firmly planted in cheek. However, the best way to hide something you want to hide is in plain sight where no one would think to look. What if, after a fashion, this is precisely the direction the series has been going from the beginning?

It would be amusing if season six turns out to be "zombie season" after all.

Only, these wouldn't be zombies. They'd be manifestations of dead characters, but they wouldn't moan and lumber about with limbs falling off of them. They'd behave as they did when alive, and fool other characters into believing them the real deal. This may already be happening. In fact, some characters may already be dead, and unaware of it.

Many characters, if not all of them, have had brushes with death. Locke is the most noticeable example. We witnessed him fall several stories to his death, only to be resurrected by Jacob himself. It's entirely possible that from that moment onward, Locke was effectively, literally, undead. He died. He came back to life. That fits the direct definition of undead. It does not make him a zombie, but he has been animated in a manner that defies logic and physics as we assume them to be. Even his own legs seem to behave in a manner that defies logic and reason.

If all this is the case, Locke may still be sentient and self-aware, but his actions would not have entirely been his own. Instead, he'd be under the thrall of either Jacob or Blackie. He'd be susceptible to the rules of their game, as a pawn within it. Locke has admitted that the Island speaks to him, not in a literal manner of voices in his head, but through his dreams and visions and by showing him 'signs' or events that could be coincidental or fabricated but that he interprets to mean directives for his behavior. In this way he is obviously being manipulated, and at the end of season five it's possible we met the two culprits to this behavior modification: Jacob and his black clad friend/enemy.

If one were to go through the entire series, from a writing standpoint, it's very easy to explain that almost all characters in the series could be likewise pawns in this shadowy game of life after death. For example, Charlie could have had a drug overdose which killed him, but a timely visit from Jacob or Blackie would revive him. We haven't seen this yet, but with flashbacks, the writers have repeatedly opened themselves to the ability to go back any time they want and infuse into the overal folklore of the series new information that illuminates or perhaps even contradicts what we have assumed from past information. Charlie may have died long before we thought he did, and then died again before our eyes, but being dead already, the writers could easily have him just wash up on shore one day, bewildered and confused as to how he survived the underwater station.

Hurley fell from a pier that killed twenty-three others. We don't know the details of that day - might Hurley have had a near-death experience that he keeps to himself? Did this lead to his depression and other psychological aberrations?

Kate's life is far from exemplary, or safe. She could have also had an experience in which she almost died, didn't, and tries not to think about it. We witnessed her walk away from her father's house after having rigged it to explode. That's how she remembers it. What if that's now how it actually happened?

Sayid was in the Iraqi military during a time of war. Jack spent time alone in foreign lands living recklessly. Sawyer's lifestyle and career choice would have placed him in mortal danger on an irregular basis.

Finally, ALL of these characters experienced a plane crash. It's important to note that Kate claims to have remembered the entire thing. She said she was awake and cognizant the entire time of the crash. However, we were shown the events of the crash of flight 815 not through Kate's eyes, but from Jack's, and Locke's, and even Nikki & Paulo's. What we know appears to be complete, but there's instances we do not know. How did some of these characters survive the crash of a plane with little more than scratches and bruises? Why was Jack in the middle of a bamboo forest, far away from the actual crash site? He only sustained one wound that was critical enough to require stitches, but being thrown that distance during the crash should have broken bones if not killed him utterly - that is unless he was brought back to life by other means.

It's plausible the 815 crash killed everyone on board with the possible exception of Kate. Who would be witness to this entire charade but unable to tell anyone. She would have witnessed how the characters we know of as survivors were resuscitated. How some of them were left for dead and others were miraculously reborn, perhaps before her very eyes, completely unaware of the transformation that had taken place. This would explain why, repeatedly, when some survivors would wander off on missions and for one reason or another they'd tell her not to come, she followed behind them anyway. Because she didn't trust any of them.

Kate may be surrounded by the undead; a form of the undead so oblivious to their existence as to still think of themselves as alive. In fact even she may not fully understand the significance of this delineation. After all, alive is alive and dead is dead. However, what if you can't really die on the Island? What if some individuals are left for dead by the Island, until it needs them again?

If that's the case, season six could very well be our Zombie Season, just not in the way that one might think.

Whatever

inspired by Julia Nunes' "Regrets"
a(n abandoned) work in progress



You make me wish I was
whatever you're looking for
You make me wish I was
whatever you want and more
You make me wish I could be
Whatever you want and need
For all of eternity

You make me wish I was
Contacts for your eyes
You make me wish I was
Tissues for your cries
You make me wish I could say
Anything to make you stay
So you would not go away


...


Okay perhaps I should explain. I was gonna just leave this poem here for later cuz it's just the chorus and I can't figure out the verses in my head. However, I just reread what I just wrote, and that coupled with the statement it's inspired by Julia Nunes might give someone the wrong idea. I'll preface this with yeah of course she's hot and talented but the words are not intended to indicate.. well, whatever.

The inspiration went something like this: while listening to Julia Nunes' song "Regrets" it occurred to me for some reason that hers is a voice that could take the word "whatever" and make it sound annoyingly acerbic and abrasive in one moment and then exhaltingly cathartic the next. I don't know why this occurred to me. I don't recall the word "whatever" in the song "Regrets" at all but I suddenly wanted to hear her voice singing with the word "whatever." There seems to be a potential longing and wispy melancholy about the word coupled with a dark sarcastic edge that I've just always admired and I'd like to hear her sing that word so my mind took the word "whatever" and started attaching other words to it and putting it in sentences and I was about to go do something else as her "Regrets" video ended and then I was like, oh damn I gotta write this down somewhere before I lose it. So I did. And now I look at it and it's cheesy bubblegum stupidity, but the idea was to make the chorus exhaultingly cathartic, soleful and wistful and filled with longing to represent that side of the word whatever, and then the verses were going to be more sarcastic and filled with passive aggressive irony. Cuz that's how I hear the song in my head. The intent would be to hear her deliver the verses in a stacatto biting almost hateful tone, and then in the verses her delivery would suddenly be like the angels of heaven descending down upon a bowling alley to go a few rounds.

However, I can't write down any verses at the moment cuz they're not coming to me. I'm only hearing the chorus. So hopefully I can come back later and finish this when I'm in a more sarcastic mood.

Monday, June 22, 2009

Fantastic Four Reboot

Okay. So yet again millions of dollars are about to be spent on an entirely crazy idea: take the Fantastic Four out of the comic books and put them on the silver screen. Again. My first reaction was "Why?" With a sudden realization that the answer is the same answer that always fuels comic book adaptations that don't make any sense: money.

For anyone unfamiliar with the comic book, the multiple animated series, the t-shirts, lunch boxes, video games, and countless other FF paraphernalia, I recommend WikiPedia to get you caught up. Yes of course you can't count on Wiki as 100% accurate and some can argue that endlessly. I don't care. It works for me and I don't want to try to detail almost fifty years of history in this blog. I'll get sidetracked to the point I actually wanna make. It is possible to put the actual Fantastic Four on the screen, but Hollywood can't do it. It would require actually following the original source material, and Hollywood won't tolerate that.

First, it's a period piece. Fantastic Four is not Fantastic Four without taking place in the early 1960s, when the general public really had no concept of how radiation or cosmic rays worked. Marie Curie discovered radiation in the late 19th century, and papers about breast cancer were published by other great minds in the 1920s, but making the connection between radiation as both a possible cause and a possible cure or treatment didn't make strides in the medical community until after Stan Lee and Jack Kirby committed the origins of many modern "marvel" legends to paper. The Incredible Hulk's exposure to gamma rays, Spider-Man's radioactive spider bite, and of course the Fantastic Four's exposure to cosmic rays during a sub orbital flight - all this was based on speculative fiction to which time has not been kind. So telling the same origin story fifty years late makes absolutely no sense. However, if treated as a period piece, it's as good a story as Dr. Jeckyll & Mr. Hyde.

Second, it's a family piece. This means you can have conflict between the characters, but you can't have them just break up at the drop of a hat. It gets too cliche too fast if you jump to that. The foursome consists of a married couple, a brother-in-law, and an old friend of the family. Ben & Reed's relationship goes back to when they were in the academy together, then the military, then the space program. Ben & Reed believe in each other and are essentially blood brothers, having saved one another multiple times. Reed's love for Sue is unmistakeable, and Sue's love for her brother Johnny is equally resolute. There are decades of complexity here that can't be captured in a two hour movie. Even comic book writers of more recent decades have made the mistake of splitting them up because they are trying to keep things interesting. However, what sets the Fantastic Four apart from other heroes is not their special powers. Most everyone in their world has powers. What sets them apart is the inter-relationship of the foursome. They are often conflicted and strained, but they are also connected by an unconditional love that comes only from having been through what they've been through - it's a bond stronger than blood.

