Showing posts with label Television Series Review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Television Series Review. Show all posts

Monday, December 1, 2025

After Enormous Anticipation, the New American Revolution Documentary By Ken Burns Feels More Like Propaganda Than Actual History

Heading into this new Ken Burns series focusing on the American Revolution, I was fairly excited. After all, I had seen many of his previous documentary series, including the Civil War and the American West. And they tended to be excellent.

Yet, it took all of maybe five minutes, tops, for me to have a real problem with this particular Burns documentary. Something was said to frame this focus on the American Revolution which hardly seemed to me to be based on facts, but opinion. Specifically, a political opinion which leads to a frankly tiresome and highly repetitive Americentrist narrative.

Here is what was said that really bothered me, and basically immediately soured my viewing experience and limited just how engaged I would be:

"The American Revolution is the most important, consequential in history."

Yikes, I thought to myself. Right away, it felt like that set the tone. This was absolutely a viewpoint where the United States is, for all intents and purposes, the center of the world, or even the known universe. And all events historical anywhere else in the world are on hold until whatever happens here, within our sacred borders, transpires. The French Revolution, the Haitian Revolution, the revolutions in Latin America, the Russian Revolution, all on hold until the outcome of what happens here in the United States finally unfolds, and enlightenment can be brought to the rest of the world. 

Maybe that sounds like an exaggeration, but I don't think so. After all, having lived her in the greater New York metropolitan area for the vast majority of my life, I have heard such absolute opinions and value judgements passed off as factual all of my life. Things like "this is the greatest country in the world" and New York is the "greatest city in the world." I'm not even sure why it seems like Americans - and this is not relegated to merely left or right, or red versus blue, because they both tend to be guilty of this - tend to feel a need to be recognized as "the greatest" or the "most important." How do they not understand that the rest of the world grows tired of Americans systematically assuming that what happens here is more important than what happens anywhere else in the world? 

And now, we have a supposedly learned, enlightened historical documentary movie maker who is doubling down and making the official argument on his latest documentary that the American Revolution was the "most consequential revolution" in human history? At the time, the thirteen colonies were a rural backwater. The events that transpired here had very limited impact on most of the rest of the world. That was why the French Revolution, which was obviously in Europe in the equivalent of a superpower and was in Europe, clearly had more of a profound and immediate impact on the rest of Europe than did the American Revolution. Yet such nuances are not taken into account when you try to pass off as undisputable fact something like the American Revolution being the "most consequential revolution" in history. It feels more like a politically-driven rallying cry to me. Or to put it another way, it smacks of propaganda.  

Frankly, I expected, and certainly at least hoped for, better from Ken Burns. But I was wrong. This feels like a stain on his reputation that will not soon be removed, if ever.

I watched the rest of the first episode, but with significantly less interest than I had imagined. After all, I was one of those people who had been looking forward to this. And it felt ruined, because this supposed documentary began to feel a lot more like propaganda than an actual objective exploration of real history.

The American Revolution was more consequential than every other revolution in history, says the prominent American documentary movie maker who sure seems to focus exclusively on American history to the exclusion of every other corner of the world.

This smacks of American supremacy. It echoes empty slogans that politicians have used in the past, such as when Reagan said that the United States was the "shining city on the hill" that the rest of the world looked up to. Or when other politicians have suggested that this is "the greatest country in the world," or that we are "God's country," or how we are the "leaders of the free world." This focus on American exceptionalism at a time when the United States looks anything but exceptional to pretty much the entire rest of the world is more than a little stale. It feels downright like a line spoken by some polished politician lacking honesty and integrity, but outright pushing a narrow and untrustworthy agenda. 

How hugely disappointing. 

It seems clear that Ken Burns has an agenda here. I was just hoping for something more honest and objective. Less opinionated by someone who clearly seems to side with American exceptionalism when it comes to history. I had heard Burns suggest such things in the past, but was willing to give him a shot with this particular documentary. But as soon as he tried to pass off what was clearly his opinion as somehow fact, my interest diminished to the point where it became almost non-existent. I had intended to watch the entire series, yet never could muster the will to watch the second episode or beyond, fearing that there would still be more propaganda. 

Not being able to stomach even trying to watch the second episode, yet having been excited to learn and possibly discuss the American Revolution - a subject which has always fascinated me - I searched for others who possibly felt as disillusioned and, frankly, betrayed, as I felt. 

And I found this video, where a historian quickly sums up some of the major, defining problems with this latest Ken Burns documentary.

This is from a historian named Tad Stormer. And he made some very relevant points, in my opinion. He voiced my own disillusionment, suggesting that this was done in the "same nationalist framework" as what passed for history back in the 1950's and 1960's. Sure, there was mention of slavery and "others," which might seem like it lends this documentary more legitimacy and a modern feel. However, he rightly points out that their stories and voices were heard and mentioned "only insofar as they acknowledge the mainstream patriot story."

That sounds about right. Again, my disappointment stems from having expected much more from Ken Burns. However, that is a mistake which, after this, I will likely not soon be making again. The worst thing about all of this is that now, it makes me wonder if the other documentaries by Ken Burns are as great as I remember them, or if they perhaps now warrant much closer scrutiny. 

Very disappointing.



Ken Burns’ American Revolution is 1950s History for 2026

Monday, March 4, 2024

Sorry, But Saturday Night Live Really Isn't Funny Anymore

So on Saturday, I watched Saturday Night Live for the first time in a long time. This used to be something I did far more regularly, but haven't been doing as of late. Mostly, because the show has lost something somewhere along the line. Not only do I not find it funny anymore, but it feels almost depressing to watch, because it makes me feel old and out of touch, or it makes me feel sad that a once decent quality show that I could rely on for an escape and for at least a few laughs per viewing is now...well, just not much fun, and certainly not all that funny anymore.

But I still gave it a shot. Maybe this one would be an exception. So I watched it.

And you know what?

It really wasn't funny. 

Now, I know that this is a common complain. It seems to be particularly prevalent among Trump supporters, who claim that SNL is politically biased. I never really want to associate myself with King Con Don or Cult 45, so I will avoid delving into those complaints, which tend to be exaggerated and of the whiny, entitled crybaby variety, in my opinion. Still, SNL just does not feel like it can hold a candle to the older shows, when as a fan, I could rely on it being...well, actually funny. 

Before I go on, I should say that many of the really old skits from the earliest years of SNL also were a bit...well, not really that funny. Admittedly, I rarely find the very old skits particularly funny. But then again, I am not alone. Apparently, Jane Curtin, a former star of SNL from those earliest days, also doesn't find them funny either. But there used to be a time when it actually was funny. When I was growing up, this definitely felt like the case. I'm talking about from the mid-eighties through the nineties and perhaps into the early 2000's.

There were some now largely forgotten skits which absolutely cracked me up, and which I admittedly wished that SNL might bring back from time to time. One was done by Tom Hanks, with his portrayal of Mr. Short Term Memory. There was one with Leslie Nielsen where he played an old school detective from the 1940's and 1950's, who gave his opinions on everyone who would come to his office, even though the whole bit was that this was not commentary for a movie, but descriptions which he was actually speaking out loud. For some reason, I never did find out the name of that one, although I remember that one made me laugh, as well. Sharon Stone imitating her famous sexy scene from "Basic Instinct" with the members of Pearl Jam acting spellbound was quite funny. 

Those were not the only ones, either. There was the "Big Red" Viking toy, which splattered blood on everyone. "Deep Thoughts" with Jack Handy was consistently funny. Al Franken had some funny moments as Stuart Smalley, particularly the one when he hosted Michael Jordan. 

Some individuals who hosted could be surprisingly funny. I remember the Michael Jordan one being memorably funny, as was the one with Joe Montana, even though sports figures often aren't known for being particularly funny. Who knew? Then there were other guests who you could bet were going to be really funny, such as Robin Williams, Leslie Neilsen, Tom Hanks, and Jim Carrey. Probably forgetting a few, for that matter. 

Some skits really were funny, and often still make me laugh. Massive Headwound Harry. Patrick Swayze and Chris Farley having that sexy, half-naked dance off during the Chippendale's rehearsals. Lyle, the Effeminate Heterosexual (although I am guessing that might be considered not politically correct or woke enough anymore these days). Sprockets made me laugh, more often than not. Joe Montana as the clueless guy who's head is so empty, that his mind is literally on whatever topic of conversation is being discussed, and who has no thoughts beyond what he just said. The Love Toilet was so absurd, it was funny, as was Schmitt's Gay, the imitation beer commercial, complete with a rocking Van Halen tune. Or Alec Baldwin as baker Pete Schweddy, trying to promote his baked goods, his famous "Schweddy Balls," to female admirers on NPR. Some years later, the Christmas version of "To Catch a Predator," trapping Santa Claus as some kind of sick and twisted sex criminal was absolutely hilarious.

