Bulletproofheeb's Journals

LOLHeroes - Episode 3

This season is shaping up to be a mess. First of all, Sylar/Nathan kissed Mrs. Patrelli on the cheek so she should be completely aware of his fake identity. Then we find out that Matt's invisible Sylar has one goal: to be anoying. Really. That's his official goal. And now we're following a synesthete? That's not a crazy mutation, it's a perfectly accepted neurological disorder. What don't we toss in an insomniac who's power is that he doesn't sleep a lot. Or maybe a hemophile who had the ability to bleed a lot. What the fuck?

And that's all I have to say about that.

What are your thoughts? Think this season is an improvement, on par as past seasons or worse? And what bothers you most about the Heroes universe?

LOLHeroes - Season 4 premier

After a bit of a rocky end to last season LOLHeroes is back. I tried to stay away. I really did. However, the demand for somethinggood to come out of what was NBCs flagship was too great so I returned to my torrents, keyboard and image editing program. What follows is all I could salvage of the premier of season 4. The episode wasn't terrible but it was certainly not good. It feels like the writers are simple rebooting season 1 all over again. Peter is back in his medical field, Sylar is getting a new set of parental issues, Claire is trying to balance school and abilities... the list goes on. But this time there's a creepy carnival.

I will not be happy unless there is a truly evil clown.

And now

We've had this plot before. They ran with it for a whole 2 episodes before they killed off DL. Want to take bets on how long Peter sticks with it?

Oh god! He's inside my lungs!

Speaking of... what happened to Molly and Mohinder? Oh, and Micah and everyone else from down south? Remember that chick who learned from TV as well as her grandmother Uhura? They all used to be regulars.

She and her emo friend had a perfectly goofy and servicable plan to see if it was a suicide. What does Claire do? Jumps out the window. Not only will this out you in your new school but you'll get new blood all over the chalk outline. And how long do they leave that outline on the ground, anyway?

Why International Blasphemy Day Is Important

What can I say about Blasphemy day that wouldn't simply be me adding to the noise about it? I could repeat all of the clever things I've read about it, such as blasphemy is the only true victimless crime. Still, that's just regurgitating what's already out there.

So here's the truth: I angry at religious people. All the time. It's silly to be angry at religion itself. A religion is simply a set of rules. No matter how hateful, sexist and abusive those rules are, if no one plays by them then there's no problem. And all organized religions have employed practices of sexism, abuse and hate, form Judaism to Buddhism to whatever other religion you can think of. But it's not religion I hate. What's really important to remember is that it had a purpose at one time. Back when were were barely civilized (relative to today, not stating that we are truly civilized now) we needed religion. Why? Because of the fear and terror that it instilled in humans. When there was very little communication and transportation was slow what reason was there to not kill the next goat herder, take his clothing and flock and move on. It could be months before anyone knew the victim might be missing and most likely no one would ever know who's path he had crossed. People had less to work with and live on. People had more to fear from nature. That fear was the only thing that could keep a community in line. And that hate, or at least distrust, of the other was all that could keep a community together. You combine superstition with hate and community and that's a very simple recipe for religion.

As the years went on people needed more from it. Religion had to offer deeper truths than just a legal system to abide by. So mythology began to mesh with philosophy to become a more modern version of religion. The problem is that religion already has to have answers. What good is a system of universal truths if some of it isn't true? So religion starts with answers and and then works those answers into the observable world. It's the equivalent of trying to write the answers to a calculus book before calculus has been invented. In short; it's a poor choice.

And we've come so far since then. We've learned about thepoor world and our brains. We don't need the idea of an invisible friend sitting in the sky, watching our mistakes, in order to not be cruel to each other. But those answers that were written before we were smart enough to ask the right questions still apply to most of the population. That fear and hate is still tethering people to their ethics. What terrifies me are the really religious people who are afraid of atheists. They rant about how people can't be moral creatures without the fear of god. What that tells me is that they can't be moral creatures without their fear of god. That were they to realize there's no reason for them to be a theist then they'd feel OK killing and stealing.

Does this apply to all religious people? Yes, but not to the extent of murder. I've seen religion tie some of the kindest people I know to horrible rules of behavior. One of the people I used to trust with advice and knowledge actually encouraged me to find someone else to marry because my fiance was not of the same religion. I've seen people who believe in equality for all people no matter their sexual orientation turn their backs on gay marriage because they thought their bible told them to. Hell, Christianity's strongest ties to Judaism are based on a handful of mistranslations and passages taken out of context by apologetic cultists trying to gain political power.