Third, it's not dark. The current rumor is not only will the Fantastic Four get rebooted yet again, but the franchise will go darker with it like the Batman Dark Knight series. However, the Fantastic Four has never been dark. Admittedly, horrible things have happened. Most notably is Reed Richards' betrayal of the others. After many years, it's discovered that on some unconscious level, Richards may have deliberately sabotaged the space flight, using his own friends as guinea pigs in an experiment that would either grant them unknown power, or kill them outright. That's mighty dark. However, you can't start there. The audience has to experience the lifetime of camaraderie and trust and faith or else that discovery has no weight to it.

What might work is taking a page from recent critically acclaimed success of the movie Watchmen, and also perhaps a page from the tv series Lost. If'n I were Fantastic Four's reboot artist, here's how I'd do it.

You'd have two storylines being told at once in the first film, in a treatment similar to Lost or Kung Fu. The first storyline would take place in the 1960s, and would be essentially a very brief origin story told by news reporters as they were covering the events that essentially put the Fantastic Four on the map: the Mole Man Battle. This story would show the Fantastic Four as they were first starting out, and with their powers still fresh and novel to them. Their friendship would be palpable and their teamwork flawless. We'd see them overcome inexperience and adapt to the new life of heroism before them. These scenes would be bright and vibrant. Even venturing into the caves, everything would have a look of fond reverie - the good old days how everything looks better than perhaps it really was.

The second storyline would be your dark storyline and would take place some decades later - perhaps even in present day. The Fantastic Four would have had many adventures on Earth, and then at one point they went into deep space to fight in the Kree-Skrull Wars, leaving their nonpowered infant son in the hands of trusted friends. They return only a few weeks later in their time, but many years would have passed on Earth. In their absence, the Earth they knew would be a world without any superheroes and devoid of any happiness. Those who had powers were now in the service of a nameless, faceless despot who Reed would assume immediately was Doctor Doom.

The Fantastic Four would be branded as un-human and face death or exile from Earth if they refused to do the despot's bidding. The Fantastic Four would struggle with this discovery, avoid death and exile, while investigating the events that led to their homeworld turning so grey and hopeless. Ben would meet the nameless despot first on his own, be captured and tormented, and the truth revealed to him that Reed had purposefully orchestrated the accident that left him a freak. Ben would break free of his prison, hunt down Reed and demand an explanation. Reed has no conscious knowledge of this, but it's something that causes him to second guess his actions, as the foursome agree to settle their differences later and confront this unknown enemy together.

At the end it would be realized that their son grew up into a powerful being but with a cold heart having been abandoned at a young age. Franklin is the nameless faceless despot that demands the foursome go back in time and undo the damage that has been done, and has spent considerable time and resources since his youth creating a time machine explicitly for this purpose. Reed explains to Franklin that's now how time works - that the foursome could go back in time but that this reality would be unaltered - a new timeline would emerge from their return from the past. It would not erase the current timeline that already existed. "Time is not a chalkboard, Franklin. It's more like a river. You can dam up the water and redirect it, but the dry riverbed you leave behind will remain, scarring the land."

Franklin's power, coupled with his rage, is so great that he claims he can destroy the universe in which they currently reside either after the FF return back in time to correct their past mistake with him, or he'll destroy it with them still in the present. Essentially this dooms the fate of two potential universes. Reed relents and the foursome venture into the time machine.

Upon the return to the past, which in the narrative happens about the same time as the narrative in the first storyline approaches the foursome leaving Earth to fight in the Kree-Skrull war, we see this mature and conflicted foursome still together but with more questions about trust and devotion than they have ever had before, and Reed struggles with whether he should murder his own son now to spare the potential power to experience upon maturity, or hope that he and Sue's presence in young Franklin's life will be enough to change those variables, like a butterfly's wings. Meanwhile, since in this timeline the Fantastic Four never go into space to fight in the Kree-Skrull war, it instead comes to Earth, which sets up the sequel.

There. You got your darkness, but you also got a chance to show the Fantastic Four at their best and brightest. You got conflict, but it develops naturally in the context of the plot and not unnaturally like in the previous movies. I'd go see it, but I'd probably be the only one. Here's hoping at the very least, the new reboot of Fantastic Four doesn't include that preposterous robot Herbie. God, I hated that thing.

Saturday, June 6, 2009

More KPCS Rambling

Here I go critiquing The Kevin Pollak Chat Show again. This must be a testament to just how good the show is even this early on because I keep finding myself wanting to write about it. Much like other shows I've enjoyed over the years like Lost, Heroes, X-Files, and Star Trek. It's also more fun to dissect something that can withstand scrutiny, than something that's far too easy to insult. So again, what follows is not meant to be a put down. Quite the contrary.

Even so, I keep watching this thing and wishing I could squirt Kevin Pollak with a spray bottle, like people do when they're trying to train cats not to climb on the drapes. This never works by the way. The cat will do what it damn pleases after the spray bottle carrier leaves the room. Likewise, Kevin Pollak will do things as he damn well pleases but I'd get satisfaction in spraying him anyway.

Why would I want to spray him? Well firstly, he calls the show Kevin Pollak's Chat Show. Alright. That's fine. It's his show. He's the host. His name should be on the bill. Alright.

Secondly, he repeatedly says this is NOT his show, even though he's on it. This is his audience's show, and he goes on and on, every week, at length, citing examples of ways he's going out of his way, out of the kindness of his heart, to make KEVIN POLLAK'S chat show, your show.

Thirdly, he then monopolizes the interviews, going to the response from viewers as an afterthought towards the end of the hour, or sometimes only after having exhausted everything he personally wanted to ask his guest.

Fourthly, when he asks his guests questions, he often finds a way to use this question as an opportunity to take his own life experience as an example, so that he gets to answer his own question, posed to his interviewee, as if he were also simultaneously interviewing himself, and asking himself all the questions he wished everyone from Johnny Carson to Carson Daly would ask him.

Did you just get a headache reading all that? Cuz I just got a headache typing it all out. What a mind fuck this show is. Pollak's a talented guy! He's good at what he does and he's also good at this new schtick too, but let's face it, he's no Charlie Rose. Charlie Rose doesn't answer his own questions. He sets his ego aside before the cameras roll and focuses on his guest. I'm not saying Pollak should BE Rose. Far from it. In fact I can tell as I've mentioned before that Pollak seems to be picking and choosing from past interview shows and using what he's seen work before, borrowing most prominently from Charlie Rose cuz let's face it, the man's the best in the history of the business when it comes to interviewing.

Let me try to pull up an example of what I mean. What follows is an exchange from Kevin Pollak's interview with Josh Malina from Sports Night and West Wing and all kindsa great shit.

Josh Malina: I often say when Allison Janney and I worked together? That's five Emmy awards right there.

Kevin Pollak: There ya go.

Josh Malina: In fairness, all of them hers!

Kevin Pollak: [laughs]

Josh Malina: But between us! Five Emmys! ..incredibly great actors, and uh incredibly nice workplace..

Kevin Pollak: but also to step up to the plate in a situation.. uhm, where i mean, I - I felt like, which I've joked about many times in my act, "Where's Waldo" in the cast of A Few Good Men cuz I'm surrounded by deep ball hitters. I was the only one in the lead cast that the audience was thinking who's this guy? Everyone else - ridiculously famous.

Josh Malina: That's true.

Kevin Pollak: [surprisingly does not do a double take here] And I imagine stepping into a show like [WEST WING] that's been a huuge monstrous hit for two years ..is similar - and the next experience I had which was shocking was how everyone treated me like an equal - an ABSOLUTE equal. There's no pecking order ..and I don't know if that's what your experience was-

Josh Malina: Absolutely was.

Kevin Pollak: Was?

Josh Malina: Yeah. The first read through? Which already the fact that they did read throughs was like uh, was just such a- cuz things are so busy half the time that there was no time for a read through-

Kevin Pollak: Right.

Josh Malina: -But they really took the time to read it and let Aaron hear it and it was like a big party atmosphere and John Spenser may he rest in peace came up to me and said "Oh I loved your work on Sports Night" and I thought THAT'S a classy guy!

Kevin Pollak: Yeah yeah yeah...
Now don't get me wrong. Pollak is very interested in his guests, but he's also very interested in himself. Often in a way that seems rather humble and self-effacing but I can't tell if he's just doing that to hide narcisism or if he seriously needs someone to inflate his ego now and then cuz he honestly doesn't realize how much he kicks ass. He talks as if by the time A Few Good Men happened he was nobody. He'd already been in L.A. Story, Willow, and he was very well known for his standup routine. Kevin Pollak had been a name long before Usual Suspects. He was already on the map. Maybe he wasn't Jack Nicholson but come on.. Even Jack Nicholson isn't really Jack Nicholson.

So Pollak really needs to realize he already rocks, and to quit trying to prove it to himself. Then he'd be better suited to sit there, as someone who rocks, and show the world that the person he is interviewing really rocks too, and here's why. What I'm hoping is that as the series progresses and Pollak gets the question answering out of his system and grows bored of tooting his own horn, that he settles into this new role. He does obviously enjoy illuminating the people that appear before him, otherwise he couldn't sit still that long. It should really be more about a prince holding court than about a prince pretenting to be a pauper pretending to be a prince.

We know you're a prince. Quit trying to be pauper for a day. You're not fooling anybody.

Of course, I say all this, and if he actually took any of this seriously, then he'd get a big head and be entirely obnoxious on camera asking guests to kiss his ring and aren't they so thrilled to be in his presence because he knows he is so awesome?

...maybe it's best to leave well enough alone.

Thursday, June 4, 2009

David Carradine Found Hanged in Bangkok Hotel Room

[Added June 6th: Okay let's just forget this entire article. You can read it if you want, but nobody knows what the fuck happened to Carradine and really we shouldn't give a shit. He lived a great life, gave the world some memorable moments on the little and big screen, was loved by family, friends, complete strangers, probably did his share of bad shit but who gives a crap? How he died will no doubt become as much a mystery to people as are parts of his life. I'm ashamed and embarrassed that I looked at his death and my first knee-jerk reaction was to think of myself - but I have said this before and will no doubt say it again - the mourning process is not for the dead. It's for the living. I find it a very irrational act, and until my father passed away about a decade ago now, making death entirely and painfully real to me, I used to find other people mourning to be sometimes laughable and other times disgusting. There are some people on this planet who are offended when you use profanity or appear in public naked. They react with disdain and dismay and try to look away or they make a scene about how horrible that is and that one should be more respectful of others and not be so impolite. That's how I used to feel in regards to people mourning. They're wearing their emotions out like they just regurgitated their intestines and put them on display. Really I used to find it that revolting and could only laugh at the absurdity. Then my father passed away, and I understood why we have to express those emotions and put them on display and share them with others who feel as bad as we do that we'll never know that person in our lives anymore. It's a wholly selfish act and I still find something offensive about it, but just as with all things that offend somebody, they're a part of human nature and we should not shirk from it. So here I leave myself and my pathetic selfish process of mourning for a complete stranger here for anyone who dares to see. Here I also hope to leave it behind and move on to something less maudlin and morbid. I only hope I can.]

[Added June 5th: What follows is a bunch of pretentious, self-centered shit. Tread lightly be you afeared of insensitivity in the face of tragedy. I'd remove it if it weren't for the fact that after a night of sleep, glancing over what I'd wrote, I find it endlessly funny to laugh at myself, at my own expense. Besides someone recently accused me of censoring my YouTube videos and I'm like "what? I don't edit my YouTube videos enough." Really. They suck. So anyway, don't take the following remotely seriously, cuz I don't. In fact, stop taking any of my shit seriously, cuz I don't. Even when I do, I don't really. I'm a toon. Really.

Also as a disclaimer, I wrote the following before the prevailing theory became that Carradine accidently killed himself masterbating while experiencing auto-erotic asphyxiation. Which I must admit pisses me off even more. Did he never hear of having a spotter? You don't do it by yourself inside a closet that's fucking stupid. You have someone there who can tell when you start turning blue. I mean really. Don't they teach these things in school? Oh that's right they don't. Why? Because puritannical fundamentalist conservatives would rather censor the proliferation of information so people kill themselves not knowing how to do it, as opposed to making sure everyone is properly educated on how to safely commit sinful acts that make the baby Jesus cry.]


...

I should stop there. Three little dots. There really aren't words. This is stupid.

...

I got a lot of shit to say but I - I should really not.

...

I mean, I don't know the man.

...

I should really stop right here.

...

I call myself a survivor. I never actually tied the cord around my neck. I never actually stuck the barrel of the gun in my mouth. I never actually put the razor to my wrist, but I did learn that you cut long ways down the arm cuz otherwise the doctor is gonna laugh at you and I knew that when I was gonna do it, I wanted it to be clean. I wanted there to be no turning back. I wanted it to be painless and fast and final. I didn't wanna wake up in a hospital room twelve hours later only to find after having failed everything else in my life that I couldn't even fucking DIE right.

...

I was seventeen.

...

It was over a girl. Fucking stupid, right?

...

No. What woulda been stupid was if I'd a done it.

...

And believe me. That wasn't the last time I considered it. However, I came to a point where I realized that was cheating. It was a permanent solution to a temporary problem, and how dare I look at the entirety of the universe that gave me life and tell it I'd had enough. That I wasn't thankful. That I didn't have to clean the plate placed before me on the table of Life.

...

So suicide is not an option for me any longer. I closed that door, padlocked it, put a chair up against the knob and surrounded it with barbed wire fences and attack dogs and then I built a brick wall around the building inside which that door stood. Then I demolished the city block where that building stood. Then I quarantined that city, seceeded that state from the union and nuked that country. Cuz when you kill yourself, you are a failure. Everything else up until your death is success, even what you perceive to be failure. Cuz you learn something from those failures. Usually you learn not to do it that way again. However, you learn nothing from killing yourself. You're just dead.

...

Carradine? CAINE? BILL!?

...

How? Surely, that man was smarter than me. Surely he understood better than me what the universe has to offer and how rare and precious this gift of life is and you should take what's given you and even if you're just existing even if you're just watching cars rust you're doing more than feeding worms.

...

Maybe it was an accident.

...

Maybe he was in a lot of pain.

...

Maybe there's tens of millions of variables I have no capacity to fathom. Maybe his death was completely sound and logical and he gets a free pass, because of who he is.

...

I really shoulda never started this.

...

It wasn't like the man couldn't get work. I have heard horror stories about famous people in their prime who grew old, penniless, friendless, and forgotten in some old folks home. Carradine was not wasting away his senior citizenship pining for the fjords. The man was filming on location when it happened. Bangkok, Thailand! He was still courted by producers and casting directors and stars and he could still pick and choose his projects. Seventy-two years young, as they say. Maybe there are some lives that are better than the one he lived, but out of around seven billion people living today, I'd be hard pressed to count those living better off than him on my fingers and toes.

...

But then it's all subjective. I mean I doubt Oprah Winfrey could just jet to Bangkok Thailand if she wants because as rich as she is, she's still got contractual obligations. She's kinda rooted to her spot, so long as she's producing her show and running her company. Carradine, however, was a free spirit. Nothing really tied him down if he didn't want it tying him down. If she thinks about it, I bet Oprah Winfrey would find herself easily admiring David Carradine's life. It's all subjective.

...

I really should not hit the Publish Post button. I really should just shut the fuck up and let the man die in peace. Maybe he did have his own obligations tying him down. Shit I couldn't possibly know. Shit that would make me scream and curl up in a fetal position if it were in my life. Maybe his demons were ten thousand times worse than mine, which would be easy to do cuz my demons are all tiny.

...

I mean I can't walk a mile in that man's shoes. I can't know what happened or how or why. I can't judge. I can't ...damn!

...

If he DID.

...

IF he did.

...

If HE did...

...

I was born into a world in which we were going to the Moon. Now, forty years later, I'm living in a world in which a man like that could come to the conclusion that suicide is a choice.

...

David Carradine looked at the entirety of this universe and stared it straight in the face, after over seventy years of success and failure and love and loss and ups and downs and ins and outs and pains and gains and he looked at what the entirety of the universe had served him on his plate and he ate full well of that provided, but then with a few bites still left on his plate, he pushed the plate away from him, stood from the table, and told the universe he was full.

...

Is this what I'm to take from this? That there's a point when you get to say you're done? Seventy-two years is a long time. Maybe he was right to call it quits? You don't have to clean your plate, is that the lesson he's leaving behind? Well hell, why don't we all just put on palm flower lifeclocks and die when we're thirty?

...

Maybe David Carradine is right. Maybe we should all get to choose when and how we die.

...

Why live to portray Bill? Wasn't Caine enough? Why not quit forty years ago if life has no value? Why didn't he stop before his hair went grey? Or before walking started getting a little tougher than it used to be? Why didn't he stop living the first time he realized he couldn't do stunt work the way he used to? Why not quit when he realized things didn't taste as good as they once did? Why not give up at the first sign of inconvenience?

...

Maybe he had recieved news from a doctor or other source that he had cancer or AIDS or otherwise only had a few months to live and they weren't going to be pleasant months from his prediction, and he decided to just end it now while he still had the capability in himself physically to opt to do it himself. While he still had the faculties about him to take fate into his own hands.