Mike Myers was pretty damn funny. Dana Carvey was among the funniest cast members at his best. Phil Hartman could floor me at times. David Spade's trademark sarcasm made me laugh numerous times. Jan Hooks I found both sexy and funny. Melanie Hutsell could be funny, especially when she imitated Tori Spelling. Victoria Jackson could be funny at times., although she was kind of hit or miss Jon Lovitz was usually pretty funny. Even Adam Sandler had some really funny moments, even though I admittedly find him rather annoying than anything else these days. But he had his moments as the overgrown spoiled and petulant man-child on the show, as well as Opera Man. Kevin Nealon was great as Mr. Subliminal, and he could be quite funny at other times, as well.  

Years later, SNL could remain funny. While my first impression of Will Ferrell was admittedly that I found him annoying with that frankly stupid and unfunny recurring skit that he did with Cheryl Oteri. Not only was that one not funny - and what I mean by that is that it did not make me laugh even once that I can remember, and was in fact intensely annoying, all the more because they did it week after week after week. Yet, Ferrell proved to be funnier as his tenure with the show went on. His George W. Bush impersonations were one of the few bright spots of the actual George W. Bush years. The commentaries of Jacob Silj, a man who could not control the volume of his voice, and would always get offended when people asked him to stop shouting, also usually made me laugh. And of course, who could ever forget the Cowbells? There were others who could be funny, as well. Night at the Roxy was funny. Mango could be funny. Chris Katan as the semi human Mr. Peepers was often very funny. 

Personally, I enjoyed the mock political debates and impersonations. Some of the funniest were during the 1988 and 1992 elections. Jon Lovitz as Michael Dukakis, using a lift to make himself appear taller. Then, after listening to Dana Carvey's version of George H.W. Bush stumble during the debate, saying simply, "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy." Or Dan Quayle struggling through the swearing in oath, having to do it word by word. Or Carvey's double role in 1992 as George H.W. Bush and as the annoying Ross Perot. Phil Hartman's Bill Clinton, which was hilarious, although Darrell Hammond may even have been better. And one of the ones which I thought was both hilarious and a bit edgy was when then President-elect George W. Bush (played by Ferrell) and his father, George H.W. Bush (played by Carvey) went on a hunting trip together. Tina Fey was hilarious years later as Sarah Palin. Even a few years ago, Alec Baldwin playing Donald Trump was hilarious. I do enjoy James Austin Johnson's interpretation of Trump, although they did not have him on this past episode.

There were some really unforgettable moments, as well. One that everyone seems to remember was the first one after the September 11th attacks. As much as I can't stand Rudy Giuliani these days, he was pretty funny when asked by Tina Fey if it was okay yet for SNL to be funny, and he responded with, "Why start now?"

Unforgettable. 

Not all of the skits were funny. Again, though, I could pretty much count on at least a few decent laughs, even if not all shows knocked it out of the park.

Yet, this latest SNL really did not make me laugh much. The show was half done before I found myself actually laughing, and that was during the Weekend Update, which is the one aspect of the show where I can usually rely on at least a few laughs. Also, there was another skit very late in the show about Hooter's which was, at best, mildly funny, but which got a chuckle out of me. 

And that was pretty much it. No major laughs. Nothing I will really remember a few days from now, let alone a few years. It's no longer a show that allows me, personally, to escape the world for a little while, and just enjoy myself. Now, it feels rather lame.  

At first, I was wondering if it was just me. I remember my mom saying once that when you get older, you feel that things, popular trends in society and such, have passed you by, left you behind. Was I already starting to reach that point? 

When I Googled "SNL Not Funny," however, I got some results which, in fact, seemed to validate my own feelings. Most people just don't find SNL funny anymore. And it's not just Trump supporters. According to one article in Newsweek from about a year and a half ago, only one in five people still found SNL funny. So it's not just me, and I don't think that I can be lumped in with the whiny Cult 45 crowd on this one.

Indeed, Saturday Night Live really has lost something. It just isn't really that funny anymore.




Below are the links to the two articles I found about SNL. The first confirms my suspicions that the first few years of SNL weren't all that funny, or at least haven't aged very well, in terms of being funny. The other article is the already mentioned Newsweek article, which suggests what I felt during my recent viewing of SNL, that it really isn't funny anymore:


Saturday Night Live star Jane Curtin says she didn't laugh rewatching old sketches: 'It wasn't funny' by Shania Russell  Published on August 21, 2023:

"I think it was just one of those ‘you had to be there in the moment’ things," Curtin said. "That's what happens with live TV, and with topical TV. It gets dated after a while.  

https://ew.com/tv/snl-jane-curtin-didnt-laugh-rewatching-old-sketches/





Is 'SNL' Considered Funny? Only One in Five Thinks So by Megan Cartwright Deputy Entertainment Editor, Nov 22, 2022:

https://www.newsweek.com/saturday-night-live-funny-snl-poll-results-1761414

Monday, April 24, 2023

Television Show Review: ESPN's '30 for 30' Short: “Deerfoot of the Diamond”

Earlier today, I just happened to see an episode of ESPN's 30 for 30, although this one was one of those short films.

This particular episode was called “Deerfoot of the Diamond,” and told the story of Louis Sockalexis, the first ever Native American to play professional baseball. Sockalexis was a Penobscot from rural Maine, who grew up learning to play baseball, and eventually he developed into an incredibly talented athlete. He played for the Cleveland Spiders, and was supposed to be one of the most gifted natural athletes in early baseball history. But the fact that he was a Native American earned him all sorts of attention, much of it unwanted. People would raise the noise and imitate some makeshift war chants, or at least what they thought passed as Native chants. One star opposing pitcher in New York's Polo Grounds guaranteed that he would strike Sockalexis out, Instead, Sockalexis hit a homerun.

The reaction to Sockalexis seemed to be a mixture of people (particularly Cleveland fans and the media) rooting for him, but often with more than a touch of condescension to it, as well as outright hostility (such as the aforementioned pitcher in New York, who's name I am forgetting. Many began unofficially called the Cleveland baseball team the "Indians," obviously in reference to the presence of Sockalexis.

His career in professional baseball only lasted a few months. He was injured, and the team's fortunes spiraled downwards after this injury. Many of the same people who had seemed to be pulling from him early on began mercilessly blaming him for the team's misfortunes. When he got in altercations in other cities, he was often arrested, and seemingly faced longer and longer sentences after each such incident. He began drinking more and more, until he developed a problem with alcoholism. 

“No matter where we play, I go through the same ordeal,” Sockalexis said in an interview Edmands uses. “And at the present time, I'm so used to it that I forget to smile at my tormentors, believing it to be part of the game. Had I cared, they would have driven me out of the business long ago. I got it from the very first day I played.”

Eventually, he went back to rural Maine, once his short baseball career ended. He died young, in 1913. The Cleveland Spiders were relegated to the minor leagues after some truly terrible, even historically bad seasons. The Cleveland Blues became the major league baseball team for the city, and in 1915, two years after the death of Sockalexis, they changed their names to the Cleveland Indians. By the 1950's, the mascot would be given the name "Chief Wahoo." It is argued in the film that while many fans proclaimed that the name and logo (Chief Wahoo) for the franchise were actually meant to honor the legacy of brave Native Americans, the ridiculous nature of the caricature was anything but a compliment. Yet, the franchise would keep the name until 2018, when they finally got rid of the Indians name, and stopped using "Chief Wahoo" as their logo. They have since come to be known as the Cleveland Guardians. 

This was an excellent documentary that told a story which, frankly, I was unfamiliar with. Granted, I am not a big baseball fan. Yet, this had some similarities to what happened with Jackie Robinson, although it actually happened half a century earlier. I would recommend this particular episode, or movie, to anyone. Truly fascinating and highly recommended!



Review: ESPN's '30 for 30' explores Guardians change through legacy of Louis Sockalexis by  George M. Thomas of The Akron Beacon Journal, September 27, 2022:

https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/sports/mlb/cleveland-guardians/2022/09/27/review-espns-30-for-30-takes-clear-eyed-look-at-cleveland-guardians-change-mlb-louis-sockalexis/69520841007/

Wednesday, February 1, 2023

Video Clip: Three's Company Celebrates 40 Year Anniversary With Surviving Cast Reunion




Just recently, for the first time in years, I began rewatching old episodes of that old sitcom from the late seventies and early eighties, Three's Company. When I was growing up in the eighties and early nineties, reruns of this show aired all of the time. I must have seen every single episode at least five or six times each. 

It was a bit of a silly show. By now, everyone knows that it seemed that every single episode was about some kind of misunderstanding. Usually, it was of a sexual nature, but not always. 

At the time, this show was regarded as pretty hip, bold and even controversial. The idea of one man living with two women was evidently racy for the times. Of course, the running joke was that the landlord (Mr. Roper at first, Mr. Furley in later episodes) thought that Jack (John Ritter) was gay, and that both Jack and the girls would have to play along and convince Mr. Roper and Mr. Furley of the same.

