Monday, December 1, 2025
After Enormous Anticipation, the New American Revolution Documentary By Ken Burns Feels More Like Propaganda Than Actual History
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
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
Good Versus Bad
Changes in the Characters
How It Ended
Sunday, December 1, 2019
Surviving Cast Members From ‘Facts of Life’ Will Reunite for Christmas Movie Set to Air on Lifetime Channel Later Today
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

Image courtesy of Global Panorama's Flickr page: Game of Thrones: https://www.flickr.com/photos/121483302@N02/13473480295/in/photolist-mwB7hp-fUKAEN-SKrKYw-2dtQHx6-2dkJEJa-fUJgRc-cgA5Sy-fUKCZA-fUKyaX-fUKJzc-a81sou-fUJz2f-fUKACn-fUJqGu-fUKyBB-fUKhx5-fUJAdx-fUKybN-fUKgxC-fUJBUu-aUsxpi-fUKjYM-2cV2oDM-fUKwRc-fUKAWZ-o6qZcK-2en2hvd-qGqZRf-Z2ojy8-nswyFf-q6mUhZ-WBwpd3-UuF5gY-pkuVPx-qeXPWY-KBtRrh-dGiyJX-ojWHsz-JJdevp-LguB5P-pZNXKP-ff4xSH-23zryP2-28vo2HW-rdcKuq-pZNY32-qeYsJA-pZGpZY-2e6fbtm-qhfqX4

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.
*** SPOILERS****** SPOILERS****** SPOILERS***
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

Image courtesy of Global Panorama's Flickr page: Game of Thrones: https://www.flickr.com/photos/121483302@N02/13473480295/in/photolist-mwB7hp-fUKAEN-SKrKYw-2dtQHx6-2dkJEJa-fUJgRc-cgA5Sy-fUKCZA-fUKyaX-fUKJzc-a81sou-fUJz2f-fUKACn-fUJqGu-fUKyBB-fUKhx5-fUJAdx-fUKybN-fUKgxC-fUJBUu-aUsxpi-fUKjYM-2cV2oDM-fUKwRc-fUKAWZ-o6qZcK-2en2hvd-qGqZRf-Z2ojy8-nswyFf-q6mUhZ-WBwpd3-UuF5gY-pkuVPx-qeXPWY-KBtRrh-dGiyJX-ojWHsz-JJdevp-LguB5P-pZNXKP-ff4xSH-23zryP2-28vo2HW-rdcKuq-pZNY32-qeYsJA-pZGpZY-2e6fbtm-qhfqX4

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

Image courtesy of Global Panorama's Flickr page: Game of Thrones: https://www.flickr.com/photos/121483302@N02/13473480295/in/photolist-mwB7hp-fUKAEN-SKrKYw-2dtQHx6-2dkJEJa-fUJgRc-cgA5Sy-fUKCZA-fUKyaX-fUKJzc-a81sou-fUJz2f-fUKACn-fUJqGu-fUKyBB-fUKhx5-fUJAdx-fUKybN-fUKgxC-fUJBUu-aUsxpi-fUKjYM-2cV2oDM-fUKwRc-fUKAWZ-o6qZcK-2en2hvd-qGqZRf-Z2ojy8-nswyFf-q6mUhZ-WBwpd3-UuF5gY-pkuVPx-qeXPWY-KBtRrh-dGiyJX-ojWHsz-JJdevp-LguB5P-pZNXKP-ff4xSH-23zryP2-28vo2HW-rdcKuq-pZNY32-qeYsJA-pZGpZY-2e6fbtm-qhfqX4
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***
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:

