Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts with the label TV

Game of Dwarf

Game of Thrones (hereafter Game of Dwarf or just Dwarf , in honour of the only reason to see the show) is about as banal as the prose in the novels which spawned it. Though I continue to watch (for the dwarf, of course), I don't care about the vast majority of the characters, fights, or intrigues on screen. They tend to be as joyless as the sex-as-penetration-only to which we are regularly treated in Dwarf , which seems to hold a world with perhaps five people who are even aware of the possibility of foreplay. Though much of this is likely the fault of the ham-handed George R. R. Martin, I do not blame him. What more can be expected from a formerly illiterate pirate? You may think I'm just making this up, but how else would you explain the prominent 'R's in his name; his poor understanding of strategy and better grasp of tactics; his tepid and repetitious prose juxtaposed with his crisp banter; his largely transactional (or rapey) and generally uncomprehending vie...

I will treat this entry as though it were in a journal.

It is easy for a TV series to lose me.  When House became more interested in poorly written interpersonal relationships than silly practical jokes and Holmesian medical mysteries, I stopped watching.  When Burn Notice focused several episodes on its incredibly talented spy lead (who had handled murderers, con men, gangs, the FBI, and a host of foreign operatives) having trouble because a cop was harassing him, it took me a year to decide to give it another chance.  When Dexter botched its second season, killed its best character, and then opened its third with Dex acting like an idiot for the convenience of the writers, I dropped it.  When Madmen slowed down in the middle of the third season, I simply lost interest.  These are shows I loved at one point. A lot of people won't just let go of such things.  Even those sympathetic to my reactions will usually have just kept watching.  I've been trying to figure out why my reaction is different for a ...

To draw things together...

and make a stupid atheist point I should be above (while playing on equally foolish religious assumptions, no less): Why couldn't that stupid correspondent for CNN have kicked the bucket instead of Tim Russert? Whaddupwiddat, God? Why you gotta be so unfair, man? ...Unless you don't exist! ... I feel as dirty as a stupid lady standing in the middle of dangerous, oily flood waters.

Meanwhile, Tim Russert has died.

I was shocked. I remain shocked. Those with an interest in politics and the goings on at the capitol were well served by Tim, at least as much as by anyone else in recent memory. America has lost a great figure and a great service in Tim's death. At the national level, at the world level, it's just one man, just one heart attack. Perhaps not the epic tragedy his colleagues at NBC feel it is. But it is disheartening. I try to be, if not cynical, pragmatic and realistic about how things are in life. I find it easy and preferable to be more rational than emotional (though I admit there are strong ties between those modes). But I'll tell you something.... Unlike much media coverage on the demise of some important personage, little of the reaction seems staged or forced. Knowing how personable Russert could seem, even when dealing with the most important issues of our times, it is easy to believe people were attached to him. Tim Russert had a lot of friends. People are proud to ...

CNN has idiot correspondent cover floods.

So, I'm not really watching TV, but I have CNN on as background noise while I'm reading. They're covering the flooding in Iowa, and there's a lady standing in the water. I don't care, so I go back to reading. Then I hear her say she had just run into a National Guard unit warning her and others to stay out the water. This gets my attention. The screen flicks from this waterlogged correspondent to an earlier interview, where a guardsman explains that dangerous chemical and biological contaminants make entering the water a bad idea. The view shifts back to CNN's correspondent thigh deep in the floods, telling us, "Yes, stay out of the water." During the segment, I must have heard her, CNN's anchor, and the guardsman repeat this phrase at least 6 times altogether. Stay out of the water. Okay, I figure, she must be wearing some pretty good water proof clothing for this assignment. Then she says, "Earlier, I saw a couple walking through this in the...