There were some very funny moments in the show, and some episodes really were quite funny. I remember laughing when younger, and even getting a kick out of it when watching the show in more recent times. More often, though, I just got a good feeling somehow, when watching it. Especially the later episodes, with Don Knotts playing Mr. Furley. 

In any case, just thought that this video would be worth sharing here.

Enjoy!

Saturday, October 1, 2022

First Episode of ‘Cheers’ Debuted 40 Years Ago







Lately, in the past few months or so, I have been watching a lot of old Cheers episodes. You know, that sitcom from the eighties and early nineties?

This actually started a few years ago, back when I was working another overnight job. The guy who I worked with took his hour lunch break almost ridiculously late, at four in the morning. This allowed me, for once, to control the television, and I found old episodes of Cheers playing on the Hallmark channel. Over the course of time, I caught up quite a bit, and saw many episodes that I could not remember ever having seen before. Remember, I was young when Cheers was on television, and for most of that time, it ran either past my bedtime, or close to it. So much of it was new.

More recently, particularly during work from home shifts, I went back to those repeat showings of old Cheers episodes at four in the morning, and again, caught up even more. Then, I found that my television has access to episodes from many, if not all, episodes of Cheers, and so I started watching the final season (11th season). Not entirely sure why I started at the end, although I tend to prefer the more recent episodes, admittedly. 

In any case, it is a good show. Or was. And it actually was rather funny, which is frankly not the case with all sitcoms. There are some sitcoms that have produced, at best, a mild chuckle or two. And there are some sitcoms that have not even produced that much. But Cheers still feels funny and, despite how dated it is, it still feels relatively fresh. In short, I miss it.

Recently, I happened to find out that the 40th anniversary of the very first episode of Cheers just came and went. It aired on September 30, 1982. So yesterday marked that milestone. It seemed worth sharing a blog post about it here. 



40 Years Ago: ‘Cheers’ Debuts With a Perfect Pilot Episode Dennis Perkins Dennis Perkins Published: September 30, 2022: 

https://ultimateclassicrock.com/cheers-pilot-episode/?fbclid=IwAR3u28adDD3U8uT1tRvNCtsLC-KZSyT6ZLa6cnrFyZ61dLwRQqbo7dmSmOA

Friday, April 2, 2021

Cobra Kai Coming Under Fire For Absence of Diversity, But Should It?

I am not what you might call a huge television guy. On average, I probably watch less than an hour or so of television shows and/or television straight up on a typical day. Perhaps it was all those warnings, back in the eighties and nineties, about the perils of growing addicted to television. Or perhaps I just instinctively tread with caution whenever there are cultural trends that I tend to feel some suspicion towards, for better or for worse.              

A television show really has to have stood out in some way for me to decide to go ahead and begin watching it, and even then, it is usually with some hesitation. After all, people hype a lot of shows that, frankly, I have absolutely no interest in watching so much as a single episode of. That show about the tiger man is one of the most recent examples. A whole slew of so-called “reality TV” shows would be another example. Sorry, but I do not have any interest in “Keeping Up With the Kardashians” or in “The Bachelor,” and very little interest in shows that even some people close to me like, such as “America’s Got Talent” or similar shows. It seems often that people are talking about them, and I have no real interest in pursuing them, and even then, I find myself having no desire to start watching.              

Usually, it is only when a show gets a lot of positive press, and when people I really like and respect speak highly of it, as well, that I finally go ahead and opt to  That was the case with The Walking Dead, and then Game of Thrones. I kept hearing about them, again and again, and still resisted. After a while, though, they seemed good enough to committing to finally see them, and I was glad when I did, especially with Game of Thrones.  

There have been some other shows that intrigued me, and one of them was Cobra Kai. There were a couple of reasons for this. First of all, I really did enjoy those old Karate Kid movies. Secondly, they were offering the first two episodes for free on Youtube, which seemed to be a bit of confidence in the product.  

So I tuned in, and sure enough, the episodes were pretty intriguing, and I wanted to keep watching. Now, I have seen every episode for all three seasons, and look forward to the fourth season, as well.  

But that is not what this is about.  

Recently, the show received some serious criticism for being too politically incorrect, in terms of diversity.

Here is one of the criticisms that began to make news recently:

The Los Angeles Times ran a profile on the show that traced its journey through development and the transition from YouTube to Netflix, before calling out creators Josh Heald, Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg by saying the following:     

“There are now three white men at the center of Cobra Kai, a franchise rooted in and deeply indebted to Eastern tradition. After 30 episodes on two platforms, Cobra Kai has yet to cast an Asian lead.”     

The creators of the show responded to the criticism:  

“We would have loved if there was a Miyagi son or daughter that was floating around in the lineage and the canon of the movie to play with. We inherited the story that felt like the natural continuation, where for better or worse you are dealing with Johnny and Daniel as your protagonists.”  

One thing that I have to say: I thought that this show actually displayed considerable diversity in so many respects, and that this helped to revive the story behind those old Karate Kid movies, giving it a new, modern twist. It surprised me on some level that the show would garner such criticisms, although I am not sure that this is not a case of someone going out of their way to find a problem.  

Yes, I guess you can say that, when looked specifically through the prism of this particular viewpoint pushed forward by the New York Times, it does seem that three straight white men are in charge of things on the show. And indeed, that might offend some. But the whole idea behind the show was simply to kind of revive those old movies and use the original cast of characters that were available, and place them in modern times. That would be difficult to do without, well, the actual original characters, and the three main surviving actors/characters from the movies happen to be straight white men, for better or for worse.

The show features the main characters from the original franchise, which also featured Pat Morita, who played the iconic character Mr. Miyagi. Unfortunately, he died some years ago, and so was not going to be available. And short of CGI, there was not going to be any way to bring him back. Surely, I cannot be the only one thankful that they did not reintroduce him using CGI. 

Now, I guess indeed, the idea that three straight white men would be in charge might be deemed offensive to some. And before I go further, it should be disclosed here that I also am a straight white man. That said, it feels to me like the Los Angeles Times is trying to create a problem where none existed until now. Again, the show actually features a diverse band of characters that cross the racial spectrum. There are prominent Hispanics and African-Americans, and quite a few female students, as well.  The idea that the show seemed to be going for was passing down the gift of Karate, both as a philosophy and, yes, as a technique for self-defense, down to a new generation. And it would be difficult to do that without the old characters from the original movies. 

That is to say that, quite frankly, it seems that maybe the Los Angeles Times should not necessarily take the liberty of establishing itself as some kind of diversity police. The show is enticing for the sometimes brilliant mixture of drama as well as for the nostalgia that the show offers, and which was the main draw to begin with. You do get interested in the characters (and not just the three white guys, either), and you do want to tune into the next episode to see what happens. Many of the characters have gone through interesting story arcs and faced fascinating dilemmas that have altered the nature of the characters, for better and, in some cases, for worse. Some serious issues have been addressed, including substance abuse, depression, bullying, peer pressure, popularity, class divisions, and perhaps some others that are not immediately coming to mind. All of this has added to the intrigue that the show offers. 

Focusing too narrowly on satisfying someone's idea of purity when it comes to the diversity police can stifle that kind of creative energy. If the writers suddenly are going to be worried about the perception that the show promotes the facade, or at least some vestiges, of white supremacy, when I think an argument can be made that it actually feels to me like it promotes diversity, it may risk stagnating many of the wonderful ideas and writing that has been going on with the show. And that would be unfortunate. 

Now, I am not what most people would consider a FOX News kind of guy. I absolutely loathe Trumpism, and always felt that Trump promotes intolerance and a passive-aggressive form of white supremacy. But that said, I think that we risk going too far the other way at times. FOX and the Trump crowd love to talk about cancel culture, and even though I think that those criticisms tend to be exaggerated and self-serving when they claim victimhood, it nevertheless can be quite problematic when we too blindly try to promote some kind of strict diversity quota, without any recognition of context. 

Bill Maher, who I sometimes agree with, and sometimes intensely disagree with, made a valid point recently in this regard. After a similar kind of controversy regarding movies and enforcing someone's ideas of promoting diversity as a prerequisite for consideration to winning some of the industry's prestigious awards Maher argued that such a blindly strict quota will likely stifle creativity and trigger constant fears about offending people instead. He suggested that there would be a serious degree of irony by suggesting that a movie like Schindler's List perhaps might not able to be made today specifically because the makers of the movie would be fearful of offending someone else's ideas of promoting racial diversity. It seems to me that he has a point here.