...

How did he know there wasn't another wonderful experience just around the corner? Why stop where he did? What difference does it make? How could a man with Carradine's life look at what was immediately before him and go, "It don't get better than this. I better stop now."

...

I used to think Kevorkian had the right idea. If you are facing a life debilitating disease that doesn't kill you, but just makes you wish you were dead, you should have the right to decide how and when you die. I thought I still think that.

...

This though. This came out of left field for me. I don't know if I believe that anymore. I don't know if I ever really believed it. Analytically it makes sense. Why suffer just to cling to a little more life? Just to maybe get to see another sunset? But in pain?

...

I shouldn't have even started. I don't know what the fuck I'm sayin'. I don't know the guy. I got no place - FUCK! CARRADINE! FUCKING CARRADINE!?? HIM!?? OF ALL PEOPLE ON THIS PLANET? DAVID CARRADINE KILLS HIMSELF? FUCK!

...

I don't even know him. It's not like he's the first celebrity to die. It's not like he's the first man to kill himself. It's not like I have any leg to stand on in judging a man loved all over the planet for doing what he loved to do. Heck, I'm even superimposing my opinions in that last sentence. Maybe he didn't love what he did. Maybe he was indifferent to where life put him. I have no way of knowing.

...

But if Carradine can put two and two together and get five.

...

I just can't wrap my mind around this.

...

Fuck.

...

May whatever you believed in bless you and keep you, man.

...

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

The Larry King Game

Yes another entry about Kevin Pollak's Chat Show

What? Am I obsessing? Is this stalking? I never can tell. I'm trying to get through all of Kevin Pollak's Chat Show shows before he makes people pay to see them (which by the way would be very bad form KP but it's up to you how you learn that) (ed note: Adam Carolla makes a fucking point. The bastard. A dollar dime a download's not out of the question but if everything I accessed online started doing that I'd get nickeled and dimed off the 'net in a matter of weeks) and notice how I talk to Mr. Pollak in parentheses as if he'll ever read this webpage, oh I slay me. And the 'KP' as if we're old friends. Nice touch. (ed note: "This hour brought to you by Brand X" very good idea Pollak - back to 1950s radio but w/o the sponsors telling creative talent what to do) Anyway, Pollak's got a good thing going and needs people to drum up support about it and get the word out and this is my own personal very small way of doing that. All three of you that actually read this thing, if there's still three of you, go check out Kevin's show. Tell him Zach sent you. He'll be like, "hubbazawhubba?"

It's the summer. Lost won't be back until next year. Heroes won't be back until this fall, and I don't know if I'll be following it next season cuz damn it's jumped the shark a few times hasn't it? True Blood hasn't started yet. Dollhouse is coming back this fall but Miracle Laurie won't return my tweets cuz let's face it, I'm a little creepy. But not quite as creepy as Larry King, which is a segue I believe into today's ramble.

THE LARRY KING GAME

First off, thanks to Jamie Fox who (as Kevin tells it) basically invented this game for Kevin and he's running with it cuz it's crazy ass fun. As Kevin Pollak has said repeatedly on his show, Larry King the man is a walking fossil. It's only a matter of time before something in Larry King's brain short-circuits, and he says something on the air that his own shrink shouldn't ever know, and about which all his ex-wives are still in therapy. It's comin'. Meanwhile we can pass the time by sharing one another what we think it's gonna be like when Larry King finally goes senile on the air and refers to the guy behind the camera as his momma.

Here's the rules to The Larry King Game:
  1. You must do a bad Larry King impression. It's no fair if you can actually do a good Larry King impression cuz it ruins it for the rest of us. Try to suck at it as hard as you can. That way we all can participate.
  2. Reveal something about yourself as Larry King on the air that no one should really know because lets' face it he's 107.
  3. Then go to the phones and it helps if the name of the city is funny.
Kevin Pollak has suggested alcohol to lubricate your wits prior to participating. What you wanna do is capture your gem of Larryness on video, put it on the Web (YouTube's probably your best bet) and then send the link to contact@kevinpollakschatshow.com don't send the video by email cuz you'll probably piss him off. Don't piss him off. If you do piss him off, don't tell him I sent you.

Now what follows are my notes. I was thinking of doing this. I haven't done it yet. My reasons/excuses include the following:
  1. I can't find a pair of suspenders and even though I wanna do a bad Larry King impression, I can't even call my impression of Larry King good enough to classify as bad, so I need the suspenders so people will notice I'm doing Larry King and not the voice of my Troll puppet - cuz essentially it's the same voice. NOT MY FAULT. I drove around today looking for suspenders and stores don't carry them. I think Larry has his imported from the 19th century.
  2. My video camera is a piece of shit. I bought it at a Fry's Electronics and I think it had been returned at least once before so it was on discount on top of on sale, and I can't afford to get something better. Kevin Pollak threatens to beat up his NASA crew whenever the videos they play get a little choppy on his show, so if I submitted something with my current set up, Pollak would drive to Dallas from Santa Monica for the sole reason of spitting on me and throwing his hat in my face.
  3. I have a lot of material. I don't mean to say that as if I'm boasting. I'm not. I came up with a number of possible ideas for the Larry King game, but which combination of things I should do or say, I'm not all that clear about yet. I've written a lot of them. I can't possibly use them all, and can't decide which bit's the best one, or if any of them are funny. I have a sinking suspicion none of them are, which brings me to my next bit.

HERE'S THE BREAKDOWN...

What follows are bits and pieces that theoretically can be put together in any random order and you'll have yourself an ideal above satisfactory passing abysmal script with which to accomplish The Larry King Game. I'm breaking this mother down to a science. Feel free to suggest your own in the comments. Feel free to take whatever you want. I don't know if I'm doing this or not but by the time I put all this together I'm hoping to come up with something even better. And if not, at least this made an amusing piece of shit blog entry. Pick any one from each of the following lists, read it out loud to yourself in a Larry King voice and tell me what you think.
  • Hi, I'm Larry King.
  • This is Larry King.
  • You're watching The Larry King Show, and I'm your host.. Larry King.
  • Welcome back from the break we were just talking about ecodisaster and Paris Hilton's latest sexual drug-crazed escapades and how they may be related.
  • Before we get to our next guest, Milktoast Jesse Ventura...
  • (or don't introduce yourself. He doesn't always do that)

This Is Larry King...
  • ...if he didn't know where to buy suspenders.
  • ...if he didn't talk like he'd swallowed a frog.
  • ...if he didn't get laid all the time.
  • ...if he weren't jewish.
  • ...if he had a few less ex-wives.
  • ...if he had a vagina van dyke piece of crap beard around his mouth.
  • ...if he were fifty pounds heavier. (OK 100! I'm telling you! It's the camera!)

Clean Revelations
  • Ginkgo Biloba is a sham. It's modern day snake oil and I have made hundreds of thousands of dollars off the sheer utter stupidity of my audience, but I'm totally confident that this microphone isn't on and we're still at commercial, and you didn't just hear me say that.
  • I got one word for you. It's not even just a word. It's a name. Charo... I know you know what I know you mean.
  • I look at the USA Today Crossword Puzzle solely to see if my name is used as an answer. Five down five letters Blank King Show starts with an L. I never appear anymore. Tim Parker is a boogerhead.
  • I go down the stairs alone or in pairs.
  • I think Kate can do better than Jack.
  • Sex and the City was great until that Mannequin chick got old and had cancer. What a buzzkill.
  • Jon Stewart scares the ever lovin' crap outta me. He's singlehandedly taken down Crossfire! What hope have I got? I'm never booking him again. Unless he really wants me to. *gulp!*
  • My suspenders will self-destruct in five seconds. (stare into camera silent for five seconds) Fooled you!
  • I'm having another heart attack right this very moment but I've taken so much viagra, you can't tell. I can though. It hurts.
  • If it weren't for me there would be no CNN. There. I said it. You may kiss my ring.
  • Ashton Kutcher is a punk!
  • I'm driving under the influence of NASCAR!
  • You are the pope of all you survey. Please melt the davenport for autumn when albacore is in season. Genuflect me. I am allergic to melting timepieces.
  • On Thanksgiving I like to go down to the Macy's Parade and blow up the balloons.. because I'm full of hot air.
  • Thank God that The Golden Girls live on forever in reruns. Hey! How come my show isn't in syndication anywhere? I wanna live on forever.
  • I hate you. I hate all of you. I don't know why you pobuckers even watch my show because I despise every single one of your beady eyes lookin' at me every night. The only reason why I still do this show is for my ego which cannot be satiated, and also so I can afford all the divorce settlements.
  • Why the hell did they cancel My Name Is Earl? I was watching that!
  • I'm hot for teacher.
  • When you lie about your age, the terrorists win. (ed note: he actually said this on his show)
  • Jerry Springer is a saint!
  • Benjamin Sisko was the greatest Star Trek captain of all time. Scott Bakula runs a close second.
  • I think Kate can do better than Jon, but she'll have to dump the other eight, cuz no other man's gonna have her now. She's ruined if she leaves him. What's she thinking?
  • My underwear is itchy.
  • Bald Britney Spears made me reach for my viagra. She was hot!
  • I found out what happened to all the virginities women have lost since the Dawn of Man - they're behind Neil Diamond's couch.
  • I've been silently passing gas nonstop since 1967.
  • I lost my virginity at the age of thirteen to a vacuum cleaner.. got it back though.
  • When I want fast relief, I reach for a broom handle.
  • I think Kate can do better than Petruchio.