Today the only thing religion is good for is making your decisions for you. Bibles don't take the last few thousand years into account so the choices are probably not going to be the soundest choices. So what's the alternative? Well, I'm going to side with the tools we've been building up for millennia: amazing communication and an incredible understanding of the world around us as well as within. Beyond that, for when we come to unmapped regions of knowledge? We have logic and the scientific method. Yes, it's slow but the universe isn't going anywhere. It's more work to actually think and be rational but a deeper understanding of the natural world lets people see that this universe is so much more complex and impressive than if it had been tossed together over a week by someone who was bored and lonely. Reality is majestic enough without throwing a blanket of magic, fear and lies over it.

How does all of this relate to Blasphemy Day? The whole point of Blasphemy Day is to protest (specifically regarding the UN) rules both legal and social that make it taboo to criticize religions. Defamation of character is an attack on a person but defamation of religion is a defense of reason, which is what the modern world is built on. Blasphemy Day is supposed to show those who live by faith that talking about religion in all of its glory and gory details won't destroy creation. The proper response to criticism isn't anger and violence. It's to think about it and then respond in kind. Blasphemy isn't a crime. It's an invitation to discussion. Once a topic is declared off limits to criticism then it's off limits to growth and instantly becomes irrelevant. Every single idea in science is open to scrutiny under the scientific method. If it doesn't hold up continuously then it's torn down and built up or tossed out. Nothing in science is sacred and untouchable. Why is religion different than any other set of ideas? Fundamentalists keep complaining that they want equal regard in society, schools and the government. That means opening up to analysis, observation and criticism. When they hear blasphemy that's only because it's the answer you've already chosen for whatever question is asked. But what it really is is an invitation to the equal treatment they've been demanding.

I could just put out a string of insults that are factually true but phrased to create ire:

The main reason you're the religion you are is because of where you are born
Pascal's Wager applies just as much to Zeus and Satan as it does to Jesus and God
If you believe that Jews and Christians have the same god then you haven't read either bible
The Jewish bible, Christian bible and Koran all have many authors and editors. There is no direct line of truth from any of those writers to the version you have read
Even Buddhists have committed acts of violence in the name of their faith

I'm not going to end with those, however. The most blasphemous and useful thing I can close with is this:

I have no faith in god. I have no faith in people. But in regard to people I do have hope.

Blasphemous, I know. Oh, and maybe one quote for the road.

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain

Why Glee doesn't work

So Glee had its second/third premier or second episode of actual premier or whatever Fox is calling it. The first episode aired months ago and has been on TV again and on the internet all summer long. The show started up the actual season last night. And I’m still not impressed. Judging by the reaction of the internet I’m part of a select few. I know only of two others who are as not won over as I am.

But this is not without reason. There are many things about the show that I can specifically point to and say “This is what is bothering me”. So I’m going to go ahead and share those points. If there are any Glee fans reading this perhaps you can address some of my grievances.