Yes, I am all for diversity, and yes, I guess after it as specifically pointed out, you can indeed see the show as tacitly promoting some antiquated ideas, with three straight white men being the most powerful characters in the series. That said, however, I also think that there is a serious danger when some people, like those in the Los Angeles Times, go out of their way to find problems where, for the most part, no serious problems exist, such as the problems they see with this show. Are there not enough serious and obvious examples of blatant racism and sexism and xenophobia in this country to go around, that those people from the Los Angeles Times had to specifically find a reason to start picking on a show that, to my mind's eye, seems to have actually been a stellar example of promoting diversity for our modern times?



Cobra Kai Coming Under Fire For Lack Of Diversity by Scott Campbell, January 2021:  

https://wegotthiscovered.com/tv/cobra-kai-coming-fire-lack-diversity/?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_6163934

Sunday, February 14, 2021

The Stand: A Review of the New Nine Part CBS Series







Okay, so most people who follow this blog know that I am a big Stephen King fan. Probably my favorite of his works is The Stand, and I am far from the only one who feels this way. So I was looking forward to the new adaptation of it, and had high hopes. Recently I finally finished watching the series, and felt it would be best to write down my thoughts about it straight away, before even reading or watching anyone else's reactions to it. 

Please allow me to indulge a bit in this review. It is long. The book is very long, and both television adaptations were also long, as well. So there is a lot of material to review, and a lot to say about it. Also, The Stand often ranks among the favorite books for Stephen King fans, and that is true for me as well. It may very well be my favorite, but certainly ranks as among my favorites. So this series came after much anticipation, and after watching nine installations, it is worth reviewing. 

Before I start, however, I should warn everyone that there will be spoilers in this review. So if you have not yet seen it and intend to, or intend to read the book and/or see the first adaptation, then you might want to avoid reading anything beyond this point until later. Again, this is you last warning, because there are spoilers coming up.  

Okay, you were warned. If you are still reading by now, then you likely either have seen this series and/or read the book, or simply do not mind spoilers (I know some people who do not mind spoilers). Don’t say you were not warned!  

So here goes:


Good Versus Bad


There were some aspects of the series that I liked, and that felt like fitting updates to the story. After all, we are now well into the 21st century, and there are some obvious surface differences between this world and the one that existed in the late seventies and early eighties, when King originally wrote and released this work. Obviously, there were going to be some changes, and some of them worked. But some of them did not, and for me, the parts that did not work felt like they were so loud that they shouted over, if you will, the entire series.

Making some changes for the sake of modernizing the story is not itself a problem. In fact, it would kind of be necessary. But there were some issues that I had with some of the more substantive issues that they did deal with. Some of the alterations were entirely unnecessary and, in some cases, actually outright altered the story itself, and not necessarily for the better.

Here is what I mainly had a problem with: it felt ridiculously, cartoonishly oversimplified and dumbed down in terms of morality. To some extent, this is the case in the book, perhaps, and it was also a more obvious issue with the first adaptation. But they take it to a whole new level in this adaptation. Frankly, I felt after watching it that both the good guy characters and the bad guy characters might have been envisioned by some self-declared moral crusaders like Pat Robertson or Ted Cruz or Joel Olsteen. All of the bad guys seemed to be, in some way or other, overt sexual deviants. Not only were they not at all shocked, or frankly even mildly surprised by public displays of sexuality, but they were cheering it on loudly and with serious enthusiasm, embracing it fully. Also, not only did they like those live displays of pornography, but they also lusted after blood, as well. There were combats to the death, and there were public executions including crucifixions. The bloodier these events for viewing entertainment in the so-called "New Vegas" were, the better. Not surprisingly, they also enthusiastically cheered the monster in charge of everything, even though they were all also deathly and transparently afraid of him. Only at the very end do any of the characters express doubts about any of this, and even then, this resistance, if that is what it even is, seems passive and unconvincing. 

New Vegas felt like it was almost exclusively shot in one hotel, which did not make sense. While the Las Vegas in the book and previous adaptation was actually a city, with satellite stations all ruled over and overseen down to the last detail by Flagg, we get the impression in this version that "New Vegas" does not really stretch beyond that one hotel, where almost all of the scenes were shot.  If they had the entire city, and a presumably quickly growing population, would they not need much more of the city and/or the surrounding area? If it is that small, then how do they get the constant stream of people to engage in trial by combat, or for public executions? That part did not make much sense to me at all. What made this even more glaringly obvious was one thing that they added completely unnecessarily, since they suggested that Randall Flagg did not want anyone near the top levels, which effectively made the hotel that much more limited, and which made this even less believable, frankly.  

The court case was obviously made to appear farcical, but it was a departure from the book and the previous adaptation, and not one that I particularly cared for. It felt overly trashy and lacking any gravitas whatsoever, just like the rest of the “New Vegas” scenes. All of it was just so exaggerated and trashy to the point of being cartoonish, truth be told. In both the book and the previous adaptation, the emphasis was often that both Boulder and Las Vegas attracted regular, everyday people. There were reserved people who would likely identify themselves as conservative and traditional who were living in the Dark Man’s Las Vegas, and who were convinced that they were rebuilding a society worth rebuilding. Frankly, it is hard to imagine anyone but the absolutely most decadent people possible feeling that this version of a new society would be something worth working and fighting for. Even if people are scared of the Dark Man and his capabilities, and want to be around other people, you would think that there would be a somewhat more normal feel to most of the city. Instead, it feels like one gigantic, constantly running strip club, with strange and frankly paradoxical aspirations to create a fascist or false utopia, on top of everything else. It just did not feel particularly convincing or realistic, even in a post-apocalyptic world where apparently a lot of people completely lose all inhibitions, yet somehow all of them only on one side of the Vegas/Boulder divide.

Truth be told, the good, Christian community being established in Boulder also feels a bit forced. Maybe a little more normal under admittedly abnormal circumstances, that is true. But it feels unrealistically "good" in very trying and difficult, unstable circumstances. Only at the very end, after "New Vegas" has already been destroyed and the bad people no longer have anywhere else to turn to, are there serious problems with violence and other ills in society that start popping up in the Boulder Free Zone, and that just seems forced and, again, not very realistic. All of this was just too black and white, with no shades of gray.

The good community of Boulder reflects the frankly naive vision of good being defined by a certain, unmistakably folk way of life, complete with good ol’ country music. It seems that there is largely an absence of city or suburban people, with maybe New Yorker Larry Underwood as the exception, as everyone reflects their country ways. Because all good people always just adore good old country music to the exclusion of pretty much everything else, right? There is no hip hop, even among young people, which seems surprising, given it's current nearly global cultural dominance. There is not much in the way of rock music, or heavy metal, or any pretty much any other genres, either, which millions and millions of people in the real world presumably enjoyed before, but apparently not after, the apocalypse. In fact, other than brief exposures to Larry Underwood's once emerging hit before the apocalypse brought an end to all of it, the only we ever hear other than country music would be in New Vegas, and this presumably gets destroyed when New Vegas itself gets blown up. What a boring world, musically, completely absent of any of the musical diversity that the world had developed to that point. Not that music should necessarily have played a central role in this series, but the dominance of the country music, and clear symbolism of this relating to some good, old-fashioned kind of living and values, is too obvious to ignore, which is what got me on the topic.

Another aspect that I felt not only the book but the original adaptation did better was in seeing the world falling apart. This surprised me a bit, because the 1994 series was kind of made for television. Yet they showed more of the shock value of an apocalyptic kind of plague wiping out the vast majority of people. There were scenes of people going crazy, especially in Manhattan. Frankly, it was one of the most impressive aspects of that original adaptation, which felt true to the book. In this version, it seemed that they somehow missed the shock value of such an all-encompassing, cataclysmic event. It almost felt like they just put in the mandatory amount of scenes, just so you get the picture, so that they can proceed to what’s next. In the original, it felt more central to the story, and you see scenes where the characters are truly shocked by all of what’s happening, perhaps particularly with Larry Underwood, who ducks shots while driving and sees New York City being taken over by crazies.  



Changes in the Characters


Some characters were almost completely the opposite of the way they were portrayed in the book and the previous television movie adaptation. Lloyd Henreid, for example, was far more well put together in the book and first movie version. This version felt like a wanna be rock star, and again, he seemed like a naive idea of a sexual deviant. He was neither strictly straight or remotely business-like enough to have seriously done the Dark Man's bidding, as the number one man. This version of Lloyd hardly conducted himself in any way, shape, or form to have seriously done the Dark Man's bidding as his number one man, even though he plays a crucial role in the original. In the book, and again in the first adaptation, it was easy to see how the Dark Man, or Randall Flagg if you prefer, would trust this man in such an important role. In this one, Lloyd felt more like a clown, and it was hard to believe that anyone, let alone someone who could just see right through people like Flagg can, would not be able to see how this version of Lloyd would be a serious liability, rather than an asset. I liked the character in the book, and really appreciated Miguel Ferrer's version in the 1994 adaptation. This version, played by Nat Wolff, was almost excruciating to watch, and greatly detracted from the credibility of the serious threat that the Dark Man and the citizens of New Vegas were supposed to represent. However, I am not sure if that is a product of the acting, or the way that the writers depicted this character in this particular interpretation, or perhaps a mixture of both. One way or the other, though, this character really, really did not work for me.