Blue Revelations
  • Chuck Norris can kiss my ass! He can't do all that stuff!
  • I say nuke'em from orbit! Make'em glass! Let's kill the bastards!
  • Cow dung tastes great with tobasco sauce. Everything tastes great with tobasco sauce.
  • Rachel Maddows shifts my nads into third.
  • Neil Patrick Harris shifts my nads into third.
  • A stiff breeze shifts my nads into third.
  • Marijuana is the greatest thing on the planet I've had since my second ex-wife's left breast in my mouth.
  • I have to have golden showers explained to me. Daily. Just cuz.
  • My shit don't stink. If my shit did stink, it'd smell like lilacs.
  • ..I once fucked a hippopatamus. Why? Cuz I'm fucking Larry King that's why. And I got a big dick! Kevin Pollak is jealous of my big dick! My dick is tan and leathery, multi-purposed and as versatile as a set of expensive luggage. Women love to pack my big fat dick!
  • ..when at the publid urinal I like to turn and 'accidentally' pee on the shoes of strangers. Why? Cuz I'm Larry King, I'm older than you, and I can get away with it. What you gonna do?
  • I fucked Pia Zadora. I had her right on this desk. Would you believe she once went to charm school? Me either.
  • My nipples are rock hard right now in anticipation of our next guest, and I've spooged in my corduroys. I wouldn't lie to you.

Blatantly Stolen Revelations
  • I'm on top of the world looking down on creation, and the only explanation I can find is the love that I found ever since you been around. Your love's put me at the top of the world.
  • I'm afraid of Virginia Wolff
  • I'd like to say I miss all of my ex-wives. I really miss them a lot. I'd take a good swing, but I'd still miss them. They always seem to duck out the way just in time. (Bob Nelson Falls, Idaho-- hello!)
  • Have you ever seen a grown man naked?
  • Do you ever watch films about gladiators?
  • If I said you have a beautiful body, would you hold it against me?
  • I am no longer infected.
  • I'm a little teapot short and stout. This is my handle. This is my spout.
  • I'm Larry King and you're not. Our top story tonight. Julio Francisco Franco is still dead. Good night and have a pleasant tomorrow! (Chevy Chase Maryland, you're on!)
  • I'm Larry King, but you can call me Ishmael.
  • Soylent green is made of people. Green people.

Silly City Name, Random State

  • WallaWalla, Washington
  • Battle Creek, Michigan
  • Kansas City, Missouri
  • Salem, Massachusets,
  • Waco, Texas
  • Albatross, Mississippi
  • Hoobastank, Oklahoma
  • Peonmia, Illinois
  • Whoozyerdaddy, Delaware
  • Ollie Ollie Oxen Free, Pennsylvania
  • Saint Cherdadeeztalkshow, Arizona
  • Barcolounger, South Carolina
  • rideUPmycrotch, Kentucky
  • iwaswunDERingwhenYEWdask, Alaska
  • Yersoakinginit, Montana
  • Winnipeg, Canada
  • Nairobi, Kenya
  • Rio de Janero, Brazil
  • Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
  • Antares Nebula
  • Fourth Star On The Right And Straight On Till Morning
  • Europa, Jupiter


Go to the Phones
  • Hello.
  • Hello?
  • Hello!
  • What's your question?
  • You're on!
  • Hi!
  • How's it going?
  • What's your dysfunction?
  • Whaddaya want?
  • How's it hanging?
  • You owe me five bucks.
  • Say something.
  • I'm not gonna live much longer and you're killin' me with your silence.
  • My car is double parked.
  • Quit stalking me.
  • Let's go to the phones!
  • Yes!
  • I'm incontinent!
  • Go!

And the winner is..!

This is Larry King, if he were fifty pounds heavier, and a gentile, and had less ex-wives. Welcome back from the break! We were just talking about whether or not it does grow back. I have to have golden showers explained to me. Daily. Just cuz. Europa, Jupiter. What's your question?

Friday, May 29, 2009

INTERVISION! with Kevin Pollak

"This is your show. It just has my name on it."

Boy this is embarrassing, huh? Let's just start with this bit of dirty laundry hanging on the clothesline, shall we? Full disclosure. That's not my motto, but it is when it serves my needs, or makes me laugh. Here we go.
This is my stupidity off Twitter. Imagine between "ten hours" and "three minutes" a night of sleeping in after a workweek of very little sleep and too much not sleeping.
  • ZachsMind @kevinpollack: "INTERVISION Give it a test drive See how you feel" 1st I laughed then I'm like omigod hes serious Now I just don't know about 11 hours ago
  • ZachsMind @kevinpollack seen Felicia Day interview. Enjoyable. Unsolicited constructive critique avail. upon req. Will sleep on "InterVision." about 10 hours ago
  • ZachsMind Dammit! I misspelled @kevinpollak last night. Twice. I blame a week of self-induced sleep deprivation. I'm awake now. Let's try this again. 3 minutes ago
  • ZachsMind @kevinpollak: "INTERVISION Give it a test drive See how you feel" 1st I laughed, then I'm like omigod hes serious. Now I just don't know. 2 minutes ago
  • ZachsMind @kevinpollak saw Felicia Day interview. Enjoyable. Unsolicited constructive critique avail. upon req. Will sleep on "InterVision." less than a minute ago
Okay, so the point of that is this. I'm about to launch into some unsolicited constructive criticism about Kevin Pollak's Chat Show which he will of course never see but I'm okay with that. Talk on Twitter is sometimes a two way street and sometimes one-sided. Some people can't tell the difference but I like to think I can. If you're talking to someone who is as much an unknown as you, you got a good chance to get a response. If you are telling @KirstieAlley to turn off her capslock? You'll be lucky if she responds by not sending you a tweet personally, but actually typing like the rest of us for a couple tweets BEFORE SHE STARTS YELLING AGAIN AT WHOEVER MIGHT BE READING HER FOR NO REASON AT ALL! I'd be okay if Pollak DID see it, but deep down I know he won't. So I ain't writing this for him, I'm writing it for me. I'm the Harry Knowles of Web Content. Well, not really, but if Justine Ezarik can call herself The Internet, I can call myself the Harry Knowles of Web Content. Dammit.
On second thought, maybe it's best if Kevin Pollak never sees this.

So why am I doing this if I do not anticipate my input ever being considered on Kevin Pollak's Chat Show, even though he says repeatedly that he wants input from his viewers in order to improve his show? Well I just don't believe in shit like that. I used to. Back when I still voted in elections, which wasn't too long ago. I don't do that anymore. I need something now and then to talk about on my "blog." This topic interests me. So there you go. This is the difference between making web content that might actually be successful and making web content that keeps one from going crazy and wearing tinfoil hats with potato salad inside them. Idle hands may not be the devil's workshop but they're what caused Britney Spears to go bald awhile back, if you catch my drift.

Why am I doing this? I need something to put on my Blog, which you are reading now. And let me be clear I have NEVER been satisfied with the word "blog." I come from The Old Days back in 1997 when we used to call them Online Diaries. I was a diarist. I still am a diarist. No one calls me that. Well, actually I'm not a diarist anymore because I don't really write about my personal life. That was a phase I went through over a decade ago now, when I was getting a divorce and my Dad passed away and a psychiatrist told me I was going through a midlife crisis twenty or thirty years before most people do. I went to him because I suffered from depression. His answer? "Dude, if you weren't depressed with your life, THEN I'd think there was something wrong with you!" So I got all better. My life's incredibly boring now and I don't talk about it online if I can help it - or unless it's funny.