I’ll start with something small but important. The film is obviously filmed in widescreen. It is obviously cropped for standard broadcast. I know this because during episode two there were multiple times when the speaking character did not appear on screen, or appeared with only a partial face. There are other shows filmed in widescreen now that are also shown in that format for their standard definition broadcasts. Why this horrible chop job on Glee? I don’t even think it’s Pan And Scan. It appears that Fox simply framed the centre of the image and cut out the rest. So when someone is speaking and it appears that they aren’t even in the room it really makes watching a show difficult.
While we’re on the subject of editing let’s talk about the sound. The dubbing and post-processing during the songs is so bad that it destroys the performances. How a show about singing can have the worst sound editing on television in recent history is beyond me. I understand that the songs are not going to be performed live. However, they don’t sound live. They sound like the person singing is:
- - standing still. The performances are usually done while the characters are performing choreography so that makes the bad lip syncing all the more noticeable.
  - in a recording studio. These kids are singing in auditoriums and small rehearsal rooms. There should be some sort of interaction between the acoustics of the room and their voices.
  - mastered for an album. And not a live album. It has the quality of a highly polish, over produced studio album. I get that they’re trying to push the iTunes downloads but this is ridiculous.
There are no dynamic characters on the show. They are all flat caricatures at best. Some of the regulars don’t actually get any lines or acting at all. Want to take a look? Sure. And I’ll call them by their roles as I don’t remember a single character name.
- - Principal – money-obsessed administrator
  - Cheerleading coach – Bitch. That’s really all there is to her. Her main goal in life, above that of coaching, seems to be to end the glee club. Why? Because they are taking away money from that pays for her cartoonish obsessions with details regarding the cheerleading team such as international dry-cleaning. I don’t get her as the villain of the story.
  - Everyone in Glee Club
    - Big black diva
    - Type A obnoxious (aka Mini-Menzel)
    - The Jock
    - The homo – This is not a pejorative. His main trait is that he’s gay. The only other things you can tell about his character is how he looks. As a person… he’s just gay.
    - Asian girl
    - Wheelchair guy If there’s anything else we’re supposed to know about these kids it sure is not being conveyed through actual writing.
  - Cute OCD teacher – Who is also annoyingly weak in regard to her one relationship which consists of doting on main character.
  - Bitchy wife – The main character’s wife. She seems obsessed with money (then why marry a teacher?). She is obsessed with getting a large house. She often times forgets that she’s married and appears to believe she has a live in man-servant. There is nothing redeeming about her and I don’t understand how a shrew like that manages to keep someone in a relationship unless he’s
    - - A) being blackmailed
      - B) completely whipped
  - Main character – He seems to be completely whipped. He takes abuse from his wife, from students, from other teachers. His strongest moment came in episode two when he politely left after cheerleading coach finished her bitching monologue.
The main character sucks. I assume he’s supposed to be the sympathetic character viewers identify with and follow through his journey. I don’t feel particularly sympathetic to him. The problem is he’s too pathetic. In regards to his wife he has three viable options in regard to his wife: murder, divorce, suicide. I know it’s a poorly written character when even if she was pregnant the most sympathetic choice would still be to leave her. And it’s been set up ever so obviously since the pilot that main character is supposed to leave bitchy wife for cute OCD teacher so why should I bother becoming invested in his current marriage at all?

So really that’s the entire show so far. I know it’s only two episodes in and I’m going to give it a few more tries (if only because the other people I hang out with on Wednesday nights want to) but so far I’m not impressed. The characters are all crap, the performances are good but that just means I’m interested in the soundtrack and not the show, the gay jokes are wearing thin already and the clever one-liners are not enough to keep me hooked.

Tim Burton is a slow learner

Many things can be said about Tim Burton. He has a great eye for fictional geography, he loves the style of old German silent films and, unlike the oft attributed Zach Snyder, he fits the definition of “visionary”. But one thing that cannot be said of Tim Burton is that he’s a fast learner.

Let me go back a little bit. The some days ago the trailer for his new movie , Alice in Wonderland, was released and a few thoughts went through my head. The first was that the lead actress (Mia Wasikowska) is made up a bit like Helena Bonham Carter, with her hair a bit like a bird-nest(watch out Helena, he might trade up again like on the set of Planet of the Apes). Second, I was put off by the fact that Depp as the Mad Hatter looks like a steampunk Willy Wonka. Finally, I wondered when Tim Burton would learn not to direct other people’s material.

That is the lesson I wish he would learn because it is getting a bit pain for the people who have to watch him slowly stumble towards this inevitable conclusion, one movie at a time. I like Tim Burton, don’t get me wrong. However, I am not completely enamored with him and his style. He makes a good deal of mistakes. These range from casting to project choices. Some of his movies age incredibly well (Beetlejuice) and some not so much (Batman). One of the few consistent facts about his career is that when he directs his own material it tends to be much better than when he takes on someone else’s work.

Let's take a look:

Original ideas	Any good?
Beetlejuice	Great
Edward Scissorhands	Great
Ed Wood	Great
Mars Attacks	Crap
Corpse Bride*	Good

Adaptations	Any good?
Pee-wee’s Big Adventure	Good
Batman	Good, but flawed
Batman Returns	Very flawed
Sleepy Hollow*	OK, great design
Planet of the Apes	Shit
Big Fish	Fair (averaging between the fact that I find it terrible and others find it sappy but watchable)
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory	Crap
Sweeney Todd	Good, though the strong points are the costumes and the actors’ performances (minus HBC’s singing), not the direction

* Technically, these are based on existing stories but are so far removed from the original stories that they could be put into a 3rd category.