Similarly, the Trashcan Man was ridiculous, and that is saying something. This was a character who was screwed up already in the book and previous movie adaptation, but he was utterly absurd in this version. This guy went around almost naked, masterbating whenever he blew anything up, and this while prowling around in the desert heat, looking for nuclear weapons. Apparently, sunburn was not an issue for him, but I wondered how that could be. In the book, and again the original series, he was completely taken by fire, to the point where it consumed his life, and got him into trouble. In his own way, he was timid, always scared of being picked on by his school day tormentors. We only catch a brief glimpse of what passes for his sexuality, and that was when he was in a compromising position, but it was not a central theme, necessarily, of who he was as a character. Again, fire was his main thing, perhaps the only thing, really, that excited him in any way. 

Then, there was the Dark Man himself. He lacked the charm that the Dark Man had in the book or the previous adaptation, at least for me. Yet, he also was not terrifying, or even scary, as I hoped at least he might be. Mostly, he seemed flat, wooden, and one-dimensional. Even when things were starting to go badly, he seems barely to notice, and never seriously expressed much in the way of serious doubt even when things clearly begin to go wrong. He hardly seriously expressed the least bit of doubt when things clearly began to go wrong until the very end, by which time things are literally exploding all around him. Only then does he finally betray true emotion and worry, by which point it is far too late. Even when his promised bride throws herself off from his top floor luxury suite and plunges to her death, it seems more like a minor inconvenience, rather than a horrific shock. 

Yet, he started off promisingly enough. The first glimpses that we have of him, particularly in the car as Campion was escaping, seemed promising. I was intrigued, and wanted to see more of him at the time, and had high hopes. However, by the time we actually got to see more of him and know him in this series, frankly, the less I wished that they had showed of him. Frankly, it might have been better had they taken the Aliens approach, and barely showed him at all. That might have felt more terrifying, or at least believable. 

Meanwhile, the good guys were just as predictably disappointing and too closely resembled naive stereotypes. We see them adorning the colors of the American flag and celebrating the Fourth of July in a down home manner, with country music playing, and a whole lotta white folks dancing in their folk way. Additionally, the story of Nick Andros seemed almost irrelevant, and I found myself wondering why he was deemed so important in the book, if he was as pointless as he felt like in this series. In the book, we really get to know and appreciate him and his struggles, as well as how sharp he is, and we feel for how he has ultimately struggled yet persevered. This make it easy to understand and believe why Mother Abigail sees something substantive enough in him to make him the de facto leader of the newly established Boulder Free Zone. In this adaptation, I was left wondering why we ever really got to know him at all. He was introduced late and never seemed to learn to communicate with Tom Cullen much (a crucial aspect of the book and first adaptation), let alone how they could then become such close friends. Then, shortly after Mother Abigail chose him as the leader, he is killed, with hardly a noticeable contribution to the new Boulder Free Zone to show for it. This was to the detriment of the series.

The biggest hero was likely Stu Redman, and he embodied the good-hearted, lovable Texan in every way, even wearing a cowboy hat and boots. The actor playing him, James Marsden, was not bad, doing what he could with what, to me, was a corny and uninteresting character. In the book and the first adaptation, there was a real rivalry – I mean serious friction and obvious mutual distrust - between him and one of the most interesting characters, Harold Lauder, or “Hawk,” as he comes to be known as, and a nickname which, in the end, he adopts. In this version, it felt like Stu, who was actually quite sharp in both the book and original adaptation, was overly naïve and way too trusting to be an effective leader. Again, the acting was convincing on the part of Marsden, but the character himself was a letdown, and now what I had come to expect from such a central character.  

Then, there is Nick Andros. In the book, we really get to know and appreciate him and his struggles, as well as how sharp he is, and we feel for how he has ultimately struggled yet persevered. This make it easy to understand and believe why Mother Abigail sees something substantive enough in him to make him the de facto leader of the newly established Boulder Free Zone. In this adaptation, I was left wondering why we ever really got to know him at all. He was introduced late and never seemed to learn to communicate with Tom Cullen much (a crucial aspect of the book and first adaptation), let alone how they could then become such close friends. Then, shortly after Mother Abigail chose him as the leader, he is killed, with hardly a noticeable contribution to the new Boulder Free Zone to show for it.   

That brings us to Tom Cullen. His role is actually pretty big in the book and original adaptation. Not so much in this version. He is more of an annoyance than anything, and we hardly see the absolutely crucial role he had in saving Stu's life, which is simply glossed over. The early friendship that he has with Nick kind of sets the tone for this character in the book and original adaptation, but there is hardly grounds to believe that there is a friendship in this version. He was supposed to be chosen - reluctantly and with considerable deliberation by the members of the committee - to be a spy and gather information about New Vegas. In this version, we wonder why he was chosen at all, and frankly, I almost wonder why they did not eliminate this character at all, since they did not seem to deem him nearly as important as he was in those earlier adaptations of this story. They missed the boat with this version of the character, which was disappointing.

Also, frankly, I wished that they had picked someone else but Whoopi Goldberg to play Mother Abigail. Every time I saw her, it was impossible to forget that I was watching a famous actress, rather than the old woman who is so central to the story. She has been good in some previous roles in movies. But in this one, it was hard to forget that we were watching a very famous, professional actress, and not, indeed, Mother Abigail. Also, it felt like she was not the magnet to draw people the way that she was in the book and previous adaptation. It almost seemed like they merely paid lip service to the idea, and tried to respect it, but somehow failed to convey it as this series went on. 

The Glen Bateman character was another important, albeit often overlooked, character form the book. In the book, he offered some insight and sociological and historical perspectives that were enjoyable to read, and often illuminating, as well as believable in the sense that an intellectual who survived something like Captain Trip’s would indeed think about such things. In the book, he was one of the most enjoyable background characters, if you will. And to the extent possible, the first adaptation stayed true to the spirit of this character.  

In this version? Well, Greg Kinnear was not convincing, to say the least. Don’t get me wrong, I am not one of those haters of this particular actor, and they definitely exist. Every now and then, I run into someone who seems to absolutely detest him, and it always seemed a mystery as to why this would be. That said, however, Kinnear never struck me as particularly intellectual, and he just is not very convincing, frankly, as an intellectual sort here. Like with Whoopi Goldberg, every time that I saw Greg Kinnear here, it was hard to not see a famous actor, and one who was not especially convincing in the role that he was playing here. Sure, he looks older than he once did. But he still does not seem to be able to portray the deep thinker who can see people’s ulterior motives that the Glen Bateman was in the book and even the previous adaptation. Maybe Kinnear is a smart guy in real life, but that is not apparently a strong suit in his acting. Rather than being able to enjoy the character, I found Kinnear to be distracting and, frankly, unconvincing in this role, and that was to the detriment of the series, truth be told. He could have been a real asset for this series, helped to give it a bit more substance, as this character did in the book and previous adaptation. Unfortunately, Kinnear largely fails to deliver in that capacity.  

That said, I did like that they did not combine the characters of Rita Blakemoor and Nadine Cross. So he feels responsible for Rita’s overdose, which never happened in the first adaptation. However, they barely got past the city at all in this version, while in the book, they were in rural New England, which meant that they had more time together, and more chances to be close. So again, Rita feels like a character that was just glossed over in this one, although at least they attempted to make Larry feel guilty about her overdose. Also, there was the sexual tension and mutual frustration between Larry and Nadine, which comes across very clearly in both the book and the original movie, but which feels forced and unconvincing in this series.  

Frannie is decent in this role, and more or less stays true to how she is depicted in the book, even with the changes, or modernizations, if you will, in this version. Odessa Young, the actress who plays her, is pretty solid, even if some of the things that the character goes through or does (like breaking into Harold's house and then being briefly imprisoned in it once he discovers her there) are different. We do see her going through some very interesting circumstances in episode nine, in what was a new addition to this story entirely unique to this series. She falls down a well and breaks a number of bones, to the point where her very life is at stake. She is even tempted by the devil, or the Dark Man, who we learn, finally, is doing just fine, having survived the nuclear explosion and destruction of New Vegas (which is in keeping with the book).

We feel Frannie's struggles and uncertainties with the baby, and her contemplations of the world her new child is entering are believable. Overall, no real problems with this character. While I liked Molly Ringwald in the original adaptation, Young is solid here in this one, too, even while bringing new dimensions to the character, while remaining largely true to how she is in the book. 

Larry Underwood, played by Jovan Adepo, was not bad. I liked Adam Storke in the original adaptation as well, but this Underwood felt a bit more serious and weighed down by his demons, which added to his complexity. He was a refreshing aspect of this series, when many other characters were a disappointment. I felt his struggles, and his striving to reinvent himself in this new, post-apocalyptic world for the better. He was one of the highlights in this series, and like Frannie and Harold Lauder (who I will get to in a moment), he was among the relative saving graces that gave this series intrigue, at least until episode 8, when he is killed with the destruction of New Vegas.