I fancied myself a journaller for a time, not to be confused with journalist, which is actually a word... I digress. I'm not a blogger, or a bloggist. This is not a blog, but that's what the kids call it nowadays and so I'm stuck with that. Lewis Black won't ever look at what I do here solely because he thinks the word blog sounds like a medical issue that requires minor surgery. I had an umbilical hernia back in March and let me tell you - THAT was a blog! It hurt too! ...I digressed again, didn't I? Where were we? Oh! Kevin Pollak! And RIGHT THERE! I almost added a C again, and that's after several hours of sleep. Why do I keep wanting to put a C before the K there? I don't know what's wrong with my fingers today. Which reminds me. Felicia Day? Sweetheart? Apple of my eye? Queen of my Internets? When someone asks you "two fingers or touch type?" they are not talking about sexual excapades. Let's try "chicken pecking at the keyboard or do you actually know how to type?" I actually know how to type. Last time I checked it was 77wpm so when I add a C to a Pollak, it happens faster than I can think.

Kevin Pollak has a problem similar to my problem with the word "blog." He wants everyone to use the word "Intervision" instead of the phrase "Web TV." I understand. Everyone would like to be the one to coin a phrase. However, one cannot explode onto the scene as a celebrity years after the scene has already been and change the name. ...Well. You CAN. I don't recommend it. Kevin Pollak asked everyone watching his show to consider Intervision..

"INTERVISION! Give it a test drive. See how you feel."

I slept on it. I don't like it. I'm driving it around. Trying to use it in every day online talk. I feel like a douche saying it and I'll tell you why. Television's abbreviation is TV. So that means InterVision's abbreviation must be IV. IV is short for intravenous. It's also the roman numeral four. It's also a girls name (Ivy). IV is already busy enough. It doesn't need InterVision to come along and make its life harder. InterVision also reminds me of IntelliVision, which was a short-lived gaming platform that got beat out by the Atari 2600 which, in hindsight I can't understand how that happened. Did I just show off my geek chops cuz I know all that? Anyway, InterVision hurts my head. I'm still trying to slosh it around in my mouth though. Maybe the aftertaste won't make me gag. Like expensive white wine - the kind that doesn't come out of a box. I like the kind that comes out of a box. Ironically that kind doesn't make me gag.

Kevin Pollak doesn't like the phrase Web Content. Why I'm not sure. As of this writing I've only so far experienced his interview with Felicia Day, and his introduction to his first episode, which may or may not still be online when you read this. I want to see the LeVar Burton interview but I also want to type this, so I'm torn. I'll finish the Burton interview after I'm done here. Pollak is bravely venturing into what is to him uncharted territory. The fact many of us have been wallowing in it for some time is not important to him, because he's not here with us. He's over there with him. He's like someone who can't swim wading into a public swimming pool for the first time, and we are trying not to look directly at him while we snicker - only the problem is he WANTS us to look directly at him. He has a CHAT show, for crying out loud! So his discomfort and embarrassment at venturing into this new medium is part of the charm of his show, only sometimes not quite in the way he intends it to be. His show is what he wants it to be, but what we see is not what he wants it to be. That's the beauty of *ahem* ...InterVision.

For example when he talks to his "people" off camera, it's amusing but not how he thinks. He's comparing it to Regis Philbin having a "Gelman" to boss around. I compare it more to Marie Antoinette asking for a cleaner guilotine. I mean when I make my little "show" and post it to YouTube, my "people" off camera consist of a puppet and another puppet. And the occasional cockroach. Point of fact I've written the puppets out of my on camera fiascos because the general public sees a puppet and expects the show to be cute and kid-friendly which is precisely what I was trying to avoid. So I dropped the puppets from my act. I don't HAVE any people. Point of fact I don't have an act, but that's not why I'm doing it.

So right there, when Kevin Pollak is self-conscious because he's "not ready" for a live show and the people who work for him are not getting him ready fast enough to satisfy him? ...That's so cute.

"And for the fifth time, We're Not Ready."

All this means he's not ready, or perhaps he's too ready. Perhaps while simultaneously criticizing mainstream media and Hollywood marketing with his rapier sharp tongue, he's also too spoiled in the baggage and trappings of that world to realize that when you're making Professional Web Content for The InterVision, YOU DON'T NEED ALL THAT SHIT. Hell, The Gorgeous Tiny Chicken Machine Show was made in a residential backyard on a budget of duct tape and thrift store visits. By the way, when Felicia Day mentioned The Gorgeous Tiny Chicken Machine Show to Kevin Pollak and he looked back at her like he was doing a William Shatner doubletake? That was telling. Not only does Kevin Pollak need to set his ass down in a chair and watch every seizure-inducing episode of Kim Evey's (okay AND Greg Benson's) awe-inspiring, jaw-dropping little series, he needs to beg her to be on an episode. He needs to EXPERIENCE what it's like to be a part of that, as Ron Jeremy and Wil Wheaton and Adam Arkin have experienced it. THEN he will know. THEN he will have been baptised in the sanctity of all this silliness. Failing that, he has a long way to go.

Another problem I'm having with his show is the shizophrenic nature of it. They're learning as they go. We're all learning as we go. That's not the problem. I'm trying to figure out if Kevin Pollak is trying to be Kevin Pollak, or if his impersonation skills are bleeding into his efforts to be a talk show host.

First off, the black backdrop and the table. You're on the Internet. Why not put a greenscreen behind you and then use all that technology off camera to put the interview wherever the hell you want? Even if you want the interview to be a black backdrop with a table, using greenscreen allows you to start there and then go elsewhere when the mood strikes. The decision to go with a black backdrop and a table is not thinking "INTERVISION." It's boob toob thinking, and last I checked we were in the 21st century.

This screams Charlie Rose to me. Whether on purpose or accidentally, Kevin Pollak is channeling a little Charlie Rose and I don't even know if he knows how to impersonate Charlie Rose. I think perhaps this is financially motivated. Of all the talk show backdrops that have worked in the history of video, Charlie Rose's set is the most ideal. It doesn't draw attention to itself. It's cheap. It brings eye focus to the interviewer and the interviewee ...and the table. That's all you want! However, it screams to me that Pollak doesn't have his own look and his own vision here. He's going with what works for others. I can also see a little Tom Snyder in the setup and in Pollak's delivery. Snyder was always ingratiating himself to his audience and it was lovable. He was also trying to prove he was on the cutting edge of technology and then he would describe the airwaves and broadcast signal as if he were a beatnik poet. I can see a little Bill Maher slipping into Pollak's presentation, especially in the format of the opening bits where he introduces himself. There's also some Larry King in the friendly yet immediate nature of the interview. The five tweets thing reminds me too much of Craig Kilborn's Five Questions, and I see a lot of Kilborn's greatest tragic mistake in his interview skills which Pollak needs to watch: narcisism. Kilborn always made his interviews about him. Compare that to Jon Stewart, who makes the interviews he does about both himself and his interviewee of the moment. That's a very subtle but very powerful difference. Why? Because Kilborn is now "Craig who?" And Stewart is not. That's why.

"Hit me with it. I'll throw in a little Shatner."

Some things he's doing right? Well I don't know if this is right but I think I like it. Pollak's on the wrong side of the screen. He's on the left. Left to right. Not ALL, but many interview shows put the interviewer on the right side of the screen, looking right to left at the subject. Why? I don't know why. There's probably marketing gurus who could go into detail, but if the subject of the interview is on the right side of the screen, this means the interview subject is looking right to left at the interviewer. From the perspective of a viewer, this means the interviewer is comfortable and the interviewee is not. Unless the viewer has spent a lifetime reading farsi, which as I understand it is written right to left on the printed page.

In the western hemisphere at least, left to right is comfortable for the viewer, and therefore when they see that its ..comforting. Johnny Carson, David Letterman, Charlie Rose, Ellen DeGeneres, Jay Leno, Jon Stewart, Craig Kilborn, Jimmy Kimmel across the board you'll see the interviewer on the right. However, Bill Moyers? Not always on the right. Oprah Winfrey? Not always on the right. And if you wanna break new ground and stand out and be something different? Kevin Pollak's on the right track here. I think. Or he may just unnecessarily be making it appear to the audience that his interviews are tougher than they should be, because it feels like the interviewee has to struggle with the interview when really s/he is just sitting there not struggling. It's all a mind thing. Very unconscious.

Also, if you put Kevin Pollak's name on something, you want Kevin Pollak. So he can't NOT be who he is. I wanna see his impressions, but I understand this is a CHAT show. His impressions are not why we're here, but they are. It's great when he slips a little in here and there. That's fun. It's spice tho. Too much of that distracts from the interviewee. However, too little and the audience is disappointed. He's managed thus far (to my satisfaction but it's early yet) to match that delicate balance. That's commendable.