**No, he didn’t direct Nightmare Before Christmas

Even if you disagree with some of my mini-judgments there’s still an overwhelming pattern to this list. His best works is all his own and his worst tend to be adaptations. Why is this? Most likely because he has such a strong vision of his movies that it doesn’t matter what the content is; it must fit into his style. This works perfectly fine if the material is his to begin with. But when it’s a story that already exists he sometimes has to do a number on it in order to force it into the box that is his style.

And now we get his version of Alice in Wonderland. Granted, it’s neither Alice in Wonderland nor Through the Looking Glass but rather a bastard sequel set years after the second visit. However, they are still someone else’s characters and someone else’s world. This all makes me worried about the project. Will it look great? Absolutely, but that doesn’t mean it’s going to be a good movie. And with his past performances I don’t know if I trust him anymore. I may or may not see this one in theatres but if I do go it will be with reservation. And if it doesn’t completely blow me out of the water then Burton will become relegated to “Netflix Only” status, along with Michael Bay and other directors I wouldn’t mind seeing but would mind paying for, because I have absolutely no interest in his next project.

What is it? A full length remake of a perfectly serviceable half-hour short he made decades ago: Frankenweenie

Review: Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince

Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince is the first time a director (David Yates) has done more than one Harry Potter film since Chris Columbus began the franchise. The fact that there is now such a strong and consistent style to the films proves both comforting and a bit disappointing.

First off, I enjoyed this movie. Not only does Yates have a wonderful visual style (I’m a sucker for those shiny black ceramic bricks that foretell danger) but he also has a knack for getting very good performances out of young actors in this series. He nicely balances the bizarre world that Alfonso Cuaróne crafted in Prisoner of Azkaban with the high school drama Mike Newell brought to the franchise in Goblet of Fire. It’s also fortunate timing in the franchise as Yates seems the most adept at incorporating the larger visual effects. Since the movies are getting darker and more intense these are much more common in the last 3 books than anywhere else in the series.

The one thing that bothers me is, fittingly enough, the one thing he seems to borrow from Chris Columbus and that is a closer adherence to the source material. In films 1 and 2 the films are almost direct adaptations of the books, simply abridged for time. These are also the two weakest films in the franchise to date. The point of adapting something from one medium to another is to add something to the story. All Columbus did was take a bit away. It was nice to see things movie but it really wasn’t a standalone product. It was a companion to the book. Complain about tone shift and changes to detail all you want but Prisoner of Azkaban was the first attempt to make a real movie out of the books. Yes, things were cut, rearranged and changed but in the continuity of the films (which is different than the books, like it or not) it was a necessary and marvelous leap forward.

Now Yates has taken a half-step back, doing more of a close reading than an inspired adaptation for the story. To be fair some of this blame can be put on the editing and/or the script but Yates is the director and shoulders the responsibility. In Order of the Phoenix there are some minor adaptations but for the most part plot points are shortened and then smoothed over, not rewritten. So while the Yates movies are much closer to the original text I feel that is their greatest weakness. Overall his films feel a bit choppier and cut up than either Goblet or Prisoner. When comparing the book to the movie for Half-blood Prince I can easily see most of the changes and they aren’t shifts for pacing and continuity. For the most part they are actions and subplots being condensed for time, and once aware of it this really shows.

Dumbledor, for instance, is a lot more upfront with Harry from the get go about what he wants. Yes, this does make the movie move faster it also cuts out a lot of the development that happens between them in the book. I know that looks like I just complained it’s not close enough to the novel but that’s not the point at all. The point is Yates doesn’t take that Dumbledor/Harry development and move it elsewhere. He just leaves it on the cutting room floor. The same goes for a lot that happens with Ron/Hermione and Harry/Ginny. There’s a lot more that’s simply stated in dialogue than shown in action and because Yates shows so much craft in other aspects of the film it really feels like he rushed in the areas he changes.

The real loss here is that Yates proves he’s capable of pulling the emotional depth out of his actors to show these relationships rather than tell you what’s going on. Someone as ham handed as Columbus doesn’t earn that respect in his movies and even Cuaróne’s film seems much more interested in world building a universe of intensity rather than subtle crafting of high school relationships. But Yates follows on the heels of Newell in terms of how he treats the students and staff of Hogwarts. This is the only aspect where he skimps but it does lead to a choppy feel.