As for Ray Brentner, played by Irene Bedard, she felt a bit uninteresting. This was the most radically altered character from either the original or the first adaptation, as the character went from a big, burly but good-natured man, to a petite Native American woman who is not nearly as naive or, frankly, charming. She seemed almost to have no real personality at all in this one, and almost felt like a background character thrust into the limelight at certain times. Again, this felt like a missed opportunity, as they could have added some depth to the sacrifices being made in making "the stand." But Ray did little to contribute to this sense of sacrifice, truth be told. 

One aspect which they largely got right was the character Harold Lauder, which is actually a huge accomplishment. Owen Teague plays this very complex character, and he does so quite capably. While like in the 1994 adaptation, you never get the sense that Harold, as a teenager before Captain Trip’s arrives, struggles with weight issues, because he seems to have no issues with obesity at all here. In fact, he seems incredibly skinny from beginning to end in both television adaptations. In the book, he clearly struggles with it, and the lack of the ability to eat as regularly as he once had, combined with the obvious need for more physical exertion as he treks across the nation, leads to serious weight loss as well as the clearing up of his acne. Still, you definitely nonetheless get the sense that he is struggling with being an outcast and constantly the target of the derision of others. 

In the book, Harold undergoes many changes, and the weight issue is one of them. The physical transformation looks good on Harold, and seems to symbolize a real opportunity to give himself a new life and identity in Boulder. With no weight issues to speak of, there is then no weight loss to symbolize this new Harold, so to speak. Still, we get a clear sense that he has a real chance to reinvent himself in this new, post Captain Trips world, and for the better, at that. He feels tempted, yet ultimately, the demons of his past get the better of him. He continues to be obsessed with Fran, and his initial love turns quickly to, at best, love-hatred. Nadine’s approach with sexual temptations comes across as real in the book and both television adaptations, and it goes a long way towards explaining why Harold goes ahead and literally blows up his life in Boulder with the bomb to destroy the committee. Obviously when he does, he has to flee and head west. But in this series, it was not convincing that the Dark Man was behind Harold’s motorcycle accident. You get the sense that if Harold was doing what he should have been doing, which is to say paying attention to a dangerous drive on winding mountain roads, then he would have survived, in contrast to the book and first adaptation, where you really got the sense that Harold was doomed no matter what he did.  

Ultimately, once Harold has crashed, it is gruesome in all three versions. But this series stays a bit truer to the book’s version of his final struggles and ultimate suicide. No, he does not climb up the cliff, as he manages to do in the book. You could really feel his struggle when he does, yet neither of the television adaptations has him doing it, which is a shame. But he has his journal in this one, and he recalls the game where he felt so scared as a child in this suicide scene, which is truer to the spirit of the powerful final Harold Lauder suicide scene in the book. The suicide scene in the book was frankly a brilliant piece of writing, to the point that it was one of the singular pieces of writing from Stephen King that I most appreciated in the early days of when I became a fan of his. This version is not quite as powerful as the book’s version, but it makes it resonate a bit more than the previous television adaptation, and that was one aspect that I, personally, enjoyed. Harold Lauder was, again, a complicated character, with quite a bit more nuance than some of the other characters, who fell more clearly into either the “good guy” or “bad guy” sides, if you will. Yes, Harold does an awful and entirely unjustifiable, horrific thing with the bomb, which he bears the responsibility of along with Nadine.  

Still, one of the reasons that I liked Harold as a character is that he shows a human side, no matter what he does. This was true in the book, where I felt he was a brilliant character, and possibly my favorite one from this book. And this is true in both adaptations, although it felt more true in this one. You can feel his teenage angst, his bitterness towards the more popular kids. You can feel his obsession with Fran, and his bitter disappointment when he is ultimately rejected. And in this adaptation, more than the previous one, you can feel his attraction to his life in Boulder, which is truer to the book, and maintains his human qualities, both good and bad. Harold was a big success in this series, where many things were a mixed bag.  

Nadine Cross, meanwhile, never felt like she translated well in this movie. She is played by Amber Heard, who is a very attractive woman, which is in keeping with the book. Yet, it is somehow difficult to believe that she is a virgin in this one, saving herself for the Dark Man. This is crucial, and is convincing in the book and first adaptation. In this version, however, it is somehow more difficult to believe. And while we see both the good and the bad in the previous versions, there feels something different about this version of Nadine. She reflects a bit of both good and bad, true. But mostly, she feels somehow lost, or rather, not altogether with it. Like she is always dreaming of something or somewhere else that she wants to be, and never present in the here and now, something that Yoda would surely have scolded her for in Star Wars. Her mind always seems to be on other things, and at least until her pregnancy begins to go horribly wrong, I never got the impression that her character was even particularly interested or engaged with the drama unfolding all around her own life, always instead fixating on something else that she cannot quite see or reach, somehow. Not sure why this is, but again, it felt like they could have done something more with this character. She, like Harold, should have been crucial. Instead, she was more of a distraction, and only in this version because she had to be, and not because she was actively doing things that were fundamental to the arc of the story. It was a bit of a disappointment.



How It Ended


The ending of “New Vegas” was a big disappointment. All of the people are still in that same hotel, and it is never really explained what the attraction is about that one hotel in particular. In any case, they are about to torture Larry Underwood and Ray Brentner. But it appears that what they are about to do is drown them. No death is going to be especially pleasant, especially when you are being put to death publicly. However, it is clear in the book, as well as the previous adaptation, that Underwood and Brentner are not merely going to die, but be made to suffer. They will be dismembered, and you can sense how scared they truly are, and just how much they may have sacrificed by coming west to Last Vegas to make their literal stand. By way of comparison, drowning does not seem nearly as bad, even publicly.  

Yet, even this is interrupted when the Trashcan Man brings the promised nuclear weapon that Flagg has demanded of him. But everyone flees when they see and recognize what he has brought in their midst. Then, the Hand of God comes down, although in this version, it is a series of bolts of electricity that, ultimately, trigger the nuclear bomb, and destroy Las Vegas forever, saving Boulder.  

Towards the end, Flagg is with a native tribe, and demanding to be worshipped. One of the natives attacks him with a bow and arrow attack, and Flagg catches the arrow, then destroying the man's head, which gets the rest of the tribe to bow down. This felt forced, just a way of adding a bit of frankly unnecessary (and not particularly convincing or impressive) special effects. Not only was this part entirely unnecessary, but it felt almost insulting towards native beliefs. After all, natives are part of humanity too, and they are not the ones who would be responsible for a real outbreak of a virus as destructive as Captain Trips. Yet, you would almost get the sense that the ones who created this series felt that the very primitiveness of the beliefs of the native tribes are evil, and will be responsible for the next disaster or apocalypse to come. You also get the idea that this part could have been written by the most stereotypical, fanatical fire and brimstone Evangelical Christian preacher or evangelist. Again, disappointing, and much too black and white (perhaps literally, in this case). 

There were certain aspects that I did like in this series. After all, it was a nine part series, which means that they had more room to work than the original adaptation, and that was a good thing for certain characters, like Harold and Frannie. Also, the original adaptation was made for television, and thus, much more censored and watered down than this version was. 

Still, this version just did not do much for me. It felt overly preachy and tired, and somehow disinterested in some aspects of the story that, frankly, I had believed to be crucial in the book and previous adaptation. The fact that some of these things were glossed over, and new things added without any particular rhyme of rhythm to it, felt forced. It felt like they made changes at times for the sake of making changes, which was disappointing. There were points where I felt engaged with the characters, even if some of them (like Lloyd and the Trashcan Man in particular) were almost excruciating to watch. But I lost a lot of interest particularly during and after episode 8, when they frankly botched the destruction of New Vegas. They largely lost me after that. 

Unfortunately, this version of The Stand just did not do much for me. Thumbs down, at least for a loyal fan of Stephen King, who feels that while this version has certain qualities, and maybe even be enjoyable entertainment for the uninitiated, there is a bad taste left after watching this, and knowing that the story could have been so much more if they stuck more closely to the original plans. Too many substantive alterations have not added but rather detracted from one of Stephen King's very best works in this particular television adaptation. 

Sunday, December 1, 2019

Surviving Cast Members From ‘Facts of Life’ Will Reunite for Christmas Movie Set to Air on Lifetime Channel Later Today

Later today on Lifetime, there will be what presumably will be a fun, lighthearted Christmas movie that will reunite much of the old cast of the eighties sitcom "Facts of Life."

Yes, I know that usually, feel good movies on channels such as Hallmark and Lifetime, but I kind of grew up watching Facts of Life. It was just one of those sitcoms that seemingly everyone my age knows. And yes, as soon as I heard about this particular reunion, just about one month ago, it piqued my curiosity, and I was indeed interested in tuning in to see it.