The actual interview with Felicia Day kind of spun my mind around a bit, which could be the intent. I know her story already. Picking Felicia Day's interview to watch first wasn't random. Of those Pollak has interviewed thus far, she was my first choice (LeVar Burton a close second). In hindsight, I should be picking the interview subjects I DON'T know, and perhaps there's a wealth of questions and answers to mine in the fact I am looking at Pollak's list of interviews and going for the familar (Day. Burton. Perry.) when I should be seeking unfamiliar territory (Mallick. Gallo. Brewster.) with which to expand my knowledge and horizons.

"It's not your daddy's show! That's right! I can look right down the barrel, baby!"

I'm a geek. I adore Felicia Day. She's MY Queen of the Internet for the moment and has been since The Guild (ijustine eat your heart out). However, Pollak had her entire life story in front of him and seemed a little, dare I say, intimidated? She has already been where he's now venturing to go. So to go back to the pool metaphor, he's standing there on the steps in the kiddie section wearing boxer shorts and armband floaties, and Day pops her head out from the deep end with a mermaid fish tail flapping playfully behind her telling him the water's fine! Dive in!

His questions attempted to stay on topic, with the playful left turn at Alberquerque's Cat Sanctuary. That was fun. However when he got into the meat of her message, he seemed a little distracted by all the goody - like a kid in a candy store. What to talk about first? This girl has generated twenty million hits over a few years. He's still in the thousands and he's thirsty for more but fears drowning - which is entirely possible. Producing a show like his, or hers, takes thousand of little decisions that have to be made and you have to make those decisions and stick to 'em and you fret and fume and worry. There's one little decision that can't be made inhouse because I think the answer for the people making it might be no, cuz they're not gonna want this, and Pollak's not gonna want this, but Pollak shouldn't be the only member of The Pollak Chat Show who is miked.

What makes Pollak's show intriguing to me isn't his guests or him, but in the process for which he's placed himself. Pollak's self-consciousness when he realizes LeVar Burton's been sitting off camera for ten minutes and no one has thought to mike him yet. THAT is for me, priceless entertainment that money can't buy and you're never gonna see on David Frikkin Letterman.

Granted, a real interview show SHOULD be about the interview. However, let's face it. Pollak has an ego bigger than Cleveland. This is NOT going to be about a great interviewer. It's going to be a meeting of minds. Pollak's a great magnificent subject in his own right. Are you kidding me? The man's got an idbm page as long as my arm! Get out! I've half a mind to say this web series should be about people like Day and Wil Wheaton and myself going on his show so we can sit there for an hour and ASK HIM QUESTIONS. No. This ain't Charlie Rose. Nor should it be.

"I'll do this into my camera... Literally, MY camera."

Pollak's distractions with the nuts and bolts of making the show as the show is happening - I'm finding that just as - if not more - interesting. Pollak wants the show to be professional. He wants it to be able to compete with mainstream, so he wants it like mainstream and yet better. However the truth of the matter is what makes a show off the mainstream better than mainstream is that it is decidedly not mainstream and you have to embrace that.

His people shouldn't be his people. They should be our people: a part of the show. When he cuts to them, they should be able to turn their mike on and respond. If this is really more than just Kevin Pollak's chat show, then we should hear the "little people" making him look big. So he stops looking like Marie Antoinette asking for a cleaner guilotine.

No man is an island. Pollak, a man who has made a living being other people for laughs, should know that better than anybody.

. . .

Oh. And one more thing? I'm adding this at the bottom after having seen Kevin Pollak interview Mr. LeVar Burton. He AGREES with me! In the very first interview of this series, when Pollak was forced to admit several times "we're not ready" Mr. Burton in the amazing and prolific and poetic way that only he can illuminate so uniquely, underlined the importance of the people behind the scenes scrambling to put together Mr. Pollak's show not just because he's their boss but because they're his friends and they love the stuffings out of him - even though he probably pisses them off on a daily basis.

What really makes this show fun, is the stuff we ain't seeing! The stuff they are trying to hide from the camera is precisely what separates InterVision from the unevolved apes that have run TeleVision into the ground. We don't want Reality TV. We want Real TV. That's what InterVision has the potential to become.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Lost S1E7 "The Moth" in light of S5

"I'm a bloody rock god!"

For those foolish enough to read this without having first seen Lost up to the fifth season finale? You deserve to be spoiled. I'm talking about season one in light of knowledge of season five, so it's impossible for me to write about the one without spoiling the other. if you need a spoiler warning I got news for ya, you're already too late. Just sayin'.

@LOST_WFTB over at Twitter has started a kinda ongoing marathon of reviewing all the previous episodes of Lost during this nine month long hiatus. Others are doing similar things. I'm trying to participate where I can cuz it's fun. Tonight I watched "The Moth" with a lot of other people in the TwitterVerse. We all turn our DVDs and online views at ABC.COM (or elsewhere) at the same time and comment in Twitter as we view it. Silly fun but whatchagonna do? @ASHATL had a question in light of all this that @LOST_WFTB highlighted over at his blog. Here's what she said as @LOST_WFTB reported it:
One of the purposes of #WFTB is to see if our perspective of past episodes change w our understanding of happens on Season 5. Have you seen anything on these past episodes that allude to that?
Also, the producers said that they always knew where the story was going. Now that we are #WFTB do you agree with that or do you feel that they are trying to piece/tie the story together.
I'll tackle the second question first, because doing so should also answer the first. Any good writer knows how the story is ending before they begin it with an audience, just as any good comedian knows his punchline and has it in his sights before he starts to tell the joke. You stand at Point A, and aim for Point B. Everything in between is the journey. However, the punchline is NOT the story. The punchline's when it's over.

The journey is the story.

So when in some seasons it looks like they're wallowing in between milestones? They're not wallowing. They're telling the story. The writers are enjoying the bed they've made for themselves. Unfortunately, we're always like a jockey trying to make the horse go faster. We want to know how it ends. The writers are not interested in how it ends, cuz they already know. They wanna wallow in the journey. Cuz for them that's what's fun.

If what I just said made no sense to you, I strongly recommend watching the movie The Aristocrats. Not the Disney movie about cats. I mean the film where a bunch of stand up comics tell the same raunchy joke over and over. It's not for the faint of heart, easily offended, or anyone under the age of consent. However, at its heart, the movie is about the craft of telling a story. You know the punchline. It's not about the punchline. Telling any joke is about how you get to the punchline. Once you get to the punchline, it's all over. So if you're enjoying how the story is going, you really don't wanna know how it ends, but you think you wanna know how it ends because that's the release after all the ups and downs and ins and outs and oohs and ahhs of the story itself.
John Locke: "What do you suppose is in that cocoon, Charlie?"
Charlie Pace: "I don't know. A butterfly?"
John Locke: "No no. It's much more beautiful than that. That's a moth cocoon. It's ironic. Butterflies get all the attention, but moths spin silk! They're stronger. Faster."
Charlie Pace: "That's wonderful but-"
Now we just got done watching S1E7 "The Moth" for the LOST_WFTB project. In that episode, Locke tells Charlie about how a moth has to fight to get out of its cocoon, and it's that struggle which makes it strong enough to survive outside the cocoon. If you help it get out, you might think you're doing it a favor, but you're not.

@Nyakototo pointed out that in dream interpretation, white moths are seen as a symbol of death. To be more specific, it means a terrible sickness, and that you might blame others for it when it's your sickness to own up to. Coincidentally that's a good metaphor for Charlie, considering his drug usage. Now, did the writers of The Moth do that intentionally? Or is that coincidental? We don't know. On the surface it appears they were just talking about metamorphosis, but I remember thinking back when this episode first aired how curious it is that they didn't use the caterpillar and butterfly to convey this - because that's almost always what a writer does when they want to use this metaphor, especially if it's for TV or film or some visual medium. Why? Because butterflies look prettier than moths. So it seems somehow significant that the writers opted to use a white moth instead of a multicolored butterfly, and they don't focus on showing us the moth's previous incarnation. We are introduced to it already in the cocoon. Again, that's significant.

At one point in "The Moth," we literally see Charlie follow the moth to safety. A symbol of death and disease bringing Charlie from the dark death of the caves into the light of the jungle. We are treated to a scene where Charlie literally crawls out of the Earth. The powerful image of his hand breaking through the ground is ominous now, given that we know he eventually dies by drowning, after using that same hand to give Desmond a clue, and help him on his journey. So in effect, Charlie becomes Desmond's moth. He becomes what Desmond uses to find Penny - his shaft of light in the jungle.

Did the writers plan all this, or is it just happy coincidental happenstance? It's hard to tell. We know they know their EndGame. We don't know just how many place markers they've set for themselves along the way. However, after watching "The Moth," I have firm reason to believe the writers knew Charlie's character was expendable this early in the storytelling. They knew they were eventually going to kill Charlie off. They just maybe didn't know exactly when or how.