Do not misinterpret this criticism. This is a highly enjoyable movie. In terms of this franchise it’s a good one. And sticking so close to the original text will probably be a huge plus to many fans out there. But it does come at an artistic cost. The reason I’ve gone into such depth with this single complaint is that Yates is signed on for the final adaptation, both parts. So this is partially a preemptive review of the Deathly Hallows as well. It’s a double-edged sword; that the comforting fact Yates is more than up to the task of creating appealing and deserving films is paired with the disappointing realization that this will come at the cost of many small character driven moments and subplots.

On a scale of -5 to +5 Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince gets a +3

PS Does anyone else find it a little odd that other than the counter still being in the great hall “house points” have all but vanished from the movies?

Leia: Who's your daddy?

NOTE: Credit where credit is due. This is actually co-written with my wife. We totally geeked out and this was born. Return of the Jedi has been on twice today and it raises a shitload of questions about continuity. Actually, it doesn't raise them. It brings up inconsistencies between the original trilogy (the real Star Wars movies) and episodes 1,2 and 3 (glorified, and sloppily written fan-fic). The one point that we'll be focusing on is Leia and her actual lineage. In the original trilogy we are told a great many details about the Skywalker family tree

Luke is Vader's son
Luke is Leia's sister
Luke an Leia are twins (I was doubtful that this was in the original trilogy but both Obi-wan and Vader mention it briefly)

What strikes out as strange is that there are multiple instances where Leia and Vader are emotionally distant to each other despite expectations. Leia meets Vader face to face after he ship is captures in A New Hope and there is not emotional recognition. This seems odd since we know that both are strong in the force and that Vader's relation to Luke let them sense each other later in the series. But we'll come back to the "Force paternity test" later. The second thing that seems strange between Vader and Leia is that Vader searches the force and feels that Luke has a twin sister: Leia. He then goes on to refer to her as "your twin sister" and "your sister" (to Luke). Never once does he even acknowledge her as his own daughter. Third, Leia doesn't attend the ritual burning of Vader's body on the forest moon of Endor after the destruction of the second Death Star. At this point Luke as told her that they are sibling and that Vader is his father. He never says Vader is her father and she isn't shaken by the fact that he seemingly is hers as well. Shes doesn't feel the need for closure with Vader, either for the destruction of her home planet Alderaan or to deal with the death of her possible father, by attending his funeral. From all of this is seems that Luke and Leia, while twins, do not share the same father. And this is a point that has bothered me for a while now. There is absolutely no connection between Leia and Vader but there is between Leia and Luke. How can this be? And it becomes even more evident when the "Force paternity test" is brought up. What is the Force paternity test? It is the ability of one strong with the Force to simply know biological relationships between people. We see Luke use it to tell whether Vader is being truthful about their father/son relationship. Luke feels that it is true. We see Leia use something similar to verify that she and Luke are siblings in Return of the Jedi. We possibly see Vader use it to tell that Luke has a twin sister (though it could just be him pulling out the memory of Obi-wan telling Luke) and furthermore we may see it in the fact that Vader seemingly refuses to call Leia his daughter. The last instance I'll postulate this occurs is when the family tree is revealed to Leia. She searches the Force and sees that she and Luke are related but never even hints at a suspicion of being related to Vader. At this point I need to note that I will not be accepting the Episode 3 events as fact. If anyone doubts that Episodes 1-3 are in a different continuity than 4-6 all one has to do is look at the fact that Luke asks Leia :

"Do you remember your mother? Your real mother?" She replies: "She was very beautiful. Kind, but...sad."

And if you're going to tell me that Leia remembers that from her birth (that's ridiculous) and Luke does not (that's doubly ridiculous) you're a fool. And if you need more proof, how is it that Obi-wan doesn't know of Leia's existence until Yoda tells him about her, though he was present at her birth in Revenge of the Sith? So without the actions that take place in episode 3 we don't know that Luke and Leia share the same father. From all evidence in A New Hope, Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi it truly seems as if they only share a mother. And that's possible. There is a medical term "hetero-paternal superfecundation" or bi-paternal twinning. This refers to an event when a mother carries two children at the same time from two different fathers. Most often this is when the mother releases two eggs (dizygotic) and has intercourse multiple times, leading to each egg being fertilized by different fathers. It is also possibly that an egg can be released during an already existing pregnancy and that egg can be fertilized by a second person, though this is much rarer. This is all true and it really does happen. Theory: Luke and Leia are a result of bi-paternal twinning. According to the original trilogy this answers every question raised about the family of Vader, Luke and Leia.