Not sure that it will be the characters from Facts of Life. In fact, it seems that it will not be, and will just reunite most of the original cast, the surviving members, anyway. The actress who played Mrs. Garrett, Charlotte Rae, died last year.

But the rest of the cast members will be there. And even though I am no longer a little kid and, in fact, am a man in my middle ages, with a kid of my own, that movie will likely be on my television set tomorrow evening, which is supposed to be snowy. A perfect night to just sit inside and relax, and watch a movie.

So, if you are interested in watching it as well, it will be on at about 8pm on the Lifetime network, and will be airing again around midnight, just in case you missed it the first time that it airs.

Check your local listing, and enjoy! Let's hope it's a good one!




Here is the link to the article which I ran into in late October, and which informed me about this upcoming holiday movie:

‘Facts of Life’ cast reunites for Lifetime holiday special POSTED 9:13 AM, OCTOBER 22, 2019, BY CNN WIRE, UPDATED AT 09:16AM, OCTOBER 22, 2019

https://pix11.com/2019/10/22/the-facts-of-life-cast-is-back-together-for-a-holiday-special/

Wednesday, May 22, 2019

Game of Thrones Series Finale Review










It's all over now!

The most popular show on television, the one that everyone has been long waiting for, and discussing and debating (and complaining, at least this season) over is now done and history. 

For a day and a half, I tried to avoid all of the spoilers, not having seen the series finale. There were complications with the computer from the friend who had been sending me the episodes, and he had reached too much data, which made opening the episode from my end impossible. But it finally went through Monday night (actually, technically, early Tuesday morning), and so I had my chance.

Finally got to watch the Game of Thrones series finale, which means I am all caught up.

In truth, I had seen a couple of major spoilers before seeing the episode, which kind of clued me in to the general direction that they were taking this. I will mention more about that later. First, however, I post the warning about spoilers to come as I discuss this episode a bit more in detail later.

Before I go on, I have to do my standard warning for those of you who have not yet seen this (or some of the more recent episodes, to boot), but intend to. So, if you have not yet seen the most recent episodes, please stop reading at this point.




*** SPOILERS****** SPOILERS****** SPOILERS***




Okay, you have been warned. If you are still reading by this point, then you either have already seen the episodes, or for one reason or another, do not mind the spoilers to come. Just don't say that you were not warned!

As mentioned earlier, I had seen some spoilers already, even though there were not many details. Just enough to give me an idea about the general direction of the episode. What did I see that served as spoilers? Well, the first thing was an image of Joe Biden, of all people, rattling off his qualifications, and then underneath, an image of a tent, with the Starks (sans Jon Snow) sitting underneath, and a caption underneath, telling Joe Biden to sit down. It was meant to be humorous, and was. But it was also revealing. The second image was an altered image of the Iron Throne, but altered so that it looked a bit like a wheelchair.

From those two images, I surmised that, indeed, Daenerys had been killed (as most had expected), that all of the Starks had ultimately made it to what remains of King's Landing, and that Bran Stark somehow becomes the leader.

Still, there was some intrigue left in the final episode, although I can understand how so many felt disappointed. Personally, I thought that they did some interesting things, worked out some interesting ideas. But if there is one criticism that, whatever the reasons for it, will always leave a lasting legacy for this final season of Game of Thrones, it is that it was too rushed. That seemed evident to me with this final episode, as well.

For example, a lot of people were talking about the "shocking" moment when Jon Snow kills Daenerys. Personally, I found it all too predictable. She had become the Mad Queen, after all. You kind of sensed that she was not going to make it alive out of the series finale. And who else could get so close to her, without all of those guards, not to mention getting past the dragon? So, you just probably had to sense what his real intentions were going to be, right? For a moment there, when the dragon seemed apparently incapable of killing Snow himself, and melted the Iron Throne instead, I thought of the symbolism, and believed that maybe Jon would become the king to end absolute monarchies on the show. That the dragon would become his ally in this deal, and maybe kill the Army of the Unsullied. But instead, the symbolism was of ending the "game" of trying to reach the Iron Throne by simply melting the Iron Throne itself, which was neat symbolism.

There was also great symbolism in other parts of the finale, as well. The almost circular council underneath the tents felt reminiscent of the legend of the Round Table of King Arthur. I liked how they made those present literally laugh at the idea of democracy, and trusting the regular people to elect good leaders. American audiences probably could take a hint from that, given some of the idiots that they have elected, particularly the one in the Oval Office right now.

For the most part, I felt that they wrapped up the series fairly well. Again, this season (and probably even the seventh season) felt quite rushed, and that was to the detriment of the series, and to the fans. However, the storyline still felt compelling, to me. Many people complained that the "sudden" madness of Daenerys really bothered them, and some even suggested that it ruined the series for them. In truth, though, you could kind of see that coming for a while, and there were especially prominent signs in the last two seasons, especially in the episodes leading up to the "Bells" episode, when she turned fully into a war criminal. Jon Snow killed her, so the reign of the "Mad Queen" was at least blessedly short. Then, Snow was sent back to the Wall to permanently be on the Night Watch, and to never father a child into the world. Bran was elected king, but the king of six kingdoms, as Sansa became queen of the newly independent kingdom of the north. Arya is off exploring the western lands. Tyrion is, once again, the Hand of the King, and he has a seemingly stable group to work with to counsel the new king. It is not exactly a democracy, yet it also is a step away from absolute monarchy and the series of abuses and crimes that had dominated before. We even got final confirmation that Cersei and Jaime are dead, although I think that the doubts were a bit ridiculous to begin with.

Personally, I liked the episode, although I can understand why so many people are disappointed.  Even some of the actors had expressed disappointment in this season. Again, my main problem with it was that they were only given six episodes to work with this season, and seven last season. That cuts seriously into the character and situational development, which I feel was the show's greatest strength. Detracting from that was inevitably going to piss some people off. Given the time constraints, however, they did the best that they could possibly have done under the circumstances. Not all the issues were resolved, to be sure, but for the most part, it was good. Not everyone is happy, but you cannot ever make everyone happy, and that is fine.

Some interesting questions that a recent New York Times article about the finale by Jennifer Vineyard included why there would still  be a Night's Watch? I had the same question, in fact, while watching, when Jon Snow was sent back to the wall. Also, what is west of Westeros? One friend of mine believes that this will be one of the spin off shows, starring Arya and her adventures in the apparently largely unknown western lands.

Also, what about those books that Sam Tarly borrowed from the Citadel library? Did becoming a grand maester essentially allow him to be forgiven? Did they even notice the books were gone? What happens now?

It seems like we will never know. But for the most part, the major troubling areas have been solved. The dragon flew off with the corpse of it's mother, Daenerys, although Bran will likely use his seeing abilities to keep an eye on it, so to speak. Things seem relatively stable, at least for the time being. Guess we will now have to wait for the spin off shows, the sequels and/or prequels that surely are to come, and try to feed off of the stunningly enormous success that Game of Thrones enjoyed. 






Here are some links to discussion of the final episode of GoT that seemed worth sharing, if you are suffering from withdrawal symptoms and want to read more about it:



9 Things We Still Want to Know Now That ‘Game of Thrones’ Is Over by Jennifer Vineyard May 20, 2019:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/20/arts/television/game-of-thrones-finale-questions-nights-watch.html



The 'Game of Thrones' Finale Failed Because It Coddled the Audience     By ESTHER ZUCKERMAN Published On 05/21/2019:

https://www.thrillist.com/entertainment/nation/game-of-throne-finale-review-the-iron-throne?fbclid=IwAR2mEishm5tTyWCCpFW4jm_fS5auTeNYvNR2cZhQ7-vZkZFqoSNWDyCSS6U




Game of Thrones was… okay: EW review By Darren Franich May 20, 2019

https://ew.com/tv-reviews/2019/05/20/game-of-thrones-finale-series-review/?fbclid=IwAR2nFE_ScHy7q1hZmrrpEBWi49_5QGmjAKs4QrUbvkgtnBBJiYhrPyaVyJE




Here is a video that explains the final episode, which also seemed worth sharing:





Saturday, May 18, 2019

Game of Thrones Links & Video That Might Change Your Perceptions









Well, here we are. The weekend of the final episode of Game of Thrones. 

And so, I will give myself permission to take a bit of a break from politics and other depressing topics for a short while, and focus on this extremely well done television series.

A lot of people did not like the last episode, and some have even gone so far as to suggest that it "ruined" the entire season, or even the entire series, for them.

Personally, though, I found it both surprising and intriguing. Not what I expected to happen, to be sure. But it was a twist that seemed to me, at least in retrospect, to have been building up, and which adds a bit of a question to how easily people can be swayed to praise and unquestioningly support a potentially tyrannical leader. 