Now the reverse of the scenes about the Moth is Locke. He's the one telling the story of the moth to Charlie. The moral of this story is very telling, considering what we now know about Locke's own journey. Locke tells Charlie that he could use his knife to help the moth inside the cocoon. He could carefully pry the cocoon open and help the moth go free, but it's the struggle inside the cocoon that allows the moth to strengthen its tiny muscles. Helping the moth out of the cocoon would spoil the moth, and so it wouldn't become strong enough to survive its encounters with its environment once it leaves the safety of the cocoon.

This mirrors a similar statement that Locke makes to Sawyer in season five. They witness a shaft of light in the jungle, and Locke makes a point to have the group with him avoid that and go around it. Later Locke reveals he knew what we the audience knew: that shaft happened the night Locke lost Boone and he turned to the Hatch and asked it what it wanted from him. Now, he coulda gone over there and warned himself about all the bad stuff about to happen to him. However, that would have spoiled him. He tells Sawyer he needed all that pain to make him what he was now. So metaphorically, Locke IS the Moth! Coincidentally, Locke had knocked out Sayid as he tried to triangulate where the signal was coming from, and later on he started blowing up stuff and generally causing all kinds of trouble - killing Naomi, stuff like that. He IS a sickness of a sort. He IS death. And we learn that after The Life And Death of Jeremy Bentham, Locke literally BECOMES DEATH! He still lives, and yet he is dead.

When you take all this in, and then look at the very last scene at the end of "The Moth" between Charlie and Locke, it makes that final moment all the more ominous. We now have reason to believe that Locke died when his father threw him out that eight story window. Jacob brought him back to life. So ever since then, Locke's been living on borrowed time, and he's unwittingly had Jacob to thank. He thought he was his own man, but something else was perhaps already subtly guiding him. This something became more prominent on the Island. When Locke first encounters the Monster in Walkabout, I think Locke was 'converted' in a way similar to how Danielle's peers were changed after their trip inside the bowels of the temple. Locke has never been on the side of the Losties. He's always been on the side of The Island.

So when Charlie is looking up at the moth as it flies up into the night and disappears, and then Locke looks at Charlie looking at the Moth? I had a smile on my face five years ago.

I'm not smiling now.

Monday, May 25, 2009

Comedy Kill or Die

I've kinda talked about this before but I found myself re-examining the topic, as Digg is reviewing the topic. Again. This never seems to die. People are always wanting to make top ten lists and bottom ten lists and it's annoying because there is no such thing. There are personal lists and even they change the second you get them down on paper. So by the time anyone publishes a bottom ten or top ten it's already out of date and obsolete. So why bother? So people like you and me can bitch about them and then make our own lists so we can flip off the other guy with it.

First off, I can't stand web "articles" that consist of ten pictures and brief descriptions passed off as lists. It's blatant they just want us to activate ten times as many banner ads that we don't look at so they can wring money out of obtuse advertising agencies. Here we have the ten worst comedians ever and it's a bullshit list. Let's take them on one at a time.

Sinbad is too bland to be on either a best or worst list. He's the most 'below average' comedian. There are many comedians worse than him, and many more better. He doesn't even deserve an honorable mention in the worst category. He's meh. I would say he's vanilla, but people might accuse me of being racist. There's just no way to say that joke without the accusation.

Larry the Cable Guy is not a comedian. He's a character actor performing a monologue in an accent. Therefore he doesn't even qualify to be on this list. More talented than he lets on, Daniel "Lawrence" Whitney found a niche and milked it for all it was worth. Good for him. I hope he saved up some money for the rest of his life because his career ended about six months before he noticed.

Jay Leno does nothing for me, but objectively speaking the guy's ratings have been consistently better than David Letterman's for over a decade. He appeals to a younger crowd. I'm happy for him. Did he sell out? Of course! All these bozos sold out. I'd sell out too if people would buy me. Leno's not the best but he's not the worst. Like Sinbad, he's mediocre at best, and inoffensive at his worst.

Andrew Dice Clay... yeah. Okay. I can't defend this guy and I've tried. He's bad. He's bad if he's playing a role and only pretending to be racist, and he's bad if he actually is racist. He's bad no matter what. He doesn't make me laugh. He makes me wince. If I were making a bottom ten I'd probably include this guy, but it wouldn't be with any malice or venom. I find him rather sad, actually.

Gallagher is, was, and always shall be among the greatest prop comics ever in the history of comedy. The combination of prop slapstick with intelligent wit set the bar for all others who dare venture into a genre of comedy often considered only slightly more professional than bad puns and dirty limericks. While not the best comedian ever, he's definitely in my Top Hundred. Probably around the late sixites and early seventies, which is somehow appropriate.

Carrot Top... In a previous post I cited Scott Thompson as not the worst or best but as the absolute middle of the line. All other comedians ever in the history of anything should be measured as whether or not they are better or worse than Mr. Thompson. Sinbad is slightly better. Jay Leno is slightly worse. See how this works? Thompson does make me laugh, just not very often. Most of his punchlines are either obvious or forced. From an objective standpoint and a critical eye, his act still needed work at the height of his popularity. Fame came prematurely for him, and he never truly recovered. I haven't seen him work recently. I can only hope he got his delivery and timing down, because he often leaned on the visual of his prop for the joke, but rarely coincided well with his patter. I can only hope Las Vegas treats him well, but I fear on his tombstone will be the words, "needs improvement."

Dane Cook has been accused of stealing material, and the evidence is pretty impressive, but not wholly convincing. For me it's more about how a joke is told as opposed to who is telling it. Cook is, like Carrot Top, someone who was still learning the ropes when he suddenly found international stardom. Sounds to me what's really going on is Dane Cook's made some enemies on the way up and they're more than happy to beat him up on his way down. The guy who wrote this list wanted to diss Dane Cook (and Carlos Mencia who I'll get to in a minute), and the best way to do that is make a worst list and then throw in eight random other names to which most people might agree. They just want to sully the name of Dane Cook so people who don't know him will automatically assume him bad before they even hear him. It's called media manipulation. It's called propaganda. It's called sour grapes. On his own merits, Cook is below Thompson but above Sinbad because Sinbad's safe while Cook is not. Cook's got a good delivery. His timing's alright. Admittedly though, if he's stealing material, you'd think he'd steal better material.

Gilbert Gottfried being on this list is totally unacceptable. The man's ahead of his time. He has left audiences in stitches. He can roast fellow comedians like no other Jew I've ever seen. His original material is surreal and intelligent. His delivery, while acidic and at times chalkboard-scratch annoying, is totally spot-on accurate. He knows exactly what his voice and mannerisms are doing to his audience and he loves it. His impersonation of Andrew Dice Clay is gut splitting hilarious. If you've never seen it, it's really a treat. He can improvise and he can throw down prepared material. He's a consummate master and a professional at the craft. Again, definitely in my top hundred, though not in my top ten. Despite that, I respect this artist highly for his craft and admire him greatly. Anyone who says he's one of the worst comedians ever has no idea what comedy is, and has no right making such a list, then passing it off as authentic.

Dennis Miller was, at his height, a comedic genius. His tragic flaw has been his insistence on insulting his audience by not paying attention to it - or perhaps by paying too much. He'd purposefully inject into his routine obscure references that he knew most if not all of his audience would fail to get. This is like an artist painting in ultraviolet and being surprised when only bugs admire the work. If he was unaware that his audience hadn't read, seen, heard, or done all the things to which Dennis Miller referred, then he was ignorant to his audience and this is often the Kiss of Death for lesser mortals when on stage. You're supposed to tell jokes that your listeners will get - so they think you're funny and they laugh and that's what makes you a comedian. If he was aware, then he's always been an arrogant prick and the hell with him. Still, that doesn't make him one of the worst comedians ever in the history of anything.

Carlos Mencia may be a comedic thief. He may be racist. He may be horrible. He may beat his wife and yell at his kids. Maybe he screws donkeys and participates in lethal injections at Death Row. Maybe he pees on the homeless. Maybe he's got Satan on speed dial. Maybe he skullfucks orphans. I don't know. For me, when looking at a list like this, there's only one Cardinal Sin that makes you qualify for this list: not being funny. I can't recall Carlos Mencia ever making me laugh. At least Dane Cook has, on rare occasion, made me literally laugh out loud. Carlos Mencia reminds me of a crazy person on a street corner half dressed complaining that someone overcharged him on dry cleaning. How does one respond to such people? You turn away and walk briskly and Don't. Look. Back.

So what is my bottom ten list? Or my top ten? I don't have one. I try to make such lists for myself now and then, and I reserve the right to try again in the future, but it's a fruitless endeavor. It's silly. It can't be done. So I hope someday efforts like this on digg will get buried.