It answers why Leia remembers her real mother. Because she is kept by her real mother and Luke is sent away in order to protect Leia if Vader ever comes looking for his son.
It answers why Leia feels no connection to Vader though she does feel a conncetion to Luke.
It answers why Vader never aknowledges any relation to Leia, even when searching the Force on the second Death Star.

And this makes the most sense to me. The fact that I went out to hunt down this information (my wife actually mentioned the medical phenomina from it's inclusion in a One Life to Live plot line) rather than accept the story fed to me by Revenge of the Sith just goes to show how terrible a movie Episode 3 really is. And with that I close my case. What follows is pure speculation. I would guess, without knowledge of episodes 1-3, that Obi-wan is Leia's father. It seems that she does have a conncetion with him the way Luke does with Vader. When she is captured by Vader and the fate of the rebellion is in jeopardy she trusts her gut instincts and sends a message to Obi-wan, a man she has never met before. It also fits that she has been told of Obi-wan, though not enough to make her think that they are related. Also, when Alderaan is destroyed not only would Obi-wan feel the destruction of the planet but the emotion that he experiences would seem to be shared between he and Leia. He is visibly shaken by the even even though he has never been to that planet to our knowledge. He seems to be feeling it through Leia. Is it crazy to think that Luke and Leia's mother was involved with Obi-wan and that Anakin raped her after he turned to the dark side? It fits into original trilogy continuity. However it is just a theory. And while it fits it is not hinted at to nearly the degree that the other theory is; That Luke and Leia are twins that share only a mother.

TV to marathon

I recently posted about television shows I intend to watch for the first time. But how about some shows that are so good I want to watch them again, marathon style? I’ve got a bunch.

In fact, I have already started a marathon of Middle Man with my wife and a couple of friends. It is a glorious show that should not be in the grey floaty ether of cancelation/hiatus that it is. Based on a comic book, this show is pitch perfect. You know how some people complained that the film version of Watchmen was too close to the original as to offer nothing new? And how some people said the same of Sin City? Well, Middle Man is nearly like that, except the acting and the new stories add so much more to the franchise. The episodes taken from issues of the comic are almost panel for panel the same. Then there are completely original episodes that fit in seamlessly, making for a great adaptation. This is how it should be done. The back and forth is so good that the un-filmed final episode is being released as a comic! Plus the fact that Natalie Morales is really hot doesn’t hurt anything.

The Prisoner – I can’t believe that I have friends that have not seen this show! The show that Joss Whedon called the best TV show ever made! And yes, it is that good. The production is dated but the craft and quality of this series are still oh so fresh. Gasp as Number 6 is drugged. Marvel as he fights to keep his identity. And furrow your brow as you try to figure out what’s really going on. On the surface it’s about a former secret agent. After he resigns he’s abducted and taken to the village where various agents of some unknown organization constantly subject him to psychological torture in order to find out his secret. If you want the original Lost then look no further. This is where it all started. And nothing is as it seems.
- Nowhere Man – An unofficial sister show/sequel, Nowhere Man is about a man who has a name (or does he…). Tom Veil is a photographer who comes back from a restaurant bathroom to find that no one from his life remembers him. Not only that, but a single photograph of his has been stolen. He runs off with the original negative. It’s the inverse of The Prisoner. In The Prisoner we have a man with no name trapped in a village. In Nowhere Man we have a man with a name running from the world.
Arrested Development – Possibly the most clever American “sit-com” ever written. Perfect casting doesn’t hurt either. This is a show so good that, if you like to laugh, you should have already seen.
Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles – I know it just ended but between the cancellation and the fact that the only living part of this franchise is now the McG trilogy – well, I just need some of the magic back. Ranking this in amongst the rest of the Terminator franchise, my wife places it at a close 2nd just after T2 while I put it as a close 1st, just above it. It is that good. And it undoes all of T3 while staying in continuity. This show starts slow but once it gets rolling has some of the best drama on TV at the time and best time travel I’ve seen written for TV ever.

I believe that's it, although it's still plenty to get through. If anyone wants to tag along for a show, let me know and a schedule shall be made. Question of the post: What shows are so good that you keep going back to them?

Some genres defy categorization.

I’m currently working on a personal project: to rip and organize all of my music to make it easily accessible. Not only am I talking about “artistalbumtrack” format but also accurate tagging. At first I thought it was going to be the album art that would be the trouble but between Media Monkey, Tag & Rename and Songbird I’ve got a pretty smooth work flow down. No, it’s the simple “genre” tag that’s getting me down.

The problem is that genres, after existing for some time, become obsolete. I realized this when I finished giving everything currently ripped a basic genre. Other than a few tricky artists (I’m looking at you, Bowie) it was fairly simply. But looking at my collection afterward I saw something shocking: most of my music was in a very few number of genres. Mainly “pop” and “indie”. In fact, that’s the incredible majority of my collection right there. And the reason for that is these genres are no longer accurate descriptors for the music.

Pop is the most obvious. When “pop” was first used it wasn’t so much a genre as a market or even an industry. You had classical, jazz, maybe country and pop. Popular music. But then everything people talked about was pop so pop had to be subdivided. Today the genre “pop” is actually a sub-genre of the original pop which makes it all the more confusing. But pop was spun off into the sub-genre pop with the advent of “alternative” as a genre. It was originally an alternative to mainstream pop. So then there was poppop and popalternative. But in the 90s almost everything turned to popalternative. So then we end up with things like indie. Indie used to stand for independent and was used to describe unsigned bands. You could have indiepunk, indiepop, indiecountry, etc. But pretty soon that became inaccurate as well. Indie itself became a genre instead of a market description so popindie was born.

This means that indiepop is a very different sounding genre than popindie. The first is an unsigned pop band while the latter is a signed (and most likely expensively produced) indie band. The difference becomes more pronounced the deeper the sub-genre is before it’s appropriated into standard pop. Take “emo” for instance. Originally emo would have mapped (pop or indie)punkhardcoreemo. That would be a band like anything from Glassjaw to At The Drive-In. That band sounds nothing like popemo which would be something more akin to Fall Out Boy or My Chemical Romance.

It looks like with a constantly shifting music system the only classification that will keep working is one based on context, hence the full lineage system of “genresub-genresub-sub-genreetc…”. However, since I can’t work that into current ID3 tags I’m stuck. Now the question is how far to subdivide the single genre tag I’m given. And that I am still unsure of.

So how do you cut up your music collections, in terms of storage and classification?

Netflix WTF - It's back!

Netflix: WTF

And don't forget to check out the poll. Vote for which terrible movie I subject my friends and myself to and then write about!

EDIT: For some reason links don't seem to work for me in Buzznet postings anymore. Check out the formal poll here:

http://bulletproofheeb.buzznet.com/user/polls/168581/

Mega Shark Versus Giant Octopus

Name says it all, guys.

Paul Blart: Mall Cop

Maybe it's just me but things like this make less sense to me than the rip-off crap I feature.

The Terminators

No, it's not Terminator. And if you look closely at the poster you might see Cylons but it's not Battlestar. It's “totally original”.

Frankenhood

The following is the actual synopsis:

Eager to escape their morbid morgue jobs, slackers Motown and Darius plan to win the big three-on-three basketball tournament and take home its $25,000 cash prize. When their pal (Charles Q. Murphy) brings to life a tall corpse , they chance upon a wild idea. If they can teach the zombie to shoot hoops, they'll be unbeatable on the court – right?

Joyce Vedral: Cougar Workout

At last! A workout just for older women obsessed with bedding younger men!

Against the Dark: Last Night

Ok, ok, ok. Vampires take over the world. I know but it gets better! The only person who can stop it? Commander Tao played by... Steven Seagal! That is all.

Sharks in Venice

There are sharks. In Venice. And Stephen Baldwin.

Wieners

Wow, the same cast of Good Burger made the crappy b-movie knock off themselves. I guess that saves time.

The Day the Earth Stopped

Stopped? Why, that's almost like standing still.

Attack Girls' Swim Team vs. the Undead

The name says it all.

The Gay Bed & Breakfast of Terror

Gay couples check in but they don't check out.

Yeti: A Love Story

5 college students are sent to be sacrificed to the Yeti. The twist? The Yeti like young men... sexually. The other twist? One of the boys may like the Yeti.