On that level, it seemed brilliant, truth be told!



These ‘Game of Thrones’ Facts Will Change Your Perspective BY ROBIN ZLOTNICK

https://twentytwowords.com/mindblowing-game-of-thrones-facts-that-will-make-you-appreciate-the-show-on-a-whole-new-level-2/?utm_source=facebook-mb&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=mb-23843343287920052&utm_content=GOT+Facts+5+-+R10%3E2.5+-+MF+18-65+Desktop&fbclid=IwAR2qcgIglbfkOcHa8V1Mh55-JwdmE1oKNLfsDH9Zk2JsHZ4oe1x8rEzNRCU




I also thought that this would be a cool little video to share, as well. This is a video with important Game of Thrones themes that may not have seemed all that important initially, but which, in fact, have proven quite important in retrospect. Enjoy!


Tuesday, May 14, 2019

Game of Thrones - Season 8, Episode 5 Review








So last night, I managed to watch the latest Game of Thrones episode. This was a huge episode, with the battle that I personally expected to see in the series finale. But after watching it, and without trying to tip anyone off regarding potential spoilers, it becomes quite apparent and understandable why they did this particular battle with at least one full episode left for the aftermath. I will delve into this a bit more shortly.

Now, before I really get into this, I have to do my standard warning for those of you who have not yet seen this (or some of the more recent episodes, to boot), but intend to. So, if you have not yet seen the most recent episodes, please stop reading at this point.




*** SPOILERS****** SPOILERS****** SPOILERS***




Okay, you have been warned. If you are still reading by this point, then you either have already seen the episodes, or for one reason or another, do not mind the spoilers to come. Just don't say that you were not warned!

We saw the second of the two big battles that were planned for season 8, and just like that, with one full episode left, Daenerys Targaryen has achieved her lifelong dream and taken the throne. Yet, almost surprisingly (and I need to emphasize almost here), that proved not to be the big story. While some of us may have been expecting Cersei to pull something off and retain the throne (I took the writers at their word that GoT fans should not expect a happy ending), and I also knew enough to suspect that Daenerys had a darker side to her, I did not expect Daenerys to completely lay waste to King's Landing after Cersei's army had surrendered. That was the big story, of course.

For all intents and purposes, no one on the other side is left. There were a lot of deaths of major characters in this episode, probably more than any other single episode in GoT, and that's saying something. In this episode, we saw Lord Varys die first, for scheming against Daenerys. He was turned in by Tyrion, who probably was really regretting not having worked more closely with Varys before he died. Even though he turned Varys in, we can feel Tyrion's pain at the loss of someone who had become one of his closest and most dear friends in life. We also saw the first glimpse of the dark side of Daenerys, although she conducted the execution almost sadly.

Yes, Varys is the first death, and this came within the first fifteen or so minutes of the episode. But his was certainly not the last death. It was said that there were about one million people living at King's Landing, and it at least appears that a huge portion of them, if not most of them, were killed. That also includes some major characters who fell during the Fall of King's Landing. The major death that everyone was waiting for, of course, was Cersei, who died in the arms of her brother and one true love, as well as the father of her unborn child (so it is revealed), Jaime Lannister. And so, the Lannister dynasty is finished, unless the writers produce something truly remarkable, and we see Tyrion somehow take the Iron Throne in next week's episode.

Those were the two most high profile characters that we saw the end of in this episode. But we also saw the death of Sandor Clegane, perhaps better known as The Hound, and his big brother, the Mountain. They had a fight to the death, and at several point, it seemed like The Hound had struck the lethal blow. But The Mountain simply did not die. So, facing his own death, The Hound manages to pull an Arya and, while being held by the much stronger and much bigger Mountain, he manages to sneakily stab The Mountain through his eye and into the brain, which again, should have killed him. So, the Hound does the only course of action left, which is to throw himself at the Mountain, and they both fall to their fiery deaths down below. If the fall does not kill them both, then the fire surely will.

We also saw the end of Euron Greyjoy, as well as the destruction of the Iron Fleet. Euron swims ashore and - surprise, surprise! - he runs into Jaime Lannister, who at that point is trying to reach Cersei. Euron taunts Jaime, calling him by the old name of the "Kingslayer," and asking if he wanted to add another king to his repertoire, and really become a legend. Jaime replies that Euron is no king, and then they do battle. Both are seriously wounded, perhaps fatally wounded, although we see Jaime survive and find Cersei, then die with her as the building collapses all around them.

Qyburn also is gone, having died a foolish death trying to convince his Frankenstein-like creation, The Mountain, to stay at Cersei's side. It did not go well, to say the least, as The Mountain takes Qyburn by the throat and tosses him harshly down stone stairs, where he hits his head. That's the end of Qyburn, although Cersei manages to escape, by simply walking past both The Mountain and The Hound in plain view, ultimately to meet her own fate just a little later.

Then, of course, there are all of those civilians in King's Landing, not to mention the city itself, which burns. The Red Keep is destroyed. Hell, it looks like everything is destroyed. And the vast majority of it was destroyed after the surrender. Cersei had made it very personal, and the doubts in the mind of Daenerys clearly contribute to what happened.

Arya comes close to dying, but she survives. First, she seems as determined as The Hound for revenge, and she clearly wants to kill Cersei. But The Hound, of all people, warns her that she will not escape alive if she does so, and asks her if she really wants to end up like him. We see her continually struggling to get out of King's Landing, and she has to deal with the consequences of the excesses of Daenerys' determination to punish everyone at King's Landing. Arya survives

And that takes us to where we are now. Daenerys has achieved her dream, and taken over. She always had an absolutist mentality, allowing nothing and no one to stand between her and the Iron Throne. She demands that everyone "bend the knee," even the man she loves. And she makes one last attempt to be his lover again in this episode, although again, Jon Snow clearly feels too uncomfortable, and ultimately rejects her advances. She had just been talking about how Snow was far more beloved than her, and that people only seemed to fear, and not love, her. When he rejects her kiss, she resigns herself to that, to ruling through fear, and says so.

Which leads us to her very dark turn for the worst. A lot of people did not like her turn for the worse, but it is, in fact, in keeping with her character. True, it is a turn for the worse for a major character, and it feels almost worthy of Anakin's turn to the Dark Side, and becoming Darth Vader. But this also is not something that came completely out of the blue. It has been building towards this for a long, long time. Here is one explanation by Danien D'Addario of Variety from his recent review of the most recent GoT episode:

Daenerys’s tactics have always been more deeply rooted in dominance than in empathy (she spent an entire season insisting a peer united in the struggle with her “bend the knee”), and she has for seasons framed her politics as a generational struggle, rather than an evolutionary process that necessarily includes the freely-given consent of the governed. And, most notably of all, her case for herself as queen, and the actions she’s taken to get there, pivot around the idea of revenge. (Her story begins with her having been placed in exile from a birthright she takes increasingly baroque steps to regain.) If a city has to be wiped out in order to ensure no vestige of the old world remained, it’s a deal Daenerys would have taken at earlier points in the series.

D'Addario continues, accurately pointing out that a lot of doubts had not merely confused her, but also fueled the fiery determination within her:

She is one within whom a grand-scale vision is braided with the need to control the conversation around her (see: the execution of Varys, a nicely-drawn moment in which Daenerys is acting out of sorrowful obeisance to the demands of her view of progress) and to be at the center of the narrative, through love or fear. Clarke sold, well, the moment at which Daenerys has come so very close to achieving what she’s desired her entire life, and the throbbing cross-currents of loathing, pain, and mistrust that burned within her as an easily granted peace sat before her but the gratifications of destruction were but a dragon ride away. (The loathing has been a series-long story; the pain of losing Missandei and the mistrust as rumors about Jon’s rightful claim on the throne were, to my eye, completely credible motivations to send Daenerys on her rampage.) If the episode were missing one specific thing, it would be more close-up shots of Daenerys after she’s decided to burn King’s Landing, in order to allow us into the mentality of a character whose life has built to a decision made rashly and from a place of desperation. 

That sounds about right.

And that leads to the final episode, when the people who visibly looked quite taken aback and doubtful about the wisdom of Daenerys deciding to attack a city that had already surrendered have to decide what to do next. That includes Jon Snow and Arya, as well as Lord Davos and Tyrion. Because even though he died for his beliefs at the very beginning of the episode, Lord Varys was proven right by the end of it.





Thought these two articles were interesting for any GoT fans who wanted to speculate on some of the things from Season 8, Episode 5. The first examines Daenerys and the consistency of her dark turn. The second asks the question that some are asking, as to whether or not Cersei actually is dead or not. Enjoy!

‘Game of Thrones’ Review: Why Daenerys’ Fiery Rampage Is Utterly In-Character by Danien D'Addario of Variety, May 12, 2019:





Cersei Lannister Deserved Better By Jen Chaney@chaneyj, May 13, 2019: